EXPLORATION It’s well defined, and a term of art. The most common definition – exploration is ‘discovery’ Huddleston, 9 – communications officer for the National Research Council (Nancy, “Ocean Exploration: Highlights of the National Academies Reports”, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static- assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.p df http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static- assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.p df
What does that mean??? As defined by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations and documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time.
1. It’s discovery of the characteristics of the ocean – but those characteristics are wide-ranging 2. The process should be open-ended – which means you don’t look for a specific thing – ie you wouldn’t search for flight MH 370 according to this definition. Observing and recording characteristics of the ocean might be topical, and mapping the sea floor might be topical, but only looking for a particular item within the ocean is not. 3. It’s related to, but, distinct from, research – the best explanation is that exploration is the beginning stage of research where you’re asking questions – you’re not looking for definite answers. It’s the difference between coming up with a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. **Relevant because there will be a category of affirmatives dedicated to improving scientific knowledge – particularly about climate. Negatives will argue that those are research, not discovery. It’s not a great argument because the line between the two is blurry – but evidence definitely exists to exclude it.
Alternative interpretation – exploration is the search for resources
The Law of the Sea and various parts of US Code define it narrowly, to be just the search for resources. There are good definitions, but they are limited to a particular context. Notably:
–the Law of the Sea was a treaty primarily designed to promote the sustainable economic use of resources, so it would make sense that any definition of exploration within it would be about resources –US Code is based upon particular laws – so the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was only about looking for oil and mineral resources. It wouldn’t make sense for it to have a broader definition of ‘exploration’. –the resolution says ‘exploration of the oceans’ – not of ocean resources Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
What is “development”? It’s poorly defined, and not at all a term of art. The word ‘development’ is well defined in other contexts – mostly about the development of people or societies – those definitions have very little use here. The most concise interpretation of ‘development’ is ‘use’ or ‘exploitation’
Development defined: Japanese Institute of Navigation, 98 (“Ocean Engineering Research Committee”, http://members.j-navigation.org/e- committee/Ocean.htm)http://members.j-navigation.org/e- committee/Ocean.htm Discussions of “Ocean Engineering” are inseparable from “Ocean Development.” What is ocean development? Professor Kiyomitsu Fujii of the University of Tokyo defines ocean development in his book as using oceans for mankind, while preserving the beauty of nature. In the light of its significance and meaning, the term “Ocean Development” is not necessarily a new term. Ocean development is broadly classified into three aspects: (1) Utilization of ocean resources, (2) Utilization of ocean spaces, and (3) Utilization of ocean energy.
Beware...Does “development” have to be commercial??? I think not! But why? Previous topics The word ‘its’ in the topic complicates things. The topic says ‘its development’ – which on prior topics, the neg has usually been able to win its = ownership. The space exploration / development topic was similar in wording to this one – and the neg could conclusively win that all exploration or development must be directed by the federal government. On that topic, this interpretation successfully forced the affirmative to defend governmental development, and allowed the negative to defend incentives for the private sector as a core counterplan.
BUT……… The federal government doesn’t actually develop ocean resources itself – really ever, or if it did, it would be through the Department of Defense. Instead, it gives permits to lease resources to the private sector and they develop it. The lands and resources are federally owned, but a lease means the private sector has the ability to develop it. It’s at still possible there could be some affs even under a strict interpretation of ‘development as exploitation’ – but it’s a very small number of cases and would probably be limited to things like federal demonstration projects (such as for OTEC).
Sustainable Development most literature about federal ocean development anchors it firmly in the concept of ‘management and conservation’ of resources. The federal role is basically sustainable development. Sustainable development suggests ‘its development’ could just be management and regulation of use and exploitation of resources Borgese, 94 – Elisabeth Mann Borgese is Professor of Political Science at Dalhousie University. She is the Founder of the International Ocean Institute and acts as Chairperson of the IOI Planning Council.Elisabeth Mann Borgese is Professor of Political Science at Dalhousie University. She is the Founder of the International Ocean Institute and acts as Chairperson of the IOI Planning Council. Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas, http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000- 00—off-0envl–00-0—-0-10-0—0—0direct-10—4——-0-1l–11-en-50—20- about—00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8- 00&cl=CL3.33&d=HASH015e0d6a44dfd69a2ad9fcdc.1>=2http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000- 00—off-0envl–00-0—-0-10-0—0—0direct-10—4——-0-1l–11-en-50—20- about—00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8- 00&cl=CL3.33&d=HASH015e0d6a44dfd69a2ad9fcdc.1>=2
Sustainable Development The word “development,” in its international setting too readily associated with “economic development,” it refers here to the use or exploitation of a natural resource. The word “sustainable,” which conveys the idea of holding up or support, in this context means development that is conservative, and is conducive to continued viability of a resource. The term “sustainable development” which appeared in the World Conservation Strategy published in 1980 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and was adopted by the World Commission on Environment and Development, is used to describe management (i.e. regulation of use and exploitation, and conservation) of a given resource in such a manner that the benefits of the resource are optimized, that is, made available on an equitable basis to the largest number over the longest term. It requires the sparing and economical use of non-renewable resources, and maintenance of the productivity of renewable resources, as well as avoidance of or compensation for, irreversible effects caused to the resource through use or exploitation that does not meet these standards.
