2014 NDI 6WS – Fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop

EU COUNTERPLAN

1NC Tools

1NC---CounterplanCounterplan: The European Union should <insert plan mandate> and have an agreement to share all data as a result of the project

EU solves the aff best, it is the frontrunner in global ocean initiatives. Damanaki 6/30 (Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, “Global solutions to save the world's oceans,” “Re-energising the Oceans” conference, Brussels, 6/30/14, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-524_en.htm)Dear co-chairs of the GOC, ladies and gentlemen,¶ Good morning and welcome to "Re-Energising the Oceans".¶ Some of us have seen quite a lot of each other lately, in what we affectionately call now "the June of the oceans": a month that has been dense with high-level appointments on ocean governance.¶ And it's not just June: in the past few months discussions have gained pace, declarations have multiplied. Importantly, the media are starting to pick up the story of the oceans, and this is very positive. People should be aware of the issues at stake. ¶ When the Global Ocean Commission was created, with the goal of finding workable solutions and feasible ideas on those issues, I was hopeful and relieved. Here in Europe, I was already trying to make a difference on ocean governance and painfully aware of the magnitude of problems.¶ Now, a year later, their Report comes with perfect timing. It will help to take the momentum further and energise the discussions that we have only just started.¶ When the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea was signed thirty-two years ago, it was a turning point in ocean governance. ¶ And as Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, I am proud to say that the Convention has guided the EU ever since. ¶ But three decades later, just like the internet calls for rules against cybercrime, new bio-technologies or underwater systems call on us to regulate new activities especially in deep sea waters, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. ¶ The current system is fragmented and uncoordinated. So far we have tried to palliate with ad-hoc arrangements between different bodies and countries, but in essence the system is ineffective. For instance it prevents us from having cumulative impact assessments or from having the marine protected areas recognized globally.¶ The kind of coordination we need can only be obtained through a systematic process; and this is why the European Union is so committed to an update of the rules through UNCLOS.¶ Clearly only a mix of elements would work, as the UN Working Group already agreed to in 2011: marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments, capacity building and rules on the transfer of marine technology, genetic resources and benefit sharing. ¶ So let us agree to make progress; let us do away with any outstanding issues. The EU will work with all countries to ensure that we have a satisfactory result by August 2015.¶ Within the EU we have introduced transformational change with regard to fisheries. Since 1/1/2014 we have a new common fisheries policy, sustainable and science based, phasing out discarding and implementing the same principles for European vessels worldwide. Through this new policy we have banned all types of subsidies at European level, that lead to overcapacity and overfishing. Our European fund has no granting for fuel subsidies at all.¶ Allow me now to come to a global problem also mentioned in GOC report: illegal fisheries¶ Illegal fishing has to be eradicated from the high seas, and this is why the EU uses its diplomatic weight to push for rules like the UNCLOS or the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement to be enforced worldwide.¶ We also use our considerable market weight and I'm grateful to the Global Oceans Commission for highlighting this important aspect in its paper. In practice the EU requires that any fish import be accompanied by a catch certificate. In other words the fish has to be

caught legally; otherwise it won't get into our market. And we go further.¶ We work with other world nations to promote compliance with international law. When a country clearly does not respect its international obligations, we give them a fair warning and time to set things straight. We have done so with 13 countries in the last two years. Ten of them then complied, but three didn’t. So earlier this year the EU adopted our first ever trade ban with Cambodia, Belize and Guinea Conakry.¶ In just over four years the EU has become the frontrunner in the fight against IUU and we are making a difference. Many third countries are now taking their international duties much seriously. ¶ The EU is also stepping up its efforts to address the marine litter problem. It has agreed to set a reduction target for marine litter by 2020, to move towards Rio + 20 commitments. We In European Commission are going to propose this target soon.¶ On offshore oil and gas the EU has put in place the highest risk based standards for operation within its territory. We well come of course binding efforts for reducing risk, as well as ensuring effective emerging response, regardless of where operations take place, in line with the polluter pays principle.¶ The other soft spot identified by the Global Oceans Commission is the performance of RFMOs. We cannot ignore their presence. I think the focus at least for right now should be on improving what we have.¶ How? – you may ask.¶ We start from the basics – at least that is what the EU has done. Our new reformed policy now tells us what to do: we are to improve the compliance committees of RFMOs, develop scientific knowledge and advice, manage stocks on a sustainable basis, apply effective and deterring penalties, carry out performance reviews and fix what needs to be fixed.¶ All this renews the thrust for our work in RFMOs, so I very much welcome the urgency you bring into this discussion. The GOC has made a recommendation for turning the high seas into a regeneration zone in case of no results. The vision is clear and high ambitious. The European Union clearly supports the establishment of marine Protected areas. Referring to the closing of all high seas fisheries we have a number of questions and concerns on the consequences for the fisheries in other areas and the complicated governance issues of such decisions. This issue needs further examination and discussion to be based on science, impartial decision making procedures and control mechanisms. ¶ Ladies and gentlemen, ¶ What is needed at international level is a change of perspective. We need to see the bigger picture. A holistic and comprehensive approach is the basic requirement for a healthy and resilient marine environment. As I said: no fences. Integration is the name of the game. It is gaining ground in all our Member States and beyond, as is our blue growth agenda. So far we have given special attention to promising maritime sectors such as marine biotech, aquaculture, ocean energy, deep sea mining and tourism. We think that with a focused research effort and steps to improve the environment for innovation, these sectors can prosper in a smart and sustainable way.¶ A key tool to ensure sufficient marine space for concurrent economic activities is maritime spatial planning. If all goes well our legislative proposal should enter into force after the summer and it is a historic achievement. For the first time in the world, countries have a legal obligation to cooperate in planning their seas across borders.¶ Spatial planning gives operators certainty on whether and what economic developments are possible, where and for how long. It will speed up licensing and permit procedures, and will provide good management of the cumulative impact of maritime activities. It a huge and real step for marine governance in Europe. ¶ At the same time there is also an overall need to get a deeper and better understanding of how our oceans work, how they interact with the climate and how economic activities affect the marine environment. ¶ Ocean observation, mapping and forecasting are essential in this vein. This is why the EU has directly and explicitly geared its financial support, and particularly its research funds, towards the sea. ¶ Since last year, the EU, the United States and Canada have started a transatlantic research alliance which is to cover observing systems and ocean stressors, as well as research in the Arctic region, a fragile environment that is undergoing enormous change in terms of temperature and human activity. ¶ We hope to see similar forms of cooperation with and between other countries in the future. ¶ Needless

to say, the private sector will have a big role to play in this sustainable growth model. Any firm operating in transport, oil and gas, fisheries, aquaculture or coastal tourism is entirely dependent on ocean resources, services and space. They will have to take up a corresponding responsibility for marine environmental protection, in Europe and in the world.¶ To conclude, ladies and gentlemen,¶ The EU perspective to the ocean challenge is one of caution and common sense. We don’t want to open up the seas to unbridled growth or a lawless gold rush. But we think that controlled, smart and fair development is possible. ¶ We need cooperation with international community, to create one common front. And we need it now

1NC---Science DiplomacyThe counterplan is critical to maintaining EU science leadership and cooperation over transnational issuesEuropean Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach" 9/14/2012. European Commission // M.O.)Over the past decade, however, the landscape has evolved rapidly. Global research and innovation were, until recently, dominated by the European Union, the USA and Japan. As the emerging economies continue to strengthen their research and innovation systems, a multipolar system is developing in which countries such as Brazil, China, India and South- Korea exert increasing influence. The share of the BRICS in global expenditure on R&D doubled between 2000 and 2009. The Union also has a clear interest in its neighbouring countries developing their research and innovation capacity. Research and innovation are increasingly interlinked internationally, aided by rapidly developing information and communication technologies. The number of internationally coauthored scientific publications and the mobility of researchers are increasing. Research organisations are establishing offices abroad and companies are investing outside their home countries, in particular in the emerging economies. Global challenges are important drivers for research and innovation. Our planet has finite resources which need to be cared for sustainably; climate change and infectious diseases do not stop at national borders, food security needs to be ensured across the globe. The Union needs to strengthen its dialogues with international partners to build critical mass for tackling these challenges. As more research and innovation is performed in third countries, the Union will need to access this knowledge. To remain a major global player, the Union must promote itself as an attractive location for carrying out research and innovation and be successful in the global competition for talent, while at the same time preserving its economic interests, for instance as regards the protection of intellectual property.

Scientific cooperation maintains peace in the ArcticThe Royal Society ‘10 (a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine, who form a global scientific network of the highest calibre. The Society encourages public debate on key issues involving science, engineering and medicine, and the use of high quality scientific advice in policy-making. "New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power" January 2010. Page 24-25 The Royal Society, http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf // M.O.)The latest International Polar Year (IPY) ran from 2007–2009, and the hope is that this could have a similar legacy in the Arctic as IGY had in the Antarctic. The Arctic Ocean is currently crossing an environmental threshold, from a perpetually ice-covered region to a seasonally ice-free one. This is altering the geo-strategic dynamics of the Arctic, and awakening national interests in energy, fishing, shipping and tourism by Arctic States, China and the European Union. There are growing calls for a new, integrated governance regime for the Arctic Ocean, including proposals for an Arctic Treaty, similar to that in the Antarctic. The existing patchwork of legal regimes for the

region has the potential to fragment. Whereas Antarctica is an isolated continent surrounded by ocean, the Arctic consists of continental land masses semi-enclosing the Arctic Ocean. There is no single regulatory regime covering the entire region. Instead, the surrounding land masses of the five coastal states of Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Svalbard (Norway), Russia and the United States are sovereign territories. The Arctic Ocean is governed by national and international legal regimes, most notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Common interests in the region are coordinated by the Arctic Council, but its membership is limited to the coastal Arctic States, which do not believe a new legal regime is required. Other countries with interests in the region are excluded from this body. One option would be to focus on the centre of the Arctic Ocean, which is now covered by frozen ice. Whilst much of the sea floor may come under national jurisdictions, the overlying water column and sea surface at the centre of the Arctic Ocean is legally distinct, and the UNCLOS already recognises it as undisputed international space. The centre of the Arctic Ocean therefore provides a starting point for governance discussions, which do not threaten the national jurisdictions of the Arctic coastal states, or require an entirely new legal regime. Science cooperation provides a useful basis for these discussions (Berkman and Young 2009). Ongoing research into Arctic Ocean systems will be essential to inform management strategies for when the ice thaws and makes this international space more accessible. More research is required into sea-level rises; loss of sea ice; melting permafrost and feedback mechanisms; the location and availability of resources; and the impacts of long-range pollutants. Much of this research will require international collaboration, especially when the harsh conditions of the Arctic necessitate the sharing of costs, logistics, facilities and other capabilities. There is an even greater need to prevent conflict as the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean starts to disappear. The Arctic States have identified the socio-economic development of the region’s natural resources and the protection of its ecosystems as their common interests. However peace is yet to be identified as an explicit common interest, so the Arctic Council is not mandated to discuss military and related security risks. Again, a possible solution is provided by the centre of the Arctic Ocean. Environmental security discussions focused on this international space could provide a cooperative framework through which to address military risks. For example, energy development, fishing, shipping and tourism in the Arctic all require coordinated search and rescue missions for stranded vessels. The thawing of the Arctic Ocean also increases the risk of accidents and the need for emergency responses to ecological disasters. Given that militaries are trained in providing disaster relief and search and rescue, clarifying their role in this context could increase transparency and maintain a dialogue that could eventually allow more sensitive issues to be addressed.

That goes nuclearWallace and Staples ‘10 (Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia; Steve Staples is the President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa. "Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue" March 2010. Canadian Pugwash Group (Affiliate of Pugwash Confrences on Science and World Affairs, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf // M.O.)The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.”55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years.56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military

vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic.57 The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship based helicopters able to drop troops anywhere.58 Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs.59 The maneuvers prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved.60 Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.” 62

SOLVENCY

Generic---2NCEU expertise already - laundry list of new programs Tripp '14 (Emily, Publisher and Editor of MarineScienceToday.com. She holds marine science and biology degrees from the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "The European Union Investing in the ‘Blue Economy’" 6/11/2014. Marine Science Today, http://marinesciencetoday.com/2014/06/11/the-european-union-investing-in-the-blue-economy/ // M.O.)The European Commission recently adopted a new Action Plan for Innovation in the ‘Blue Economy’ that will focus on using ocean resources in a sustainable manner while driving growth and jobs in Europe. The Commission identified a number of issues to tackle, including improving knowledge of the sea, coordinating research efforts between Member States, and encouraging more engineers and scientists to focus their work on the marine environment. The Action Plan includes five primary areas of focus: Renewable energy – wind, waves, tides and biofuel Biotechnology – medicines and industrial enzymes Coastal and Maritime Tourism – cruise tourism and yachting Aquaculture – sustainable fish, shellfish and marine plant farming Mineral Resources – gravel, zinc, sand, cobalt and copper The blue economy has the potential to feed our growing population, create more jobs, and further economic growth, and the new Action Plan will ensure that these needs are met in a responsible manner.

EU started new development projectsEuropean Commission ‘14 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. Also quotes European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki. "European Commission sets out plan to stimulate innovation in the ‘blue economy’" 5/22/2014. European Commission Newsroom, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=16434 // M.O.)As fresh water and land are running scarce in the face of a growing world population, we will have to turn more and more to our oceans for our food, medicine and energy needs. This blue economy has the potential of creating more jobs and further our economic growth but this must be done sustainably so that future generations can enjoy the same healthy and vibrant oceans that we enjoy in our lifetime. Innovation across all sectors is therefore key to realising the growth and jobs potential and can also bring environmental benefits. Two thirds of our planet is covered by oceans and seas. If we manage them in a responsible manner, they can provide sources of food, medicine and energy while protecting ecosystems for generations to come. In order to untap the potential and exploit our waters in a sustainable way, the Commission identifies a number of challenges that need to be overcome: our knowledge about the sea is still limited, maritime research efforts between Member States are not linked up, whilst the European workforce of tomorrow will need more engineers and scientists to apply new technologies in the marine environment. The Commission's new Action Plan for Innovation in the 'Blue Economy' seeks to address these issues and to help us use ocean resources sustainably and drive growth and jobs in Europe. European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki said: "Today, we put the building blocks in place so that tomorrow's generation of Europeans will have the knowledge and skills to better manage our oceans and draw the full benefits they can provide us, while respecting the balance of the ecosystem of the sea." She continued: "For example, our initiative to create a digital map of the entire seabed of European waters will increase the predictability for businesses to invest, lowering costs and stimulate further innovation for sustainable blue growth."

Climate Change---2NCEU’s European Climate Adaptation Platform solves EU 12 (European Union, “Progress of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy,” 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/imp-progress-report_en.pdf)Climate change can have dramatic consequences for coastal regions, including threats to ¶ coastal defences, erosion, flooding and rising sea levels, and can have higher impacts in ¶ combination with other pressures on the marine environment. In March 2012, the ¶ Commission launched the European Climate Adaptation Platform, the most comprehensive ¶ website for information on climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in Europe. It aims to ¶ support policy- makers in the development of climate change adaptation measures, including ¶ in coastal areas.

GMES has the tools and data share infrastructure needed to solve climate changeEU 11 (GMES=European Earth monitoring programs, “GMES,” 7/3/11, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/tackling_climate_change/ev0026_en.htm)The GMES operational programme shall build on the research activities carried out under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and the GMES Space Component Programme of the European Space Agency (ESA).¶ Scope of the GMES programme¶ The GMES programme shall comprise three components:¶ the service component ensuring access to information in six areas:¶ atmosphere monitoring,¶ climate change monitoring,¶ emergency management,¶ land monitoring,¶ marine environment monitoring,¶ security;¶ the space component ensuring spaceborne observations in the six areas referred to above;¶ the in situ component ensuring observations through airborne, seaborne and ground-based installations in the six areas referred to above.¶ Initial operations of the GMES programme (2011-2013)¶ The initial operations of the GMES programme shall cover the period 2011-2013. It may comprise operational actions in the following fields:¶ the service component;¶ measures to support take-up of services by users;¶ data access;¶ support for in-situ data collection;¶ the space component.¶ The objectives of the operational actions are defined in the Annex to the Regulation.¶ Organisation¶ The Commission shall ensure the coordination of the GMES programme with activities at national, Union and international levels, notably GEOSS. The implementation and operation of GMES shall be based on partnerships between the Union and the Member States and the European Space Agency.¶ The Commission shall manage the funds allocated to the activities under this Regulation. It shall ensure the complementarity and consistency of the GMES programme with other relevant Union policies, instruments and actions, relating in particular to competitiveness and innovation, cohesion, research, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) programmes, data protection, the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS), etc.¶ The Commission shall ensure that service specifications match user needs. To that end, it shall establish a transparent mechanism for regular user involvement and consultation. In addition, it shall be assisted by the User Forum composed of representatives of public GMES users nominated by the Member States.¶ Technical coordination and implementation of the GMES space component shall be

delegated to ESA, relying on the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) where necessary.¶ The Commission shall entrust the coordination of the technical implementation of the GMES services, where appropriate, to competent Union bodies or intergovernmental organisations.¶ Service delivery¶ The Commission shall take adequate measures to ensure effective competition in the provision of GMES services and to promote the participation of SMEs.¶ The provision of GMES services shall be decentralised, where appropriate, to integrate at European level existing data inventories in Member States, and to avoid duplication.¶ Funding¶ The reference financial envelope for the operational actions for the period 2011-2013 shall be EUR 107 million. Appropriations shall be authorised annually by the budgetary authority. Third countries or international organisations may also provide additional funding for the GMES programme.¶ GMES data and information policy¶ The data and information policy for actions financed under the GMES programme shall have the following objectives:¶ promoting the use and sharing of GMES information and data;¶ ensuring full and open access to information produced by GMES services and data collected through GMES infrastructure, subject to relevant international agreements, security restrictions and licensing conditions;¶ strengthening Earth observation markets in Europe with a view to enabling growth and job creation;¶ contributing to the sustainability and continuity of the provision of GMES data and information;¶ supporting the European research, technology and innovation communities.

