1AC

InherencyCurrently less than 1% of the ocean is part of a marine reserveMcGrath 14 (Matt, Environment correspondent, “Expansion of US Marine Protected Zone Double World Reserves,” BBC News Science and Environment, June 17 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27890072, accessed 6/24/14) Last year, attempts to create huge marine reserves in Antarctica failed when Russia blocked plans by the US and others for a third time.¶ Ocean campaigners have welcomed the new US plan as an important step.¶ "This is incredibly significant and shows global leadership from the US on this issue" said Karen Sack from the Pew Charitable Trusts.¶ "There is an amazing array of biodiversity around these islands, there are sea mount systems with a lot of deep sea species, all types of marine mammals."¶ Marine Protected Areas currently make up around 2.8% of the world's oceans - but Karen Sack says the areas that have a full ban on fishing, drilling and other activities are much smaller, which increases the significance of the US move.¶ "Less than 1% of the global ocean is fully protected," she said.

Current government programs aren’t meeting their enforcement requirements. No take marine reserves are currently not being enforced to the degree that they should be. Shiffman, 13(http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=14955, David Shiffman is a Ph.D. student at the University of Miami researching shark biology and conservation, coauthor of numerous papers on shark ecology and fishery ecology)Earlier today, the Marine Conservation Institute and Mission Blue released SeaStates, the first ever national ranking of how well different U.S. states and territories protect their ocean resources. The full report is available online and is an important read, but can be summarized in 5 words: “Most states aren’t doing enough”. The gold standard for the protection of marine resources is no- take marine reserves , areas of the ocean where no fishing or oil/gas extraction is permitted. Decades of research on marine reserves worldwide have shown that they usually have more fish, bigger fish, and more species of fish than environmentally similar areas (often adjacent to the reserve border) where fishing is

allowed. In other words, when you don’t kill fish, more of them are alive. While recommendations of how much of the ocean needs to be protected by no-take reserves vary, a commonly cited figure is 20%. Of 23 U.S. coastal states and territories, only one (Hawaii) achieved that goal. My current state of residence,

Florida, has the fourth highest % of no-take marine reserve at 1.12%. North Carolina, home to many Southern

Fried Science writers, is in the top half with 0.04% no-take marine reserve. 15 coastal states and territories don’t have a single square foot of no-take marine reserve. From the SeaStates report: “Whether you love our oceans for their beauty, for their

fishes and marine mammals, or for generating half of the oxygen we breathe, you should want them to be strongly protected. But most states in this report get a score of zero and only a handful are protecting even 1%. That’s not good enough when our oceans are facing grave threats like overfishing and pollution,” said Dr. Sylvia Earle of Mission Blue in thepress release accompanying this report. Overall, just 1.2% of U.S. coastal state and territory waters are protected by no-take marine reserves, the overwhelming majority of which is in Hawaii. Worldwide, just 1.1% of the ocean is no-take marine reserve (1.8% is no-take marine reserve or “multiple use” marine protected area). For reference, approximately 13% of land is protected. If you want to explore the world’s marine protected areas in detail, check out MPA Atlas, a project of the Marine Conservation Institute, which was used to generate the SeaStates report.

BiodiversityIncreasing human exploitation threatens marine biodiversity –reserves encourage ecosystem recoveryBallantine, 2004

(Ballantine, WJ; Professor Leigh Marine Laboratory at University of Auckland; “A Marine Reserve Manifesto,” http://www.marine-reserves.org.nz/papers/viewpointfornzgeo.pdf -- September 2004) 1. There are many kinds of marine life (species diversity), these occur in many¶ different habitats and communities, and they interact in many ways. Marine life ¶ existed before people became active in the sea, and it maintained itself.¶ 2. This natural marine life is abundant, varied and complex. It occupies 70% of the¶ planet. It carries out many processes that are important to the planet. Marine life is far¶ more than a set of things directly useful to people, but we are only dimly aware of¶ how the whole system operates.¶ 3. Despite increasing rates of study, we are still very ignorant about marine life. Less¶ than half the species have been described, few regions have had their habitats mapped,¶ and we only know some examples of the natural processes. We do not know how¶ much of anything is necessary to sustain the whole in a healthy state, but it is clear¶ that the natural processes are critical to all life on the planet.¶ 4. Many human activities in the sea (fishing, dumping, dredging, etc.) can kill or ¶ degrade marine life and its habitats . The range and intensity of human-induced ¶ damage has increased over the years; has already caused multiple and widespread ¶ changes to marine life; and now threatens its sustainability .¶

5. Our existing ways of planning and managing human activities in the sea are useful¶ and necessary, but they are not sufficient to prevent or adequately control this¶ damage. Existing management mostly tries to solve problems, but the problems (e.g.¶ damage) have to occur and be noticed before action is taken (reactive management).¶ 6. More positive action is also needed. Setting aside areas of the sea (marine reserves) ¶ which are protected against all direct human interference will help maintain (or¶ restore) the full natural biological diversity.¶ 7. These marine reserves will have many additional benefits. They will make it easier¶ for people to appreciate and understand natural marine life. They will help us¶ recognise the changes our activities have caused, and distinguish these from natural¶ variation. Marine reserves will help us measure these changes, and show how we¶ could adjust our activities sensibly. Marine reserves are important to science, ¶ management, education, and recreation; as well as essential for

conservation .¶

There are three internal links –

First is resilience – absent reserves, ecosystems are susceptible to environmental disasters and threats – promoting stability and recovery is keyMarvin, Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions, 12 [Karen, 7/19/14, “Marine reserves aid ecosystem recovery after environmental disasters, Stanford study finds”, Stanford News, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/helping-abalone-recover-071912.html, accessed 6/24/14, HG]

Protected ocean areas known as marine reserves jumpstart the recovery of nearby commercial fishing areas after an environmental event, concludes a study of abalone by Stanford researchers.

For years, scientists, fishers and government regulators could only speculate that marine reserves, pockets of ocean that are off limits to fishing, could help entire ecosystems bounce back after an environmental disaster. But scientific evidence has emerged that supports what was once just an educated guess. The new study was published July 18 in PLoS ONE.The study revealed that after a mass mortality of marine life in the waters off Baja California, Mexico, egg production of pink abalones in the marine reserves increased 40 percent while being cut in half in fished areas. Further, the study found that a significant amount of larvae spilled over into unprotected areas open to fishing, which helped them rebound more quickly.The study, which began in 2006, used data from abalone fishing areas around Isla Natividad, Mexico, including new marine reserves that were hard hit in both 2009 and 2010 by hypoxic events, episodes of low dissolved oxygen in seawater that weaken and kill marine life. The study, "Evidence That Marine Reserves Enhance Resilience to Climatic Impacts," was authored by a team of scientists led by Professor Fiorenza "Fio" Micheli of Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, Calif., in partnership with the Mexican organization Comunidad y Biodiversidad's Scientific Director Andrea Sáenz-Arroyo and other colleagues."Our study preceded the 2009 mortality event, allowing us an unprecedented view of its demographic effects, both within the reserve and in fished areas," said Micheli. The study discovered that after the 2009 hypoxic event, abalone biomass declined by 75 percent at fished sites but only 50 percent in reserves. Perhaps more important, it found that the recruitment rate (the rate at which abalone are ready to be harvested) of juveniles in the reserves remained stable but were nine times lower in fished areas. "Both the large size of the protected abalones and the population density were key to resilience," noted Micheli. "Marine reserves are vital to jumpstart the recovery of species following a mass mortality."The Isla Natividad marine reserves were established by the local fishing cooperatives after seeing sharp declines in abalone catches due to fishing and past El Niño events. Climate change is happening on a global scale, leaving many communities with few options to protect their local ecosystems and the livelihoods that are dependent on them. The establishment of marine protected areas, including marine reserves, is one option available to local communities even while global climate change mitigation continues to be debated."Historically governments and communities had to make a leap of faith that a marine reserve could provide long-term benefits that offset the short-term loss of fishing grounds," Micheli said. "There were no studies or scientific evidence that a marine reserve could help a region of the ocean bounce back from a local environmental disaster. Now we have that evidence."The study focused on abalone because of their high commercial value and because their populations have been depleted in recent years. Since the mid-1800s, the herbivorous mollusk has been harvested around the North Pacific, leading to a decline in the total catch of all five species from a high of 24,000 metric tons to 115 metric tons in 1995. Since 1997, both commercial and sport fishing of abalone has been closed south of San Francisco, Calif. Although commercial fishers pull $20 million of pink abalones annually from the waters off Baja California, recent years netted 10 times smaller catches than the peak year.The hypoxic events that are impacting abalone populations are relatively new developments along the western coast of North America. Recent research indicates that midwater Oxygen Minimum Zones are expanding, setting the stage for future hypoxic events. This, combined with other environmental impacts such as an increase in mean ocean temperatures, lends scientific support to recommendations for the establishment of networks of marine protected areas to help offset environmental impacts.

Second is repopulation – reserves protect breeding grounds to boost reproduction rates WWF, 3[Marine Dive NZ Magazine, WWF, « Benefits of Marine Reserves - The Big Picture”, December 2002/January 2003, http://www.marinenz.org.nz/index.php/the_undersea_world/roger_grace_archive/benefits_of_marine_reserves, ML]The world’s oceans are under stress from human activities, such as pollution and excessive harvesting, and in many areas are seriously degraded. Biodiversity - the richness of life - in the sea is suffering as a result. Even in New Zealand there are major areas of concern. Despite the introduction of the world-acclaimed Quota Management System for fisheries, many of our fisheries are still well below the level required to support the maximum sustainable yield. Some fishing also leads to bycatch problems, loss of biodiversity within a fishery, and direct or indirect damage to benthic ecology. Marine reserves are an insurance against ignorance and management mistakes. They do not replace other management systems, but are additional to, and supportive of them. Marine reserves preserve elements of biodiversity not adequately protected by current fisheries management, such as: - Large experienced animals which can help "guide" younger ones. - Genetic diversity within the large, old members of the population. - Important social interactions within populations. - Large old animals which produce more juveniles because they have lived longer and have been breeding for more years. - Larger animals which, in one season, produce disproportionately more eggs than smaller animals, for example a 10-kilo fish may produce 10 times as many eggs as five 2-kilo fish. - Other things we know nothing of. How widespread are the impacts of fishing? All of New Zealand's coastal waters have been impacted by fishing. No areas remain in their natural state. There are many examples of direct damage to marine life by fishing methods, such as the destruction of giant corals and seafans on deep seamounts by trawling for orange roughy, bycatch of sealions and fur seals in squid and hoki trawl fisheries, bycatch of albatrosses in long-line fisheries, and entanglement of dolphins in set nets. Indirect damage to marine ecology may be less obvious but can be widespread. For example, snapper and crayfish are important predators of kina (sea urchins). Left alone, they effectively control kina numbers. However, in Northland and the Bay of Plenty, overfishing of snapper and crayfish during the last 40 years has allowed kina numbers to increase unchecked. These grazers eat seaweeds, and expanded their occupation of the rocky bottom at the expense of the kelp forests which provide shelter for many fish and invertebrates. What we are now left with are large barren areas with abundant kina, where once there were lush kelp forests. Grace_29_11_2006_MR_Comparison.jpg The diagram shows what has happened. On the right is a natural area with high biodiversity before fishing. Natural numbers and sizes of snapper and crayfish keep kina numbers low and allow the kelp cover to remain generally continuous. On the left is a heavily fished area. Snapper and crayfish are depleted, and kina have expanded and eaten the kelp, seriously altering the ecological balance. This is typical of most of the coastline from East Cape to North Cape. The good news is that marine life recovers when left undisturbed. If you leave the system alone, there will be a gradual shift back to the right, to the natural balance of kina, kelp, snapper and crayfish. Marine reserves allow this to happen, and then provide a reservoir of breeding individuals to help re-stock depleted areas elsewhere. A network of marine reserves. Because so much of the country's underwater environment is altered by human activities, we need to protect representative bits so that they can recover. Ultimately they would become examples of how the coast would be in its natural state, and provide reservoirs of breeding stock to help

repopulate the depleted areas. We need a network of areas protected so that marine plants and animals can, at some stage in their life cycle, move from one protected area to another. No-one knows the "best" distance between the reserves in the network, and it will be different for different species, but the principle is to create a network that is self-sustaining. If we look at a map of the east coast of Northland and the northern Bay of Plenty, there are several marine reserves in place from Mayor Island in the south to the Poor Knights in the north, with a few small inner Hauraki Gulf examples close to Auckland. These marine reserves are beginning to form a network, but with several obvious gaps. If we look at the rest of the country, there is not even the beginning of a network, just a few isolated reserves separated by hundreds of kilometres.

Hampered reproductive capacity dramatically increases the probability of species extinction Barry W. Brook, Navjot S Sodhi, Corey J.A. Bradshaw, 2008(Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore, South Australian Research and Development Institute, P.O. Box 120, Henley Beach, SA 5022, Australia, School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia"Synergies among extinction drivers under global change" Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6/24/08, 6/24/14, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800195X//AKP)It has long been understood that increased ecological chaos can result in population densities falling below an MVP more frequently, thus increasing extinction risk via demographic stochasticity 5 and 31. However, ecological chaos is itself a complex combination of stochastic processes operating on both density-independent and density-dependent components of population dynamics, making assessments of extinction risk highly complex emergent properties of these interactions. Experiments with brine shrimp Artemia franciscana [32] and Tribolium flour beetles [33] indicate that inherent oscillations resulting from deterministic nonlinear population dynamics can be as or more important for determining extinction risk than initial population size or environmental drivers. Likewise, factors that cause a reduction in the growth rate of small populations as they decline, known collectively as Allee effects , are also an important determinant of extinction [34]. Maternal fitness of wild radishes Rhaphanus sativus, measured as a fruit set, was reduced from inbreeding depression beyond that expected by a reduction in population size alone [35]. Likewise a combination of laboratory and field experiments on an intertidal polychaete Galeolaria caespitosa demonstrated that

environmental pollutants can act synergistically to reduce fertilisation success at low

densities, thereby exacerbating Allee effects and extinction probability [19]. In other words, the form and intensity of density regulation (both negative feedback and Allee effects) are essential considerations in any model constructed to predict extinction risk. Given the difficulty of detecting individuals at low densities, the reality of the Allee effect-driven extinction vortex has, until recently, been difficult to demonstrate. Fagan and Holmes [6] compiled a small time-series database of ten vertebrate species (two mammals, five birds, two reptiles and a fish) whose final extinction was witnessed via monitoring. Matching predictions from dynamical models [36], they confirmed that time to extinction scales to the logarithm of population size. They also found greater rates of population decline nearer to the time of extinction than

earlier in the time series . This confirms the previously theoretical expectation that the combination of genetic deterioration [35] and associated Allee effects contributed to a general corrosion of population dynamics, driving an increasingly negative per-capita replacement

rate as extinction was approached. Variability in abundance was also highest as populations approached extinction, irrespective of population size [6], thus demonstrating indirectly how chaos-induced demographic stochasticity [37] drives the final nail into a species’ coffin.

Third is exploitation – reserves reverse current depletion trends that threaten entire marine ecosystemsNorse et al. 2012(Norse et al. Founder Marine Conservation Biology Institute, “Marine Reserves: The best option for our Oceans?” published: Ecological Society of America, http://palumbi.stanford.edu/manuscripts/marine%20reserves%20the%20best%20option%20for%20our%20oceans.pdf -- April 13, 2012)

Three aspects of fishing can generate impacts, even if fished species are sustainable. First, sustainable mechanized fishing can disturb bottom habitats, removing biological architecture species such as oyster reefs (Brooks 1891), dredging seabed structures that provide juvenile protection, or disturbing spawning grounds. Because even low intensity dredging can dramatically alter the seafloor for years (Peterson and Estes 2001), reserves play a key role by creating areas free of this impact. Second, removal of a large part of a population - even when no physical habitat is disturbed - can result in extreme disruption of an ecosystem. This disruption is called ecological overfishing (Palumbi 2003) and an example is found in lobster harvesting. Low numbers of lobsters result in sea urchin booms and loss of kelp beds in New Zealand and California (Babcock et al. 1999; Laferty unpublished). Ecological overfishing of cod in New England led to the rise of dogfish communities. Removal of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay has helped muddy the US's largest estuary (Brooks 1891). Lessons like these show that even heavily managed fisheries can deplete species so dramatically that their normal ecological role is lost. As a result, these ecosystems may be nothing like their natural state. Third, fishing is now a diverse enterprise in which many species are exploited; there are few parts of the US where fishing concentrates on just one species. When we fish entire ecosystems, removing two-thirds to nine-tenths of the biomass of many different species, we can end up with a situation in which no species is technically overfished, but the whole ecosystem is depleted and non-functional. When exploitation reaches every corer of the sea, these fisheries impacts become universal. Managers in previous centuries did not face this problem because there were always places in the sea where the technology of fishing could not reach (Bohnsack 1996). However, dredges can now navigate rocky seabeds that would previously have shredded nets, and the hunger of a populous world leaves few corers of the ocean untouched. It is crucial to leave some parts

of the sea unperturbed by these activities, so that in some places natural marine communities can thrive, grow, and persist. A strategy to establish reserves in every major marine habitat solves the problem of pervasive impacts of exploitation, at least in local protected areas. Reserve science has shown that many components of marine communities respond strongly to reserve protection, so this management device can help promote crucial conservation goals that are otherwise unattainables.

Reserves promote global spillover– outweighs alt causes Norse et al., Founder and Chief Scientist of Marine Conservation Biology Institute, 3[Elliott A., Ecological Society of America, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Vo. 1 No. 9 p495-502, “Marine Reserves: The Best Option for Our Oceans?” November 2003, http://palumbi.stanford.edu/manuscripts/marine%20reserves%20the%20best%20option%20for%20our%20oceans.pdf, ML]Before then, the prevailing science dealing with human impacts on marine organisms - fisheries biol- ogy - had generally treated the sea as being uniform. But new oceanographic tools, from satellite images of ocean productivity patterns to remotely operated vehi- cle photographs of benthic ecosystems, showed that the sea is heterogeneous and dynamic. Ecologists' real- ization that metapopulation and source-sink dynamics apply to species with planktonic larvae allowed us to better understand dispersal, recruitment, post-recruit- ment survivorship and reproduction - processes that, together, produce existing patterns. An obvious con- clusion is that some places in the sea are particularly important. Then, in 1998, 1605 marine scientists and conserva- tion biologists from 70 nations released Troubled waters: a call for action (www.mcbi.org/AboutUs/ TroubledWaters.pdf), an unprecedented statement that the sea is imperiled, that fishing is a major cause, and that a sizeable portion of the sea should be pro- tected from threats. A landmark study by Pauly et al. (1998) showed that fishing greatly reduces the average trophic level of fish catches worldwide. Watling and Norse (1998) showed that trawling profoundly disturbs the seafloor on a vast scale. Jackson et al. (2001) and Myers and Worm (2003) confirmed that fishing threatens biodiversity and healthy fisheries on a global scale. Clearly, prevailing management hasn't worked. In 1999, therefore, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) began a study to advance the theory of marine reserve design and to synthesize data on the performance of existing reserves (Lubchenco et al. 2003). The participating scientists concluded that reserves trigger lasting, often rapid increases in abundance, diversity, and productivity of marine organisms, and that reserve size matters. However, even small reserves have positive effects, reserve networks achieve benefits greater than isolated reserves, and full protection is necessary to achieve these benefits. Furthermore, in the few studies that examined effects outside reserves, size and abundance of exploited species increased, thanks in part to larval spillover. The NCEAS working group concluded that existing scientific information justifies immediate application of marine reserves as a central manage- ment tool. Superimposed on findings by the National Research Council panel on MPAs (Houde 2001), the NCEAS study provided a compelling case for estab- lishing marine reserve networks.

The Pacific is uniquely key – includes migratory and feeding grounds and hotspot for biodiversityKiger, writer for the National Geographic Channel, 6/18/14[Patrick J., Discovery News, “Why Protect a Massive, Remote Part of the Pacific?”, June 18, 2014, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/why-protect-a-massive-remote-part-of-the-pacific-140618.htm , ML ]President Obama announced yesterday what could be a massive expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, originally created by President George W. Bush in 2009. While the president didn’t spell out all the details, the Washington Post reported that he might increase the preserve from its present 89,000 square miles to as much as 782,000 square miles of ocean waters and sea floor. Commercial fishing would be barred in that area, and presumably energy exploration as well. NEWS: Acidifying Oceans Could Lead to Marine

Extinctions That all undoubtedly left a lot of people wondering why the president is so concerned about an area that’s farther from inhabited areas than any other spot on the planet. House National Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings immediately accused Obama of hurting the tuna fishing industry. ”For years the Obama Administration has threatened to impose ocean zoning to shut down our oceans, and today the president is making good on that threat,” Hastings said in a statement. But the expansion was praised by groups such the Redmond, Wash.-based Marine Conservation Institute, which in May issued a report on why the remote area is so important. It’s one of the few remaining large relatively pristine wild sections of the oceans, and it’s crucial to preserve such areas so that we have a baseline of what a healthy ocean ecosystem is supposed to look like, according to the institute. Those waters provides a safe haven for large predatory fishes such as tuna, swordfish, marlin and sharks, whose numbers worldwide have been reduced by 90 percent over the past half-century by overfishing, and for 19 different species of sea birds. Five different species of protected sea turtles — including the leatherback turtle, one of the world’s largest marine reptiles, which is in danger of extinction — use the waters as migratory and feeding grounds, according to the institute. VIDEO: Water, Water Everywhere … 400 Miles Inside Earth The sea bottom itself is also crucial. The expanded preserve would include an estimated 241 undersea mountains, which typically are hotspots of biodiversity, including potentially thousands of species that have yet to be discovered by scientists. Finally, preserving a larger pristine area would make it easier for researchers to monitor the effects on climate change on the oceans, such as the ocean acidification that threatens coral reefs and smaller aquatic creatures who are a critical part of the oceans’ food chain.

Species declines causes extinction of the biosphere – each new extinction risks total collapse Barry W. Brook, Navjot S Sodhi, Corey J.A. Bradshaw, 2008(Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore, South Australian Research and Development Institute, P.O. Box 120, Henley Beach, SA 5022, Australia, School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia"Synergies among extinction drivers under global change" Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6/24/08, 6/24/14, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800195X//AKP)Coextinctions and cascading losses Beyond the focus of single-species extinctions, ecological processes disrupted by extinction or species decline can lead to cascading and catastrophic

coextinctions , also called ‘chains of extinction’ [14]. Until recently, however, we have lacked appropriate data to test comprehensively the importance or generality of this phenomenon. Recently, the extirpation of Southeast Asian butterfly species has been positively linked to the decline and loss of their specific larval host plants [38]. More broadly, Koh et al. [39] compiled a large database of interspecific systems (pollinators and plants, larval hosts, parasites) and used a fitted probabilistic host-specificity model to estimate that 6300 non-Red-Listed species could go extinct alongside their listed symbiont. The extinction of large predators can also,

ironically, have devastating ecological consequences for codependent species complexes. Localised eradication of dingo Canis lupus dingo correlates strongly with an expansion of introduced meso-predators (cat and fox) and competitors (rabbits) in Australia. This has, in turn,

led to large numbers of extinctions of native mammals in the arid regions of the continent [40]. In the marine realm, large predatory sharks have an analogous role in top-down control of medium-sized elasmobranchs (rays, skates and small sharks). Declines in six apex shark species (blacktip, bull, dusky, sandbar, tiger and great white sharks) over the past 35 years were linked to the collapse of a valuable scallop fishery in North Carolina owing to increased abundance and predation by cownose rays Rhinoptera bonasus [41]. Such trophic cascades leading to local extinctions are common 40 and 42. Extinctions also disrupt or alter essential

ecosystem services . A striking example of functional extinction-related breakdown in tropical forest ecosystems comes from dung beetles, which provide an essential nutrient-recycling role, act as vectors for seed dispersal and probably control the spread of parasites to vertebrates through the removal of dung [43]. Overhunting of mammals in tropical forests and the subsequent reduction in their dung has led to the local elimination of dependent dung beetles [44]. Worse still, heavier beetle species, capable of recycling the largest quantities of dung, are relatively more extinction prone [43]. With the loss of avian and mammal frugivores in degraded and fragmented forests, mid- and late-successional trees lose their primary long-distance dispersers and fail to replace themselves 45 and 46. This eventually leads to the

collapse of mature forest stands that support many specialist species [47]. A similar problem for rain forest trees has been reported in areas where seed-dispersing primates are overexploited 46 and 48. In recognising that preserving ecological function reduces the risk of cascading extinctions, Kareiva a1nd Marvier [49] argue that better conservation outcomes are only possible if human health and welfare are linked to the maintenance of ecosystem services rather than just relying on the intrinsic valuing of biodiversity.

Biosphere collapse spills over until complete extinctionAnthony D Barnosky,1 James H Brown,2 Gretchen C Daily,3 Rodolfo Dirzo,3 Anne H Ehrlich,3 Paul R Ehrlich,3 Jussi T Eronen,4 Mikael Fortelius,4 Elizabeth A Hadly,3 Estella B Leopold,5 Harold A Mooney,3 John Peterson Myers,6 Rosamond L Naylor,3 Stephen Palumbi,3 Nils Chr Stenseth7 and Marvalee H Wake1 2014(1University of California, USA 2University of New Mexico, USA 3Stanford University, USA 4University of Helsinki, Finland 5University of Washington, USA 6Environmental Health Sciences, USA 7University of Oslo, Norway "Introducing the Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers", http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/78.full.pdf+html//AKP)Loss of ecosystem services. Extinctions irreversibly decrease biodiversity, which in turn directly costs society through loss of ecosystem services (Cardinale et al., 2012; Daily et al., 2000; Ehrlich et al., 2012). ‘Ecosystem services’ (see the quote below) are attributes of eco- logical systems that serve people. Among the ecosystem services that support human life and endeavors are: moderating weather; regulating the water cycle, stabilizing water sup- plies; filtering drinking water; protecting agricultural soils and replenishing their nutrients; disposing of wastes; pollinating crops and wild plants; providing food from wild species (especially seafood); stabilizing fisheries; providing medicines and pharmaceuticals; con- trolling spread of pathogens; and helping to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere . In contrast to such directly quantifiable benefits promoted by high biodiversity, reducing bio- diversity generally

reduces the productivity of ecosystems, reduces their stability, and makes them prone to

rapidly changing in ways that are clearly detrimental to humanity (Cardinale et al., 2012). For example, among other costs, the loss of tropical biodiversity from defor- estation often changes local or regional climate, leading to more frequent floods and droughts and declining productivity of local agricultural systems. Tropical deforestation can also cause new diseases to emerge in humans, because people more often encounter and disrupt animal vectors of disease (Patz et al., 2004; Quammen, 2012).

Overfishing and decline in food supply make war and conflict innevitableTripp ’14 (Emily, “Overfishing Has “Significant Impact” on Global Food Security,” March 20, http://marinesciencetoday.com/2014/03/20/overfishing-has-significant-impact-on-global-food-security/#ixzz315BisQE2)Overfishing and climate change threaten food security. Three billion people depend on fish to provide at least 20 percent of their animal protein, and more than 500 million people would be deprived of their primary source of protein if fish stocks around the world continue to decline. Climate change and overfishing are two of the biggest factors contributing to this potential food security crisis . Climate change has led to ocean acidification and warming waters, which are contributing to an overall

decline in ocean health. It’s also pushing fish stocks further north, altering fisheries and food supplies in tropical regions. “Ocean acidification and warming temperatures are hugely complex, long-term problems,” Global Ocean Commission co-chair José María Figueres said in a news release. “But overfishing is something that we can tackle right now, with tools already at our disposal.” That’s why this week, the Commissioners agreed on a package of proposals for ocean restoration and governance reform that will be presented to the United Nations in June. They have prioritized several issues that require prompt action, including overfishing and illegal fishing, fishing subsidies and more. “We’ve agreed an ocean rescue package,” said David Miliband, Global Ocean Commission co-chair. “Now we need governments, business and civil society to join us in implementing it. We know what needs to be done but we can’t do it alone.”

Food insecurity causes conflict and warSimmons ‘13 (Emily Simmons. People and Practices (HR), Advisor at The Marketing Store. “Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation”. New Security Beat. 3 September 2013. http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/09/harvesting-peace-food-security-conflict-cooperation/#.Uth9YaCLDy8)//JuneC// ) Food and Conflict, Conflict and Food¶ Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation, the latest edition of ECSP Report, explores the complex linkages between conflict and food security, drawing insights from scholarly work to help inform more effective programming for practitioners. There is no doubt that conflict exacerbates food insecurity. Conflict can reduce the amount of food available, disrupt people’s access to food, limits families’ access to food preparation facilities and health care, and increase uncertainty about satisfying future needs for food and nutrition.¶ Deaths directly attributable to war appear to be declining, but war and other kinds of conflict continue to take a toll on human health, often through food insecurity. Conflict induces the affected populations to adopt coping strategies that invariably reduce their food consumption and nu trition. Poor nutritional status in individuals of any age makes them more susceptible to illness and death.¶ But the acute food insecurity caused by conflict has especially potent and long-lasting effects on children. Children whose nutrition is compromised by food insecurity before they are two years old suffer irreversible harm to their cognitive and physical capacities.¶ Analysis of the causes of conflict and

war has been an area of growing academic interest. Both theoretical work and empirical analy ses

substantiate the many ways in which food insecurity can trigger, fuel, or sustain conflict .

Unanticipated food price rises frequently provide a spark for unrest. Conflict among groups

competing to control the natural resources needed for food production can catalyze conflict. Social, political, or economic inequities that affect people’s food security can exacerbate grievances and build momentum toward conflict. Incentives to join or support conflicts and rebellions stem from

a number of causes, of which the protection of food security is just one. Food insecurity may also help to sustain conflict. If post-conflict recovery proves difficult and food insecurity remains high, incentives for reigniting conflict may be strengthened.¶ Given the complexity of factors underlying food security, however, we do not yet understand what levels or aspects of food insecurity are most likely, in what circumstances, to directly contribute to or cause conflict. More explicit integration of food security variables into theories of conflict could help inform external interventions aimed at mitigating food insecurity and preventing conflict.¶ The high human and economic costs of conflict and food insecurity already provide substantial incentives for international humanitarian and development organizations to intervene in order to alleviate food insecurity in fragile states and conflict-affected societies. Experience suggests, however, that effective efforts to address food insecurity in these situations may require external actors to reconsider the ways in which they intervene.¶ Modifying operational approaches to ensure greater complementarity and continuity between humanitarian and development interventions, for example, could help to improve effectiveness and impact. External support could help to strengthen institutions critical to food security and conflict prevention in fragile states. Engaging more closely with households caught in conflict-created poverty traps could alleviate persistent food insecurity and potentially sustain conflict recovery. And mobilizing civil society and private businesses as partners could enable both humanitarian and development organizations to broaden the capacities for conflict recovery and food security.

That causes extinctionDeNoon ‘6 (Daniel, AP News Correspondent, Citing PhD Boris Worm Study in the Journal of Science, “Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048,“ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-water-fish-extinction-seen-by-2048/)The apocalypse has a new date: 2048 . That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish ,

predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change. The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world. The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-

minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise. "I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release. " This isn't predicted to

happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K.,

says in a news release. "If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds.

Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. "A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say. The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments. They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems. And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48

protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of ocean life is

the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest. But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say. Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management , pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more. "It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now." Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.

Environmental LeadershipU.S. international strategy is failing-despite its use of military force, America is incapable of finding stable solutions. Our hegemony will continue to decline.Kanin ’14 [2-18-14, David B Kanin is a professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins and a former intelligence analyst for the CIA, “”Managing Conflict as America Declines,” http://www.transconflict.com/2014/02/managing-conflict-america-declines-182/, HR]The U nited S tates has no international strategy. It does produce a lot national security documents and slogans purporting to express an international strategy. Terms like “reset,” “pivot,” and “transatlantic renaissance” get a lot of attention but do not have any content. No matter what how much evidence builds of declining US influence, official rhetoric and think tank publicity tout American powe r, highlight the shortcomings of any potential challenger, and assert that the rest of the world cries out for US leadership .[1] Conventional wisdom takes comfort in statistics showing that the US remains at the top of the heap as an economic giant and military behemoth. It also asserts the US retains massive cultural influence. This defensive narrative misses the point. America is in decline not because of absolute or relative measurements, but because its material and structural struggles are shrinking its margin for error. Preeminence once enabled this country to absorb such costly mistake s as the Vietnam War [2] or relatively cheaper but ill-considered overturning of governments in the Americas and Iran (and such fiascos as the Bay of Pigs). That no longer is the case. America’s shrinking capabilities and influence lend global significance to rudderless adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, deer-in-headlight indecision over Syria and Egypt, and over-hyped deployments of force and diplomacy in Libya, Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Widening differences with European allies over values and priorities also bring shrinking US clout into high relief. The way the United States came to global power set the context for this decline. This is one of the few things about America that really was exceptional. During the nineteenth century, the United States could work out sectional problems and construct a continental wide, integrated economic engine without interference by outside powers. Then, twice in the space of a generation, world wars of unprecedented destructiveness laid prostrate any potential rival to US material preeminence—whether friend or foe. In a sense, 1919 marked the apogee of relative American power, given the conditions in other countries. After 1945, the Soviet Union provided a military and ideological adversary, but never provided a serious economic challenge. Meanwhile, the attraction of the idea that “America” meant “opportunity” and Wilsonian rhetoric about Democracy and freedom created what my old boss Joseph S,. Nye, Jr. termed “soft power,” the cultural attraction that magnified the appeal of a distant and exotic New World. To a large extent, hard power is what the US has left. Its economy remains strong and important to global trade and finance, but t he rise of other centers of money, trade, and even innovation has reduced Washington’s ability to wield its wealth the way it did , say, when President Eisenhower could use a threat to the pound to help bring British and French adventurism over Suez to a halt. America’s cultural attractiveness also has passed its peak, in part because governments and peoples elsewhere know us a lot better than they did a hundred years ago, when the United States appeared to others as young, vibrant, and exotically innocent. The inability of Washington’s diplomacy to forge stable solutions acceptable to all sides to

ongoing or frozen conflicts in the Middle East, Balkans, or Northeast Asia is self-evident. These days, there is little evidence the US can accomplish much in the world unless it uses brute force. Since at least the American Civil War (1861-1865), the US military has been a blunt club, pounding (or attempting to pound) enemies into submission through the bringing to bear of enormous amounts of firepower and supporting supplies. As a tool, the US military resembles its former Soviet/Russian adversary more than the relatively rapier-like tool that was the Prussian/German army, which proved more successful in short wars than in multi-year fights to the finish. The less than stellar performance of policy makers and diplomats since the end of the George H.W. Bush administration has accelerated the process of decline. It is possible—even likely—that a future American administration will include individuals who will restore a measure of American credibility. Nevertheless, not even an American Sun Tzu would return to Washington the margin for error that was its strategic luxury. The United States will remain important in the world, but it also will remain in decline.

The aff sets the stage for future marine reserves domestically and around the world- commitment now is keyROTC ‘14 [6-24-14, The Rock of the Coast is a Central California Newspaper. Internally quotes the President of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Obama Proposes Bold Expansion of Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuaries,” http://www.rockofthecoast.com/2014/06/24/obama-proposes-bold-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuaries, CH]Launching a broad campaign to address significant maritime issues such as overfishing and pollution, on June 17 President Obama announced that, by executive order, he intends to make a vast stretch of the Pacific Ocean the world’s largest marine sanctuary—off limits to fishing, energy exploration and other activities. The administration also plans to create a mechanism to allow the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries off U.S. coasts. The proposal, which will take effect later this year, calls for the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to expand from about 87,000 square miles to almost 782,000 square miles. The designated ocean area encompasses a remote, uninhabited region adjacent to islands and atolls controlled by the U.S. and extends up to 200 nautical miles offshore from these territories. The proposal faces the objection of the U.S. tuna fleet that operates in the region. Up to 3% of the annual U.S. tuna catch is caught in the western and central Pacific. When the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was created by President George W. Bush in 2009, sport fishing was exempted to counter industry opposition. If the protected area expands, recreational fishing interests will probably seek to retain the existing exemption to avoid setting a precedent, even though sport fishing activity in the expanse is scarce. A public comment period this summer will provide the Departments of Commerce and Interior with up-to-date information on the level of commercial activity in the area and make any necessary modifications. The potential expanded area would include a five-fold increase in the number of protected underwater mountains, halt tuna fishing, and shelter dozens of species of marine mammals, endangered sea turtles, as well as a variety of sharks and other predatory species, and protect some of the world’s most pristine and biologically rich marine ecosystems. As part of the administration’s increased focus on maritime issues, the President will also direct federal agencies to develop a comprehensive program to fight seafood fraud and the worldwide black-market fish trade, and review of steps the U.S. can take to stop illegal fishing, which does untold damage to marine ecosystems and to coastal nations around the world. Obama has also been advised to consider expanding the borders of the monuments Bush created in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench. Other countries are also creating marine reserves. The British government is moving to protect the area around the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific, and the small Pacific island of Kiribati plans to close

an area roughly the size of California to commercial fishing by year’s end. “The President’s proposed action is a huge step forward for the ocean,” said Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Expanding these protections will provide a safe haven for coral gardens, seamounts, and the rich waters that support hundreds of species of fish, sea turtles, giant clams, dolphins, whales and sharks, conserving them for future generations. This represents a commitment to the kind of bold action needed to restore the failing health of our ocean , on

which we all depend, and continues the bipartisan tradition of ocean protection. We hope it sets the stage for taking similar action to protect key areas of our ocean around the U.S. and the world.”

U.S. protection of the ocean sends an effective signal of ocean and environmental leadershipSala et al. 14 (Dr. Enric Sala - NaHonal Geographic Society, Washington, DC Dr. Lance Morgan - Marine ConservaHon InsHtute, Sonoma, CA Dr. EllioN Norse - Marine ConservaHon InsHtute, Redmond, WA Dr. Alan Friedlander, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI “Expansion of the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.” May 20, 2014. http://www.marine-conservation.org/media/filer_public/filer_public/2014/06/17/primnm_expansion_report.pdf/CH)That action would create the largest protected area on Earth (an expanded Monument over 2 million square km) – and include some of the world’s most pristine deep sea and open ocean ecosystems, with unique and global biodiversity value1. These pristine national treasures would receive full protection, meaning no extractive activities such as mining, drilling, and fishing would be allowed. The new National Monument alone would protect 18 percent of the United States EEZ, and it would double the area of the ocean that is currently fully protected globally. This would make the United States the undisputable world leader in ocean conservation, and set a record in conservation that is unlikely to be matched again in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. By doing this, the President sends very clear and strong messages:a) Even as climate change threatens human life and property at home and abroad, The U.S. will show global leadership and do what is needed to protect our Earth.b) The United States will protect its ocean natural resource treasures for the benefit of our own citizens and for the benefit of all other nations because these waters are part of the oceans that connect all of us and give life to the planet.c) Of all the nations in the world, the U.S. is unmatched in its laws, public support, and technological capacity to conserve our oceans effectively.

Expanding marine reserves spurs US green leadership overall – empirically shownWilkinson ‘14 [6-18-14, Allie Wilkinson is an author at Science Mag.com. “Marine reserves get a big boost at U.S. conference,” http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/marine-reserves-get-big-boost-u-s-conference, CH]Yesterday, President Barack Obama announced that he will take steps to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific. The protected area now covers 225,000 square kilometers, but White House officials suggest it could expand to cover some 1.8 million square kilometers, making it the largest reserve on the planet. And a number of other nations announced that they will create new reserves, expand protections for existing ones, or take other steps to protect marine life. The bevy of announcements, which came during an “Our Ocean” conference organized by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington, D.C., are drawing positive reactions from marine scientists and activists. "Even those of us who are jaded by all of the talk over many years that hasn't been followed up by action are seeing something different here,” says marine biologist David Guggenheim, president of Ocean Doctor, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C. Among the actions highlighted at the conference yesterday: Palau is creating the Palau National Marine Sanctuary, which will provide full protection to 80% of Palau’s exclusive economic zone by ending all industrial-scale fishing

and exports. The 500,000-square-kilometer sanctuary will be equivalent to the size of Texas. Chile is putting forward a new national policy to prevent and deter against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

Norway is allocating $1 billion to climate change mitigation and adaptation abroad, including substantial contributions to the Green Climate Fund; $150 million to promote sustainable fisheries abroad; and $1 million for

studies on pollution involving plastic trash. The Bahamas will significantly expand its marine protected area

(MPA) system from 3% to more than 10% of its waters by the end of this year. They have also committed to expanding the system to 22% by 2020 and plan to use MPAs as a catalyst for the development of a “blue economy.” The Cook Islands will expand its noncommercial fishing zone from 19 kilometers around each island to 80 kilometers and has pledged to include its northern islands in a marine park. Obama’s plan to expand the Pacific Islands reserve was greeted with relief. "Many of us in the marine community have been anxiously awaiting something from this administration that takes ocean conservation to a new level, and I think we're seeing it right now,” Guggenheim says. The move "follows on 15 years of presidential attention on the oceans, starting with President [Bill] Clinton in 1998 with the National Oceans Conference,” notes Jason Patlis, president and CEO of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation in Silver Spring, Maryland. “We saw it with President [George W.] Bush, and now we're seeing it with President Obama, and it's really great news to have this kind of leadership from the U.S. on behalf of the ocean.”

U.S. environmental leadership leads to global leadership- American policy sends a global signalShepard 10 [Don Shepard, Natural Resources/Water Resources University Laboratory Teacher & Former Financial Representative and Army National Guard Accountant, ““U.S. Environmental Policy and Leadership,” online: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/39623.aspx]Will Obama Meet New Standards? Even with these goals and very early achievements it is unclear if the overall “political will”, no matter how different from the last eight years, is sufficient to tackle the challenges of global environmental change, particularly when the will of the presidential administration may not be enough. There are many representatives who do not share Obama’s enthusiasm for environmental issues. As pointed out previously, there have already been compromises made that have decreased funding for environmental initiatives. The American people can help by not letting the environmental agenda once again take a back seat , though only time will tell just how strong the will and influence of the Obama administration is. Opportunity for Leadership in Copenhagen The U.S. is the world superpower . I argue that the latest world economic troubles only serve to accentuate the extent to which this is true, as economies of the world are suffering due to the domino effect triggered by the collapse of the U.S. housing market. The Kyoto treaty was only a piece of paper without the U.S. on board . The other major polluting nations such as China and India will not take the problem of global environmental change seriously until America does. Copenhagen is a chance to right the ship before it is too late. Our nation is just as capable of steering the ship in the right direction as it is in the wrong direction. This means allowing Earth to take the helm, and remembering humanity adapts to her, not her to humanity. Update: Copenhagen; What happened? Dissapointment seems to be the predominant reaction from environmental organizations to the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Indeed, no binding agreement, or even a pledge to make a binding agreement in 2010 was achieved. This was not, however, the true test of the Obama administration's environmental policy. The real test is whether Obama can get a legitimate climate bill through the Senate. U.S. environmental leadership can still be the beacon it needs to be with a strong message from our lawmakers.

Environmental leadership is the crucial determinant of US power—more important than power projection or force postureCarstens 1 [David H. Carstens 1, Chief of Operations, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Eighth US Army, Korea, Spring 2001 (Parameters, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01spring/carstens.htm]Dramatic events such as the end of the Cold War, the turn of the century, and now a new presidency offer opportunities for the United States to reconsider its national security policy.[1] The notion that the focus should be limited to defending against an emerging peer competitor or rogue state is flawed, however, and current analyses of emerging threats are generally too narrowly defined. Internal regional strife, not power-projecting challengers to US primacy, will likely spark the crises of the 21st century for which US strategy must be prepared . A tidal wave of public outcry over the deteriorating state of regional economies and the global environment is rushing toward the shores of the world's most powerful nations. In an era in which there are few imminent threats to US security, government as well as corporate leaders praise the superpower status of our nation. In such times it is not surprising that labor and environmental reform issues are often placed on the back burner. Nevertheless, these are the issues that will take center stage in the coming decades . From its current position of vast global power, the United States can either choose to meet this challenge head on, or be overcome by it. My intent is not to dismiss the current theories of strategy, but rather to add to them. Four such strategies (and many variations on these) compete for relevancy in the current public debate: neo-isolationism, selective engagement, cooperative security, and primacy.[2] The implications of each are normally outlined in a traditional analysis of foreign affairs in which there exists a constant competition for power between states. Although this tradition continues, the real danger the world now faces "stem[s] not from conflicts between countries but from conflicts within them ."[3] Such internal strife over distribution of wealth, labor inequality, scarcity of resources, and declining environmental conditions will spill over into neighboring states, creating chaos . The new grand strategy of the United States, therefore, needs to respond to regional internal weaknesses, not to the external strengths of perceived rogue and competitor states. [continues] With the rising inequality brought on by globalization comes a torrent of economic, labor, and environmental problems which, if left unchallenged, will fuel the fires of regional crisis in the 21st century. For the global market to survive, nations need to collectively establish and maintain economic, labor, and environmental policies that provide for the common good. Such standards also need to be collectively enforced with the same zeal as is currently reserved for defense against armed attack. In the eyes of the world, American leadership diminishes every time we choose not to act upon a potentially devastating human crisis. To the contrary, successful actions in support of regional economic and environmental well-being bolster confidence in American leadership at home and abroad. Further, immediate action today may prevent the wars of tomorrow, especially in those areas where imminent chaos is most pronounced. The United States cannot afford to look away from global economic and environmental despair, saving its strength for the "big fight." The future US grand strategy, if not entirely based on environmental and economic internationalism, should expand the definition of US interests to include global economic reform and environmental standards enforcement. The greatest danger America faces is neither China nor Iraq. It is indifference to this emerging crisis .

United States leadership credibility on environmental issues is critical to sustain global leadershipWalter ‘2 [8-28-2, Norbert Walter is a German economist who studied economics at Johann University in Frankfurt, “An American Abdication,” http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/opinion/an-american-abdication.html]FRANKFURT At present, there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international goodwill by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the Bush administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role - or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake - in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of America's relative absence from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg - "relative," that is, to its share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President George W. Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines. In Central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damage. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution, 80 percent man-made, also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The Bush administration seems to believe it is merely an observer - that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of current world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policy-making: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues . No one could expect the United States to provide any quick fixes, but one would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with other countries, to address global environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts. The first is at home in the United States, through more environmentally friendly policies - for example, greater fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a more cooperative approach to multilateral attempts at safeguarding the environment.

US leadership solves all other impacts – collapse of primacy results in great power wars Thayer 6 [Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”]A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions . Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power . Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be

reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned --between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs

foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state , group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close . The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for

the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.

SolvencyObama expanded marine reserves but he still needs enforcement funding from Congress – only the aff can prevent vast environmental destructionSavitz 6-20 [Jackie, Vice President for U.S. Oceans of Oceana, Marine Biologist, Environmental Toxicologist, and Environmental Policy Analyst, Master’s Degree in Environmental Science from the University of Maryland, BS Marine Science and Biology from the University of Miami in Florida, Interview with Living On Earth’s Steve Curwood, June 20, 2014, “U.S. To Create World’s Biggest Marine Reserve,” http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00025&segmentID=1] WDCURWOOD: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios in Boston and PRI, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood. President George W. Bush created a huge marine sanctuary in the Pacific Ocean, and now President Barack Obama says he wants to make it the biggest marine reserve in the worl d. For the President, protecting the ocean is a personal as well as an environmental imperative . OBAMA: You know, growing up in Hawaii, I learned early to appreciate the beauty and power of the ocean. Of course we also know how fragile our blue planet can be. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are causing our oceans to acidify. Pollution endangers marine life. Overfishing threatens whole species, as well as the people who depend on them for food and their livelihoods . CURWOOD: President Obama made the announcement as Secretary of State John Kerry convened diplomats, experts and advocates from around the world to work on ocean conservation by addressing marine protected areas, illegal fishing, false-labeling and ocean acidification. Jackie Savitz is the Vice President of U.S. Oceans for the non-profit, Oceana, and joins us now. Welcome to Living on Earth, Jackie. SAVITZ: Thanks, Steve. Glad

to be here. CURWOOD: So, President Obama says he wants to create a new marine reserve. What exactly

is he talking about and how big would it be? SAVITZ: Well, it’s actually a very exciting proposal. He's proposed to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument from about its current size of about 87,000 square miles to nearly 780,000 square miles . It would make the Pacific Remote Islands Monument nine times the size it is today. CURWOOD: How hard is it going to be for President Obama to make this enormous marine reserve happen? Who might be opposed to something like this, and what could they do to try and stop it? SAVITZ: Well, we hope it won't be too hard. What he's supposed to do is to use the summer as a public comment period where he'll be able to take input from all of the stakeholders that might be interested, and that would include fishermen, both recreational and commercial fishermen, tourism interests, as well as environmental organizations like Oceana. Typically, what you see is, commercial fishermen are often opponents to this, and so they’ll have to take a look and see whether they feel it is a big imposition on them or not, but we have to keep in mind that these protected areas actually have benefits to fisheries. A lot of fish have larvae that are planktonic, which means that they kind of drift with the tides and the currents , and even sometimes the winds. And so what that means is that larvae that are spawned by fish in a marine protected area can actually end up growing up and living most of their lives far away from that area , and so that’s something that could benefit fishermen in the future. CURWOOD:

How effective is it to protect large tracks of ocean in terms of conserving marine species? SAVITZ: Well, it’s been shown to be very effective. What they find is that you see an increase in both the number of animals that are in the area and also the diversity —the different types of species that are present— and diversity, of course, leads to a more stable community. A community that can be more resilient to impacts, like the impacts of climate change , for example, but the thing that people don't realize is that the protected areas can actually have impacts much further from the protected area than you might expect. And a really good example of that is, there was a study done in an

area called the Dry Tortugas, which is just west of Key West in Florida, which is a marine protected area. And what they found there was that the entire region benefited, so not just the area west of Key West, but also all throughout the Florida Keys and even around to the east of the Keys on the way up to Miami. CURWOOD: Now, there are a number of marine protected reserves around the world, some of them people say are really just lines on a map and not

particularly well enforced ; others do better with protecting the species there that they promise to protect. How does the United States enforce a protected area like this way off in the middle of the Pacific? SAVITZ:

That’s a very good question, and a very good point. Once an area’s designated for protection the next

challenge becomes enforcement. It’s a big challenge, and people are starting to use things like satellite technology, radar, local knowledge—all kinds of new tools tied to technology. And I actually think in the next couple of years we’re going to see major advances in fisheries enforcement. CURWOOD: Now, Secretary of State John Kerry invited a number of other countries to talk about conservation. What were the most important voices outside the United States that you heard at the Secretary’s gathering? SAVITZ: You know, Secretary Kerry really did something unprecedented with this conference. At the very beginning, he opened the conference by saying, “I don't just want to talk. I want to actually get things done.” It led to a very long list of commitments that were made by the U.S. government, by President Obama and also by foreign governments that were here at the conference. A number of countries stood up, especially some of the island nations like Kiribati and the Bahamas, the Cook Islands, Palau, and they talked about the importance of protecting their fisheries, and many of them designated extremely large areas of their exclusive economic zones, in some cases their entire exclusive economic zones as marine protected areas, some of them with very strong restrictions on industrial fishing. And I think when you add them all up, you start to see a really important trend in protecting areas that can lead to great increases in the long run and fishery abundance in our ability to feed people protein from the ocean. CURWOOD:

Now, President Obama has also announced that he wants a new federal program aimed at

stopping illegal fishing and also seafood fraud. What would such a program like that do? SAVITZ: Well this is a really important issue. As you know, what you're purchasing when it comes to fish may not actually be what you're getting, and we know this because Oceana did a study where we looked at 1,300 samples of fish, and only about two thirds of them were what they were marketed to be. And so the President announced that he'll set up a task force to curb illegal fishing and seafood fraud. And that’s something that Oceana is very happy to hear, and something that we've been very concerned about for some time. CURWOOD: How big a deal is seafood fraud, do you think? SAVITZ: Well, it depends on how you look at it. From a consumer standpoint, a third of what you order may not actually be what you're getting. That could have health implications, for example, if you're a woman of childbearing age and you try to order a low-mercury fish like grouper, but you’re served a high-mercury fish like tilefish, then it affects your health and potentially you’re baby's health. Similarly if you're a consumer that’s trying to order sustainable seafood and they serve you something that’s not sustainable, then it's taken away your ability to use your consumer power to promote sustainable fishing. The other big concern is that illegal fishing is responsible for as much as a third of the fish that are actually coming in, and that’s a big problem. CURWOOD: Defined for us what's an illegal fish? SAVITZ: Well, if someone is fishing in an area where there's no fishing allowed , like in a marine protected area, or if they're using gear that is not allowed , such as driftnets which are very harmful to marine life and have been banned in a lot of areas, or they could be fishing without a permit, or they can be taking more than their limit. So there's a whole variety of different ways that fish can be caught illegally, and anytime that happens it undermines the management measures that

have been put in place on purpose to make sure we take just enough fish so that the

populations can continue to produce fish for the future. Now if we set up a traceability system so that all fish that comes into United States can be traced from boat to plate, we can make it so that there’s QR code, which is one of those codes that you see you can scan with your phone, and you can scan it, and you should be able to find out everything about that fish—what it is, where it was caught, when it was caught, what gear was used to catch it, and how it travelled from the boat through the supply chain to your plate. And you can see some of these QR codes at stores like Whole Foods where they actually sell some of these fish that are being voluntarily labeled with all this information, and

that shows us it can be done. And it can be done throughout the entire fish market. CURWOOD: Jackie Savitz is Vice President for U.S. Oceans for Oceana. Thanks so much for taking the time, Jackie. SAVITZ: Thank you, Steve. It's my pleasure.