Who controls the resources? Such equitable allocation of benefits from a resource necessarily implies regulation of access to the resource, whether that resource is a stock of fish, a deposit of minerals, or the air or water; and whether the resource is fixed, or mobile and fluctuating across national boundaries, or beyond national jurisdiction in areas sometimes referred to as “global commons.”
Allocation Concerns The Report of the World Commission declares that … physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay attention to such considerations as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits. Even the narrow notion or physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation. (emphasis added)1
Thus… (for the K debaters) “sustainable development” requires, inter alia, (1) “that [the] poor get their fair share of the resources required to sustain [economic] growth”; and (2) “that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means…. Painful choices have to be made….” The Report is right to conclude, therefore, that “sustainable development” implies nothing less than the “progressive transformation of economy and society”; and to emphasize that “in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will.”2
Potential concerns – –‘sustainable development’ may not be exactly the same as ‘development’ – although most articles suggest it’s just one kind –is environmental protection topical? Evidence suggests it is, as long as it’s in the context of management of exploitation. If the federal government establishes a legal regime for use, maybe that’s good enough. Is it topically defensible to establish a new MPA because that bans activities that would be considered ‘development’. It might be topical to limit development to sustainable rates of growth. –if both the use of resources and the regulation of the use of resources are topical, then the topic is arguably bidirectional. An outright ban on deep sea trawling is probably healthier for fish populations everywhere else. Probably effects topical.
Non-Military Defined(?): It seems straight forward – ‘non-military’ should mean that you can’t have the military explore or develop the oceans. This is significant, because the military has a significant role in ocean exploration and there are some advocates for a military role in certain types of energy development (at least OTEC).
What about the Coast Guard? Is the Coast Guard is part of the military – excluding the Coast Guard means that popular affs like icebreakers couldn’t be run. The Coast Guard also plays a role in enforcing things like stopping overfishing, or search and rescue, which could be exploration. Military during war, not during peace???
“Military” = problematic The affirmative will have two arguments: 1. the military can perform ‘non-military’ functions. There’s a strong body of evidence to support this. So, for example, having the Coast Guard interdict drugs isn’t a military action, it’s a law enforcement action. And the military historically has been heavily involved in exploration. 2. the Coast Guard has a unique non-military role, even if it’s part of the Armed Forces. It gets most of its funding from civilian agencies (Department of Homeland Security), and really only has a military function during wartime – there’s evidence that says in peacetime, everything it does is non-military.
Military cont’d… The negative will counter this by saying this interpretation effectively makes ‘non-military’ in the topic meaningless, and that it greatly unlimits the topic. A brief list of non-military missions the military might take : –ocean mapping –anti-piracy –counter-terrorism –drug interdiction –disaster relief –refugee assistance (or interdiction) –providing security for Sea Lines of Communication –search and rescue –sanctions enforcement Maybe it doesn’t unlimit that much because many of these are probably not development or exploration. But development is a broad enough term that it’s not too much of a stretch to say all of these are prerequisites to effective ocean use.
Question? Given our discussion, if the affirmative is right, why does the word ‘non-military’ even exist in the topic at all?
Federal Ocean Policy Federal ocean policy is the sum total of all actions related to exploration, development, and protection of the oceans.
Goals and Assumptions The overall goal of ocean policy is sustainable development of the ocean – it’s primarily about reconciling the conflict between economic and environmental goals. The core assumption is that resource exploitation of the ocean is in the US national interest, but that it has to be paired with conservation or we’ll run out of resources.