Cooperation---2NCEuropean Union’s Integrated Maritime Policy solves cooperationEU European Commission 14 (“Integrated maritime policy,” 4/11/14, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/index_en.htm)Definition and scope¶ The Integrated Maritime Policy seeks to provide a more coherent approach to maritime issues, with increased coordination between different policy areas. It focuses on:¶ Issues that do not fall under a single sector-based policy e.g. "blue growth" (economic growth based on different maritime sectors).¶ Issues that require the coordination of different sectors and actors e.g. marine knowledge.¶ Specifically it covers these cross-cutting policies: ¶ Blue growth ¶ Marine data and knowledge ¶ Maritime spatial planning ¶ Integrated maritime surveillance ¶ Sea basin strategies ¶ It seeks to coordinate, not to replace policies on specific maritime sectors.¶ Why do we need it?¶ To take account of the inter-connectedness of industries and human activities centred on the sea. Whether the issue is shipping and ports, wind energy, marine research, fishing or tourism, a decision in one area can affect all the others. For instance, an off-shore wind farm may disrupt shipping, which in turn will affect ports.¶ To save time and money by encouraging authorities to share data across policy fields and to cooperate rather than working separately on different aspects of the same problem. ¶ To build up close cooperation between decision-makers in the different sectors at all levels of government – national maritime authorities, regional and local authorities, and international authorities, both inside and outside Europe.Many countries are recognising this need and move towards more structured and systematic collaboration

EU champions international cooperation on ocean affairs EU 12 (European Union, “Progress of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy,” 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/imp-progress-report_en.pdf)7.3. Developments at international level ¶ In line with the 2009 Communication on the international dimension of the IMP, the ¶ Commission has strengthened its efforts in the international maritime arena. ¶ At global level, the EU has pushed for more ambition in the Resolutions on Oceans and the ¶ Law of the Sea and on Sustainable Fisheries, promoting global membership of maritime ¶ governance instruments such as UNCLOS. A particular success is the launching of a process ¶ at UN level which should ultimately lead to the negotiation of an UNCLOS implementing ¶ agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond ¶ national jurisdiction. The EU also pushed for progress in the protection of oceans and seas, ¶ and in maritime governance at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June ¶ 2012. Bolder external action is yielding success, with stronger performance by Regional ¶ Fisheries Management Organisations and increasing cooperation with third countries in the ¶ fight

against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. ¶ 10¶ Maritime affairs have become a regular topic in discussions with the EU’s partners, such as ¶ China, Russia, Japan, Canada and the US. The scope of sectoral dialogues has been gradually ¶ expanding to embrace more overarching cooperation on global maritime affairs.

Data Sharing---2NCInfrastructure for data sharing already existsParis and Schneider et al 2013 (Jean-Daniel Paris, Nadine Schneider Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement/IPSL Data sharing across the Atlantic: Gap analysis and development of a common understanding, http://www.coopeus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Carbon-data-sharing-gaps-06-12-2013-D31.pdf)The global need to develop large, cross continental environmental datasets has been recognized*'. To address this issue, COOPEU5 is a joint US National Science Foundation (*4SF) and European Commission FP7 (in the frame of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, ESFRI) supported project initiated in September 2012s. Its main goal is creating a framework to develop interoperable e-infrastructures across several environmental and geoscience observatories in Europe and US. The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON in the US, www.neoninc.org) and the Integrated Carbon Observatory System (ICOS in the EU, http://www.icos-infrastructure.eu/) are two of these governmental supported observatories. Here, the data products from these two observatories are centered around greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration, carbon and energy flux observations, and the surface micrometeorology surrounding these measurements. The objective of COOPEUS is to coordinate the integration plans for these carbon observations between Europe and the US. Even though both ICOS and NEON have the ability to collaborate on effective issues, we fully recognize that this effort cannot be effectively accomplished without the engagement of many other partners, such as; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Division (US NOAA GMD), the Group on Earth Observations (GEO, www.earthobservations.org) and the Group of Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS), World Meteorological Organization (WMO, www.wmo.int), the Belmont Forum (www.igfagcr.org), ^SF- supported EarthCube (earthcube.ning.com)and DataOne (www.dataone.org) projects, and a wide variety of regional-pased flux networks (i.e., AmeriFlux, Fluxnet). Of course as COOPEUS continues to advance, this list of partners are not exclusive and are expected to increase. COOPEUS aims to strengthen and complement these partnerships through a variety of governance mechanisms, some informal and others formalized (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding), tailored to each individual organizational governance structure. Several of these organizations (mentioned above) have a history of collaborating and sharing of data. In this historical context, we also have recognized what has worked, exiting limitations, and what can be improved in terms of data sharing and interoperability. This COOPEUS work task is building upon these relationships and working history to strengthen these approaches and collaboration.

EU’s EMODnet already allows for easy data sharing EU EMODnet No date (“How does EMODnet work?,” http://www.ices.dk/explore-us/projects/Documents/EMODnet_leaflet_Jan14.pdf)EMODnet provides access to European marine data across ¶ seven discipline-based themes:¶ Bathymetry¶ Geology ¶ Physics ¶ Chemistry ¶ Biology ¶ Seabed habitats¶ Human activities ¶ For each of these themes, EMODnet has created a gateway ¶ to a range of data archives managed by local, national, ¶ regional and international organisations.¶ Through these gateways, users have access to standardised ¶ observations, data quality indicators and processed data ¶ products, such as basin-scale maps. These data products ¶ are free to access and use.

Data sharing portals exist through EMODnet Hydro International 6/10 (“North Sea Checkpoint: Audit of the Blue Economy,” 6/10, 14, http://www.hydro-international.com/news/id6982-North_Sea_Check_Point_Audit_of_the_Blue_Economy.html)The blue economy is driven by the sustainable exploitation of our marine resources, and access to effective and appropriate data is key to its success. EMODnet, the European Marine Observation and Data Network, is a EC DG Mare initiative to unleash public sector marine data and direct it to support marine policy and developments in the blue economy. A number of marine data portals have already been launched as part of this initiative, and DG Mare is testing their effectiveness through a series of ‘checkpoints’ for European sea basins. SeaZone is leading the checkpoint for the North Sea basin.

Europe will share data with the US, solves the affCOOPEUS 13 (Project CoopEUS WP 4 – Ocean Observation Deliverable D4.1- Fact Finding Report http://www.coopeus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/D4_1_Facts_Finding_10_03_FIN.pdf)Sharing scientific data can be the 'playing-field' for an easy and profitable commencement of the scientific structured collaboration while complementing respective expertise. This approach also meet the recent trend of EU and US funding agencies moving towards more openness and more sharing. The analysis and definition of the basic principles and requirements for a shared data policy can be a first step for a long-term transatlantic cooperation and can pave the ground for the data integration on a global scale diminishing significant misalignment in the data issues. Besides, the adoption and implementation of common data standards can facilitate the development of infrastructure and data infrastructures that will be largely interoperable. The international ICT collaborative frame for the interoperability of scientific data and infrastructures has to be leveraged to take advantages of the continuous progresses and specialized skills. Parallel initiatives and projects at global and continental scale have to be exploited with the aim of supporting the on-going networking process of the Ocean Scientists and ICT engineers and specialists European ODIP, EUDAT iCORDI GENESI-DEC, GEOwow G-POD, TATOO and worldwide Research Data Alliance, DAITF( http://www.daitf.ore/ ) to mention some. The present development status of the research infrastructures for ocean observations 001 and EMSO enable, as they are now, to outline data sharing practices and protocols across borders and disciplines although with some limitations. Limiting factors for an easy and extensive data use out of the respective data production frame and user community can be misalignment of vocabularies and ontology, metadata Incompleteness and heterogeneities, non standardized QC/QA practices. These issues shall be the subjects of deepening discussion in CoopEUS to achieve reciprocal understanding and smooth data interoperability and exchange.

Deep Sea---2NCNew EU investment solves deep sea techKopf et. al. ‘12 (Achim, professor for marine geotechnics at MARUM, University of Bremen. Other editors are Angelo Camerlenghi, Miquel Canals, Timothy Ferdelman, Catherine Mevel, Heiko Pälike, Walter Roest, and Maria Ask, Bo Barker-Jørgensen, Antje Boetius, Angelo De Santis, Gretchen Früh-Green, Vasilis Lykousis, Judith McKenzie, Jürgen Mienert, John Parkes, Ralph Schneider, and Philipp Weaver. "The Deep Sea and Sub-Seafloor Frontier" March 14, 2012. Page 39-40, European Commission, http://www.deep-sea-frontier.eu/upload/Downloads/DS3F%20White%20Paper.pdf // M.O.)Implementing state-of-the-art deep sea research requires complex instrumentation and will always remain expensive. However, science and industry both benefit from technological collaboration. Concentrating such efforts in a few geographical areas of particular interest to Europe will enhance efficiency. Furthermore, there is a need for technological advancement and innovation in a number of areas. Research vessels and associated facilities Access to research vessels is absolutely crucial for investigating the deep sea and sub-seafloor. Nearly all European countries own and operate research vessels capable of working in the deep sea environment. They are equipped with a wide range of tools and facilities varying from standard sampling and seafloor imaging tools, such as swath bathymetry, side scan sonar, 2D seismics, magnetics, gravity, for example, to sophisticated equipment, such as long coring and drilling systems, external vehicles, 3D seismics equipment, and deployable seabed observatories. The use of facilities is mostly inter-exchangeable among the largest and most modern European research vessels, which meet technical standards in terms of Dynamic Positioning, A-frame size, strength and power, or deck space. The European effort to facilitate access to research vessels of the European fleet focuses on two initiatives. The Offshore Facility Exchange Group41 fosters and supervises exchange of ship time to optimise the use of the vessels and associated facilities among the participating countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and UK). The EC-funded programme EUROFLEETS42 provides ship-time and associated tools to European researchers, in particular to those with restricted access to national research vessels. This scheme has proven to be efficient but limited in terms of number of days offered to scientists with respect to demand. EUROFLEETS 2 has been proposed to follow up with improvements to facilitate collaborative research in the deep sea. This could encompass the promotion and organisation of a coordinated approach to offer access to ice-breaker facilities, if Europe wants to remain at the forefront of scientifically, politically and economically important Arctic research. The success of any research project involving sub-seafloor sampling at decametric to kilometric scale, let alone the deployment of seafloor and sub-seafloor observatories, depends largely on the quality of the seafloor and sub-seafloor imaging. Facilities for acquisition and processing of industry-standard deep penetration digital 2D long offset seismics or high-resolution single-channel 3D seismics are relatively simple and affordable, however, they are scarce in academia and should be made available at a European level. Multi-channel 3D seismics is currently not available to European academic institutions, however, its use is essential to understanding the sub-seafloor structure with unprecedented detail. Using seismic cubes previously collected by exploration companies would be one solution out of the dilemma, and cooperation with industry and coordination of funding at the international level will be mandatory to achieve this objective. The variety and efficiency of deep sea vehicles operated from research vessels have expanded during the last twenty years, following in particular the industry progress. Manned submersibles offer the largest variety of scientific observation in the deep sea. France, the USA, Japan, and now also China operate manned submersibles in deep waters (beyond 2000 m). However, ROVs are now widely used for near bottom surveys, manipulation, i.e. rock and fluid sampling, as well as installation of complex instrumentation on the deep seafloor. France, the

UK, Germany, Belgium, Norway and, more recently, Italy operate deep sea ROVs that have proved particularly efficient for studying hydrothermal fields or cold seeps. A fleet of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) is now operated from research vessels. Cheaper and easier to operate, they have now become absolutely essential for highresolution seabed surveys but seem otherwise restricted in payload. A large variety of sampling devices are commonly deployed from research vessels. Europe has been at the forefront in the development of two important devices. The “Calypso Corer” developed and operated by the French Polar Institute (IPEV) and capable of collecting long cores (up to 70 m) in sediment formations, is the key tool to address recent environmental changes. Remotely operated seabed drills, deployed on the seafloor from conventional research vessels have been used recently as a relatively cheap alternative to the employment of drilling vessels when drilling targets are shallow (within 100 m at present). The British Geological Survey RockDrill and the MARUM MeBo43 have pioneered in the development of seabed drills for scientific purposes, whose use is rapidly expanding in research projects worldwide. The technological development needs to aim at the extension of water depth range, penetration, and payload. Innovation as well as growth of such emerging technological fields is vital, and science collaborating with industry on improved deep sea drills, vehicles and associated sensors should be promoted and facilitated (as sketched in Horizon 20203).

Improvement on existing EU observation infrastructures solves deep sea sensorsKopf et. al. ‘12 (Achim, professor for marine geotechnics at MARUM, University of Bremen. Other editors are Angelo Camerlenghi, Miquel Canals, Timothy Ferdelman, Catherine Mevel, Heiko Pälike, Walter Roest, and Maria Ask, Bo Barker-Jørgensen, Antje Boetius, Angelo De Santis, Gretchen Früh-Green, Vasilis Lykousis, Judith McKenzie, Jürgen Mienert, John Parkes, Ralph Schneider, and Philipp Weaver. "The Deep Sea and Sub-Seafloor Frontier" March 14, 2012. Page 40-42, European Commission, http://www.deep-sea-frontier.eu/upload/Downloads/DS3F%20White%20Paper.pdf // M.O.)Seafloor observatories The processes that occur in the oceans over time have a direct impact on human societies, so that it is crucial to improve our understanding of their breadth. Sustained and integrated observations are required that appreciate the interconnectedness of atmospheric, surface ocean, biological pump, deep sea, and solid-Earth dynamics and that address: • Natural and anthropogenic change, • Interactions between ecosystem services, biodiversity, biogeochemistry, physics, and climate, • Impacts of exploration and extraction of energy, minerals, and living resources, • Geohazard early warning capability for earthquakes, tsunamis, gas-hydrate release, and slope instability and failure. In situ observations, ideally over time, are essential to the creation and the revision of experimental and model frameworks. Marine time-series data constitute a minor fraction of existing data sets available for studying the climatic influences with very little data available from the deep sea44. Measurements by research ships provide valuable information, but are limited to favourable weather conditions and are too infrequent to characterise most processes, often missing important extreme and/or less frequent environmental or ecological variation. The need for long-term time series of key measurements on or below the seafloor to monitor active processes has led the international community to promote the installation of long-term multidisciplinary seafloor observatories providing continuous data sets from a variety of fields necessary to build a comprehensive picture of the earth-ocean system (including geosciences, physical oceanography, biogeochemistry, and marine ecology). Depending on the application, seafloor observatories can either be attached to a cable, which provides power and enables data transfer, or they can

operate as independent benthic and moored instruments. Data, however, can also be transmitted through acoustic networks that are connected to a satellite-linked buoy. Mobile systems, such as benthic rovers and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) can also be used to expand the spatial extent of a node. Cabled infrastructures provide important benefits, including real-time data transfer and interaction with observatory activity as well as a rapid geohazard early warning system44. Real-time deep sea access Initiatives have been launched at the international level, with the cabled observatory Neptune (NorthEast Pacific Time- Series Undersea Networked Experiments) in Canada on the Juan de Fuca plate, OOI (Ocean Observatories Initiative) in the US, DONET (Dense Oceanfloor Network System for Earthquake and Tsunamis) in Japan, IMOS (Integrated Marine Observing System) in Australia, MACHO (Marine Cabled Hosted Observatory) in Taiwan, and, very recently, ECSSOS (Seafloor Observation System in the East China Sea) in China. In Europe, this identified need led to the setup of a European Multidisciplinary Seafloor Observatory (EMSO)45. EMSO is a geographically distributed research infrastructure of ESFRI, constituted by a network of fixed-point deep sea observatories (nodes) around the European continental margin from the Arctic to the Mediterranean through the Atlantic. EMSO nodes are addressed to Marine Ecosystems, Climate Change and Geohazards long-term monitoring and to interdisciplinary studies. It will ensure the technological and scientific framework for the investigation of the environmental processes related to the interaction between the geosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere, either via a cabled backbone providing internet connection to the shore or acoustic stand-alone stations transmitting data to relay buoys which are able to provide a satellite link to the shore. EMSO builds on ESONET (European Seafloor Observatory Network), which was funded as Coordination Action and later as Network of Excellence by the European Commission. The Preparatory Phase of EMSO, funded under the umbrella of the Framework Programme 7-Capacities, is aiming at creating a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) as the legal organisation with full members from Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Romania, Spain, Norway and UK. EMSO infrastructure will be essential reference and support for any type of research and activity in the deep sea and clearly attests that progress in marine technology (sensor development, data acquisition and transmission) requires a wide collaboration with the industry involved. Examples of emerging needs for observatories include: (i) continuous high-standard quality monitoring as a fundamental tool of reference and control for scientific, industrial and commercial activities of exploration and extraction of resources, (ii) reliable monitoring of earthquake precursors, tsunamis, or gas emissions in gas hydrate areas to provide efficient early warning for society, and (iii) the development of specific tools for marine observatories based on niches European technology companies have occupied (both shallowwater test beds and deep sea sites). Such an approach is in line with EU Research & Innovation policies for a pan-European observation system for geosciences45.

Solves deep sea drilling – additional funding advances existing systemsKopf et. al. ‘12 (Achim, professor for marine geotechnics at MARUM, University of Bremen. Other editors are Angelo Camerlenghi, Miquel Canals, Timothy Ferdelman, Catherine Mevel, Heiko Pälike, Walter Roest, and Maria Ask, Bo Barker-Jørgensen, Antje Boetius, Angelo De Santis, Gretchen Früh-Green, Vasilis Lykousis, Judith McKenzie, Jürgen Mienert, John Parkes, Ralph Schneider, and Philipp Weaver. "The Deep Sea and Sub-Seafloor Frontier" March 14, 2012. Page 42-43, European Commission, http://www.deep-sea-frontier.eu/upload/Downloads/DS3F%20White%20Paper.pdf // M.O.)

Ocean drilling Ocean drilling remains the only way of directly accessing the sub-seafloor to substantial depths (greater than 100m). Besides the study of sediment and rock samples, downhole logging of boreholes provides information on in situ conditions. In addition, boreholes can be used to deploy long-term observatories for monitoring seismicity, fluid flow, thermal state, stress state, and strain. Since the late sixties, scientific ocean drilling has been traditionally accomplished within the frame of international programmes. In the current phase of IODP (2003-2013), in order to play a more significant role within the program, European partners have decided to form the consortium ECORD, an initiative supported by the European Commission with the ERA-Net ECORDnet6. By pooling the funds from its member countries, ECORD has been able to become an operator within IODP and implement expeditions in pack ice-covered areas (ACEX expedition in the Arctic16) or in extremely shallow water (drowned coral reefs of Tahiti and the Great Barrier Reef, shallow shelves in the Atlantic and Baltic Seas). This was made possible by developing the concept of “mission specific platforms”, platforms of opportunity contracted from the commercial sector. MSPs complement the two other vessels operated within IODP. The JOIDES Resolution, a standard drilling vessel funded by the US, operates in all oceans and is particularly fitted for palaeoclimate and deep biosphere research. With its riser system, a technology commonly used in the oil industry, the Chikyu, funded by Japan, opens access to drilling deeper (down to 6-7 km) and in unstable formations. Like Horizon 20203, the new phase of ocean drilling will start in 2014, and in the new (anticipated) framework ECORD will be more independent in planning and more flexible in scheduling. To implement more expeditions, ECORD will also seek additional funding on a project basis from an assortment of funding sources, including governments, foundations and industry. An ECORD expert panel will be a key actor in developing a dialogue on projects of mutual interest with industry and other entities, for example in the Arctic. It is also envisioned that the European Commission will co-fund drilling operations for specific projects within Horizon 2020. ECORD has also decided to expand the concept of mission-specific platforms (MSP) beyond drilling from a traditional drilling platform. Seabed drills and the Calypso Corer are now being considered as cheaper alternatives for projects that require samples from relatively shallow depths, which would make those devices – all European engineering developments – better recognised globally. To encompass most oceanic environments and address DS3F scientific challenges, a continued access to JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu remains essential. Moreover, the intellectual benefits of scientists participating in an international programme of this scope and of interacting with colleagues from all around the world is invaluable.