Only Congressional regulatory action can solve the aff and non-marine reserve MPAs inevitably failBarcott 11 [Bruce, environmental journalist, Yale Environment 360, June 16, 2011, “The Unfulfilled Promise of the World’s Marine Protected Areas,” http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fulfilling_the_great_promise_of_worlds_marine_protected_areas/2416/] WDThis week the National Marine Protected Areas Center, a tiny division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was scheduled to release an eight-page fact sheet titled “Marine Reserves in the United States.” Lauren Wenzel, the center’s director, was kind enough to send me an advance copy. It’s a telling document. The brief report confirms what ocean advocates have been saying for years: Far too little of America’s ocean areas are protected. A little more than 3 percent of U.S. territorial waters — 381,969 square kilometers — are protected at the highest level as marine reserves. But 95 percent of that area is contained in a single reserve , the 363,680-square-kilometer Papahānaumokuākea National Monument (formerly known as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument) created by President George W. Bush in 2006. Without Papahānaumokuākea, marine reserves make up only one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. waters. The report’s revelation, though, comes in what’s not listed. The Marianas Trench National Marine Monument, a massive marine reserve announced with great fanfare in January 2009 (it was the Bush Administration’s final-weeks bid for an environmental legacy), isn’t included in the report. Why not? Turns out it’s not a marine reserve after all. If you read the fine print of Bush’s executive order, you’ll find that the 95,000-square-kilometer Marianas Trench National Marine Monument protects the seafloor trench but not the six-mile-deep water column above it. Welcome to the promising, confusing, and maddening world of marine reserves. Marine reserves, sometimes called “no-take” reserves to distinguish them from the larger umbrella category of marine protected areas ( MPAs ), have been one of blue ecology’s most widely embraced concepts of the past 10 years. They carry the highest possible level of protection — no fishing, no touching, often no entry. They are the marine equivalent of U.S. wilderness areas or national parks and are viewed as one of the most powerful tools

for rebuilding depleted oceans . NOAA director Jane Lubchenco is a big advocate of marine reserves; the celebrated oceanographer Sylvia Earle calls them “hope spots,” underwater versions of biological hot spots. There aren’t many of them. According to the Pew Environment Group, about 6 percent of the Earth’s land surface receives some level of natural resource protection, but less than 0.5 percent of the ocean waters receive the same consideration. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) calculates a more generous figure of 1.17 percent — but still, it’s a pittance, and it’s a long way from the Convention on Biological Diversity’s goal of putting 10 percent of the world’s marine areas under MPA designation by the year 2020. The good news: More marine areas are protected every year. In the mid-1990s, the IUCN put the number of MPAs around the world at around 3,000. An IUCN report last year put the number at 5,880,

noting that the area covered had increased 150 percent since 2003. The bad news: Nearly all MPAs are tiny, few of

them have the high “reserve” levels of protection, and most lack the sharp teeth of

enforcement. “Although it is not possible to develop an exact account, fully protected, no-

take areas cover only a small portion of MPA coverage, while a large proportion of MPAs are

ineffective or only partially effective ,” the IUCN noted last year in its report, “Global Ocean Protection.” Most marine reserves around the world were originally created small, as parts of existing national parks, or to protect specific areas like breeding grounds against the ravages of overfishing. But in the last few years a number of ocean advocates have championed a new strategy: Go big. Pew’s Global Oceans Legacy project, for example, has been working for the creation of six massive marine reserves that would vastly increase the area of ocean under marine reserve-level protection. Three of Oceans Legacy’s targeted areas — in the Northern Hawaiian Islands, the Marianas Trench region, and the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean — have already been placed under various levels of protection. Three more are under consideration. A proposed 630,000-square-kilometer reserve would protect the

waters around New Zealand’s remote Kermadec Islands. In Australia, ocean advocates are working to create a 900,000-square-kilometer marine reserve in the Coral Sea. The boldest proposal would put a whopping 5 million square kilometers under protection in the biologically rich Sargasso Sea, near Bermuda. Despite their ambitious size, the three proposed reserves have a real chance of happening. Australia and New Zealand, global leaders in marine protection, aren’t afraid to protect big pieces of ocean. Australia pioneered marine protection with the 1975 creation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; in 2004, the Australian government strengthened the park’s protections by putting 33 percent of it off limits to fishing as a no-take marine reserve. Four years ago, Australia added 226,000 square kilometers of its coastline to its collection of marine reserves; that same year New Zealand listed 600,000 square kilometers of its water as MPAs. The governments of Bermuda and the United Kingdom — who jointly administer the British overseas territory and its waters — are actively pursuing the Sargasso Sea proposal, and the British government has recently embraced the marine reserve concept in a big way. Last year the UK created the world’s largest marine reserve by banning fishing around 544,000 square kilometers of the British-owned Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. Do marine reserves work? The short answer is yes, mostly. The scientific record is still young, but studies emerging from marine reserves established in the late 1990s and early 2000s indicate that marine

reserves allow crippled populations of fish and other marine life to recover in the absence of human pressures , chiefly fishing. Some of the most interesting work is being done by scientists at a marine reserve off the western coast of the Big Island of Hawaii. The research is being led by Brian Tissot, a Washington State University marine ecologist who’s been studying a 10-year-old Hawaiian state reserve since its inception in 2000. Here’s the background: In the 1990s, the marine aquarium trade was killing off the yellow tangs of Hawaii. A coral reef fish the size of a silver-dollar pancake, yellow tangs are highly valued by aquarium owners. The commercial aquarium fishery off the west coast of the Big Island employed only about three dozen divers, but together they caught about 250,000 aquarium fish every year. Biologists estimated they were shipping half of all local yellow tang into the tanks of America’s dental offices. The take grew so alarming that in 2000 the state of Hawaii stepped in and established a network of nine no-collection zones around the Big Island. These protected areas were a form of marine reserves — areas fully protected from all fishing, removal, or disturbance of marine life. And they weren’t small. The state closed 35 percent of the Big Island coastline to aquarium fish collection. Commercial yellow tang divers weren’t happy with the closures, which shut them out of many of their most productive netting areas. But they abided by the new rules. And over the following decade, yellow tang flourished in the marine reserves; by 2009, the density of yellow tang had increased by 57 percent within the protected areas. The surprise was this: The commercial aquarium fishery also flourished. Ten years after the marine reserves were established , the divers exported a yearly average of about 350,000 live fish, an increase of 70,000 or more over the pre-reserve years. The value of the fishery increased from $745,000 in 2000 to $1.27 million in 2009. “ The total number of fish increased, industry value increased, and the feeling of economic well-being among fishers is high,” Tissot told me. Some bugs remain to be worked out. In the areas that stayed open to fish capture, yellow tang declined by 45 percent, due to the tighter clustering of divers, an increase in the divers’ efficiency (power scooters, GPS units, and other new technology now help them net more fish faster), and the entry of more divers into the fishery. Tissot believes the outside-the-reserve depletion can be solved in part with a limit on new divers entering the

fishery. In fact there’s new evidence that the marine reserves are helping to replenish the open areas hit hard by the yellow tang divers. In a paper published in the December 2010 issue of PLoS One, Tissot showed that larvae from fish spawning inside the marine reserve were floating outside the reserve, effectively seeding areas up to 100 kilometers away. “This is the first time that larval dispersal has been shown to be one of the mechanisms underlying what we call the seeding effect of marine reserves,” said Mark Hixon, an Oregon State University marine ecologist and former chair of NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, who was one of Tissot’s co-authors. “Populations build up inside the reserves, those fish spawn, and their larvae drift out and rain down on fished areas outside the reserves.” His research, Tissot said, sends “a strong message about marine reserves. These things are really working.” But if they work so well, why aren’t more being created? The short answer is that fishermen, in general, hate them. Or at best they distrust them. Marine reserves are usually set

up in the most welcoming fish habitat, which anglers, of course, consider the best fishing spots. But scientists and conservationists point out that unless more marine reserves are established, there will soon be no fishing spots. Fishermen can be powerful political players. “Fishing closures are unlikely to be adopted in areas of highly valuable commercial fishing or those near large fishing-dependent populations,” Jay Nelson, director of Pew’s Oceans Legacy campaign, wrote last year. “Therefore, the most feasible sites are in remote areas that for various reasons have not yet been the target of large-scale commercial fishing or other extractive activities.” In the U.S., a number of states are considering establishing new marine reserves, spurred on by an increased awareness of the ocean’s plight and the recent green energy rush to industrialize offshore wind and wave power sites. California is in the final stages of a decade-long redesign of its marine protected areas system. In Oregon, the state has established two very small marine reserves that it labels “pilot projects,” and three other potential reserve

sites are under consideration. Bernie Bjork, a retired commercial fisherman from Astoria, Oregon, who spent the past year fighting over one of the reserves, sees the creation of a marine reserve as one more nail in the coffin of Oregon’s commercial fishing fleet. “Since 1999, 80 percent of the trawl fleet’s fishing grounds off the coast of Oregon and Washington have been closed down,” he told me. He’s not an unreasonable guy. A few years ago he worked with Environmental Defense to help establish quota systems on the West Coast. But the politics of the whole process frustrated him. “They said they’d allow boats to come in, but you can’t fish. And then they said the crabbers could come in, but not the trawlers. They’re going to use ‘adaptive management,’ which means they can change the rules at any time. It really got confusing.” When it comes to marine reserves, everything is negotiable, and confusion is common. There are few clear hard-and-fast rules as there are with terrestrial wilderness designations, partly because the ocean is so much more dynamic and complex, and partly because there’s no congressional act establishing marine reserves as there is for federally protected wilderness . While the designations given to marine protected areas — ecosystem reserves, marine sanctuaries, marine reserves, marine monuments — may be terms of art to bureaucrats, to the rest of us they’re confusing and alienating. And few areas are as confusing as the Marianas, the U.S.-administered region near Guam. Back in 2008, when Bush Administration officials were trying to create the Marianas national monument, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, objected to its fishermen being locked out of the proposed reserve. In the end, White House officials cut a deal that put only the Marianas Trench itself — the actual seabed — in the monument, leaving the water above it unprotected and open to fishing. “I know all of this is confusing,” one U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service official told me. “It took a while for us to figure it all out, too.” Currently, marine reserves have high-profile advocates like Sylvia Earle, Carl Safina, and Jean-Michel Cousteau. They have great momentum both in the United States and around the world. What they lack is a statement of clear bedrock principles expressed in beautiful language. The U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964 laid out a few simple rules for what could and could not happen in a federally protected wilderness. Perhaps equally importantly, the act famously defined wilderness, in almost poetic terms, as “an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Ocean advocates are great at listing the benefits realized by marine reserves. They’re not as good at delineating exactly what should and shouldn’t be allowed in them. Clearly, marine reserves are a great idea. Researchers like Brian Tissot are finding proof that they actually do what we hoped they would: revive depleted marine ecosystems. What the marine reserve movement needs now is clarity — and perhaps a touch of poetry.

Size matters – comprehensive and widespread action in marine reserves is necessary to solve – peer reviewed studies go affClaudet et al 08 [Joachim Claudet, Craig W. Osenberg, Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi, Paolo Domenici, Jose-Antonio Garcia-Charton, Angel Perez-Ruzafa, Fabio Badalamenti, Just Bayle-Sempere, Alberto Brito, Fabio Bulleri, Jean-Michel Culioli, Mark Dimech, Jesus M. Falcon, Ivan Guala, Marco Milazzo, Julio Sanchez-Meca, Paul J. Somerfield, Ben Stobart, Frederic Vandeperre, Carlos Valle and Serge Planes, ecological scientists and marine biologists, Ecology Letters, (2008) 11: p. 481–489, May 2008, “Marine reserves: size and age do matter,” http://facecouncil.org/puf/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Claudet-et-al-2008-Eco-Letters.pdf] WDOur findings provide novel insights into the features of marine reserves that most affect the response of fishes to protection, and therefore reconcile conflicting outcomes of theoretical and empirical studies. Theoretical studies have hypothesized that larger marine reserves would be more effective at increasing biodiversity (Botsford et al. 2003;

Roberts et al. 2003) and density of commercial species (Botsford et al. 2001; Hastings & Botsford 2003). However, all previous meta-analytical approaches failed to support this hypothesis and concluded that the effects of marine reserves were independent of the reserve size (Coˆte´ et al. 2001; Halpern 2003; Guidetti & Sala 2007). Some meta-analyses (Halpern 2003) have taken an unweighted approach and could not therefore partition the within-study variance compared with the between-study variance. As a result, they could not evaluate the heterogeneity in response among reserves. Others (Coˆte´ et al. 2001; Guidetti & Sala 2007), without having full access to original datasets, were unable to build weights incorporating the full intrinsic variability of the different studies and used a weighting scheme based on the total area censused in each study. In addition, apart from the work

of Guidetti & Sala (2007), previous metaanalyses have synthesized data across vastly different ecosystems, possibly obscuring the effects of reserve design within regions (Coˆte´ et al. 2001; Halpern 2003; but see Tetreault & Ambrose 2007 for a recent exception). Our most compelling result is that the response of commercial species to protection is reserve size-dependent . Increasing the size of the no-take zone resulted in increased density of

commercial fishes within the reserve compared with outside . A biological mechanism

explaining this result is that large no-take zones may allow a greater fraction of mobile

fishes with wide home ranges to remain protected within the marine reserve, compared with

smaller ones (Chapman & Kramer 2000; Jennings 2001; Apostolaki et al. 2002). Large reserves may also increase self-recruitment (Botsford et al. 2003). Unfortunately, fish mobility and dispersal are rarely reported in studies of marine reserves or even known for most fish species (but see Polunin 2002), precluding a formal investigation of the relevance of these processes in the current meta-analysis. Although we show that effectiveness increases with marine reserve size, this does not imply that small marine reserves are ineffective. Our results suggest that any sized marine reserve increases fish density and diversity (although larger ones would be even more effective). In contrast to the effect of increasing the size of the protected area, increasing the size of the buffer zone reduced the effectiveness of the reserve. The size of no-take zones and the size of buffer zones were not correlated (Spearmans rank test for negative association, P > 0.9), suggesting that increasing the size of one zone was not made at the expense of the other. Although fishery regulations may be more restrictive in buffer zones than in unprotected areas, buffer zones are attractive for local artisanal fishers (Stelzenmu¨ller et al. 2007). Consequently, the fishing pressure can increase in these areas (e.g. Stelzenmu¨ller et al. 2007) and can be higher than when just fishing the line (i.e. fishing along the reserve edges, Kellner et al. 2007). Our findings provide useful information for the design and management of marine reserves. The design of marine reserves has often incorporated spatial zoning, each with different regulatory measures as part of an integrated coastal zone management plan (Cicin-Sain & Belfiore 2005; Claudet et al. 2006b). Our analysis would suggest that buffer zones could have detrimental effects on the protection of fish species. However, our limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms cautions against this conclusion and further research is needed towards the understanding of the distribution of fishing effort in the buffer zones and adjacent areas. Moreover, buffer zones are multiple use areas, and the choice of size is a complex problem involving ecology as well as economics and politics. In the case in which the establishment of a

buffer zone is required for coastal management purposes, our results suggest that increasing the size of the no-take zone could be a solution to prevail against their potential effects.

“No take” marine reserves are comparatively better than other MPAs at promoting species growth and biodiversityColeman et al 13 [M.A. Coleman*, A. Palmer-Brodie**, and B.P. Kelaher***, *NSW Fisheries, Department of Primary Industries, NSW, Australia, **National Marine Science Centre, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia, ***University of New England, NSW, Australia, Biological Conservation, Volume 167, November 2013, p. 257-264, “Conservation benefits of a network of marine reserves and partially protected areas,” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713003078] WDThe positive conservation benefits of individual MRs are well established (e.g. Lester et al., 2009), however, there remains a lack of knowledge of the effects of MRs with different levels of protection. We examined changes on shallow subtidal reef within a network of no take MRs relative to (i) PPAs within the same marine park and (ii) open areas entirely outside the boundaries of the marine reserve network. After 5 years of operation, we found that some species appear to be responding positively to MR protection. In particular, the heavily targeted species red morwong (C. fuscus) and abalone (H.

rubra), were more abundant in MRs than in either PPAs within the marine park network or

areas outside the boundaries of the marine park . Red morwong were generally about 50% more abundant in MRs than in PPAs and 75% more abundant in MRs compared to open areas.

Similar results have been documented for congeneric species in previous studies (McCormick and Choat, 1987; Cole et al., 1990). It is perhaps not surprising that this species of fish is the first to respond to MR protection because its relatively sessile nature and strong site fidelity (Lowry and Suthers, 1998) make it an important target for spearfishermen in southern NSW (Lincoln Smith et al., 1989). Spearfishing is common in the shallow subtidal areas studied here and this habitat is likely to be where red morwong are most heavily targeted. Greater abundances of red morwong in MRs are likely a direct result of MR protection because they tended to increase in abundance over the 5 year time period studied, with abundances initially being similar to PPAs and areas outside the marine park, to become significantly greater in MRs. However, despite an initial increase in abundance, red morwong exhibited a substantial decline in August 2010 falling to levels characteristic of areas outside of MRs.

Fluctuations in abundances of targeted species in MRs is common following initial recovery (Babcock et al., 2010) and may be due to natural environmental stressors or temporal variation in illegal harvesting or enforcement (Kelaher et al., submitted for publication). Indeed, the decline in red morwong abundances in 2010 corresponded with heavy rainfall, La Niña conditions in eastern Australia and, in the shallow subtidal habitat sampled here. Red morwong may have been particularly susceptible to runoff and reduced water quality/clarity associated with rainfall events. A simultaneous decline in red morwong abundances was also observed in PPAs lending support for this type of potential explanation. Abalone were also more abundant in MRs than in PPAs or open areas outside the boundaries of the marine park. Abalone are considered over fished in NSW waters (Rowling et al., 2010) and, as with red morwong, are perhaps most heavily targeted in the shallow habitat studied here (subtidal reef 1–3 m depth) because NSW legislation dictates that recreational harvesting is only carried out via snorkelling/free diving, which tends to be concentrated in shallower areas. Combined with the fact that abalone are relatively sessile, it is not surprising that this species is among the first to respond to such conservation efforts. Preliminary analyses of small (sub legal sized, <11.7 cm) abalone revealed no difference in abundances among MRs, PPAs and areas outside the marine park (d.f. 1, 144, F = 1.42 and 0.49, P = 0.21 and 0.80 for MR V PPA and MR/PPA V OUT contrasts respectively). This is perhaps not surprising and suggests that the differences seen here for abalone are a result of cessation of harvesting in MRs relative to other areas. Further south in Tasmania, Edgar and Barrett (1999) found that only large sized abalone (H. rubra) increased in MRs. In contrast, small abalone actually decreased in MRs due to indirect effects of predation by increasing abundances of Southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii). We rarely observed large abundances of rock lobsters in the habitat sampled here (although Eastern rock lobsters, Sagmariasus verreauxi are common at certain times of the year), nor did we see increases in abundances of other predatory fish and invertebrates suggesting that predation is unlikely to be responsible for the patterns observed in our study. Instead, we suggest that the increase in abundances of abalone in MRs is not due to significantly larger recruitment and subsequent growth of smaller abalone into MRs, but rather that existing individuals that are released from harvesting pressure are now more likely to grow

to a larger , legal size within MRs while those in PPAs and open areas continue to be

harvested . Despite some positive, early increases in abundances of targeted species, most species did not show differences

among MRs, PPAs and areas outside the network of reserves, but instead exhibited substantial spatial and temporal variability. Most ‘‘site (zone) time’’ terms in PERMANOVA analyses were significant indicating that sites within each of the levels of protection studied support variable abundances and diversities of fish, invertebrates and algae at different times of sampling. Although this somewhat precludes detection of overall MR effects using the

current experimental design, importantly, it also means that the areas chosen as MRs are protecting a broad

array of habitats and biotic communities capturing the broadscale biodiversity of the shallow rocky reefs in the region. Protecting a comprehensive and representative selection of biodiversity in MRs was a key goal of MPAs in NSW and globally (Kelleher, 1999; Banks and Skilleter, 2009). The large spatial and temporal variability in fish, invertebrate and algal abundances among sites is also not surprising given that the time period over which we sampled (5 years since MR operation) is very early in terms of putative recovery of many species. Different species take different lengths of time to respond to MR protection (Roberts, 2005). Although some studies have shown that the effects of MRs may be detected after an average of 5 years (Babcock et al., 2010), temperate Australian MRs similar to those sampled here, have been shown to take decades to respond to protection (Edgar et al., 2009). Similarly, metaanalyses have shown that it can take more than 15 years for fish populations to respond to protection (Molloy et al., 2009). Furthermore, the detection of indirect effects (e.g. increases in macroalgae released from urchin grazing) may take even longer (Babcock et al., 2010). Level of harvesting pressure in the areas/habitats being examined and factors conferring species vulnerability may be key parameters to take into account in efforts to understand changes among MRs and other areas. It may only be for heavily targeted, relatively sessile species that change among MRs and other protected areas can be detected so early. Long term temporal monitoring will be critical for assessing efficacy of networks of MRs and PPAs as a conservation tool. Fish community structure in shallow open areas outside the network of MRs was significantly different from fish community structure inside , and analyses revealed that it was mostly abundant and schooling species that accounted for this pattern.

The USFG is key – solves enforcement and regulatory standardization – increased funding for reserves is criticalNMPAC 05 [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Protected Areas Center, July 2005, “Enforcing U.S. Marine Protected Areas: Synthesis Report,” http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/publications/enforcement.pdf] WD

Nationwide, study participants generally perceived high levels of compliance across various types of marine protected areas . And when designed with adequate attention to enforcement considerations, MPAs can conceivably be easier to enforce than multiple resource-specific or activity-specific regulations . However, there is a clear need for increased investments in enforcement assets to ensure that protected areas do not benefit a few violators at the expense of law-abiders – a few violators could have significant impacts on protected resources, and will reduce the value of future evaluations of the success of MPA s. Enforcement assets should be considered early in planning and budgeting processes for new MPAs, and law enforcement representatives should remain involved in these processes from start to finish. Since many MPAs may rely heavily on voluntary compliance, significant investments in outreach and education initiatives through main-stream media outlets are needed to increase awareness – particularly among visiting and recreational users. Simple , straightforward rules

and attention to the boundary and zoning suggestion s described in Section 5 will also be important in fostering a broader understanding of MPA goals and regulations , and increased attention to personal interactions between enforcement officers and users, and expanded support of community self-enforcement, would likely bolster voluntary compliance. Prior to the establishment of new MPAs or MPA systems, comprehensive assessments should be undertaken to gauge the potential for voluntary compliance, and the factors that might influence compliance across all user groups. Remote monitoring and enforcement technologies hold a great deal of promise in supplementing at-sea enforcement activities. NOAA Fisheries is monitoring over 2,000 vessels using VMS ; and an estimated 12,000

additional vessels are operating in federal fisheries that might readily benefit from VMS implementation (Spurrier 2004). By alerting enforcement officers to potential violations as they occur, VMS can reduce the need for onsite presence, improve operational efficiencies, and enable preventative measures, such as instant email warning messages to vessels entering closed areas. However, the potential value of VMS in apprehending violators and prosecuting cases is greatest for “no-take” marine reserves that have few or no regulatory exceptions (for example, vessel transit only). These types of MPAs constitute a small minority of marine managed areas in U.S. waters. The systems could also prove cost-prohibitive for implementation across all user groups and MPA types. However, the USCG is considering the potential for requiring new Automatic Identification Systems to monitor all vessels (of a minimum size) within its Maritime Domain Awareness strategy (USCG 2002). The scope of future deployments and uses of VMS technology, therefore, remains unclear. Further research is needed on the utility of other remote monitoring technologies – particularly for the enforcement of offshore MPAs. This report is intended to provide a foundation for the future coordination of a national system of Marine Protected Areas, as called for in Executive Order 13158. An important focus of this coordination will concern interagency partnerships for MPA enforcement. Two key needs for strengthened partnerships, as described by

participants in various sections of this report, are 1) strategic enforcement planning and partnerships within and between the federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over MPA systems ; and 2) improved information sharing across agencies for site-specific MPA enforcement planning and coordination. The National Marine Protected Areas Center can play an important role in

fostering enforcement coordination , training enforcement officers on the various types of

MPAs they may encounter, and advancing consistent terminologies, standards, and

regulatory clarity for a national system of MPAs.

No War

General No WarGreat-power war is implausible – international system, globalization, and interdependenceDeudney and Ikenberry 09 [Daniel, Ph.D. in political science from Princeton University, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University; and G. John, Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University, former Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, former fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former Hitachi International Affairs Fellow (awarded by the Council on Foreign Relations), Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University; January/February 2009, “The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail,” Foreign Affairs, Volume 88, Number 1, p. 77-93, ProQuest] WDFortunately, this new conventional wisdom about autocratic revival is as much an exaggeration of a few years of headlines as was the proclamation of the end of history

at the end of the Cold War. The proposition that autocracies have achieved a new lease on life and are emerging today as a viable alternative within the global capitalist system is wrong. Just as important, the policies promoted by the autocratic revivalists are unlikely to be successful and, if anything, would be counterproductivedriving autocracies away from the liberal system and thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Although today's autocracies may be more competent and more adept at accommodating capitalism than their predecessors were, they are nonetheless fundamentally constrained by deep-seated incapacities that promise to limit their viability over the long run. Ultimately, autocracies will

move toward liberalism. The success of regimes such as those in China and Russia is not a refutation of the liberal vision; the recent success of autocratic states has depended on their access to the international liberal order, and they remain dependent on its success. Furthermore, the relentless imperatives of rising global interdependence create powerful and growing incentives for states to engage in international cooperat ion regardless of regime type. ¶ The resilience of autocracies calls not for abandoning or retreating from liberal internationalism but rather for refining and strengthening it. If liberal democratic states react to revived autocracies solely with policies of containment, arms competition, and exclusive bloc building, as neoconservatives advise, the result is likely to be a strengthening and encouragement of illiberal tendencies in these countries. In contrast, cooperatively tackling common global problems-such as climate change, energy security, and disease-will increase the stakes that autocratic regimes have in the liberal order. Western states must also find ways to accommodate rising states-whether autocratic or democraticand integrate them into the governance of international institutions. Given the powerful logic that connects modernization and liberalization, autocratic regimes face strong incentives to liberalize. The more accommodating and appealing the liberal path is, the more quickly and easily the world's current illiberal powers will choose the path of political reform.¶ RECALLING THE GREAT DEBATE¶ THE RECENT prophecies of autocratic revival mark a new stage in the debate over the prospects for liberal democratic capitalism. This debate began with the Industrial Revolution. The question then was whether there were multiple modernities or only one path to progress-and, if the latter, what that path was. Leading theorists, most notably Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Max Weber, offered alternative claims about which socioeconomic and political systems would prove most viable given the constraints and opportunities of the Industrial Revolution. In these grand debates, the question of who was on "the right side of history" was contested and unresolved. It is often forgotten that as late as the 1940s, the authoritarian alternative was not only embodied in such states as Nazi Germany but also seriously advanced by some social theorists as the best model for industrial modernity. Indeed, when the American theorist James Burnham claimed in 1941 that "capitalism is not going to continue much longer," this was hardly an outlandish sentiment. Even with the defeat of the Axis states, the theoretical question of whether communism and socialism offered a fundamental alternative to liberal capitalism persisted through much of the Cold War.¶ Two decades ago, the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union and the international communist bloc seemed to resolve this debate in favor of the liberal side once and for all. The ability of the Western states to generate wealth and power seemed to prove that liberal democracy represented the sole pathway to sustained modernization; there was but one successful model, pioneered and embodied in the West. It was this juncture that heady proclamations of the end of history seemed so plausible. The near-universal eagerness of peoples and states to join the expanding capitalist international system gave further credibility to this liberal vision.¶ The debate was not simply about rival socioeconomic systems within states but also about rival ways of ordering international politics. Just as the Nazis envisioned a "new order" for Europe and the Soviet Union designed an interstate economic and political order, so, too, did the liberal West. Beginning in the late 1940s, responding to the crisis of industrial capitalism of the Great Depression in the 1930s and taking advantage of U.S. geopolitical dominance in the wake of World War II, the United States spearheaded the creation of a set of international rules and institutions, most notably the Bretton Woods system, the un, and various security partnerships. Taken together, U.S. hegemony and this liberal international

order gave liberal democratic states a greater presence in world politics than they had ever experienced before; they also provided a structure that other states could engage with and join, one that could reorient those states in a liberal direction.¶ It is against this backdrop that the recent claims of autocratic viability are being advanced. The spectacular rates of capitalist growth in autocratic China and the reassertion of a tsarist central state in a growing Russia have reopened the great debate. These developments have led many observers to conclude that there are multiple paths to capitalist modernity and that authoritarianism is quite compatible with capitalism. The historian Azar Gat has argued in these pages ("The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers," July/August 2007) that China and Russia mark "a return of economically successful authoritarian capitalist powers" and "may represent a viable alternative path to modernity." This implies that there is no inevitable connection between the economic liberalization associated with capitalism and economic globalization, on the one hand, and the political liberalization associated with liberal democracy and limited-government constitutionalism, on the other. Within the two centuries of the debate over industrial modernity, the autocratic revival thesis represents a broadening from the "end of history" position but, importantly, accepts that it is capitalism, not socialism, that is the sole viable economic system. Kagan acknowledges that "in the long run, rising prosperity may well produce political liberalism," but he holds that the long run "may be too long to have any strategic or geopolitical relevance."¶ The supposed autocratic revival has also triggered a reassessment of why earlier autocratic states failed. Gat, for example, contends that the earlier failure of authoritarian capitalist states was a product of contingent factors rather than some deep misfit between industrial capitalism and closed authoritarian political systems. He argues that the failure of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan-both of which were capitalist states-resulted from their insufficient territorial size and industrial bases rather than some more essential flaw. Conversely, the U. S.-British victory derived not from the advantages of liberal democratic political institutions but rather from advantages in territory, population, and economic output. In short, the selection out of these earlier authoritarian capitalist states was inappropriately attributed by the liberal narrative to intrinsic weaknesses of the model rather than to contingent circumstances.¶ This historical revisionism fails, however, to acknowledge the ways in which the relative war performance of the Axis and Allied powers in World War II was profoundly affected by their radically different political systems. First, the formation of grand strategy by Hitler s Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Tojos Japan was marked by colossal blunders in assessing adversaries and initiating military campaigns. Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union and declaration of war against the United States not only doomed his regime but also were intimate manifestations of his particular worldview, which was given complete reign by the regime's closed and dictatorial rule. Second, the way in which the authoritarian and totalitarian states mobilized for war was haphazard and often grossly inefficient-again reflecting unaccountable decision-making. Despite its extraordinarily ambitious grand strategic goals, Germany did not fully mobilize its industrial economy until late in the war because Hider was afraid of popular discontent; the imperial Japanese army and navy not only did not communicate or coordinate strategy but also maintained separate and incompatible industrial production systems. And finally, the alliance coordination between the United States and the United Kingdom, although marked by constant petty frictions, was vastly superior to that of the Axis states, who were allies more in name than in fact. In short, the relative performance of democratic and autocratic regimes in World War II was profoundly shaped by the features of their political systems, giving heavy

advantages to the Allies.¶ A WEAK REVIVAL¶ How compatible are authoritarian political systems with privateproperty-based capitalist economies today? The autocratic revivalists claim that the combination of authoritarian political systems and capitalism in major countries such as China and Russia is not a fleeting stage of transition but a durable alternative to the Western combination of political democracy and capitalism. If this is true, then the prospects for liberal democracy are far less bright than the liberal narrative stretching from the Enlightenment to the 1990s allows. The autocratic revival thesis holds that deep political incompatibilities between states will persist alongside the ongoing spread of capitalism, dashing hopes for the transformation of international politics into a universal liberal peace. This thesis, however, has several profound weaknesses.¶ Proponents of the autocratic viability argument set up something of a straw man in their insistence that the absence of political liberalization in China and Russia refutes the liberal vision. The spectacular end of the Cold War and the rush of political and economic change in its wake produced unrealistic expectations. And their inevitable disappointment has provided the opening for the larger claims of autocratic revival. On the U.S. political scene, the debate during the Clinton era about the pros and cons of Chinese ascension to the World Trade Organization (wto) was accompanied by assertions that China's opening up to international capitalism would soon bear fruits of political liberalization. These expectations for rapid political opening, however, had little basis in the theories connecting capitalist modernization with political liberalization. (The theories did not claim that the political consequences would be immediate and acknowledged that there would be uneven and lagging transitions.) Also, there are compelling explanations for the short-term persistence of autocracy in China and Russia, related to their historical experience as multiethnic states subject to fragmentation and foreign great-power encroachment. These external and historical factors slowing liberalization were long

in the making, but they can be ameliorated by the engagement and accommodation of the Western powers.¶ Contrary to the autocratic revival thesis, there are in fact deep contradictions between authoritarian political systems and capitalist economic systems. These contradictions exist in todays capitalist autocracies, and the resolution of these contradictions is likely to lead to political liberalization. There are many ways in which capitalism connects to political democracy, but three are most important. First, rising levels of wealth and education create demands for political participation and accountability. The basic logic behind this link is that rising living standards made possible because of capitalism over time generate a socioeconomic

strata-loosely, the middle class-whose interests come to challenge closed political decision-making. Second is the relationship between capitalist property systems and the rule of law. In a capitalist economic system, by definition, the means of production are held as private property and economic transactions occur through contracts. For capitalism to function, the enforcement of contracts and the

adjudication of business disputes require court systems and the rule of law. The practice of independent rights in the economic sphere and the institutions they require are an intrinsic limitation on state power and, over time, create demands for

wider political rights. Third, the economic development propelled by capitalism leads to a divergence of interests. Modem industrial societies are marked by an explosion of complexity and the emergence of specialized activities and occupations, thus producing a plural polity rather than a mass polity. The increasing diversity of socioeconomic interests leads to demands for competitive elections between multiple parties. This bleak outlook is based on an exaggeration of recent

developments and ignores powerful countervailing factors and forces. Indeed, contrary to what the revivalists describe, the most striking features of the contemporary international landscape are the intensification of economic globalization, thickening institutions , and shared problems of interdependence. The overall structure of the international system today is quite unlike that of the

nineteenth century. Compared to older orders, the contemporary liberal -centered international order provides a set of constraints and opportunities -of pushes and pulls-that reduce the likelihood of severe conflict while creating strong imperatives for cooperative problem solving.¶ Those invoking the nineteenth century as a model for the twenty-first also fail to acknowledge the

extent to which war as a path to conflict resolution and great- power expansion has become largely obsolete . Most important, nuclear weapons have transformed great-power war from a routine feature of international politics into an exercise in national suicide. With all of the great powers possessing nuclear weapons and ample means to rapidly expand their deterrent

forces, warfare among these states has truly become an option of last resort. The prospect of such great losses has instilled in the great powers a level of caution and restraint that effectively precludes major revisionist efforts. Furthermore, the diffusion of small arms and the near universality of nationalism have severely limited the ability of great powers to conquer and occupy territory inhabited by resisting populations (as Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq have demonstrated). Unlike during the days of empire building in the nineteenth century, states today cannot translate great asymmetries of power into effective territorial control; at most, they can hope for loose hegemonic relationships that require them to give something in return. Also unlike in the nineteenth century, today the density of trade, investment, and production networks across international borders raises even

more the costs of war. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan, to take one of the most plausible cases of a future interstate war, would pose for the Chinese communist regime daunting economic costs , both domestic and international. Taken together, these changes in the economy of violence mean that the international system is far more primed for

peace than the autocratic revivalists acknowledge. ¶ The autocratic revival thesis neglects other key

features of the international system as well. In the nineteenth century, rising states faced an international environment in which they could reasonably expect to translate their growing clout into geopolitical changes that would benefit themselves.

But in the twenty-first century, the status quo is much more difficult to overturn. Simple comparisons between China and the United States with regard to aggregate economic size and capability do not reflect the fact that the United States does not stand alone but rather is the head of a coalition of liberal capitalist states in Europe and East Asia whose aggregate assets far exceed those of China or even of a coalition of autocratic states. Moreover, potentially revisionist autocratic states, most notably China and Russia, are already substantial players and stakeholders in an ensemble of global institutions that make up the status quo, not least the un Security Council (in which they have permanent seats and veto power). Many other global institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, are configured in

such a way that rising states can increase their voice only by buying into the institutions. The path way to modernity for rising states is not outside and against the status quo but rather inside and through the flexible and accommodating institutions of the liberal international order. ¶ The fact that these autocracies are capitalist has profound implications for the nature of their international interests that point toward integration and accommodation in the future. The domestic viability of these regimes hinges on their ability to sustain high economic growth rates, which in turn is crucially dependent on international trade and investment; today's autocracies may be illiberal, but they remain fundamentally dependent on a liberal international capitalist system. It is not surprising that China made major domestic changes in order to join the WTO or that Russia is seeking to do so now. The

dependence of autocratic capitalist states on foreign trade and investment means that they have a fundamental interest in maintaining an open , rule-based economic system. (Although these autocratic states

do pursue bilateral trade and investment deals, particularly in energy and raw materials, this does not obviate their more basic dependence on and commitment to the wto order.) In the case of China, because of its extensive dependence on industrial exports, the wto may act as a vital bulwark against protectionist tendencies in importing states. Given their position in this system, which so serves their interests, the autocratic states are unlikely to become champions of an alternative global or

regional economic order, let alone spoilers intent on seriously damaging the existing one.¶ The prospects for revisionist behavior on the part of the capitalist autocracies are further reduced by the large and growing social net- works across international borders. Not only have these

states joined the world economy, but their people - particularly upwardly mobile and educated elites - have increasingly joined the world community. In large and growing numbers, citizens of autocratic capitalist states are participating in a sprawling array of transnational educational, business, and avocational networks. As individuals are socialized into the values and orientations of these

networks, stark "us versus them" cleavages become more difficult to generate and sustain. As the Harvard political scientist Alastair Iain Johnston has argued, China's ruling elite has also been socialized, as its foreign policy establishment has internalized the norms and practices of the international diplomatic community. China, far from cultivating causes for territorial dispute with its neighbors, has instead sought to resolve numerous historically inherited border conflicts, acting like a satisfied status quo state. These social and diplomatic processes and developments suggest that

there are strong tendencies toward normalization operating here.¶ Finally, there is an emerging set of global problems stemming from industrialism and economic globalization that will create common interests across states regardless of regime type. Autocratic China is as dependent on imported oil as are democratic Europe, India, Japan, and the United States, suggesting an alignment of interests against petroleum-exporting autocracies, such as Iran and Russia. These states share a common interest in price stability and supply security that could form the basis for a revitalization of the

International Energy Agency, the consumer association created during the oil turmoil of the 1970s. The emergence of global warming and climate change as significant problems also suggests possibilities for alignments and cooperative ventures cutting across the autocratic-democratic divide. Like the United States, China is not only a major contributor to greenhouse gas accumulation but also likely to be a major victim of climate-induced desertification and coastal flooding. Its rapid industrialization and consequent pollution means that China, like other developed countries, will increasingly need to import technologies and innovative solutions for environmental management. Resource scarcity and environmental deterioration pose global threats that no state will be able to solve alone, thus placing a

further premium on political integration and cooperative institution building.¶ Analogies between the nineteenth century and the twenty-first are based on a severe mischaracterization of the actual conditions of the new era . The declining utility of war, the thickening of

international transactions and institutions, and emerging resource and environmental

interdependencies together undercut scenarios of international conflict and instability based on autocratic-democratic rivalry and autocratic revisionism. In fact, the conditions of the twenty-first century point to the renewed value of international integration and cooperation.

Economic interdependence checks against war Aziz 14 (John Aziz, Economics and business correspondent, “Don't worry: World War III will almost certainly never happen,” The Week, 3-6-14, http://theweek.com/article/index/257517/dont-worry-world-war-iii-will-almost-certainly-never-happen, accessed 7-1-14)In a global war, global trade becomes a nightmare. Shipping becomes more expensive due to higher insurance costs, and riskier because it's subject to seizures, blockades, ship sinkings. Many goods, intermediate components or resources — including energy supplies like coal and oil, components for military hardware, etc, may become temporarily unavailable in certain areas. Sometimes — such as occurred in the Siege of Leningrad during World War II — the supply of food can be cut off. This is why countries hold strategic reserves of things like helium, pork, rare earth metals and oil, coal, and gas. These kinds of breakdowns were troublesome enough in the economic landscape of the early and mid-20th century, when the last global wars

occurred. But in today's ultra-globalized and ultra-specialized economy? The level of economic adaptation — even for large countries like Russia and the United States with lots of land and natural resources — required to adapt to a world war would be crushing, and huge numbers of business and livelihoods would be wiped out.¶ In other words, global trade interdependency has become, to borrow a phrase from finance, too big to fail.¶ It is easy to complain about the reality of big business influencing or controlling politicians. But big business has just about the most to lose from breakdowns in global trade. A practical example: If Russian oligarchs make their money from selling gas and natural resources to Western Europe, and send their children to schools in Britain and Germany, and lend and borrow money from the West's financial centers, are they going to be willing to tolerate Vladimir Putin starting a regional war in Eastern Europe (let alone a world war)? Would the Chinese financial industry be happy to see their multi-trillion dollar investments in dollars and U.S. treasury debt go up in smoke? Of course, world wars have been waged despite international business interests, but the world today is far more globalized than ever before and well-connected domestic interests are more dependent on access to global markets, components and resources, or the repayment of foreign debts. These are huge disincentives to global war.¶ But what of the military-industrial complex? While other businesses might be hurt due to a breakdown in trade, surely military contractors and weapons manufacturers are happy with war? Not necessarily. As the last seventy years illustrates, it is perfectly possible for weapons contractors to enjoy the profits from huge military spending without a global war. And the uncertainty of a breakdown in global trade could hurt weapons contractors just as much as other industries in terms of losing access to global markets. That means weapons manufacturers may be just as uneasy about the prospects for large-scale war as other businesses.

No war – democracy and cyber connectivity means that populations sympathize with other nations to prevent draw-inAziz 14 (John Aziz, Economics and business correspondent, “Don't worry: World War III will almost certainly never happen,” The Week, 3-6-14, http://theweek.com/article/index/257517/dont-worry-world-war-iii-will-almost-certainly-never-happen, accessed 7-1-14)Other changes have been social in nature. Obviously, democratic countries do not tend to go to war with each other, and the spread of liberal democracy is correlated against the decrease in war around the world. But the spread of internet technology and social media has brought the world much closer together, too. As late as the last world war, populations were separated from each other by physical distance, by language barriers, and by lack of mass communication tools. This means that it was easy for war-mongering politicians to sell a population on the idea that the enemy is evil. It's hard to empathize with people who you only see in slanted government propaganda reels. Today, people from enemy countries can come together in cyberspace and find out that the "enemy" is not so different, as occurred in the Iran-Israel solidarity movement of 2012. ¶ More importantly, violent incidents and deaths can be broadcast to the world much more easily. Public shock and disgust at the brutal reality of war broadcast over YouTube and Facebook makes it much more difficult for governments to carry out large scale military aggressions. For example, the Kremlin's own pollster today released a survey showing that 73 percent of Russians disapprove of Putin's handling of the Ukraine crisis, with only 15 percent of the nation supporting a response to the overthrow of the government in Kiev. There are, of course, a few countries like North Korea that deny their citizens access to information that might contradict the government's propaganda line. And

sometimes countries ignore mass anti-war protests — as occurred prior to the Iraq invasion of 2003 — but generally a more connected, open, empathetic and democratic world has made it much harder for war-mongers to go to war.

No War—empirics and longitudinal trends—the world is entering a new era of great power peaceFettweis 10—Christopher J. Fettweis, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, holds a Ph.D. in International Relations and Comparative Politics from the University of Maryland-College Park, October 27, 2010 (Dangerous Times?: The International Politics of Great Power Peace, Georgetown University Press, ISBN 978-1-58901-710-8, Chapter 4: Evaluating the Crystal Balls, p. 83-85)The obsolescence-of-major-war vision of the future differs most drastically from all the others, including the neorealist, in its expectations of the future of conflict in the international system. If the post– Cold War world conformed to neorealist and other pessimistic predictions, warfare ought to continue to be present at all levels of the system, appearing with increasing regularity once the stabilizing influence of bipolarity was removed. If the liberal-constructivist vision is correct, then the world ought to have seen not only no major wars, but also a decrease in the volume and intensity of all kinds of conflict in every region as well. The evidence supports the latter. Major wars tend to be rather memorable, so there is little need to demonstrate that there has been no such conflict since the end of the Cold War. But the data seem to support the “trickledown” theory of stability as well. Empirical analyses of war fare have consistently shown that the number of all types of wars—interstate, civil, ethnic, revolutionary, and so forth— declined throughout the 1990s and into the new century, after a brief surge of postcolonial conflicts in the first few years of that decade. 2 Overall levels of conflict tell only part of the story, however. Many other aspects of international behavior, including some that might be considered secondary effects of warfare, are on the decline as well. Some of the more important, if perhaps under reported, aggregate global trends include the following: Ethnic conflict. Ethnonational wars for independence have declined to their lowest level since 1960 , the first year for which we have data . 3 Repression and political discrimination against ethnic minorities. The Minorities at Risk project at the University of Maryland has tracked a decline in the number of minority groups around the world that experience discrimination at the hands of states, from seventy-five in 1991 to forty-one in 2003. 4 War termination versus outbreak. War termination settlements have proven to be more stable over time, and the number of new conflicts is lower than ever before. 5 Magnitude of conflict/battle deaths. The average number of battle deaths per conflict per year has been steadily declining. 6 The risk for the average person of dying in battle has been plummeting since World War II— and rather drastically so since the end of the Cold War. 7 Genocide. Since war is usually a necessary condition for genocide, 8 perhaps it should be unsurprising that the incidence of genocide and other mass slaughters declined by 90 percent between 1989 and 2005, memorable tragedies notwithstanding. 9 Coups. Armed overthrow of government is becoming increasingly rare , even as the number of national governments is expanding along with the number of states. 10 Would be coup plotters no longer garner the kind of automatic outside support that they could have expected during the Cold War, or at virtually any time of great power tension.

Third party intervention. Those conflicts that do persist have less support from outside actors , just as the constructivists expected. When the great powers have intervened in local conflicts, it has usually been in the attempt to bring a conflict to an end or, in the case of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, to punish aggression. 11 Human rights abuses. Though not completely gone, the number of largescale abuses of human rights is also declining . Overall, there has been a clear, if uneven, decrease in what the Human Security Centre calls “one-sided violence against civilians” since 1989. 12 Global military spending. World military spending declined by one third in the first decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. 13 Today that spending is less than 2.5 percent of global GDP, which is about two-thirds of what it was during the Cold War.Terrorist attacks. In perhaps the most counterintuitive trend, the number of worldwide terrorist incidents is far smaller than it was during the Cold War. If Iraq and South Asia were to be removed from the data, a clear, steady downward trend would become apparent. There were 300 terrorist incidents worldwide in 1991, for instance, and 58 in 2005. 14 International conflict and crises have steadily declined in number and intensity since the end of the Cold War. By virtually all measures, the world is a far more peaceful place than it has been at any time in recorded history. Taken together, these trends seem to suggest that the rules by which international politics are run may indeed be changing.

No risk of nuclear war or great power conflict—nuclear deterrence. Tepperman 9 — Jonathan Tepperman, Deputy Editor of Newsweek, Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, now Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, holds a B.A. in English Literature from Yale University, an M.A. in Jurisprudence from Oxford University, and an LL.M. in International Law from New York University, 2009 (“Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” The Daily Beast, August 28th, Available Online at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/28/why-obama-should-learn-to-love-the-bomb.print.html, Accessed 01-27-2012)A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume. The bomb may actually

make us safer . In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that's a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Obama's idealistic campaign, so out of character for a pragmatic administration, may be unlikely to get far (past presidents have tried and failed). But it's not even clear he should make the effort. There are more important measures the U.S. government can and should take to make the real world safer, and these mustn't be ignored in the name of a dreamy ideal (a nuke-free planet) that's both unrealistic and possibly undesirable.The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 .

Second, there's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states."

To understand why—and why the next 64 years are likely to play out the same way—you need to start by recognizing that all states are rational on some basic level . Their leaders may be stupid, petty, venal, even evil, but they tend to do things only when they're pretty sure they can get away with them. Take war: a country will start a fight only when it's almost certain it can get what it wants at an acceptable price. Not even Hitler or Saddam waged wars they didn't think

they could win . The problem historically has been that leaders often make the wrong gamble and underestimate the other side—and millions of innocents pay the price.Nuclear weapons change all that by maki ng the costs of war obvious , inevitable, and unacceptable. Suddenly, when both sides have the ability to turn the other to ashes with the push of a button—and everybody knows it— the basic math shifts . Even the craziest tin-pot

dictator is forced to accept that war with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth

the effort . As Waltz puts it, "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?"

Why indeed? The iron logic of deterrence and m utually a ssured d estruction is so compelling ,

it's led to what's known as the nuclear peace : the virtually unprecedented stretch since the

end of World War II in which all the world's major powers have avoided coming to blows . They did fight proxy wars, ranging from Korea to Vietnam to Angola to Latin America. But these never matched the furious destruction of full-on, great-power war (World War II alone was responsible for some 50 million to 70 million deaths). And since the end of the Cold War, such bloodshed has declined precipitously. Meanwhile, the nuclear powers have scrupulously avoided direct combat, and there's very good reason to think they always will . There have been some near misses, but a close look at these cases is fundamentally reassuring —because

in each instance , very different leaders all came to the same safe conclusion .Take the mother of all nuclear standoffs: the Cuban missile crisis. For 13 days in October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union each threatened the other with destruction. But both countries soon stepped back from the brink when they recognized that a war would have meant curtains for everyone. As important as the fact that they did is the reason why: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's aide Fyodor Burlatsky said later on, "It is impossible to win a nuclear war, and both sides realized that, maybe for the first time."The record since then shows the same pattern repeating: nuclear-armed enemies slide toward

war , then pull back , always for the same reasons . The best recent example is India and Pakistan, which fought three bloody wars after independence before acquiring their own nukes in 1998. Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn't do anything to lessen their animosity. But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations (like Pakistani-based terrorist attacks on India in 2001 and 2008). They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up, in Kashmir in 1999, both countries were careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other's vital interests. Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and coauthor of the forthcoming India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, has found that on both sides, officials' thinking was strikingly similar to that of the Russians and Americans in 1962. The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with a nuclear holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it.Nuclear pessimists—and there are many—insist that even if this pattern has held in the past, it's crazy to rely on it in the future, for several reasons. The first is that today's nuclear wannabes

are so completely unhinged, you'd be mad to trust them with a bomb. Take the sybaritic Kim Jong Il, who's never missed a chance to demonstrate his battiness, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust and promised the destruction of Israel, and who, according to some respected Middle East scholars, runs a messianic martyrdom cult that would welcome nuclear obliteration. These regimes are the ultimate rogues, the thinking goes—and there's no deterring rogues.But are Kim and Ahmadinejad really scarier and crazier than were Stalin and Mao? It might look that way from Seoul or Tel Aviv, but history says otherwise. Khrushchev, remember, threatened to "bury" the United States, and in 1957, Mao blithely declared that a nuclear war with America wouldn't be so bad because even "if half of mankind died … the whole world would become socialist." Pyongyang and Tehran support terrorism—but so did Moscow and Beijing. And as for seeming suicidal, Michael Desch of the University of Notre Dame points out that Stalin and Mao are the real record holders here: both were responsible for the deaths of some 20 million of their own citizens.Yet when push came to shove, their regimes balked at nuclear suicide , and so would today's

international bogeymen . For all of Ahmadinejad's antics, his power is limited, and the clerical regime has always proved rational and pragmatic when its life is on the line. Revolutionary Iran has never started a war, has done deals with both Washington and Jerusalem, and sued for peace in its war with Iraq (which Saddam started) once it realized it couldn't win. North Korea, meanwhile, is a tiny, impoverished, family-run country with a history of being invaded; its overwhelming preoccupation is survival, and every time it becomes more belligerent it reverses itself a few months later (witness last week, when Pyongyang told Seoul and Washington it was ready to return to the bargaining table). These countries may be brutally oppressive, but nothing in their behavior suggests they have a death wish .

Global Empiricism disproves the thesis of their argument: no major war is likely to happenFettweis 10—Christopher J. Fettweis, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, holds a Ph.D. in International Relations and Comparative Politics from the University of Maryland-College Park, October 27, 2010 (Dangerous Times?: The International Politics of Great Power Peace, Georgetown University Press, ISBN 978-1-58901-710-8, Chapter 4: Evaluating the Crystal Balls, p. 85-87)The trend is apparent on every continent. The only conflict raging in the entire Western Hemisphere in 2010 was the ongoing civil war in Colombia, and even that was far less bloody than a decade prior. Cruise ships have returned to Caratagena. Despite the fact that there are no nuclear weapons south of the United States, the states of Central and South America act as if they do not fear an attack from their neighbors. The rules of realpolitik no longer seem to apply. Europe, which of course has been the most war-prone of continent s for most of human history, is entirely calm , without even the threat of interstate conflict. More than one scholar has noted the rather remarkable fact that no serious war planning now goes on among the European powers. 15 “All over Europe and the Americas,” John Keegan has observed, “armies are withering away.” 16 The situations in Bosnia and Kosovo, while not sett led, are at least calm for the moment. And in contrast to 1914, the great powers have shown no eagerness to fill Balkan power vacuums; to the contrary, throughout the 1990s they had to be shamed into intervention, and were on the same side when they eventually did so. International reactions

to turmoil in the Balkans in 1914 and in 1992 demonstrate the extent to which the international system had changed. Today’s power vacuums seem to repel far more than they

attract.Every one of the roughly two billion people of the Pacific Rim is currently living in a society at peace . The brief-but-bloody Sri Lankan civil war was Asia’s only conflict of significance in 2009. The pacific trend was even visible in Africa where , despite a variety of ongoing serious challenges, levels of conflict were the lowest they have ever been in the centuries of written history about the continent. Douglas Lemke has pointed out that, despite the fact that “existing research on the causes of war and conditions of peace suggests the likelihood of war in Africa is especially high ,” the continent is the world’s most peaceful in terms of interstate war. 17 Darfur and the Congo are the only real extended tragedies still under way; the intensity of the internal conflicts simmering in Algeria, Somalia, the Central African Republic, and a couple of other places is lower than a decade ago. This can all change quite rapidly— Ethiopia and Eritrea might at any moment decide to renew their pointless fighting over uninhabitable land, for instance— but as of now, the continent has never been more stable. West Africa is quiet, at least for the time being, as is all of southern Africa, despite the criminally negligent governance of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. In the greater Middle East the Israeli-Palestinian issue continues to simmer at somewhat low levels with occasional eruptions, as does the endless civil war in Yemen. And while the two guerilla campaigns in which the United States and its allies find themselves bogged down show no signs of ending, they are relatively small wars compared to those that have taken place in the region in the past. Only one international conflict has occurred since the 2003 war in Iraq, and it can be counted only if the definition of “war” is stretched a bit. Despite the sound and fury that accompanied the 2008 Russo-Georgian clash , especially during the U.S. presidential campaign, the combined casualty total appears to be under one thousand battle deaths, which means it would not qualify as a war according to the most commonly used definitions. 18 None of this is to suggest that these places are without problems, of course. But given the rapid increase in world population and number of countries (the League of Nations had 63 members at its peak between the wars while the United Nations currently has 192), a pure extrapolation of historical trends would lead one to expect a great deal more warfare than there currently is. Attempts at conquest, it seems, are simply far less common today than they have been throughout history. Territorial disputes , which have led to more wars than any other single cause, have dropped to record low levels, especially among the great powers. 19 International borders have all but hardened . 20 State survival, the key factor driving behavior according to defensive realists, is today all but assured for even the smallest of states . 21 Throughout most of human history, the obliteration of political entities was a distinct possibility. Polities as diverse as Central Asian empires, Greek poleis, and German princely states were all at risk of conquest or absorption by powerful neighbors. That this no longer occurs is an underappreciated break from the past. Since zero UN members have been forcibly removed from the map. The only country to disappear against its will— South Vietnam— held only observer status in the United Nations. As Martin Van Creveld has pointed out, the world reacted in a uniform, collective manner to Saddam Hussein’s attempt to absorb Kuwait , perhaps demonstrating the existence of a norm against territorial conquest. 22 Today , for the first time in history, political entities are safe

from complete annihilation or absorption by their neighbors. Conquest is dead . 23

So while the retreat-from-doomsday hypothesis may seem at first Eurocentric and irrelevant for much of the world, in fact there is some early evidence to indicate that the end of warfare in the North may mean the beginning of its decline in the South . Despite perceptions that the current wars “on terror” and in Iraq may have created, overall levels of conflict have abated over the last seventeen years, just as the constructivist vision expected. There remains a human (and perhaps particularly American) tendency to replace one threat with another, to see international politics as an arena of competition and danger. 24 The intersection of personal and group psychology in relation to international events is an area in need of a good deal of further research.