Policy and Boundaries US oceans policy is highly fragmented – 27 federal agencies or departments have a role and there are over 140 laws governing ocean use (mainly development). Oceans and maritime boundaries The federal government can’t just increase development anywhere in the world – it’s limited by jurisdictional conflicts. Local governments control the shoreline, state governments control land to 3 miles offshore, and the federal government controls between 3 and 200 miles. No nation can control the parts of the ocean beyond 200 miles of their territory.
Areas of importance… 1. State tidelands and submerged lands – land to 3 miles offshore – owned by states; established by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 2. Territorial sea – shoreline to 12 miles offshore. The federal government asserts sovereign rights over this, but actual jurisdiction is murky – it’s never been tested in courts. It used to be just 3 miles, but Reagan in 1988 by executive order extended it to 12 miles. Reagan did this because it was recognized in the 1982 UN Law of the Sea, which the US isn’t a party to, but recognizes boundary components of it. The importance of the territorial sea is that it prohibits other ships – especially military ships – from entering without permission, as it is considered territory. 3. Contiguous zone – 12 to 24 miles offshore – a nation can exercise control over customs, immigration and sanitation. The US formally established a contiguous zone in 1999. 4. Exclusive economic zone – shoreline to 200 miles off the coast. It gives a nation preeminent economic rights to develop within that zone. This is the most important part of the development section of the topic.
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) http://grumpyelder.com/2012/05/obama- imposes-law-of-the-sea-treaty-by-executive- fiat/ When it was formally recognized? Its formal authority was established by the UN Law of the Sea in 1982. President Reagan rejected the treaty itself but agreed with the EEZ part – so he declared it by executive order in 1983. The only place where the USFG has the definite legal authority to act for development.
Exclusive Economic Zones EEZ’s- EEZ authority specifically provides: –sovereign rights to exploit, conserve or manage all resources within the zone, down to the seabed –jurisdiction to build artificial islands or structures It doesn’t prohibit other ships from passing through, it just prohibits other actors from developing it.
EEZ’s - What does it cover? It’s from the shoreline to 200 miles off of the coast, but in practice it is a little more complicated. The purpose of the EEZ – why they agreed on the 200 mile limit, is that this is the average size of the Continental Shelf.
EEZ’s - Problems Although that is in dispute – China recently has been treating its EEZ like its territorial sea and complaining that the US is violating its territory when ships go into the Chinese EEZ – in particular US exploration ships that map the ocean, because China thinks they have a military purpose.
United States EEZ’s The EEZ is the only place where the US federal government has the authority to develop the oceans. It extends over all US territories and possessions – making the US EEZ the largest in the world – the US controls 13% of all ocean area overseen by nations globally. For example, Obama last week announced the creation of a new Marine Protected Area that shuts off large parts of the Pacific to development – 782,000 square miles – doubles the size of all MPAs. But all of it is within 200 miles of 7 islands and atolls controlled by the US. Every country in the world has an EEZ – about one third of the world’s oceans are covered by EEZs. but there are disputes when boundaries overlap. China’s actions in the South and East China Seas are primarily disputes related to the EEZ.
What about outside the EEZ? Everything outside an EEZ is considered the common heritage of all nations and subject to the UN. Generally there isn’t much need for development outside of EEZs – it’s not practical to do it – it was estimated at the time the EEZ regime was adopted that 90% of global fish stocks were within EEZs, and 87% of oil and gas deposits were as well.
Continental Shelf The Continental Shelf is the stretch of seabed from the coast to the continental margin (it separates the continent from the ocean floor)– after which there is a drop off to the abyssal plain – which extends between 3000 and 6000 meters in depth. The reason they chose the Continental Shelf is because that’s where almost all of the economic value of the ocean resides. The vast majority of all ocean resources exist on the continental shelf. Tons of life exists in the continental shelf – because sunlight still penetrates it; in contrast, in the Abyssal Plain, it’s believed that there is very little life – except on the ocean floor itself, where there are geothermal vents. Most oil, mineral and gas deposits are also on the Continental Shelf.
Ready to be Confused? It isn’t uniformly 200 miles off the coast for every country – there are a few island countries that don’t really have much of a continental shelf at all – so it’s partly a political designation. But 200 miles is probably accurate for many countries. However, some Continental Shelves could be longer than 200 miles – and if that’s the case, a country has to petition to the UN to get their EEZ extended. This is most relevant for the Arctic Ocean. It is not that simple, because it can be based upon the shoreline to 200 miles, OR if the Continental Shelf extends beyond 200 miles, then the EEZ can be as far as that. The second claim would require UN approval, but it would potentially extend a country’s EEZ beyond 200 miles.
Who controls the rest of the oceans??? Pirates!!!!!