Environment---2NCEurope solves ecosystem management – academic, government, industry partnershipsESF 14 (European Science Foundation, Arctic 2050: Towards ecosystem-based management in a changing Arctic Ocean, March 12 2014, http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/arctic-2050-towards-ecosystem-based-management-in-a-changing-arctic-ocean-1011.html)About 150 scientists, policy makers and members of industry are gathering today at the 4th European Marine Board Forum in Brussels to discuss how best to manage the consequences of a changing Arctic Ocean for human health and well-being. The European Marine Board has convened this flagship event in collaboration with the European Polar Board, working in association with the European Science Foundation, in the knowledge that industry and science must work together to achieve sustainable management of resources such as fishing and oil and gas exploration while at the same time, protecting and conserving the Arctic environment. Dramatic changes, largely attributed to anthropogenic activity, have taken place in the Arctic in recent decades. These changes include melting of glaciers and sea ice, altered oceanic current patterns, movement and accumulation of contaminants and range shifts in many species. As a result of these changes the Arctic region is being transformed, with wide-ranging impacts and opportunities including the potential for ice-free shipping routes in the future, increased activity in oil and gas exploration, changes to Arctic fisheries and biodiversity, and impacts on residents’ livelihoods. “At present we are unprepared for the environmental and societal implications of increased human access to the Arctic that will come with the receding ice” explains Professor Peter Haugan from the University of Bergen and vice-Chair of the European Marine Board. “We have not fully anticipated the consequences of an increase in activities like hydrocarbon exploration, mineral extraction, bioprospecting and pelagic and demersal fisheries”. The 4th EMB Forum, recognized as an official ICARP III event, promotes the need for an ecosystem-based management approach in the Arctic Ocean, in order to adapt to and manage rapid environmental change and commercial exploitation, supporting a key recommendation of the recently published Arctic Biodiversity Assessment.[1] Moderated by David Shukman, BBC Science Editor, forum sessions include, ‘Living with a Changing Arctic Ocean’, ‘Utilizing and managing Arctic Ocean resources’ and a session on ‘Arctic Ocean Observation’, building on the European Marine Board call in 2013 for urgent action to increase our observational capacity across the entire Arctic Ocean (EMB, 2013).[2] Speakers will include industry representatives from Shell, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers and the International Maritime Organisation. The forum provides a platform to address ecosystem-based management in the Arctic Ocean by stimulating dialogue across sectors to aid common understanding, collaborative actions and sustainability targets. Later today the forum will culminate with an open panel discussion on the roles of industry and science in achieving sustainable management of the Arctic Ocean.

Fishery and Aquaculture---2NCEU solves sustainable fishing and aquaculture development EU 12 (European Union, “Progress of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy,” 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/imp-progress-report_en.pdf)2.5. Fisheries and aquaculture ¶ EU fisheries are affected by several interconnected problems. Fish stocks are overfished, the ¶ economic situation of parts of the fleet is fragile, despite high levels of subsidies, jobs are ¶ unattractive, and the situation of many coastal communities depending on fisheries is ¶ precarious. ¶ In July 2011, the Commission adopted a package of initiatives, including new legislative ¶ proposals, to reform the Common Fisheries Policy. It aims to provide the building blocks for ¶ sustainable fisheries while respecting the ecosystem as well as ensuring quality food supplies, ¶ thriving coastal communities, profitable industries, and attractive and safer jobs. Long-term ¶ management with clear sustainability targets for the exploitation of resources and the stopping ¶ of wasteful practices are at the heart of the proposals. Support will also be given for ¶ improving data to underpin policy choices and to ensure better enforcement and control. ¶ The transition will be accompanied by a European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to improve ¶ sustainability, the performance of small-scale coastal fisheries, promote aquaculture, support ¶ job creation in maritime communities and deliver cost-efficiency in maritime affairs.

Ice Breakers---2NCImprovements on current EU fleet solves icebreakers and gives EU tech edgeKopf et. al. ‘12 (Achim, professor for marine geotechnics at MARUM, University of Bremen. Other editors are Angelo Camerlenghi, Miquel Canals, Timothy Ferdelman, Catherine Mevel, Heiko Pälike, Walter Roest, and Maria Ask, Bo Barker-Jørgensen, Antje Boetius, Angelo De Santis, Gretchen Früh-Green, Vasilis Lykousis, Judith McKenzie, Jürgen Mienert, John Parkes, Ralph Schneider, and Philipp Weaver. "The Deep Sea and Sub-Seafloor Frontier" March 14, 2012. Page 39, European Commission, http://www.deep-sea-frontier.eu/upload/Downloads/DS3F%20White%20Paper.pdf // M.O.)The European effort to facilitate access to research vessels of the European fleet focuses on two initiatives. The Offshore Facility Exchange Group41 fosters and supervises exchange of ship time to optimise the use of the vessels and associated facilities among the participating countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and UK). The EC-funded programme EUROFLEETS42 provides ship-time and associated tools to European researchers, in particular to those with restricted access to national research vessels. This scheme has proven to be efficient but limited in terms of number of days offered to scientists with respect to demand. EUROFLEETS 2 has been proposed to follow up with improvements to facilitate collaborative research in the deep sea. This could encompass the promotion and organisation of a coordinated approach to offer access to ice-breaker facilities, if Europe wants to remain at the forefront of scientifically, politically and economically important Arctic research.

IOOS---2NCIntegrated European observation is key to broader data – tech is world class, just a question of implementation.EMD 2014 (REPORT FROM THE JOINT EUROGOOS/EMODNET/EMB/JRC WORKSHOP AT THE EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY IN BREMEN,The importance of an integrated end-to-end European Ocean Observing System: key message of EMD 2014 http://eurogoos.eu/2014/06/09/eoos-at-emd-bremen-2014/)Ocean observations are essential for marine science, operational services and systematic assessment of the marine environmental status. All types of activities in the marine environment require reliable data and information on the present and future conditions in which they operate. Many maritime economic sectors (e.g. oil and gas exploration, maritime transport, fisheries and aquaculture, maritime renewable energy) directly benefit from easily accessible marine data and information in several ways: improved planning of operations, risk minimization though increased safety, improved performance and overall reduced cost. Other activities, such as deep sea mining and marine biotechnology, also benefit from specialized deep-sea observations that were not feasible until recently. The complexity and high density of human activities in European seas and oceans result in a high demand for marine knowledge in the form of data, products and services to support marine and maritime activities in Europe, stressing the need for an integrated European approach to ocean observation and marine data management (Navigating the Future IV, European Marine Board 2013). While Europe already has a relatively mature ocean observing and data management infrastructure capability, this is largely fragmented and currently not addressing the needs of multiple stakeholders. Mechanisms for coordinating existing and planned ocean observations using a system approach are needed for more integrated, efficient and sustained observations under the framework of a “European Ocean Observing System” (EOOS) following international practice (systems developed by USA, Australia and Canada) and the call of the EurOCEAN 2010 Conference Declaration . The integration of different national and local marine data systems into a coherent interconnected whole which provides free access to observations and data, as pursued by the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) is of key importance for maritime sectors like fisheries, the environment, transport, research, enterprise and industry. However, much work still needs to be done in close collaboration with end-users, in particular industry, to further develop EMODnet into a fully functional, fit for purpose gateway to European marine data and data products taking into account requirements of multiple users. There is a need for science-industry partnerships to stimulate innovation and develop a successful EOOS that will further enhance the contribution of marine observations to economic activities relevant for Blue Growth in Europe. Innovative technologies, developed in collaboration between research scientists and the industry, have given several solutions during the past years for more robust, multi-parametric and systematic observations. This, in turn, is leading to new and more reliable operational services that support a wide range of maritime economic activities: fisheries and aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, marine renewable energy, maritime transport, tourism etc. Other services address the sectors of marine safety, climate and weather applications, as well as marine environmental assessment. At the end of the marine observations, data to knowledge cycle, activities and tools are needed to create added value products for specific stakeholders, including the wider public, such as the European Atlas of the Seas which allows professionals, students and anyone interested to explore Europe’s seas and coasts, their environment, related human activities and European policies. At the same time, it is critical to evaluate whether we are monitoring/observing what we actually

need. Regional assessments such as performed by the newly established EMODnet sea-basin “checkpoints” could provide relevant information, among others to advise Member States about requirements for essential and optimal observation capability.

Methane Hydrates---2NCEurope should expand its hydrate research Kopf et. al. ‘12 (Achim, professor for marine geotechnics at MARUM, University of Bremen. Other editors are Angelo Camerlenghi, Miquel Canals, Timothy Ferdelman, Catherine Mevel, Heiko Pälike, Walter Roest, and Maria Ask, Bo Barker-Jørgensen, Antje Boetius, Angelo De Santis, Gretchen Früh-Green, Vasilis Lykousis, Judith McKenzie, Jürgen Mienert, John Parkes, Ralph Schneider, and Philipp Weaver. "The Deep Sea and Sub-Seafloor Frontier" March 14, 2012. Page 6, European Commission, http://www.deep-sea-frontier.eu/upload/Downloads/DS3F%20White%20Paper.pdf // M.O.)The main focus of deep sea research is the interface between the geosphere and the hydrosphere, comprised of the seafloor and the upper kilometres beneath the seafloor. This part is easily drillable, where – depending on the geodynamic setting – processes as variable as ocean crust formation including ore deposition, sediment dewatering during compaction, gas hydrate processes, catastrophic landsliding, mud volcanism, earthquake slip, or growth of cold-water coral reefs may occur. It is also the depth window where processes fuelling ecosystems on the seafloor, but also in the sub-seafloor (deep biosphere), are most active. Recently, exploration drilling for gas hydrates, extraction of mineral resources and hydrocarbons and CO2 sequestration has entered water depths of 2000 m and beyond, but its impact on the marine ecosystems has not been examined or understood sufficiently. There is presently an emerging need in Europe for cutting edge research and innovation, which is essential to ensure competitiveness, growth and jobs at a variety of levels and in many different fields, including the ocean. DS3F involved scientists, stakeholders and socio-economists who explored research needs and built a bridge towards policymakers, in particular regarding strategies for future European activities in sub-seafloor sampling in environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed activities and research goals will enhance the understanding of the functioning of deep sea ecosystems and improve strategies for a prediction of their future evolution. They will contribute to the development of new techniques and methods to study the deep sea geo-biosphere system and its interaction with climate and other forcing factors (geohazards, human impact) in the past, present and future. Products of this initiative developed from specific workshops as well as from multidisciplinary conferences bringing together Europe’s experts in seafloor observations, deep sea ecosystem development and subseafloor drilling with environmental agencies, policy makers and industry.

EU MIDAS project keeps solves safetyMuir ‘14 (Magdalena A K, Research Associate at The University of Calgary · Arctic Institute of North America and President and Associate of International Energy, Environmental and Legal Services Ltd. "MIDAS (Managing Impacts of Deep-seA reSource exploitation) Project and EU DG Mare Stakeholder Consultation on Seabed Mining" May 26, 2014. Coastal & MarinE-News INTERNATIONAL NEWS OF THE COASTAL & MARINE UNION (EUCC) - A publication officially supported by the European Union, https://euccnews.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/midas-managing-impacts-of-deep-sea-resource-exploitation-project-and-eu-dg-mare-stakeholder-consultation-on-seabed-mining/ // M.O.)The MIDAS project – Managing Impacts of Deep-seA reSource exploitation – is a multidisciplinary research programme that will investigate the environmental impacts of extracting mineral and energy resources from the

deep-sea environment. This includes the exploitation of materials such as polymetallic sulphides, manganese nodules, cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, methane hydrates and the potential mining of rare earth elements. MIDAS is funded under the European Commission’s Framework 7 programme and started on 1 November 2013 for a period of 3 years The MIDAS project intends to carry out research into the nature and scales of the potential impacts of mining, including 1) the physical destruction of the seabed by mining, creation of mine tailings and the potential for catastrophic slope failures from methane hydrate exploitation; 2) the potential effects of particle-laden plumes in the water column, and 3) the possible toxic chemicals that might be released by the mining process and their effect on deep-sea ecosystems. Key biological unknowns, such as the connectivity between populations, impacts of the loss of biological diversity on ecosystem functioning, and how quickly the ecosystems will recover will be considered. A major element of MIDAS is the development of methods and technologies for preparing baseline assessments of biodiversity in areas of potential commercial extraction, and monitoring activities remotely in the deep sea during and after exploitation. The MIDAS project intends to use this information to develop recommendations for best practice in the mining industry. A key component of MIDAS is the involvement of industry within the project and through stakeholder engagements to find feasible solutions. It will also work closely with European and international regulatory organisations to take these recommendations forward into legislation. The MIDAS partners are predominantly academic institutions, industry, and consultants, with the 32 partners listed on the project website here. No environmental non governmental organisions (ENGOs) are partners, though some partners have links with or work with ENGOs including the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, The MIDAS project is referred to by EU DG Mare website in its discussion of seabed mining here, so the project could have an important role in shaping future EU policy.

Ocean Acidification---2NCEU is the leader in ocean acidification research, other countries model EPOCA Cordis News 13 (“Major pan-European study conducted on ocean acidification,” 4/26/13, http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/35682_en.html)More than 160 researchers across 10 European countries joined together, in what is being hailed as the first international project to focus on ocean acidification and its consequences. ¶ According to the partners in the EPOCA project ('European Project on Ocean Acidification') marine research was a relatively new field when they initiated the project four years ago. It brought together scientists who were concerned about the possible risks associated with ocean acidi?cation for marine organisms and ecosystems. ¶ Concerns had arisen after evidence showed that over the last 250 years the ocean had absorbed around a third of the carbon dioxide released, because of human activities. This caused CO2 levels to affect the ocean chemistry, increasing the acidity of seawater. Ocean Acidification is often referred to as the 'other CO2 problem.' ¶ As a result, the EPOCA project conducted research to uncover the biological impact and discovered that 10 % of Arctic surface waters will become corrosive to shells and bones in less than 10 years. Further analyses of the Mediterranean coastal habitats also revealed that around 30 % of marine plants and animals could be lost by the end of this century. ¶ However, scientists found that something could be done to counteract the effects if measures were taken to offset the impact of CO2 emissions. They predicted that these countermeasures could, in the long term, lower ocean pH significantly. This important finding spurred a large consortium of experts to implement guidelines and standards for ocean acidification research. ¶ EPOCA has advanced scientific understanding of ocean acidification and its impact on marine organisms and ecosystems. The project has also conducted several important studies including, demonstrating that many calcifying organisms like mollusks, are adversely affected by ocean acidification. ¶ Further studies revealed considerable variability in sensitivity between closely related species, and even between different strains of the same species. Researchers also found that some species appeared tolerant to ocean acidification in a relatively large range of CO2 levels, while others were particularly sensitive to it. Elevated CO2 also resulted in delayed larval development of crustaceans, bivalves, and echinoderms. ¶ Some species were also seen to be sensitive to ocean acidification in short-term incubations, which meant they became insensitive when kept under high pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) for extended periods of time. Other studies indicated that ocean acidification narrowed the thermal tolerance of many organisms, and that the interaction of warming and acidification could alter their community structure and biodiversity. ¶ A testament to the importance of these findings is that more than 200 EPOCA papers were published during the lifetime of the project, representing 21 % of all research articles on ocean acidification published during that period. EPOCA has also developed tools and methods that are now used by the research community and policy-makers. The results from EPOCA are also expected to influence further studies on the socio-economic impacts of ocean acidification. ¶ Dr Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Senior Research Scientist at CNRS- Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France, says, 'The project has garnered significant international interest and support. The EPOCA Ocean Acidification Reference User Group (OA-RUG), which was launched during the project, has rapidly evolved to include related research programmes in the UK, Germany and the Mediterranean region. Also with the recent addition of countries outside the EU, the decision was taken to form the International Ocean Acidification Reference User Group (iOA-RUG), with support from the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation.' ¶ Dr Gattuso believes it is thanks to the European Commission that European research on ocean acidification has received so much attention and increased international awareness, 'EU funding has ensured that the legacy of EPOCA carries on and research on ocean acidification continues through other European channels, such as the EU project MedSeA ('MEDiterranean Sea

Acidification in a Changing Climate'). We also have further funding for a three-year project from the BNP Paribas Foundation, so our work can continue.' ¶ EPOCA was partly funded by the European Commission for EUR 6.5 million from a total budget of EUR 16 million.