Empirically proven—war is remarkably rare. Mueller 9 — John Mueller, Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California-Los Angeles, 2009 (“War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment,” Political Science Quarterly, Volume 124, Number 2, Summer, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via IngentaConnect, p. 310-312)No matter how defined, then, there has been a most notable decline in the frequency of wars over the last years. As Table 1 suggests, between 2002 and 2008, few wars really shattered the 1,000 battle or battle-related death threshold .37 Beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, violent flare-ups have exceeded the yearly battle death threshold during the period in Kashmir, Nepal, Colombia, Burundi, Liberia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, Pakistan and Uganda. Almost all of these have just barely done so. Indeed, if the yearly threshold were raised to a not-unreasonable 3,000, almost the only war of any kind that has taken place anywhere in the world since 2001 would be the one in Iraq.Several of these intermittent armed conflicts could potentially rise above the violence threshold in the future, though outside of Afghanistan, most of these seem to be declining in violence. Ethiopia and Eritrea continue to glare at each other, and plenty of problems remain in the Middle East, where in 2006 [end page 310; page 311 omitted — graph] and again in 2009, Israel took on a substate group based in another country, and where the Iraq conflict could have spillover effects. And, of course, new wars could emerge in other places: concerns about China and the Taiwan issue, for example, are certainly justified, and many in the developed world advocate the application of warfare as a last resort to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by undesirable countries.38 Moreover, there has been “intercommunal” or “substate” violence in countries like Nigeria (and Iraq) that often certainly resembles warfare, but is removed from consideration here by the definitional requirement that something labeled a “war” must have a government on at least one side.However, war, as conventionally, even classically, understood, has, at least for the time being, become a remarkably rare phenomenon . Indeed, if civil war becomes (or remains) as

uncommon as the international variety, war could be on the verge of ceasing to exist as a

substantial phenomenon .

Great power war unlikely and future wars will be less brutal Goldstein 11—Joshua S. Goldstein, Professor Emeritus, School of International Service, American University, Nonresident Sadat Senior Fellow, CIDCM, University of Maryland and Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, 2011 (“Think Again: War,” Foreign Policy, August

15th, Available online at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war, Accessed 7-1-14)"Wars Will Get Worse in the Future."Probably not. Anything is possible, of course: A full-blown war between India and Pakistan, for instance, could potentially kill millions of people. But so could an asteroid or -- perhaps the safest bet -- massive storms triggered by climate change. The big forces that push civilization in the direction of cataclysmic conflict, however, are mostly ebbing.Recent technological changes are making war less brutal, not more so. Armed drones now attack targets that in the past would have required an invasion with thousands of heavily armed troops, displacing huge numbers of civilians and destroying valuable property along the way. And

improvements in battlefield medicine have made combat less lethal for participants. In the U.S. Army,

the chances of dying from a combat injury fell from 30 percent in World War II to 10 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan -- though this also means the United States is now seeing a higher proportion of injured veterans who need continuing support and care.Nor do shifts in the global balance of power doom us to a future of perpetual war. While some political scientists argue that an increasingly multipolar world is an increasingly volatile one -- that peace is best assured by the predominance of a single hegemonic power, namely the United States -- recent geopolitical history suggests otherwise. Relative U.S. power and worldwide conflict have waned in tandem over the past decade. The exceptions to the trend, Iraq and Afghanistan, have been lopsided wars waged by the hegemon, not challenges by up-and-coming new powers. The best precedent for today's emerging world order may be the 19th-century Concert of Europe, a collaboration of great powers that largely maintained the peace for a century until its breakdown and the bloodbath of World War I.

What about China, the most ballyhooed rising military threat of the current era? Beijing is indeed modernizing its armed forces, racking up double-digit rates of growth in military spending, now about $100 billion a year. That is second only to

the United States, but it is a distant second: The Pentagon spends nearly $700 billion. Not only is China a very long way from being able to go toe-to-toe with the United States; it's not clear why it would want to. A military conflict (particularly with its biggest customer and debtor) would impede China's global trading posture and endanger its prosperity. Since Chairman Mao's death, China has been hands down the most peaceful great power of its time. For all the recent concern about a newly assertive Chinese navy in disputed international waters, China's military hasn't fired a single shot in battle in 25 years.

War is obsolete—historical trends. Mueller 9 — John Mueller, Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California-Los Angeles, 2009 (“War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment,” Political Science Quarterly, Volume 124, Number 2, Summer, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via IngentaConnect, p. 300-303)Applying my preferred definition of war—one that is effectively used in perhaps 95 percent of the literature on the subject—Figure 1 supplies a frequency distribution for the number of civil, imperial and colonial, and international wars going on in each year in the post-World War II period. To repeat: an armed conflict is considered to be a war if at least 1,000 battle or battle-related deaths are inflicted in the indicated year.To assess the trends, it is useful to consider four types of war: wars among developed countries, other international wars, colonial and imperial wars, and civil wars.International War among Developed Countries: The Rise of War Aversion

As can be seen in Figure 1, international wars during the period have been quite infrequent .However, the data so arrayed actually mask what is likely to constitute the most significant number in the history of warfare: zero (or near-zero). This i s the number of wars that have taken place since 1945 between developed states (or “civilized nations” as Gooch would have it). These are conventionally taken to include the countries of Europe (both Eastern and Western), that continent’s offshoots, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and a few other countries, such as Japan.Shattering centuries of bloody practice, these count[r]ies have substantially abandoned war as a method for dealing with their disagreements. Until about a hundred years ago, war was widely accepted as a positive thing in that area: as military historian Michael Howard has observed, “Before 1914 war was [end page 300] almost universally considered to be an acceptable, perhaps an inevitable and for many people a desirable way of settling international differences.”15Thus, five years before writing his treatise, Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant held that “a prolonged peace favors the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation.” Somewhat later Alexis de Tocqueville concluded that “war almost always enlarges the mind of a people and raises their character,” and Frederick the Great observed, “War opens the most fruitful field to all virtues, for at every moment constancy, pity, magnanimity, heroism, and mercy shine forth in it.” In 1895, the distinguished American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., told the Harvard graduating class that a world with- out the “divine folly of honor” would not be endurable, and the one thing he found to be “true and adorable” was “the faith... which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty, in a cause which he little [end page 301] understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has no notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use.”For some, it followed that periodic wars were necessary to cleanse the nation from the decadence of peace. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, “It is mere illusion and pretty sentiment to expect much (even anything at all) from mankind if it forgets how to make war,” and J.A. Cramb, a British professor of history, proclaimed that universal peace would be “a world sunk in bovine content.” In 1871, a French intellectual, Ernest Renan, called war “one of the conditions of progress, the cut of the whip which prevents a country from going to sleep, forcing satisfied mediocrity itself to leave its apathy.” In 1891, novelist Emile Zola found war to be “life itself.... We must eat and be eaten so that the world might live. It is only warlike nations which have prospered: a nation dies as soon as it disarms.” Or, as Russian composer Igor Stravinsky put it simply, war is “necessary for human progress.”16European attitudes toward war changed profoundly at the time of World War I. There is no way to quantify this change except perhaps through a rough sort of content analysis. Before that war, it was very easy, as suggested above, to find serious writers, analysts, and politicians in Europe and the United States exalting war as desirable, inevitable, natural, progressive, and necessary. After the war, however, such people become extremely rare, though the excitement of the combat experience continued (and continues) to have its fascination for some.This abrupt and remarkable change has often been noted by historians and political scientists. In his impressive study of wars since 1400, Evan Luard observes that “the First World War transformed traditional attitudes toward war. For the first time there was a n almost universal sense that the deliberate launching of a war could now no longer be justified .” Bernard Brodie points out that “a basic historical change had taken place in the attitudes of the

European (and American) peoples toward war.” Arnold Toynbee called it the end of a “span of five thousand years during which war had been one of mankind’s master institutions.”17Obviously, this change of attitude was not enough to keep developed countries out of all wars altogether. Most disastrously, it did not prevent the [end page 303] war of 1939–45—although the European half of that conflagration might not have been in the cards in any sense, and was mostly the product of the machi- nations of a single man—or atavism—Adolf Hitler.18 In addition, developed countries, while avoiding war with each other since that cataclysm, have en- gaged in three other types of war: colonial wars, wars generated in peripheral areas by the Cold War of 1945–1989, and what I call “policing wars” in the post-Cold War era. These three kinds of wars are discussed separately below.However, the existence of these wars should not be allowed to cloud an appreciation for the shift of opinion that occurred at the time of the First World War, one that was dramatically

reinforced by the Second. In the process , a standard, indeed classic, variety of war—war among developed countries—has become so rare and unlikely that it could well be considered to be obsolescent , if not obsolete . Reflecting on this phenomenon, Howard mused in 1991 that it had become “quite possible that war in the sense of major, organized armed conflict between highly developed societies may not recur, and that a stable framework for international order will become firmly established.” Two years later, the military historian and analyst John Keegan concluded, in his A History of Warfare, that the kind of war he was principally considering could well be in terminal demise: “War, it seems to me, after a lifetime of reading about the subject, mingling with men of war, visiting the sites of war and observing its effects, may well be ceasing to commend itself to human beings as a desirable or productive, let alone rational, means of reconciling their discontents.” By the end of the century, Mary Kaldor was suggesting that “the barbarity of war between states may have become a thing of the past,” and by the beginning of the new one, Robert Jervis had concluded that war among the leading states “will not occur in the future” or , in the words of Jeffrey Record, may have “ disappeared

altogether .” 19

War is as obsolete as dueling.Mueller 9 — John Mueller, Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California-Los Angeles, 2009 (“War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment,” Political Science Quarterly, Volume 124, Number 2, Summer, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via IngentaConnect, p. 319-321)Many people still consider war to be normal and an inevitable part of international and domestic life. Effectively, even if they accept the trend I have outlined as genuine, they are inclined to see it simply as a readily reversible blip. As one commentator put it to me, “You may be right, but I still have faith in my fellow man.”And of course, I have no way to be certain that the trend in warfare, particularly civil warfare, will continue on its notable, but only rather recent, downward trajectory. After all, Gooch was writing in a period when international war was quite rare and seemed to be becoming even more so, and there were other periods of comparative quiet in the century before World War I.62 Perhaps we have today slumped only temporarily into a similar sort of hiatus even as hideous explosions await us around the corner. Indeed, Colin Gray has recently published a book, Another Bloody Century, confidently asserting that war “will always be with us,” that it “is

a permanent feature of the human condition,” and that “interstate war, including great power conflict, is very much alive and well.”63 [end page 319]Nevertheless, the incredible, completely unprecedented , and now remarkably long-term

absence , or near-absence, of international war in Europe , that once most warlike of continents, suggests that something new may indeed be afoot. Moreover, the relatively peaceful periods in Europe before 1914 were far shorter than the present one, and they were accompanied, as noted earlier, by routine and profuse fulminations about the glories and the sublime benefits of war. Also significant is the near-absence for the last few decades of international wars in which states directly go after each other in the classic manner over matters of dispute such as territory. Moreover, the frequency of civil war, far the most common form of warfare over the last half-century, has now remained at low levels for several years. Although it is obviously far too soon to be completely confident that these levels will continue, there does not seem to be a large number of countries about to descend into internal armed conflict.64At base, it may turn out that war is merely an idea, an institution that has been grafted onto human existence, rather than a trick of fate, a thunderbolt from hell, a natural calamity, a systemic necessity, or a desperate plot contrivance dreamed up by some sadistic puppeteer up high. And the institution may be in pronounced decline , as attitudes toward it have changed, roughly following the pattern according to which the ancient and once-formidable institution of formal, state-sponsored slavery became discredited and then obsolete . All this could

conceivably come about without changing human nature ; without creating an effective world

government or system of i nternational law; without modifying the nature of the state or the nation-state; without expanding international trade, interdependence, or communication; without fabricating an effective moral or practical equivalent to war; without enveloping the earth in democracy or prosperity; without devising ingenious agreements to restrict arms or the arms industry; without reducing the world’s considerable store of hate, selfishness, nationalism, religious intolerance, and racism; without increasing the amount of love, justice, or inner peace in the world; without altering the international system ; without establishing security communities; without improving the competence of political leaders ; and without doing much of anything about nuclear weapons.Even if war fades, however, all sorts of other calamities will persist: the decline of war hardly means that everything will be perfect. Indeed, the [end page 320] one-sided violence committed by predatory militia bands in places like Sudan and Congo can cause more damage and suffering than many wars. But since these bands rarely fight each other—that is, they mostly manage to avoid two-sided violence—the resulting destruction does not constitute warfare by the definition applied in this article.In addition, crime will still exist, and so will terrorism, which, like crime, can be carried out by individuals or by very small groups.65 Indeed, if policing wars are in decline, criminals may take advantage of the situation and expand their predations; whether any such developments cumulate to the point where the situation could be considered warfare would be determined primarily by the response of governments. And, of course, there will certainly be plenty of other problems to worry about—famine, disease, malnutrition, pollution, corruption, poverty, politics, economic travail, and the potential for climate change. Moreover, violent intercommunal warfare remains, as noted, rather extensive, a costly phenomenon that is

excluded from my definition of war through its requirement that a government be one of the parties in the armed conflict.But a continuing decline in war does seem to be a fairly reasonable prospect . And it may be at least time to begin to consider not so much that we “ain’t gonna study war no more,” but rather that, as with formal dueling, as Gooch rather prematurely suggested a hundred years ago, war, as classically defined, may be in the process of becoming a matter mainly of

historical interest .

No ExtinctionNuclear war doesn’t cause extinction –

a) Only some populations are affectedMartin 84 [Brian Martin, Research Associate at Australian National University, SANA Update, “Extinction Politics”, No. 16, May 1984, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sana1.html]Yet in spite of the widespread belief in nuclear extinction, there was almost no scientific support for such a possibility . The scenario of the book and movie On the Beach,[2] with fallout clouds gradually

enveloping the earth and wiping out all life, was and is fiction. The scientific evidence is that fallout would only kill people who are immediately downwind of surface nuclear explosions and who are heavily

exposed during the first few days. Global fallout has no potential for causing massive immediate death (though it could cause up to millions of cancers worldwide over many decades).[3] In spite of the lack of evidence, large sections of the peace movement have left unaddressed the question of whether nuclear war inevitably means global extinction. The next effect to which beliefs in nuclear extinction were attached was ozone depletion. Beginning in the mid-1970s, scares about stratospheric ozone developed, culminating in 1982 in the release of Jonathan Schell's book The Fate of the Earth.[4] Schell painted a picture of human annihilation from nuclear war based almost entirely on effects from increased ultraviolet light at the earth's surface due to ozone reductions caused by nuclear explosions. Schell's book was greeted with adulation rarely observed in any field. Yet by the time the book was published, the scientific basis for ozone-based nuclear extinction had almost entirely evaporated. The ongoing switch by the military forces of the United States and the

Soviet Union from multi-megatonne nuclear weapons to larger numbers of smaller weapons means that the effect on ozone from even the largest nuclear war is unlikely to lead to any major effect on human population levels, and extinction from ozone reductions is virtually out of the question .[3] The latest stimulus for doomsday beliefs is 'nuclear winter' : the blocking of sunlight from dust raised by nuclear explosions and smoke from fires ignited by nuclear attacks. This would result in a few months of darkness and lowered temperatures, mainly in the northern mid-latitudes.[5] The effects could be quite significant, perhaps causing the deaths of up to several hundred million more people than would die from the immediate effects of blast, heat and radiation. But the evidence, so far, seems to provide little basis for beliefs in nuclear extinction. The impact of nuclear winter on populations near er the equator , such as in India, does not seem likely to be significant . The most serious possibilities would result from major ecological destruction, but this remains speculative at present.

b) Nuclear conflicts don’t escalateRobinson 01 [C. Paul Robinson, President and Director, Sandia National Laboratories, PhD Physics at Florida State University, Chair of the Policy Committee of the Strategic Advisory Group for the Commander, US Strategic Command, 3/22/2001, “Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century,” http://www.sandia.gov/media/whitepaper/2001-04-Robinson.htm]Let me then state my most important conclusion directly: I believe nuclear weapons must have an abiding place in the international scene for the foreseeable future. I believe that the world, in fact, would become more dangerous, not less dangerous, were U.S. nuclear weapons to be absent. The most important role for our nuclear weapons is to serve as a “sobering force,” one that can cap the level of destruction of military conflicts and thus force all sides to come to their senses . This is the enduring purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War world. I regret that we have not yet captured such thinking in our public statements as to why the U.S. will retain nuclear deterrence as a cornerstone of our defense policy, and urge that we do so in the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review. Nuclear deterrence becomes in my view a “countervailing” force and, in fact, a potent antidote to military aggression on the part of nations. But to succeed in harnessing this

power, effective nuclear weapons strategies and policies are necessary ingredients to help shape and maintain a stable and peaceful world.

Nuclear Weapons deter War and War is obsoleteKaysen,90, (Carl, professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Is War Obsolete?, 42-64)The forty-five years that have now passed since the end of World War II without interstate war in Europe is the longest such period in its post-medieval history.1 Many scholars and commentators have attributed the present

"long peace" among the major powers to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons . When President

Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought, they were only reiterating what has become an almost universally accepted piety in current public and scholarly discussion of international relations.2 John Mueller's Retreat from Doomsday3 advances a much stronger thesis: major war was already becoming obsolete by the time of the First World War; World War II repeated and

reinforced that lesson. The development of nuclear weapons was accordingly irrelevant to the

process ; it was, so to speak, the flourish under the finis at the end of the story. Mueller's central argument is

that war-among "western," modernized nations-has become "subrationally unthinkable." An idea becomes impossible not when it becomes reprehensible or has been renounced, but when it fails to percolate into one's consciousness as a conceivable option. Thus, two somewhat paradoxical conclusions about the avoidance of war can be drawn. On the one hand, peace is likely to be firm when war's repulsiveness and futility are fully evident-as when its horrors are dramatically and inevitably catastrophic. On the other hand, peace is most secure when it gravitates away from conscious rationality to become a subrational, unexamined mental habit. At first, war becomes rationally un- thinkable-rejected because it's calculated to be ineffective and/or undesirable. Then it becomes subrationally unthinkable-rejected not because it's a bad idea but because it remains subconscious and

never comes off as a coherent possibility. Peace in other words, can prove to be habit forming,

addictive . (p. 240.) The obsolescence of war, argues Mueller, is thus the result of a change in mental habits

through socio-cultural evolution, not a change in the terms of a calculation: "unthinkable," not "unprofitable.

No TerrorismShifting our focus to the supposed threat of terrorism detracts attention from very legitimate threats. Terror is not a priority, prefer developed threats and very likely war in China and Russia. Fukuyama, 6/25(http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68428a5a-f7c0-11e3-90fa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz36DuPamyt, “Isis risks distracting US from more menacing foes” Francis Fukuyama is a renowned political scientist and author, senior fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law at Stanford University

For some, it will always be 1939. We are forever telling ourselves how, in the 1930s, the US and Britain

underestimated the threat from Germany and Japan, how Winston Churchill alone among western leaders saw the danger and summoned his country to a defence of democracy against the Nazis. The 70 years of American leadership following the second world war were a catalogue of Churchillian moments, from the Berlin airlift to the fall of the Berlin Wall. There is much truth to this: the US and its allies performed

admirably in creating a peaceful and liberal international postwar order in Europe and Asia. But this narrative is highly selective. There were many moments when western leaders believed they were Churchill: the UK’s Anthony Eden in the 1956 Suez crisis, US Presidents Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam and George W Bush in Iraq . They overestimated the threat they faced and made things worse, provoking unnecessary and counterproductive wars , while undermining political support for an internationalist foreign policy. The focus of today’s debate ought to be: how should we prioritise the threats facing us and how bad

are the most serious? This year we have seen a fast-moving sequence of events, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea to China’s assertion of sovereignty over the South and East China seas to the collapse of the Iraqi government’s power. Authoritarian forces are on the move . It is on this

point that US President Barack Obama ’s foreign policy speech at the West Point military academy in May was wrong-headed. It laid out various abstract criteria for the use of force (actions must be

“proportional and effective and just”; where no direct threat to US interests exists, “the threshold for military action must

be higher”). It is hard to disagree. But he went on to state that the only direct threat we face is terrorism. He said virtually nothing about long-term responses to the two other big challenges to world order: Russia and China . There was great fanfare surrounding the US “pivot” towards Asia – one of the most important initiatives of Mr Obama’s first term – but he did not mention the word once. Despite the recent successes of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (known as Isis), I would argue that terrorism is actually the least consequential of these challenges in

terms of core US interests. What we are witnessing in Iraq and Syria is the slow spread of a Sunni-Shia war, with local forces acting as

proxies for Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is a humanitarian crisis in the making. However, we could barely contain sectarian hatreds when we occupied Iraq

with 150,000 troops; it is hard to see how we can act decisively now. Russia’s annexation of Crimea, on the other hand, crossed a very important threshold. The entire post-cold war order in Europe rested on Russia ’s acceptance that ethnic Russian minorities stranded in neighbouring states would remain in place. President Vladimir Putin has thrown all that into question , with effects that will be felt

from Moldova to Kazakhstan to Estonia. Russia’s power is based, however, on a flawed economic model that in time will weaken its power. Not so with China : it already has the world’s second-largest economy, and may overtake the US in the coming years. China has been claiming territory in small increments while flying under the cover of more dramatic events elsewhere. It wants to be the dominant power in east Asia and to push the US out of what it claims as its sphere of influence. The extremism of Isis will in the end prove self-defeating . By contrast, allies the US

is sworn to defend are now threatened by industrialised nations with sophisticated militaries. Yet, for all the seriousness of the challenges from Russia and China, this is still far from the situation of 1939. What would be an appropriate US

response? Our priorities should be political: the reinvigoration of Nato as a real military alliance rather than a democracy-promotion club; and

establishment of a multilateral framework for dealing with China that gives its neighbours an alternative to facing Beijing alone. Mr Obama talks a

multilateral game but invests little capital in making it real. Strategy is about setting priorities, saying that some things are more important than others and explaining why this is so. The notion that there is no place unworthy of US attention is not a strategy. Mr Obama has set the wrong rhetorical priority, continuing the original mistake of overestimating the terrorist challenge made by his much-criticised predecessor. Even so, he has been strangely passive, letting places such as Libya and Egypt deteriorate through inattention. And he has not invested nearly enough time and effort shoring up

existing institutions and establishing broader frameworks for dealing with long-term challenges elsewhere. The poles established by

the neoconservatives on the one hand and isolationists on the other present false choices. Real strategy always has to lie somewhere in between.

No Nuclear Winter“Nuclear Winter” theory is incorrect—it’s based on flawed data.Ball 6— Professor at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre at the Australian National University, former Head of the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, former Co-chairman of the Steering Committee of the Council for Security Cooperation in Asia-Pacific [Desmond, May, “The Probabilities of On the Beach: Assessing ‘Armageddon Scenarios’ in the 21st Century,” http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/sdsc/wp/wp_sdsc_401.pdf]In the early 1980s, various scientists and scientific organisations questioned the simplicity of these calculations, and especially their neglect of longer-term ecological and environmental consequences. Atmospheric physicists and biologists/ecologists demonstrated that the sudden injection of a couple of hundred million tonnes of smoke, soot and other particulate matter into the upper atmosphere would have catastrophic environmental consequences, characterised as ‘Nuclear Winter’. They argued that an all-out exchange would involve expenditure of 5,000 to 10,000 megatons. The most widely cited baseline scenario involved some 14,750 warheads with a total of 5,750 megatons, with almost every city in the world with a population of three million or more being attacked with fifteen warheads totalling ten megatons and those with populations of 1-3 million each being allocated three 1 megaton weapons. A baseline counter-force scenario allocated 4,000 megatons to strategic counterforce targets, which ignited wildfires over 500,000 square kilometres of forest, brush and grasslands, consuming some 0.5 grams per square centimetre of fuel in the process and producing some 76.5 million tonnes of smoke. This was said to ‘follow statistically’ from the fact that ‘approximately 50 percent of the land areas in the countries likely to be involved in a nuclear exchange are covered by forest or brush, which are flammable about 50 percent of the time’ . 6 The leading populariser of the ‘Nuclear Winter’ hypothesis was Carl Sagan, the brilliant planetary scientist and humanist. He had noticed in 1971, when Mariner 1 was examining Mars, that the planet was subject to global dust storms which markedly affected the atmospheric and surface temperatures. Large amounts of dust in the upper atmosphere absorbed sunlight, heating the atmosphere but cooling the surface, spreading ‘cold and darkness’ over the planet. He recognised that wholesale ground-bursts of nuclear weapons and the incineration of hundreds of cities could produce sufficient dust and smoke to cause a similar effect on the Earth. Sagan even postulated the existence of some threshold level— around 100 million tonnes of smoke—for production of ‘Nuclear Winter’ . 7 I argued vigorously with Sagan about the ‘Nuclear Winter’ hypothesis, both in lengthy correspondence and, in August-September 1985, when I was a guest in the lovely house he and Ann Druyan had overlooking Ithaca in up-state New York. I argued that, with more realistic data about the operational characteristics of the respective US and Soviet force configurations (such as bomber delivery profiles, impact footprints of MIRVed warheads) and more plausible exchange scenarios, it was impossible to generate anywhere near the postulated levels of smoke . The megatonnage expended on cities (economic/industrial targets) was more likely to be around 140-650 than over 1,000; the amount of smoke generated would have ranged from around 18 million tonnes to perhaps 80 million tonnes. In the case of counter-force scenarios, most missile forces were (and still are) located in either ploughed fields or tundra and, even where they are generally located in forested or grassed areas, very few of the actual missile silos are less than several kilometres from combustible material. A target-by-target analysis of the actual locations of the strategic nuclear forces in the U nited S tates and the Soviet Union showed that

the actual amount of smoke produced even by a 4,000 megaton counter-force scenario would range from only 300 tonnes (if the exchange occurred in January) to 2,000 tonnes (for an exchange in July)—the worst case being a factor of 40 smaller than that postulated by the ‘Nuclear Winter’ theorists . I thought that it was just as wrong to overestimate the possible consequences of nuclear war, and to raise the spectre of extermination of human life as a serious likelihood, as to underestimate them (e.g., by omitting fallout casualties).

No Resource WarsNo impact to resource wars – decline will spur cooperation, not warBennett and Nordstrom 2K—department of political science at Penn State [D Scott and Timothy, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44:1, “Foreign policy substitutability and internal economic problems in enduring rivalries”, ProQuest]Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems. Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources , and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy . In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs, when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to be most important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active problems. Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among other things, this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the U nion of S oviet S ocialist R epublics could no longer compete economically with the United States.

Peacekeeping solves warPeacekeeping solves war Goldstein 11—Joshua S. Goldstein, Professor Emeritus, School of International Service, American University, Nonresident Sadat Senior Fellow, CIDCM, University of Maryland and Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, 2011 (“Think Again: War,” Foreign Policy, August 15th, Available online at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war, Accessed 7-1-14)"Peacekeeping Doesn't Work."It does now. The early 1990s were boom years for the blue helmets, with 15 new U.N. peacekeeping missions launched from 1991 to 1993 -- as many as in the U.N.'s entire history up to that point. The period was also host to peacekeeping's most spectacular failures. In Somalia, the U.N. arrived on a mission to alleviate starvation only to become embroiled in a civil war, and it quickly pulled out after 18 American soldiers died in a 1993 raid. In Rwanda in 1994, a weak U.N. force with no support from the Security Council completely failed to stop a genocide that killed more than half a million people. In Bosnia, the U.N. declared "safe areas" for civilians, but then stood by when Serbian forces overran one such area, Srebrenica, and executed more than 7,000 men and boys. (There were peacekeeping successes, too, such as in Namibia and Mozambique, but people tend to forget about them.)In response, the United Nations commissioned a report in 2000, overseen by veteran diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, examining how the organization's efforts had gone wrong. By then the U.N. had scaled back peacekeeping personnel by 80 percent worldwide, but as it expanded again the U.N. adapted to lessons learned. It strengthened planning and logistics capabilities and began deploying more heavily armed forces able to wade into battle if necessary. As a result, the 15 missions and 100,000 U.N. peacekeepers deployed worldwide today are meeting with far greater success than their predecessors.Overall, the presence of peacekeepers has been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of a war's reigniting after a cease-fire agreement. In the 1990s, about half of all cease-fires broke down, but in the past

decade the figure has dropped to 12 percent. And though the U.N.'s status as a perennial punching bag in American politics suggests otherwise, these efforts are quite popular: In a 2007 survey, 79 percent of Americans favored strengthening the U.N. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement --

there's plenty. But the U.N. has done a lot of good around the world in containing war.

Inherency

Plan SpecificMost MPAs seem effective but don’t actually help marine diversity – location can’t be far away from human activityIUCN 12 (International Union for Conservation of Nature, “Australia creates world’s largest network of marine reserves,”, 12-13-12, http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/marine/?11659/Australia-creates-worlds-largest-network-of-marine-reserves)¶ Though the reserve system is being hailed as a major step forward for Australia’s marine protected areas and biodiversity, their effectiveness depends in large part on their location, which is not ideal, according to Bob Pressey, Professor at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University. “For the sake of marine biodiversity, we must get away from the idea that progress in establishing MPAs can be measured in square kilometers,” says Pressey. “MPAs, as their name implies, are meant to protect. That does not happen if they are designed to avoid all or most of the processes threatening marine biodiversity.” ¶ ¶ An analysis of the new network by Pressey shows that the reserves have mostly been placed as far as possible from shore, so are concentrated at the outer edges of Australia’s marine jurisdiction, much of which is outside of commercial and other activities that threaten biodiversity. Pressey also states that the reserves offer little or no protection to many of the 41 provincial bioregions that define Australia’s marine biodiversity. “When MPAs are ‘residual’ to commercial uses – located to avoid impinging on fishing and extraction of oil and gas – they do not protect marine biodiversity: they just take up space, while giving the impression of conservation progress,” says Pressey.

Status Quo FailsStatus quo conservation methods aren’t cutting it, sustainability is a huge issue that needs a solutionUS department of State, 14The oceans face serious challenges that threaten the sustainability of marine fisheries. Catches of many types of fish in the ocean are declining while demand continues to increase. Based on data reported in 2014 by the Food and Agriculture Organization, an estimated 29 percent of the world’s fish stocks for which reasonable information exists are overexploited, while another 61 percent cannot support expanded harvest and require effective management and related measures to avoid decline. Individual nations manage many fisheries; in other cases groups of nations must manage fisheries collaboratively. Unfortunately, existing mechanisms for international management of fisheries have produced mixed results.

The Ocean is critical to nearly everything on this earth from biodiversity to the world economy, we have solutions but we just haven’t implemented themUS Department of State, 14(http://ourocean2014.state.gov/)Whether you live on the coast or hours from the closest beach, we all depend on the ocean. The ocean is critical to maintaining life on Earth, contributing to our livelihoods and our well-being. It regulates our climate and weather, it generates 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe, and it absorbs excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The ocean also plays a vital role in the global economy by providing food and a source of income for millions of people. More than one billion people worldwide rely on the ocean for their primary source of protein. The ocean is just too important to ignore. Yet, the ocean is facing significant challenges, some stemming from a lack of awareness and some from a lack of will. Some of these challenges are well known – like unsustainable fishing practices and marine pollution - and some are new to us – like ocean acidification. The good news is that there are solutions – and we know where to find them.

There is no question that the plan will see support and popularity, the government is already working collaboratively to a solution, there is simply no policy instituted. US Department of State, 14In June, the Department of State will host the “Our Ocean” Conference. We will bring together individuals, experts, practitioners, advocates, lawmakers, and the international ocean and foreign policy communities to gather lessons learned, share the best science, offer unique perspectives, and demonstrate effective actions. We aim to chart a way forward, working individually and together, to protect “Our Ocean.”

Biodiversity

Overfishing CardsMarine Reserves increase biodiversity – that’s key to prevent the effects of overfishing – British Columbia provesHillborn, professor of aquatic and fisheries science @ U of Washington, 4/12 [Ray, 4/12/14, “Protecting Marine Biodiversity with ‘New’ Conservation”, The Nature Conservancy, http://blog.nature.org/science/2014/04/12/nature-longread-protecting-marine-biodiversity-new-conservation-ray-hilborn/, accessed 6/24/14, HG]

The debate raging within the conservation community over “new conservation” appears to be essentially a religious war, with doctrinal beliefs well defined and the rancor and defamation appearing to grow each month. In essence, the “new conservation” argues that the major gains in biodiversity protection will be made in human-used environments and by working with communities and industries that use these environments rather than by the use of protected areas (Kareiva and Marvier 2012).The actual rancor seems to stem more from a philosophical question of whether biodiversity should be conserved for its own sake or because it is valued by humans (Soule 2013) and from criticism of some of the icons of the conservation movement in other writings by Kareiva (Karevia et al. 2011). These debates need to be set aside and the energy of the conservation community needs to be focused on what will work best to protect biodiversity.Marine conservation, where little energy has been expended until the last few decades, represents the new frontier of conservation. Marine biodiversity is under threat from a range of factors, but I would like to focus on the impacts of fishing on biodiversity, and specifically overfishing of marine species and communities and associated ecosystem changes, mortality of non-target species, and the impacts of fishing gear on habitat.Fishing by its nature reduces the abundance of target species, changes the age- and size structure, and can change the trophic structure of marine ecosystems. Non-target species are commonly caught and killed by fishing gear, and this is of particular concern when endangered species or protected species such as turtles, marine mammals and marine birds are concerned. Mobile bottom-contact fishing gear (trawls and dredges) can dramatically modify bottom habitats.Initiatives using the “old conservation” of protected areas have been hard at work. It is estimated that marine NGOs funded through U.S. foundations and their own fund raising spend on the order of $300 million per year on marine conservation (California Environmental Associates 2012), with much of that funding directed towards protected areas advocacy. These efforts have led to major successes both in international acceptance of targets for protected areas (the International Convention on Biological Diversity CBD has an agreed target of 10% of the oceans in no-take areas by 2020) and in getting areas protected. Protected area advocates have been particularly successful in the United States and Australia, where large areas of the ocean have been given protection from fishing.“Perhaps the most striking successes of the ‘new conservation’ have been in the reduction of by-catch of threatened or protected species.”The “new conservation” has been equally active in the marine space, some of it funded by the same NGOs and foundations. Perhaps most prominent has been the move to seafood certification. The Marine Stewardship Council, an independent NGO initiated by a partnership between industry (Unilever) and an NGO (WWF), has worked with retailers, governments and industry groups to set standards, certify fisheries as well managed and help fisheries move towards meeting the standards.Many retailers have made commitments to sell only certified seafood within the next few years, and the number of certification schemes is proliferating. Seafood certification is a classic example of the

“new conservation” in that partnerships with industry and the conservation movement are altering the behavior of the fishing industry and leading to better biodiversity protection (Gutierrez et al. 2012).Perhaps the most striking successes of the “new conservation” have been in the reduction of by-catch of threatened or protected species. Because of political pressures and legal requirements to reduce such by-catch, fishing industries have reduced by-catch of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fisheries by 99% (Hall et al. 2000); reduced the by-catch of sea birds in Antarctic longline fisheries by 99% (Cox et al. 2007); the by-catch of turtles in the Hawaii longline fishery by 95% (Moore et al. 2009); and the by-catch of turtles in the SE shrimp trawl fisheries by 94% (Finkbeiner et al. 2011).Closed areas are a very blunt and not very effective instrument to protect the biodiversity from this kind of by-catch, although closed areas have generally been part of the package. A recent review of by-catch mitigation for three species including a turtle, an albatross and a small cetacean (Senko et al. 2013) concluded: “Time–area closures appeared to be of limited effectiveness for the focal species.” Many have argued for closing biodiversity hot-spots (Worm et al. 2003). But since many of the species of concern are highly mobile, closed areas will have the effect of intensifying fishing effort elsewhere with little real reduction in mortality of these species.“Protection of marine biodiversity illustrates a range of ways that the new conservation working with industry groups can have far more benefit to biodiversity than traditional protected area approaches.”But mixed-species fisheries may catch dozens of species in one set of the net, and the sustainable exploitation rate may differ greatly between species. So how to harvest the most productive species and avoid the least productive ones? “Old conservation” strategies would close the areas where the most vulnerable species are typically found; the new conservation provides incentives to fishing vessels to find areas where the target species can be caught and the vulnerable species can be avoided. These latter approaches have been shown to be highly effective when applied (Branch and Hilborn 2008) and are in fact much more effective at reducing the catch of vulnerable species than closed-area strategies.On the west coast of North America, by-catch limits for a range of species including marine birds, Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut have the potential to close highly valuable fisheries. So fishing industry groups have formed voluntary cooperatives that adopt legally binding agreements on when, where and how to fish, with the only role of government to set total catch limits (DeAlessi et al. 2014). Protected areas would never be able to achieve this kind of control as it requires day-to-day monitoring of catch and small-area closures that are not permanent.And while protected areas seem to be an ideal solution for keeping sensitive habitats from the ravages of bottom-contact gear, the data suggest that “new conservation” may be a more effective tool for even this problem. For instance, the British Columbia continental shelf is subject to a bottom trawl fishery that tends to fish soft grounds that are not particularly sensitive. The ocean floor there is a patchwork of hard and soft areas, with corals and other sensitive structures scattered at various places along the coast. Any protected areas approach would require a highly detailed map (which does not exist) of these sensitive features and a very complex patchwork of closed areas.What does exist, however, is an agreement negotiated between local environmental groups and the British Columbian fishing industry that includes specific closed areas; individual vessel limits on the allowable catch of corals and sponges that provide incentives for fishermen to avoid any place these might be caught; a reporting requirement to broadcast immediately any large catch of corals and sponges to the entire fleet so that these sensitive spots are identified and known; and a consultative process between government, NGOs and industry to monitor and revise these methods.The protected-area approach in marine conservation has two major disadvantages. The first problem is effort displacement. When an area is closed to fishing, the vessels move elsewhere, adding fishing pressure to some areas that potentially equals or outweighs the benefits seen in the protected areas (Pastoors et al. 2000). Hamilton et al. (2010) found that abundance of target

species declined outside reserves and increased inside reserves, yielding no net increase in abundance.The second biodiversity problem is a reduction in the total sustainable yield of fish stocks when marine reserves are large. This loss will almost certainly be made up by some other form of food production with negative biodiversity consequences (Hilborn 2013). At the extreme, if lost fish production is compensated by cutting rainforest to grow crops or cattle, we can be very sure that the total biodiversity consequences will be negative.Protection of marine biodiversity illustrates a range of ways that the new conservation working with industry groups can have far more benefit to biodiversity than traditional protected area approaches. A recent review of the implementation of by-catch reduction (Cox et al. 2007) emphasized the importance of collaboration with the fishing industry: “Three common themes to successful implementation of bycatch reduction measures are long-standing collaborations among the fishing industry, scientists, and resource managers; pre- and post-implementation monitoring; and compliance via enforcement and incentives.”Everyone in the conservation movement is interested in protecting and ideally expanding global biodiversity. Protected areas and cooperative arrangements with extractive users are just two of a range of tools available to achieve this goal. We should focus on how best to achieve biodiversity gains and stop the pointless philosophical debates.

Marine Reserves improve quantity and quality of fish through adult export – that’s key to resiliency and fishing outside of the areaThaler, Ph.D. in Marine Science and Conservation @ Duke University, 11 [Andrew, 1/20/11, “Can marine protected areas save the oceans? Under certain circumstances, maybe.”, Southern Science, http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=8999, accessed 6/24/14, HG]

Although marine fish face many threats, one of the greatest is large-scale modern commercial fishing. Technology makes it all too easy for so-called “factory ships” to remove enormous numbers of fish from the oceans, sometimes with devastating effects on the populations of those fish and their habitat.Marine conservationists have proposed a variety of policies to protect fish populations around the world. Of these, the concept of the marine protected area (MPA) is arguably the most popular. Though technically a marine protected area is any area of the ocean where human activities are restricted in some way, the best known version is an area where fishing is banned with the goal of letting exploited fish stocks recover.Unsurprisingly, such MPAs aren’t politically popular. People don’t like it when the government tells them that they can’t do something, particularly when that something is how they earn a living.Can MPAs help fish?From a pure conservation standpoint at least, you can’t argue with the results. A meta-analysis of 124 restricted-fishing (to various degrees) MPAs in 29 countries found that while the magnitude of each change varied a great deal, in nearly every case the area inside the MPA had more animals, larger animals, and more species of animals than the area immediately adjacent to the MPA. Encouragingly, these effects can occur within a few years, and they appear to last as long as the MPA exists. Even a small MPA can make a big difference.The results of this meta-analysis provide strong evidence indicating that when fishing is restricted, fish populations will increase. In other words, “duh”. While it’s nice to see such powerful evidence that MPAs are nearly always effective, these conclusions aren’t really surprising. It makes total sense than when the primary threat to a population is removed, that population will increase. It’s another

claim by MPA supporters that is only recently gaining broad acceptance- the claim that closing some areas to fishing will actually benefit fisheries.Can MPAs help fishermen?There are two components to the counter-intuitive claim that restricting fishing can help fishermen. The first, called “adult export”, basically states that once there are too many fish in an MPA, some adults will leave the MPA in search of less crowded habitat. These fish can be harvested by fishermen. The second, called “larval export”, states that fish in an MPA will mate and their larval offspring will be carried out of the MPA by currents. These larvae will colonized somewhere else, grow up, and can be harvested by fishermen. Until recently, there was limited evidence for either of these claims, which led to numerous critiques and a lack of widespread acceptance. Powerful new evidence changes all that, but before we get to it, let’s address some of the criticisms.It’s important to note that MPAs really only work for non-migratory species. If a fish moves outside of the protection of the MPA, then it’s susceptible to fishing pressure and the MPA didn’t do it’s job. This concept is the part of one of the most influential critiques of the “MPAs can benefit fisheries” claim. Robert Shipp performed a detailed analysis of all of the major U.S. fisheries and concluded that MPAs would not help their recovery.First, Shipp correctly pointed out that if fish stocks are already healthy, they don’t need to recover and MPAs therefore aren’t appropriate for them (which he claims is the case for the majority of fish species- he wrote that “of landings in 2001, 75.9% of stocks of known status were not experiencing overfishing and 63.7% were not overfished.” He then stated that if animals don’t remain in the MPA, it won’t protect them and therefore MPAs are useless in their case. In other words, MPAs are most useful in aiding the population recovery of heavily exploited non-migratory species.Of the “major fisheries” in the U.S. (14% of stocks that accounted for 99% of landings in 2001), Shipp concluded that a grand total of zero of them would benefit from MPAs*. All of the major fisheries are either not overfished, already have effective recovery plans in place, or consist of highly migratory species like tuna.Shipp also tried to shoot down the concepts of adult and larval spillover. He acknowledged that MPAs are effective at increasing fish population size within their boundaries, but points out that “this portion of the stock has been removed from the harvest”- in other words, from a fisherman’s perspective, the fish might as well not exist because the fisherman can’t catch them. He claims that adult spillover from an MPA “will always be less than that of a properly managed stock” in a non-protected area”, and that larval spillover “may be beneficial, but only for a seriously depleted stock” because “larval production…does not normally relate strongly to year-class strength”. You can feel the frustration of a scientists tired of making what he perceives as a basic point when he writes “this principle has been the subject of scores of books and thousands of publications since it was espoused nearly 150 years ago by Darwin”. Oh, snap!Is this paper proof that MPAs are ineffective and shouldn’t be used for fisheries management? No, not really. Though Shipp provides a refreshingly different perspective and makes some valid points, there are several major flaws in his reasoning. Yes, if a fish leaves the protection of an MPA is is vulnerable to fishing. However, a cleverly-designed network of MPAs based on the migration patterns of a fish can protect it for large portions of its life, and some protection is a lot better than none at all.Yes, most U.S. fish stocks aren’t “overfished” or “experiencing overfishing”, but these are legal words with specific definitions. Using them hides that many species have suffered serious population declines, and it omits non-target “bycatch” species, many of whom have also declined in population. Also, using only the “major” fish stocks omits 86% of harvested species in the U.S. from his analysis. They may not be as economically important as tuna, but fishermen depend on them, too.Yes, adult spillover from an MPA will result in less yield than a well-managed fishery, but it will result in much more yield than a poorly managed fishery that collapsed. Shipp would also do well to keep in mind that fish inside an MPA are much larger than those outside, and for some fisheries catching fewer larger fish can be the economic equivalent of catching more smaller fish.This principle may not support supertrawlers and factory ships, but it can likely support

coastal fishing fleets. It can also benefit charter boats, whose hires only want to catch a few big fish to begin with.With all due respect to Robert Shipp and Charles Darwin, while larval production may not be related to year-class size, it’s undeniably related to the size of a female. For example, one 24- inch vermillion rockfish has more eggs than 17 14-inch-ers . Recall that female fish are larger inside MPAs than outside, and some of your confidence in MPAs should be restored.New evidence of “larval spillover”With the major criticisms of MPAs out of the way, let’s discuss an exciting new paper and the evidence for larval spillover that it presents. Adult spillover is relatively easy to prove (we’ve been able to tag and track fish for decades) and has been demonstrated worldwide, but the larvae of many species are so small that they’re almost microscopic. Saying “it’s incredibly difficult to track millions of tiny fish in the open ocean” may be one of the biggest understatements I’ve ever written. The best way to do it is by proxy through the use of complex genetic tools, specifically parentage analysis.Parentage analysis is complex, but basically if you know the genetic makeup of a community’s adults and you test the genetic makeup of offspring, you can determine who the parents are. If the genetic makeup of offspring matches that of parents that live far away, larval dispersal can be inferred. That’s exactly what Oregon State researchers did with yellow tang in Hawaii.

Overfishing is the greatest cause of species extinctionsNevill, environmental scientist and planner, director of OnlyOnePlanet Consulting specializing in aquatic conservation policy, 8[Jon, “Threats to marine biodiversity, January 21, 2008, www.onlyoneplanet.com/marineBiodiversityThreats.doc, ML]Amongst these five major threats to marine biodiversity, fishing has, until the present time, been the most damaging on a global scale. The destructive impacts of fishing stem chiefly from overharvesting, habitat destruction, and bycatch. Over the coming century the threats posed by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases pose huge dangers to the marine environment (Veron 2008, Koslow 2007, Turley et al. 2006). At smaller scales, other threats (particularly pollution and habitat damage) are dominant at different localities. Coral reef, mangrove, estuarine, seagrass, mud-flat, and sponge-field habitats have been (and are being) extensively damaged. River passage, essential for anadromous and diadromous species, has been impaired or destroyed around the globe. Overharvesting is probably as old as human civilization. There is evidence that ancient humans hunted many terrestrial animals to extinction (eg: Alroy 2001). Historically, fishing has rarely been sustainable (Pauly et al. 2002). On the global scene, modern fishing activities constitute the most important threat to marine biodiversity (Hiddink et al. 2008, Helfman 2007:8; MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005a:67, 2005b:8, 2005c:12; Crowder & Norse 2005:183; Kappel 2005:275; Myers & Worm 2003; Pauly et al. 2002; Renolds et al. 2002; Jackson et al. 2001; Leidy & Moyle 1998 - noting contrary views from Gray 1997). Of all recently documented marine extinctions, the most common cause has been excessive harvesting activities (Malakoff 1997, Carlton et al. 1999, VanBlaricom et al. 2000). Fisheries in the deep sea have "undoubtedly had the greatest ecological impact to date" of all known threats (Thiel & Koslow 2001:9). Fishing was identified as the main threat to marine ecosystems in the northwest Atlantic over the period 1963-2000 (Link et al. 2002). The fisheries of the Bering Sea have long been recognised as among the world’s best managed (Aron et al. 1993); however Greenwald (2006) in a study of the region’s vertebrates, identified commercial fishing as the most important threat, followed by climate change, habitat degradation, ecological effects and pollution. Historically, the impacts of fishing

activities, even when regulated by governments, have in many cases caused major, often irretrievable damage to marine ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2001, Ludwig et al. 1993). The benthic ecosystems of large areas of the ocean seabed have been destroyed or damaged (Watling 2005). The genetic effects of fishing may be substantial, yet are commonly ignored (Law & Stokes 2005). The failure of managers to learn from past mistakes appears to be a notable feature of the history of fisheries management (Mullon et al. 2005) in what Agardy (2000) has called the "global, serial mismanagement of commercial fisheries". "In many sea areas, the weight of fish available to be harvested is calculated to be less than one tenth or even one one-hundredth of what it was before the introduction of industrial fishing." ( MEA 2005c:16) On the Australian scene, fishing activities appear to be the primary threat to fishes (Pogonoski et al. 2002) and the second most important threat to marine invertebrates (Ponder et al. 2002) after habitat degradation. Overfishing is defined in this discussion as a level of fishing which puts at risk values endorsed either by the fishery management agency, by the nation in whose waters fishing takes place, or within widely accepted international agreements. A point of critical importance in this regard is that a level of fishing intensity which successfully meets traditional stock sustainability criteria (for example fishing a stock at maximum sustainable yield) may well be considerably higher than a level of fishing intensity which meets criteria designed to protect marine biodiversity (Jennings 2007). The wide endorsement of the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 implies that the latter level is the critical level by which overfishing should be measured. Amongst fishery scientists (and to lesser extent fishery managers) it is widely believed that “governance, and not science, remains the weakest link in the [fisheries] management chain” (Browman & Stergiou 2004:270). To a large extent fisheries managers, like bankers, do not learn the lessons of the past, they simply repeat them.

Global Spillover CardsThe aff sets the stage for future marine reserves domestically and around the world- commitment now is key

ROTC 2014 (The Rock of the Coast is a Central California Newspaper. Internally quotes the President of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Obama Proposes Bold Expansion of Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuaries.” June 24, 2014. http://www.rockofthecoast.com/2014/06/24/obama-proposes-bold-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuaries/CH)

Launching a broad campaign to address significant maritime issues such as overfishing and pollution, on June 17 President Obama announced that, by executive order, he intends to make a vast stretch of the Pacific Ocean the world’s largest marine sanctuary—off limits to fishing, energy exploration and other activities. The administration also plans to create a mechanism to allow the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries off U.S. coasts. The proposal, which will take effect later this year, calls for the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to expand from about 87,000 square miles to almost 782,000 square miles. The designated ocean area encompasses a remote, uninhabited region adjacent to islands and atolls controlled by the U.S. and extends up to 200 nautical miles offshore from these territories. The proposal faces the objection of the U.S. tuna fleet that operates in the region. Up to 3% of the annual U.S. tuna catch is caught in the western and central Pacific. When the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was created by President George W. Bush in 2009, sport fishing was exempted to counter industry opposition. If the protected area expands, recreational fishing interests will probably seek to retain the existing exemption to avoid setting a precedent, even though sport fishing activity in the expanse is scarce. A public comment period this summer will provide the Departments of Commerce and Interior with up-to-date information on the level of commercial activity in the area and make any necessary modifications. The potential expanded area would include a five-fold increase in the number of protected underwater mountains, halt tuna fishing, and shelter dozens of species of marine mammals, endangered sea turtles, as well as a variety of sharks and other predatory species, and protect some of the world’s most pristine and biologically rich marine ecosystems. As part of the administration’s increased focus on maritime issues, the President will also direct federal agencies to develop a comprehensive program to fight seafood fraud and the worldwide black-market fish trade, and review of steps the U.S. can take to stop illegal fishing, which does untold damage to marine ecosystems and to coastal nations around the world. Obama has also been advised to consider expanding the borders of the monuments Bush created in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench. Other countries are also creating marine reserves. The British government is moving to protect the area around the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific, and the small Pacific island of Kiribati plans to close

an area roughly the size of California to commercial fishing by year’s end. “The President’s proposed action is a huge step forward for the ocean,” said Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Expanding these protections will provide a safe haven for coral gardens, seamounts, and the rich waters that support hundreds of species of fish, sea turtles, giant clams, dolphins, whales and sharks, conserving them for future generations. This represents a commitment to the kind of bold action needed to restore the failing health of our ocean , on

which we all depend, and continues the bipartisan tradition of ocean protection. We hope it sets the stage for taking similar action to protect key areas of our ocean around the U.S. and the world.”

Solves global marine biodiversity – reserves key to spillover NOAA, 11 [Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA Ocean Service, “Marine Reserves in the United States”, July 2011, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/factsheets/us_marinereserves.pdf, ML]Do marine reserves work? Studies conducted in many different habitats and ecosystems have shown their effectiveness. When a reserve is established, species that were previously

exploited usually begin to recover. Overall, biomass (the total mass of plants and animals) increases in the reserve, as does the size and density of organisms and the number of species. Reserves also help restore the balance between species including important predator-prey relationships. For example, sea urchins graze on kelp in rocky habitats, and overgrazing by urchins can lead to declines in kelp forest ecosystems. In parts of California, overgrazing occurred when populations of sea urchins exploded due to the reduction in the number of their natural predators such as sea otters, lobsters and California Sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher). However, the protection provided by marine reserves, along with broader protection of sea otters, has helped restore predator control of sea urchins and promoted recovery of kelp forests. The amount of time required for ecosystem restoration can vary, and depends on the growth and reproductive rates of the local organisms. In colder waters where animals grow more slowly or in areas with organisms that reproduce at larger sizes, the recovery time is longer. The mobility of organisms is a key factor in how reserves affect adjacent areas. Many species of fish, such as coral reef fish or rockfish, spend much of their lives in the same area. For these species, the benefits of establishing a reserve are mostly observed within its boundaries. Other species, such as the fish and crustaceans present in seagrass beds, are highly mobile, moving in and out of different habitat types over the period of a tidal cycle, day, or season. Larvae and juveniles of mobile species produced within a reserve or network of reserves can enhance the diversity and abundance of organisms across a region as they migrate and support food webs by becoming prey for other species. Similarly, highly mobile adult animals can be caught when they move outside the reserve, improving commercial and recreational fishing. In areas with an active sport fishing community, it’s common for areas just outside reserve boundaries to become popular fishing sites

Reserves solve marine resilience and biodiversity – now is key Jackson et al, Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, 6[Jeremy B.C. Jackson, American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Depletion, Degradation, and Recovery Potential of Estuaries and Coastal Seas”, June 23 2006, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5781/1806.full, ML]The structure and functioning of estuarine and coastal ecosystems has been fundamentally changed by the loss of large predators and herbivores, spawning and nursery habitat, and filtering capacity that sustains water quality (Fig. 3C and fig. S2). The erosion of diversity and complexity has slowly undermined resilience, giving way to undesirable algal blooms, dead zones, disease outbreaks, and invasions, and elevating the potential for disaster (1–7, 21). Although declines in large vertebrates and habitat-providing species have slowed in the last 50 to 100 years, trends in small consumers, water quality, and species invasions continue to deteriorate (Figs. 2 and 3C). Together with the historical degradation of coral reefs (4), kelp forests (23), and an up-welling system (24), our results document severe, long-term degradation of near-shore marine systems worldwide. As human impacts spread rapidly from the coast to the shelf, open ocean, and deep sea (25–27), past trajectories in coastal zones may well forecast future changes in the entire ocean. Strong countermeasures are needed to reverse trends of expanding degradation (Fig. 3C). Human impacts have pushed estuarine and coastal ecosystems far from their historical baseline of rich, diverse, and productive ecosystems. The severity and synchrony of degradation trends and the commonality of causes and consequences

of change provide reference points and quantitative targets for ecosystem-based management and restoration. Overexploitation and habitat destruction have been responsible for the large majority of historical changes, and their reduction should be a major management priority. Eutrophication, although severe in the last phase of estuarine history, largely followed rather than drove observed declines in diversity, structure, and functioning. Despite some extinctions, most species and functional groups persist, albeit in greatly reduced numbers. Thus, the potential for recovery remains, and where human efforts have focused on protection and restoration, recovery has occurred, although often with significant lag times (2, 12). Our study not only provides baselines on the extent of historical degradation, but also a vision for regenerating resilient estuarine and coastal ecosystems that can absorb shocks and disasters in an uncertain future.

Impact Level

Overfishing Impact

World fisheries are on the brink of collapse. Arizona Daily Sun ’14 (“EarthTalk: World's fisheries in crisis,” E - THE ENVIRONMENTAL MAGAZINE, April 27, 2014, http://azdailysun.com/lifestyles/columnists/earthtalk-world-s-fisheries-in-crisis/article_1b083376-cce5-11e3-a2f3-001a4bcf887a.html)Dear EarthTalk: I understand that many of the world’s fisheries are on the brink of collapse , “fished out,” to put it bluntly. How did this happen and what is being done about it? Many of the world’s fisheries are indeed in crisis today due to years of overfishing , pollution and habitat destruction. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, 57 percent of global fish populations are “ fully exploited ” and another 30 percent are ”overexploited or collapsed.” This leaves just 13 percent in the “non-fully-exploited” category, down from 40 percent less than four decades ago. The nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council reports that many of the most popular fish, such as cod, snapper and tuna, are dangerously depleted yet continue to be overfished. Fishing operations have only been able to satisfy rising demand for fish and shellfish in recent decades by using increasingly high-tech strategies like on-vessel refrigeration and processing, spotter planes and GPS satellites. Furthermore, says Matthew Roney of the nonprofit Earth Policy Institute, “Industrial fishing fleets initially targeted the northern hemisphere’s coastal fish stocks, but then as stocks were depleted, they expanded

progressively southward on average close to one degree of latitude annually since 1950.” “The escalating pursuit of fish ... has had heavy ecological consequences, including the alteration of marine food webs via a massive reduction in the populations of larger, longer-lived predatory fish such as tunas, cods and marlins,” reports Roney. In addition, he says, sophisticated fishing techniques aimed at maximizing catches, such as longlines and bottom-scraping trawls, kill large numbers of non-target species such as sea turtles, sharks and coral. Roney is optimistic despite the trends. “In several well-studied regional systems, multiple fisheries have bounced back from collapse after adopting a combination of management measures,” he says. “These include restricting gear types, lowering the total allowable catch, dividing shares of the catch among fishers, and designating marine protected.” He cites an example of Kenyan communities removing beach seine nets and creating “no-take” zones leading to an increase in total fish, fish sizes and fishing income. And no-take reserves established around parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef led to a doubling of fish stocks and size within the

boundaries of protected areas and larger populations throughout the region. “ It’s not too late to get our fishing practices back on track,” reports NRDC. “Using smart laws, policies, incentives, and market demand, we can help sustain fish populations at healthy levels for years to come.”

Overfishing causes massive global malnutrition Reuters 10 Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:51pm BST “World pays high price for overfishing, studies say”The researchers said the data demonstrate that the reasons for protecting world's ocean fish stocks from unsustainable fishing are more than just biological."Maintaining healthy fisheries makes good economic sense, while overfishing is clearly bad business," said Rashid Sumaila, an economist at the University of

British Columbia in Vancouver, who led the research.The researchers estimated that from 1950 to 2004, 36 to 53 percent of the fish stocks in more than half the exclusive economic zones in the world's oceans were overfished, with up to 10 million tonnes of fish catch now lost.They said many governments underestimate the financial impact of overfishing, such as the affect on related industries, and, as a result,

they have less incentive to protect fish stocks It is the poor in developing nations who are hurt the most by overfishing because they cannot replace through imports the nutrition and revenue that is lost, the researchers said. Fish that would have been available had it not been for past overfishing could have helped feed nearly 20 million undernourished people a year in poorer counties, the researchers estimated..

Aff solvency mechanism is permanent- the portfolio effect means increasing diversity begets faster recoveryBoris Worm1,*, Edward B. Barbier2, Nicola Beaumont3, J. Emmett Duffy4, Carl Folke5,6, Benjamin S. Halpern7, Jeremy B. C. Jackson8,9, Heike K. Lotze1, Fiorenza Micheli10, Stephen R. Palumbi10, Enric Sala8, Kimberley A. Selkoe7, John J. Stachowicz11, Reg Watson12 11/3/14(", 1 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1. 2 Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA. 3 Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK. 4 Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA 23062–1346, USA. 5 Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91 Sweden. 6 Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, SE-104 05, Stockholm, Sweden. 7 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA. 8 Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92093–0202, USA. 9 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Box 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama. 10 Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA. 11 Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. 12 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services", 6/24/14, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787.full//AKP)

A mechanism that may explain enhanced recovery at high diversity is that fishers can switch more readily among target species, potentially providing overfished taxa with a chance to

recover. Indeed, the number of fished taxa was a log-linear function of species richness (Fig. 3F). Fished taxa richness was negatively related to the variation in catch from year to year (Fig. 3G) and positively correlated with the total production of catch per year (Fig. 3H). This increased stability and productivity are likely due to the portfolio effect ( 24, 25), whereby a more diverse array of species provides a larger number of ecological functions and economic opportunities, leading to a more stable trajectory and better performance over time. This portfolio effect has independently been confirmed by economic studies of multispecies harvesting relationships in marine ecosystems (26, 27). Linear (or log-linear) relationships indicate steady increases in services up to the highest levels of biodiversity . This means that

proportional species losses are predicted to have similar effects at low and high levels of

native biodiversity .

Overfishing causes massive global malnutrition Reuters 10 Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:51pm BST “World pays high price for overfishing, studies say”The researchers said the data demonstrate that the reasons for protecting world's ocean fish stocks from unsustainable fishing are more than just biological."Maintaining healthy fisheries makes good economic sense, while overfishing is clearly bad business," said Rashid Sumaila, an economist at

the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who led the research.The researchers estimated that from 1950 to 2004, 36 to 53 percent of the fish stocks in more than half the exclusive economic zones in the world's oceans were overfished, with up to 10 million tonnes of fish catch now lost.They said many governments underestimate the financial impact of overfishing, such as the

affect on related industries, and, as a result, they have less incentive to protect fish stocks It is the poor in developing nations who are hurt the most by overfishing because they cannot replace through imports the nutrition and revenue that is lost, the researchers said. Fish that would have been available had it not been for past overfishing could have helped feed nearly 20 million undernourished people a year in poorer counties, the researchers estimated..

Destructive fishing has destroyed most of the Southeast Asian reefTop of FormChou Loke Ming 08 (The Straits Times (Singapore) May 31, 2008 Saturday Is saving our reefs... A LOST CAUSE?;  With 88% of region's coral reefs under threat, greater effort must be made to protect them

Less known is that one-third of the world's coral reefs are in South-east Asia, concentrated in seas

covering a mere 2.5per cent of the earth's ocean surface.All groups of reef plants and animals are present, in a wealth of bio-diversity seen nowhere else, which reinforces the region's status as the global centre of coral reefs.But the great natural heritage of the region has been badly hit by economic development.While damage has been ramped up since the boom of the 1970s, the regional alarm bell was sounded for the first time in 1993.Of 49 reefs monitored in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, experts found less than one-fifth in good condition, based on live coral cover.The assessment was the first based on monitoring of coral reefs, a

capacity developed through the Asean-Australia Living Coastal Resources Project. It was estimated that degraded reefs had risen by 70 per cent in the preceding 50 years.The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network of the International Coral Reef Initiative established an informal network of reef scientists in 1998,

making regional assessments possible every two years.It found that 88 per cent of what remains of South-east Asian reefs are under threat by human activities.Human impact on coral reefs is varied, including coastal development, marine pollution, overfishing and destructive fishing. During the 1960s and 1970s, coastal development and pollution caused extensive loss and

degradation.By the 1980s, destructive fishing (mainly blast-fishing using explosives) became rampant, destroying large tracts of reefs, including those in remote areas that were once thought of as 'safe'.Techniques soon evolved into another form of destructive fishing - poison fishing, where fish hiding in reef crevices are stunned by a cyanide solution

squirted into the tight confines. The poison silently kills corals and smaller reef organisms that form the reef's ecological fabric.As the world's appetite for fish increases amid the collapse of international stocks, destructive fishing practices are on the rise, making sustainable use of reef resources seem an almost impossible mission.Protecting our reefsONE of the most common ways to safeguard reefs is to

Southeast Asian Reefs are the lynchpin to global ocean biodiversity and healthLauretta Burke et al 02 (WRI), Liz Selig (WRI), and Mark Spalding (UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK). 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia's coral reefs have the highest degree of biodiversity of all the world's coral reefs. This extraordinary diversity generates high productivity, providing food for millions of people within the region and beyond. Scientists are just beginning to understand the potential diversity of coral reefs; it is estimated that only 10 percent of marine species associated with coral reefshave been

identified and described. Scientists have found more coral species around a single island in Southeast Asia than have been identified for the entire Caribbean.[1] The map below, which shows coral reef diversity worldwide, illustrates the high concentration of species in the region, particularly in the broad Indo-Malayan Triangle, stretching from the Philippines to the southern islands of Indonesia and encompassing all of Java east to

New Guinea. This extraordinary diversity has built up over geological timescales, but it is maintained through the wide array

of physical conditions-salinity, wave exposure, depth, temperature, and turbidity-found across Southeast Asia that fulfill the requirements of a broad range of species.[2] The region contains more than 600 of the nearly 800 reef-building coral species (Scleractinia) found worldwide .[3]

Ocean health is key to prevent extinctionRobin Kundis Craig, Law Prof @ Indiana, Winter 2003, “Taking Steps,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, lnThe world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more

than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food;

marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both

aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21

A significant loss of biodiversity will lead to extinction – global ecosystems are reliant on each other Bruce E. Tonn, Urban Planning Prof @ Tennessee, November 2007, Futures v. 39, no. 9, “Futures Sustainability”, ln

The first principle is the most important because earth-life is needed to support earth-life. Ecosystems are composed of countless species that are mutually dependent upon each other for nutrients directly as food or as by-products of earth-life (e.g., as carbon

dioxide and oxygen). If the biodiversity of an ecosystem is substantially compromised, then the entire system could collapse due to destructive negative nutrient cycle feedback effects. If enough ecosystems collapse worldwide , then the cascading impact on global nutrient cycles could lead to catastrophic species extinction. Thus, to ensure the s urvival of earth-life into the

distant future the earth's biodiversity must be protected .

Marine Biodiversity

Marine biodiversity is HUGE, especially in coral reefsEnric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100235//AKPAs a consequence, the total number of marine species is not known to even an order of magnitude, with estimates ranging from 178,000 species (2) to more than 10 million species . The two biggest repositories of marine biodiversity are coral reefs (because of the high number of species per unit area) and the deep sea (because of its enormous area). Estimates

for coral reefs range from 1 to 9 million species (16), but they are very indirect as they are based on a partial count of organisms in a large tropical aquarium or on extrapolations stemming from terrestrial diversity estimates (20, 21). Estimates for the deep sea are calculated using actual field samples, but extrapolations to global estimates are highly controversial. The largest estimate [10 million benthic species (22)] was based on an extrapolation of benthic macrofauna collected in 233 box cores (30 × 30 cm each) from fourteen stations, although others (23, 24) suggested 5 million species as a more appropriate number. Briggs (2) argued that these enormous figures are excessive extrapolations from small-scale samples, and May (25) suggested instead a total of 500,000 living marine species. What is clear from these debates is that we have a remarkably poor grasp of what lives in the ocean today, although ongoing programs such as the Census of Marine Life (http://www.coml.org) should yield greatly improved estimates in the not too distant future. However, intensive surveys of individual groups point to the enormous scale of the task ahead. For example, Bouchet and colleagues (26) conducted a massive collecting effort (400 day persons at 42 sampling stations on a 295-km2 coral reef site in New Caledonia) and found 2738 morphospecies of marine mollusks. That is several times the species richness ever recorded for any comparable area.

Invisible threshold-- even if we dont know the species we must take every action to preserve them making probability the only allowable risk calculusEnric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14Many species may have disappeared unnoticed (73). Losses of species that have not been described are difficult to estimate, but many small species with localized dispersal and limited geographic ranges have already probably gone extinct. Statistical methods can be used to make estimates of loss rates, much as they have been used for tropical rainforests (74). Assuming that we have already lost 5% of coral reef area, and using an area-species richness power law, it has been estimated that ∼ 1% of coral reef species have already become extinct (69). Other unnoticed extinctions have undoubtedly occurred in habitats that are less known, such as in the deep sea. Seamounts, for example, harbor huge species richness and high levels of endemicity [from 30% to 50% of endemic invertebrates per seamount (75)]. Seamount biodiversity is threatened by large-scale commercial trawling, and repeated fishing of a single seamount could mean a large number of species extinctions. The diversity associated with deep-sea coral reefs is similarly threatened (76).

Several warrants why marine biodiversity is critical to protect-Enric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14Marine biodiversity provides most services we obtain from the sea, including food security, protection against coastal erosion, recycling of pollutants, climate regulation, and recreation. Biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem services from local to global scales. For example, more than half of the catch of the trawl fishery in the Mediterranean coast of Israel now consists of Lessepsian fishes (invaders from the Red Sea through the Suez canal), which have replaced the collapsing populations of native species (161) but with associated declines in productivity. In addition to the obvious declines in fisheries' productivity, there are many other indirect effects of human-related threats on ecosystem function, including flow of nutrients, resistance to perturbations, stability, and resilience. Genetic diversity can enhance resistance to

disturbance . Hughes & Stachowicz (162) experimentally showed that increasing genotypic diversity in the sea grass Zostera marina enhances community resistance to disturbance by grazing geese. In particular, they found that the number of sea grass shoots remaining in experimental plots after grazing by geese increased with increasing genotypic diversity. However, increased genotypic diversity had no effect on resilience, that is, the rate of shoot recovery after the disturbance. Species depletions can change ecological processes that are

vital to the persistence of marine communitie s. One example is the effect of biodiversity on invasion success. Elton (163) suggested that communities with greater species richness should be more resistant to invasion. Recent experimental work has shown that species richness can

affect resistance to invasion and thus have significant effects on biodiversity at the

community level at small spatial scales . Stachowicz and coauthors (164, 165) have shown that decreasing native species richness in experimental subtidal sessile invertebrate communities increases the survival and final abundance of invaders. Because the abundance of individual species had no effect on invasion success, they suggested that large native species richness reduces invasion success because space is most consistently and completely occupied when more species are present. However, the results of these experiments might be unrealistic because extinctions are generally nonrandom, whereas the studies manipulated species richness by using random subsets of species from a common species pool. Furthermore, although species richness appears to inhibit invasions at small spatial scales, ecosystems with high species richness tend to have more exotic species (166), suggesting important roles for other factors such as abundance of competitors and predators, productivity, and physical conditions. However, there appears to be a general pattern of enhancement of stability with an increase

in species richness. Emmerson et al. (167) showed, using mesocosm experiments with soft bottom intertidal invertebrates, that effects of species richness on ecosystem function, in this case flux of nutrients (specifically ammonia, NH4-N), are less variable with increasing invertebrate species richness. Declines in species richness alone may thus not be the single most important factor in determining invasion success, and loss of functional biodiversity may be more important. In addition, the homogenization of marine biodiversity mentioned earlier generally means more instability at the community level and consequent boom and bust dynamics, which are not compatible with sustainable exploitation of biodiversity (51). The

order in which species are lost can govern the ecosystem impacts of biodiversity loss .

Modeling work suggests that loss of invertebrate species richness in marine soft sediments leads to a decline in the biogenic mixing depth (BMD), an indicator of bioturbation, which in turn is a primary determinant of species biomass and community structure (168). However, the pattern of extinction determined the rate of change of the BMD, the species richness at which the BMD first declined, and the variance in the change. For example, the models indicated that losing the large species first led to a faster decline in the BMD compared with random extinction. Loss of habitat diversity or community diversity may also have dramatic

consequences . Mangroves and other coastal communities protect the near shore against erosion from storms and hurricanes. Loss of mangroves causes declines in fisheries' productivity (169) and amplifies the effects of storms and tsunamis (170). Most studies investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function and services have manipulated species richness within trophic levels. However, the number of trophic levels, which is related to functional diversity, can be key in determining community-wide biodiversity. This was already apparent in Paine's (57, 171) classic experimental work in the Pacific northeast intertidal, where the presence of predatory starfishes caused an increase in diversity of major benthic sessile organisms. Recently, Duffy and collaborators (172) showed that, in a sea grass community, higher grazer diversity enhanced ecosystem function (secondary production, epiphyte grazing, and sea grass biomass) only with predators present.

Newer expansive Marine Reserves are key to stop future marine ecosystem collapse-- now is key-- a more intact ecosystem can recover fasterEnric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14

We know with certainty that biodiversity at all levels will continue to decline locally and to be

homogenized globally if human pressure keeps increasing . Ecological theory suggests that

the more intact a food web the more likely its recovery after a pulse disturbance . This is based on the fact that biodiversity accretes slowly over time in a locale, where production today is used for building structure and adding biodiversity tomorrow (182). The more production and the more functional components of the food web available, the more likely

that a successional trajectory will be reestablished (and hence biodiversity increased) after a

disturbance . However, we still do not have an empirical test of this theory for marine

communities. The most successful examples of recovery are no-take marine reserves , which generally result in an increase in species richness and biomass of target species (183), but reserves tend to be small, and the recovery of community-wide biodiversity within their limits is not general [e.g., (130, 152)].

General Biodiversity

Biodiversity loss perpetuates the Allee effect, magnifying probability of runaway collapseBarry W. Brook, Navjot S Sodhi, Corey J.A. Bradshaw, 2008(Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore, South Australian Research and Development Institute, P.O. Box 120, Henley Beach, SA 5022, Australia, School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia"Synergies among extinction drivers under global change" Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6/24/08, 6/24/14, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800195X//AKP)It has long been understood that increased ecological chaos can result in population densities falling below an MVP more frequently, thus increasing extinction risk via demographic stochasticity 5 and 31. However, ecological chaos is itself a complex combination of stochastic processes operating on both density-independent and density-dependent components of population dynamics, making assessments of extinction risk highly complex emergent properties of these interactions. Experiments with brine shrimp Artemia franciscana [32] and Tribolium flour beetles [33] indicate that inherent oscillations resulting from deterministic nonlinear population dynamics can be as or more important for determining extinction risk than initial population size or environmental drivers. Likewise, factors that cause a reduction in the growth rate of small populations as they decline, known collectively as Allee effects , are also an important determinant of extinction [34]. Maternal fitness of wild radishes Rhaphanus sativus, measured as a fruit set, was reduced from inbreeding depression beyond that expected by a reduction in population size alone [35]. Likewise a combination of laboratory and field experiments on an intertidal polychaete Galeolaria caespitosa demonstrated that

environmental pollutants can act synergistically to reduce fertilisation success at low

densities, thereby exacerbating Allee effects and extinction probability [19]. In other words, the form and intensity of density regulation (both negative feedback and Allee effects) are essential considerations in any model constructed to predict extinction risk. Given the difficulty of detecting individuals at low densities, the reality of the Allee effect-driven extinction vortex has, until recently, been difficult to demonstrate. Fagan and Holmes [6] compiled a small time-series database of ten vertebrate species (two mammals, five birds, two reptiles and a fish) whose final extinction was witnessed via monitoring. Matching predictions from dynamical models [36], they confirmed that time to extinction scales to the logarithm of population size. They also found greater rates of population decline nearer to the time of extinction than

earlier in the time series . This confirms the previously theoretical expectation that the combination of genetic deterioration [35] and associated Allee effects contributed to a general corrosion of population dynamics, driving an increasingly negative per-capita replacement

rate as extinction was approached. Variability in abundance was also highest as populations approached extinction, irrespective of population size [6], thus demonstrating indirectly how chaos-induced demographic stochasticity [37] drives the final nail into a species’ coffin.

Authors concede that marine reserves arent enough--major solvency deficitBarry W. Brook, Navjot S Sodhi, Corey J.A. Bradshaw, 2008(Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore, South Australian Research and Development Institute, P.O. Box 120, Henley Beach, SA 5022, Australia, School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia"Synergies among extinction drivers under global change" Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6/24/08, 6/24/14, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800195X//AKP)

This review shows that extinction research has shifted substantially over the last decade, from studies that focussed primarily on the impact of single drivers to those which have demonstrated a positive interaction (synergies, or reinforcing feedbacks) of more than one threat via a combination of approaches. This view explicitly emphasises how positive feedbacks corrode ecosystem function and energy flow 10, 11 and 39. The implication of this recent body of work is that only by treating extinction as a synergistic process will predictions of risk for most species approximate reality, and conservation efforts therefore be effective 6, 9, 45, 52 and 57. However challenging it is, policy to mitigate biodiversity loss must accept the

need to manage multiple threatening processes simultaneously over longer terms . Habitat preservation, restoring degraded landscapes, maintaining or creating connectivity, avoiding overharvest, reducing fire risk and cutting carbon emissions have to be planned in unison . Otherwise, conservation actions which only tackle individual threats risk becoming half-measures which end in failure, due to uncontrolled cascading effects.

Biodiversity collapse risk collapse of humanity, loss of value to life, and we have a moral obligation to prevent itSandra Diaz, Joseph Fargione, F. Stuart Chapin II, David Tilman8/15/06, "Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being", http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040277#pbio-0040277-g003//AKP, PLoS Biol 4(8): e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277)

The diversity of life on Earth is dramatically affected by human alterations of ecosystems [1]. Compelling evidence now shows that the reverse is also true: biodiversity in the broad sense

affects the properties of ecosystems and, therefore, the benefits that humans obtain from

them . In this article, we provide a synthesis of the most crucial messages emerging from the latest scientific literature and international assessments of the role of biodiversity in ecosystem services and human well-being. Human societies have been built on biodiversity . Many activities indispensable for human subsistence lead to biodiversity loss, and this trend is likely to continue in the future . We clearly benefit from the diversity of organisms that we have

learned to use for medicines, food, fibers, and other renewable resources . In addition,

biodiversity has always been an integral part of the human experience, and there are many

moral reasons to preserve it for its own sake . What has been less recognized is that biodiversity also influences human well-being, including the access to water and basic materials for a satisfactory life, and security in the face of environmental change, through its effects on the ecosystem processes that lie at the core of the Earth's most vital life support systems (Figure 1).Links developed in this article are indicated in red. In the biodiversity box, the hierarchical components of biodiversity (genotypes, species, functional groups, and landscape units) each have the characteristics listed in the sub-box and explained in Figure 2 (number, relative abundance, composition, spatial distribution, and interactions involved in “vertical” diversity).Three recent publications from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [2–4], an initiative involving more than 1,500 scientists from all over the world [5], provide an updated picture of the fundamental messages and key challenges regarding biodiversity at the global scale. Chief among them are: (a) human-induced changes in land cover at the global scale lead to clear losers and winners among species in biotic communities; (b) these changes have large impacts on ecosystem processes and, thus, human well-being; and (c) such consequences will be felt disproportionately by the poor, who are most vulnerable to the loss of ecosystem services.

Now is key--- the invisible threshold and "ecological surprises" means we dont know the repercussions of envirometnally damaging impacts-- the alternative risks global collapseSandra Diaz, Joseph Fargione, F. Stuart Chapin II, David Tilman8/15/06, "Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being", http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040277#pbio-0040277-g003//AKP, PLoS Biol 4(8): e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277)

What We Do Not Know: Cascades, Surprises, and Megadiversity Hot-Spots Some ecosystem services show a saturating relationship to species number—that is, the ecosystem-service response to additional species is large at low number of species and becomes asymptotic beyond a certain number of species. We seldom know what this threshold number is, but we

suspect it differs among ecosystems, trophic levels, and services . The experimental evidence indicates that, in the case of primary production (e.g., for plant-based agricultural products), nutrient retention (which can reduce nutrient pollution and sustain production in the long term), and resistance to invasions (which incur damage and control costs in agricultural and other settings) by temperate, herbaceous communities, responses often do not show further significant increases beyond about ten plant species per square meter [3, 13]. But in order to achieve this number in a single square meter, a much higher number of species is needed at the landscape level [14]. What about slow-growing natural communities, or communities that consist of plant species with more contrasting biology? What about communities that typically include many more species—for example, the megadiverse forest hot-spots of the Amazon and Borneo, where species number can exceed 100 tree species per hectare [15]? To what extent

are all those species essential for the maintenance of different ecosystem processes and

services ? Ecological theory [16] and traditional knowledge [17, 18] suggest that a large

number of resident species per functional group, including those species that are rare, may act as ‘insurance” that buffers ecosystem processes and their derived services in the face of changes in the physical and biological environment (e.g., precipitation, temperature, pathogens), but these ideas have yet to be tested experimentally , and no manipulative experiment has been performed in any megadiversity hot-spot. Most of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services summarized in Table 1 emerged from theory and manipulative experiments, involved biodiversity within a single trophic level (usually plants), and operated mostly at the level of local communities. However, the most dramatic examples of effects of small changes in biodiversity on ecosystem services have occurred at the landscape level and have involved alterations of food-web diversity through indirect interactions and trophic cascades. Most of these have been “natural experiments,” that is, the unintended consequence of intentional or accidental removal or addition of certain predator, pathogen, herbivore, or plant species to ecosystems. These “ecological surprises” usually involve disproportionately large, unexpected, irreversible, and negative alterations of ecosystem processes, often with repercussions at the level of ecosystem services, with large environmental, economic, and cultural losses. Examples include the cascading effects of decreases in sea otter population that led to coastal erosion in the North Pacific [19], and a marked decrease in grassland productivity and nutritional quality in the Aleutian islands as a consequence of decreased nutrient flux from the sea by the introduction of Arctic foxes [20] (see [3] for a comprehensive list of examples). The vast literature on biological invasions and

their ecological and socio-economic impacts [21] further illustrates this point. Ecological

surprises are difficult to predict, since they usually involve novel interactions among species . They most often result from introductions of predators, herbivores, pathogens and diseases, although cases involving introduced plants are also known. They do not depend linearly on species number or on well-established links between the functional traits of the species in question and putative ecosystem processes or services [3, 22].

Biodiversity is linked to poverty---moral obligation to solveSandra Diaz, Joseph Fargione, F. Stuart Chapin II, David Tilman8/15/06, "Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being", http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040277#pbio-0040277-g003//AKP, PLoS Biol 4(8): e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277)

Uneven Impacts: Biodiversity and Vulnerable Peoples

People who rely most directly on ecosystem services, such as subsistence farmers, the rural poor, and traditional societies, face the most serious and immediate risks from biodiversity loss. First, they are the ones who rely the most on the “safety net” provided by the biodiversity of natural ecosystems in terms of food security and sustained access to medicinal products, fuel, construction materials, and protection from natural hazards such as storms and floods [4]. In many cases the provision of services to the most privileged sectors of society is

subsidized but leaves the most vulnerable to pay most of the cost of biodiversity losses . These include, for example, subsistence farmers in the face of industrial agriculture [23] and subsistence fishermen in the face of intensive commercial fishing and aquaculture [24]. Second, because of their low economic and political power, the less privileged sectors cannot

substitute purchased goods and services for the lost ecosystem benefits and they typically have little influence on national policy. When the quality of water deteriorates as a result of fertilizer and pesticide loading by industrial agriculture, the poor are unable to purchase safe water. When protein and vitamins from local sources, such as hunting and fruit, decrease as a result of habitat loss, the rich can still purchase them, whereas the poor cannot. When the capacity of natural ecosystems to buffer the effects of storms and floods is lost because of coastal development [25], it is usually the people who cannot flee—for example, subsistence fishermen—who suffer the most. In summary, the loss of biodiversity-dependent ecosystem services is likely to accentuate inequality and marginalization of the most vulnerable sectors of society, by decreasing their access to basic materials for a healthy life and by reducing their freedom of choice and action. Economic development that does not consider effects on these ecosystem services may decrease the quality of life of these vulnerable populations, even if other segments of society benefit. Biodiversity change is therefore inextricably linked to

poverty , the largest threat to the future of humanity identified by the United Nations . This is a sobering conclusion for those who argue that biodiversity is simply an intellectual preoccupation of those whose basic needs and aspirations are fulfilled.

Invisible threshold means we must act to prevent biodiversity collapse--alternative is extinctionSandra Diaz, Joseph Fargione, F. Stuart Chapin II, David Tilman8/15/06, "Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being", http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040277#pbio-0040277-g003//AKP, PLoS Biol 4(8): e277. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277)

The Bottom Line

By affecting the magnitude, pace, and temporal continuity by which energy and materials are circulated through ecosystems, biodiversity in the broad sense influences the provision of

ecosystem services . The most dramatic changes in ecosystem services are likely to come from altered functional compositions of communities and from the loss, within the same trophic level, of locally abundant species rather than from the loss of already rare species. Based on

the available evidence, we cannot define a level of biodiversity loss that is safe, and we still

do not have satisfactory models to account for ecological surprises . Direct effects of drivers of biodiversity loss (eutrophication, burning, soil erosion and flooding, etc.) on ecosystem processes and services are often more dramatic than those mediated by biodiversity change. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence that the tapestry of life, rather than responding passively to global environmental change, actively mediates changes in the Earth's life-support systems. Its degradation is threatening the fulfillment of basic needs and aspiration

of humanity as a whole, but especially, and most immediately, those of the most

disadvantaged segments of society.

Biodiversity loss causes irreparable loss of value to life for hundreds of millionsAnthony D Barnosky,1 James H Brown,2 Gretchen C Daily,3 Rodolfo Dirzo,3 Anne H Ehrlich,3 Paul R Ehrlich,3 Jussi T Eronen,4 Mikael Fortelius,4 Elizabeth A Hadly,3 Estella B Leopold,5 Harold A Mooney,3 John Peterson Myers,6 Rosamond L Naylor,3 Stephen Palumbi,3 Nils Chr Stenseth7 and Marvalee H Wake1 2014(1University of California, USA 2University of New Mexico, USA 3Stanford University, USA 4University of Helsinki, Finland 5University of Washington, USA 6Environmental Health Sciences, USA 7University of Oslo, Norway "Introducing the Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers", http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/78.full.pdf+html//AKP)

Intangible values. Continuing extinction at the present pace would considerably degrade quality of life for hundreds of millions of people who find emotional and aesthetic value in the presence of iconic species in natural habitats. In this context species are priceless, in the sense of being infinitely valuable. An apt metaphor is a Rembrandt or other unique work of art that evokes exceptional human feelings, and whose loss would be generally recognized as making humanity poorer.

Other Impacts

Dumping causes endocrine disruption and destruction of coral reefsAnthony D Barnosky,1 James H Brown,2 Gretchen C Daily,3 Rodolfo Dirzo,3 Anne H Ehrlich,3 Paul R Ehrlich,3 Jussi T Eronen,4 Mikael Fortelius,4 Elizabeth A Hadly,3 Estella B Leopold,5 Harold A Mooney,3 John Peterson Myers,6 Rosamond L Naylor,3 Stephen Palumbi,3 Nils Chr Stenseth7 and Marvalee H Wake1 2014(1University of California, USA 2University of New Mexico, USA 3Stanford University, USA 4University of Helsinki, Finland 5University of Washington, USA 6Environmental Health Sciences, USA 7University of Oslo, Norway "Introducing the Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers", http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/78.full.pdf+html//AKP)

Environmental devastation. Greenhouse gas pollutants – primarily human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NO), and methane (CH4) – are the causes of one of the biggest environmental problems, climate disruption (IPCC, 2007). Herbicides, pesticides, and vari- ous chemicals used in plastic production contaminate many waterways directly, and then are taken up by organisms and bioamplified through food chains. Virtually all human beings on Earth carry a burden of these persistent chemicals, many of which are endocrine disruptors . Pharmaceuticals meant for humans or livestock, and subsequently flushed into drains or otherwise finding their way into rivers and lakes, disrupt growth and development of amphibians and fish. Sewage and excess fertilizer contribute significantly to damaging more than half of the world’s coral reefs, and in some ecoregions, up to 90% of reefs (Dodds, 2008; Hoekstra et al., 2010).

Even single species are key--- causes total collapse of ecosystem services which access every internal to extinction-- Anthony D Barnosky,1 James H Brown,2 Gretchen C Daily,3 Rodolfo Dirzo,3 Anne H Ehrlich,3 Paul R Ehrlich,3 Jussi T Eronen,4 Mikael Fortelius,4 Elizabeth A Hadly,3 Estella B Leopold,5 Harold A Mooney,3 John Peterson Myers,6 Rosamond L Naylor,3 Stephen Palumbi,3 Nils Chr Stenseth7 and Marvalee H Wake1 2014(1University of California, USA 2University of New Mexico, USA 3Stanford University, USA 4University of Helsinki, Finland 5University of Washington, USA 6Environmental Health Sciences, USA 7University of Oslo, Norway "Introducing the Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers", http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/78.full.pdf+html//AKP)

Loss of ecosystem services. Extinctions irreversibly decrease biodiversity, which in turn directly costs society through loss of ecosystem services (Cardinale et al., 2012; Daily et al., 2000; Ehrlich et al., 2012). ‘Ecosystem services’ (see the quote below) are attributes of eco- logical systems that serve people. Among the ecosystem services that support human life and endeavors are: moderating weather; regulating the water cycle, stabilizing water sup- plies; filtering drinking water; protecting agricultural soils and replenishing their nutrients; disposing of wastes; pollinating crops and wild plants; providing food from wild species (especially

seafood); stabilizing fisheries; providing medicines and pharmaceuticals; con- trolling spread of pathogens; and helping to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere . In contrast to such directly quantifiable benefits promoted by high biodiversity, reducing bio- diversity generally reduces the productivity of ecosystems, reduces their stability, and makes them prone to

rapidly changing in ways that are clearly detrimental to humanity (Cardinale et al., 2012). For example, among other costs, the loss of tropical biodiversity from defor- estation often changes local or regional climate, leading to more frequent floods and droughts and declining productivity of local agricultural systems. Tropical deforestation can also cause new diseases to emerge in humans, because people more often encounter and disrupt animal vectors of disease (Patz et al., 2004; Quammen, 2012).

Biodiversity loss causes irreparable loss of value to life for hundreds of millionsAnthony D Barnosky,1 James H Brown,2 Gretchen C Daily,3 Rodolfo Dirzo,3 Anne H Ehrlich,3 Paul R Ehrlich,3 Jussi T Eronen,4 Mikael Fortelius,4 Elizabeth A Hadly,3 Estella B Leopold,5 Harold A Mooney,3 John Peterson Myers,6 Rosamond L Naylor,3 Stephen Palumbi,3 Nils Chr Stenseth7 and Marvalee H Wake1 2014(1University of California, USA 2University of New Mexico, USA 3Stanford University, USA 4University of Helsinki, Finland 5University of Washington, USA 6Environmental Health Sciences, USA 7University of Oslo, Norway "Introducing the Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers", http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/78.full.pdf+html//AKP)

Intangible values. Continuing extinction at the present pace would considerably degrade quality of life for hundreds of millions of people who find emotional and aesthetic value in the presence of iconic species in natural habitats. In this context species are priceless, in the sense of being infinitely valuable. An apt metaphor is a Rembrandt or other unique work of art that evokes exceptional human feelings, and whose loss would be generally recognized as making humanity poorer.

The hope is gone-- coral reefs are IMPOSSIBLE to recover, and will trigger your multiple internal links-- ocean acidification and overfishing overcome your solvency mechanismROGER BRADBURY, 7/13/12(an ecologist, does research in resource management at Australian National University,"A World Without Coral Reefs" , New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-coral-reefs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0//AKP)

IT’S past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation. There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem — with its storehouse of

biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world’s poor — will cease to be. Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution are pushing coral reefs into oblivion. Each of those forces alone is fully capable of causing the global collapse of coral reefs; together, they assure it. The scientific evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal, but there seems to be a collective reluctance to accept the logical conclusion — that there is no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem. What we hear instead is an airbrushed view of the crisis — a view endorsed by coral reef scientists, amplified by environmentalists and accepted by governments. Coral reefs, like rain forests, are a symbol of biodiversity. And, like rain forests, they are portrayed as existentially threatened — but salvageable. The message is: “There is yet hope.” Indeed, this view is echoed in the “consensus statement” of the just-concluded International Coral Reef Symposium, which called “on all governments to ensure the future of coral reefs.” It was signed by more than 2,000 scientists, officials and conservationists. This is less a

conspiracy than a sort of institutional inertia. Governments don’t want to be blamed for disasters on their watch, conservationists apparently value hope over truth, and scientists often don’t see the reefs for the corals. But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs

have a future, we grossly misallocate the funds needed to cope with the fallout from their

collaps e. Money isn’t spent to study what to do after the reefs are gone — on what sort of ecosystems will replace coral reefs and what opportunities there will be to nudge these into providing people with food and other useful ecosystem products and services. Nor is money spent to preserve some of the genetic resources of coral reefs by transferring them into systems that are not coral reefs. And money isn’t spent to make the economic structural adjustment that communities and industries that depend on coral reefs urgently need. We

have focused too much on the state of the reefs rather than the rate of the processes killing

them . Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution have two features in common. First, they are accelerating. They are growing broadly in line with global economic growth, so they can double in size every couple of decades. Second, they have extreme inertia — there is no real prospect of changing their trajectories in less than 20 to 50 years. In short, these forces are

unstoppable and irreversible. And it is these two features — acceleration and inertia — that

have blindsided us . Overfishing can bring down reefs because fish are one of the key functional groups that hold reefs together. Detailed forensic studies of the global fish catch by Daniel Pauly’s lab at the University of British Columbia confirm that global fishing pressure is still accelerating even as the global fish catch is declining. Overfishing is already damaging reefs worldwide, and it is set to double and double again over the next few decades. Ocean acidification can also bring down reefs because it affects the corals themselves. Corals can

make their calcareous skeletons only within a special range of temperature and acidity of the

surrounding seawater. But the oceans are acidifying as they absorb increasing amounts of

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere . Research led by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland shows that corals will be pushed outside their temperature-acidity envelope in the next 20 to 30 years, absent effective international action on emissions. We have less of a handle on pollution. We do know that nutrients, particularly nitrogenous ones, are increasing not only in coastal waters but also in the open ocean. This change is accelerating. And we know that coral reefs just can’t survive in nutrient-rich waters. These conditions only encourage the

microbes and jellyfish that will replace coral reefs in coastal waters. We can say, though, with somewhat less certainty than for overfishing or ocean acidification that unstoppable pollution will force reefs beyond their survival envelope by midcentury. This is not a story that gives me any pleasure to tell. But it needs to be told urgently and widely because it will be a disaster for the hundreds of millions of people in poor, tropical countries like Indonesia and the Philippines who depend on coral reefs for food. It will also threaten the tourism industry of rich countries

with coral reefs, like the United States, Australia and Japan. Countries like Mexico and

Thailand will have both their food security and tourism industries badly damaged . And, almost an afterthought, it will be a tragedy for global conservation as hot spots of biodiversity are destroyed. What we will be left with is an algal-dominated hard ocean bottom, as the remains of the limestone reefs slowly break up, with lots of microbial life soaking up the sun’s energy by photosynthesis, few fish but lots of jellyfish grazing on the microbes. It will be slimy and look a lot like the ecosystems of the Precambrian era, which ended more than 500 million years ago and well before fish evolved. Coral reefs will be the first, but certainly not the last,

major ecosystem to succumb to the Anthropocen e — the new geological epoch now emerging. That is why we need an enormous reallocation of research, government and environmental effort to understand what has happened so we can respond the next time we face a disaster of this magnitude. It will be no bad thing to learn how to do such ecological engineering now.

AT: Alt Causes

AT: General Alt Causes

Reserves solve alt causes – they lessen stresses by increasing resilience of marine communities Coleman et al, New South Wales Marine Parks Authority, 11[Melinda A., PLOS ONE an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal, “Connectivity within and among a Network of Temperate Marine Reserves”, May 23, 2011, http://www.plosone.org/article/authors/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020168, ML]Maintaining connectivity alone will not ensure the long-term persistence of macroalgal or other important marine habitats. With the synergistic effects of forecast climatic changes and increasing anthropogenic stressors there are likely to be large and dramatic effects on important macroalgal habitats [59] particularly at lower latitudes. While marine reserves may do little to halt warming oceans, they can lessen non-climatic stress thereby increasing the resilience of marine communities. This emphasises the importance of establishing protected areas where both top down (e.g. harvesting and fishing) and bottom up (pollution, development etc) stressors are limited. Such protected areas may act as refuges under future conditions and become important sources of genetic material to sustain coastlines not afforded the same level of protection.

Solves alt causes - reserves promote spillover beyond their boundaries Guidetti, marine biologist at the Laboratory of Zoology and Marine Biology at the University of Salento, Italy, 7[Paolo, Conservation Biology Volume 21 Issue 2, p 540-545 Potential of Marine Reserves to Cause Community-Wide Changes beyond Their Boundaries, March 9, 2007, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00657.x/abstract, ML]Fishing and other human activities can alter the abundances, size structure, and behavior of species playing key roles in shaping marine communities (e.g., keystone predators), which may in turn cause ecosystem shifts. Despite extensive evidence that cascading trophic interactions can underlie community-wide recovery inside no-take marine reserves by protecting high-level predators, the spatial extent of these effects into adjacent fished areas is unknown. I examined the potential for community-wide changes (i.e., the transition from overgrazed coralline barrens to macroalgal beds) in temperate rocky reefs within and around a no-take marine reserve. For this purpose I assessed distribution patterns of predatory fishes, sea urchins, and barrens across the reserve boundaries. Predatory fishes were significantly more abundant within the reserve than in adjacent locations, with moderate spillover across the reserve edges. In contrast, community-wide changes of benthic assemblages were apparent well beyond the reserve boundaries, which is consistent with temporary movements of predatory fishes (e.g., foraging migration) from the reserve to surrounding areas. My results suggest that no-take marine reserves can promote community-wide changes beyond their boundaries.

Reserves are uniquely key to biodiversity – protect key feeding and breeding grounds and migration routesHoyt, WDC Senior Research Fellow and leads its Global Marine Protected Areas and Critical Habitat Programme, 5[Erich, “Marine Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises: A worldwide handbook for cetacean habitat conservation”, p 516, http://www.cetaceanhabitat.org/habitat_cetaceans_defined.php, ML]Critical habitat refers to those parts of a cetaceans range, either a whole species or a particular population of that species, that are essential for day-to-day survival, as well as for maintaining a healthy population growth rate. Areas that are regularly used for feeding (including hunting), breeding (all aspects of courtship) and raising calves, as well as, sometimes, migrating, are part of critical habitat, especially if these areas are regularly used. Unlike land-based critical habitat, however, marine critical habitat boundaries may be less fixed, especially in terms of hunting and feeding areas which are dependent on upwelling and other ever changing oceanographic conditions. Baleen whales, for example, are known to feed in and around upwellings, which vary depending on local and large-scale oceanographic conditions to some extent during a season and from year to year. The implication for MPA design is that more flexible definitions of marine protected areas for cetaceans are needed in some cases. This book argues for larger overall biosphere reserve-type areas which would include a number of highly protected 'Core areas' corresponding to cetacean critical habitat with boundaries that can be adjusted as needed from year to year or even within seasons. Such adjustments should be adaptive, constantly reviewed and sensitive to signals from the wider environment. To achieve this fine-grained kind of critical habitat management, it will be necessary to unravel and understand ecosystem processes and the impacts that humans can have on such processes. An appropriate tool for this is ecosystem-based management. Critical habitat for cetaceans is a fairly new idea, yet to be fully explored, much less implemented. In the comprehensive US blueprint for MPAs, 'Critical habitats' are areas such as spawning grounds, nursery grounds, or other areas harboring vulnerable life stages (Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 2000). According to this document, The primary consideration for implementing marine reserves should be the needs of each biogeographical region based on protecting critical habitats. It is becoming clear that identifying the critical habitat of cetaceans, the crucial core areas, will be the first step toward good marine management of MPAs with cetaceans. Critical habitat is identified under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973 but, to date, has mainly been applied to land-based endangered species. The Endangered Species Act prohibits federal government agencies from allowing activities that adversely affect critical habitat. Federal permits for fishing, oil and mineral development activities within critical habitat areas must show that critical habitat will not be harmed. Taylor et al (2004) showed that designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act is significantly associated with improving population trends for species listed as endangered. Much research over the next few decades will be focused on defining, locating and understanding the parameters for cetacean critical habitat. Some of these are conventional geographical aspects and others are the more fluid oceanographic parameters such as temperature, salinity and current. For example, a recent study attempting to quantify cetacean habitat patterns in the California Current using a broad suite of oceanographic data was 48 per cent successful in predicting cetacean presence, ranging from 70 per cent for Dall's porpoises to less than 10 per cent for fin whales (Reilly et al, 1997). As understanding and measurement of the appropriate parameters becomes sharper, this predictive ability should improve. Thus, critical habitat may be defined as not only the fixed and

seasonally changing boundaries of the places cetaceans habitually use, but also the less- or non-geographically-based conditions that more precisely define such an area as critical habitat. What we need to do now, adopting a precautionary approach, is to conserve sufficiently large marine areas that include cetacean hot spots as well as the areas that we believe may have such conditions so that we can ensure that the options for future conservation are left open.

Reserves solve alt causes – marine species focus on growth and reproduction rather than on recovering from anthropogenic damage The Nature Conservancy, “Top Rated Charity by the American Institute of Philantrophy, “2012 Nonprofit Organization of the Year” by the Direct Marketing Association, 13 [Reef Resilience, “Managing for Ocean Acidification,” http://www.reefresilience.org/Toolkit_Coral/Mgmt_Strategies/MgmtStrategies_OA.html, ML]The main options available to managers lie in understanding the variability in the effects of ocean acidification, and prioritizing management toward protecting natural refugia and/or reducing other stresses on vulnerable species or habitats. There is growing evidence that some habitats may be less vulnerable to ocean acidification. Management strategies that protect these ‘natural refugia’ from other stresses may help reefs cope with predicted changes in climate and ocean chemistry. Characteristics that may indicate habitats less vulnerable to ocean acidification include:1,2 Carbonate rich areas, such as raised reefs and limestone islands, extensive reef flats, patch reef/coral head complexes, and carbonate sediment deposits High-diversity reef complexes that are well flushed by oceanic water. Influxes of fresh oceanic water bring higher total alkalinity and saturation states that support reef and shell building. Seagrass beds located near corals. These may provide a short-term local buffering effect for adjacent coral reefs because seagrasses can reduce dissolved CO2.3 Design MPAs that consider Ocean Acidification As the science develops, it is important for managers to design select examples of coral reef areas in a variety of ocean chemistry and oceanographic regimes (e.g., high and low pH and aragonite saturation state; areas with high and low variability of these parameters) for inclusion in MPAs. This will increase the likelihood of protecting corals acclimated to a variety of pH conditions and spreads the risk of any coral species’ survival being compromised by ocean acidification. Reducing stressors that exacerbate ocean acidification conditions — Managers can address ocean acidification by reducing other stressors that affect marine ecosystems (e.g., declining water quality, coastal pollution, and overfishing of important species and functional groups, such as herbivores. Such efforts are likely to help marine organisms focus their resources on growth, calcification, and reproduction rather than on repairing damage.1,2 Specifically, reducing land-based sources of pollution (nutrient runoff and sedimentation) has been identified as an important approach to address acidification in coastal waters because nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen and land-based carbon inputs can increase the acidity of coastal and oceanic waters.4 Reinforcing existing environmental laws (e.g., U.S. Clean Water Act) to limit runoff and associated pollutants, control coastal erosion, and enforce emission limits for pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide has also been proposed to help tackle ocean acidification.5

Reserves solve alt causes – promote resilience of ecosystems Marshall, Manager of the Climate Change Response Programme for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and Schuttenberg, PhD from the Department of Tropical Environmental Science and Geography at James Cook University, 6[Paul and Heidi, NOAA, A Reef Manger’s Guide to Coral Bleaching, “Chapter 3: Building Long-Term Reef Resistance”, file:///C:/Users/maggie/Downloads/REEF_MANAGERS_GUIDE_CH3.PDF, HG]Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can help build coral reef resilience by supporting and enhancing the factors that confer resilience: good coral reef condition, biological diversity, connectivity, and favourable local conditions. Traditionally, principles of MPA selection, design and management have not specifically addressed the threat of mass coral bleaching89.This section considers the additional considerations that are relevant to MPA site selection (Section 3.3.1) and management (Section 3.3.2) in the context of mass coral bleaching. 3.3.1 Selecting MPA sites in the context of mass coral bleaching Expected increases in the extent and severity of mass coral bleaching warrants the inclusion of additional, resilience-related criteria in MPA site selection (Figure 3.3). Importantly, the resilience principles outlined here are meant to build on existing MPA selection criteria and design principles, not to replace them. Existing MPA planning approaches, including appropriate stakeholder engagement strategies, remain essential for defining conservation objectives, identifying threats and determining management strategies to address these threats. The intention of these additional resilience principles is to enhance the role of selected sites in contributing to improved resilience of the ecosystem. 1. Representation and replication. Sometimes called 'spreading the risk', this principle recommends that, in the uncertain context of climate change, MPA network design should aim to replicate a range of reef types and related habitats. Section 3.1.2 describes how protecting biological diversity confers resilience to coral reefs. This principle aims to maximise biodiversity as a way of increasing the chance that among these species and habitats there will be enough survival and recovery to maintain functional coral reef ecosystems. 2. Refugia. The refugia principle aims to take advantage of coral reef areas of natural resilience, as identified in Section 3.2. In the context of mass coral bleaching, refugia can serve as 'seed banks' or source reefs for less resilient areas. For refugia to serve this role, they must be effectively protected from local stressors, such as anchor-damage, over-fishing or pollution, and thus are high priority for increased management attention. 3. Connectivity. Connectivity plays an important role in coral reef resilience by promoting recovery after mass coral bleaching events and other disturbances (see Section 3.1.2). Implementing this principle in MPA design involves considering prevailing currents and adjacent non-reef areas. Linking MPAs along prevailing, larvae-carrying currents can replenish downstream reefs, increasing the probability of recovery at multiple coral reef sites. Adjacent non-reef areas are important to connectivity because they can become important staging areas for coral recruits as they move between reefs and into new areas. 4. Effective management.Coral reef ecosystems in good condition are better able to survive and recover from mass bleaching events (see Section 3.1.2). This principle refers to effectively managing local stressors at a site in order to optimise coral reef condition. High coral cover, abundant fish populations and good water quality are all elements of coral reef ecosystem health that support recovery.To implement this principle, MPA selection should give priority to sites where levels of resource use and effective management can help maintain these supportive attributes.

AT: Resource Exploitation

Resource exploitation represents the primary cause of ecosystem destruction – outweighs alt causes Jackson et al, Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, 6[Jeremy B.C. Jackson, American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Depletion, Degradation, and Recovery Potential of Estuaries and Coastal Seas”, June 23 2006, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5781/1806.full, ML]

The recorded causes of past changes (10) highlight priority targets for ecosystem-based management and marine conservation. Exploitation stands out as the causative agent for 95% of species depletions and 96% of extinctions in our study systems, followed by habitat destruction (Fig. 3A). This is consistent with reported causes of marine (18) and terrestrial (19) extinctions worldwide. Pollution, disturbance, disease, eutrophication, and introduced land predators were associated with fewer species losses (Fig. 3A) but contributed to declines of habitat-building species and may hinder recovery. In our records, which focused on commercially, structurally, and functionally important species, no depletion or extinction was caused by invasive species or climate change, although such cases have been documented (3, 18, 20). We caution, however, that the relative importance of these factors may shift in the future with exploitation becoming more restricted, but invasions and climate change accelerating (21).

AT: Global Warming

Marine Reserves are key to enhance resilience to climate changeUniversity of Southhampton, 13 [1/12/13, “Marine Reserves Enhance Resilience to Climate Change”, Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131201174331.htm, accessed 6/24/14, HG]

A new study, led by a University of Southampton scientist, highlights the potential for fish communities in marine reserves to resist climate change impacts better than communities on fished coasts.The study, which is published in the journal Nature Climate Change, involved an Australian research team from the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Marine and Atmospheric Research.The researchers looked at different types of fish community responses to both short- and long-term environmental variability. They found that marine reserves have the potential to build community resilience through mechanisms that promote species and functional stability, and resist colonisation by warm water vagrants.In addition, some ecological signals were consistently noted in both the reserve and fished sites, such as in increase in the number of herbivorous fish. Their results therefore suggest that persistent long-term warming in southeast Australia will lead to major changes in the structure and function of shallow reef fish communities."What I found most striking about this work," comments lead author Dr Amanda Bates from the University of Southampton, "is that marine reserves have an important role to play in understanding ecological change in the absence of fishing -- the knowledge that we have gained was only possible because the long-term data on fish species were available from a marine reserve."The authors took advantage of a two decade long data series of fish abundance from the Maria Island Marine Reserve, collected by Dr Neville Barrett and Professor Graham Edgar since 1992 with support from the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. The study focused on how the biodiversity and biological characteristics of fish communities changed in the marine reserve following a sustained period of sea warming in comparison to nearby sites open to fishing.

Reserve uniquely mitigate climate impactsSalm et al., Department of Pathobiology at the Johns Hopkins University, 8[Rodney V., Climate Change and Biodiversity in Melanesia, “Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Resilience and MPA Management in Melanesia”, Bishop Museum Technical Report, May 2008, http://data.bishopmuseum.org/ccbm/Areas/Melanesia/Papers/CCBM_Paper7.pdf, HG]

Given that climate will continue to stress tropical marine ecosystems for decades to come, even were carbon emissions to be reduced from today onward, our only hope is to alleviate the impacts of climate change and implement actions that build resilience into these ecosystems. Strategically placed and well-managed MPA networks that are specifically designed for resilience to climate change offer the most viable means of protecting and conserving key marine species and ecosystems in perpetuity. The development of MPA networks that are resilient to the impacts of global climate change in the seas of Melanesia requires an integrated

multidisciplinary approach that includes: • collaboration among government agencies, conservation organizations, the private sector, and local communities • policy reform to build flexibility into formal MPA designations and require periodic review and revisions of their boundaries, zones and management strategies • scientific research to increase understanding of resilience, including factors determining resistance and connectivity, and the principles guiding MPA network design • adaptive management of MPAs to enable effective response to change in climate, demands, and pressures on the MPAs • increased levels of scientific support for locally managed marine areas to ensure that they are located, designed, and managed to be resilient to climate change.