Europe can develop acidification solutions, experimentation. Data is sufficient.Riebesell 9 (Ulf Riebesell, professor of marine biogeochemistry and Head, biological Oceanography, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, eXperimeNtAl ApprOAcHes iN OceAN AcidiFicAtiON research, http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/22-4_gattuso.pdf)Progress in our ability to make reliable predictions of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine biota critically depends on our capability to conduct experiments that cover the relevant temporal and spatial scales. One of the greatest challenges in this context will be scaling up biotic responses at the cellular and organismal level to the ecosystem level and their parameterization in regional ecosystem and global biogeochemical models. EPOCA employs a suite of experimental approaches to assess marine biota's ocean acidification sensitivities, ranging from single species culture experiments to field surveys of the distribution of potentially sensitive caxa In relation to seawacer carbonate chemistry (Figure BS). Each of these approaches has its distinct strengths and weaknesses. 3ottle and microcosm experiments allow for high replication of multiple CO?/pH treatments jndei well-controlled experimental conditions, thereby yielding high statistical power. However, they typically lack genetic and species diversity, competitive interac- tion, and the trophic complexity of natural systems, which complicates extrapolation of results to the real world. Field observations, on the other hand, cover the full range of biological Interactions and environmental complexities, but they generally provide only a snapshot In time, with little or no information on the history of the observed biota and environmental conditions prior to sampling. The interpretation of fi eld data In terms of dose/response relationships Is often obscured by multiple environmental factors simultaneously varying in time and space and by the lack of replication. Mesocosms, experimental enclosures that are designed to approximate natural conditions and that allow manipulation of environmental factors, provide a powerful tool to link small-scale single species laboratory experiments with observational and correla* tlve approaches applied In field surveys. A mesocosm study has an advantage over standard laboratory tests In that It maintains a natural community under close to natural self-sustaining conditions, taking Into account relevant aspects of natural systems such as indi- rect effects, biological compensation and recovery, and ecosystem resilience. Replicate enclosed populations can be experimentally manipulated and the same populations can be sampled repeatedly over time. Further advantages of flexible-wall. In situ enclosures are that a large volume of water and most of its associated organisms can be captured with minimal disturbance. The mesocosm approach is therefore often considered the experimental ecosystem closest to the real world, without losing the advantage of reliable reference conditions and replication. To Improve understanding of the under- lying mechanisms of observed responses, which are often difficult to infer from mesocosm results, and to facilitate scaling up mesocosm results, large-scale enclosure experiments should be closely inte- grated with well-controlled laboratory experiments and modeling of ecosystem responses. Taking advantage of a recently developed mobile, flexible wall mesocosm system. EPOCA will conduct a joint mesocosm CO, perturbation experiment In the high Arctic, involving marine and atmospheric chemists, molecular and cell biologists, marine ecolo- gists. and biogeochemists. A total of nine mesocosm units 2 m In diameter and lS-m deep, each containing approximately 45,000 liters of water, will be deployed In Kongsfjord off Ny-Alesund on Svalbard. The carbonate chemistry of the enclosed water will Initially be manipulated to cover a range of pCO_, levels from pre-lndustrlal to projected year 2100 values (and possibly beyond) and will be allowed to float freely during the course of the experiment to mimic varia- tions naturally occurring due to biological activity. The high level of scientific Integration and cross-disciplinary collaboration of this study Is expected to generate a comprehensive data set that lends itself to analyses of community-level ocean acidification sensitivities and ecosyscem/biogeochemical model parameterizations

Ocean Mapping---2NCGlobal consensus that the EU should lead ocean mapping initiativesEU European Commission 12 (“Green Paper. Marine Knowledge 2020: from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting Outcome of Public Consultation,” 8/9/2014, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/marine-knowledge-2020/outcome_en.pdf)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY¶ On 29 August 2012, the European Commission launched a Green Paper consultation1 ¶ ¶ on its "Marine Knowledge 2020" initiative. The purpose was to learn more about ¶ stakeholders' opinions on options for future governance of the initiative and on the ¶ possible involvement of the private sector. The consultation was closed on 15 ¶ December 2012. ¶ A total of 244 replies were received (29 from civil society, 43 from the private ¶ sector, 95 from the public sector and 77 from the research community) from 30 ¶ countries, including some from outside the EU whose waters touch those of Member ¶ States. Many of the submissions, especially those from national governments, had ¶ endured an extensive internal consultation process and, therefore, represented the ¶ balanced views of many organisations. This was considered a representative sample. ¶ The consultation provided many detailed nuances on legal and technical issues that ¶ will be extremely useful for the next phase of "Marine Knowledge 2020" but the ¶ main messages were: ¶ (1) All user groups agreed on the need for open access to marine data, in both its ¶ raw and aggregated forms. The civil society consortium believes that the ¶ oceans are a common resource and, therefore, marine data should be made ¶ available without restriction, especially if collected using public funds . The ¶ private sector was largely in favour of free access except where commercial ¶ sensitivities could be exposed or the incentive to collect data in the first place ¶ destroyed. Public authorities felt it would lower the cost of monitoring the state ¶ of the environment. In particular, nearly all believed that it should be easier to ¶ obtain data from research projects. ¶ (2) A few exceptions were noted relating to: national security; damage to heritage ¶ sites and endangered ecosystems; commercial sensitivity; the need to allow ¶ scientists time to publish; and safety and liability issues due to data ¶ misinterpretation. ¶ (3) The general consensus was that a shared platform for disseminating fisheries ¶ data with other marine data, including that distributed through the EU's ¶ Copernicus space programme, should be a long-term aim. The eventual ¶ integration of these systems should enable seamless mapping of cross-cutting ¶ themes over different timescales. Interoperability of data and implementation ¶ of adequate quality control measures are key to achieving this. ¶ (4) The architecture of the current European Marine Observation and Data ¶ Network (EMODnet) - in particular the division into seven thematic groups – ¶ geology, bathymetry, physics, chemistry, biology, physical habitats and human ¶ activity – was considered sound. ¶ (5) The potential for the EMODnet initiative to assist with environmental or ¶ fisheries reporting was highlighted. Over time, the "push" process, whereby ¶ marine environment or fisheries reports are delivered by public authorities to ¶ satisfy a legal obligation, could be replaced by a "pull" process, whereby data ¶ are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent ¶ authority using common technology. This would reduce administrative burden.

EU already has programs for cooperative mapping and framework for US involvementBeslier et. al 11 (Serge Beslier (Co-Chair), Andrew Rosenberg (Co-Chair); Luis Cuervo-Spottorno, Rebecca Lent, Charlotte Mogensen, Diane Regas, François Simard, Niko Weinholst,

“CALAMAR Expert Paper EU/US Transatlantic Cooperation Working Group,” 5/23/11, http://calamar-dialogue.org/sites/default/files/CALAMAR_Transatlantic_Cooperation.pdf)Until now, most analysis of the ocean environment, and the impacts of human activities on ¶ that environment, has been carried out in relation to sectoral activities such as fishing and ¶ shipping. However, a fully integrated assessment of coastal and ocean areas, taking into ¶

account the current status, trends and expected impacts of different human activities in the ¶ Atlantic, could form the basis for a much more effective integrated policy. Mapping activities ¶ that are already underway can be coordinated to supplement this knowledge and strengthen ¶ the collaborative process. Carrying out an integrated assessment would be in line with EU ¶ Member State obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and in particular, ¶ with the upcoming EU Integrated Maritime Policy Strategy for the Atlantic region as well as ¶ with the US Ocean Policy; this would allow for collaborative policies to be developed based ¶ on this coordinated scientific analysis. In order to ensure the success of joint initiatives such ¶ as integrated assessments, efforts are necessary from both the EU and the US to make their ¶ current policy activities clear and accessible to the other party.

OTEC---2NCEurope is the current leader in OTEC development EU Ocean Energy Europe 13 (“Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” 2013, http://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/index.php/en/13-technology/49-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion)OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) can provide base-load power. Devices exploit the temperature difference between deep cold ocean water and warm tropical surface waters. OTEC plants pump large quantities of deep cold seawater and surface seawater to run a power cycle and produce electricity. OTEC power plants are either onshore or offshore.¶ OTEC is naturally dedicated to tropical and equatorial seas and oceans. More than 100 countries and territories worldwide are potentially able to implement OTEC in their energy mix; including several European overseas territories. In all of these areas, the average COE (Cost Of Energy) is 250-300€/MWh.¶ A recent study (Indicta 2012) made for French DoE/ADEME reveals that the global potential for OTEC is a weighted installed base of 150GW, with a priority market of 60GW which will emerge first with islands and isolated areas for 9GW total. By 2030, 1.5GW of OTEC should be installed.¶ 3 industrial consortiums are already competing for the OTEC market : French group DCNS already has a land based prototype in La Réunion French Island and is working on several onshore and offshore projects. The added value of major European industrial partners will be key in the European OTEC value chain. American giant Lockheed Martin also has a land-based prototype and is working on a project in Hawaii. In Asia, Japanese and Korean partners are teaming up to address the OTEC marketplace. Europe is now leading the race and shall benefit from the first mover advantage, giving the capacity to Europe to have a worldwide champion technology to export directly contributing to the European trade balance.

EU in the Caribbean solve for OTEC developmentWebsdale 2/17 (Emma Websdale is an environmental journalist and senior communications specialist for renewable energy provider, Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, “Barbados Energy Minister Shines Light on Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” 2/17/14, http://empowertheocean.com/barbados-energy-minister-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)Citing the Caribbean’s abundance of water resources, Senator Darcy Boyce told representatives and energy and policy specialists who gathered in Barbados that the ocean’s potential for producing clean energy has been regionally recognized. ¶ “Our government has recognized that at present, marine energy technologies are new, but advancing towards commercialization”, says Senator Darcy Boyce. “We are cognizant of the fact that the cost of marine energy technologies is high, but that the research to date shows that there is scope for the lowering of these costs as compared to the costs of other forms of electricity generation.”¶ He adds, “The scope for such is particularly favorable in the Caribbean where the cost of electricity generation is high.” ¶ Disclosing a study that would be undertaken in partnership with the European Union, Boyce announced that the marine potential of each ocean-based resource – including ocean thermal energy, tides, currents and waves – would be assessed for commercial viability and sustainability within the limit of tropical waters. Boyce paid particular attention to OTEC. ¶ “We are particularly interested in OTEC systems, which not only produce base load electricity, but also [provide] cold water which may be used for air-conditioning, which creates a heavy demand for expensive electricity”, he told state members.¶ Boyce added that OTEC plants would also be of great interest for tourism-driven areas

where the cost of air conditioning is extremely high. Boyce stated that OTEC’s additional by-products make it a technology that needs to be explored.

EU is already investing in OTEC EU European Commission 13 (“Ocean Energy,” 8/19/2013, http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/index_en.cfm?pg=research-ocean)On the other hand, technologies related with the difference of temperature and of salinity are at an early stage of development. With Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), the difference of temperature between cold, deep seawaters and warm, shallow waters creates a thermodynamic cycle, which can be used for producing electricity. In the case of salinity gradients, the difference in salinity between seawater and fresh water creates a pressure difference which can be exploited to extract energy. ¶ Due to the urgent demand for clean renewable energy and given the enormous potential of this source, the European Commission has supported ocean energy research and development for many years through funding research projects and promoting cooperation between stakeholders.

Polar Exploration---2NCEU should take action in polar region – creates unique global leadershipICED ‘13 (Integrated Climate and Ecosystem Dynamics in the Southern Ocean, in connection with EUR-OCEANS project. "Brussels Thematic Workshop on Polar Marine Ecosystems Research: Strategic directions for the European Research Area" May 29, 2013. EUR-OCEANS Consortium Flagship for Polar Ecosystem Change and Synthesis, http://www.iced.ac.uk/documents/Summary%20and%20Conclusions_PECS.pdf // M.O.)Although the Polar Regions have differing political pressures and governance2 Europe has a commitment to ensure effective stewardship of both through its obligations as signatories to the various international treaties and agreements3 that seek to ensure the Polar Regions are appropriately protected, managed and recognised at the global scale. Our presentations illustrated why research on polar marine ecosystems is crucial in understanding the implications of the changing poles for economies and human well-being in Europe and beyond. We condensed the key issues into three priority questions that encompass biodiversity, climate change, increased commercial activity, food security, new technologies and sustainability: 1. What are the main drivers of change in polar marine ecosystems? 2. How does change affect the interactions between polar marine ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles? 3. How can climate change and increased commercial activities be accounted for in sustainable management of polar ocean resources? We stressed that the scale of these questions is beyond the current capacity of individual researchers, individual scientific disciplines, national policies and national programmes. The EU now needs to capitalise on its investment and success in polar marine ecosystems research, infrastructure and technologies to date, together with the unprecedented level of multidisciplinary and international cooperation generated in recent years4 (e.g. under FP6/FP7 and the International Polar Year), and historically (e.g. under the International Geophysical Year). The EU polar marine ecosystem community now needs the support for unparalleled scientific leadership and integration in understanding and predicting future change. Horizon 2020 is an opportunity for Europe to address these globally important questions through: A large-scale multidisciplinary research programme on polar ocean ecosystems that integrates international scientific expertise and capacity, focusing on drivers, comparisons and projections of change. Through this (please refer to our workshop presentations for details), we will: Determine the impacts of change on ecosystem structure (including studies on sea-ice distribution, ocean warming, changing ocean circulation, ocean acidification, nutrient availability, food web processes, past and future harvesting); Compare the effects of change within and between both poles; Project future change scenarios and interpret their consequences. A strategic approach with focused and agreed priority research areas, methodologies and analyses (e.g. multidisciplinary cruises, long-term observations, modelling efforts, etc); Coordination of research activities through international efforts that support, integrate and add value to national capabilities; Active engagement with stakeholders (e.g. policy makers, resource managers, educators, industry, consumers) resulting in European leadership in sustainable management and policy. Without such dedicated actions at the European level the present fragmentation of globally

important polar research cannot be overcome. Europe has a major role to play in marine ecosystem research at both poles. We fully support European leadership in polar marine ecosystem science, policy and integration.

Rare Earth Metals---2NCEU’s ERECON solves for rare earth metals, expert consensusEU European Commission 13 (“Rare earth experts unite for the first time,” 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/erecon/news-events/index_en.htm)The first European Rare Earths Competency Network (ERECON) meeting took place in Brussels on 23 October. A European Commission initiative, ERECON is looking at ways of addressing the issue of rare earth supply security by improving access to rare earths, reducing their consumption and enhancing extraction conditions across Europe. ¶ Europe can take the lead ¶ At the meeting, experts highlighted the importance of raw materials for the continent as well as the specific challenges related to rare earths. It was also stressed that a joint effort was needed to unite the fragmented capabilities from research and industry and to keep the issues on top of the public and policy agenda. Meanwhile, all participants agreed that Europe is well-equipped to take the scientific and technological lead in rare earth technologies.

EU is investing in rare earth metal extraction and recycling now Tsoukalas 11 (Ioannis A. Tsoukalas is a European People's Party MEP and Professor Emeritus of the Computer Science Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, “Towards a cohesive European rare-earth elements strategy,”7/19/11, http://www.neurope.eu/article/towards-cohesive-european-rare-earth-elements-strategy)In this context, the EU is facing a great challenge. It needs to: ¶ Become self- sufficient in rare earths by means of developing domestic and environmentally sustainable production and processing of these elements;¶ reaffirm its position as a leader in green innovation and technological development;¶ reclaim its position in R&D in this field by safeguarding sufficient and highly trained human capital, and; ¶ invest in the necessary innovative technologies for rare earths recycling and substitution. ¶ In this direction, Greenland's deposits, estimated at around 6% of global reserves, could offer a viable alternative source that would guarantee European added value in the extraction and processing of these elements. After all, Europe's investment in Green technologies can not be based on raw materials that are extracted under dangerous and unsustainable conditions in China and elsewhere.¶ The recycling of electronic waste can also become a significant source of rare earths, with some companies having already developed ways to recover rare earths by means of recycling rechargeable batteries and the European Commission is stepping up efforts to recover and recycle rare earths from electronic waste. Stockpiling together with strategic partners should not be excluded either, as it can protect companies against monopolist pressure and price rises in the rare earths market. A precondition for all the above, of course, is that the EU invests in research and innovation and in education and training of the next generation of rare earth scientists and engineers.

EU MIDAS project keeps solves safetyMuir ‘14 (Magdalena A K, Research Associate at The University of Calgary · Arctic Institute of North America and President and Associate of International Energy, Environmental and Legal Services Ltd. "MIDAS

(Managing Impacts of Deep-seA reSource exploitation) Project and EU DG Mare Stakeholder Consultation on Seabed Mining" May 26, 2014. Coastal & MarinE-News INTERNATIONAL NEWS OF THE COASTAL & MARINE UNION (EUCC) - A publication officially supported by the European Union, https://euccnews.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/midas-managing-impacts-of-deep-sea-resource-exploitation-project-and-eu-dg-mare-stakeholder-consultation-on-seabed-mining/ // M.O.)The MIDAS project – Managing Impacts of Deep-seA reSource exploitation – is a multidisciplinary research programme that will investigate the environmental impacts of extracting mineral and energy resources from the deep-sea environment. This includes the exploitation of materials such as polymetallic sulphides, manganese nodules, cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, methane hydrates and the potential mining of rare earth elements. MIDAS is funded under the European Commission’s Framework 7 programme and started on 1 November 2013 for a period of 3 years The MIDAS project intends to carry out research into the nature and scales of the potential impacts of mining, including 1) the physical destruction of the seabed by mining, creation of mine tailings and the potential for catastrophic slope failures from methane hydrate exploitation; 2) the potential effects of particle-laden plumes in the water column, and 3) the possible toxic chemicals that might be released by the mining process and their effect on deep-sea ecosystems. Key biological unknowns, such as the connectivity between populations, impacts of the loss of biological diversity on ecosystem functioning, and how quickly the ecosystems will recover will be considered. A major element of MIDAS is the development of methods and technologies for preparing baseline assessments of biodiversity in areas of potential commercial extraction, and monitoring activities remotely in the deep sea during and after exploitation. The MIDAS project intends to use this information to develop recommendations for best practice in the mining industry. A key component of MIDAS is the involvement of industry within the project and through stakeholder engagements to find feasible solutions. It will also work closely with European and international regulatory organisations to take these recommendations forward into legislation. The MIDAS partners are predominantly academic institutions, industry, and consultants, with the 32 partners listed on the project website here. No environmental non governmental organisions (ENGOs) are partners, though some partners have links with or work with ENGOs including the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, The MIDAS project is referred to by EU DG Mare website in its discussion of seabed mining here, so the project could have an important role in shaping future EU policy.

Renewable Energy---2NCEU is already developing renewable energy technology EU European Commission 14 (“Ocean Energy,” 4/2/2014, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/ocean_energy/index_en.htm)What is it?¶ Our seas and oceans offer a vast renewable energy resource, particularly, but not only, along the Atlantic seaboard. Ocean energy technologies are currently being developed to exploit the potential of tides and waves as well as differences in temperature and salinity. ¶ Why EU-level action? ¶ The development of this emerging sector would not only help us to achieve our renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets, but it could fuel economic growth through innovation and create new, high-quality jobs. ¶ The EU already supports technology development through its research programme. In its Blue Growth communication of September 2012, the Commission announced that it would assess further options and deliver a proposal for action in 2013.