Marine Reserves make coral more resilient to bleaching, acidification, and other disturbances from climate changePEW Charitable Trusts, 13 [7/30/14, “No-Take Marine Reserves Make Coral Reefs More Resilient”, The PEW Charitable Trusts, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/07/30/notake-marine-reserves-make-coral-reefs-more-resilient, accessed 6/24/14, HG]A new study finds no-take marine reserves, where fishing for parrotfish is prohibited, may make coral reefs six times more resilient to coral bleaching and other disturbances. Parrotfish eat algae, so a reef system with abundant parrotfish is more likely to recover from disturbance rather than "tip" into an undesirable state in which algae dominate. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also improves coral resilience, but only in the long term.The research is the result of Dr. Peter Mumby's three-year Pew Marine Fellowship project to better understand the health of coral reefs."This added resilience is important because it shows that protecting parrotfish, through such measures as marine reserves and fisheries policies, increases the ability of corals to adapt to warming oceans," said Dr. Mumby, lead author of the study and a professor at University of Queensland in Australia. "In addition, it should reduce the loss of ecosystem services that reefs provide, such as support for fisheries and coastal protection from storms."Dr. Mumby and four other scientists used a simulation model to study the effects of marine reserves and climate change on a large coral reef in Belize. They focused on ecological resilience—which they defined as the odds that coral will regrow after a hurricane or coral bleaching event.The researchers used the model to test two factors that could affect coral's ability to recover. The first was the existence of a no-take marine reserve, which would prohibit fishing, including for parrotfish. The second factor was reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow the warming of the oceans, which could lead to thermal stress in corals.Effects of reserves and reduced emissionsThe study found that, in the near term, corals are six times more likely to regrow after a disturbance if parrotfish are protected by a reserve: the probability of corals regrowing by year 2030 was 12 percent without a reserve but 79 percent with one. If corals do not regrow, the reef is likely to “tip” into an algae-dominated state.Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions had little effect in the near term, but in the long term (by 2080), the model showed that aggressive reductions improved coral reef resilience. Combining these reductions with a no-take reserve produced the largest benefit. With both measures in place, it took the average reef 25 years to degrade to the point where the area covered by live coral was less than 10 percent. In a scenario with no reserve and no steps to limit emissions, that took only eight years."Dr. Mumby's work highlights the importance of grazers like parrotfish for Belize reefs and others around the world," said Polita Glynn , director of the Pew Marine Fellows Program,

which supported his research. "These results suggest that removing fishing pressure on parrotfish or other algae grazers could enrich coral reef ecosystems."

Reserves build resistance of ecosystems to recover from climate changeThe Nature Conservancy, “Top Rated Charity by the American Institute of Philantrophy, “2012 Nonprofit Organization of the Year” by the Direct Marketing Association, 13 [Reef Resilience, “Managing for Ocean Acidification,” http://www.reefresilience.org/Toolkit_Coral/Mgmt_Strategies/MgmtStrategies_OA.html, ML]The final workshop report, called The Honolulu Declaration on Ocean Acidification and Reef Management, outlines a suite of policy and management practices that will guide the initial and urgent steps required to give coral reefs the best chance of coping with ocean acidification.2 The Declaration stresses that two major strategies must be implemented urgently and concurrently to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to safeguard the value of coral reef systems: Limit fossil fuel emissions Build the resilience of tropical marine ecosystems and communities to maximize their ability to resist and recover from climate change impacts The following management recommendations were identified: Incorporate reefs of low vulnerability or susceptibility to ocean acidification into MPA zoning plans during development or routine review. Incorporate into MPA management plans specific adaptation strategies and actions to address climate-change threats (ocean acidification and warming and sea-level rise), including monitoring of their effectiveness. Regularly review coral reef management plans to incorporate the latest research and scientific findings into a proactive and adaptive approach to address ocean acidification impacts. Develop, test, and, where appropriate, apply interventions to reduce the effects of ocean acidification on high-priority areas and species, for example by reducing impacts from local disturbances. Develop, test, and implement innovative interventions to reduce damage to reefs weakened by ocean acidification, and to promote the replenishment of reef communities impoverished by loss of coral species to the combined impacts of climate change, including elevated seawater temperatures and sea-level rise. Integrate coral reef management with land-use and coastal zone planning and practices to reduce pollutant inputs (notably, ammonium compounds, nitrogen and sulphur oxides) that increase the acidity of local waters.

Marine Reserves are key to enhance resilience to climate changeUniversity of Southhampton, 13 [1/12/13, “Marine Reserves Enhance Resilience to Climate Change”, Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131201174331.htm, accessed 6/24/14, HG]

A new study, led by a University of Southampton scientist, highlights the potential for fish communities in marine reserves to resist climate change impacts better than communities on fished coasts.The study, which is published in the journal Nature Climate Change, involved an Australian research team from the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Marine and Atmospheric Research.The researchers looked at different types of fish community responses to both short- and long-term environmental variability. They found that marine reserves have the potential to

build community resilience through mechanisms that promote species and functional stability, and resist colonisation by warm water vagrants.In addition, some ecological signals were consistently noted in both the reserve and fished sites, such as in increase in the number of herbivorous fish. Their results therefore suggest that persistent long-term warming in southeast Australia will lead to major changes in the structure and function of shallow reef fish communities."What I found most striking about this work," comments lead author Dr Amanda Bates from the University of Southampton, "is that marine reserves have an important role to play in understanding ecological change in the absence of fishing -- the knowledge that we have gained was only possible because the long-term data on fish species were available from a marine reserve."The authors took advantage of a two decade long data series of fish abundance from the Maria Island Marine Reserve, collected by Dr Neville Barrett and Professor Graham Edgar since 1992 with support from the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. The study focused on how the biodiversity and biological characteristics of fish communities changed in the marine reserve following a sustained period of sea warming in comparison to nearby sites open to fishing.

Environmental Leadership

RelationsMarine reserves encourage relations-empirics proveZbicz, 11 [Dorothy C Zbicz is a PhD from Duke, “ Marine Transboundary Conservation,” http://www.tbpa.net/page.php?ndx=49]

Transboundary marine conservation has also been used to contribute to peace-building and improving relations between countries through the concept of Marine Peace Parks. The Red Sea Marine Peace Park between Jordan and Israel was established as part of the 1994 peace treaty. It promotes collaboration between the countries to protect transboundary coral reefs and tourism. Although not contiguous, the two MPAs in each country’s waters share common species and environmental stresses. ¶ Marine peace parks have also been proposed for several regions where maritime boundaries are still in dispute or peace-building is needed . South Korea has proposed a Korean marine peace park to jointly promote both conservation and peaceful resolution of unresolved boundary disputes. Other marine peace parks have been proposed for the Eastern Caribbean Island states; Gaza/Jordan/Israel on the Mediterranean coast; Pakistan and India near the Indus River delta region; the Former republics of Yugoslavia on the Adriatic Sea; Greece and Turkey on Cyprus; and the Pratas/Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea and between Japan and Russia in the Kuril Islands.

Coordination over protected areas increases cooperation between allies and can ameliorate tensions between nations in conflict. MPA News ‘8 [4-8, International News and Analysis on Marine Protected Areas, Vol. 9 No. 9, “Marine Peace Parks: Establishing Transboundary MPAs to Improve International Relations and Conservation,” http://depts.washington.edu/mpanews/MPA95.pdf]

In discussions of protected areas across borders, multiple terms are often encountered: transboundary protected areas, transfrontier conservation areas, peace parks, and so forth. Often practitioners use these terms inter- changeably. For the purpose of this article, MPA News will generally do that as well. IUCN defines “parks for peace” as: Transboundary protected areas that that are formally dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural re- sources, and to the promotion of peace and cooperation. Referring to a site as a “peace park” does not necessarily imply that the nations involved were previously in conflict. As a case in point, the site generally considered to have been the first peace park is the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, designated in 1932 by traditional allies Canada and the US. Rather, a transboundary protected area contributes to a culture of peace and cooperation between nations, as explained by Anne Hammill of the International Institute of Sustainable Development and Charles Besançon of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. In an essay published in the 2007 book Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution (MIT Press), Hammill and Besançon suggest a transboundary protected area can play any of the following geopolitical roles: •Acting as a symbol of ongoing cooperation between nations with a history of peace; • Creating an entry point for discussions between neighboring countries that may be deeply divided over economic, social, environmental, or other interests; • Increasing security and control over resources in border areas so that their rightful owners can benefit from them;

•Creating shared opportunities for ecotourism and sustainable development ventures on a region-wide scale, an important step in post-conflict reconstruction; and • Developing a rich and resilient web of relationships among protected area managers from the countries involved, other government actors, local and international NGOs, and the donor community. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has tallied the number of transboundary protected area “com- plexes” currently in existence, both terrestrial and marine. According to UNEP, there are 227 of these (seewww.tbpa.net/tpa_inventory.html). Some of the complexes are enormous, consisting of dozens of individual protected areas. One complex that features the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, for example, is considered by UNEP to include 80 protected areas among the countries of Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico. At this scale, the term “peace park” may be less applicable: in these large complexes, not every one of the individual protected areas may have been designated with transboundary cooperation as a specific goal. There are several transboundary MPAs designated expressly to further international cooperation and conservation. The Wadden Sea International Protected Region — consisting of multiple MPAs and other managed areas in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands — is a leading example of ecosystem-based management (MPA News 8:4). The 100,000-km2 Pelagos Sanctuary for cetaceans in the Ligurian Sea requires cooperation among France, Italy, and Monaco (MPA News 5:3). The Eastern Tropical Pacific Corridor initiative, including portions of the EEZs of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Panama, is another example (MPA News 7:4). The Southern Ocean, managed as an enormous protected region by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, is one more. In terms of existing for the specific purpose of further- ing peace, however, the foremost example in the marine realm might be in the Red Sea.

Joint efforts on marine conservation act as a stepping stone, allowing for trust that can be transferred to issues of higher importance. Mackelworth ’13 [5-13, Peter Mackelworth works at the Blue World Institute of Marine Research and belongs to the faculty of Nature Sciences at the University of Primorska, “Using Conservation as a Tool to Resolve Conflict: Establishing the Piran-Savudrija International Marine Park”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12001996#]

International borders are designed to protect the sovereignty of land, sea, natural resources and peopl e. Many were drawn up with little regard to ecosystem or local community integrity [1] and [2]. However in recent years the role of the international boundary has changed. Globalisation is eroding the traditional concepts of State and territory , one by-product of this is the development of the concept of regionalism [3]. Regionalism, in the political context, refers to the movement of power away from the State institutions to lower levels, such as regions, counties and municipalities [4]. While regionalism includes the definition of areas within States, in creasing focus is being placed on the partnership between adjacent sub-national authorities across national borders [5]. The protection of regional natural resources can be a compelling reason for local communities to cooperate across international boundaries and a powerful tool for building mutual confidence and trust [6]. Successful regional initiatives can not only provide for local community development, but help foster relations which can be utilised at higher political levels for more complex political problems [7]. As resources

become scarcer transboundary regions which were previously considered peripheral are increasing in importance. As part of this process Transboundary Conservation Initiatives (TBCIs) are also attracting greater attention. In 1997 there were 136 adjoining protected area complexes with 415 individual protected areas [8]. By 2007 this had increased to 227 sites including 3043 individual protected areas recognised by the United Nations [9]. Usually these sites are considered to be a top–down designation, however experience suggests that the long-term sustainability of environmental projects is largely determined by local participation; where greater control is devolved the project is more likely to be successful[10]. The growing role of sub-national governance, especially the possibility of developing cross border regions is an important factor in the development of TBCIs. One subgroup of TBCI is the peace park. The peace park designation can be used as a strategic tool for both regional integration and large scale conservation [11]. It provides for equal emphasis on political and environmental criteria [12]. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) defines peace parks as: ‘transboundary protected areas that are formally dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, and to the promotion of peace and cooperation’ [13] . The environmental criteria for a peace park are consistent with other protected area designations, such as protecting an area of high priority for biological diversity , a biome that is inadequately protected or an area that is important for one or all the countries involved to fulfill their 10% target for conservation [12]. This reflects the criteria provided by the Work Programme on protected areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity which goes on to state that the objectives of protected area systems is to establish and maintain: ‘comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas' [14]. The second criteria, recognising the importance of cooperation, of this designation can build upon trust that may exist in local trans-border communities, especially those areas that may share a common heritage [15]. Mitrany [16] suggests that States can unite around common issues of interest and develop practical cooperative management programmes that are more effective for long-term relations than diplomatically negotiated agreements. Fundamentally, trust developed through cooperative management of low political priority issues, such as environmental protection, can be built upon to further political cooperation on higher priority issues. Applying this to the expanding literature on peace parks and TBCIs, Table 1 highlights the potential contributions they can make to inter-State relations.

Soft PowerU.S initiative increases soft powerMcGrath 6-17 [6-17-14, Matt Mcgrath is an Environment correspondent for BBC News, “Expansion of US marine protected zone could double world reserves, ”http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27890072]

Speaking ahead of the announcement, President Obama said that protecting marine areas wasn't just a good idea for the environment, it made good economic sense as well .¶ "If we ignore these problems, if we drain our oceans of their resources, we won't just be squandering one of humanity's greatest treasures, we will be cutting off one of the worlds major sources of food and economic growth," he said.¶ Last year, attempts to create huge marine reserves in Antarctica failed when Russia blocked plans by the US and others for a third time.¶ Ocean campaigners have welcomed the new US plan as an important step. ¶ " This is incredibly significant and shows global leadership from the US on this issue" said Karen Sack from the Pew Charitable Trusts.¶ "There is an amazing array of biodiversity around these islands, there are sea mount systems with a lot of deep sea species, all types of marine mammals."¶ Marine Protected Areas currently make up around 2.8% of the world's oceans - but Karen Sack says the areas that have a full ban on fishing, drilling and other activities are much smaller, which increases the significance of the US move .

LeadershipOceanic protection encourages global cooperation Eilperin 6-17 [6- 17-14, Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the House of Representatives, “Obama proposes Vast Expansion of Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuary, ”http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-propose-vast-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuary/2014/06/16/f8689972-f0c6-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html]

Kerry said Monday that the United States and other nations need to take bolder steps to protect marine habitats and combat other threats. “If this group can’t create a serious plan to protect the ocean for future generations, then who can and who will?” he asked during an appearance at a State Department oceans conference.¶ On Capitol Hill, some Republicans have sought to limit the administration’s ability to influence offshore activities, viewing it as another attempt by the president to test the limits of White House power.¶ “It’s another example of this imperial presidency,” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said in an interview, noting that Obama established a National Ocean Policy during his first term to coordinate competing interests at sea. “If there are marine sanctuaries that should be put in place, that should go through Congress.”¶ For the past 51 / 2 years, the administration has focused on the nuts and bolts of marine issues, aiming to end overfishing in federally managed fisheries and establishing a new planning process for maritime activities. This week’s State Department ocean summit launches what officials there call a broader “global campaign” to address the problems of overfishing, pollution and ocean acidification.

International cooperation efforts over MPAs have multiple benefits including increased effectiveness and stronger social and economic connections.NEASPEC ’12 [11-12, North-east Asian Subregional Program for Environmental Cooperation, NEASPEC is a program launched by the officials of countries participating in the northeast Asian MPA network, “Subregional Cooperation for Strengthening Marine Protected Areas in North-East Asia,” http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsa-np-01/other/ebsa-np-01-submission-unescap-en.pdf, HR]

An international cooperation effort beyond the national borders has a set of compelling potential benefits. Internationally coordinated network can help minimize the duplication of efforts and resources by convening all stakeholders from the public and private sectors, as well as from the local communities. A regional network does not implicate eradication of national-level networks; on the contrary, it can bring additional benefits to the constituent national MPA networks and other smaller programs. Through an MPA network, social and economic connections between protected areas are strengthened, sectoral agencies are brought together, and a common platform for establishing common goals is possible. There are two bases on which an international or a regional MPA network could be established: the first basis is the need to address borderless and interconnected ecosystems, and the second basis is the efficiency gained from collaborated improvement of management. Focus on biodiversity prevalence The first kind of international MPA network would be based on MPAs that are physically overlapped, linked together, or lie in proximity. Such case entails ecosystems or species such as migratory species that cannot be adequately protected under one single country’s authority. The MPA network can protect essential functions of the ecosystem whil e also responding to a wide range of potential threats . For example, if one MPA is damaged, it can be re-colonized by fish and coral that are spawned from another site. Similarly, in the case of storms, coral bleaching, or oil spills in one MPA, others MPAs can remain safe havens and become refugia. Focus on management improvement The second kind of network involves MPAs that are stretched out over a much wider area and do not necessarily lie in one another’s vicinity. The significance

of the networks in this case lies in facilitating information-sharing, capacity building, joint monitoring, and joint improvement of management techniques. This type of network would also allow cost- sharing to promote efficient use of resources and help resolve various conflicts related to resource exploitation.

U.S key to leading changeEilperin 6-17 [6- 17-14, Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the House of Representatives, “Obama proposes Vast Expansion of Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuary, ”http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-will-propose-vast-expansion-of-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuary/2014/06/16/f8689972-f0c6-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html]

Monica Medina, NOAA’s principal deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere in Obama’s first term, said that the United States “has found new avenues to exert its influence and lead change in ocean policy globally,” including cracking down on illegal fishing by pressing for stricter ship verification through the International Maritime Organization.¶ Budget constraints and congressional opposition also remain obstacles for the administration. During a panel last week for Capitol Hill Ocean Week, Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) said NOAA might have to consider “changing its name to NAA” because of cuts to its “wet side.”¶ William Ruckelshaus, a co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, who served as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, said the new flurry of activity on maritime issues could represent an important shift.¶ “These kinds of issues only get elevated if the president puts it high on his priority list ,” he said.

Illegal Fishing ImpactDesignation of the area as a marine reserve spills over to spur global intiatives to prevent illegal fishingYehle and Estepa ’14 [6-17-14, Emily Yehle and Jessica Estepa are reporters for Environment and Energy Publishing, “OCEANS: Obama expands sanctuary, cracks down on illegal fishing,” http://www.eenews.n et/greenwire/stories/10 60001450/print/, CH]

President Obama signaled his administration's shift toward ocean conservation today with a proposal that could create the nation's largest-ever marine sanctuary and establish a comprehensive plan to combat illegal fishing. The announcement confirms what ocean advocates had long hoped: that Obama would use his second term to give oceans issues more visibility, as both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did before him (Greenwire, June 16). While oceans historically get short shrift -- due to the challenge of engaging the public -- Secretary of State John Kerry and White House adviser John Podesta have championed the issue. In videotaped remarks at today's Our Ocean Conference, Obama credited the

United States with leading the fight to protect oceans. But he emphasized that more needs to be done both in the United States and globally to prevent overfishing, marine pollution and ocean acidification. "If we ignore these problems, if we drain our ocean of its resources, we won't just be squandering away one of humanity's greatest treasures," he said. "We'll be cutting off one of the world's major sources of food and economic growth, including for the United States, and we cannot afford to let that happen." Podesta is expected

to brief stakeholders this afternoon on the details of Obama's proposal to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, first reported by The Washington Post. But a "fact sheet" from the White House emphasized that the administration will solicit comments from fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders before deciding on the scope of the expansion. The plan comes one week after the administration announced a new rule that allows the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries (Greenwire, June 10). Unlike national monuments -- which are created by the president -- sanctuaries have more requirements for public input. Expanding the monument should be a relatively noncontroversial move, beyond Congress' usual objections to the use of executive power. Bush first created the monument in 2009, protecting more than 86,000 square miles of pristine ocean that is farther from human populations

than any other U.S. area. It is not host to a plethora of energy or fishing interests, beyond tuna, and it contains an extraordinarily diverse population of marine life. Emily Woglom, vice president of conservation policy at the Ocean Conservancy, characterized it as "a lot of bang for your buck." "We think there will be a lot of support for protecting this place, particularly because it's in the remote Pacific where there are relatively few economic or recreational interests," she said, adding that it would help ocean conservation catch up to land conservation. Currently, the United States has fully protected less than 3 percent of its oceans and 12 percent of its land. Matt Rand, director of the global ocean legacy at the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the impact of Obama's proposal will depend on its scope. "It could be extremely important for the health of the world oceans or, if he decides to do it on the short side, it would be not as important," Rand said. "Really time will tell. ... It certainly could become one of the most important actions this administration has taken." But congressional Republicans are sure to criticize what they see as a pattern of abuse of power. Obama, like many presidents, has used the Antiquities Act to set aside public land for conservation without the approval of Congress. Obama has also indicated that this is only the beginning of his use of executive power to protect ocean resources. In a statement, House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) called the move proof that Obama is an "Imperial President ... intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.” He pointed to an international agreement on tuna fishing in the South Pacific. The treaty includes the areas that are up for protection, which means potentially less area for such commercial activity. "Oceans, like our federal lands, are intended to be multiple-use and open for a wide range of economic activities, that includes fishing, recreation, conservation and energy production," Hastings said. "It appears this Administration will use whatever authorities -- real or made-up -- to close our ocean and coastal areas with blatant disregard for possible economic consequences." But oceans advocates hope the monument designation is just the tip of a more expansive effort to tackle oceans issues, many of which are not as eye-catching. National monuments capture the public's attention, but advocates expressed similar excitement over Obama's memorandum today to establish a national framework for combating illegal fishing. The order creates a Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud. The secretaries of Commerce and State will helm the panel, which will include representatives from a slew of agencies including the Departments of Defense and Interior and the Office of Management and Budget. The panel will recommend how to implement a national strategy to combat a problem that undermines sustainable fishery management. Among other things,

members will identify opportunities for international cooperation, enforcement best

practices and necessary regulatory authorities. In a statement, Oceana -- which has long highlighted the

problem of seafood fraud -- called the move "a historic step forward." "This initiative is a practical solution to an ugly problem and will forever change the way we think about our seafood," said Oceana campaign director Beth Lowell. "The U.S. has long been a leader in the fight against illegal trade and fraud. We applaud the Obama administration for taking the helm on this comprehensive approach to ensure that our seafood is safe, legally caught and honestly labeled." The memorandum -- and other steps recently taken by the administration --

is part of a "huge reinvigoration for our work and for our efforts globally," the Ocean Conservancy's Woglom said. "Beyond just the bold news that captures everyone's imagination and draw people in, what we're seeing is commitment from the administration in trying to address the broader set of issues" that affect oceans, she said.

Designation of the area as a marine reserve spills over to spur global intiatives to prevent illegal fishing

Yehle and Estepa 6-17 [6-17-14, Emily Yehle and Jessica Estepa are reporters for Environment and Energy Publishing, OCEANS: Obama expands sanctuary, cracks down on illegal fishing,” http:// www.eenews.net/ greenwire/ stories/1060001450/print/, CH]President Obama signaled his administration's shift toward ocean conservation today with a proposal that could create the nation's largest-ever marine sanctuary and establish a comprehensive plan to combat illegal fishing. The announcement confirms what ocean advocates had long hoped: that Obama would use his second term to give oceans issues more visibility, as both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did before him (Greenwire, June 16). While oceans historically get short shrift -- due to the challenge of engaging the public -- Secretary of State John Kerry and White House adviser John Podesta have championed the issue. In videotaped remarks at today's Our Ocean Conference, Obama credited the United States with leading the fight to protect oceans. But he emphasized that more needs to be done both in the United States and globally to prevent overfishing, marine pollution and ocean acidification. "If we ignore these problems, if we drain our ocean of its resources, we won't just be squandering away one of humanity's greatest treasures," he said. "We'll be cutting off one of the world's major sources of food and economic growth, including for the United States, and we cannot afford to let that happen." Podesta is expected to brief stakeholders this afternoon on the details of Obama's proposal to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, first reported by The Washington Post. But a "fact sheet" from the White House emphasized that the administration will solicit comments from fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders before deciding on the scope of the expansion. The plan comes one week after the administration announced a new rule that allows the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries (Greenwire, June 10). Unlike national monuments -- which are created by the president -- sanctuaries have more requirements for public input. Expanding the monument should be a relatively noncontroversial move, beyond Congress' usual objections to the use of executive power. Bush first created the monument in 2009, protecting more than 86,000 square miles of pristine ocean that is farther from human populations than any other U.S. area. It is not host to a plethora of energy or fishing interests, beyond tuna, and it contains an extraordinarily diverse population of marine life. Emily Woglom, vice president of conservation policy at the Ocean Conservancy, characterized it as "a lot of bang for your buck." "We think there will be a lot of support for protecting this place, particularly because it's in the remote Pacific where there are relatively few economic or recreational interests," she said, adding that it would help ocean conservation catch up to land conservation. Currently, the United States has fully protected less than 3 percent of its oceans and 12 percent of its land. Matt Rand, director of the global ocean legacy at the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the impact of Obama's proposal will depend on its scope. "It could be extremely important for the health of the world oceans or, if he decides to do it on the short side, it would be not as important," Rand said. "Really time will tell. ... It certainly could become one of the most important actions this administration has taken." But congressional Republicans are sure to criticize what they see as a pattern of abuse of power. Obama, like many presidents, has used the Antiquities Act to set aside public land for conservation without the approval of Congress. Obama has also indicated that this is only the beginning of his use of executive power to protect ocean resources. In a statement, House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) called the move proof that Obama is an "Imperial President ... intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.” He pointed to an international agreement on tuna fishing in the South Pacific. The treaty includes the areas that are up for protection, which means potentially less area for such commercial activity. "Oceans, like our federal lands, are intended to be multiple-use and open for a wide range of economic activities, that includes fishing, recreation, conservation and energy production," Hastings said. "It appears this Administration will use whatever authorities -- real or made-up -- to close our ocean and coastal areas with blatant disregard for possible economic consequences." But oceans advocates hope the monument designation is just the tip of a more expansive effort to tackle oceans issues, many of which are not as eye-catching. National monuments capture the public's attention, but advocates expressed similar excitement over Obama's memorandum today to establish a national framework for combating illegal fishing. The order creates a Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud. The secretaries of Commerce and

State will helm the panel, which will include representatives from a slew of agencies including the Departments of Defense and Interior and the Office of Management and Budget. The panel will recommend how to implement a national strategy to combat a problem that undermines sustainable fishery management. Among other things, members will identify opportunities for international cooperation, enforcement best practices and necessary regulatory authorities. In a statement, Oceana -- which has long highlighted the problem of seafood fraud -- called the move "a historic step forward." "This initiative is a practical solution to an ugly problem and will forever change the way we think about our seafood," said Oceana campaign director Beth Lowell. "The U.S. has long been a leader in the fight against illegal trade and fraud. We applaud the Obama administration for taking the helm on this comprehensive approach to ensure that our seafood is safe, legally caught and honestly labeled." The memorandum -- and other steps recently taken by the administration -- is part of a "huge reinvigoration for our work and for our efforts globally," the Ocean Conservancy's Woglom said. "Beyond just the bold news that captures everyone's imagination and draw people in, what we're seeing is commitment from the administration in trying to address the broader set of issues" that affect oceans, she said.

Illegal fishing hamstrings the economy- government oversight is keyCheeseman ‘13 [5-21-13, Gina-Marie Cheeseman has a Degree in Journalism, “Impacts of Worldwide Illegal Fishing,” http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/05/illegal-fishing-big-problem-all-world/]Illegal fishing is a big problem facing the global fishing industry. A report by the ocean conservation group, Oceana, released earlier this month, found that illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing accounts for 20 percent (11 to 25 million metric tons of fish) of the global catch. IUU fishing contributes to economic losses of $10 to $23 billion, and threatens the 260 million global jobs that are dependent on marine fisheries. Released during the 2013 Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries Conference in Washington, D.C., the report calls IUU fishing a “major threat to the oceans, consumers and seafood businesses around the world.” The sheer size of the problem of IUU fishing becomes clear when you look at some of the examples cited in the report: Three to four times more sharks are killed than official reports claim, as the shark fin trade in Hong Kong suggests, which yields $292 to $476 million in shark fin sales. Illegally caught Russian sockeye salmon is estimated to be 60 to 90 percent above report levels, which represents economic losses of $40 to $74 million. Illegal catches of Chilean sea bass are estimated to be 5 to 10 times greater than is officially reported. Half of the swordfish in Greece and cod in the UK are estimated to be illegally caught. Black market bluefin tuna may reach $4 billion annually, and the amount of illegally caught fish is estimated to be 5 to 10 times greater than the official catch. Illegal catches of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas are estimated to be $548 million a year. Why is the amount of IUU fishing so much more than officials realize? The main culprit, the report finds, is weak enforcement. There is both a lack of government oversight and insufficient regulation. One example clearly illustrates the lack of enforcement: Vessels that have been blacklisted for illegal fishing activities by international organizations are only intercepted at port 25 percent of the time. Seafood traceability would deter illegal fishing. Although the EU is currently implementing seafood traceability regulations, the U.S. has no traceability requirements for either domestic or imported seafood and there are few regulations for imports or catch documentation. The majority of U.S. seafood imports are not inspected or labeled with basic information about when, where and how the fish was caught.

Solvency

General SolvencyReserves solve biodiversity – empirics prove Claudet et al, researcher at the National Center for Scientific Research, 8[Joachim, Face Council, “Marine reserves: size and age do matter”, January 17, 2008, http://facecouncil.org/puf/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Claudet-et-al-2008-Eco-Letters.pdf, ML]Human-induced environmental disturbance, through tour-ism, pollution and fishery activities can have strong negativeimpacts on the worldÕs coastal areas (Jackson et al. 2001;Lotze et al. 2006). Concerns are rising over observeddeclines in the abundance of particular species (EEA2006) as well as reductions in functional diversity (Micheli& Halpern 2005). As a result, the restoration andconservation of marine biodiversity is a major challenge(Balmford et al. 2005). Marine reserves, where all extractiveuses are forbidden (i.e. no-take zones), have been recommended as tools for an ecosystem approach to fisheriesmanagement (Hastings & Botsford 1999; Roberts et al.2001; Pauly et al. 2002; Claudet et al. 2006b) and forbiodiversity conservation (Schrope 2001; Rodrigues et al.2004).Effectiveness of marine reserves regarding fisheries andecosystem restoration goals has been widely studied (Saleet al. 2005), but very few attempts have been made togeneralize their ecological effects (Côté et al. 2001; Halpern2003; Micheli et al. 2004; Guidetti & Sala 2007). Previousanalyses have emphasized that the density of harvested fishspecies inside marine reserves increases compared withunprotected areas; there are many documented exampleswhere fished species have benefited from reserve establish-ment, in particular through increases in mean size andabundance (for reviews, see Roberts & Polunin 1991; Dugan& Davis 1993; Rowley 1994; Bohnsack 1998; Russ 2002;Halpern 2003; Pelletier et al. 2005). Despite these tantalizingresults, the effects of marine reserves vary both in directionand magnitude (Halpern & Warner 2002), and the basis forthis heterogeneity is still unknown. Insights into thesepatterns of heterogeneity are fundamental for the develop-ment of a more general theory of marine reserve effective-ness and design. Linking possible heterogeneity in theeffects of marine reserves with the age and design of thereserves (Botsford et al. 2003) and with their inclusion inreserve networks is also necessary for conservation pur-poses.

Aff solvency mechanism is permanent- the portfolio effect means increasing diversity begets faster recoveryBoris Worm1,*, Edward B. Barbier2, Nicola Beaumont3, J. Emmett Duffy4, Carl Folke5,6, Benjamin S. Halpern7, Jeremy B. C. Jackson8,9, Heike K. Lotze1, Fiorenza Micheli10, Stephen R. Palumbi10, Enric Sala8, Kimberley A. Selkoe7, John J. Stachowicz11, Reg Watson12 11/3/14(", 1 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1. 2 Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA. 3 Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK. 4 Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA 23062–1346, USA. 5 Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE-106 91 Sweden. 6 Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, SE-104 05, Stockholm, Sweden. 7 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA. 8 Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92093–0202, USA. 9 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Box 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama. 10 Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA. 11 Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. 12 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services", 6/24/14, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787.full//AKP)

A mechanism that may explain enhanced recovery at high diversity is that fishers can switch more readily among target species, potentially providing overfished taxa with a chance to

recover. Indeed, the number of fished taxa was a log-linear function of species richness (Fig.

3F). Fished taxa richness was negatively related to the variation in catch from year to year (Fig. 3G) and positively correlated with the total production of catch per year (Fig. 3H). This increased stability and productivity are likely due to the portfolio effect ( 24, 25), whereby a more diverse array of species provides a larger number of ecological functions and economic opportunities, leading to a more stable trajectory and better performance over time. This portfolio effect has independently been confirmed by economic studies of multispecies harvesting relationships in marine ecosystems (26, 27). Linear (or log-linear) relationships indicate steady increases in services up to the highest levels of biodiversity . This means that

proportional species losses are predicted to have similar effects at low and high levels of

native biodiversity .

Marine biodiversity is HUGE, especially in coral reefsEnric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100235//AKPAs a consequence, the total number of marine species is not known to even an order of magnitude, with estimates ranging from 178,000 species (2) to more than 10 million species . The two biggest repositories of marine biodiversity are coral reefs (because of the high number of species per unit area) and the deep sea (because of its enormous area). Estimates

for coral reefs range from 1 to 9 million species (16), but they are very indirect as they are based on a partial count of organisms in a large tropical aquarium or on extrapolations stemming from terrestrial diversity estimates (20, 21). Estimates for the deep sea are calculated using actual field samples, but extrapolations to global estimates are highly controversial. The largest estimate [10 million benthic species (22)] was based on an extrapolation of benthic macrofauna collected in 233 box cores (30 × 30 cm each) from fourteen stations, although others (23, 24) suggested 5 million species as a more appropriate number. Briggs (2) argued that these enormous figures are excessive extrapolations from small-scale samples, and May (25) suggested instead a total of 500,000 living marine species. What is clear from these debates is that we have a remarkably poor grasp of what lives in the ocean today, although ongoing programs such as the Census of Marine Life (http://www.coml.org) should yield greatly improved estimates in the not too distant future. However, intensive surveys of individual groups point to the enormous scale of the task ahead. For example, Bouchet and colleagues (26) conducted a massive collecting effort (400 day persons at 42 sampling stations on a 295-km2 coral reef site in New Caledonia) and found 2738 morphospecies of marine mollusks. That is several times the species richness ever recorded for any comparable area.

Invisible threshold-- even if we dont know the species we must take every action to preserve them making probability the only allowable risk calculusEnric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14Many species may have disappeared unnoticed (73). Losses of species that have not been described are difficult to estimate, but many small species with localized dispersal and limited geographic ranges have

already probably gone extinct. Statistical methods can be used to make estimates of loss rates, much as they have been used for tropical rainforests (74). Assuming that we have already lost 5% of coral reef area, and using an area-species richness power law, it has been estimated that ∼ 1% of coral reef species have already become extinct (69). Other unnoticed extinctions have undoubtedly occurred in habitats that are less known, such as in the deep sea. Seamounts, for example, harbor huge species richness and high levels of endemicity [from 30% to 50% of endemic invertebrates per seamount (75)]. Seamount biodiversity is threatened by large-scale commercial trawling, and repeated fishing of a single seamount could mean a large number of species extinctions. The diversity associated with deep-sea coral reefs is similarly threatened (76).

Several warrants why marine biodiversity is critical to protect-Enric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14Marine biodiversity provides most services we obtain from the sea, including food security, protection against coastal erosion, recycling of pollutants, climate regulation, and recreation. Biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem services from local to global scales. For example, more than half of the catch of the trawl fishery in the Mediterranean coast of Israel now consists of Lessepsian fishes (invaders from the Red Sea through the Suez canal), which have replaced the collapsing populations of native species (161) but with associated declines in productivity. In addition to the obvious declines in fisheries' productivity, there are many other indirect effects of human-related threats on ecosystem function, including flow of nutrients, resistance to perturbations, stability, and resilience. Genetic diversity can enhance resistance to

disturbance . Hughes & Stachowicz (162) experimentally showed that increasing genotypic diversity in the sea grass Zostera marina enhances community resistance to disturbance by grazing geese. In particular, they found that the number of sea grass shoots remaining in experimental plots after grazing by geese increased with increasing genotypic diversity. However, increased genotypic diversity had no effect on resilience, that is, the rate of shoot recovery after the disturbance. Species depletions can change ecological processes that are

vital to the persistence of marine communitie s. One example is the effect of biodiversity on invasion success. Elton (163) suggested that communities with greater species richness should be more resistant to invasion. Recent experimental work has shown that species richness can

affect resistance to invasion and thus have significant effects on biodiversity at the

community level at small spatial scales . Stachowicz and coauthors (164, 165) have shown that decreasing native species richness in experimental subtidal sessile invertebrate communities increases the survival and final abundance of invaders. Because the abundance of individual species had no effect on invasion success, they suggested that large native species richness reduces invasion success because space is most consistently and completely occupied when more species are present. However, the results of these experiments might be unrealistic because extinctions are generally nonrandom, whereas the studies manipulated species richness by using random subsets of species from a common species pool. Furthermore, although species richness appears to inhibit invasions at small spatial scales, ecosystems with high species richness tend to have more exotic species (166), suggesting important roles for other factors such as abundance of competitors and predators, productivity, and physical conditions.

However, there appears to be a general pattern of enhancement of stability with an increase

in species richness. Emmerson et al. (167) showed, using mesocosm experiments with soft bottom intertidal invertebrates, that effects of species richness on ecosystem function, in this case flux of nutrients (specifically ammonia, NH4-N), are less variable with increasing invertebrate species richness. Declines in species richness alone may thus not be the single most important factor in determining invasion success, and loss of functional biodiversity may be more important. In addition, the homogenization of marine biodiversity mentioned earlier generally means more instability at the community level and consequent boom and bust dynamics, which are not compatible with sustainable exploitation of biodiversity (51). The

order in which species are lost can govern the ecosystem impacts of biodiversity loss . Modeling work suggests that loss of invertebrate species richness in marine soft sediments leads to a decline in the biogenic mixing depth (BMD), an indicator of bioturbation, which in turn is a primary determinant of species biomass and community structure (168). However, the pattern of extinction determined the rate of change of the BMD, the species richness at which the BMD first declined, and the variance in the change. For example, the models indicated that losing the large species first led to a faster decline in the BMD compared with random extinction. Loss of habitat diversity or community diversity may also have dramatic

consequences . Mangroves and other coastal communities protect the near shore against erosion from storms and hurricanes. Loss of mangroves causes declines in fisheries' productivity (169) and amplifies the effects of storms and tsunamis (170). Most studies investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function and services have manipulated species richness within trophic levels. However, the number of trophic levels, which is related to functional diversity, can be key in determining community-wide biodiversity. This was already apparent in Paine's (57, 171) classic experimental work in the Pacific northeast intertidal, where the presence of predatory starfishes caused an increase in diversity of major benthic sessile organisms. Recently, Duffy and collaborators (172) showed that, in a sea grass community, higher grazer diversity enhanced ecosystem function (secondary production, epiphyte grazing, and sea grass biomass) only with predators present.

Newer expansive Marine Reserves are key to stop future marine ecosystem collapse-- now is key-- a more intact ecosystem can recover fasterEnric Sala and Nancy Knowlton (11/2006 (Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California "Global Marine Biodiversity Trends", Annual Review of Enviroment and Resources, 6/24/14

We know with certainty that biodiversity at all levels will continue to decline locally and to be

homogenized globally if human pressure keeps increasing . Ecological theory suggests that

the more intact a food web the more likely its recovery after a pulse disturbance . This is based on the fact that biodiversity accretes slowly over time in a locale, where production today is used for building structure and adding biodiversity tomorrow (182). The more production and the more functional components of the food web available, the more likely

that a successional trajectory will be reestablished (and hence biodiversity increased) after a

disturbance . However, we still do not have an empirical test of this theory for marine

communities. The most successful examples of recovery are no-take marine reserves , which generally result in an increase in species richness and biomass of target species (183), but reserves tend to be small, and the recovery of community-wide biodiversity within their limits is not general [e.g., (130, 152)].

Reserves make marine ecosystems stable and resilient to climate change Boffey 13 (Philip M., Science and health editor and reporter for New York Times, “Sustaining Resilience at Sea,” The New York Times, December 3, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/sustaining-resilience-at-sea.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&, accessed 6/24/14)New research indicates that marine reserves may have an even greater importance than scientists previously supposed. A study recently published in Nature Climate Change found that marine reserves do more than merely shelter species that live within them. By enhancing the resilience of marine communities, reserves help ward off some of the effects of climate change, including invasion by species from warmer waters.¶ The study was based on research conducted at the Maria Island Marine Reserve, just off the coast of Tasmania. Though the reserve was only established in 1991, data on marine life there had been collected for more than 70 years. Comparing the reserve’s ecosystem with similar but unprotected waters where fishing was allowed, scientists found greater long-term and short-term stability. ¶ The overall health of the ecosystem helped create what the authors of the study called “a feedback mechanism to promote stability.” The scientists found a substantial increase in the number of large-bodied fish and much less fluctuation, year to year, in the population of smaller fish. ¶

This is a reminder of something that all too easily goes unnoticed. How species will endure the effects of global warming depends less on the individual species than the overall health of the ecosystem it belongs to. This study also suggested another essential service that marine reserves provide. By giving us a view into a relatively unaltered past — since the 1940s in the case of Maria Island — they show how healthy ecosystems function, which will be increasingly valuable as climate change disorders them.

There is a difference between regular MPAs and marine reserves – marine reserves have many more restrictionsPacific Fishery Management Council No Date (“Habitat and Communities: Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas,” Pacific Fishery Management Council, http://www.pcouncil.org/habitat-and-communities/marine-protected-areas/, accessed 6/24/14)The United States has many types of MPAs created for many purposes, including conservation of natural heritage, cultural heritage and sustainable production. MPAs are defined by the NOAA MPA Center as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” Marine reserves are a subset of this definition, and include restrictions on some or all extractive activities.¶ What is the difference between a marine reserve and a marine protected area?¶ The terms “marine reserve” and “marine protected area” overlap but have different meanings. The Council uses the term “marine reserve” to mean an area where some or all fishing is prohibited for a lengthy period of time. This is similar to the definition of a “fishery reserve” created by the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council:¶ “Zoning that precludes fishing activity on some or all species to

protect critical habitat, rebuild stocks (long term, but not necessarily permanent closure), provide insurance against overfishing, or enhance fishery yield.” (Ocean Studies Board, 2001)¶

Marine reserves are types of marine protected areas. A marine protected area is a “geographic area with discrete boundaries [like the boundaries of a piece of real estate or a park] that has been designated to enhance the conservation of marine resources” (Ocean Studies Board). For example, a marine protected area might prohibit activities like oil and gas drilling, while allowing fishing. The Council’s focus on marine reserves as “no fishing” areas (or areas where only certain types of fishing are allowed) reflects its area of regulatory authority: fishing.

NTMRs are critical to rebounding species, but they must be closed to fishing. Areas open to fishing showed no effectiveness when directly contrasted against NTMRs. Ault et al, 13(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783612003037#bib0025 “Assessing coral reef fish population and community changes in response to marine reserves in the Dry Tortugas, Florida, USA” Jerald S. Ault, Corresponding authors: Steven G. Smith, James A. Bohnsack, Jiangan Luo, Natalia Zurcher, David B. McClellan, Tracy A. Ziegler, David E. Hallac, Matt Patterson, Michael W. Feeley, Benjamin I. Ruttenberg, John Hunt, Dan Kimball, Billy Causey )The efficacy of no-take marine reserves (NTMRs) to enhance and sustain regional coral reef fisheries was assessed in Dry Tortugas , Florida, through 9 annual fishery-independent research surveys spanning 2 years before and 10 years after NTMR implementation. A probabilistic sampling design produced precise estimates of population metrics of more than 250 exploited and non-target reef fishes. During the survey period more than 8100 research dives utilizing

SCUBA Nitrox were optimally allocated using stratified random sampling. The survey domain covered 326 km2, comprised of eight

reef habitats in four management areas that offered different levels of resource protection: the Tortugas North Ecological Reserve (a NTMR), Dry Tortugas National Park (recreational angling only), Dry Tortugas National Park Research Natural Area (a NTMR), and southern

Tortugas Bank (open to all types of fishing) . Surveys detected significant changes in population occupancy, density, and abundance within management zones for a suite of exploited and non-target species. Increases in size, adult abundance, and occupancy rates were detected for many principal exploited species in protected areas, which harbored a disproportionately greater number of adult spawning fishes. In contrast, density and

occupancy rates for aquaria and non-target reef fishes fluctuated above and below baseline levels in each management zone. Observed

decreases in density of exploited species below baseline levels only occurred at the Tortugas Bank area open to all fishing. Our findings indicate that these NTMRs, in conjunction with traditional fishery management control strategies, are helping to build sustainable fisheries while protecting the fundamental ecological dynamics of the Florida Keys coral-reef ecosystem.

Studies show that reserves where no fishing is permitted effectively restore depleted populations with little to no management and involvement. Fish populations rebound in a big way. Bohnsack and Ault, 96(http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/9-1_bohnsack.pdf “Management Strategies to Conserve Marine Biodiversity” Jerald Ault is a professor in the department of Marine Ecosystems and Society at the university of Miami, James Bohnsack is the chief of the protected resources and biodiversity division for NOAA)There is widespread interest in the use of marine reserves. In reserves, access to critical habitats is permanently restricted. As a result, reserve biodiversity and environmental quality, marine reserves may help maintain sustainable fisheries by naturally exporting biomass and larvae to the surrounding areas. Protected areas reduce conflict by limiting the number of management objectives in an area and are appealing because of their simplicity. Marine reserves recreate natural refuges that were too deep, remote, hard to locate, or unfishable in the past (Dugan and Davis, 1993). Such refuges have disappeared or become less effective because of increased fishing effort and improved technology (Epperly and Dodril, 1995).

Because most demersal organisms, especially post-settlement fish es, are rather sedentary and strongly site specific, populations within reserves can mature without intervention. Larger and older individuals, which supply the majority of eggs, are able to re- produce supplying eggs and larvae dispersed by ocean currents to both reserves and surrounding fished areas (Fig. 1). Reserves are unlikely to provide much protection for highly migratory species; these would benefit only in proportion to the time they remain in a protected area . Substantial

evidence supports the primary assumption that depleted demersal populations in protected areas will regenerate

No-Take Marine reserves are just flat out more effective than Marine Protected Areas, empirical evidence provesSciberras et al, 13(http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2047-2382-2-4.pdf “Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas” Marija Sciberras, Stuart R Jenkins, Michel J Kaiser, Stephen J Hawkins, and Andrew S Pullin. Dr. Marija Sciberras is a post-doctoral research assistant at Bangor University in the UK)Background: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) encompass a range of protection levels, from fully protected no-take areas to restriction of only particular activities, gear types, user groups, target species or extraction periods. We synthesized the results of empirical studies that compared partially protected areas (PPA) to (i) no- take marine reserves (NTR) and (ii) to open access areas (Open ), to assess the potential benefits of different levels of protection for fish and invertebrate populations. Methods: A systematic search for relevant articles used terms describing MPAs, the biota (e.g. fish, invertebrates)and measures (e.g. density, biomass) of interest. Articles were examined for relevance using specified inclusion criteria. Included articles were appraised critically; the influence of studies whose effect of protection was identified to be confounded by habitat was examined by running a sensitivity analysis parallel to the main analysis that included all studies. Random effect meta-analysis on ln-transformed response ratios was used to examine the response to protection. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore variation in effectiveness in relation

to MPA and species covariates. Results: Synthesis of available evidence suggests that while PPAs resulted in higher

values of biological metrics(density and biomass) than unprotected areas , greatest benefits

were apparent in NTR areas when NTRs and PPAs were compared. For fish, the positive response to protection, whether full or partial protection, was primarily driven by targeted fish species. Although positive benefits were also apparent in non-target fish species, the results were more variable, perhaps because of fewer studies focusing on this group. Invertebrate studies were under represented and those available focused mainly on scallops, lobsters and sea urchins. Among the targeted species groups, benefits from partial protection relative to fished areas were highest for scallops, whereas benefits from full relative to partial protection were highest for lobsters. The examination of fish and invertebrate response to protection in terms of species richness and length was hampered by small sample sizes. There was significant variability in the magnitude of response to protection among the MPAs included in this study. The factors determining such variation were generally unclear although the size and protection regime of the PPA explained some of this variability.

Marine Reserves solve for overfishing and is best optionBrock,13 (Robert, Marine Biologist at National MPA center, 8/16/13, http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/do_no_take_reserves_benefit_adjacent_fisheries.pdf)

Despite using conventional fishery management tools such as changes in gear used, use of short-term closures, and the reduction in fishing effort and catch of non-targeted species, the abundance of fish has continued to decline globally. One approach to building sustainable fisheries is the creation of “no-take” marine reserves which removes fishing pressure completely from key areas, such as spawning, nursery, feeding, or sheltering habitats. Under these management conditions, targeted fish stocks and the larger communities of which they are a part of are given the opportunity to rebound. Some marine reserves have existed for decades and contribute to a range of ecosystem and community goals, including preserving biodiversity, protecting habitat, helping reduce user conflicts and enhancing fisheries in adjacent areas (Gaines et al. 2010). Establishing networks of reserves to enhance regional fisheries is a balancing act as to the best size and placement of such an area. The establishment of a marine reserve creates a source of larvae as well as juvenile and adult organisms that not only populate the area inside the reserve, but also migrate (e.g., spillover) outside the reserve to live, feed, breed, and eventually be harvested elsewhere Marine reserves also create an “insurance policy” protect against natural and anthropogenic disturbances that impact fisheries as well as inaccuracies in fish stock assessments and data poor situations. The National Research Council (2001) concluded that “marine reserves may provide the only effective means to ensure against overfishing of some species if exploitation is high and there is substantial uncertainty in the stock assessments.”

Marine Reserves actually solve Harrison,12 (Hugo, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,6/5/12, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212003958)No-take marine reserves represent one management action that can deliver tangible and rapid benefits. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated that exploited species have higher abundance, biomass, and reproductive potential within adequately protected reserves. Our study revealed that adult fishes in reserves exported a significant proportion of their offspring to fished areas outside reserve boundaries. We identified 58 juvenile coral trout and 74 juvenile stripey snapper as the progeny of adults sampled within the three focal reserves. Overall, 83% (48 of 58) of assigned coral trout juveniles and 55% (41 of 74) of assigned stripey snapper juveniles were collected from reefs that were open to fishing, representing a clear demonstration of larval export from reserves Using genetic parentage analyses, we resolve patterns of larval dispersal for two species of exploited coral reef fish within a network of marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef. In a 1,000 km(2) study area, populations resident in three reserves exported 83% (coral trout, Plectropomus maculatus) and 55% (stripey snapper, Lutjanus carponotatus) of assigned offspring to fished reefs, with the remainder having recruited to natal reserves or other reserves in the region. We estimate that reserves, which account for just 28% of the local reef area, produced approximately half of all juvenile recruitment to both reserve and fished reefs within 30 km. Our results provide compelling evidence that adequately protected reserve networks can make a significant contribution to the replenishment of populations on both reserve and fished reefs at a scale that benefits local stakeholders.

Marine Reserves provide a beneficial role in economy, we access multiple internal linksSala,13 (Enric, correspondent for National Geographic Society, 4/3/13,

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058799)Marine reserves can provide economic benefits through tourism (diving, snorkeling, glass bottom boats), fishing (increase or stabilization of catch around reserves), and other services, some of which are difficult to quantify (e.g., insurance value, local amenity value, storm protection, political value, intangible capital). A primary concern among fishermen is the loss of fishing grounds and yields that may occur when marine reserves are implemented; these effects may not be offset by the increase in spillover and dispersal of larvae provided by the reserves [14]. An additional concern is that establishing reserves may disadvantage some fishermen such as local smaller vessels with less potential to work farther afield, to benefit fishers in other areas or with greater mobility. The increase in marine life inside marine reserves, in particular large fish, is the main attraction for divers and other tourists, which can bring revenue disproportionately higher than fishing. Well-enforced marine reserves can increase adjacent fishery catches. Local fisheries would not be sustainable without the reserves in 12 of 14 cases studied, and spillover offsets losses in catch due to the creation of the reserve in the other two cases. Marine reserves can also increase the long-term profitability of fisheries. An additional value for fishing of marine reserves concerns catch-and-release recreational fishing inside the reserves, which may be compatible with the reserves provided that ecological impacts can be minimized. Marine reserves help preserve and restore biodiversity at many levels. A meta-analysis showed that the increase of species diversity in marine reserves was associated with large increases in fisheries productivity, a

reduction in the variability of aggregate fish biomass (which helps reduce uncertainty in fisheries), and an increase in resistance and recovery after natural disturbances from storms and thermal stress. By restoring biodiversity, reserves enhance the productivity and reliability of the good and services that the ocean provides for humanity.

Marine Reserves protect local ecosystems, empirics proveStokstad,10, (Erik, correspondant for Science Magazine, 2/21/10,

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/02/marine-reserves-help-fish-recover)When fisheries have plummeted or collapsed, one approach to fix the situation is to set up a marine reserve where fishing is banned. The idea is to provide relief to stressed fish stocks by providing safe habitat where fish can reproduce, and then spread out. But banning fishing when a fishing industry is already struggling can be controversial. Jennifer Caselle, a biologist from University of California, Santa Barbara, provided a local example of success. In 2003, the state of California set up a network of 12 marine reserves near Los Angeles and banned fishing in more than 488 square kilometers. By monitoring the area before and after, Caselle and her colleagues found that over 5 years there were 50% more blue rockfish and other species targeted by fishing inside reserves than outside, and that their biomass was 80% higher. There was no change in species that people don't eat, suggesting that fishing restrictions were responsible for the recovery. Looking at marine reserves in New Zealand, Australia, California, the Philippines, and Kenya, the team found that species targeted by fishing—after they became protected by the reserve—started to respond faster than others. Those that had been fished began to increase in abundance after 5 years, on average, compared to 13 years for other species that are indirectly affected by the reserve.

Marine Reserves successful, Studies proveMiller,14, (Kelsey, Corresponding author at School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University,

5/3/14, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569114001458)No-take marine reserves aim to spatially restrict impacts from fishing effort and fishing mortality They are usually employed for one or both of two broad objectives: to protect marine biodiversity and ecosystem health and services and to improve fisheries by protecting a portion of stocks and many studies worldwide of NTMRs have demonstrated positive reserve effects on targeted species . Meta-analyses generally conclude that NTMRs enhance density, biomass, body size, diversity, and fecundity of targeted species within their boundaries. No-take marine reserves (NTMRs) are promoted extensively as conservation and fisheries management tools in response to marine ecosystem degradation and fisheries decline. Numerous studies indicate that NTMRs result in higher abundances of fishery-targeted marine species.

Long Term advantages of Marine ReservesHalper,2, (Benjamin, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at University of California Santa Barbra, 5/17/2, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00326.x/fullThe combined problems of a global increase in fishing pressure and the recent and historical collapse of many fisheries have forced marine conservationists and environmental managers to re-evaluate traditional methods of resource management. In the last decade, marine reserves—here defined as no-take zones where it is illegal to extract organisms in any way, have been studied. Studies included in this review evaluated both invertebrates and fish from all trophic groups. Nearly all of the studies included in this review measured either less than five or more than 50 species. Analyses were done on the grand mean change (calculated as a relative change) in any of the four biological measures for all species within a study. Identical analyses were done for each of four groups (carnivores, herbivores, planktivores, and invertebrates, but results were the same as for overall analyses and so only the overall results are presented here. these ratios was then calculated to normalize the distribution of the data, creating what we call an `effectiveness index'; positive values of this index indicate higher levels of the biological measure inside reserves relative to the reference site. The value of the effectiveness index for each reserve and the associated reserve age were then used for all analyses. Classifying young reserves as those 5 y old allowed for at least 10 data sets for young reserves for all biological responses except average organism size, permitting an adequate statistical comparison of young vs. old reserves. Thus, while density, biomass, average size and diversity of organisms are all significantly higher inside reserves relative to reference sites, there is no indication of overall change in these values over time.