EU already has a collaborative ocean energy initiative Ocean Energy Europe 13 (“DT Ocean,” 2013, http://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/index.php/en/current-projects/dtocean)DTOcean is a European collaborative project funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development, more specifically under the call ENERGY 2013-1.¶ DTOcean that stands for Optimal Design Tools for Ocean Energy Arrays aims at accelerating the industrial development of ocean energy power generation knowledge, and providing design tools for deploying the first generation of wave and tidal energy converter arrays. It gathers 18 partners from 11 countries (Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and United States of America) under the coordination of the University of Edinburgh.¶ “DTOcean will focus on a range of array sizes and hydrodynamic layouts. ¶ On this basis, the project will implement a work plan which aims to: ¶ (i) determine technically and economically optimal configurations for the offshore electrical network¶ (ii) develop models for mooring networks and foundation requirements¶ (iii) design optimal logistic solutions for the manufacture, assembly, installation, O&M and decommissioning of ocean energy arrays¶ (iv) identify, adapt and develop methods to optimise operational aspects of arrays of wave and tidal devices

EU has a structure in place ocean and wind energy development EU 12 (European Union, “Progress of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy,” 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/imp-progress-report_en.pdf)European citizens, industry and economy depend on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable ¶ energy. Offshore wind energy contributes to reach a 20 % share of energy from renewable ¶ sources by 2020.It is a priority of the EU’s Strategic Energy Technology Plan, through which ¶ industry, Member States and the Commission work on a long-term approach to technology ¶ development and demonstration. The Research Framework Programme and the Intelligent ¶ Energy programme further support the development of wind and oceans energy technology, ¶ which contributes significantly to growth in coastal regions. ¶ In 2011, the

Commission proposed guidelines to lay down rules for the development and ¶ interoperability of trans-European energy networks. Priority corridors were identified, ¶ including the North Sea Offshore Grid and the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan. ¶

Upper Ocean Observation---2NCPrevious EU cooperation in Argo program provides expertise for global upper-ocean observation networksEuro-Argo ‘14 (European contribution to Argo Program. "Context" May 6, 2014. Euro-Argo, http://www.euro-argo.eu/About-us/The-Research-Infrastructure/Context // M.O.)There is an increasing concern about global change and its regional impact. For example, sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Artic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. These effects are caused by a mix of long-term climate change and natural variability. Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land has hindered the development and validation of climate models. For example, a recent analysis concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurement campaigns spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artefact of the limited observations? Concerns about the lack of observations of key factors that influence earth’s climate led governments to form the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) in 2003. In Europe there is an initiative on Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES). GEOSS and GMES aim to provide the measurements needed to make predictions of how global change will influence weather, climate, energy, water, health and disasters. The climate and ocean components of GEOSS are delivered by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). The international ARGO program (for more details, see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/) was initiated in 1999 as a pilot project endorsed by the Climate Research Programme of the World Meteorological Organisation, GOOS, and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The Argo network is a global array of autonomous instruments, deployed over the world ocean, reporting subsurface ocean properties to a wide range of users via satellite transmission links to data centres. For more informations on floats, go to the page Activities/Floats. In 2007, Argo reached its initial target of 3000 profiling floats. Argo is the first-ever global, in-situ ocean observing network in the history of oceanography, providing an essential complement to satellite systems. It is now the major, and only systematic, source of information and data over the ocean’s interior. It is an indispensable component of the Global Ocean Observing System required to understand and monitor the role of the ocean in the Earth’s climate system. That's why maintaining the array's size and global coverage in the coming decades is the next challenge for Argo, and Euro-Argo will contribute for the European component to this global network.

EU recently set up system of research infrastructure to expand ocean observationEuropean Commission ‘14 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. Also cites European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). "Euro-Argo ERIC, a new European research infrastructure for global ocean observations" May 13, 2014. Euro-Argo, http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/77879/995479/file/14_05_13_ERIC-Euro-Argo-EN.pdf // M.O.)Euro-Argo is the European contribution to the international Argo array of 3,000 profiling floats measuring temperature and salinity from the surface down to 2,000 m throughout the global oceans. This is the first time a

European legal entity (European Research Infrastructure Consortium, ERIC) has been established for in-situ observation of the global oceans. This is a major milestone which will optimize, sustain and improve the European contributions to Argo. Euro-Argo was officially created by the European Commission on May 12, 2014. It is also the first ERIC to be set up for environmental sciences. The Euro-Argo inauguration event will be held in Brussels on July 17, 2014. Argo: a revolution in global ocean observation and monitoring The international Argo programme was initiated in 2000 by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO and by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to develop an array of 3,000 autonomous profiling floats measuring temperature and salinity down to 2,000 metres throughout the deep global oceans. By the end of 2007 Argo had reached its initial target of 3,000 floats in operation. Argo is an essential element of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) set up to monitor, understand and forecast the role of the oceans in the earth’s climate. Together with satellite observations, Argo is the main source of data for ocean and climate research, seasonal and climate forecasting and for ocean analysis and forecasting. The ERIC Euro-Argo: objectives and organization The objectives of the Euro-Argo ERIC are to optimize, sustain and improve the European contributions to Argo and to provide a world-class service to the research (ocean and climate) and operational oceanography (Copernicus Marine Service) communities. Euro-Argo also aims at preparing the next phase of Argo with an extension to deeper depths, biogeochemical parameters and observations of the polar regions. The Euro-Argo research infrastructure comprises a central facility and distributed national facilities. On 12th May 2014, the European Commission awarded European legal status (European Research Infrastructure Consortium) to the central facility. This European legal framework has been designed to facilitate the establishment and operation of research infrastructures of European interest. The Euro-Argo ERIC will play a coordinating role and will be in charge of the procurement, deployment and monitoring of European floats. Its seat is situated in the main Ifremer center in Brest for the first 5 years of its operation. 9 countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Poland and Finland) are all founding members of the Euro-Argo ERIC. Several new countries could also join the ERIC in the coming years (e.g. Spain, Bulgaria and Ireland).

AT: EU Overfishes---2NCEU ended practices that caused overfishing – committed to sustainable developmentDamanaki ‘14 (Maria, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. "Global solutions to save the world's oceans" June 30, 2014. European Commission, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-524_en.htm?subweb=342&lang=en // M.O.)Within the EU we have introduced transformational change with regard to fisheries. Since 1/1/2014 we have a new common fisheries policy, sustainable and science based, phasing out discarding and implementing the same principles for European vessels worldwide. Through this new policy we have banned all types of subsidies at European level, that lead to overcapacity and overfishing. Our European fund has no granting for fuel subsidies at all. Allow me now to come to a global problem also mentioned in GOC report: illegal fisheries Illegal fishing has to be eradicated from the High Seas, and this is why the EU uses its diplomatic weight to push for rules like the UNCLOS or the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement to be enforced worldwide. We also use our considerable market weight and I'm grateful to the Global Oceans Commission for highlighting this important aspect in its paper. In practice the EU requires that any fish import be accompanied by a catch certificate. In other words the fish has to be caught legally; otherwise it won't get into our market. And we go further. We work with other world nations to promote compliance with international law. When a country clearly does not respect its international obligations, we give them a fair warning and time to set things straight. We have done so with 13 countries in the last two years. Ten of them then complied, but three didn’t. So earlier this year the EU adopted our first ever trade ban with Cambodia, Belize and Guinea Conakry. In just over four years the EU has become the frontrunner in the fight against IUU and we are making a difference. Many third countries are now taking their international duties much seriously. The EU is also stepping up its efforts to address the marine litter problem. It has agreed to set a reduction target for marine litter by 2020, to move towards Rio + 20 commitments. We In European Commission are going to propose this target soon. On offshore oil and gas the EU has put in place the highest risk based standards for operation within its territory. We well come of course binding efforts for reducing risk, as well as ensuring effective emerging response, regardless of where operations take place, in line with the polluter pays principle. The other soft spot identified by the Global Oceans Commission is the performance of RFMOs. We cannot ignore their presence. I think the focus at least for right now should be on improving what we have. How? – you may ask. We start from the basics – at least that is what the EU has done. Our new reformed policy now tells us what to do: we are to improve the compliance committees of RFMOs, develop scientific knowledge and advice, manage stocks on a sustainable basis, apply effective and deterring penalties, carry out performance reviews and fix what needs to be fixed. All this renews the thrust for our work in RFMOs, so I very much welcome the urgency you bring into this discussion. The GOC has made a recommendation for turning the High Seas into a regeneration zone in case of no results. The vision is clear and high ambitious. The European Union clearly supports the establishment of marine Protected areas. Referring to the closing of all High Seas fisheries we have a number of questions and concerns on the consequences for the fisheries in other areas and the complicated governance issues of such decisions. This issue needs further examination and discussion to be based on science, impartial decision making procedures and control mechanisms.

EU has been increasing observation systems in cooperation with the international community Damanaki ‘14 (Maria, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. "Global solutions to save the world's oceans" June 30, 2014. European Commission, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-524_en.htm?subweb=342&lang=en // M.O.)Ladies and gentlemen, What is needed at international level is a change of perspective. We need to see the bigger picture. A holistic and comprehensive approach is the basic requirement for a healthy and resilient marine environment. As I said: no fences. Integration is the name of the game. It is gaining ground in all our Member States and beyond, as is our blue growth agenda. So far we have given special attention to promising maritime sectors such as marine biotech, aquaculture, ocean energy, deep sea mining and tourism. We think that with a focused research effort and steps to improve the environment for innovation, these sectors can prosper in a smart and sustainable way. A key tool to ensure sufficient marine space for concurrent economic activities is maritime spatial planning. If all goes well our legislative proposal should enter into force after the summer and it is a historic achievement. For the first time in the world, countries have a legal obligation to cooperate in planning their seas across borders. Spatial planning gives operators certainty on whether and what economic developments are possible, where and for how long. It will speed up licensing and permit procedures, and will provide good management of the cumulative impact of maritime activities. It a huge and real step for marine governance in Europe. At the same time there is also an overall need to get a deeper and better understanding of how our oceans work, how they interact with the climate and how economic activities affect the marine environment. Ocean observation, mapping and forecasting are essential in this vein. This is why the EU has directly and explicitly geared its financial support, and particularly its research funds, towards the sea. Since last year, the EU, the United States and Canada have started a transatlantic research alliance which is to cover observing systems and ocean stressors, as well as research in the Arctic region, a fragile environment that is undergoing enormous change in terms of temperature and human activity. We hope to see similar forms of cooperation with and between other countries in the future. Needless to say, the private sector will have a big role to play in this sustainable growth model. Any firm operating in transport, oil and gas, fisheries, aquaculture or coastal tourism is entirely dependent on ocean resources, services and space. They will have to take up a corresponding responsibility for marine environmental protection, in Europe and in the world. To conclude, ladies and gentlemen, The EU perspective to the ocean challenge is one of caution and common sense. We don’t want to open up the seas to unbridled growth or a lawless gold rush. But we think that controlled, smart and fair development is possible. We need cooperation with international community, to create one common front. And we need it now.

AT: Funding---2NCEU can fund best, millions allocated alone to ocean projectsFazackerley 13 (Adam Fazackerley, “Horizon 2020: €100m in 2014 for seas and oceans,” 12/18/13, http://www.jpi-oceans.eu/servlet/Satellite?c=Nyhet&pagename=jpi-oceans%2FHovedsidemal&cid=1253991437673)Following its approval by the Parliament and Council, Horizon 2020 continues to advance with last week’s announcement of first calls. The launch of the Work Programme for 2014-2015 heralds the beginning of the funding application process for many businesses and researchers. In detailing the objectives, calls and topics for the first two years of Horizon 2020, the process of application for and allocation of the 15 billion euro budget begins.¶ The challenge-based approach of Horizon 2020 is expected to grant more freedom to applicants, and the inclusion of marine dimensions in every societal challenge that the programme addresses is, as such, a big win for the sector. JPI Oceans’ latest Management Board meeting saw expression of appreciation at the programmes’ inclusion of “Cross-cutting marine and maritime research, which offers great opportunity for cross-cutting calls and pan-European synergies.¶ The Blue Growth economy in the EU is expected to grow to 7 million people employed by 2020. Actions in this area will be in line with the EU Blue Growth Strategy and relevant EU policies, as well as provide international cooperation opportunities in particular for Atlantic Ocean research. The calls in this area invite, for example, proposals on Atlantic observation systems, an integrated response capacity to oil spills and marine pollution, climate change impacts on fisheries and aquaculture and ocean literacy. ¶ Horizon 2020 is amongst the globe’s largest publicly funded research funds. Replacing the Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) the programme brings all EU-level funding for research and innovation under one roof for the first time.

AT: Perm---2NCEU should do the plan independently, US policies fail to meet standardsCarlarne 10 (Cinnamon Carlarne, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Cincinnati, Department of Environmental Studies “Climate Change Policies an Ocean Apart: EU & US Climate Change Policies Compared,” 8/4/10,http://www.cesruc.org/uploads/soft/130221/1-1302211Z045.pdf)Conclusion ¶ Climate change poses long-term social, environmental and ¶ economic challenges to the global community. International ¶ collaborations to address climate change are still in their infancy. ¶ Managing global climate change requires both short-term and long term ¶ efforts. Analysis of the US, regional US entities, the EU and UK climate ¶ change policies reveals significant variation among developed countries’ ¶ climate change strategies. It also suggests that, the US strategy fails to ¶ meet both the standards and objectives of other developed countries and ¶ those established by the international community under the Kyoto ¶ Protocol. ¶ As regional climate change policies evolve, are implemented, ¶ monitored and enforced, it is expected that future studies will show that ¶ effective climate change regimes require a combination of mandatory ¶ regulations and voluntary regimes and that the EU model which combines mandatory and voluntary strategies is significantly more ¶ effective than the US regime, which is based on voluntary programs, ¶ further research, and delay. Such a finding will be critical: it will place ¶ greater onus on States to implement structured and enforceable policies ¶ that are measurably effective; and it will demonstrate to regional and ¶ international policy-makers the importance of establishing regulatory ¶ regimes and highlight the best way to create effective regimes for ¶ addressing global climate change.

IOOS EU CP

1NC CP TextCounterplan text---The European Commission should substantially increase its investment in the European Earth Observation Programme Copernicus to [insert mandate of the plan].

Solvency – AbilityNew EU Copernicus Satellite system solves [any ocean mapping aff or advantage]European Commission '14 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Marine Environment Monitoring Service" 4/20/2014. European Commission, http://www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_FactSheets/Copernicus_MarineEnvironmentMonitoring_30April2014.pdf // M.O.)The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service is part of the Copernicus Programme, which is an EU Programme implemented by the European Commission (EC) jointly with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). It is aimed at developing a set of European information services based on satellite Earth Observation and in-situ data. The other areas of the programme cover Land Monitoring, Atmosphere Monitoring, Emergency Management, Climate Change and Security. What is the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service? The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service provides regular and systematic information about the physical state and dynamics of the ocean and marine ecosystems for the global ocean and the European regional seas. This data covers analysis of the current situation, forecasts of the situation a few days in advance and the provision of retrospective data records (re-analysis). The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service calculates and provides products describing currents, temperature, wind, salinity, sea level, sea ice and biogeochemistry. These factors support marine and maritime applications and related EU policies, e.g. in the fields of: Marine safety; Marine and coastal environment; Marine resources; Weather, seasonal forecasting and climate. The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service is currently delivered in a pre-operational mode. With the new Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014- 2020 the road is free towards full operational delivery from 2015 onwards. What does the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service do? The development of this service is realised through the MyOcean2 project funded by the EU research framework programme. The service provides information on the ocean for the large scale (worldwide coverage) and regional scales (main European basins and seas). Typical products provided by the service are: • maps and data for oceanographic forecasts; • retrospective assessments of the sea state; • simulations of pollution transport; • inputs to fine scale analysis in coastal areas. Some examples: Shipping and sea rescue services The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service collects observational data about the sea level, sea surface temperature, sea ice and sea surface wind using in-situ sensors and earth observation satellites which can provide useful information for ship routing services or search and rescue operations. Marine environment issues The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service assimilates marine data into 3D models and then reanalyses these over long term periods in the past. This work helps address marine and coastal environment issues. Products delivered by the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service contribute to the protection and sustainable management of living marine resources, including fish stock management. Understanding weather and climate change Many of the data delivered by the service (e.g. temperature, currents) play a crucial role in the domain of weather, climate and seasonal forecasting. The Service also records the status of polar icecaps, which helps us to understand the impact of climate change. What is the added value of the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service? • The Service provides continuous

data and information on the sea state, records the current situation, issues forecasts for a few days ahead, and analyses data records for recent years; • The critical data produced by the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service helps scientists better understand the ocean and EU regional seas; • Monitoring of sea ice together with its forecast can provide useful information to marine transport in ice infested waters; • The Service provides useful information for various activities in the context of fisheries and mariculture, tourism, or the overall management of coastal zones. The Copernicus data policy promotes the access, use and sharing of Copernicus information and data on a full, free and open basis.

Copernicus project has connections to other institutions and meets data sharing needs European Commission '12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "GMES/Copernicus – monitoring our earth from space, good for jobs, good for the environment" December 11, 2012. European Commission, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-966_en.htm // M.O.)GMES/Copernicus provides earth observation, while Galileo supports satellite navigation Galileo and GMES/Copernicus are complementary systems making use of satellite technologies. Both systems have their strategic value as each of them has its own mission, which do not overlap. Galileo is essentially a ‘navigation’ system providing a permanent and more accurate than ever positioning and timing services worldwide. GMES/Copernicus is an ‘Earth observation’ system providing information on the state of our environment and improving the security of our citizens. What will GMES/Copernicus do? GMES/Copernicus will ensure the regular observation and monitoring of Earth sub-systems, the atmosphere, oceans, and continental surfaces, and will provide reliable, validated and guaranteed information in support of a broad range of environmental and security applications and decisions. The initiative has two main objectives: to provide of sustainable, precise and reliable information about the environment and citizen’s security, produced under EU control and tailored to the needs of a wide range of users; to create massive business opportunities for European companies, in particular SMEs, to boost to innovation and employment in Europe. GMES/Copernicus's services will allow us to monitor: greenhouse gases that warm our planet, reactive gases that influence the quality of the air we breathe, ozone layer and levels of solar UV radiation reaching the ground, and aerosols that affect temperature and air quality. GMES/Copernicus services will also improve the management of natural resources, including water, soil and forests — not only in Europe itself, but also in other continents, including Africa. They will help protect our citizens from harm, e.g. through the monitoring of forest fires and other natural and man-made disasters. GMES/Copernicus offers business opportunities GMES/Copernicus's data collection and provision provides a huge potential for innovation and business development. Apart from the benefits for European citizens in terms of new innovative services, which improve their quality of life, it will generate economic growth and around 85 000 new jobs over the period 2015-2030. Studies show that the societal benefits exceed four to twelve times the cost (for more details see European EO and GMES Downstream Services Market Study) GMES/Copernicus services will deliver information to a chain of information re-processors and end-users on a sustained basis. The “GMES/Copernicus economy” will grow by attracting increased investment in the value-adding market to provide innovative applications to meet increasing user demands and expectations. The definition and implementation of services and related observation infrastructure is driven by user requirements. GMES/Copernicus user communities include institutional users such as the EU institutions, European intergovernmental institutions, public-sector users within EU Member