Networks SolvencyInterconnected networks of reserves solve best – larval dispersal, movement between sites, and reliance on different types of habitats Kininmonth et al , Corresponding Author at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, 11[Stuart, Ecological Modeling, Volume 222, Issue 7, “Dispersal connectivity and reserve selection for marine conservation”, April 10, 2011, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380011000445, ML]In recognition of the interconnectedness of marine systems, increasing emphasis has been placed on establishing ecologically connected networks of protected areas as a pragmatic solution to the conservation of insufficient habitat area (Sala et al., 2002, Mora et al., 2006, Jones et al., 2007 and Jones et al., 2009). As the populations of most marine species exchange juvenile organisms between sites (defined as discrete seascape features such as a coral reefs) for recruitment (Botsford et al., 2001), small isolated marine protected areas (MPAs) are unlikely to ensure the persistence of marine metapopulations (Mora et al., 2006). Instead, networks of MPAs that reflect the inter-site connectivity are required to ensure that the processes supporting marine populations are adequately incorporated in marine conservation efforts ( Mora et al., 2006, Jones et al., 2007 and Kaplan et al., 2009). This paper provides a theoretical framework to integrate complex patterns of dispersal connectivity systematically into marine conservation planning. To do this we first describe nine connectivity patterns. Then we use a greedy algorithm to find the best reserve system design, based on maximising the metapopulation persistence, for each pattern given a constraint on how much of the system can be reserved. Many definitions of structural, potential and actual connectivity have been identified and discussed in the ecological literature (Bridgewater, 1987, Taylor et al., 1993, Schumaker, 1996, Fall et al., 2007, Minor and Urban, 2008 and Minor and Urban, 2010). In this paper, we focus on intergenerational dispersal among discrete habitat sites, such as found in many marine plants, invertebrates and fishes, where the net movements of larval propagules among habitat sites are significantly greater than those of relatively sedentary adult stages (Grantham et al., 2003). The role of environmental stochasticity, larval mortality and fecundity fluctuations (Hughes et al., 2000, Knights et al., 2006 and Graham et al., 2008) can influence the long term flow of viable recruits however the connectivity regime utilised in this paper is based on the fixed proportion of the yearly cohort that will depart from a natal site and arrive at a settlement site. For the model presented here, the magnitude of connectivity is determined by the probability of larval dispersal success combined with the population fecundity and environmental stochasticity of the source and settlement sites. The magnitude and the structure of the connections define the metapopulation character (Kritzer and Sale, 2004). Many species exist as metapopulations because of the fundamental patchiness of the natural world, the specificity of their habitat requirements and their movements among these sites (Hanski, 1994, Lewis, 1997 and Bascompte et al., 2002). Marine populations particularly depend on dispersal dynamics given their reliance on patchy habitats (e.g. estuaries, rocky pinnacles, kelp forests and coral reefs) and their long-lived and potentially long-distance dispersing planktonic larvae (Grantham et al., 2003, Kinlan and Gaines, 2003 and Treml et al., 2008). Despite increasing attention on the proportion of marine larvae that “self-recruit” back to the same population as their parents (Jones et al., 1999, Jones et al., 2005, Hastings and Botsford, 2006a and Almany et al., 2007), most marine populations are still considered to be influenced by recruits from elsewhere (Underwood et al., 2007 and van Oppen et al., 2008). Despite this

emergence of connectivity research, the sensitivity of marine populations to marine dispersal processes is rarely systematically considered in marine conservation planning (Cerdeira et al., 2005 and Sale et al., 2005). This is not withstanding the growing collection of research publications that are evaluating MPA networks (see review by Pelletier and Mahevas, 2005). Linear reserve systems along a variable coastline ( Walters et al., 2007 and Kaplan et al., 2009), single species models within a heterogeneous two dimensional habitat ( Kraus et al., 2008) and multi-species models ( Mahevas and Pelletier, 2004 and Yemane et al., 2008) all incorporate complex life cycle information to estimate fish abundance trajectories within a MPA network. Several models also include spatially explicit sub-models of fishing effort and resource management (ISIS-Fish model, Mahevas and Pelletier, 2004 and Kaplan et al., 2009). In contrast the model proposed here seeks to develop the foundations for conservation planning that incorporate connectivity by offering a simpler metapopulation model within a more complex network structure. As such our model advances the linear dispersal work by Kaplan et al. (2009) to large complex two dimensional site configurations and connectivity patterns. Conservation planning often ignores the patterns but instead focuses on the importance of protecting “source” over “sink” populations (Crowder et al., 2000). Yet protecting a set of highly productive, but disconnected, sources could be worse than protecting a well connected chain of lesser sources, as the overall strength of the connections within the network is important for metapopulation persistence (Tuck and Possingham, 2000, Bode et al., 2008 and Beger et al., 2010). The key to metapopulation persistence is the combination of source strength and whole system connectivity. The trade-off of a site's demographic output and its connections within the MPA network remains a challenge to conservation planners (Almany et al., 2009 and Hodgson et al., 2009). Contemporary conservation planning methods tend to be based on biodiversity patterns (Cerdeira et al., 2005, Roberts et al., 2006 and Fernandes et al., 2009), and largely ignore dynamic processes (Pressey et al., 2007 and Moilanen et al., 2009). Connectivity patterns between marine habitats do not necessarily represent spatial biodiversity patterns (Sala et al., 2002), with high variability often observed among the systems studied (see GBR example; Pitcher et al., 2007). Depending on oceanographic and atmospheric circumstances, larval characteristics and behaviour, and scale, any spatial arrangement of sites could have many different patterns of connectivity (Byers and Pringle, 2006). The structure of connectivity models and their implications for conservation planning are largely determined by spatial scale and are often species-specific (Shanks et al., 2003). For example, a species with long-lived larvae and long dispersal distances, will require large scale management to influence the larval recruitment (Botsford et al., 2006). At smaller scales, only species with short dispersal capabilities will be influenced by connected MPA networks (Hastings and Botsford, 2006a and Kaplan et al., 2009).

Reserve networks encourage species dispersal and increase resilience against disastersLeisz et al, graduate from the Department of Pathobiology at Johns Hopkins University, 8[Stephen J., Bishop Museum, “Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Resilience and MPA Management in Melanesia”, May 2008, http://data.bishopmuseum.org/ccbm/Areas/Melanesia/Papers/CCBM_Paper7.pdf , ML] 3: Understand and preserve connectivity between habitats to enhance mutual replenishment and recovery and to maintain functional linkages among associated habitats: Identify patterns of connectivity among source and sink areas and among associated habitats (such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds), so that these can be used to inform site selection in the design

of MPA networks, ensuring strong recruitment and recovery of damaged or depleted areas. Maintain critical habitats for different life stages of key species, and provide stepping-stones for species dispersal over longer time frames. Connectivity describes the natural linkages among habitats and ecosystems that result from the dispersal of organisms by ocean currents and active migration. The strength of connectivity depends on the abundance and fecundity of source populations, the longevity and pre-competency periods of their larvae, and the spawning sites and movement patterns of adults. Connectivity is thus a key driver of the level and reliability of biodiversity replenishment in habitats damaged by natural or human-related agents, including climate change. Mangroves, reefs, and fisheries often have a synergistic relationship, based on their connectivity (Mumby et al. 2004). Coral reefs buffer ocean currents and waves to create a suitably sheltered environment for mangroves and seagrasses. Mangroves and seagrasses filter freshwater discharge from land, trap silt, heavy metals, and nutrient rich run-off, and stabilize sediments, thus maintaining the water quality necessary for coral reef growth and healthy fish communities. Mangroves and seagrasses also enhance the biomass of coral reef fish species through the provision of food and nutrients. Mangroves are important intermediate nursery habitats between seagrass beds and patch reefs that increase young fish survival. Consequently, MPA managers should secure pathways of connectivity among them to enhance resilience (Mumby et al. 2004) and fisheries. Areas where mangroves benefit adjacent ecosystems by filtering sediments and pollutants or providing nursery habitats should be protected. Managers should also endeavour to maintain the connectivity between mangrove systems and upland water catchments to ensure adequate supplies of sediment and freshwater necessary for mangrove peat formation, growth, and reproduction. This will increase the chances of mangrove growth keeping pace with sea-level rise

Connectivity of reserves key to solve long-term sustainability Coleman, New South Wales Marine Parks Authority, 11[Melinda A., PLOS Biology – peer-reviewed international journal, “Connectivity within and among a Network of Temperate Marine Reserves”, May 23, 2011, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020168 , ML] Networks of marine reserves are increasingly being promoted as a means of conserving marine biodiversity. One consideration in designing systems of marine reserves is the maintenance of connectivity to ensure the long-term persistence and resilience of populations. Knowledge of connectivity, however, is frequently lacking during marine reserve design and establishment. We characterise patterns of genetic connectivity of 3 key species of habitat-forming macroalgae across an established network of temperate marine reserves on the east coast of Australia and the implications for adaptive management and marine reserve design. Connectivity varied greatly among species. Connectivity was high for the subtidal macroalgae Ecklonia radiata and Phyllospora comosa and neither species showed any clear patterns of genetic structuring with geographic distance within or among marine parks. In contrast, connectivity was low for the intertidal, Hormosira banksii, and there was a strong pattern of isolation by distance. Coastal topography and latitude influenced small scale patterns of genetic structure. These results suggest that some species are well served by the current system of marine reserves in place along this temperate coast but it may be warranted to revisit protection of intertidal habitats to ensure the long-term persistence of important habitat-forming macroalgae. Adaptively managing marine reserve design to maintain connectivity may ensure the long-term persistence and resilience of marine habitats and the biodiversity they support. Marine

reserves are increasingly being promoted as a means of managing coastal resources and protecting marine biodiversity [1]–[4]. Hundreds of published studies worldwide have shown their success in achieving these goals [5]–[7]. Although individual marine reserves are often designed to meet specific conservation needs for species or habitats, networks of connected reserves are widely acknowledged to be an important tool for ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of marine environments [8], [9]. A key reason for designing networks of marine reserves is connectivity [10], [11]; the exchange of genetic material, species or resources within and among populations. This aspect of marine reserve planning is important for maintaining and restoring natural ecological processes as well as genetic diversity. Connectivity may also ensure the long-term persistence and resilience of populations under both current and future scenarios of anthropogenic change. The size, spacing and arrangement of protected areas relative to scales of dispersal and life history of organisms [12] combined with local and regional scale oceanography [13] and other environmental factors determines the extent to which areas chosen for protection are connected and contribute to conservation goals. Understanding scales of connectivity is also a key consideration in marine reserve planning because it can enhance predictions about population dynamics and the ability for population recovery or rehabilitation, as well as assists in identification of areas as important sources or sinks of propagule dispersal [14], [15].

Network connectivity key to promote resilience and recovery from disturbances Almany, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at James Cook University, 9[Glenn R., Journal of the International Society for Reef Studies, “Connectivity, biodiversity conservation and the design of marine reserve networks for coral reefs”, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00338-009-0484-x/fulltext.html, March 10, 2009, ML]Networks of no-take reserves are important for protecting coral reef biodiversity from climate change and other human impacts. Ensuring that reserve populations are connected to each other and non-reserve populations by larval dispersal allows for recovery from disturbance and is a key aspect of resilience. In general, connectivity between reserves should increase as the distance between them decreases. However, enhancing connectivity may often tradeoff against a network’s ability to representatively sample the system’s natural variability. This ‘‘representation’’ objective is typically measured in terms of species richness or diversity of habitats, but has other important elements (e.g., minimizing the risk that multiple reserves will be impacted by catastrophic events). Such representation objectives tend to be better achieved as reserves become more widely spaced. Thus, optimizing the location, size and spacing of reserves requires both an understanding of larval dispersal and explicit consideration of how well the network represents the broader system; indeed the lack of an integrated theory for optimizing tradeoffs between connectivity and representation objectives has inhibited the incorporation of connectivity into reserve selection algorithms. This article addresses these issues by (1) updating general recommendations for the location, size and spacing of reserves based on emerging data on larval dispersal in corals and reef fishes, and on considerations for maintaining genetic diversity; (2) using a spatial analysis of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to examine potential tradeoffs between connectivity and representation of biodiversity and (3) describing a framework for incorporating environmental fluctuations into the conceptualization of the tradeoff between connectivity and representation, and that expresses both in a common, demographically meaningful currency, thus making optimization possible.Coral reefs are

renowned for their stunning biodiversity, which includes both seen (e.g., habitat, species) and unseen (e.g., genetic) diversity (Soule´ 1991). Reef biodiversity is severely threatened by an oft recited litany of human-caused disturbances (Knowlton 2001; Hoegh-Guldberg 2004), and increasing consensus identifies networks of reserves (notake areas) as a key conservation strategy (Roberts et al. 2006; Jones et al. 2007). Coral reef reserves have proliferated, and most have been established to protect biodiversity (Mora et al. 2006; Jones et al. 2007; Wood et al. 2008). An implicit assumption in this approach is that no-take status contributes to population persistence inside reserves (i.e., offspring from reserve populations contribute to the persistence of their own and/or other reserve populations). Connectivity refers to the exchange of individuals between populations, a process that in the sea occurs primarily through dispersal of planktonic larvae or propagules (hereafter ‘‘larvae’’). Coral reef seascapes are inherently patchy and fragmented, consisting of spatially distinct subpopulations connected to an unknown degree and distance by larval dispersal (Kritzer and Sale 2004; Jones et al. 2007). In general, connectivity between subpopulations should increase as the distance between them decreases. Connectivity is increasingly recognized as a key conservation objective because of its importance to population persistence and recovery from disturbance (Roberts et al. 2006; Salm et al. 2006). Designing reserve networks (e.g., reserve location, size and spacing) that adequately protect connectivity requires an understanding of larval dispersal. However, existing networks have not incorporated empirical estimates of larval dispersal in their design, and may therefore fail to protect connectivity, ensure population persistence or protect biodiversity. In addition, protecting connectivity is only one of several key objectives that should be considered in reserve network designs, and these objectives may tradeoff against each other.

Isolated systems fail – inbreeding, lack of ability to adapt Almany, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at James Cook University, 9[Glenn R., Journal of the International Society for Reef Studies, “Connectivity, biodiversity conservation and the design of marine reserve networks for coral reefs”, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00338-009-0484-x/fulltext.html, March 10, 2009, ML]Isolated populations and islands that are largely selfreplenished have high conservation value, especially where they harbour endemic species and/or unique assemblages (Jones et al. 2002; Perez-Ruzafa et al. 2006; Roberts et al. 2006). Low connectivity makes them less resilient to disturbance, so protecting a large fraction of these systems may be required to ensure population persistence and maintain genetic diversity, particularly for small populations (Frankham 1996). Genetic drift (random changes in allele frequencies in a population) can lead to fixation of deleterious alleles, and drift is compounded in small populations (Freedland 2005). A similar effect results from inbreeding, which is more likely in small populations (Crnokrak and Roff 1999). Furthermore, island populations may have inherently lower genetic diversity than coastal populations (Perez-Ruzafa et al. 2006). Thus, small, isolated populations are at greater risk of extinction due to genetic drift, inbreeding and the loss of adaptive heterozygote conditions (Reed 2005). Therefore, all else equal, more individuals are required to maintain genetic diversity in isolated populations relative to more connected populations.

Funding Enforcement KeyReserves require enforcement to succeed Goldenberg 14 (Suzanne, US environment correspondent, “Obama to expand marine reserves and crack down on seafood black market,” The Guardian, June 17, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/17/obama-oceans-marine-reserves-leonardo-dicaprio, accessed 6/26/14)Officials said rogue trawlers undermine government's efforts to manage fish stocks. Scientists estimate about one of every five fish is caught illegally, robbing up to $23bn a year from legitimate commercial fishing operations around the world. ¶ The task force would work on coming up with a comprehensive strategy to end pirate fishing by the end of 2014, the White House advisor, John Podesta, said.¶ In addition to the economic and environmental costs, he said rogue fishing operations were a security threat – “vectors for criminals who traffic in guns, drugs and other human beings”.

Marine Reserves key for enforcement of Ocean Areas

Roberts, 93, (Calum, oceanographer at York University, 93, Ambio, pg 363)

Fisheries on coral reefs are highly complex , can be very productive, but typically have little or no management. Widespread overfishing and declining yields reveal an acute need for proper management . However, conventional management methods are inappropriate for two main reasons: they require much information on the biology of stocks and are expensive and difficult to enforce. Use of marine reserves has been suggested as an alternative . Protective management potentially has several important benefits including (i) protection of spawning stocks; (ii) provision of recruits to replenish fishing grounds; (iii) enhancement of catches in adjacent unprotected areas through emigration; (iv) minimal requirement for information on biology of stocks; and (v) ease of enforcement. However, the effectiveness of the reserve approach has not been properly tested. We evaluate the evidence available to test whether reserves function as predicted on theoretical grounds. In general, field studies from widespread sites around the globe support predictions of increases in abundance and average size of fishes in protected areas. However, evidence for enhanced catches in adjacent areas is more limited, and evidence to show that reserves can restock fishing grounds is lacking. Nevertheless, protective management appears to hold much promise for low-cost management of reef fisheries. Research programs in several areas of the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific have now been launched to refine the approach. A key argument in getting fishermen to support reserves is that they enhance catches in adjacent areas through emigration of fish. Loss of fishing grounds will thus be compensated for by increased yields. This argument assumes that reserve boundaries will be 'leaky', either through increased population densities resulting in emigration, or through individuals foraging across boundaries.

Solves BiodiversityReserves key to conservation Ballantine and Langlois, 2006 (W.J. Ballantine, T.J Langlois, Proffesors Leigh Marine Laboratory at University of Auckland, “Marine Reserves: The need for systems” http://www.marine-reserves.org.nz/papers/EMBSpaperJan07.pdf -- 2006)

The primary aim of marine reserves is the conservation (or recovery) of the full range¶ of marine life and its intrinsic processes. This primacy has four aspects: its importance,¶ practicality, self-evidence and the inter-

relationships with other benefits.¶ (i) It would be difficult to exaggerate the level of importance. Although our

knowledge of¶ biogeochemical cycles and climate control processes is still limited, it is already clear that¶ marine life is an

essential part of these. The future of the human race depends on maintaining¶ these processes, regardless of our present levels of understanding.¶ (ii) Even in Europe, our knowledge of marine life is still at a low level. Many species¶ remain to be described, many habitats are not yet mapped and we only know some examples¶ of the ecological processes that are involved. While we must use the knowledge we have, it¶ would very unwise to assume it is sufficient for all purposes. The only practical way to ensure¶ full conservation is to keep representative areas free from all exploitation.¶ (iii) The fact that marine reserves are less disturbed and more natural than areas that are¶ fished, dredged, mined, dumped on, etc. is self-evident and requires no detailed data.

Reserves key to ecosystem conservation Palumbi, 2002

(Stephen R. Palumbi, Professor at Stanford University, “Marine Reserves: A Tool For Ecosystem Management and Conservation,” http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Imported-and-Legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/protecting_ocean_life/pewoceansmarinereservespdf.pdf -- 2002 Pew Ocean Commissions)

Overfishing generates three major types of ecosystem damage. First, overfished species are depleted. Second, habitat alteration from fishing activity can cause large-scale ecosystem shift by removing biological structure such as

oyster reefs. Third, ecological shifts resulting from the removal of important species (ecosystem overfishing)

can restructure whole ecosystems such as kelp forests. Reserves help protect ecosystems by protecting all the species within their borders, and the stable functioning of these ecosystems is thought to yield enormous potential advantages.¶ Marine management strategies that include reserves may be more efficient at protecting many species in situations where fishing targets a large number of species (such as the herbivorous reef fish assemblage in Jamaica or the large number of commercial species in the northeastern U.S.) or where fishing for one species causes habitat damage that affects other species. In

simpler situations, single-species management may be as beneficial a solution from a fisheries yield perspective, but even in these cases, reserves provide concomitant conservation benefits through habitat protection (Hastings and Botsford, 1999).

Because the ecological damage from some kinds of overfishing is so clear—especially when biological

structures such as kelp beds or living reefs are damaged—this reserve benefit is likely to be of primary importance in such cases.

Marine reserves solve biodiversityRoberts et. al. 2001—Callum M. Roberts, marine conservation biologist, oceanographer, and research scholar at University of York, 2001 (“Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries,” Science, November 30th, Available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/citmgr?gca=sci%3B294%2F5548%2F1920, Accessed 6/24/14) The marine reserves described here differ in many ways. In St. Lucia, reserves were designed to enhance artisanal, subsistence

fisheries. They protect coral reef habitats and relatively sedentary fish species . In Florida, reserves were

designed to prohibit access to a rocket launch site, and wildlife protection was a subsidiary goal. However, they have protected estuarine habitats and relatively mobile fish species, and they have supplied recreational fisheries with record-size fish . Despite these contrasts, both examples demonstrate that reserve effects extend beyond their boundaries. In these cases, we believe the keys to successful fishery enhancement have been the relatively large fractions of habitat protected and resolute enforcement, and, in Florida, the long period over which protection has extended.

Marine reserves solve biodiversitySala et. al. 13—Enric Sala, National Geographic Society, Washington, D. C., United States of America and Centre for Advanced Studies of Blanes, Higher Council for Scientific Research, Blanes, Spain, 2013 (“A General Business Model for Marine Reserves,” Plos One, April 3rd, Available online at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058799, Accessed 6/24/14) A review of peer-reviewed studies on 124 marine reserves in 29 countries showed that, on

average, marine reserves cause increases of 21% in the number of species, 28% in the size of organisms, 166% in density (number of individuals per unit area), and a remarkable 446% in biomass,

relative to unprotected areas nearby [4]. However, the increase in biomass of predatory fish can be greater than the above averages [6], [7], [8]. The increase in the biomass of predators has been shown to produce a re-accommodation of the food web, shifting from a degraded state typical of intensely fished sites to a

more complex, mature state. These food web changes can enhance ecosystem resilience by promoting the recovery of populations of functionally important species (i.e. strong interactors [9]).

Fisheries may benefit from reserves when they help replenish nearby habitats through spillover of adult organisms and dispersal of larvae. The increase in the biomass of commercial species inside marine reserves has been shown to increase reproductive output (e.g., [10], [11]), as long as the

reproductive grounds are included in the reserves. A review by Lester et al. [4] showed that areas outside reserves showed a significant increase in biomass after the reserve was in place, possibly through the spillover of

adults and/or the export of larvae. Empirical studies also show that higher abundances inside reserves can lead to spillover of adults to nearby fished areas (Table 1). Spillover at small scales is common for commercial species that respond positively to reserve protection [12]. Empirical evidence on the ability of reserves to replenish fished areas through larval dispersal is limited, partly because of methodological/sampling issues [13], but there are some remarkable examples (Table 1).

Marine Reserves preserve biodiversity and are good for the economySala et. al. 13—Enric Sala, National Geographic Society, Washington, D. C., United States of America and Centre for Advanced Studies of Blanes, Higher Council for Scientific Research, Blanes, Spain, 2013 (“A General Business Model for Marine Reserves,” Plos One, April 3rd, Available online at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058799, Accessed 6/24/14) Marine reserves help preserve and restore biodiversity at many levels (e.g., how many species and how

many individuals of each species, and structure of the biogenic habitat; [22]). A meta-analysis showed that the increase of species diversity in marine reserves was associated with large increases in fisheries

productivity, a reduction in the variability of aggregate fish biomass (which helps reduce uncertainty in

fisheries), and an increase in resistance and recovery after natural disturbances from storms and thermal stress [5]. By restoring biodiversity, reserves enhance the productivity and reliability of the good and services that the ocean provides for humanity.

One of the major reasons marine reserves are not more common is that marine ecosystems are typically dominated by single uses such as fishing [23]. Yet the amenity value of marine resources protected in marine reserves (via tourism) is often greater than the commodity value of these resources (via fishing), as the examples above show. In addition, there are other non-commodified goods and services provided by marine ecosystems that can be enhanced by marine reserves . Generally, there is a lack of the non-market data required to quantify the value of these goods and services and therefore these benefits are often taken for granted [24].By protecting coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, marshes and seagrass beds that are threatened by coastal development, aquaculture, agriculture and wood production, marine reserves can play a significant role in protecting some of the most efficient natural carbon sinks on the planet [25], enhancing coastal protection from storms [26], and ensuring the supply of fish to nearby fisheries [27]. For example, the value of one hectare of mangrove per year is up to $37,500 as a nursery for commercial fishes that will later recruit into adjacent fisheries [27], $18,000 as gross carbon credit revenue potential (assuming a carbon price of $15/t CO2e) [28], and $10,821 as storm protection service [29], in addition to the protection of human life on coastal areas prone to tropical storms . In contrast, the net economic return of one hectare of mangrove converted into a shrimp farm in Thailand was only up to $1220 per year in 1997–2004 [29].

Marine reserves work to repopulate areas outside of the reserves as well as within. Highly effective in restoring critical fish populations. Biodiversity spills over. Russ and Alcala, 10(http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-1197.1, “Enhanced biodiversity beyond marine reserve boundaries: The cup spillith over” Gary Russ: School of Marine and Tropical Biology and ARC Centre for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811 Australia, Angel C. Alcala: Silliman University Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management, Silliman University, Dumaguete City, 6200, Philippines)Overfishing can have detrimental effects on marine biodiversity and the structure of marine ecosystems. No-take marine reserves (NTMRs) are much advocated as a means of protecting biodiversity and ecosystem structure from overharvest. In contrast to terrestrial protected areas, NTMRs are not only expected to conserve or recover biodiversity and ecosystems within their boundaries, but also to enhance biodiversity beyond their boundaries by exporting species richness and more complex biological communities. Here we show that species richness of large predatory reef fish increased fourfold and 11-fold inside two Philippine no-take marine reserves over 14 and 25 years, respectively. Outside one reserve (Apo) the species richness also increased. This increase beyond the Apo reserve boundary was 78% higher closer to the boundary (200–250 m) than farther from it (250–500 m). The increase in richness beyond the boundary could not be explained by

improvements over time in habitat or prey availability. Furthermore, community composition of predatory fish outside but close to (200–250 m) the Apo reserve became very similar to that inside the reserve over time, almost converging with it in multivariate space after 26 years of reserve protection. This is consistent with the suggestion that, as community composition inside Apo reserve increased in complexity, this complexity spilled over the boundary into nearby fished areas. Clearly, the spillover of species richness and community complexity is a direct consequence of the spillover of abundance of multiple species. However, this spillover of species richness and community complexity demonstrates an important benefit of biodiversity and ecosystem export from reserves, and it provides hope that reserves can help to reverse the decline of marine ecosystems and biodiversity.

Solves OverfishingMarine reserves solve overfishingRoberts et. al. 2001—Callum M. Roberts, marine conservation biologist, oceanographer, and research scholar at University of York, 2001 (“Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries,” Science, November 30th, Available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/citmgr?gca=sci%3B294%2F5548%2F1920, Accessed 6/24/14) Marine reserves, areas that are closed to all fishing, have been attracting much attention for their dual potential as conservation and fishery management tools (1–5). A synthesis of more than 100 studies of reserves worldwide shows that protection from fishing leads to rapid increases in biomass, abundance, and average size of exploited organisms and to increased species diversity (6). Such effects are of great interest to fishery managers, because rebuilding exploited populations in reserves offers prospects of fishery enhancement (3,7).Because reserves contain more and larger fish, protected populations can potentially produce many times more offspring than can exploited populations . In some cases, studies have estimated order-of-magnitude

differences in egg production (8). Increased egg output is predicted to supply adjacent fisheries through export of offspring on ocean currents (9–11). In addition, as protected stocks build up, reserves are predicted to supply local fisheries through density-dependent spillover of juveniles and adults into fishing grounds (7).

Reserves solve overfishing and BiodiversityGell and Roberts 03—Fiona R. Gell, Fisheries Directorate, Department of Environment Food and Agriculture, Isle of Man Government, St John's, Isle of Man, United Kingdom, and Callum M. Roberts, marine conservation biologist, oceanographer, and research scholar and University of York, 2003 (“Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, September 2003, Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703001897, Accessed 6/24/14)Rapidly increasing evidence shows that reserves and fishery closures benefit species as diverse as molluscs 19 and 20 (Box 2 and Box 3), crustaceans 13, 24 and 25 and fish of a wide variety of sizes, life histories and mobilities [3] (Box 2 and Box 4). Benefits develop within two to five years of establishment and continue to build for decades. The examples we describe here show that reserves work in habitats as different as coral reefs, kelp forests, temperate continental shelves, estuaries, seagrass beds, rocky shores and mangroves [3].

Research on reserves is revealing the profound degree to which people have modified marine ecosystems by fishing. Nature conservation in the oceans cannot be achieved without marine reserves, neither, we would contend, can the world's fisheries be made sustainable. Fortunately, the

evidence available suggests that we can design effective reserves for any habitat that is fished. At the World

Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, countries agreed ambitious targets for creating national networks of marine protected areas by 2012 and rebuilding overexploited fisheries by 2015†.

Marine reserves offer a means to deliver on the first and contribute to the second promise.

Terrorism Add-On

Short Version

Nuclear Terror Module

Post 911 NOAA resources decrease fisheries management, but the plan reverses that, allowing for increased fisheries and anti-terror measuresBraxton C. Davis, Gred S. Moretti, 7/2007"Enforcing U.S Marine Protected Areas, Synthesis Report", National Oceans and Aeronautics association, National Marine Protected Areas Center, ( University of Southern California, Baruch Institute for marine and coastal sciences, Greg is as IM systems contractor for NOAA and the Marine Protective Area Center http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/publications/enforcement.pdf//AKP

Homeland Security Implications Some of the NOAA Fisheries OLE partnerships described above, particularly with the USCG, Customs, Border Patrol, and FBI, have resulted in increased responsibilities and reassignments related to homeland security. New assignments and

responsibilities have also impacted the U.S. Coast Guar d, which has since been reorganized

under the federal Department of Homeland Secu- rity and is responsible for patrolling nearshore “secure zones” around key ports. For this reason, several regional fishery councils passed motions soon after September 11, 2001, asking NOAA’s General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation to assess the maximum allowable penalties for fisheries violations, particularly in those cases where intent was demonstrated, to prevent vio- lators from taking advantage of decreased law enforcement staff due to homeland security obli- gations. Based on interviews conducted for this report, fisheries enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard has

not yet returned to pre-9/11 levels, but continues to increase. In addition, recent increases in personnel and equipment assets for Homeland Security operations will continue to increase enforcement presence (especially near- shore), and as an indirect result, may enhance the enforcement of fisheries regulations.State marine patrols are also becoming increas- ingly involved in Homeland Security operations. At the time of this study, state marine patrol and conservation officers are responding to new home- land security missions and priorities – responsibili- ties which expand whenever the national terrorism threat level is upgraded. For example, many state agencies with

jurisdiction over fishery regulations in state and federal waters are also responsible for

patrolling nearshore “security zones” around key installations and facilities, especially during

heightened terrorism alerts . The State of Maine recently signed an agreement with the USCG that could become a national model for federal/state partnerships for homeland security operations. The Maine State Marine Patrol will help the U.S. Coast Guard monitor potential terrorist targets, and state officers will have the authority to take action in certain situations (Richardson 2004). Other states have indicated an interest in develop- ing similar agreements with the Coast Guard for homeland security operations. In addition, some state and federal enforcement officers also serve as reservists with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army, or U.S. National Guard, and have been called to duty during ongoing military operations.

Nuclear terrorism is an existential threat—it escalates to nuclear war with Russia and China.Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a

backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken

the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia , which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

Economy Module

Post 911 NOAA resources decrease fisheries management, but the plan reverses that, allowing for increased fisheries and anti-terror measuresBraxton C. Davis, Gred S. Moretti, 7/2007"Enforcing U.S Marine Protected Areas, Synthesis Report", National Oceans and Aeronautics association, National Marine Protected Areas Center, ( University of Southern California, Baruch Institute for marine and coastal sciences, Greg is as IM systems contractor for NOAA and the Marine Protective Area Center http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/publications/enforcement.pdf//AKP

Homeland Security Implications Some of the NOAA Fisheries OLE partnerships described above, particularly with the USCG, Customs, Border Patrol, and FBI, have resulted in increased responsibilities and reassignments related to homeland security. New assignments and

responsibilities have also impacted the U.S. Coast Guar d, which has since been reorganized

under the federal Department of Homeland Secu- rity and is responsible for patrolling nearshore “secure zones” around key ports. For this reason, several regional fishery councils passed motions soon after September 11, 2001, asking NOAA’s General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation to assess the maximum allowable penalties for fisheries violations, particularly in those cases where intent was demonstrated, to prevent vio- lators from taking advantage of decreased law enforcement staff due to homeland security obli- gations. Based on interviews conducted for this report, fisheries enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard has

not yet returned to pre-9/11 levels, but continues to increase. In addition, recent increases in personnel and equipment assets for Homeland Security operations will continue to increase enforcement presence (especially near- shore), and as an indirect result, may enhance the enforcement of fisheries regulations.State marine patrols are also becoming increas- ingly involved in Homeland Security operations. At the time of this study, state marine patrol and conservation officers are responding to new home- land security missions and priorities – responsibili- ties which expand whenever the national terrorism threat level is upgraded. For example, many state agencies with

jurisdiction over fishery regulations in state and federal waters are also responsible for

patrolling nearshore “security zones” around key installations and facilities, especially during

heightened terrorism alerts . The State of Maine recently signed an agreement with the USCG that could become a national model for federal/state partnerships for homeland security operations. The Maine State Marine Patrol will help the U.S. Coast Guard monitor potential terrorist targets, and state officers will have the authority to take action in certain situations (Richardson 2004). Other states have indicated an interest in develop- ing similar agreements with the Coast Guard for homeland security operations. In addition, some state and federal enforcement officers also serve as reservists with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army, or U.S. National Guard, and have been called to duty during ongoing military operations.

Terrorists have interest in sending nuclear weapons across the oceans-- even if the attack weren't successful, it still impacts the economyNitin Bakshi, Stephen Flynn, and Noah Gans 2011, "Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism Through Container Inspections", Administrative and Regulatory Law New, Volume 37, Number 1//AKP),

Each year, ocean-going vessels transport millions of shipping containers to the United States . These containers provide terrorists with a potentially attractive way to hide a nuclear device destined for U.S. shores. The successful smuggling and detonation of such a device would be disastrous. In addition to lives lost, the detonation of a nuclear device in a port could lead to losses in the range of $55-$220 billion. Even if it were not detonated, the successful smuggling of a nuclear device into a U.S. port has the potential to disrupt global supply chains: anxiety

that other containers may contain nuclear devices would result in stepped-up inspections

that would cause congestion throughout the global inter- modal transportation system.

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 ma y 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, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, 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 remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that '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 . C rises 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

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 mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict

tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the 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), 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.

Long Version

Terrrorists have intent to attack our open seas, and every second we waste stalling increases the probability of an attack

Niyazi Onur Bakir 2007, (University of Southern California, Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) "A Brief Analysis of Threats and Vulnerabilities in the Maritime Domain", CREATE Homeland Security Center, http://research.create.usc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=nonpublished_reports//AKP)

TERRORISM IN THE MARITIME DOMAIN While terrorists have largely targeted land sites, it has been evident over the course of recent history that seaborne terrorism poses an unignorable threat. International waters have long been penetrated by terrorists , and there is virtually no protection for commercial ships against this growing threat. US vessels are not immune from the rise of maritime terrorism as shown by the boat attack on naval destroyer, Cole, in 2000. It is even more disturbing to realize that terrorists having a continuum of options can sabotage the flow of international trade with relatively less effort than in 9/11. As terrorists develop their maritime terrorism skills, the probability of launching an attack with catastrophic

consequences on US economic interests will increase . Al-Qaeda has already stated interest to this end. After the attack on French tanker, Limburg 2002, Osama Bin Laden released an audio tape in which he stated “By God, the youths of God are preparing for you things that would fill your hearts with terror and target your economic lifeline until you stop your oppression and aggression.” Further intelligence seems to confirm that Al-Qaeda may still be planning

attacks on maritime target s. In 2002, Al-Qaeda's former chief of naval operations confessed plans 8 United States Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2004 Report. Page 7 of 33 to attack ships passing through the Strait of Gibraltar.9 The scheme was later foiled by Moroccan officials. The alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was reportedly involved in a plot to export weapons and explosives into the US [20]. He was reported to make an offer to an import/export firm to use their containers for shipping illegal contraband to the New York & New Jersey port. For years, drug dealers have been known to employ a similar tactic of buying out a trustworthy shipping company to disguise their shipments [10]. Drug smuggling chains can be discovered after observing patterns of shipments. However,

maritime security officials have no luxury to observe such patterns to counter terrorism

threat because one successful attempt to evade detection seaports may bring catastrophe . Al Qaeda is believed to control approximately 15 ships which fly Yemen and Somalia flags. Other terrorist organizations have been active in the maritime domain for almost half a

century. Most seaborne terrorism attacks were carried out by local groups as rather isolated incidents seeking to gain independence and oppose the regional governments. However, there were relatively high profile incidents in the past that exposed the capability of their

perpetrators in successfully operating in the maritime domain and had political ramifications in the global arena. Some of the terrorist organizations and other militant groups involved in these incidents are as follows: ● Hezbollah: While Hezbollah is less known with its attacks in this domain, they were active in laying mines in the Red Sea in mid '80s to impede access to Israeli ports. In 1984, they organized a mine attack on the southern entrance of Suez Canal that hit 19 ships. ● Polisario Front : This militant group whose goal was independence of Western Sahara was quite active in '70s and '80s. Their main targets were Spanish and Portugese vessels operating off the northwestern coast of Africa. They were known to carry out direct attacks on their targets with mortar and machine-gun fire. ● IRA: IRA targeted cruise liners and cargo ships in '70s and '80s and were involved with illegal transport of weapons and munitions. ● Palestinian Liberation Front : They hijacked the Italian cruise liner, Achille Lauro, in 1985 off the Egyptian coast and took 511 passengers hostage demanding release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. One American passenger was killed in this assault. 9 “A Time Bomb for Global Trade: Maritime-related Terrorism in an Age of Weapons of Mass Destruction”, Address by Michael Richardson on September 2004 to the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. Page 8 of 33 ● Abu Nidal: This organization was active in late '80s in hijacking incidents. In 1987, they captured a French yacht off the coast of Gaza Strip to warn Arab leaders not to entitle late King Hussein of Jordan to be the representative of Palestinians in peace talks. All hostages were released at the request of Qaddafi. ● Chechen Rebels : In 1996, they hijacked a ferry sailing from a northern port of Turkey (Trabzon), and demanded withdrawal of Russian troops from a Daghestani village. After a series of negotiations, the hijackers were later captured. ● Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (a.k.a. Tamil Tigers ): This terrorist organization has been quite active in recent years attacking ships off the coast of Sri Lanka. While their primary target has been Sri Lankan Navy ships, they were also involved in attacking Chinese and North Korean ships with the intent of disrupting maritime traffic in the region. They have singled out themselves from most other terrorist groups engaged in seaborne terrorism by using suicide tactics. ● Free Aceh Movement (GAM ): Currently, this rebel group has discontinued its terrorist activities following a peace accord with the Indonesian government. Before the agreement, they were active in Malacca Straits with relatively small scale attacks. Besides Al-Qaeda, some other organizations are believed to harbor intentions to launch seaborne attacks that target United States and its allies. In southeast Asia, where piracy is rampant, Jemaah Islamiya (JI), Lashkar Jundullah (LJ), and Kampulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM) are among the active terrorist organizations that could potentially direct their attention to maritime terrorism. Elsewhere, as mentioned in the previous section, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade has already shipped two suicide bombers to an Israeli port disguised in a container. It is expected that terrorism in open seas will continue be a threat unless radical measures that foster coordination between nations and intelligence sharing are taken.

Terrorists have interest in sending nuclear weapons across the oceans-- even if the attack weren't successful, it still impacts the economyNitin Bakshi, Stephen Flynn, and Noah Gans 2011, "Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism Through Container Inspections", Administrative and Regulatory Law New, Volume 37, Number 1//AKP),

Each year, ocean-going vessels transport millions of shipping containers to the United States . These containers provide terrorists with a potentially attractive way to hide a nuclear device destined for U.S. shores. The successful smuggling and detonation of such a device would be disastrous. In addition to lives lost, the detonation of a nuclear device in a port could lead to losses in the range of $55-$220 billion. Even if it were not detonated, the successful smuggling of a nuclear device into a U.S. port has the potential to disrupt global supply chains: anxiety

that other containers may contain nuclear devices would result in stepped-up inspections

that would cause congestion throughout the global inter- modal transportation system.

The oceans are a critical avenue for nuclear terrorist attacks-- the immediate impact would destroy the world economyJonathan Medalia , 1/24/05, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, "Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response" CRS Report for Congress, http://fas.org/irp/crs/RS21293.pdf//AKP

Background Terrorists have tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. While it would probably be more difficult for terrorists to obtain or fabricate a nuclear weapon than other WMD, an attack using a nuclear weapon merits consideration because it would have much higher consequence. U .S. seaports

could be targets for terrorist attack . A terrorist Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb (15 kilotons, the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT) detonated in a port would destroy buildings out to a mile or two; start fires, especially in a port that handled petroleum and chemicals; spread fallout over many square miles; disrupt commerce; and kill many people. Many ports are in major cities. By one estimate, a 10- to 20-kiloton weapon detonated in a major seaport would kill 50,000 to 1 million people and would result in direct property damage of $50 to $500 billion, losses due to trade disruption of $100 billion to $200 billion, and indirect costs of

$300 billion to $1.2 trillion. 1 Terrorists might try to smuggle a bomb into a U.S. port in many

ways, but containers may offer an attractive route . A container is a metal box, typically 8 ft wide by 8½ ft high by 20 ft or 40 ft long, that can be used on and moved between a tractor-trailer, a rail car, or a ship. Much global cargo moves by container. Nearly 9 million containers a year enter the United States by ship.2 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screens data for all containers, and reportedly inspects about 6 percent of them.3 Containers could easily hold a nuclear weapon. Many believe that ports and containers are vulnerable. An FBI official stated, “The intelligence that we have certainly points to the ports as a key vulnerability of the United States and of a key interest to certain terrorist groups....”4 CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner believes an attack using a nuclear bomb in a container would halt container shipments, leading to “devastating” consequences for the global economy. ...”5 People can, however, find ways to minimize economic problems.

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 ma y 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, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, 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 remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that '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 . C rises 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

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 mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict

tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the 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), 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.

Terrorists can definitely get the bombs-- Russia and Pakistan are vulnerable to theft, and its easy to make one anyway-- probability is HIGHJonathan Medalia , 1/24/05, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, "Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response" CRS Report for Congress, http://fas.org/irp/crs/RS21293.pdf//AKP

Terrorist Nuclear Weapons: Routes to a Bomb. A terrorist group might obtain a bomb, perhaps with the yield of the Hiroshima bomb, by several plausible routes. Russia. Strategic (long-range) nuclear weapons are reportedly well guarded on missiles or, thanks in part to U.S. assistance, in storage. In contrast, thousands of shorter- range lower-yield weapons intended

for use in combat are less well secured, and numbers and locations are uncertain . (See CRS Report RL32202, Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues.) A fear is that terrorists might buy or steal one of these weapons along with information on how to bypass any use-control devices. Pakistan. U.S., British, Chinese, French, and Israeli nuclear weapons are thought to be well guarded. Control is less certain for India and Pakistan. Reports indicate that Pakistanis aided nuclear programs in Iran, Libya, and North Korea, and there are concerns about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons if President Musharraf were assassinated.6 Build a Bomb . The Hiroshima bomb was a “gun assembly” weapon. Its nuclear explosive was a gun barrel about 6 inches in diameter by 6 feet long. It was capped at each end, with standard explosive at one end, a mass of uranium highly enriched in the isotope 235 (highly enriched uranium, or HEU) next to the explosive, and a second HEU mass at the other end. Detonating the explosive shot one mass of HEU into the other, rapidly assembling a mass large enough to support a fission chain reaction. (Plutonium cannot be used.) This is the simplest type of

nuclear weapon . U.S . scientists had such high confidence in the design that they did not test

the Hiroshima bomb . Experts agree that terrorist groups could not make special nuclear material (SNM, i.e., fissile plutonium or HEU). Many believe that a terrorist group with access to HEU and key skills could build a crude nuclear weapon. Five former Los Alamos nuclear

weapons experts held that such a weapon “could be constructed by a group not previously engaged in designing or building nuclear weapons, providing a number of requirements were adequately met.”7 A National Research Council study stated: “ The basic technical

information needed to construct a workable nuclear device is readily available in the open

literature. The primary impediment that prevents countries or technically competent terrorist groups from developing nuclear weapons is the availability of SNM, especially HEU.”8 Many believe it would be hard for a terrorist group to obtain enough HEU for a weapon; others fear that terrorists could do so. The National Research Council study rated the threat level from SNM from Russia as “High — large inventories of SNM are stored at many sites that apparently lack inventory controls and indigenous threats have increased.”9 Responses The main approach to reducing vulnerability to a terrorist nuclear attack is defense in depth — using multiple methods to detect and interdict a weapon. It would be harder to evade several methods than one: attempts to evade one may make a bomb more visible to another or reduce the odds that the bomb would work. Defense in depth also seeks to push detection and interdiction far from U.S. shores. This section illustrates the scope of effort. (See CRS Report RL31733, Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress, and CRS Report RS21283, Homeland Security: Intelligence Support.)

Squo tech doesnt check-- terrorists could maneuver around new techniques and demonstrations prove the procedures we have now failJonathan Medalia , 1/24/05, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, "Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response" CRS Report for Congress, http://fas.org/irp/crs/RS21293.pdf//AKP

Terrorists can counter new technologies . If the United States deploys sensors at some ports, terrorists might detonate a weapon before it is inspected, or ship it to another port. If foreign ports screened containers before being loaded onto U.S.-bound ships, terrorists could infiltrate the ports. Securing the largest ports might lead terrorists to use smaller ones. Securing every

U.S.-bound container might lead terrorists to smuggle a weapon in a small boat or airplane. Detecting an HEU bomb is difficult because HEU emits very little radiation. R&D is underway to address this key issue. In 2002 and 2003, ABC News shipped shielded 15-pound cylinders of

depleted uranium (DU, natural uranium minus most uranium-235) into U.S. ports in

containers. CBP did not detect these shipments . ABC claimed that DU is a good surrogate for HEU; CBP claimed the opposite. In September 2004, DHS issued a report on the topic. It concluded “[i]mprovements are needed in the inspection process to ensure that weapons of mass destruction ... do not gain access to the U.S. through oceangoing cargo containers” and recommended improving detection equipment and search methods.19 Pending Legislation. Bills related to terrorist nuclear attacks on ports include H.R. 163, Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005, and H.R. 173, Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2005. Policy Issues Securing Nuclear Materials. The possibility that a terrorist group could make a nuclear weapon given enough HEU, and the difficulty of preventing terrorists from smuggling a weapon into a U.S. port, show the value of securing nuclear weapons and materials in Russia and elsewhere.

Anti-terror resources are critical to solve-- even a perception of increased forces deter terrorists and deter attacksJonathan Medalia , 1/24/05, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, "Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response" CRS Report for Congress, http://fas.org/irp/crs/RS21293.pdf//AKP

Ameliorating Economic Consequences. Cold War civil defense studies examined how to ameliorate the destructive effects of a large nuclear attack. This effort, and more recent emergency preparedness efforts, provide a template for response and recovery following a terrorist attack using one 15-kiloton weapon. This work does not, however, address possible global economic consequences and how to predict and mitigate them. These issues could benefit from further study and analyses. What Priority Should Port Security Have? The 9/11 Commission wrote, “Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation [compared to commercial aviation]. Initiatives to secure shipping containers have just begun.” Terrorists “may be deterred by a significant chance of failure. ”20 Improving the ability to detect terrorist nuclear weapons in the maritime transportation system may make a terrorist attack on a port less likely to succeed, and thus less probable. The American Association of Port Authorities, a trade association, welcomed federal grants for port security

upgrades to comply with the MTSA, but called for “substantially greater resources.”21 Others

agree that more resources are needed to secure U.S. ports , such as to reduce overcrowding of cargo-handling facilities and to hire more workers.22 A similar case could be made for gas pipelines, electric power plants, rail yards, or bridges. At issue for Congress is how to allocate security funds among ports and other potential targets.

Post 911 NOAA resources decrease fisheries management, but the plan reverses that, allowing for increased fisheries and anti-terror measuresBraxton C. Davis, Gred S. Moretti, 7/2007"Enforcing U.S Marine Protected Areas, Synthesis Report", National Oceans and Aeronautics association, National Marine Protected Areas Center, ( University of Southern California, Baruch Institute for marine and coastal sciences, Greg is as IM systems contractor for NOAA and the Marine Protective Area Center http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/publications/enforcement.pdf//AKP

Homeland Security Implications Some of the NOAA Fisheries OLE partnerships described above, particularly with the USCG, Customs, Border Patrol, and FBI, have resulted in increased responsibilities and reassignments related to homeland security. New assignments and

responsibilities have also impacted the U.S. Coast Guar d, which has since been reorganized

under the federal Department of Homeland Secu- rity and is responsible for patrolling nearshore “secure zones” around key ports. For this reason, several regional fishery councils passed motions soon after September 11, 2001, asking NOAA’s General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation to assess the maximum allowable penalties for fisheries violations, particularly in those cases where intent was demonstrated, to prevent vio- lators from taking advantage of decreased law enforcement staff due to homeland security obli- gations. Based on interviews conducted for this report, fisheries enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard has

not yet returned to pre-9/11 levels, but continues to increase. In addition, recent increases in personnel and equipment assets for Homeland Security operations will continue to increase enforcement presence (especially near- shore), and as an indirect result, may enhance the enforcement of fisheries regulations.State marine patrols are also becoming increas- ingly involved in Homeland Security operations. At the time of this study, state marine patrol and conservation officers are responding to new home- land security missions and priorities – responsibili- ties which expand whenever the national terrorism threat level is upgraded. For example, many state agencies with

jurisdiction over fishery regulations in state and federal waters are also responsible for

patrolling nearshore “security zones” around key installations and facilities, especially during

heightened terrorism alerts . The State of Maine recently signed an agreement with the USCG that could become a national model for federal/state partnerships for homeland security operations. The Maine State Marine Patrol will help the U.S. Coast Guard monitor potential terrorist targets, and state officers will have the authority to take action in certain situations (Richardson 2004). Other states have indicated an interest in develop- ing similar agreements with the Coast Guard for homeland security operations. In addition, some state and federal enforcement officers also serve as reservists with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army, or U.S. National Guard, and have been called to duty during ongoing military operations.

Nuclear terrorism is an existential threat—it escalates to nuclear war with Russia and China.Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a

backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken

the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia , which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

intent exts

Squo tech doesnt check-- terrorists could maneuver around new techniques and demonstrations prove the procedures we have now failJonathan Medalia , 1/24/05, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, "Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response" CRS Report for Congress, http://fas.org/irp/crs/RS21293.pdf//AKP

Terrorists can counter new technologies . If the United States deploys sensors at some ports,

terrorists might detonate a weapon before it is inspected, or ship it to another port . If foreign ports screened containers before being loaded onto U.S.-bound ships, terrorists could infiltrate the ports. Securing the largest ports might lead terrorists to use smaller ones. Securing every U.S.-bound container might lead terrorists to smuggle a weapon in a small boat or airplane. Detecting an HEU bomb is difficult because HEU emits very little radiation. R&D is underway to address this key issue. In 2002 and 2003, ABC News shipped shielded 15-pound cylinders of

depleted uranium (DU, natural uranium minus most uranium-235) into U.S. ports in

containers. CBP did not detect these shipments . ABC claimed that DU is a good surrogate for HEU; CBP claimed the opposite. In September 2004, DHS issued a report on the topic. It concluded “[i]mprovements are needed in the inspection process to ensure that weapons of mass destruction ... do not gain access to the U.S. through oceangoing cargo containers” and recommended improving detection equipment and search methods.19 Pending Legislation. Bills related to terrorist nuclear attacks on ports include H.R. 163, Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005, and H.R. 173, Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2005. Policy Issues Securing Nuclear Materials. The possibility that a terrorist group could make a nuclear weapon given enough HEU, and the difficulty of preventing terrorists from smuggling a weapon into a U.S. port, show the value of securing nuclear weapons and materials in Russia and elsewhere

The open sea is a key critical ground for terrorist attacksNiyazi Onur Bakir 2007, (University of Southern California, Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) "A Brief Analysis of Threats and Vulnerabilities in the Maritime Domain", CREATE Homeland Security Center, http://research.create.usc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=nonpublished_reports//AKP)

3.1.1.1.4 Sea Transportation. In this phase, cargo travels between the port of origin and the port of destination in the US. It is a critical phase as there is minimal law enforcement in international waters and the vessel carrying cargo may visit other ports before arriving at a US port. This leaves the vessel exposed to piracy and stowaway threat. Lack of security guidelines to combat piracy makes the problem worse. Most ships arriving at US seaports carry foreign flags and foreign crew. Therefore, backgrounds of the crew are not verifiable, and there is no way to detect anybody who committed crimes in foreign countries. As mentioned earlier, security breaches at seaports visited en route is another loophole that could be exploited. In an effort to reduce crime in open waters and seaports, international bodies promote the use of technology that could track vessels, improve port perimeter security and help enforce law. The

US Coast Guard recognizes the severity of the problem and has taken some steps to reduce terrorism risk in US waters. We will elaborate more on these efforts later in this paper when general security in US and open waters is discussed.

econ exts

Coast Guard Resources key to prevent economic evisceration of key coastal industries--like LNGNiyazi Onur Bakir 2007, (University of Southern California, Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) "A Brief Analysis of Threats and Vulnerabilities in the Maritime Domain", CREATE Homeland Security Center, http://research.create.usc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=nonpublished_reports//AKP)

3.2 SECURITY OF US WATERS AND COAST Most US energy power plants, critical bridges, and densely populated urban areas lay close to waterways. For instance, 75% of oil refineries, a

great majority of 103 nuclear reactors, and all LNG terminals in the US are located onshore . Nearly all major cities Page 25 of 33 are accessible by waterways. Operation of the infrastructure onshore is crucial for the US economy. A single attack on any of this

infrastructure is likely to inflict a significant number of casualties and bring serious economic

damage . Furthermore, they may be easier to penetrate from the shore, making them attractive targets for terrorists. The US Coast Guard has a central role in confronting such seaborne threats.