States, European public-sector users from non-EU countries, non-EU public sector users and institutional research communities. An example of user driven innovation based on GMES/Copernicus's services which could generate business opportunities is the EU's ObsAIRve service.Obsairve. This smart phone 'app' enables real time access to air pollution data. In many European cities, air quality is of concern and is therefore monitored around the clock. In most cities, industrial air pollution abatement is, or tends to be, replaced by traffic-related air pollution. ObsAIRve allows real time access to air pollution data through mobile devices such as smartphones. Space manufacturing - Upstream impact GMES/Copernicus will have a significant impact on the space manufacturing sector, which we call the upstream impact. This is an important part of the European industrial policy. Moreover, it will also affect the data production and dissemination sector, which we call the midstream, as well as the value-added sector, which we call the downstream. A recent study analysed the most attractive downstream market segments for GMES/Copernicus, namely water, transport, oil and gas, non-life insurance, agriculture and electricity. The study, based on this sectoral analysis, was also able to estimate the potential job impact on the downstream activities. The number of jobs which will be created downstream are estimated at 68,182. When we add the upstream sectoral job creation, estimated at 16,403, the total impact of the GMES/Copernicus programme can be estimated at 84,585 jobs. This number is not including the midstream sector, as we do not have accurate data for this market segment. GMES/Copernicus will offer important new services GMES/Copernicus will provide the following services: a land monitoring service providing information in support of European policies, such as environmental policies (nature protection and biodiversity, natural resources, environmental hazards, environmental impact assessment, water framework directive), regional policies, territorial cohesion and spatial development, Common Transport Policy, policies relating to SMEs and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a marine service providing information on the state of the oceans, including sea level, currents, salinity, oil slicks; an atmosphere service providing information concerning chemical composition of the atmosphere driving climate change, and air quality as well as information on solar radiation; an emergency response support service will address natural disasters e.g. weather-driven hazards (e.g. storms, fires, floods), geophysical hazards (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, Volcanic Eruptions, landslides and subsidence), man-made disasters and humanitarian and civil emergencies (such emergencies are complex and require multi-disciplinary response); a security support service, e.g. in the field of maritime surveillance carried out by coast guards or critical infrastructure monitoring to reduce the number of terrorist attacks. A climate change service will be developed transversely with the aim of collecting reliable and continuous data on specific indicators to model climate change scenarios. GMES/Copernicus services should be fully and openly accessible within the restrictions imposed by the overall legal and policy framework (e.g. security issues). This is in line with the principles of the European Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS), and Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) initiatives to promote the widest possible sharing and use of Earth observation data and information. GMES/Copernicus's architecture and infrastructure Copernicus's architecture consists of: a Service component providing information for a broad range of environmental and security-related application areas and stimulating a downstream sector serving numerous applications on both a local and global scale, an Observation Infrastructure component with two sub-components for space-based and airborne, seaborne and ground based (so-called ”in situ”) infrastructure. In order to provide GMES/Copernicus services, service providers will depend on input from space and in situ observation infrastructure. In many cases, observation infrastructure has already been developed and put into operation by Member States. This existing infrastructure has been and should be re-used as much as possible in order to avoid duplication. Only when - following a careful analysis of gaps in provision - existing capabilities have been found to be inadequate

in meeting user requirements, new developments have been launched and financed by the EU. This is the case, in particular, for the space infrastructure developed by the European Space Agency (ESA), the coordinator of the implementation of the GMES/Copernicus space component. The provision of data from in situ infrastructure is coordinated by the European Environmental Agency (EEA).

Radar and image scanning satellites solve ice, mapping, and spill monitoringESA ‘14 (European Space Agency. “Ocean and Ice" 2014. European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-1/Oceans_and_ice // M.O.)The Copernicus marine services deliver vital information about the state and dynamics of oceans and coastal zones. These services not only help protect and manage the marine environment and its resources, but also aim to keep vessels safe at sea. Sentinel-1 provides radar images to generate timely maps of sea-ice conditions for Safe Passage in our increasingly busy Arctic waters. The radar can distinguish between the thinner, more navigable first-year ice and the hazardous, much thicker multiyear ice to help assure safe year-round navigation in ice-covered Arctic and sub-Arctic zones. These radar images are particularly suited to generating high-resolution ice charts, monitoring icebergs and forecasting ice conditions. Sentinel-1 also provides continuous sampling of the open ocean, offering information on wind and waves. This is useful for understanding interactions between waves and currents and to improve efficiency for shipping and wave-energy applications, potentially producing economic benefits. In addition, these observations can be used to track the paths of oil slicks and other polluters. While the mission offers timely information for a multitude of operational applications, it continues more than 20 years of radar imagery. This archive is not only essential for practical applications that need long time series of data, but also for understanding the long-term impacts of climate change, such as those on Arctic sea-ice cover, continental ice sheets and glaciers.

New satellites launched this year solveESA ‘14 (European Space Agency. “A New Era in Earth Observation" 2014. European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-1/A_new_era_in_Earth_observation // M.O.)The Sentinels, a new fleet of ESA satellites, are poised to deliver the wealth of data and imagery that are central to Europe’s Copernicus programme. By offering a set of key information services for a broad range of applications, this global monitoring programme makes a step change in the way we manage our environment, understand and tackle the effects of climate change, and safeguard everyday lives. The first in the series, Sentinel-1, carries an advanced radar instrument to provide an all-weather, day-and-night supply of imagery of Earth’s surface. The C-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) builds on ESA’s and Canada’s heritage SAR systems on ERS-1, ERS-2, Envisat and Radarsat. As a constellation of two satellites orbiting 180° apart, the mission images the entire Earth every six days. As well as transmitting data to a number of ground stations around the world for rapid dissemination, Sentinel-1 also carries a laser to transmit data to the geostationary European Data Relay System for continual data delivery. The mission will benefit numerous services. For example, services that relate to

the monitoring of Arctic sea-ice extent, routine sea-ice mapping, surveillance of the marine environment, including oil-spill monitoring and ship detection for maritime security, monitoring land-surface for motion risks, mapping for forest, water and soil management and mapping to support humanitarian aid and crisis situations. The design of Sentinel-1 with its focus on reliability, operational stability, global coverage and quick data delivery is expected to enable the development of new applications and meet the evolving needs of Copernicus. Sentinel-1 is the result of close collaboration between the ESA, the European Commission, industry, service providers and data users. Designed and built by a consortium of around 60 companies led by Thales Alenia Space and Airbus Defence and Space, it is an outstanding example of Europe’s technological excellence. Sentinel-1A was launched on 3 April 2014 on a Soyuz rocket from Europe's Spaceport in French Guiana.

Copernicus solves marine monitoring ESA ‘14 (European Space Agency. “Marine Services" 2014. European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Marine_services // M.O.)The Copernicus Marine Service aims to deliver information on the state and dynamics of the ocean to help protect and manage the marine environment and resources more effectively. The service builds on a series of projects developed within the Framework Programmes 6 and 7 (FP6/FP7), funded by the EC, and on ESA’s GMES Service Element (GSE) projects such as PolarView and MarCoast. The pre-operational service is currently provided through the FP7 project MyOcean-2 (follow-up of the former MyOcean), which delivers regular and systematic reference information on the state of the open oceans and regional seas. MyOcean supports four main domains: Marine safety, with services such as hydrodynamic forecasts and remote sensing blended products and forecasts for sea ice – supporting applications like marine operations, oil spill combat, ship routing, defence, search & rescue. Marine resources, with services such as long time-series of in-situ and remote-sensing products, as well as analysis, reanalysis and forecasts of hydrodynamic and ecosystem models – supporting applications such as fish stock management. Marine and coastal environment, with services as the above – supporting environmental applications such as monitoring water quality, pollution, coastal activities. Seasonal and weather forecasting, with services such as long time-series of in situ and remote-sensing products, as well as reanalysis of physical parameters at various temporal resolutions (monthly, seasonal, yearly) and short-term forecast of ocean properties at global and regional scale – supporting applications like climate monitoring, ice surveys. MyOcean-2 processes observation data into quality-controlled datasets at various thematic data assembly centres and runs numerical ocean models in near-real time. The data are assimilated to generate analyses and forecasts for different regions, namely, the Arctic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Atlantic European North West Shelf Ocean, Atlantic Iberian Biscay Irish Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and for the global ocean. Reprocessing and

reanalysis are also performed. In addition, several projects are on-going within the FP7 that explore the scope for downstream use in specialised areas, widening the range of the available Copernicus products. Currently, Copernicus services and projects base their activities on the provision of satellite imagery from contributing missions. Soon, the Sentinel satellites will start contributing to Copernicus, providing substantial benefits for the marine monitoring applications. In particular Sentinel-3 and Sentinel-1 are the two most relevant missions for the marine service. Sentinel-1 will provide all-weather day-and-night measurements of sea ice and Sentinel-3 will provide global and regular records of sea-surface temperature, currents, sea level, ocean colour.

New Copernicus programme is most advanced system in the world ESA ‘14 (European Space Agency. “Copernicus Overview" 2014. European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Overview3 // M.O.)Copernicus is the most ambitious Earth observation programme to date. It will provide accurate, timely and easily accessible information to improve the management of the environment, understand and mitigate the effects of climate change and ensure civil security. Copernicus is the new name for the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme, previously known as GMES. This initiative is headed by the European Commission (EC) in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA). ESA coordinates the delivery of data from upwards of 30 satellites, while the EEA is responsible for data from airborne and ground sensors. The EC, acting on behalf of the European Union, is responsible for the overall initiative, setting requirements and managing the services. The Space Component - managed by ESA - is in its pre-operational stage, serving users with satellite data currently available through the Copernicus Contributing Missions at national, European and international levels. Copernicus will become operational after launch of the first Sentinel mission. ESA is developing a new family of satellites, called Sentinels specifically for the operational needs of the Copernicus programme. The Sentinels will provide a unique set of observations, starting with the all-weather, day and night radar images from Sentinel-1 to be used for land and ocean services. Sentinel-2 will deliver high-resolution optical images for land services and Sentinel-3 will provide data for services relevant to the ocean and land. Sentinel-4 and Sentinel-5 will provide data for atmospheric composition monitoring from geostationary and polar orbits, respectively. Sentinel-6 will carry a radar altimeter to measure global sea-surface height, primarily for operational oceanography and for climate studies. The ground segment, facilitating access to Sentinel and Contributing Mission data, completes the Copernicus Space Component. The Space Component forms the European contribution to the worldwide Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). The In situ Component is managed by the EEA and focuses on data acquired by a multitude of sensors on the ground, at sea or in the air. These data come from European and non-European organisations. Copernicus provides a unified system through which vast amounts of data, acquired from space and from a multitude of in situ sensors, are fed into a range of thematic information services designed to benefit the environment, the way we live, humanitarian needs and support effective policy-making for a more sustainable future. These services fall into six main categories: land management, the marine environment, atmosphere, emergency response, security and climate change. In essence, Copernicus will help shape the future of our planet for the benefit of all. ESA is contributing by providing a proven framework for the development of operational systems on behalf of the user community, paving the way for investment in future generation systems. ESA is exploiting its 30 years of expertise in space programme development and management to contribute to the success of Copernicus.

European Earth Observation Program recently reformed into Copernicus with guaranteed fundingAirbus ‘14 (Airbus Defense and Space, European Aerospace company. "Copernicus to embark on a 40-year Earth observation mission" April 1, 2014. Airbus Defense and Space News, http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/news2/copernicus-to-embark-on-a-40-year-earth-observation-mission.html // M.O.)On 12 March this year, the European Parliament ratified the new European Earth Observation programme with its budget of €4.3 billion, covering the period from 2014 to 2020. Copernicus is the programme previously known as GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) coordinated by the European Commission in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA). The set of systems making up Copernicus continuously collects data, over the long term, that can then be used for land, marine and atmosphere monitoring, tracking climate change and also for security surveillance (managing natural disasters and keeping track of maritime traffic in particular). The European Parliamentary debate referred to a host of possible applications, including “data collection on water quality to enable authorities to better protect bathing water and predict algal bloom,” and “collecting data concerning currents, winds and icing at sea, to improve maritime traffic services and search and rescue operations”. Another keenly awaited application focuses on monitoring climate change, with the uninterrupted very-long-term analysis of masses of data to provide the clearest picture yet of the variations in temperatures and levels of seas and oceans, ice-cap melting, solar radiation, flood forecasting, greenhouse gases, etc. All the data will be collected from a host of ground, sea and atmospheric sensors. Five Sentinel satellite missions will also have a crucial role, forming the cornerstone of the Copernicus programme as they cover a highly extensive field of observation … for 40 years no less!

Previous EU development means advanced observation systems are viableRobinson ’10 (Ian S., based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom where he is a Professor of Satellite Oceanography in the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Sciences. Has contributed to projects of ESA, NASA and UNESCO. "Discovering the Ocean from Space: The unique applications of satellite oceanography" October 1, 2010. Page 541 Springer Praxis Books // M.O.)Governments now acknowledge that systems delivering regular ocean measurements from space are essential tools for managing the impact of modern civilization on our finite planet. Substantial investments have been made in programs such as the European Union’s Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES). This initiative has committed expenditure on space hardware for EO systems over the next two decades, to ensure continuity of today’s satellite ocean measurements. The concept of ‘‘operational oceanography’’ monitoring key ocean variables as a ‘‘public good’’ comparable with weather forecasting has become a reality. The existence of firm, funded programs, no longer merely the dreams of scientists, provides evidence that the everyday applications of ocean remote sensing research have come of age.

EU has advanced system to mitigate pollution using satellite dataRobinson ’10 (Ian S., based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom where he is a Professor of Satellite Oceanography in the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Sciences. Has contributed to projects of ESA, NASA and UNESCO. "Discovering the Ocean from Space: The unique applications of satellite oceanography" October 1, 2010. 586 Springer Praxis Books // M.O.)The accumulation of this type of information demonstrated the effectiveness of using SAR images for oil spill detection, encouraging further investment in operational systems which can take advantage of improved coverage by satellite SARs. An important example of a major, new operational development is the establishment of the CleanSeaNet service by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). EMSA is an organization established by the EC with the task of enhancing overall maritime safety system across Europe. One of its goals is to use satellite monitoring to reduce the risk of marine pollution and to assist member states of the EU in tracing illegal discharges at sea. CleanSeaNet was established in 2007 as a service which effectively delivers for the single issue of oil pollution what the GMES Marine Core Service (see Section 14.2.1 and Figure 14.1) does more generally for marine management. Thus CleanSeaNet acquires from its ‘‘upstream partners’’ (the appropriate space agencies) all available SAR data for the seas within Europe and the surrounding ocean. On behalf of all the member states it analyzes these data and issues oil spill warnings to the appropriate ‘‘downstream user’’ (i.e., the country with oversight of the particular sea area where the spill is identified. It also co-ordinates cases where oil spills threaten the waters of several nations. This management approach, based on the principle of subsidiarity, removes the need for duplication of the SAR data-processing effort by several member states. SAR images are acquired routinely from ASAR on Envisat and SAR on Radarsat 1 and 2. Figure 14.13 shows the enhanced revisit frequency possible individually from these SAR products. Wide-swath data mode (images that are 405 km square in the case of ASAR) provide the most frequent sampling but are not always available depending on the scheduled requirements for other SAR data modes. However, the combination of Envisat and Radarsat, plus any additional image data that may be obtained from the Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR) on the Japanese Advanced Land-Observing Satellite (ALOS), and from the German X-band SAR on TerraSAR-X, can result in a sampling frequency better than once per day for North European waters, and better than once every 2 days for South European waters and the Mediterranean Sea. SAR raw data are transmitted to the nearest ground station, where they are immediately processed and interpreted by experienced image analysts on behalf of EMSA. Within 30 minutes of a satellite overpass, information about a detected oil spill and the image itself are sent to the pollution control authorities of the member states responsible for the area of interest. In many cases, the technology of the automatic identification system7 (AIS) is combined with SAR data to link ships to potential pollution events. At this stage locally managed aircraft surveillance and vessel patrols will be sent to the area to verify the spill and, when confirmed, to identify the polluter if possible. The better the coverage and the faster the response, the greater the likelihood of prosecuting offenders, leading to stronger deterrence of potential polluters. Regional and local task sharing between EMSA and member states also provides for feedback about verification of possible slicks, which should lead to improvement of detection algorithms. For major spills the outputs of regional ocean circulation–forecasting models can also be used to assist in forecasting expected trajectories of the oil. The CleanSeaNet service has only been implemented relatively recently, and as yet no statistics are available about SAR coverage available,

reliability of oil spill event detection based on satellite SARs, effectiveness of the service in reducing the impact of pollution, and any evidence of an improved deterrence effect. Readers are encouraged to check future reports on the service produced by EMSA in order to ascertain whether this operational service achieves its goals and justifies continued investment in maintaining the service indefinitely.

EU has advanced technology satellites available Robinson ’10 (Ian S., based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom where he is a Professor of Satellite Oceanography in the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Sciences. Has contributed to projects of ESA, NASA and UNESCO. "Discovering the Ocean from Space: The unique applications of satellite oceanography" October 1, 2010. Page 615-616 Springer Praxis Books // M.O.)Operationally targeted satellite series It is noteworthy that the continuity needed for ongoing ocean monitoring will be guaranteed by a combination of operational meteorological sensors (MetOp, NPOESS, and the GEO platforms), the Jason program which is now largely underpinned by a federation of operational users co-ordinated by EUMETSAT, and the ESA Sentinel program. This confirms that the driving motivation is to support operational applications of satellite ocean data. This is clearly the case for the Sentinel series of satellites, developed by ESA to deliver the satellite measurements needed by the European GMES initiative. Ultimately the GMES Space infrastructure is expected to be funded by the European Union on behalf of all European users of the environmental data products it produces (as discussed in Section 14.2.1). The scope of the Sentinel program, with five different satellite types, is far wider than ocean applications alone. However, the purpose of Sentinel-3 (Aguirre et al., 2007) is to ensure that the data requirements of the GMES Marine Core Service are adequately met. For this reason it will carry a radar altimeter (SRAL), an ocean color sensor (OLCI), and a surface temperature sensor (SLSTR). Note that SLSTR was based on the heritage of the dual-viewing AATSR sensor on Envisat, in response to the request by GHRSST that this type of sensor was needed to provide high quality of accuracy and stability rather than coverage. While Sentinel-3 was designed to fulfill the main ocean requirements its sensors also meet the requirements for coarse-resolution land mapping. In a comparable way, Sentinel-1, which carries an X-band SAR mainly for land mapping and interferometry, contributes to the ocean-monitoring requirement for sea surface roughness, and Sentinel-2, which will carry a fine-resolution, land-mapping visible waveband sensor, has the potential to contribute to monitoring of coastal and estuarine waters. Explorer missions ESA has also produced several satellites in its Earth Explorer series which will be able to contribute to ocean monitoring, although with no commitment to sustained data delivery. The Gravity and Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) mission was launched in 2009 in order to measure the gravity field above the Earth and hence deduce the ocean geoid to a higher resolution than hitherto (see section 11.7.3 of MTOFS—Robinson, 2004). It is expected to lead to more reliable estimates of the ADT and hence the retrieval of absolute geostrophic surface currents of the sea. As mentioned above, Cryosat was launched in early 2010, carrying the SIRAL altimeter which will be used to map aspects of polar ice sheets. It also has the capacity to operate in a mode that can retrieve SSH where this does not compromise its primary cryospheric mission. Since the Sentinel-3 altimeter is expected to be very similar, there may be the opportunity to use data from SIRAL to develop novel processing schemes for ocean echo waveforms using the synthetic aperture capabilities of SIRAL. Finally, the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission was launched in late 2009 and this L-band passive microwave radiometer has just started to deliver its first data. It remains to be seen how finely it will be able to resolve sea surface salinity, SSS, but since it is the first sensor to attempt such measurements from space its results will be of great interest to the wider oceanographic community as well as to satellite oceanography specialists. It will be followed by the comparable NASA Aquarius mission. The combination of these three ESA Earth Explorer missions, with the prospect of a decade of operationally

reliable ocean measurements to come from the Sentinel series, added to the range of existing ocean sensors, holds out the promise that satellite oceanography research will be as exciting in the second decade of the new millennium as it was in the first.