AT: Disadvantage

AT: PoliticsStudies from past reserves show fishers actually are on board with reserves – benefits both them and their communitiesKincaid and Rose 5-1-14 (Kate Barley and George A., Centre for fisheries ecosystems research and correspondent, “Why fishers want a closed area in their fishing grounds: Exploring perceptions and attitudes to sustainable fisheries and conservation 10 years post closure in Labrador, Canada,” Marine Policy, Volume 46, May 1, 2014)Nineteen fishermen with an average of 29 years fishing experience were interviewed from communities in south-eastern Labrador. Most were owner-operators of fishing enterprises. Fishing was the main source of income of all fishers interviewed, with snow crab using pots as the main fishery, followed by shrimp trawling. Most were directly involved in the establishment of the closed area (78.9%, n=15).¶ Local fishers that instigated this closure fish within the Hawke box for snow crab and must travel further to trawl for shrimp as a direct consequence of the closure. This extra time and travel has a cost, but most fishers believe that leaving this area free from bottom trawling and gillnetting will keep their snow crab fishery sustainable for the future. One fisher said, “If that box wasn't closed for the crab we wouldn't have a fishery today, that's all that's keeping us going today”, a sentiment expressed by the majority of respondents. 73.7% said that without the closure, there would be no fishery today, and 26.3% said the fishery would be in worse shape without it (Table 2). A strong sense of ownership was evident among all fishers interviewed. One respondent put it as “if we don't help ourselves right now, then we can forget about the future”; another said “it's the only thing that's saving us. If you go outside (the Hawke Box) you don't get any crab, that's where they're doing all the dragging”. In three separate questions, 100% interviewed said that the closure was beneficial to them, their community, and to marine life.

Obama already issued an order for a marine reserve-it is just a question of enforcement-their link should have already been triggeredBadore 6-17 [6-17-14, Margaret Badore has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Sarah Lawrence, “Obama Announces Plans for Huge Marine Reserve Expansion,” http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/obama-announces-plans-huge-marine-preserve-expansion.html, HR]

Today President Obama announced plans to expand the boundaries of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monumen t, a marine reserve created by George W. Bush in 2009. The final perimeter has not yet been determined, but maritime law allows the U.S. to control up to 200 nautical miles away from the shore. If Obama chooses to use the full 200 miles, the reserve could be expanded by about nine times its current size, protecting 780,000 square miles. The protected area surrounds sparsely populated islands that are located between Hawaii and American Samoa. The President said the final shape will be determined after a period of public comment, and will consider input from conservationists, scientists, fishermen and other stakeholders. Obama’s announcement was made during an oceans conference hosted by the U.S. Department of State. “Let’s make sure that years from now we can look our children in the eye and tell them that, yes, we did our part, we took action, and we led the way toward a safer, more stable

world,” he said in a video message. The announcement comes not long after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released updated rules for creating new marine sanctuaries, which now give communities the opportunity to nominate areas for consideration.

Plan only unpopular with RepublicansGolden 6/23 (Abigail, editorial intern at The Daily Beast and a student at Columbia University. “Republicans: Obama’s Ocean Protection Plan Evidence of ‘Imperial Presidency’” The Daily Beast, June 23rd 2014, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/republicans-obama-s-ocean-protection-plan-evidence-of-imperial-presidency.html)

Obama’s use of an executive order to establish the reserve expansion angered Republicans in government, who viewed it as an attempt to test the limits of White House authority. Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, was quick to denounce Obama as an “Imperial President” who is “intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.”¶ By Hastings’ standards, then, another candidate for an “imperial presidency” would be George W. Bush, who created four marine national monuments during his time in office, totaling some 300,000 square miles of protected ocean.

Lobbies fight for the planLeary 6/25 (Alex, Washington bureau chief for the Tampa Bay Times. “Outside spending group targets 'Mr. Big Time' Steve Southerland in TV ad” Tampa Bay Times, June 25th 2014, http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/outside-spending-group-targets-mr-big-time-steve-southerland-in-tv-ad/2186020)

An group called Ocean Champions said it is paying for this TV ad against Rep. Steve Southerland, reflecting national Democrats' hopes of knocking out the two-term Republican from Panama City.¶ Ocean Champions, in partnership with House Majority PAC and other groups, spent $300,000 last cycle against Southerland, according to Bob Doyle, the group's independent expenditure director.¶ This time, he said, it will be a "more comprehensive campaign." It begins with the 30-second TV ad that will run in the Panama City market for two weeks, starting Thursday, at a cost of $36,000.¶ Doyle, a vice president with ad-firm Main Street Communications, referred to Southerland as "Ocean enemy #1" in an email. Yet the ad mentions nothing about environmental policy.¶ Instead it implies Southerland sold out for Washington and tries to link him with Democratic budget votes on corporate plane use and lobbyists.¶ “Our campaign messaging takes the full measure of Rep. Southerland’s record. We’ll have more to say about a variety of issues as the campaign unfolds," Doyle said.

Specifically, environmental lobbyists control the agendaFaulkner 13 (Chris, CEO of Breitling Energy Companies in Dallas. “It's time to seize control of America's energy future” Cleveland.com, August 29th, 2014, http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/08/its_time_to_seize_control_of_a.html)

Despite the fact that over a million wells have been fracked in America with an unparalleled safety record, radical environmentalists have been trying to sway public

opinion against fracking . They're deploying easily debunked propaganda. There's simply no real evidence that fracking pollutes groundwater, causes earthquakes or is responsible for any of the other outrageous claims being made against the practice.¶ The White House has also repeatedly denied approval for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada and North Dakota to refineries on the Gulf Coast. This project has been thoroughly reviewed and found environmentally sound. And its construction would create an estimated 42,000 jobs.¶ The White House has also been rebuked by federal courts for blocking drilling in parts of the Eastern Seaboard, the West Coast, Alaska and Florida. President Barack Obama's agenda appears to be dictated by an extreme environmental lobby opposed to all new production of conventional, economically viable energy.

Shifting our focus to the supposed threat of terrorism detracts attention from very legitimate threats. Terror is not a priority, prefer developed threats and very likely war in China and Russia. Fukuyama, 6/25 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68428a5a-f7c0-11e3-90fa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz36DuPamyt, “Isis risks distracting US from more menacing foes” Francis Fukuyama is a renowned political scientist and author, senior fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law at Stanford University

For some, it will always be 1939. We are forever telling ourselves how, in the 1930s, the US and Britain

underestimated the threat from Germany and Japan, how Winston Churchill alone among western leaders saw the danger and summoned his country to a defence of democracy against the Nazis. The 70 years of American leadership following the second world war were a catalogue of Churchillian moments, from the Berlin airlift to the fall of the Berlin Wall. There is much truth to this: the US and its allies performed

admirably in creating a peaceful and liberal international postwar order in Europe and Asia. But this narrative is highly selective. There were many moments when western leaders believed they were Churchill: the UK’s Anthony Eden in the 1956 Suez crisis, US Presidents Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam and George W Bush in Iraq . They overestimated the threat they faced and made things worse, provoking unnecessary and counterproductive wars , while undermining political support for an internationalist foreign policy. The focus of today’s debate ought to be: how should we prioritise the threats facing us and how bad

are the most serious? This year we have seen a fast-moving sequence of events, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea to China’s assertion of sovereignty over the South and East China seas to the collapse of the Iraqi government’s power. Authoritarian forces are on the move . It is on this

point that US President Barack Obama ’s foreign policy speech at the West Point military academy in May was wrong-headed. It laid out various abstract criteria for the use of force (actions must be

“proportional and effective and just”; where no direct threat to US interests exists, “the threshold for military action must

be higher”). It is hard to disagree. But he went on to state that the only direct threat we face is terrorism. He said virtually nothing about long-term responses to the two other big challenges to world order: Russia and China . There was great fanfare surrounding the US “pivot” towards Asia – one of the most important initiatives of Mr Obama’s first term – but he did not mention the word once. Despite the recent successes of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (known as Isis), I would argue that terrorism is actually the least consequential of these challenges in

terms of core US interests. What we are witnessing in Iraq and Syria is the slow spread of a Sunni-Shia war, with local forces acting as

proxies for Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is a humanitarian crisis in the making. However, we could barely contain sectarian hatreds when we occupied Iraq

with 150,000 troops; it is hard to see how we can act decisively now. Russia’s annexation of Crimea, on the other hand, crossed a very important threshold. The entire post-cold war order in Europe rested on Russia ’s acceptance that ethnic Russian minorities stranded in neighbouring states would remain in place. President Vladimir Putin has thrown all that into question , with effects that will be felt

from Moldova to Kazakhstan to Estonia. Russia’s power is based, however, on a flawed economic model that in time will weaken its power. Not so with China : it already has the world’s second-largest economy, and may overtake the US in the coming years. China has been claiming territory in small increments while flying under the cover of more dramatic events elsewhere. It wants to be the dominant power in east Asia and to push the US out of what it claims as its sphere of influence. The extremism of Isis will in the end prove self-defeating . By contrast, allies the US is sworn to defend are now threatened by industrialised nations with sophisticated militaries. Yet, for all the seriousness of the challenges from Russia and China, this is still far from the situation of 1939. What would be an appropriate US

response? Our priorities should be political: the reinvigoration of Nato as a real military alliance rather than a democracy-promotion club; and

establishment of a multilateral framework for dealing with China that gives its neighbours an alternative to facing Beijing alone. Mr Obama talks a

multilateral game but invests little capital in making it real. Strategy is about setting priorities, saying that some things are more important than others and explaining why this is so. The notion that there is no place unworthy of US attention is not a strategy. Mr Obama has set the wrong rhetorical priority, continuing the original mistake of overestimating the terrorist challenge made by his much-criticised predecessor. Even so, he has been strangely passive, letting places such as Libya and Egypt deteriorate through inattention. And he has not invested nearly enough time and effort shoring up

existing institutions and establishing broader frameworks for dealing with long-term challenges elsewhere. The poles established by

the neoconservatives on the one hand and isolationists on the other present false choices. Real strategy always has to lie somewhere in between.

AT: SpendingMPA’s create jobs and revenue for the economy James N. Sanchirico, Professor Environmental Science and Policy · University of California, Davis University Fellow Resources for the Future Washington, DC

; Kathryn A. Cochran, Duke University 2004, M.A. Duke University 2008, Ph.D. Duke University 2011) is a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at the Elliot School of International Affairs and the George Washington University.

and ¶ Peter M. Emerson; May 2002; Marine Protected Areas: Economic and Social Implications; http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-02-26.pdf

Research shows that MPAs can increase biodiversity and allow a marine ecosystem to ¶ return to its "natural" state (e.g., Boersma and Parrish 1999). Non-extractive users may value ¶ these changes to the marine ecosystem. For example, designating a special marine area, like a ¶ park or sanctuary, to protect biodiversity may increase its usefulness; such an area could be used ¶ for diving and photography. Improving the health of the ocean may also appeal to individuals ¶ who might never intend to use the area, but who value its existence nonetheless. If a MPA does ¶ attract new visitors, this can lead to additional jobs, income, and tax revenues for the local ¶ community . It is even possible that potential increases in revenue from tourism could offset ¶ potential losses due to lower commercial or recreational catches because of the closure. ¶ Obviously, the location and setting of a particular MPA would play a critical role in the ¶ magnitude of these benefits and costs. For example, a protected area offshore that is mainly ¶ occupied by bottom-dwelling species will most likely not have a significant tourism potential, ¶ while a coral-reef closure might. In general, a MPA can offer protection and provide the ¶ possibility for economic returns to sectors of the economy not directly tied to commercial ¶ fishing. In fact, studies of marine parks in the Caribbean found that proper management could ¶ yield both (Dixon et al. 1993).

MPA’s critical to jobs and maintaining ecosystems for fishing industry Andrew Balmford May 11, 2004; Conservation Biology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United

Kingdom; ‡Cranfield University, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4DT, United Kingdom; §School of Agricultural and Forest Science, University of Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW, United Kingdom; and ¶Environment Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United KingdomThe worldwide costs of marine protected areas; http://www.pnas.org/content/101/26/9694.long

Despite these uncertainties, we can conclude that marine conservation on the scale examined here would undoubtedly be expensive. A global MPA network covering 20–30% of the seas and costing $5–19 billion per year to run would require we increase our present areal and financial investment in marine conservation by around two orders of magnitude.¶ However, the return on such an investment would be substantial. Aside from any direct financial gains from potentially increased catches, the MPA system modeled here would increase the sustainability of a global marine fish catch currently worth $70–80 billion annually (29). It would also help ensure the continued delivery of largely unseen marine ecosystem services with a gross value , according to one estimate, of roughly $4.5–6.7 trillion each year (i.e., 20–30% of the $22.3 trillion per year,

in 2000 U.S. dollars, total for nonextractive marine services in ref. 30).¶ Most significantly, an ambitious program of MPA expansion could probably be instituted for less than the amount already spent by developed world governments on harmful subsidies to industrial fisheries. These subsidies currently run at between $15 and $30 billion each year (in year 2000 U.S. dollars; refs. 31–34;Fig. 3). As well as subsidizing overfishing in domestic and international waters, these payments subsidize developed world boats to overfish developing-world stocks (1, 31, 33-38). Although it may be argued that fishing subsidies safeguard jobs, such protection is only transient, as illustrated by the loss of tens of thousands of jobs after the collapse of the heavily subsidized Grand Banks cod fishery (39). Moreover, a global network with 20– 30% coverage (expanded according to model b) could itself directly provide around one million fulltime jobs in MPA protection, almost certainly more than are maintained by all fishing subsidies worldwide (29).

AT: OilWon’t disrupt the oil market-there are no oil opportunities in the region.Badore 6-17 [6-17-14, Margaret Badore has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Sarah Lawrence, “Obama Announces Plans for Huge Marine Reserve Expansion,” http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/obama-announces-plans-huge-marine-preserve-expansion.html, HR]

The announcement comes not long after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released updated rules for creating new marine sanctuaries, which now give communities the opportunity to nominate areas for consideration. It’s unclear how much of an impact expanding the preserve will have on sea life and the local habitat. The Washington Post reports that there is little commercial fishing in the area, nor are there any oil exploration operations. However, expanding the preserve seems like a step in the right direction, and many conservationists are celebrating the announcement. "It’s immensely valuable to science and home to vast numbers of ocean species ,” Joshua S. Reichert, executive vice president of the Pew Charitable Trusts, told the L.A. Times. Although there’s little commercial activity in this area currently, expanding the preserve provides some insurance that this will remain the status quo. As climate change impacts the ocean and threatens fish populations, protected areas where fishing is limited may become more important in the future.

No link to the disad-no mining or drilling now Goldenberg 6-17 [6-17-14, Suzanne Goldenberg is the U.S. environmental correspondent for The Guardian, “Obama to Expand Marine Reserves and Crack Down on Seafood Black Market,” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/17/obama-oceans-marine-reserves-leonardo-dicaprio, HR]

Expanding other sanctuaries designated by Bush, such as the Northern Mariana Islands, would increase the area to 1.5m sq miles, according to Pew. But the move was in some ways symbolic. Because the islands are uninhabited, there is very little fishing in the area Obama proposes to protect, and no indication mining or drilling is imminent. However, scientists say bigger marine sanctuaries are easier to enforce and allow more species to recover. More than 350 scientists this week signed on to a letter to the White House urging Obama to expand marine sanctuaries to up to 20% of each ocean region under US control.

Turn-oil drilling is horrible-it destroys ecosystems and is toxic to the health of many species.The Rainforest Foundation ’13 [The Rainfoest Foundation is an international NGO that does environmental work around the world, “The Effects of Oil Drilling,” http://rainforestfoundation.org/effects-oil-drilling-0, HR]

Environmental Effects of Oil Drilling: Oil drilling has many harmful ecological and environmental effects. The process of drilling and extracting oil is complex and leaves

many opportunities for error or accidents, the likes of which FEDIQUEP team members have witnessed firsthand. The piping used to transport and extract oil is made of metals, which can corrode . This corrosion causes pipes to rupture contaminates the land and waters which surround it. If the pipes do not rupture, contamination is still eminent via the large waste pits, often left unlined and open. Dust particles left from drilling may coat the surrounding areas, and flames from burning the natural gas found in oil fields cause air pollution. Lastly, oil spills, accidents, and illegal dumping of oil barrels and produced water lead to devastating ecological and health consequences that can last for decades. Many of these chemicals are detrimental or deadly to animals. Entire ecosystems can dissolve as a result of oil contamination . Health Effects on Indigenous Communities: “There's a stream where we always go to fish, and it's always had oil on top. We catch fish there and eat them. The fish drink the water, and since we eat them, the oil must get into us that way," a member of an indigenous community located near an oil site explained (from an interview with NPR). As a result of toxic ingestion, many people suffer from skin rashes which require daily injections to prevent swelling, and chronic headaches. Fainting spells, vomiting, chronic diarrhea, headaches and unknown skin infections are common symptoms for those impacted by oil extraction. Long term health effects include: lung disease, liver and kidney damage, damage to the nervous system, malformation, brain damage, miscarriages and many other devestating chronic conditions . What makes oil so dangerous? Water produced by oil drilling, or “produced water”, contains arsenic, as well as cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc and copper . These heavy metals are toxic to humans and animals, even in proportionally miniscule concentrations . In the mining regions of Peru and elsewhere, heavy metal concentrations were well above the World Health Organization’s critical levels. These chemicals and metals are not only toxic to humans, but to animals as well. This is important not only when questioning the survival of hundreds of species who may come into contact with contaminated water, air or land, but also in the question of human health . Mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and lead bioaccumulate in living organisms. In other words, if consumed over time, the concentration of the chemical increases in comparison to the concentration in the surrounding environment. Mercury, for example, will accumulate in the organisms tissues faster than it can be excreted. Indigenous peoples have been fishing their ancestral lands and rivers for generations. Only now, the waters are toxic and the fish they are consuming have been feeding upon other organisms that have been bioaccumulating metals. Thus, the further up the food chain you travel, the higher the metal concentrations. Humans have enjoyed the glory of being at the top of the food chain, but if you were to reside in a region contaminated by oil drilling processes, that enjoyment would not last long. The effects of the toxins intensifies as you travel up the food web. This means that predators and carnivores- often rare and critical to rainforest ecosystems- as well as humans, are in danger.

AT: FishingNon unique- majority of fisheries have been in decline for yearsPlumer 13 (Brad, Senior Editor at Vox, “Just how badly are we overfishing the oceans?” 10/29/2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/just-how-badly-are-we-overfishing-the-ocean/0/CH)Humans now have the technology to find and catch every last fish on the planet. Trawl nets, drift nets, longlines, GPS, sonar... As a result, fishing operations have expanded to virtually all corners of the ocean over the past century. That, in turn, has put a strain on fish populations. The world's marine fisheries peaked in the 1990s, when the global catch was higher than it is today.* And the populations of key commercial species like bluefin tuna and cod have dwindled, in some cases falling more than 90 percent. So just how badly are we overfishing the oceans? Are fish populations going to keep shrinking each year — or could they recover? Those are surprisingly contentious questions, and there seem to be a couple of schools of thought here. The pessimistic view, famously expressed by fisheries expert Daniel Pauly, is that we may be facing "The End of Fish." One especially dire 2006 study in Science warned that many commercial ocean fish stocks were on pace to “collapse” by mid-century — at which point they would produce less than 10 percent of their peak catch. Then it's time to eat jellyfish. Other experts have countered that this view is far too alarmist.** A number of countries have worked hard to improve their fisheries management over the years, including Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. "The U.S. is actually a big success story in rebuilding fish stocks," Ray Hilborn, a marine biologist at the University of Washington, told me last year. Overfishing isn't inevitable. We can fix it. Both sides make valid points — but the gloomy view is hard to dismiss. That's the argument of a new paper in Marine Pollution Bulletin by Tony Pitcher and William Cheung of the University of British Columbia that weighs in on this broader debate. They conclude that some fisheries around the world are indeed improving, though these appear to be a minority for now. "Several

deeper analyses of the status of the majority of world fisheries confirm the previous dismal picture," they conclude. "Serious depletions are the norm world-wide, management quality is poor, catch per effort is still declining." The decline of fisheries One reason the debate about overfishing is so contentious is that it's hard to get a precise read on the state of the world's marine fisheries. (The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization tries its best in this annual report.) Ideally, we'd have in-depth stock assessments for the entire world, but those are difficult, expensive, and fairly rare. So, in their paper, Pitcher and Cheung review a number of recent studies that use indirect measurements instead. For example, they note that recent analyses of fish catches suggest that about 58 percent of the world's fish stocks have now collapsed or are overexploited: It's important to note that this is only one estimate — and a disputed one at that. A 2011 study in Conservation Biology by Trevor Branch et. al., by contrast, estimated that only 7 to 13 percent of stocks were collapsed and 28 to 33 percent "overexploited."*** Focusing on catches can be a tricky metric for judging the state of fisheries (it can be hard, for instance, to track changes in fishing practices over time that might bias the results). So the authors consider a variety of other metrics, too. One example: The amount of effort that fishermen have put into catching fish has increased significantly in the past three decades, as measured by engine power and days that fishermen spend at sea.

But the amount of fish actually caught has nevertheless stagnated since the 1990s: "Given the increase in global fishing effort, the lack of increase in global fisheries catch in the last decade and the fact that most productive areas have now been exploited by fisheries," Pitcher and Cheung note, it's quite possible that "global exploited fish stocks are likely to be in a decreasing trend." Could fisheries recover? That all said, there are also some reasons for optimism. In 2009, ecologist Boris Worm and his colleagues took a look at more than 350 detailed fish stock assessments and found that many fisheries in North America and Europe were actually recovering. In the United States, annual catch limits and market-based permit programs have helped some fish populations rebound. The real question is whether these success stories are the exception rather than the rule. Pitcher and Cheung argue that the fish stocks analyzed in that 2009 paper make up just 16 percent of the global catch — and are mostly confined to well-managed fisheries in richer countries. By contrast, more than 80 percent of the world's fish are caught in the rest of the world, in places like Asia and Africa. While data here is patchier, many of the nations in these regions are far less likely to follow the U.N.'s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and evidence suggests that "serious depletions are the norm" here: "It all depends where you look," Pitcher said in an interview. "There are a few places where fisheries are doing better: The U.S., Australia, Canada, Norway. But those are relatively rare. In most places, the evidence suggests that things are getting worse." Given that the United States imports 91 percent of its seafood, that's an important caveat.

No link- our 1ac ev indicates that this area was picked because there is little commercial fishing that takes place in this area

Their link evidence says only fisheries in Hawaii and three territories had any objections- the rest of their DA is specific to the industry as a whole

Link turn- plan boosts the fishing industry in multiple waysBrock and Mereles 11 (Dr. Robert Brock is a Marine Biologist at the National MPA Center in Silver Spring, MD. Carlos Mereles, MSc, was previously a California Sea Grant Fellow at the National MPA Center in Monterey, CA. “DO “NO-TAKE” MARINE RESERVES BENEFIT ADJACENT FISHERIES?” 2011. http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/do_no_take_reserves_benefit_adjacent_fisheries.pdf/CH)Despite using conventional fishery management tools such as changes in gear used, use of short-term closures, and the reduction in fishing effort and catch of non-targeted species, the abundance of fish has continued to decline globally. One approach to building sustainable fisheries is the creation of “no-take” marine reserves which removes fishing pressure completely from key areas, such as spawning, nursery, feeding, or sheltering habitats. Under these management conditions, targeted fish stocks and the larger communities of which they are a part of are given the opportunity to rebound. Some marine reserves have existed for decades and contribute to a range of ecosystem and community goals, including preserving biodiversity, protecting habitat, helping reduce user conflicts and enhancing fisheries in adjacent areas (Gaines et al. 2010). Still, uncertainties remain about how effective marine reserves can be in meeting fisheries conservation and enhancement goals (Hart 2006). Establishing networks of reserves to enhance regional fisheries is a balancing act as to the best size and placement of such an area. Can marine reserves provide fishery benefits to adjacent fished areas? If so, then how? Studies have consistently shown that organisms within marine reserves tend to grow larger and live longer than individuals in adjacent unprotected areas. Monitoring results from 89 no-take marine reserves around the world have shown that, on

average, fish density, biomass, size, and diversity all increased within marine reserves (Halpern 2003, Lester et al. 2009). This is very important because fish that are larger and older tend to produce significantly more eggs and larvae than smaller fish. Also, larvae produced from older fish tend to have a higher survival rate (Francis et al. 2007). Fisheries can be enhanced in areas surrounding marine reserves through two processes: spillover (active movement of juveniles and adults into fished areas) and larval seeding (new fish being born and added to the fishery through the export of eggs and larvae). Adult spillover from marine reserves into adjacent fished areas has been clearly documented through tagging studies (McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara 1996) and has shown that some fish species swim from inside marine reserves to adjacent fished areas (Lowe et al. 2003). As larger and older fish in the closed area produce more eggs and more larvae, adjacent fished areas can benefit from larval seeding due to the increase in eggs and larvae being supplied from marine reserves, with some drifting out to the open fished areas (Hilborn et al. 2004). In addition, marine protected areas (MPAs) that protect spawning aggregations will allow for more individuals to spawn, increasing the output of offspring (Murawski et al. 2000, Hilborn et al. 2004).

Link turn- ocean pollution destroys fish stocks- aff prevents itBen-Yami ‘12MENAKHEM BEN-YAMI, Dr h.c., is an international fisheries development and management adviser and writer on fisheries matters. Ben-Yami worked as a Masterfisheman adviser in Eritrea, where he organised fishermen’s loan fund – a credit scheme based on mutual guaranty groups. He has also served as The Chief of the Israeli Fisheries Technology Unit and, later, Director of the Fisheries Technology Division, “Overfishing? Not quite” – World Fishing & Aquaculture – June 26th – http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/Comment/ben-yami/overfishing-not-quite#sthash.0fgn9fxm.dpufUnfortunately, there's even less in the book about the consequences of pollution, habitat degradation, and eutrophication on fish production and survival. This is a pity, because it should be obvious what many honest scientists, such as Dr Tim Adams, a scientist and fishery manager from the Pacific, has been saying

for a couple of decades now: "there are a lot more things affecting fish stocks than just fisheries" and

that "the impact on coastal fisheries from contamination is massive - far greater than all the commercial and recreational catches combined."

No impact on fishers – reserves actually boost economic benefits Howard, environmental journalist for National Geographic, 13[Brian Clark, National Geographic, “Marine Protected Area Increased Fish and Didn’t Hurt Fishers: Study”, August 20,2013, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/20/marine-protected-area-increased-fish-and-didnt-hurt-fishers-study/, ML]We’ve covered marine protected areas (MPAs) a lot in Ocean Views. They come in different flavors and can have different goals, although the basic idea is designating part of the ocean with some kind of legal protection against harmful activities like overfishing or drilling for oil. Today, a new study published in Nature Communications found that MPAs can rapidly increase fish stocks without disadvantaging fishers. “The work could help towards improving the acceptance of MPAs as a viable fisheries management option,” the scientists said in a statement. MPAs are often opposed by fishermen, who complain that they can suffer economically by not being allowed to fish as much as they would like in certain areas, or by being forced to travel farther away to more open areas. So researchers at the University of Cape Town and South Africa’s fisheries agency looked at 15 years of data around the Goukamma MPA, which is located east of Cape Town adjacent to a fishery for Chrysoblephus laticeps – a seabream native to the area. The scientists found: Total catch in this area decreased from 1985 but the team report that fish numbers started to increase in 1991, one year after the MPA was implemented. Alongside this increase in catch, they find no evidence that the establishment of the MPA caused a drop in total catch or increased travel distances for fleet or fisherman. They concluded: …fisheries in the vicinity of MPAs can recover rapidly after their implementation, possibly without negative consequences for fishers. Building on Recent Work In April, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Enric Sala and colleagues had published a paper called “A General Business Model for Marine Reserves” in the journal PLoS ONE. The team showed that “marine reserves are an effective tool for protecting biodiversity locally, with potential economic benefits including enhancement of local fisheries, increased tourism, and maintenance of ecosystem services.” The scientists demonstrated that the added value of marine reserves to local communities can make up for their initial cost in as short as five years. The team also developed a framework that others can use to estimate the value of a marine reserve in their area.

Reserves boost fishing yields Garrison, senior policy analyst with NRDC’s ocean program and co-director of its ocean program, 10[Karen, Natural Resources Defense Council, “Marine Protected Areas hold promise for better fishing and economic boost”, August 31, 2010, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kgarrison/marine_protected_areas_hold_pr.html, ML]Like national parks and refuges on land, marine protected areas are science-based safe havens where wildlife can rebuild and thrive. Over the past decade, a litany of scientific studies has shown that marine protected areas around the world benefit sea life and habitats. For example, recent research shows that in no-take marine reserves around California’s Channel Islands, fish are significantly bigger and more plentiful and kelp is healthier, just five years after creation of those reserves. Healthier ocean systems draw divers, tide-poolers, wildlife watchers, and other ocean lovers to the coast. And as fish get bigger in a protected area, productivity can increase exponentially relative to fished areas, seeding those surrounding areas with larvae and fish. Steve Gaines, Dean of the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at UC Santa

Barbara, summed up recent findings: “there is plenty of new evidence to show that if reserves are designed well, they can benefit both fish and fishermen.” At the same time, evidence refutes the concern that marine protected areas will hurt fishing industry bottom lines. Despite sport fishing industry predictions that a network of marine reserves around the northern Channel Islands would cause $50 to $100 million dollars in economic losses, scientific monitoring has shown that sport fishing actually increased in the five years after reserves were established, as did commercial landings of squid, sea urchin, and lobster. Marine reserves elsewhere have shown similar results: in the Great Barrier Reef, despite fishing industry concerns about losses, the number of recreational fishing licenses has continued its upward trend since the reserves were established in 2003. As a conservation group, NRDC has a fundamental common interest with fishermen: we want bigger, healthier and more plentiful fish in our seas. We all benefit from good ocean management and investments in the long-term health of marine ecosystems. And we all suffer when ocean management doesn’t make the grade. Marine protected areas are a vital complement to fishery management, helping maintain the diverse web of life and bolstering resilience of ocean systems in the face of a wide range of threats, including global climate change. They protect fragile nursery habitats and vulnerable species. For a state that has experienced a collapse of all five commercial abalone fisheries, sharp declines in sand bass, kelp bass and other sport-caught fish, extensive loss of kelp on the south coast and a rockfish disaster, they are a smart hedge against the next crisis.

Catch shares within US fishing solve their impactPooley 13 (Eric Pooley is senior vice president for strategy and communications at the Environmental Defense Fund, and author of The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. An award-winning journalist, Eric has served as deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek, managing editor of Fortune, editor of Time Europe, and national editor, chief political correspondent, and White House correspondent for Time. “How Behavioral Economics Could Save Both the Fishing Industry and the Oceans.” January 24, 2013. http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/01/how-behavioral-economics-could/CH)

It’s frightening enough that 87% of the world’s assessed fisheries are fully or over-exploited. But it is even scarier to consider how little we know about the condition of most of the world’s fisheries, because four-fifths of them have never been scientifically assessed. A recent study in the journal Science is providing fresh insights into thousands of fisheries where data has not been previously available. These “data poor” fisheries make up 80% of the world’s catch — and many are on the brink of collapse. Despite the dire news, there is a bright spot in the study. The authors conclude that the ocean is nowhere near a lost cause and with the right management tools, the abundance of fish could increase by 56%. In some places, the study says, fisheries yields could more than double. This isn’t just a big deal for the fish. As the authors of the Science study write, “When sustainably managed, marine fisheries provide food and livelihoods for hundreds of millions of people worldwide.” So what’s the key to seeing such a rebound become reality? An approach to overseeing fisheries known as rights-based management, or catch shares. Over

the past decade, catch shares have taken hold in U.S. waters, ensuring the sustainability of about 65% of the fish landed in the United States. This is the greatest unknown policy success of our time. Don’t take my word for it — I work for the Environmental Defense Fund, a policy shop that has long championed the approach. Instead, consider the facts that helped lead the authors of the Science article draw that same optimistic conclusion. Catch shares are a market-based

management tool used in commercial fishing that, coupled with catch limits, have been successful in rebuilding fish populations while improving the efficiency and business of fishing. After decades of failed regulatory

regimes, catch shares are working for fish and for fishermen. What’s unfolding before our eyes is a global behavioral

economics study — one that’s delivering major benefits to people around the world. The Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, for example, was on the brink of collapse in the early part of the last decade. Fishermen were limited to 52-day seasons that were getting shorter every year. The shortened seasons, an attempt to counter overfishing, hurt fishermen economically and created unsafe “derbies” that often forced them to race into storms like the boats in The Deadliest Catch. This short window also meant that all of the red snapper were being caught and brought to market at the same time, creating a glut that crashed prices. Many fishermen couldn’t even cover the cost of their trip to sea after selling their fish. A decade ago, the

Environmental Defense Fund began working with a group of commercial red snapper fishermen on a new and better way of doing business. Together, we set out to propose a catch share management system for snapper. Simply put, fishermen would be allocated shares based on their catch history (the average amount of fish in pounds they landed each year) of the scientifically determined amount of fish allowed for catch each year (the catch limit). Fishermen could then fish within their shares, or quota, all year long, giving them the flexibility they needed to run their businesses. This meant no more fishing in dangerously bad weather and no more market gluts. For the consumer, it meant fresh red snapper all year long. After five years of catch share management, the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery is growing because fishermen are staying within the scientific limits. Boats that once suffered from ever-shortening seasons have seen a 60% increase in the amount of fish they are allowed to catch. Having a percentage share of the fishery means fishermen have a built-in incentive to husband the resource, so it will continue to grow. Another major problem facing commercial fishing is known as discards — a euphemism for the tragic waste of tons of fish thrown overboard dead. Under the Gulf red snapper catch share system, discards have decreased by half. Fewer wasted fish, along with a fishery that stays within its limits, are two keys to rebuilding the resource. On the business end, fishermen have seen a 25% increase in the price they get for their landings of red snapper.

Global economy is resilientFSB ‘14The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system – “FSB Plenary meets in London” – 31 March 2014http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/press/pr_140331.htmThe global economy has been improving, and monetary policy in the US is in the early stages of

a normalisation process, after an extended period of exceptional accommodation. A comprehensive programme of regulatory reforms and supervisory actions since the crisis has made the global financial system more resilient. Currently, European authorities are putting in place a comprehensive set of measures to strengthen further the region's financial system. Emerging markets have coped relatively well to date with occasional bouts of turbulence, in part reflecting the positive impact of both past and more recent reforms.

Economic decline doesn’t cause warJervis,’11 (Robert, Professor PolSci Columbia, December, “Force in Our Times” Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-425)Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example,

perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could

itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were

more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist

could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.

AT: Counterplan

AT: MPA CPMarine Protected Areas Not enough; Only Reserves SolvePalmquist, 13, (Daniel, correspondent for the Nature Conservancy, 4/11/13,

http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/04/11/new-study-marine-protection-goals-are-on-target-but-still-not-enough/) According to a new report led by Nature Conservancy scientists and policy experts, the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) has increased fivefold in the last 10 years and the world is actually on track to meet its goal of protecting 10% of the oceans by 2020. “It’s certainly progress and we should celebrate that,” says Mark Spalding, a Conservancy marine scientist and lead author on the report. “But there’s a lot of nuance behind these targets. More than that, is 10% really what we should be fixated on?”The study — developed in conjunction with the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and published in the Ocean Yearbook assessed the state of ocean protection efforts to date and provides recommendations for how to achieve real success for the future. The authors reviewed 10,280 MPAs , covering 8.3 million square kilometers or 2.3% of the world’s ocean area, and found : A small number of large MPAs are responsible for much of the global growth: The 20 largest MPAs account for 60% of the entire global MPA coverage, with an increasing trend to cover remote and off shore areas.By contrast, in terms of numbers, the majority of MPAs are small and are found in coastal and near-shore waters. Even with these there is a focus on sparsely populated areas . The average MPA is small and most are not effectively managed . MPA coverage is highly variable — while 28 countries have now exceeded 10% coverage of their waters, some 111 are still at less than 1%. All told, the study found that the world has added 6.6 million square kilometers in MPAs since 2013. But the authors stress that MPA coverage does not equal protection: MPAs can be ineffective due to failures in management or design. A simple numbers-based approach ignores the challenges of effectively designing MPAs to provide the most benefit for marine biodiversity and for people. And this last point — designing MPAs for people — is crucial to get right. For the past decade or more, the conservation community has touted MPAs as tools to help reduce poverty and improve human wellbeing for local communities. While some are doing that quite effectively, they are rare. This study was the first to plot MPAs alongside coastal density, finding that most MPAs are in areas far away from people, in remote ecosystems that typically have high levels of biodiversity and few conflicting demands for ocean space.

Lack of enforcement ensures reserve failure – complete fishing restrictions key University of Portsmouth, 2/5[Science Daily, “Politics and half-measures failing marine conservation, global study shows”, 2/5/14, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140205133046.htm, ML]Some of the world's most vulnerable marine habitats are being failed by the conservation orders put in place to protect them. A new study, published online today in Nature, shows that a majority of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) do not fulfil their conservation goals. An international team surveyed over 2000 species of reef fishes inside and outside MPAs in 40 countries. They found that in most cases, marine wildlife populations inside parks or reserves are no different to those found in fished areas. Dr Trevor Willis from the University of

Portsmouth, said that the results demonstrated that many MPAs are protected only in name and described them as 'paper parks', where in many cases it was business as usual. He said it is unsurprising that the study found little recovery in fish populations. "Planning that gives precedence to stakeholder opinion -- rather than the protecting target species -- may work politically but will not have any real benefits in the water. Marine reserves or parks that allow any form of fishing, that are inadequately enforced and too small to encompass the natural range of the most vulnerable species are likely to fail as protection measures." Dr Willis said the study challenges to environmental planners and agencies to improve. "Marine habitats are under increasing pressure from fishing, development and pollution and the world's coastal regions are vulnerable and increasingly degraded. Effective marine conservation measures must include a complete ban on fishing rather than restrictions and this must be effectively policed and enforced. They must have long term goals because reversing the effects of humankind can take years and they must be of significant size to make a difference." The study showed that effective MPAs had on average eight times more large fishes, nine times more groupers, and 14 times more sharks than fished areas. Professor Graham Edgar of the University of Tasmania, highlighted the fact that some MPAs were working extremely well, had massive numbers of large fishes and extremely high conservation value but they were in the minority. He said: "At present, coastal zoning maps are confusing, with the few conservation gems hidden amongst protected areas that are ineffective because of inadequate regulations or poor enforcement. We hope that this work will focus attention on the criteria for MPAs that provide real protection to coastal ecosystems."

AT: Japan CP

No Solvency

Fishing restrictions in Japan and Norway will be ignored – economic interests outweigh Russell, nationally respected environmentalist and author of several New York Times best sellers on overfishing, 10[Dick, Natural Resources Defense Council, “Japan Blocks Ocean Conservation Measures”, http://www.onearth.org/article/japans-sea-battles, March 24, 2010, ML]Psihoyos' crusades are certainly getting noticed in Japan (whose government and news media have attacked his film), but despite the bad publicity, the country continues to push for fishing and whaling policies that environmental groups say will cause further harm to ocean ecosystems and continue to push endangered fish and marine mammal populations to the brink of extinction -- and beyond. Already this year, Japan has succeeded in fighting off a ban on exports of Atlantic bluefin tuna. There's strong scientific evidence that the bluefin is nearing extinction due to overfishing; since 1970, the number of tuna harvested each year has plummeted by at least 80 percent. At the triennial gathering of the UN's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) that just concluded this week in Qatar, a proposed export ban on bluefin -- backed by the United States and bitterly opposed by Japan, which declared that it would ignore the ban even if it passed -- failed by a vote of 68 to 20, with 30 abstentions. Many countries didn't want to lose the revenue; Atlantic bluefin remains the most valuable fish in the sea, with Japanese brokers commonly paying $10,000 or more for a single fish. Japan consumes approximately three-quarters of the global catch, nearly all served raw as sushi or sashimi. Major bluefin exporters such as France, Spain, and Italy followed Japan's lead. "The market for this fish is just too lucrative, and the pressure from fishing interests too great, for enough governments to support a truly sustainable future for the fish," says Sue Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group. Regulation of bluefin fishing will remain with an industry-dominated body whose allowable harvest quotas have ignored the advice of its own scientists and proven completely ineffective at slowing the bluefin decline. Following the failure to protect bluefin, CITES then voted down several measures (also backed by the United States and opposed by Japan, Russia, and China) designed to protect endangered shark species from "finning" -- a practice in which fishermen slice the fins off of sharks and then dump them back into the ocean to die. Shark fins are prized in some Asian countries to make soup. Scalloped hammerhead, oceanic whitefish, and spiny dogfish were all among the species on the docket for protection by CITES. Japan argued, as it did on the bluefin ban, that regional fisheries groups -- not CITES -- should manage local shark populations. But in some areas, the rate of species decline exceeds 90 percent, according to studies. Next in Japan's sights: ending a ban on commercial whaling imposed nearly a quarter-century ago. Despite this prohibition by the 88 member nations of the International Whaling Commission, Japan continues to hunt whales thanks to a loophole that allows for "scientific research" -- something environmental groups claim is little more than a pretext that allows continued commercial hunting. Indeed, the Japanese fleet kills more than 1,000 whales annually in the Southern Ocean and then sells the meat in the country's markets and restaurants. Two other nations, Norway and Iceland, have defied the moratorium outright and followed Japan in establishing their own yearly quotas. Since the moratorium took effect in 1986, according to IWC estimates, more than 33,000 whales have been killed -- including the endangered fin, sperm and humpback species (as well as the sei whales being served at The Hump in Santa Monica).

Restrictions will be ignored by Japanese fishers – empirics prove CBS News, 10[“Nations Fail To Limit Whaling, Japan Still Hunts”, June 23, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nations-fail-to-limit-whaling-japan-still-hunts/, ML]An international effort to truly limit whale hunting collapsed Wednesday, leaving Japan, Norway and Iceland free to keep killing hundreds of mammals a year, even raiding a marine sanctuary in Antarctic waters unchecked. The breakdown put diplomatic efforts on ice for at least a year, raised the possibility that South Korea might join the whaling nations and raised questions about the global drive to prevent the extinction of the most endangered whale species. It also revived doubts about the effectiveness and future of the International Whaling Commission. The agency was created after World War II to oversee the hunting of tens of thousands of whales a year but gradually evolved into a body at least partly dedicated to keeping whales from vanishing from the Earth's oceans. "I think ultimately if we don't make some changes to this organization in the next few years it may be very serious, possibly fatal for the organization - and the whales will be worse off," former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer told the hundreds of delegates. "We need this organization to function," U.S. whaling commissioner Monica Medina told The Associated Press later. "It certainly is in need of repair." Japanese officials and environmentalists traded charges of blame after two days of intense, closed-door talks failed to break a deadlock in which the three whaling nations offered to limit their catch but refused to phase it out completely. About 1,500 animals are killed each year by the three countries. Japan, which kills the majority of whales, insists its hunt is for scientific research - but more whale meat and whale products end up in Japanese restaurants than in laboratories. Several whale species have been hunted to near extinction, gradually recovering since the ban on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986, while other species like the smaller minke whale are still abundant. But the whale arouses deep passions around the world, because it was one of the first icons of the animal conservation movement, starting with the popular Save The Whale campaign of the 1970s. A key sticking point is the sanctity of an ocean region south of Australia that the agency declared a whaling sanctuary in 1994. Despite that declaration, Japanese whalers regularly hunt in Antarctic waters, a feeding ground for 80 percent of the world's whales, and the commission has no enforcement powers to stop them. Australian Complaint Australia has already launched a complaint against Japanese whaling at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the U.N.'s highest court.

Japanese fishing regulations fail – loopholes for whaling prove IFAW, No Date[International Fund for Animal Welfare, “The truth about ‘Scientific’ whaling”, http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/our-work/whales/truth-about-%E2%80%98scientific%E2%80%99-whaling, ML]Despite the global ban of commercial whaling, Japan uses the provision in the 1946 whaling convention which allows whales to be killed for scientific purposes. The ‘scientific whaling’ provision has also been used by Norway and Iceland as a way of getting around the rules. However little, if any useful information comes from ‘scientific whaling’ and it is quite simply commercial whaling conducted under the guise of science. Whaling countries issue their own catch limits, not the International Whaling Commission. Scientific permit whaling requires whale meat to be used, ie, to be sold or given away. This means a scientific permit is little more than a licence to sell whale meat. The approval of a scientific whaling permit is granted by the nation

that applied for it. In other words, Japan approves its own permits for scientific whaling without any external scrutiny or need for explanation. It is no coincidence that the only nations that kill whales for science are those most interested in trying to create markets for whale meat. Japan’s scientific whaling programme led to the killing of hundreds of whales in 2009 alone. It is hard to imagine any other scientific investigation of a species being organised around the principle of mass killing. For more information, see IFAW's report: In the Name of Science: A Review of Scientific Whaling.

AT: China CP

Permutation

Perm solves – international cooperation on marine reserves is the best option – empirics prove US and China can work together on reservesLiang 9 (Qun Liang, PhD in Philosophy and Professor at School of Physical, Environmental, and Mathematical Sciences, “Study of Marine Protected Areas in Australia and in China,” March 2009, file:///Users/kbeck15/Downloads/whole.pdf, accessed 7-5-14) In order to improve the marine reserve management, the Shankou Reserve has sought ¶ international collaboration and assistance from other countries that have more experience in ¶ the management of the marine nature reserves. The examples of such cooperation include a ¶ sister-relationship with Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in the United ¶ States in 1993, and an UNESCO (United Nations Education, Science and Culture ¶ Organization) sponsored project entitled ‘Eco-tourism Planning Study & Sustainable ¶ Management, Public Education & Community Participation’ in 2000. As one of the ¶ demonstration sites, the Shankou Reserve is also carrying out a project called ‘Biodiversity ¶ Management in the Coastal Area of China’s South Sea (2005-2012)’ supported by UNDP ¶ (United Nations Development Program).

China Fails

China fails at reserves – lack of funding and enforcement and reclamation Qiu, PhD researcher at the Department of Geography at the University College of London, 9[Wanfei, “Challenges in Developing China’s Marine Protected Area System,” http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfwpej/pdf/MPAsChinaMarinePolicyPaperCopy.pdf, ML]

The lack of funding and human resources is another major obstacle for adequate enforcement of MPAs [11]. It was reported that protected-area funding in China was US$52.7 per square kilometer in 1999, much lower than the average of US$157 per square kilometer in developing countries estimated by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in 1995 [20]. Furthermore, a large proportion of MPAs, particularly locally designated MPAs, do not have management bodies and can easily become ‘paper parks’ due to lack of enforcement. For example, in the coastal province of Fujian, 43% of MPAs do not have a management body and staff to carry out routine enforcement tasks [21]. Overall, the investment on China's MPA system has been extremely limited considering the relatively strict regulations and the huge difficulties for enforcement. As a result of great user pressure and lack of enforcement capacity, the zoning schemes are often poorly recognized and implemented in protected areas in China [22]. Most de jure MNRs are implemented as de facto multiple-use areas, and certain levels of fishing and industrial activities are usually tolerated within them, although which and how much of such activities are tolerated is often a political decision and varies from case to case. However, the delegation of management authority to lower tier governments has not led to an increase in public participation in the development of the MPA system. The concepts of new governance approaches, such as the collaborative management of protected areas, have been introduced to and advocated in China, but their success has been very limited [24]. While methods and procedures for public participation have been established in some new environmental regulations in China, such as the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (2003), they have yet to be incorporated into protected-area regulations. The public are not well informed about the function and performance of protected areas in China. A nation-wide survey in 2005 showed that only 18.1% of the 4,120,517 people surveyed believed that protected areas helped to improve environmental quality [25]. Further more, insufficient public consultation in MPA decision-making potentially escalates people–park conflicts. For example, in the Binzhou Shellfish Bank and Wetlands Marine Nature Reserve, local enterprise owners have appealed to the National People's Congress for a more open and transparent designation and management process, in order to safeguard the rights of affected communities and reduce the conflicts between conservation and local development needs [26]. There are very few MPAs in China that have a long-term monitoring programme. However, since 2004, 18 ecological monitoring areas covering some MPAs have been established by the SOA to monitor the status of representative and fragile inshore ecosystems. These provide some indications on the status of ecosystems within some MPAs and the main threats they face.Qiu W, Wang B, Jones PJS and Axmacher JC (2009) Challenges in developing China’s marine protected area system. Marine Policy 33(4): 599-605. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.005 According to the 2007 monitoring data, most surveyed coral reef, mangrove, and sea- grass ecosystems in southern China remain healthy, while estuary and gulf ecosystems in heavily industrialized areas score low on the status of ecosystem health. Key threats to inshore ecosystems and MPAs include land-based pollution, mariculture, reclamation, and overexploitation [19]. However, the ecological monitoring data do

not provide any insight into the management effectiveness of MPAs in China, as the monitoring does not separate areas inside MPAs from those outside the boundaries of MPAs. In an attempt to close this gap, the SOA organized a self-evaluation on the management effectiveness of 27 MPAs in China. The results showed that, while most selected MPAs were able to meet their management objectives, national MPAs had much higher effectiveness than local ones. Designed as a self-evaluation process, the results represent the self-reflections of MPA managers, rather than the outcomes from an independent and objective evaluation process. In particular, it gives no information on the status and trends of species and habitats protected within the selected MPAs. The results nevertheless revealed several common problems in MPA management, including insufficient funding, particularly in locally designated MPAs, and the lack of long-term and systematic management planning, monitoring, and well-trained personnel [31]. 6. Challenges and lessons learned in developing China's MPA system The MPA system in China is characterized by (1) the decentralised designation processes; (2) the dominance of de jure fully protected MPAs but are often implemented as de facto multiple-use areas that allow certain levels of resource exploitation; (3) a focus of responsibilities on local governments, with little actual control of exploitation from the central government and limited public participation; and (4) the lack of independent and objective monitoring and evaluation processes. The conservation efforts have led to the rapid and continuous growth in the number and area of fully protected MPAs in China. However, there are still major challenges to be overcome if MPAs are to fully realize their potential in biodiversity conservation and ensuring the sustainability of China's seas. The administrative decentralisation of MPA management has both benefits and costs for conservation in China. It has greatly increased the incentives of local governments in establishing and managing MPAs and broadened the channels through which MPAs can be designated and funded. Locally designated MPAs now contribute to over 75% of the number and 35% of the total area of the MPA system (Table 1), while the bulk of protected-area funding in China now comes from local governments [23]. However, the devolution of management authority to lower tier governments has repeatedly resulted in negative environmental impacts. As promotions of local government officials in China are strongly linked to their performance in the economic sector, the short-term local economic and political gains often outweigh the long-term benefits of environmental protection [27]. Reclamation in the land owned by local governments has led to large-scale destruction of coastal wetlands in some MPAs [28, 29]. In the Yancheng Rare Birds MNR, listed both as a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance and a UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserve, reclamation has destroyed over 117,412 ha of natural wetlands [30]. To increase the incentives and cooperation from local governments for nature conservation remains to be one of the greatest challenges for the development of the MPA system in China.

Chinese environmental agencies don’t solveJianqiang, Beijing editor at chinadialogue – “China’s most influential investigative newspaper”, 13[Liu, China Dialogue, “China's environment ministry an "utter disappointment"”, July 3, 2013, https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5788-China-s-environment-ministry-an-utter-disappointment-, ML]China’s annual parliamentary season – the “Lianghui” – has opened in Beijing, after a winter of the worst air pollution the city has ever seen. At the top of the agenda is selecting the new leadership of central government, its ministries, and commissions. But for the public, dealing

with environmental pollution is more important. The people can no longer overlook the government’s failure to act on the environment. Looking back over the achievements of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), the central government body in charge of the environment, its record in the last decade can be divided into two: five years of storming progress, then five years of nothing. In the first five years, there was no MEP, merely its predecessor the State Environmental Protection Agency. Despite its lowly status, SEPA had the courage to act, which was encouraging. But after promotion to ministerial status brought greater powers and boosted career prospects for its employees, there was little action of note. Paving the way for public participation Among SEPA’s actions were its “environmental storms” – its strikes against law-breaking companies, including the huge electricity giants. It also ordered regional planning restrictions, preventing law-breaking local governments from approving new projects until changes were made. It called a halt to an illegal project at the Old Summer Palace lake and held public hearings on the case, making it a case study for public participation and democratic decision-making. And it researched regulations on regional environmental impact assessments and a green GDP measure designed to solve over-reliance on financial GDP measures. More importantly, five years ago the environmental authorities issued interim rules for public participation in environmental impact assessments, and regulations for the disclosure of environmental information. The environmental authorities were the first government body to apply State Council rules on information disclosure and issue detailed guidelines on implementation. But in the following five years there was virtually no sign of similar proactive measures. Instead, we saw half a decade of widespread disputes and protests over environmental interests. In 2011, the number of environmental protests increased 120%. Last year brought demonstrations in Ningbo, Shifang and Qidong. Large projects that ignore environmental and social impacts, as well as the public’s right to participate, are the root of social unrest. But the MEP seems to consider this none of its business. The public’s right to know and participate are key to resolving conflict. If the MEP had, over the last five years, enforced its rules on disclosure of information and public participation, some of these conflicts would have been avoided. The last five years have also seen the MEP loosen environmental impact assessment requirements, allowing large projects nationwide – and particularly in ecologically fragile west China – to go ahead unimpeded, with the power giants free to destroy rivers. To curry favour with the former boss of Chongqing, it agreed to break up a Yangtze nature reserve to facilitate the building of the Xiaonanhai dam – leaving the rare and endemic fish of the upper Yangtze without their last refuge. Food safety scares to cancer villages These five years have seen pollution incidents increase, with air pollution already more than the public can bear. Food safety scares have been frequent, while contamination of rivers, lakes, oceans and groundwater has worsened. The country has 200 “cancer villages”, and in Beijing cases of lung cancer have increased 60% over the last decade. Although the MEP cannot take sole responsibility for all these crises, as the central government body with responsibility for environmental protection it can hardly absolve itself of all blame. If it had done all it could and still failed, it could at least justify itself. But we see it delay, neglect its duty, pass blame, prevaricate, and even make things worse – as seen at Xiaonanhai. It is utterly disappointing. On air pollution, the MEP refused to include PM 2.5 data in air quality monitoring and publish air quality indexes for Chinese cities. Only when central leadership pushed the issue did it come up with a timetable for doing so. When the US embassy published its own PM 2.5 figures, the MEP accused it of interfering in China’s internal affairs, making itself a global joke. Most recently, the department’s vice-minister told the People’s Daily that “developed nations in the EU and US spent three to five decades solving the air pollution problem,” so we need to “correctly regard today’s air pollution and fully recognise the difficulty, complexity and long-

term nature of the task of improving air quality, and prepare ourselves for a drawn-out fight.” It is not the public that fails “correctly” to regard air pollution, but the MEP itself. It is of course a difficult and long-term task – but the public still hopes to see action, rather than a ministry hiding behind the excuse that this is a “drawn-out fight”. On the causes of such severe air pollution, the vice-minister cited “unscientific development” and “the number of cars”, along with “ideas of some local Party committees and governments”. He did not mention the failings of his own ministry. Silence on groundwater and soil pollution Groundwater pollution has been a matter of public concern since the Chinese New Year. The public urgently needs accurate information on this huge environmental and health issue. But the MEP has, as usual, held its tongue. When lawyer Dong Zhengwei requested soil pollution data, the MEP claimed it was a “state secret” and refused. Soil pollution affects people’s health and is a matter of public interest. It’s ironic to see the MEP use such a clumsy excuse to ignore its own excellent rules on disclosure of environmental information. For the MEP, the last 10 years can be summed up as “a strong start, and a weak finish”. The key reason is the nationwide worship of GDP figures – “sustainable development” and “an ecological civilization” are nothing but slogans. Another key reason is that certain government departments and officials remain silent and inactive. China faces an environmental crisis, with water, air and food all unprotected. The MEP and other government departments are not up to the task. The Lianghui will see a change of government, and we hope this will invigorate the environmental authorities to do a little work.