Solvency – Future abilityNew series of observation satellites coming ESA ‘14 (European Space Agency. “Space Component Overview" 2014. European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Space_Component // M.O.)The success of Copernicus will be achieved largely through a well-engineered Space Component for the provision of Earth-observation data to feed into a range of services for monitoring the environment and supporting civil security activities. With the benefit of more than three decades of experience in implementing satellite missions to observe Earth from space, ESA is well-placed to develop and manage this core component of Copernicus. The Copernicus Space Component comprises two types of satellite missions, ESA's families of dedicated Sentinels and missions from other space agencies, called Contributing Missions. A unified ground segment, through which the data are streamed and made freely available for Copernicus services, completes the Space Component. While the Sentinel satellites are currently being developed specifically for the needs of the programme, the Contributing Missions are already providing a wealth of data for Copernicus services, and will continue to deliver complementary data after the Sentinels are in orbit. ESA is establishing a mechanism to integrate, harmonise and coordinate access to all the relevant data from the multitude of different satellite missions. This is being carried out in close cooperation with national space agencies, Eumetsat and, where relevant, with owners of non-European missions contributing to the Copernicus objectives. The Sentinels carry a range of technologies, such as radar and multi-spectral imaging instruments for land, ocean and atmospheric monitoring: Sentinel-1 will provide all-weather, day and night radar imagery for land and ocean services Sentinel-2 will provide high-resolution optical imagery for land services Sentinel-3 will provide high-accuracy optical, radar and altimetry data for marine and land services Sentinel-4 and Sentinel-5 will provide data for atmospheric composition monitoring from geostationary orbit and polar orbit, respectively Sentinel-5 Precursor will bridge the gap between Envisat (Sciamachy data in particular) and Sentinel-5 Sentinel-6 will provide radar altimetry data to measure global sea-surface height, primarily for operational oceanography and for climate studies Sentinel-4 and -5 will be instruments carried on the next generation of meteorological satellites: Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) and MetOp Second Generation.

Solvency – EU/US differential Only CP bypasses a fragmented approach – Europe already has cooperative systems in placeRobinson ’10 (Ian S., based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom where he is a Professor of Satellite Oceanography in the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Sciences. Has contributed to projects of ESA, NASA and UNESCO. "Discovering the Ocean from Space: The unique applications of satellite oceanography" October 1, 2010. Page 545-546 Springer Praxis Books // M.O.)One other important aspect of ocean-observing systems is that they should be generic and holistic, offering a broad range of observations and information about the current state of the ocean, on behalf of a wide range of clients. Hitherto the collection of ocean data for operational needs has tended to be fragmented across different types of data (e.g., wave measurements, SST records, and algal bloom sampling being performed in isolation from one another) and duplicated across and within user sectors so that separate measurement services have been established for different client organizations. Thus different government departments, the navy, commercial shipping interests, the fishing industry, offshore mineral extraction companies, etc. have in the past arranged to meet their own particular requirements for critical information by individually procuring their own separate monitoring service, even though there may be considerable overlap with the data requirements of other user sectors. Because much ocean-monitoring work is contracted to commercial companies there has been an understandable reluctance to pool measurements and make them available to other marine user organizations. The evident inefficiency of such a situation is compounded when several countries individually address their own needs for observations of almost identical sea areas. Recognition that such a fragmented system for operational ocean measurements needs to be improved has provided the political incentive to establish more coordinated marine-monitoring services, making use of the emerging concept of an integrated ocean-observing system (OOS). Within the European Union, this has taken the form of marine core services (MCSs), one of the first main elements of the GMES initiative to come to fruition. A single OOS is being established for all European seas and the adjacent oceans. The NOP component of the MCS uses nested ocean-forecasting models at global to regional scales. Fed by satellite and in situ observations in near-real time, it generates basic ocean data representing the current ocean state, updated day by day. This is intended to serve the needs of all users of regional seas for quantitative information about the basic variables that describe the physical state of the sea and its biogeochemical contents. Following the European Union’s principle of subsidiarity, it delivers core data free of charge as a public good, like basic weather services. The designation of ‘‘core’’ includes global data at 5km to 10km resolution and shelf seas data at 1km to 2 km, which are of interest to a very wide range of downstream users, but does not in general include coastal and estuarine high-resolution data which typically have a narrow and more specific user base. The general provision of core data should remove the need for individual nations or user sectors to maintain their own separate monitoring service. In practice previously established national services making in situ measurements, and satellite data from the European Space Agency and Eumetsat will provide much of the ‘‘upstream’’ data supply into the OOS. This concept is illustrated in Figure 14.1. Sectors with specialist needs to analyze and interpret core data will be served by specialist ‘‘downstream’’ services, such as ship routing or algal bloom monitoring, which ‘‘add value’’ to core data by interpreting them to clients and in some cases converting them into specialist data products. Downstream services will be provided by a mixture of fully commercial specialist consultancies and publicly supported marine management agencies, whose work may be contracted out to private companies. It is intended that the MCS will serve the governments of individual nations by supporting them in meeting their obligations under international marine environmental and pollution treaties to monitor

conditions in their own local seas. The scientific and operational principles of the MCS were developed and tested through the European Union’s MERSEA research project (Brasseur et al., 2005). The prototype integrated NOP component of the MCS is now being delivered by a consortium called MyOcean which combines scientific (research and operational) expertise from many European public organizations and private companies working in the fields of ocean measuring, remote sensing, and numerical modeling.

SCIENTIFIC DIPLOMACY NB

1NCThe counterplan is critical to maintaining EU science leadership and cooperation over transnational issuesEuropean Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach" 9/14/2012. European Commission // M.O.)Over the past decade, however, the landscape has evolved rapidly. Global research and innovation were, until recently, dominated by the European Union, the USA and Japan. As the emerging economies continue to strengthen their research and innovation systems, a multipolar system is developing in which countries such as Brazil, China, India and South- Korea exert increasing influence. The share of the BRICS in global expenditure on R&D doubled between 2000 and 2009. The Union also has a clear interest in its neighbouring countries developing their research and innovation capacity. Research and innovation are increasingly interlinked internationally, aided by rapidly developing information and communication technologies. The number of internationally coauthored scientific publications and the mobility of researchers are increasing. Research organisations are establishing offices abroad and companies are investing outside their home countries, in particular in the emerging economies. Global challenges are important drivers for research and innovation. Our planet has finite resources which need to be cared for sustainably; climate change and infectious diseases do not stop at national borders, food security needs to be ensured across the globe. The Union needs to strengthen its dialogues with international partners to build critical mass for tackling these challenges. As more research and innovation is performed in third countries, the Union will need to access this knowledge. To remain a major global player, the Union must promote itself as an attractive location for carrying out research and innovation and be successful in the global competition for talent, while at the same time preserving its economic interests, for instance as regards the protection of intellectual property.

Scientific cooperation maintains peace in the ArcticThe Royal Society ‘10 (a Fellowship of more than 1400 outstanding individuals from all areas of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine, who form a global scientific network of the highest calibre. The Society encourages public debate on key issues involving science, engineering and medicine, and the use of high quality scientific advice in policy-making. "New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power" January 2010. Page 24-25 The Royal Society, http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf // M.O.)The latest International Polar Year (IPY) ran from 2007–2009, and the hope is that this could have a similar legacy in the Arctic as IGY had in the Antarctic. The Arctic Ocean is currently crossing an environmental threshold, from a perpetually ice-covered region to a seasonally ice-free one. This is altering the geo-strategic dynamics of the Arctic, and awakening national interests in energy, fishing, shipping and tourism by Arctic States, China and the European Union. There are growing calls for a new, integrated governance regime for the Arctic Ocean, including proposals for an Arctic Treaty, similar to that in the Antarctic. The existing patchwork of legal regimes for the

region has the potential to fragment. Whereas Antarctica is an isolated continent surrounded by ocean, the Arctic consists of continental land masses semi-enclosing the Arctic Ocean. There is no single regulatory regime covering the entire region. Instead, the surrounding land masses of the five coastal states of Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Svalbard (Norway), Russia and the United States are sovereign territories. The Arctic Ocean is governed by national and international legal regimes, most notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Common interests in the region are coordinated by the Arctic Council, but its membership is limited to the coastal Arctic States, which do not believe a new legal regime is required. Other countries with interests in the region are excluded from this body. One option would be to focus on the centre of the Arctic Ocean, which is now covered by frozen ice. Whilst much of the sea floor may come under national jurisdictions, the overlying water column and sea surface at the centre of the Arctic Ocean is legally distinct, and the UNCLOS already recognises it as undisputed international space. The centre of the Arctic Ocean therefore provides a starting point for governance discussions, which do not threaten the national jurisdictions of the Arctic coastal states, or require an entirely new legal regime. Science cooperation provides a useful basis for these discussions (Berkman and Young 2009). Ongoing research into Arctic Ocean systems will be essential to inform management strategies for when the ice thaws and makes this international space more accessible. More research is required into sea-level rises; loss of sea ice; melting permafrost and feedback mechanisms; the location and availability of resources; and the impacts of long-range pollutants. Much of this research will require international collaboration, especially when the harsh conditions of the Arctic necessitate the sharing of costs, logistics, facilities and other capabilities. There is an even greater need to prevent conflict as the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean starts to disappear. The Arctic States have identified the socio-economic development of the region’s natural resources and the protection of its ecosystems as their common interests. However peace is yet to be identified as an explicit common interest, so the Arctic Council is not mandated to discuss military and related security risks. Again, a possible solution is provided by the centre of the Arctic Ocean. Environmental security discussions focused on this international space could provide a cooperative framework through which to address military risks. For example, energy development, fishing, shipping and tourism in the Arctic all require coordinated search and rescue missions for stranded vessels. The thawing of the Arctic Ocean also increases the risk of accidents and the need for emergency responses to ecological disasters. Given that militaries are trained in providing disaster relief and search and rescue, clarifying their role in this context could increase transparency and maintain a dialogue that could eventually allow more sensitive issues to be addressed.

That goes nuclearWallace and Staples ‘10 (Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia; Steve Staples is the President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa. "Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue" March 2010. Canadian Pugwash Group (Affiliate of Pugwash Confrences on Science and World Affairs, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf // M.O.)The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.”55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years.56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military

vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic.57 The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship based helicopters able to drop troops anywhere.58 Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs.59 The maneuvers prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved.60 Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.” 62

AT: Perm---2NCBrain Drain means join EU-US projects don’t increase EU competitiveness European Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document ‘Enhancing and Focusing EU International Cooperation in Research and Innovation: A Strategic Approach’" 9/14/2012. Page 5-6, European Commission // M.O.)There are indications of a persistent brain drain from the Union to the USA Scientific cooperation involves intensive mobility of research students and scientists. As a proxy for the mobility of researchers, Figure 4 illustrates the persistent flow of students and doctoral students from the Union to the USA. Over the last decade, the gap decreased slightly (it was widest in 2002) but remained significant in 2009-2010. In 2009, 58 000 students or early-stage researchers left the EU for graduate, master or doctoral studies in the USA, while only about half as many (28 200) left the USA to study or do research in the Union. The gap is largest for the Eastern European countries, but also for most of the Mediterranean countries. In contrast, the United Kingdom and Ireland have a positive balance for student or early-stage researchers. Half of US students and early-stage researchers, 14 300, went to UK universities, while 8 500 left the UK to study in the USA. While the above data on students provides an indication, there are currently no solid data on flows of researchers between the EU and other world regions. However, surveys indicate that researcher mobility is still mainly between the EU and the USA, with larger flows of researchers from the EU to the USA than in the reverse direction. The main reasons cited by EU researchers for moving to the USA are job opportunities, educational opportunities and the existence of scientific or professional infrastructure.

Scientific and technology sector is incredibly competitive – unique projects key to maximize scientific competitivenessMote et. al. '10 (C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. is president of the University of Maryland and Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of Engineering. Chair of the Committee on Global Science and Technology Strategies and Their Effect on U.S. National Security Standing Committee on Technology Insight—Gauge, Evaluate, and Review. "S&T Strategies of Six Countries: Implications for the United States" March 9, 2010. Page 97, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12920.html // M.O.)S&T Talent in High Demand in All Countries: A global competition for S&T talent is underway. Countries are using a variety of strategies to recruit talent, including luring expatriates and experts from abroad with superior financial support, offering top working conditions and research facilities, expanding higher education opportunities to attract internal and external students, and recruiting multinational companies to open S&T facilities. Each country understands that talent is the coin of the S&T realm, although they differ in their effectiveness in satisfying the need. 

U.S. ignores scientific interactions with Europe – No U.S. scientific diplomacy offense Fisher ‘13 (Cathleen, President of American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and has taught at the George Washington University, Georgetown University, and Emory University. Ph.D. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland and an M.A. in International Relations from The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "The Invisible Pillar of Transatlantic Cooperation: Activating Untapped Science & Technology Assets" 3/11/2013. Center for

Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2013/invisible-pillar-transatlantic-cooperation // M.O.)The ambitious and sometimes curious expansion of the transatlantic policy agenda has not, however, fully integrated science and technology cooperation or expertise in a systematic way. In part, the continued marginalization of science in the transatlantic agenda is a historical legacy. During the Cold War, with the exception of exchanges on nuclear risks and arms control, geopolitical and security concerns largely pushed science and technology cooperation to the margins of “soft” or “cultural” transatlantic diplomacy. Though the world has changed fundamentally, transatlantic policy dialogues, both government-led and nongovernmental, continue to be heavy on “high politics” and thin on actual scientific expertise. There are some exceptions, as seen in transatlantic dialogues on climate change and energy. For the most part, however, the nongovernmental transatlantic policy community essentially duplicates the “high politics” bias of government agencies. The fixation on an increasingly daunting and grand geopolitical agenda means ignoring issue areas with substantial S&T contact where U.S.-European cooperation could deliver successful and mutually beneficial outcomes. For example, both the United States and Europe must plan for the effects of extreme storm events and rising sea levels, as well as the other related social and economic effects of climate change. The Netherlands has introduced multiple, world-class technical and policy innovations in the areas of flood mitigation, storm water modeling, and integrated river basin management. An integrated, transatlantic dialogue involving government agencies at the national and sub-national level; geopolitically and technically focused NGOs; and universities, companies, associations, and individual researchers, could help determine which of these innovations could be successfully transferred to the environmental, political, and legal landscape of Louisiana or other threatened regions. A second example of the potential inherent in a more integrated transatlantic dialogue pertains to an issue of central importance to both the U.S. and European governments: STEM education. In the United States, STEM education and economic development rely more and more on the active integration of community colleges. Unfortunately, at present there are few mechanisms to engage the faculties and staff of U.S. community colleges with their European counterparts.4 Obstacles to Mainstreaming S&T in Transatlantic Relations The marginalization of science in transatlantic relations reflects several larger problems. First, S&T perspectives continue to be inadequately integrated into U.S. foreign policy writ large. The evolving role of S&T in U.S. foreign policy indeed has been the focus of numerous blue-ribbon commissions, Task Forces, and working groups for several decades. In 1992, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government observed that science and technology was “a sidestream or a mere technicality” in U.S. foreign policy. Seven years later, the National Research Council (NRC) noted with concern the reduction in the number of science counselors at U.S. embassies from twenty-two to ten and asserted: “Central to strengthening the capabilities of the [State] Department in areas involving STH [science, technology, health] considerations is the need for a change in the orientation of the U.S. Foreign Service and indeed of the entire U.S. foreign policy community, which currently gives relatively little attention to STH considerations.”5 The NRC, like the Carnegie Commission before it, recommended various measures to strengthen the integration of science and technology into U.S. foreign policy, including the creation of a senior science advisor to the Secretary of State. The establishment of the Office of the Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State in 2000 was an important step forward. However, although the Department of State’s 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Report embraced S&T cooperation as a “crucial part of U.S. public diplomacy,” many structural reforms have not yet been undertaken.6 Progress toward the integration of S&T in transatlantic relations may be impeded by two additional factors: the fragmented nature of the scientific enterprise in Europe and the United States, and a lack of consensus in the United States about, or a strategy for addressing, the globalization of science and international collaboration.

Uniqueness---2NCEU behind US but has capacity to overtake European Commission ‘14 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014" April 25, 2014. Page 29, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius/ius-2014_en.pdf // M.O.)This section provides a comparison of the EU with some of its main global economic partners including Australia, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), Canada, Japan, South Korea and the United States. South Korea, the US and Japan have a performance lead over the EU (Figure 25). The performance lead has been increasing for South Korea as its growth over 2006-2013 has been more than double that of the EU (Figure 26). Innovation performance for the EU has been improving at a higher rate than that for the US and Japan. As a consequence, the EU has been able to close almost half of its performance gap with the US and Japan since 2008. These three global top innovators are particularly dominating the EU in indicators capturing business activity as measured by R&D expenditures in the business sector, Public-private co-publications and PCT patents but also in educational attainment as measured by the Share of population having completed tertiary education. It means that enterprises in these countries invest more in research and innovation and collaborative knowledge-creation between public and private sectors is better developed. Further, the skilled workforce in these countries is relatively larger than in the EU. The EU continues to have a performance lead over Australia, Canada and all BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Of these countries only China has managed to grow at a higher rate than the EU, albeit from a relatively low level.  

EU catching up to US in competitivenessEuropean Commission ‘14 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014" April 25, 2014. Page 33, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius/ius-2014_en.pdf // M.O.)The United States has been consistently more innovative than the EU but the performance lead is continuously decreasing. Between 2006 and 2009 the US innovation index was about 30% higher than that of the EU, but since 2009 the US lead has been steadily declining to 17% in 2013. Between 2008, when the lead was at its peak, and 2013 the US performance lead has thus reduced by half from 32% to 17%. A closer look at the individual indicators reveals that the US is performing better on 9 indicators. A much higher share of the US population has completed tertiary education, 42% in the US compared to 28.5% in the EU in absolute terms (cf. Annex G) creating a performance lead of the US over the EU of almost 50%. The number of International co-publications and the quality of US scientific publications are also much higher and the Scientific collaboration between the private and public sector is almost double that in the EU. US businesses spend about

40% more on R&D (1.82% of GDP in 2011 compared to 1.29% in the EU). The US is also more successful in commercializing new technologies with 17% more License and patent revenues compared to the EU. The US has relative weaknesses in PCT patent application and the Contribution of medium-high-tech product exports to the trade balance.