China fails at conservation – lack of oversight and economic priorities Lockett, 12[Hudson, Danwei, “Xie Yan and the fight against bad conservation laws”, May 17, 2012, http://www.danwei.com/xie-yan-and-the-fight-against-bad-conservation-laws/, ML]When ecologist Xie Yan heard about the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, she knew she had to kill it. So she wrote a letter. The open letter, posted on February 5 to Xie’s blog, became the focus of a story the next day at one of China’s most respected news organizations, Caixin magazine. It was the opening salvo in a month-long campaign against the legislation draft up for submission to the National People’s Congress during the annual “Two Meetings.” A member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xie feared that if the draft act passed, it would further harm China’s already fractured and ineffective conservation program. The scope of the draft was too small. Of roughly 7,000 protected areas across China, the act would provide explicit legal protection to only 600. The others would be covered only by less-binding ‘regulations’. The legislation also covered two disparate types of areas for protection under one law: national nature reserves were established explicitly for conservation, but national scenic areas essentially act as tourism hotspots. Xie helps return a young crocodile to the wild in 2007. Xie, who is also Secretary General of the International Zoological Society and former China Project Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society, said the act failed to set clear guidelines on how these areas should be managed, and did not provide for an independent monitor to ensure compliance from government departments charged with protecting the land. She also feared that passing such a comprehensive-sounding piece of legislation could suck the political momentum out of any future efforts to reform how conservation works in China. “My objection is that China doesn’t need to establish another regulation of this type,” Xie wrote. “What China needs is a law that covers the entire domain of conservation areas.” Xie’s criticisms, along with her recommendations for legislation that could truly reform China’s troubled conservation program, provide a window on why exactly things are so broken — and how they might be fixed. The United Nations Environment Program ranks China among the world’s 17 “mega-diverse”

countries, and a 2010 China Daily headline proclaimed “China is the global leader in biodiversity.” But by many accounts — including the government’s own — China’s conservation regulations appear to be buckling under the combined weight of industrial growth and a lucrative arrival of tourists in wilderness areas. A recent Ministry of Environmental Protection investigation, detailed by Caixin magazine in April this year, exposed the myriad violations found at two nationally protected nature reserves in the provinces of Liaoning and Shandong. At Liaoning alone, authorities found 1,576 oil wells, 81 oil stations, 304 oil pipelines, 500 kilometers of illegal roads and five illegal tourist facilities that saw an average of 10,000 visitors per day, and brought in about 20 million yuan per day in ticket revenues. The reserves also face territorial issues as chunks of their land are illegally lopped off for profit. Caixin also noted a 2010 joint report by the Ministry and Nanjing Normal University that found 40 of 303 national nature reserves had their boundaries shrank, permanently, due to illegal construction projects. Efficiently Ineffective These problems stem in part from the fact that China’s protected land is managed by a number of competing, independent government departments. The way these agencies are matched up with protected areas can be baffling to an outsider: famous scenic spots are under the supervision of the Ministry of Water Resources, but national wetland parks and national forest parks are under the purview of the State Forestry Administration, and geological parks fall to the Ministry of Land and Resources. That alone might not be cause for concern, but each of these departments compete with one another to expand their respective domains, and since they are self-regulating, the winners face little pressure to manage their land responsibly. China’s conservation effort essentially runs on the honor system. As a result, violations like those in Liaoning and Shandong, along with other infractions like illegal farming and logging, are common to much of China’s nationally-protected public land. A map of the 32 mainland areas (numbered, bright green) deemed most critical by China's 2010 biodiversity action plan This lack of oversight and enforcement is compounded by uneven distribution of protected areas. In October 2010, China unveiled an ambitious biodiversity action plan mapping out the next 20 years of conservation development, and identifying the 32 mainland areas and three oceanic regions in most need of protection. But there are striking discrepancies between which regions are most at risk, and which are actually being protected. Look at a map of China’s protected regions nationwide, and you will notice they are deeply unbalanced: national nature reserves are concentrated in the country’s north and west, in places like Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai and parts of Sichuan. The southern and coastal regions look more like an unfinished pointillist painting. A map showing the current distribution of China's protected areas. In many priority areas, particularly those in the Southwest, only small and isolated patches are actually being protected. This is, in large part, due to strict regulations that forbidding all but a few researchers and officials from entering the protected areas’ core zones. If the government wanted to establish new protected areas in densely populated regions, it would have to forcibly relocate all the people already living there. Hence the lack of environmental inroads near population centers like Guangzhou and Shanghai. Old Growth Problems Chinese scholars and activists have long been aware of these problems. Jim Harkness, President of the U.S. organization Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, gained a first hand understanding when he served as Executive Director of the World Wildlife Fund in China from 1999 to 2006. Beyond the blurry lines of authority, and conflicts of interest, he believes that even the definition of where conservation of biodiversity should happen is unclear. Something like the National Heritage Conservation Act, which is aimed at having one system and a clear law might make sense on the surface, Harkness said. But it does nothing to resolve basic problems of authority and responsibility, or lay out clear standards for assessing how effective protection is taking place. Moreover, the new law fails to address other issues, such as local governments selling

land to help fund their budgets, or the lack of community involvement in discussions over how to manage natural resources and biodiversity. Some central issues may extend beyond the scope of environmental legislation and regulation. Harkness views the GDP-centric system of advancement for Chinese government officials as the main roadblock for serious conservation progress. As long as economic performance remains the key to moving up the ranks, he said, “everything else is going to take a backseat, including conservation.” For Harkness the most promising signs of progress exist in areas that are important to the environment but haven’t been cordoned off from all human contact. “The best stuff was at that intersection of protected areas and surrounding populated areas, and I think having a system that’s flexible enough to allow those kinds of experiments to continue or maybe get institutionalized and spread would be really important.”

China fails - overlapping territorial claims with countries that don’t support the plan Vu, JSD Candidate (Doctor of Jurisprudence) at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, 12[Hai-Dang, East Sea (South China Sea) Studies, “A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas between Vietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?, February 2, 2012, http://nghiencuubiendong.vn/en/conferences-and-seminars-/the-third-international-workshop-on-south-china-sea/668-a-bilateral-network-of-marine-protected-areas-between-vietnam-and-china-an-alternative-to-the-chinese-unilateral-fishing-ban-in-the-south-china-sea-by-hai-dang-vu, ML]Since 1999, China has enacted an annual fishing ban for two or three months in the summer in the North-Western part of the South China Sea. This year (2011), the ban took place from May 16th to August the 1st and in an area between the latitude 12° North to the North and longitude 113° East to the West.[1]Any fishing vessel that goes into this area during the banis subjected to fines and its catches and gear confiscated.[2]According to Chinese news and scholars, this fishing ban is necessary to protect the sustainability of marine life in this area and prevent overfishing[3] and has produced positive results[4].However, critics, including from China, question the effectiveness of this measure. Many commercially important fishes are not breeding at the time of the fishing ban. Furthermore, after a long pause due to the ban, fishing activities would increase manifold, which causes more risk of depletion of the stocks.[5]A more serious problem is that this regulation is enforced against Vietnamese fishermen who fish in areas also claimed by Vietnam. In response to this fishing ban, relevant Vietnamese administrations, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Vietnam Fisheries Society, haveraised their protests.[6] In particular, the Spokesperson of the Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said “China's unilateral implementation of such fishing ban in the East Sea[7] isa violation of the Vietnamese sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelago, sovereign rights and jurisdiction for Vietnam's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, violating the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), further complicating the situation in the East Sea”.[8] This ban was equally challenged by Vietnamese fishermen, who have been continuing their fishing activities offshore during this period.[9] This resulted in theirarrest, detention, beating and seize of catch and confiscation of fishing equipment by Chinese marine enforcement authorities.[10]In practice, the issue of conservation and management of marine living resources in a disputed areacan be resolved by the conclusion of a fishery agreement between relevant coastal countries. Examples of such agreements include the Convention between Canada and the

United States in 1953 (modified by the Protocol of 1979)[11], the Agreement between Sweden and the former-Soviet Union in 1977[12] and the Agreement between Japan and Russia in 1998[13]. This is also a requirement of articles 74 (3) and 83(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which ask states, pending a delimitation agreement relating to the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, to “make every effort to enter into provisional arrangement of a practical a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement”.[14]However, it is very difficult to have a fishery agreement that covers all the areas where there are overlapping claims between Vietnam and China in the North-Western area of the South China Sea as the disputed status of some portions of this area is already an object of disagreement. For instance, China considers that“there is nothing to negotiate” aboutthe Paracel islands[15] and Vietnam has stated that the waters belonging to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, at least in the North-Western area of the South China Sea,are not disputed areas[16].

Russia and China oppose marine reserves – Antarctica proposal proves BBC 13 [BBC News: Science and Environment, “Antarctic marine reserves: Russia and China block plans”, November 1, 2013, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24776865, ML]Plans to create two huge marine sanctuaries in Antarctica have failed for a third time, after Russia again headed nations which blocked the bids. The meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in Australia had sought to protect the Ross Sea and an area off East Antarctica from exploitation. But delegates from 24 countries, plus the EU, failed to reach a consensus. Environmental groups called it called it a "dark day" for the Antarctic. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is made up of countries with an interest in Antarctica. The continent and its waters are home to more than 10,000 species, including most of the world's seabirds, penguins and whales. CCAMLR includes Australia, the US, China and Russia, and the European Union among its members. Any decisions taken require consensus among all parties. Plans for a marine reserve in the Ross Sea - a deep bay on the Pacific Ocean side of the Antarctic - have been under discussion for a decade, and have been blocked on several previous occasions, with the main sticking point restrictions on fishing. Continue reading the main story Icebergs in Antarctica CCAMLR has established just one Marine Protected Area in the Antarctic so far. They have designated 11 priority areas in the Southern Ocean from which most MPAs will be created. Governments have set a goal of extending protected areas to ten percent of the world's oceans According to the environmental advocacy group, Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, the Ross Sea comprises 3.3% of the area of the Southern Ocean, but "it provides habitat for significant populations of many animals, including 38% of the world's Adelie penguins, 26% of Emperor penguins, more than 30% of Antarctic petrels, 6% of Antarctic minke whales, and perhaps more than 30% of 'Ross Sea' killer whales". Hope for agreement "Moreover, it has the richest diversity of fishes in the high latitude Southern Ocean, including seven species found nowhere else." A revised proposal by the US and New Zealand - reducing the scale of the Ross Sea reserve by 40% to about 1.25m sq km (482,000 sq miles) - had been thought more likely to succeed at the Commission's meeting in Hobart. Also on the table in Hobart was a proposal to create a protected zone of 1.6m sq km (618,000 sq miles) off East Antarctica. Supporters of the sanctuaries proposal rally outside meeting in Hobart The Antarctic Ocean Alliance, which rallied outside the CCAMLR meeting in Hobart, said "countries led by Russia wanted to wreck the agreement" The two zones were intended to

conserve parts of the Southern Ocean from fishing, oil exploration and other commercial exploitation. But they were both blocked by Russia and Ukraine, while China withdrew support for the East Antarctica proposal. "It seems pretty clear that a small group of countries led by Russia wanted to wreck the agreement," said Steve Campbell, director of the Antarctic Ocean Alliance which campaigns for protecting the Antarctic seas. Andrea Kavanagh, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts' Southern Ocean sanctuaries project, also expressed dismay at the outcome: "This is a dark day not just for the Antarctic, but for the world's oceans," she said. "Protecting the Southern Ocean has far-reaching consequences for the world's oceans and all those who rely on them for food, jobs, and a multitude of other services. "Three-quarters of all marine life is maintained by a Southern Ocean current that pulls nutrient-rich waters from the deep ocean to the surface and then around the world. There was no immediate statement from Russia. Environmentalist say they hope agreement on the marine protected areas can be reached by CCAMLR next year.

Russia, China, and Ukraine don’t support marine reserves- fishing concernsOgilvie and Gul, reporters for ABC News, 13[Felicity and Jonathon, ABC News, “Russia, China blamed for failure of plan to create Antarctic marine reserves”, November 2, 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/russia-china-blamed-for-failure-to-secure-antarctic-marine-park/5065032, ML] More than 200 marine scientists have spent more than a week in Hobart, Australia thrashing out the details of the two proposals, which would see commercial fishing banned. The secretive talks between the 24 countries wound up on Friday afternoon. Director of the Australian Antarctic Division Tony Fleming tried to convince CCAMLR members to create new marine reserves in East Antarctica and the Ross Sea. Dr. Fleming will not say exactly which countries knocked the proposed reserves on the head. But other delegates, including Bo Fernholm from Sweden, say it was Russia and China that stopped the Marine Protected Areas. “It's very frustrating for most members,” he said. “I think most members were here and thought that we would be able to get the MPAs, at least one this time.” But disappointed Australians vow to try again. The proposed marine reserves that have been knocked back would have been the biggest in the world. Australia, the European Union and France want to protect 1.3 million square kilometers of ocean in East Antarctica. Dr Fleming says Australia will keep trying to convince CCAMLR to protect the area. “We'll be back next year to talk about this proposal again, and because of the indications of support at this year's meeting we expect to achieve consensus at next year's meeting.” Another proposal was put forward by New Zealand and the United States and would have protected 1.6 million square kilometers of the Ross Sea. For the past two weeks it seemed the proposal would be approved until Russia decided it did not want to proceed last night. Environmental groups from around the world travelled to the meeting in the hope that CCAMLR would create the new reserves. It is the third time CCAMLR has knocked back the reserves. Andrea Kavanagh from the Pew Charitable Trust in Washington DC says conservation is taking a back seat to fishing campaign to turn a huge part of the ocean above Antarctica into a marine reserve will continue despite a third attempt failing. The Ross Sea proposal from New Zealand and the United States needed support from 24 member countries and the European Union, at the meeting in Hobart of the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). But Russia, the Ukraine and China again blocked the efforts, forcing the other countries to go back to the drawing board. Apparently the three question the legal status of the reserve, and are also worried that their access to valuable fishing stocks would be limited unduly by the new protected areas. New Zealand head negotiator Carolyn Schwalger says

progress had been made since the last meeting in Germany as legal and procedural issues gave way to more substantive talks. “The government has said very clearly we're committed to this initiative, it's too important,” she told reporters in Hobart. “I'll have a discussion with the minister when we get home but I'm sure we're committed to the prize.”

AT: Australia CP

Prime Minister DA

Nice try-- the prime minister is destroying the Great Barrier Reef as we speak-- destroys the biggest biodiversity hotspot on the planet and increases warming AT THE SAME TIMECharolette Meredith, 09/21/2013( Reporter for HuffingtonPost, 'Tony Abbott Risks Destruction Of Australia's Great Barrier Reef', 6/29/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/20/tony-abbott-great-barrier-reef-destruction_n_3962474.html//AKP)

It is known as one of the Seven Wonders of the Natural World and regarded as a global treasure, but experts have warned Australia's already fragile Great Barrier Reef in under threat in what could be an environmental disaster with global implications . Australia's new

Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who once famously said that climate change is "crap , " has been

accused of removing climate policies that protected the environment to allow the rich to

become richer . The expansion of destructive coal facilities in the World Heritage Area are

being driven by the potential development of nine mega-mines in Queensland’s vast Galilee

Basi n . The Basin represents the world’s second largest reserve of unexploited fossil fuel and

if green-lighted, would result in thousands more coal ships passing through the Great Barrier

Reef every yea r - a move branded "environmental madness. " READ MORE: Tony Abbott Abolishes Australia's Climate Commission In a potentially disastrous "double-whammy," Greenpeace told HuffPost UK that Australia's reef not only faces being irreversibly damaged, but, additionally, as a result of the mining, the country's coal production threatens to spark

carbon emissions on an unprecedented level. Now, UNESCO is considering whether the Great Barrier Reef should be put on the list of World Heritage sites in danger – often dubbed the “shame list” by conservationists – while Greenpeace has said they face a fierce fight against the Australian Government and those funding the mining projects. "We're in for a major battle," said Greenpeace's Louise Matthiesson. "Australia is facing a hard choice right now whether to

make a quick buck from coal exports or whether to preserve an economically, long-standing

national treasure . "We fear Tony Abbott could overturn all the steps that have been taken domestically to protect the environment, to instead fast track coal export developments and drastically weaken environmental laws that were created to protect the country," she said. In June, a UN report expressed "extreme concern" over the level of development along the Great Barrier Reef coast, calling for all building to cease until an assessment of the ecosystem's health was carried out. UNESCO issued a stark warning against the construction of new ports or increased shipping in the region, having already expressed concern about the "limited progress" Australia has made in a plan to protect the reef from development in May this year. At the time Queensland Greens Senator Larissa Waters said being put on the danger list would represent a “huge international embarrassment for the country .” If the proposals were to go ahead the reef could lose its World Heritage status, while the dredging and dumping of 3m cubic metres of material inside the Great Barrier Reef marine park would threaten coral, dugongs, turtles, dolphins and much of the rest of the reef’s profusion of life, Greenpeace

warned. “ All the numbers are heading in the wrong direction ,” said David Ritter, the CEO of

Greenpeace Australia Pacific. “ As the Arctic ice melt plunges new depths, Australia’s coal

exports are preparing to soar to new heights – the two are not unrelated ," he said. The scale of the planned mining operations in the Galilee Basin has global implications, he warned. However, Queensland's premier, Campbell Newman, has already urged Abbott to approve the massive new coal projects in the state "as soon as possible." Newman told ABC Radio he had been called by the prime minister elect to discuss the "blockers" faced by the Queensland government. He said he told Abbott "to get out of the way and let this government get on with taking the state forward economically". Australia's burgeoning coal export industry, already

the largest in the world, could grow to 408m tonnes of shipped resources a year by 2025,

resulting in an annual 760m tonnes of CO2 – creating more carbon pollution than the entire

United Kingdom or Canad a. Additionally the increased risk of accidents on the reef from the increased shipping traffic could be disastrous The Wilderness Society's Queensland campaign manager, Dr Tim Seelig told ABC. "There is no question that UNESCO are going to have major problems with any proposal to be shifting coal from barges onto container ships in the Great Barrier Reef area," he said. " That's just environmental madness. And it's inconceivable that

UNESCO would allow that to happen .” A campaign to "Save The Reef" has already gathered more than 200,000 supporters.

Collapse of the Great Barrier Reef and warming both independently cause extinction-- world's best conservationist is on our sideIain McCalman.5/1/14 "Explorer Pleads to Save the Great Barrier Reef", internally quoting, J.E.N. Veron, the man who discovered more than 20 percent of the world's coral species, Iain McCalman is a professor of history at the University of Sydney, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and author of Darwin's Armada (2009) and The Seven Ordeals of Count Cagliostro (2004).http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/explorer-pleads-to-save-the-great-barrier-reef///AKP)

By exhaustively studying corals around the globe, J.E.N. Veron discovered how they evolve across millions of years and across the planet's oceans. His discoveries have also revealed how warming ocean temperatures and acidification of ocean water caused by climate change lead to coral bleaching and death. Veron has been urging the public to spread the story of coral demise, as a last hope for preventing reefs worldwide from dying. Sir david attenborough, the well-known naturalist, stands at the lectern of the royal Society in Carlton House Terrace in London, on July 6, 2009, about to bring the afternoon's speaker to the stage. A ripple of expectation passes through the audience, eagerly anticipating a lecture entitled “Is the Great Barrier Reef on Death Row?” Then Sir David introduces J.E.N. Veron, the then 64-year-old former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. “But,” says Sir David, smiling broadly, “I'll call him Charlie, a name he carries because he shares Mr. Darwin's obsession with the natural world.” Without specifically saying so, Sir David is telling us that we are about to hear from a modern-day Charles Darwin. Many of the scientists in the room already know how apt this comparison is: there are uncanny resemblances and intellectual links between today's speaker and the Royal Society's greatest ever Fellow. All Charlie Veron's friends know, too, that he has made himself an internationally famous scientist without ever losing Darwin's fierce independence, unquenchable curiosity and

passionate love of nature. Charlie, Sir David says, is one of the world's greatest scientific authorities

on corals and coral reef s. He has discovered and described more than 20 percent of the

known coral species—the tiny invertebrates that form skeletons of calcium carbonate and often join together into giant communities. And he has produced definitive catalogues of all the world's corals. But today—Sir David's voice takes on a somber note—Charlie comes with a different task: to show us

how coral reefs are the keys that can unlock the truth about the bewildering changes we

have unleashed in our climate . Perhaps he may answer the question that nags at us all: Do the reefs tell us

that the future is worse than we realize? When the applause subsides, Charlie walks to the lectern, a wiry, tanned figure wearing a red shirt and dark jacket. In his husky Australian voice, he thanks Sir David and begins to tell a spellbound audience why the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia, the most massive in the world, and all the earth's reefs face a likely mass extinction within the life span of the youngest listeners present. The lecture and Charlie's 2008 book that underpins it, A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End, mark a shift in theme and tone for a man who has written so joyfully about coral reefs. For 40 years Charlie has celebrated their astonishing multiplicity and complexity. Now the audience hears him focusing all his intellect and passion to prophesy a reef apocalypse. It is obvious how much he would like to avert what he predicts. To have any chance of this, though, Charlie must answer the skeptic's question: How do you know? And then its brutal follow-up: Why should we care? Knowledge Born of Sorrow The beginning of Charlie's answer stems from a nagging puzzle about the divergences between the same species of corals at different locations—a puzzle Charlie pursued for decades. His quest took him to hundreds of reefs in both hemispheres and across the vast Indian and Pacific oceans. He dived and collected in Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and then, further afield, in Zanzibar and at the remote Clipperton atoll in the eastern Pacific. Always he traveled by boat, always he worked with locals, and always he spent hours underwater, observing and memorizing. What he found was that over geologic spans of time,

corals intermix to produce new variations, reconnections between former variations and

even “fuzzy” hybrids . As he researched the diversity and evolution of the world's corals, Charlie became aware of a grave, looming problem. His realization of the trouble had personal as well as intellectual roots. In the midst of his long, testing labors, a tragedy drove him to think intently about mortality. Just as Charles Darwin, struggling to finalize his theory of evolution, had been shaken by emotional loss and domestic strain, so it was with Charlie Veron. In April 1980 Charlie was working in Hong Kong when he received a phone call from his wife, Kirsty, to say with horror that one of their two daughters, 10-year-old Noni, had drowned while playing in a creek with a friend. Weighed down by sorrow, life for Charlie and his wife dragged, and although they remained supportive of each other, they eventually agreed to divorce. Charlie's intense personal reminder of the contingencies and fragilities of life found echoes in his research, culminating in his powerful 1995 book Corals in Space and Time. The writing forced him to investigate the fate of the world's corals in the past and present. He studied analyses of previous reef extinctions and accrued more and more evidence of the effects of changing sea levels, temperature stresses, predation by crown-of-thorns starfish and human-influenced changes in nutrient levels. All this sharpened his long-gestating concern about the health of the Great Barrier Reef and other world reefs. Ironically, the book offered Charlie a personal lift—the chance of a second romance, with Mary Stafford-Smith, the scientist who edited the book and who became his new partner. Charlie and Mary began discussing the idea of a glossy, coffee-table book about corals for a general audience, “to open the eyes of the world to what was emerging as an urgent need to conserve corals,” he tells the audience. It was the crystallization of a new joint mission “to win some hearts as well as minds.” Around 70 underwater photographers gave their work for free, and illustrator Geoff Kelly produced exquisite drawings and paintings. Charlie supplied most of the encyclopedic thumbnail analyses. In October 2000 the three-volume Corals of the World was launched to critical acclaim at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Bali, where its message of reef fragility and degradation added to a rising global alarm. An instinctive conservationist, Charlie had been troubled way back in the 1970s by the extent of the damage caused by coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish. He had become convinced that numbers of them were soaring because of overfishing of the starfish's natural predators and that survival of the millions of larvae expelled annually into the ocean currents was enhanced by the growing levels of chemical pollution. ( Crown-of-thorns larvae thrive in polluted waters.) What provoked him to fury, though, was the way in which the vested interests of tourism developers and politicians, combined with

the craven behavior of government bureaucracies, worked to deliberately discourage scientists from studying the problem. It was the onset of a process, ubiquitous today, whereby scientists were no

longer free to pick their own questions or seek their own answers. Mass Bleaching Looking back, Charlie says he realized that like most of his generation, he had taken for granted that “the oceans [were] limitless and the marine world indestructible,” including the vast, relatively well managed region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The fact that the Central Indo-Pacific functioned as the prime

disperser of coral biodiversity had always been worrying because of the region's lack of legal

protection . Diver friends had long urged him to visit the spectacular reefs of eastern Indonesia, but by the time he got there in

the early 1990s it was too late. Reefs that had run for thousands of kilometers were now masses of rubble. Charlie had seen his first patch of coral bleaching off the Great Barrier Reef's Palm Island in the early 1980s, a tiny clump of white skeleton that he photographed as a curio. “And then I saw a whammy, a mass bleaching event … where everything turns white and dies. Sometimes it's only the fast-growing branching corals, but some of the others are horrible to see; corals that are four, five, six hundred years old—they die, too.” The first recorded global mass bleaching occurred between 1981 and 1982. The next major spate of mass bleaching, between 1997 and 1998, hammered reefs in more than 50 countries, even among the hot-water corals of the Arabian Sea. On the Great Barrier Reef, the bleaching coincided with the warmest sea temperatures ever recorded. In an even worse mass-bleaching event in 2001–2002, the global damage also confirmed a close connection with El Niño weather cycles. Catastrophic global warming had arrived . Peculiarly susceptible to

increases in heat and light, corals were now alerting scientists to climatic changes. Charlie's research told him that during El Niño weather cycles, the surface seawaters in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, already heated to unusually high levels by greenhouse gas–induced warming, were being pulsed from a mass of ocean water known as the Western Pacific Warm Pool onto the reef's delicate living corals. When corals are exposed to temperatures two or three degrees hotter than their evolved maximum (31 degrees Celsius for Great

Barrier Reef species), along with increased levels of sunlight, it is lethal . The powerhouse algae that live in the corals' tissues, providing their color and food through photosynthesis, pump out oxygen at levels toxic to their polyp hosts. The corals must expel their symbiotic life supports or die .

Row on row of stark white skeletons are the result . These damaged corals are capable of

regeneration if water temperatures return to normal and water quality remains good, but the frequency and intensity of bleaching outbreaks are now such that the percentage of reef loss from coral deaths will increase dramatically. Charlie predicts that the widening and deepening of the Western Pacific Warm Pool through climate change will mean that “every year will effectively become an El Niño year as far as the corals are concerned.” Past Predicts the Future Charlie's hope is that some as yet unknown strains of symbiotic algae, better able to cope with a heat-stressed world, might eventually form partnerships with corals. Or that the adaptive energies of fast-growing corals such as Acropora might somehow outpace the rate of bleaching. Or that pockets of corals lying in shadowed refuges on cool, deep reef slopes or in deep waters might survive to become agents of future renewal. But heat is

not the only problem corals face. Other destructive synergies may be impossible to stop. Reefs, Charlie points out, are nature's archives. They are complex data banks that record evidence of environmental changes from millions of years ago up to the present. Imprinted in fossil typography are the stories of the mass extinction events of the geologic past, including their likely causes. These archives tell us that

four out of the five previous mass extinctions of coral reefs on our planet were linked to the

carbon cycle . They were caused by changes to the ocean's chemistry brought about by absorption of two primary greenhouse

gases, carbon dioxide and methane, through a process of acidification of ocean water. Today's culprits are the same gases, although

their increased presence is not the result of the meteor strikes or volcanoes that caused earlier catastrophes. We humans

are doing that work , knowingly pumping these gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. Already the

oceans, the planet's usual absorber of these gases, have reached a third of their capacity to soak them up and balance them chemically. Stealthily, the oceans have begun the process that scientists call commitment, the unstoppable inevitability of acidification that presages destruction long before it is clearly visible. Eventually—possibly as early as 2050—we will have

reached the point where coral skeletons become soluble in seawate r. Carbonate rock, including reefs,

will start dissolving, like “a giant antacid tablet,” as Charlie describes it. Phytoplankton, the food of tiny krill, a key

element in the food web of the southern oceans, will be equally affected by acidification . And

who knows what terrible chain of ecological consequences will follow? The earth's sixth mass extinction event

will have arrived . So, Charlie Veron, a man who has lived and worked on the Great Barrier Reef for most of his life, finds himself in the agonizing position of having to be a prophet of its extinction. We cannot wonder that he feels “very very sad. It's real, day in, day out, and I work on this, day in, day out. It's like seeing a house on fire in slow motion…. There's a fire to end all fires, and you're watching it in slow motion, and you have been for years.” I know of few more poignant sights than the closing moments of Charlie's speech in July 2009 in that hushed room of scientists and citizens. Tossing aside his notes, he apologizes to the audience in a strained, faltering voice for having delivered such a miserable talk. He urges his listeners to think about what they have heard. “Use your influence,” he pleads. “For the future of the planet, help get this story recognized. It is not a fairy tale. It is reality.” This article was originally published with the title "The Great Coral Grief."

Australia Fails

Solvency is impossible-- Abbot abolished the Australian Climate Commission, plans to abolish more environmental positions, and will undo any new environmental procedures fiated by the planHuffington Post, 09/19/13 (("Tony Abbot Abolishes Australia's Climate Commission" Huffington Post, 6/29/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/19/tony-abbot-abolishes-climate-commission_n_3953169.html?utm_hp_ref=uk//AKP)

Tony Abbott, who once famously said that climate change is "crap ," has abolished

Australia's Climate Commission. The Australian prime minister has been branded a "climate criminal " after

he sensationally pushed ahead with his plan to scrap government bodies associated with Labor's carbon pricing scheme and climate change policy. The commission was set up by former prime minister Julia Gillard in February 2011 as an independent body "to provide reliable and authoritative" information on climate change. The now former chief commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery told ABC news the Government will have to find another way to keep the public informed about climate change.

Speaking in Melbourne, Professor Flannery said: "I believe Australians have a right to know, a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change. But the Coalition

Government also wants to dump the Climate Change Authority, which was set up in 2012 to provide independent advice to the government on the carbon price and emissions reductions targets. Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday instructed his department to begin drafting repeal legislation to abolish the authority. The Labor leadership contender Anthony Albanese said in a

speech on Thursday the move to scrap the commission was "shameful". Australia's Green party leader Christine

Milne said issuing instructions to close the authority was irresponsible in the face of dangerous climate change, The Age reported .

Branding Abbott a "climate criminal" for dismantling the bodies she said "in the context of

global warming this action is a crime against humanity ." "In one swoop, [Abbott] has demonstrated his contempt for climate science and for the health and wellbeing of future generations. "Prime minister Abbott has distinguished himself as one of the only leaders of a western democracy to deny the severity of global warming and to actively undermine infrastructure which is bringing down emissions," Senator Milne said. " Future generations will look

back on this day and remember it as the day Tony Abbott condemned them and their peers

to climate chaos." The Government has also announced it is preparing legislation to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

Australia fails at reserves – empirics prove – environmental praise has no substancePressey, Professor and Program leader for Conservation Planning at James Cook University, 13[Bob, The Conservation Journal, “Australia’s new marine protected areas: why they won’t work”, January 17, 2013, http://theconversation.com/australias-new-marine-protected-areas-why-they-wont-work-11469, ML]

With those points in mind, here is a brief review of the recently established marine protected areas in Australian Commonwealth waters, covering more than 2.3 million square kilometres. The government considers these areas have confirmed Australia as a world leader in environmental protection. But how much difference did the new marine reserves make to the future of Australia’s marine biodiversity? The green (no-take) zones are concentrated in the deeper waters near the edge of Australia’s marine jurisdiction, barely touching the continental shelf where threats to biodiversity are concentrated. Their placement has been adjusted to make little difference to fishing and no difference to oil and gas development. This repeats the pattern of the 2007 marine protected areas in the south-east region where marine protected areas, and especially green zones, were largely absent from the “zone of importance” where high biodiversity conservation values overlapped with greatest threats. The extensive new protected areas in IUCN category IV and, especially, VI zones allow various forms of fishing and many allow extraction of oil and gas. Australia’s 2011 State of Environment report found that fishing has caused declines in target and non-target species in several of our marine planning regions and that the cumulative impacts of oil and gas extraction are not being managed. The “jewel in the crown” of the new network is the enormous mosaic of protection zones in the Coral Sea – nationally marginal for commercial fishing . The no-take zone is furthest from land, typical of the other marine planning regions. The zones that prohibit pelagic long-lining have been configured to avoid all but the most marginal areas for this fishing method. Oil and gas exploration and extraction are prohibited throughout the region, although hydrocarbon reserves appear to be absent (they are concentrated in the north-west and south-east planning regions where oil and gas developments are avoided by or permitted in protected areas established in 2007 and 2012). The Australian Government, in minimising the impact of marine protected areas on commercial and industrial interests, has also minimised the contributions of these areas to protecting marine biodiversity. The conservation benefits are vanishingly small in proportion to size of the new areas. This approach works politically as long as conservation groups and the general public believe that size matters. Apparently they do. The Government’s media release stated: “Of the 80,000 submissions received, the vast majority of submissions were supportive of the Government’s plan to create the world’s largest network of marine parks.” The Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Marine Conservation Society and Greenpeace, among many others, applauded the announcement. This praise indicates one of two things: the green groups have confused means (protected areas) and ends (making a difference) or, for reasons of their own, have decided to follow the Government’s lead. Either way, Australia’s marine biodiversity faces a problem – a mutually reinforcing combination of political expediency and commendation from influential NGOs and the public. One of Hans Christian Andersen’s cautionary tales comes readily to mind. As in The Emperor’s New Clothes, Australia’s new marine protected areas don’t involve much substance but have attracted a good deal of public praise. An important difference, though, is that Andersen’s story ends with public outcry at being duped. There are plenty of people in Australia who understand marine conservation and think the new marine reserves are a conservation failure, but few can say so publicly. That’s another story.

Australia fails at marine conservation – Barrier Reef proves Arup, environment editor for The Age – Australia’s leading news service, 1/29[Tom, The Sydney Morning Herald, “We're failing to protect the reef, activists claim”, January 29, 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/were-failing-to-protect-the-reef-activists-claim-20140129-31ncd.html, ML]

Australia is failing to meet United Nations' conditions to better protect the Great Barrier Reef and keep it off a list of world heritage sites deemed "in danger", an assessment by environment groups has found. In a report to be released on Thursday, WWF and the Australian Marine Conservation Society argue that recent government approvals for big resource projects, plus a lack of progress in other areas, threatens the reef's world heritage status. In particular, they say a decision by Environment Minister Greg Hunt to allow 3 million cubic tonnes of dredging spoil – a result of building coal export terminals at Abbot Point– to be dumped in reef waters breaches a UN condition that development occur only within existing industrial areas. On Saturday the federal government is to submit its own progress report on the protection of the reef's natural values to the UN World Heritage Committee. Advertisement The authority overseeing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will also decide on Friday whether to permit the dumping of Abbot Point dredging spoil in its waters. The UN first raised significant concerns about the reef in 2012 amid proposed resource projects along its coast, including gas processing plants, coal export terminals and dredging. The World Heritage Committee developed a set of recommendations for Australia to better manage the reef and warned it would place it on the List of World Heritage in Danger unless significant progress was made. A decision on an "in danger" listing was deferred last year until a meeting in Doha this June. In their assessment, the conservation groups find in all but one case the federal and Queensland governments were failing to make sufficient progress in meeting the recommendations. Besides the recent dumping approval, they also argue that neither government has spent enough to improve water quality to halt and arrest the decline in the reef's health.

Australia environmental conservation fails – priority on mining industry – empirics prove Australian Marine Conservation Society, 5/9[WWF, “Big picture view needed of full failures at Gladstone Harbour”, May 9, 2014, http://fightforthereef.org.au/big-picture-view-needed-full-failures-gladstone-harbour/, ML]The Federal Government’s independent review into the leaking bund wall at the Port of Gladstone shines a light on the systematic failure of environment management in Gladstone but is only the tip of the iceberg, according to the Australian Marine Conservation Society. The report and its recommendations fail to deal with critical issues, including the inappropriateness of building new port developments, and dredging and dumping in and near the iconic Great Barrier Reef, failure to hold anyone to account for breaches of environmental conditions, the unacceptable conflict of interest with the Queensland government both owning and regulating the major ports along the Reef coast, approval for dredging and dumping activity going ahead without guarantee that the failures that occurred at Gladstone can be prevented from happening again, and staff cutbacks in environment departments at both the state and federal level calling into question capacity for effective oversight of projects and their conditions. Australian Marine Conservation Society, Great Barrier Reef campaign director Felicity Wishart said it was disappointing the inquiry had not been broad enough to address all the issues surrounding the alarming health and environmental problems that emerged in Gladstone Harbour following major dredging and construction in 2011. “The Inquiry has revealed some crucial failures about the construction, leaking, monitoring and regulation of the bund wall built to hold millions of tonnes of dredged material at Gladstone Harbour,” Ms Wishart said. “But the fact remains the leaking bund wall is only part of a much bigger picture. “Let us not forget that for two years industry, the state-owned ports corporation and

government have said nothing or denied that the environmental disaster was due to the port expansion, dredging and dumping in Gladstone Harbour. “Instead, key data such as monitoring reports were withheld or went missing for months, and the damage to human health and wildlife was largely blamed on the rain. “There can be no guarantee that we avoid the mistakes of Gladstone at other ports along the Queensland coast until the full story about toxic algal blooms, heavy metal contamination in turtles and the collapse of the fishing industry is understood and dealt with. “It’s time Australian governments stopped putting the interests of the mining industry over stronger protection for the Reef, which is supported by the vast majority of Australians.

Pacific Key Pacific key – biggest biodiversity hotspot Juliet Elperin 14 (Writer for the Washington Post. “Why is Obama protecting a place you’ve never heard of? We explain.” June 17, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/17/why-is-obama-protecting-a-place-youve-never-heard-of-we-explain/CH)

You might be wondering why President Obama is announcing Tuesday he will use his executive authority to expand the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument, a vast stretch of the central Pacific Ocean. Here are a few reasons: 1. With marine reserves, bigger is often better. The original monument, established in 2009, is already nearly 82,000 square miles. But many scientists--such as Lance Morgan and Elliott Norse of the Redmond, Wash.-based Marine Conservation Institute--argue that the ecological benefits expand exponentially when sanctuaries are enlarged, both because they allow species to move freely and because they are easier to enforce. The possible expansion would encompass nearly 782,000 square miles. 2. Underwater mountains matter. Seamounts--massive mountains that lie beneath the ocean's surface--are hotspots of biodiversity. There are anywhere between 40 to 51 in the current protected area, and that number would reach between 241 and 251 if the president extends the reserve to 200 miles surrounding each of its seven islands and atolls. 3. Since it's devoid of people, animals thrive there. Almost everywhere in the world, small fish outnumber big fish. But in places such as Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, scientists have found the biomass of large predators such as sharks outweighs that of smaller fish. The area--which also includes Wake, Johnston, Jarvis, Howland and Baker Islands--also features five species of protected sea turtles and 22 species of protected marine mammals as well as several million seabirds who gather there.

Pacific region key- hotspot for biodiversity and key to monitor climate changeSala et. al. 5/20- Enric Sala, marine ecologist, National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence actively engaged in exploration, Ph.D. in ecology from the University of Aix-Marseille, France, 2005 Aldo Leopold Leadership Fellow, 2006 Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation, 2013 Research Award of the Spanish Geographical Society, and 2013 Lowell Thomas Award of the Explorers Club, 2014 (“Expansion of the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument,” Marine Conservation Institute, May 20th, Available online at http://www.marine-conservation.org/media/filer_public/filer_public/2014/06/17/primnm_expansion_report.pdf, Accessed 7-1-14)The waters surrounding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument are of global ecological importance. If fully protected as Marine National Monuments with no extractive uses, the seven islands’ EEZs would be havens for all kinds of marine wildlife, and a precautionary bulwark against the degradation and decline of marine ecosystems in the Pacific, which continues to unfold at an alarming rate. In addition, the areas would provide badly needed baselines for other Pacific nations that are increasingly working to restore their own degraded coral island and pelagic ecosystems – and to preserve the last wild places left. This guards against the “shifting baseline” syndrome, whereby our expectations of what is natural diminish over time because

we cannot remember what healthy ecosystems are supposed to look like. Finally, the islands would be ideal places to monitor the ocean impacts of global climate change, such as coral bleaching and ocean acidification. The waters and seafloor surrounding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument harbor some of the best-preserved ocean habitats in the Pacific, and are home to many species of key ecological and commercial importance: • Large predatory fishes, such as tuna, swordfish, marlin, and oceanic sharks are still found in these waters, even though their populations have been significantly depleted in the past 50 years; an estimated 90% of all large predatory fish worldwide have been wiped out, although the exact status of commercially exploited populations in the Pacific varies. Protection would increase the area where these commercially important species can grow and produce more eggs per capita without being exposed to the “wall of hooks” – and hence help replenish their populations. • Five species of protected sea turtles also use these waters as migratory and feeding grounds, including the critically endangered leatherback turtle – which is near extinction because of human activities. • The proposed area is habitat for 22 species of protected marine mammals, including a new species

recently described by scientists, the Palmyra beaked whale. Seven of these marine mammals are considered endangered. • Several million seabirds of 19 species congregate around or nest at the US Pacific Remote Islands. These seabirds forage in the waters surrounding the current Monument, out to 200 nautical

miles and farther, feeding themselves and their chicks.•The deep sea on the area proposed as an expansion, virtually unexplored, is dotted with an

estimated 241 undersea mountains and other unexplored geological features that are hotspots of ocean biodiversity. These undersea mountains (seamounts) each typically harbors thousands of species new to science, and large numbers of endemic species found nowhere else on the planet, just as archipelagos like the Galapagos and Hawaiian Islands do.

• Protecting ocean ecosystems from multiple human impacts will help them to be more resilient from climate change providing refuges for endangered species to adapt to changes already underway.

Pacific Ocean key- seamounts and marine biodiversityWashington Post 6/17- Washington Post, 2014 (“Why is Obama protecting a place you’ve never heard of? We explain.” Juliet Eilperin, June 17th, Available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/17/why-is-obama-protecting-a-place-youve-never-heard-of-we-explain/, Accessed 7-1-14)You might be wondering why President Obama is announcing Tuesday he will use his executive authority to expand the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument, a vast stretch of the central Pacific Ocean. Here are a few reasons:1. With marine reserves, bigger is often better. The original monument, established in 2009, is already nearly 82,000 square miles. But many scientists--such as Lance Morgan and Elliott Norse of the Redmond, Wash.-based Marine Conservation Institute--argue that the ecological benefits expand exponentially when sanctuaries are enlarged, both because they allow species to move freely and because they are easier to enforce. The possible expansion would encompass nearly 782,000 square miles.

2. Underwater mountains matter. Seamounts--massive mountains that lie beneath the ocean's surface--are hotspots of biodiversity. There are anywhere between 40 to 51 in the current protected area, and that number would reach between 241 and 251 if the president extends the reserve to 200 miles surrounding each of its seven islands and atolls.3. Since it's devoid of people, animals thrive there. Almost everywhere in the world, small fish

outnumber big fish. But in places such as Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, scientists have found the biomass of large predators such as sharks outweighs that of smaller fish. The area--which also includes Wake, Johnston,

Jarvis, Howland and Baker Islands--also features five species of protected sea turtles and 22 species of protected marine mammals as well as several million seabirds who gather there.4. There isn't much commercial activity there, and it can move elsewhere. The fish caught in this region accounts for between 1 and 3 percent of the U.S. tuna catch in the central and western Pacific,

according to the Pew Charitable Trusts, and these vessels can shift their fishing activities. The industry may still object to the expansion, however, which is one of the reasons why the White House is seeking public input before making a final decision.

Pacific Ocean key to biodiversity Stanford University 05- Stanford University, 2005 (“Ocean Ecosystems Plagued By Agricultural Runoff,” Science Daily, April 3rd, Available online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050326010739.htm, Accessed 7-1-14)The study is based on satellite imagery of Mexico's Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez—a narrow, 700-mile-long stretch of the Pacific Ocean that separates the Mexican mainland from the Baja California Peninsula. The area is a hotspot of marine biodiversity and one of Mexico's most important commercial fishing centers."Biological productivity in most of the world's oceans is controlled by the supply of nutrients to the surface water," wrote the authors, who are all affiliated with Stanford's School of Earth Sciences. "The Gulf of California contains some of the highest nutrient concentrations in the oceans and sustains highly elevated rates of biological productivity."

Hawai’i KeyDue to the isolated nature of pacific islands within the reserve, many species here are unseen anywhere else. And this biodiversity is key to maintaining the ecological integrity and stability of the region, protection is key to maintaining this biodiversity.PBS, 08(http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/kilauea-mountain-of-fire/hawaiis-vulnerable-biodiversity/4838/, “Kilauea: Mountain of Fire: Hawaii's Vulnerable Biodiversity” In this documentary, PBS sent ecologists to analyze the biodiversity of the Hawaiian region and explore the hazardous effects of human interruption of the environment and the harms of invasive species)

Surrounded by ocean and formed by volcanic hot spots, Hawaii’s isolation and geological activity shape the biodiversity of the islands. With over 25,000 unique species, Hawaii is one of the most biologically diverse regions on the planet. A large percentage of these species are only found in the islands of Hawaii. While the number of species is

impressive, these birds, insects, mammals, and plants live in a delicate balance. As an isolated oceanic archipelago, the Hawaiian Islands offer insight into evolutionary processes that are unmatched in their beauty and complexity. Left to evolve on their own in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaiian species developed their own unique evolutionary traits. Each species’ survival depends on a host of other species, and when one species is lost the entire framework of Hawaiian ecology is disturbed. Unfortunately, Hawaii has the highest rate of extinction per square mile on Earth, and many endemic Hawaiian species are currently threatened or endangered.

The Hawaiian archipelago is massively rich in critically endangered biodiversity. SWARS, 10(http://www.hawaiistateassessment.info/SWARS/Hawaii_Assessment_Issue_6_Biodiversity.pdf “Hawaii Statewide Assessment of Forest Conditions and Resource Strategy 2010 Issue 6: Conservation of Native Biodiversity” This site is the public interface for the state of Hawaii's comprehensive assessment of forest conditions, across all land ownerships, and is part of a federal initiative to improve resource management and planning)

The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated archipelago in the world, situated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean more than 3,200 kilometers (2,000

miles) from the nearest continent. Due to its extreme isolation and climactic conditions, Hawaii is characterized by high levels of endemism in both its native animals and plants, with over 10,000 species found nowhere else on earth. Although thousands of Hawaiian species have yet to be described, the estimated number of native species is thought to include more than 14,000

terrestrial, 100 freshwater, and 6,500 marine taxa. For more than 70 million years, the evolution of new species vastly exceeded losses to

extinction. Yet after the arrival of humans to the islands, about 700 years ago, numerous extinctions have occurred and many more species are threatened. These losses include more than half of the endemic birds, including flightless ducks, rails, and ibis, hundreds of plant species, and possibly thousands of lesser known taxa such as terrestrial insects and spiders that were lost before they were ever described.Because of this extreme isolation, relatively few species have colonized the archipelago and only a subset of these successfully establish populations over the islands’ 70 million year history. Those that did, however, found a diversity of habitat types because of elevation and climate gradients. Extremely limited or no gene flow from their distant, original populations, facilitated the rapid adaptation of colonists to their novel environments. For many such colonists, unique adaptations occurred simultaneously among populations that were isolated

from one another on an island and between islands. Hawaii provides a text-book example of adaptive radiation,

the process by which many new species evolved from a single common ancestor in a relatively short time span. Although comprising less than 0.2 percent of the land area of the United States, the Hawaiian Islands hold more than 30 percent of the nation’s federally listed species, including 317 taxa of plants and animals listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) as endangered or threatened, 12 taxa proposed as endangered and 105 taxa as candidates for listing. Unique and varied habitats are also found across the islands. As a result, Hawaii presents both an opportunity and a challenge for conservation

Marshall Islands are rich in marine biodiversity. Protection of Marshall Atolls keyICEM, 08(http://icem.com.au/documents/biodiversity/marshallisland/reimaanlok_national_conservation_area_plan_for_the_marshall_islands_final_may30.pdf “National Conservation Area Plan for the Marshall Islands” ICEM has over 20 years of experience in biodiversity conservation and protected area management. We have led and managed many projects and programs for the conservation of landscapes and ecoregions including development of action plans, focused studies and habitat rehabilitation. ICEM led in the ground breaking Protected Areas and Development (PAD) project involving Mekong countries and many international and local conservation organizations. ICEM was instrumental in designing international collaborative approaches to conservation in the Mekong region and with the countries of the Coral Triangle.)

The isolation and relatively low population means that the Marshalls have some of the healthiest and most pristine coral reef and terrestrial habitat in the world. Already a rich biodiversity has been catalogued and new species remain to be discovered. There are over 1000 species of fishes with more than 860 of these being in-shore, or reef, fish and the rest deepwater or pelagic. In addition, in the marine environment there are over 362 species of corals, over 250 of these being hard corals; 40 sponges; 1655 molluscs; 728 crustaceans; 128 echinoderms; 27 marine mammals and 5 turtle species5. About 700 land animals have been identified, mostly insects, along with 80 indigenous vascular plants.6

USFG KeyThe US must take the lead—other countries are unwilling to create reservesBBC News 13—BBC News, 2013 (“Antarctic marine reserves: Russia and China block plans,” November 1st, Available online at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24776865, Accessed 6/24/14)A revised proposal by the US and New Zealand - reducing the scale of the Ross Sea reserve by 40% to about 1.25m sq km

(482,000 sq miles) - had been thought more likely to succeed at the Commission's meeting in Hobart.Also on the table in Hobart was a proposal to create a protected zone of 1.6m sq km (618,000 sq miles) off East Antarctica.The two zones were intended to conserve parts of the Southern Ocean from fishing, oil exploration and other commercial exploitation.But they were both blocked by Russia and Ukraine, while China withdrew support for the East Antarctica proposal."It seems pretty clear that a small group of countries led by Russia wanted to wreck the agreement," said Steve Campbell, director of the Antarctic Ocean Alliance which campaigns for protecting the Antarctic seas.Andrea Kavanagh, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts' Southern Ocean sanctuaries project, also expressed dismay at the outcome:"This is a dark day not just for the Antarctic, but for the world's oceans," she said."Protecting the Southern Ocean has far-reaching consequences for the world's oceans and all those who rely on them for food, jobs, and a multitude of other services."Three-quarters of all marine life is maintained by a Southern Ocean current that pulls nutrient-rich waters from the deep ocean to the surface and then around the world.There was no immediate statement from Russia.Environmentalist say they hope agreement on the marine protected areas can be reached by CCAMLR next year.

US controls the territory and must execute the reservesSmithsonian Magazine 6/17—Smithsonian Magazine, 2014 (“President Obama Could Create the World's Largest Marine Sanctuary,” Rachel Nuwer, June 17th, Available online at http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/obama-wants-create-worlds-largest-marine-sanctuary-180951765/?no-ist, Accessed 6/24/14)As the Post points out, the U.S. controls the most ocean territory of any country and is only second to China for its consumption of seafood. It's no secret that the world's oceans are struggling with problems like overfishing, ocean acidification and plastic pollution. Marine reserves can mitigate some of these problems: they increase the size and number of marine creatures within their borders, as well as the number of species. They can also help ocean species deal with climate change. Setting aside swaths of ocean is actually an old idea, Oceanus Magazine says:Similar resource management tools have been used as far back as the Middle Ages, when European kings and princes controlled access to forests and streams, and the fish and wildlife in them. In Hawaii, local chiefs established and maintained networks of no-fishing “kapu” zones, with violations punishable by death.But the effectiveness of this strategy depends on how well it's executed. Marine reserves that aren't well policed don't have much impact, for instance. And managing fisheries requires more than just putting part of the population off-limits. As the Guardian explains, one reason scientists have advocated for larger sanctuaries is that they're "easier to enforce and allow more species to recover."Scientists also "believe as much as a third of the wild-caught seafood sold in US was landed by illegal fishing trawlers, undermining efforts to sustainably manage stocks," the Guardian writes. While banning these activities in large swaths of the ocean helps, someone still has to make sure the ban is actually dissuading fishing boats from harvesting the stocks in those waters.

US key to prevent illegal fishing and seafood fraudThe Guardian 6/17- The Guardian, 2014 (“Obama to expand marine reserves and crack down on seafood black market,” Suzanne Goldenburg, US environment correspondent, June 17th, Available online at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/17/obama-oceans-marine-reserves-leonardo-dicaprio, Accessed 6/24/14)More 350 scientists this week signed on to a letter than to the White House urging Obama to expand marine sanctuaries to up to 20% of each ocean region under US control.Conservation groups praised Obama's move, as well as his proposals for tracking seafood.Scientists believe as much as a third of the wild-caught seafood sold in US is landed by illegal fishing trawlers, undermining efforts to sustainably manage stocks . The Oceana conservation group said the task force was “a historic step forward” to stop illegal fishing and seafood fraud.“Tracking where, when and how our seafood is caught, and ensuring that this basic information follows the product through each step in the supply chain, will help to eliminate seafood fraud and the illegal fishing it can disguise,” the group said in a statement.Other environmental groups praised the action on illegal fishing, but urged Congress to implement a treaty that would put identification numbers on all fishing vessels and curb landings of illegal fish catches.“As one of the top seafood importers in the world, the US has a responsibility to ensure that every fish bought in our stores, markets, and restaurants is fully traceable to where it was legally caught ,” the World Wildlife Fund said.

U.S. hotspots are key – seamounts, undiscovered species, and predatory fish are key to biodiversityKiger 14 (Patrick J. Kiger, Reporter for Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel and the Science Channel, “Why Protect a Massive, Remote Part of the Pacific?” 6-18-14, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/why-protect-a-massive-remote-part-of-the-pacific-140618.htm, accessed 7-1-14) But the expansion was praised by groups such the Redmond, Wash.-based Marine Conservation Institute, which in May issued a report on why the remote area is so important. It’s one of the few remaining large relatively pristine wild sections of the oceans, and it’s crucial to preserve such areas so that we have a baseline of what a healthy ocean ecosystem is supposed to look like, according to the institute.Those waters provides a safe haven for large predatory fishes such as tuna, swordfish, marlin and sharks, whose numbers worldwide have been reduced by 90 percent over the past half-century by overfishing, and for 19 different species of sea birds. Five different species of protected sea turtles — including the leatherback turtle, one of the world’s largest marine reptiles, which is in danger of extinction — use the waters as migratory and feeding grounds, according to the institute.The sea bottom itself is also crucial. The expanded preserve would include an estimated 241 undersea mountains, which typically are hotspots of biodiversity , including potentially thousands of species that have yet to be discovered by scientists.Finally, preserving a larger pristine area would make it easier for researchers to monitor the effects on climate change on the oceans, such as the ocean acidification that threatens coral reefs and smaller aquatic creatures who are a critical part of the oceans’ food chain.