CP Solves---2NCOcean Policies support Horizon 2020 and produce EU international influenceEuropean Commission ‘13 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "HORIZON 2020 WORK PROGRAMME 2014 – 2015" December 10, 2013. Page 22-23 European Commission, http://www.iserd.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/sc6_wp2014-2015.pdf // M.O.)Rapid technological progress in working offshore in ever-deeper waters, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to look at how the 71 % of the planet that is seas and oceans can deliver human necessities such as food and energy in a sustainable way have opened up an opportunity for blue growth with the aim to harness the huge potential of Europe's oceans, seas and coasts for jobs and growth. This focus area addresses this overall challenge through five cross-cutting priority domains supporting the Blue Growth Agenda: valorising the diversity of marine life; sustainable harvesting the deep-sea resources; new offshore challenge; sea and ocean observation technologies; and the socio-economic dimension. The aim of the focus area is to improve the understanding of the complex interrelations between various maritime activities, technologies, including space enabled applications, and the marine environment to help boost the marine and maritime economy by accelerating its potential through R&I. It will enhance sectoral and cross-sectoral cooperation by building on major international, regional and national initiatives. At present sea and ocean bio-resources provide 15% of animal protein consumed globally; blue biotechnology has an expected yearly growth rate of 5 to 10%; deep-sea minerals extraction could gradually represent up to 10% of the world's minerals; marine renewable energy is rapidly extending to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2020 and an exponentially rising 3.6 GW of sea and ocean energy by 2030. The Blue Growth economy in the EU is expected to grow to 7 million people employed by 2020. Actions in this area will be in line with the EU ‘Blue Growth’ strategy and relevant EU policies (e.g. Sea Basin Strategies and Action Plans) as well as provide support for international cooperation.

Counterplan innovations creates EU influence to deal with global issuesEuropean Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach" 9/14/2012. European Commission // M.O.)Over the past decade, however, the landscape has evolved rapidly. Global research and innovation were, until recently, dominated by the European Union, the USA and Japan. As the emerging economies continue to strengthen their research and innovation systems, a multipolar system is developing in which countries such as Brazil, China, India and South- Korea exert increasing influence. The share of the BRICS in global expenditure on R&D doubled between 2000 and 2009. The Union also has a clear interest in its neighbouring countries developing their research and innovation capacity. Research and innovation are increasingly interlinked internationally, aided by rapidly developing information and communication

technologies. The number of internationally coauthored scientific publications and the mobility of researchers are increasing. Research organisations are establishing offices abroad and companies are investing outside their home countries, in particular in the emerging economies. Global challenges are important drivers for research and innovation. Our planet has finite resources which need to be cared for sustainably; climate change and infectious diseases do not stop at national borders, food security needs to be ensured across the globe. The Union needs to strengthen its dialogues with international partners to build critical mass for tackling these challenges. As more research and innovation is performed in third countries, the Union will need to access this knowledge. To remain a major global player, the Union must promote itself as an attractive location for carrying out research and innovation and be successful in the global competition for talent, while at the same time preserving its economic interests, for instance as regards the protection of intellectual property.

EU scientific diplomacy is weak from unorganized approach – counterplan increases international influence European Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach" 9/14/2012. European Commission // M.O.)Progress has been made in optimising the scale and scope of international cooperation activities. For example: – The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership between 14 Member States, Switzerland, Norway and sub-Saharan African countries aimed at tackling HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; – Euratom, China, India, Japan, Russia, South-Korea and the USA have joined forces in the ITER project (supported by the Broader Approach Agreement between Euratom and Japan) to demonstrate that nuclear fusion is a viable energy source of the future; – The Marie Curie actions have a strong international dimension. Participants in these actions come from 80 different countries; – The Commission's Joint Research Centre cooperates with international partners on a wide range of issues; – The world-wide interconnection of research and education networks provided by the GEANT network is largely funded by the Union (partially through its development cooperation instruments); – The Union, together with 13 other countries, supports the Human Frontier Science Programme to finance international collaboration in basic research. While this progress is welcome, critical mass is lacking in many cases and the strategy driving the development of the actions is not always clear. This was one of the conclusions of the FP7 interim evaluation, which stated that there needs to be an ‘intensification of international cooperation‘ activities focused on ‘engaging with partners outside of Europe on equal terms and in programmes and activities of high mutual interest‘. The same report recommended the ‘coherent strategic development‘ of the Union's policy for international cooperation in research and innovation. International cooperation in research and innovation contributes to the broader policies of the Union, as reflected in the Europe 2020 strategy, in supporting the following objectives: (a) Strengthening the Union’s excellence and attractiveness in research and innovation as well as its economic and industrial competitiveness – by creating win-win situations and cooperating on the basis of mutual benefit; by accessing external sources of knowledge; by attracting talent and investment to the Union; by facilitating access to new and emerging markets; and by agreeing on common practices for conducting research and exploiting the results; (b) Tackling global societal challenges – by developing and deploying effective solutions more rapidly and by

optimising the use of research infrastructures; and, (c) Supporting the Union’s external policies – by coordinating closely with enlargement, neighbourhood, trade, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), humanitarian aid and development policies and making research and innovation an integral part of a comprehensive package of external action. ‘Science diplomacy’ will use international cooperation in research and innovation as an instrument of soft power and a mechanism for improving relations with key countries and regions. Good international relations may, in turn, facilitate effective cooperation in research and innovation. This Communication proposes to enhance and focus the Union's international cooperation activities in research and innovation by using the dual approach of openness complemented by targeted international cooperation activities, developed on the basis of common interest and mutual benefit, optimal scale and scope, partnership, and synergy.

AT: Squo Solves---2NCLimited resources mean the specific action of the counterplan is best for EU influenceEuropean Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach" 9/14/2012. European Commission // M.O.)Targeted international cooperation activities Maximising the impact of international research and innovation activities, while avoiding a costly fragmentation of efforts, requires the Union to complement the openness of Horizon 2020 with targeted actions in order to ensure optimal scale and scope. 4.2.1. Identifying areas for international cooperation Horizon 2020 focuses the Union’s research and innovation funding on a limited number of societal challenges and enabling and industrial technologies. In preparing work programmes for implementing Horizon 2020 (the Euratom programme being a part of this), international cooperation will be a key consideration. Areas for engaging with third countries will be identified in a systematic and coherent manner on the basis of an analysis of the Union vis-à-vis the rest of the world in line with the following set of criteria: – research and innovation capacity, including investment, output (publications, patents, citations, licensing), human resources and infrastructure; – risks of and opportunities for access to existing, new or emerging markets, and their impact on the Union's competitiveness; – contribution to the Union's international commitments, as reflected in the Millennium Development Goals, the post-2015 development framework, Rio+20, G20 and the international objectives of sectoral policies; and, – the legal and administrative frameworks in place, among the international partners, and where appropriate the Member States, to engage in cooperation, also including lessons learnt from previous cooperation. While sufficient objective information is available to support the analysis of the first criterion, the others will require qualitative assessment and judgment. A systematic gathering of information will be an essential element of the strategic approach, relying in particular on the new Research and Innovation Observatory being developed by the Commission. It will include in-depth stakeholder consultations, including with industry. An enhanced innovation dimension will involve putting in place adequate framework conditions and a level playing field, including activities ranging from information gathering, policy learning, exchange of experience, identification of good practice, provision of information and assistance and networking between research and innovation actors to supporting the adaptation and uptake of existing technology in new markets, and – in limited cases –demonstration and pilot projects. There will be a stronger focus on close-to- market and other innovation related activities. This will require finding an appropriate balance between cooperating with third countries to jointly advance scientific knowledge and tackle global challenges while safeguarding the interests of the Union's companies. In this context, the fair and equitable treatment of IPR will be ensured to avoid uncontrolled loss of the Union's know-how.

AT: Fragmentation---2NCEU organizational structures mean future R&D projects are at Union wide levelEuropean Commission ‘12 (The EU's executive body and represents the interests of Europe as a whole. "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach" 9/14/2012. European Commission // M.O.)With the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the institutional setting for the Union's action on the international scene has changed. The Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Vice-President of the Commission, ensures the consistency of the Union's external action. The High Representative is assisted by the European External Action Service (EEAS). Research being a parallel competence, the Union and Member States shall ensure coordination of their respective activities, so as to ensure that national policies and Union policy are mutually consistent. Based on this evolving context, the commitments under the Innovation Union, the European Research Area (ERA) Framework and the recommendations of the interim evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the Commission proposes a strategic approach to enhance and focus the Union's international cooperation activities in research and innovation, in particular with a view to preparing for the implementation of Horizon 2020.

THEORY

Conditionality---2NC

Counter-Interpretation - 1 CP and 1 K

1. Key to neg flex - conditionality beats 1ac and 2ac offense - aff speaks first and last and chooses framing of debate

2. Key to strategic and efficient thinking - tough 2ac choices force better speeches

3. Promotes better debate - debate becomes harder as each team needs to make strategic decisions - negative isn’t denied a chance to win if the mess up the 1NC

4. Breath is better than depth - allows teams to scan available options and learn about each of them - debates are limited in size, best to increase the scope of all options

5. Best policy option - when faced with two bad options, rational decision makers logically reject both

6. Key to ideological flexibility - major theses of aff - neoliberalism and US key warrants - need to be tested in mutually exclusive manners, a debater from becoming solely policy or K oriented prevents community fragmentation and key to education

International Fiat---2NC

2NC International Fiat GoodCounter-Interpretation - the judge is a policymaker deciding if the plan is a good idea

1) Literature checks - CPs need to have solvency evidence in the context of the affirmative and the topic, solves their offense and eliminates squirrely CPs

2) Competition – net benefits make the CP legitimate because it means it is distinct from the plan. The alternative arbitrarily excludes CPs that are relevant to topic education which link turns their education and creates an illogical limit

3) Neg ground - the aff gets the entire topic, and we get everything outside it for counterplans and other arguments, that’s fair

4) Logical policy maker and real world education - evaluating the opportunity costs of the US or EU doing the plan is key Carlarne 10 (Cinnamon Carlarne, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Cincinnati, Department of Environmental Studies “Climate Change Policies an Ocean Apart: EU & US Climate Change Policies Compared,” 8/4/10,http://www.cesruc.org/uploads/soft/130221/1-1302211Z045.pdf)The United States (US) and the European Union (EU) provide an ¶ ¶ appropriate context for analyzing why and how national climate change ¶ ¶ policies differ and for evaluating the successes and failures of disparate ¶ ¶ approaches in both the short and long-term. As two of the wealthiest and ¶ ¶ most influential political entities in global politics and two of the ¶ ¶ heaviest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, the actions of the ¶ ¶ European Union and the United States will profoundly impact both the ¶ ¶ ability of developed countries to meet their initial Kyoto obligations and ¶ ¶ the willingness of the developing world to become equal partners in the ¶ ¶ struggle against climate change. Thus, early leadership by the European ¶ ¶ Union and the United States is critical to reducing global greenhouse gas ¶ ¶ emissions and coordinating future global climate change efforts. ¶ ¶ Accordingly, this article will analyze the substantive and theoretical ¶ ¶ differences between the US and the EU’s climate change policies. As it ¶ ¶ compares and analyzes the policy regimes, this article will take as its ¶ ¶ basic premise that effective climate change regimes require participation ¶ ¶ in binding international regimes and a combination of mandatory ¶ ¶ regulations and voluntary regimes, rather than policies based on ¶ ¶ voluntary participation, further research, and delayed obligations. ¶ ¶ This article represents but a small step in the research and analysis ¶ ¶ that must be done. The goal of this article is simply to begin the process ¶ ¶ of assessing, comparing, and analyzing highly disparate political and ¶ ¶ legal approaches to managing climate change. One of the key rationales ¶ ¶ for this research is to provide policymakers with cogent and

reliable data ¶ ¶ for use in formulating effective climate change policies. To this end, this ¶ ¶ article aims to analyze the basic principles of the climate change policies ¶ ¶ in practice, then to compare the policies and, finally, briefly to begin to ¶ ¶ examine some of the underlying reasons for the policy differences. This ¶ ¶ article is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of regional ¶ ¶ climate change policies. Rather, it is intended to introduce the basic ¶ ¶ principles and key differences of the US and EU climate change policies.

At worst, reject the argument not the team.

AFF ANSWERS

2AC/1AR Cards

EU Can’t Solve --- Bad PoliciesOnly the US can solve for ocean policy, the EU fails Obaidullah 4/14 (FARAH OBAIDULLAH, writer for Greenpeace, “COUNCIL AGAIN FAILS TO PROTECT THE MAGNIFICENT BERING SEA CANYONS,” 4/14/14, http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/04/14/council-fails-protect-magnificent-bering-sea-canyons/)I am new to the politics of ocean conservation in the USA. I am usually based in the Netherlands, where I work for Greenpeace International. Working in Europe, I have had the ample displeasure of witnessing first hand how international bodies like the UN, regional fisheries management organizations, or the European Union go about failing to protect our oceans and the animals that live in them. ¶ It’s not like the science is in dispute. Close to 80 percent of global fish stocks are in a poor state as a direct result of over-fishing. Add to that pollution, deep-seabed mining, ocean acidification, and climate change — it is time to give our oceans a break. To recover, replenish, build resilience, and ensure bounty from our oceans for future generations, we need to establish ocean sanctuaries. ¶ The USA is perceived to be a global leader when it comes to managing and protecting ocean resources. Not long ago, I was in Tasmania, Australia for the annual international meeting to conserve marine life in Antarctica. Acting like a leader, the US proactively pushed for the protection of the Ross Sea.

The EU shouldn't do the plan, history of ineffective policies that backfireMearns 13 (Euan Mearns, Honorary Research Fellow at The University of Aberdeen, “The Failure of Kyoto and the Futility of European Energy Policy,” 11/4/13, http://euanmearns.com/the-failure-of-kyoto-and-the-futility-of-european-energy-policy/)In the same period, since 1997, Global average temperatures have risen by <0.1˚C (based on Hadcrut4 data) despite cumulative emissions of 460 Gt CO2 being added to the atmosphere (Figure 2). In the period 1997 to 2012 there is absolutely no evidence from the atmospheric temperature record that global warming or climate change are linked to CO2 emissions*.¶

European Union (EU) and UK energy policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions have failed to make any impact at the Global level. These same policies have succeeded in pushing up electricity prices, making EU economies less competitive and in spreading energy poverty amongst the poorer people of Europe.

EU Can’t Solve --- Investment European economics means ocean energy investment won’t happenEU European Commision 1/20 (“COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT,” 1/20/14, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/ocean_energy/documents/swd_2014_13_en.pdf)The ¶ situation has changed; however, with the economic crisis substantially diminishing the ¶ amount of investment into the renewable energy industry.180 The current policy landscape is ¶ focused on the period up to 2020 may not provide a substantial impulse to ocean energy, ¶ especially given the competition from more mature renewable energy technologies and the ¶ limited extent to which ocean energy can contribute to the 2020 targets. Specific policy to ¶ support ocean energy is therefore deemed necessary.

Government funding is not sufficient to spur private investment Boren 4/22 (Zachary Boren, journalist from City University in London, “UK's lead in global marine energy race under threat,” 4/22/14, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/uks-lead-global-marine-energy-race-under-threat)The main issue is financing. Government support for the industry and private investment flow that follows are both concerns for an sector with expensive technologies - until they are scaled up and costs fall. ¶ For instance significant government support is needed to realise the potential of the Pentland Firth, says an analysis from Oxford University. ¶ Recently the Scottish government recently announced a further £6m for developing new marine energy prototypes, on top of £15m already delivered. But government support also comes in the form of subsidies for renewables which are current being reformed. ¶ “This policy shift holds the potential to halt or catalyse the development of the [marine energy] industry,” according to lobby group Renewable UK.¶ The marine industry has warned the current ring-fenced funding for 100MW of marine power set aside under the new plans was not enough to kick-start the industry in the UK. ¶ On a European level, private investment ocean energy projects has totalled $825m (£490m) over past seven years, with Siemens, E.ON and GlaxoSmithKline among those investing in the industry.¶ To commercially deploy the marine technology across Europe, however, will mean a further investment of €500m by 2020 (£410m), with public private partnerships and government support, as well as grid roll-outs, Remi Gruet policy and operations director for trade organisation Ocean Energy Europe told EurActiv.

EU has banking system problems to solveBrown 11 (Gordon Brown, Writer for the New York Times, “Europe's Real Problems,” 7/11/11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/opinion/12iht-edbrown12.html?pagewanted=all) When the history of the 21st century is written people will ask why it was that Europe was found wanting during its most intractable economic crisis. They will ask why Europe slept as an undercapitalized banking system floundered, unemployment remained

unacceptably high, and the Continent’s growth and competitiveness plummeted. Worse still, if a reconstruction plan does not come soon, Europe’s leaders will be charged with “the decline of the West” and then face accusations for being, in the words of Winston Churchill about the 1930s, “resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity and all-powerful for impotence.” There is, of course, no shortage of meetings. Hardly a day goes by without a summit of European leaders discussing the latest crisis facing a member state. But each time they talk as though they are dealing with a calamity confined to the nation in the headlines — the Greek problem, or the Irish problem, sometimes the Portuguese or the Spanish problem — without an agreement on the true nature of the emergency that is pan-European. By wrongly analyzing Europe’s woes, they end up implementing the wrong remedies, too. Because Europe’s deficit crisis, while a real concern, is just one of its concerns. There are in fact three deep-rooted problems, each entwined with the others, and each reaching systemically into every corner of the Continent. Alongside the deficit problem is also a banking problem — not confined to a handful of banks or countries — and a chronic growth problem.

US Data/Satellites Key US data is critical, provides more than half of global sensor platformsLevy 11 (Joel Levy, NOAA Climate Program Office, Climate Observation Division The Global Ocean Observing Component of IOOS: Implementation of the Initial Global Ocean Observing System for Climate and the Path Forward, http://www.plocan.eu/doc/MTS%20Journal_2011_Vol45-No1.pdf)The Observational Subsystems of the In Situ Observing System NOAA is the world leader in im- plementing the in situ elements of the global ocean observing system for cli- mate. The NOAA Climate Observa- tion Division sponsors the majority of the global components of the U.S. IOOS.7 The Climate Observation Di- vision manages implementation of the global ocean observing system as a set of observational networks Of Rlbsystom Each subsystem brings unique strengths and limitations; together they build die whole system. The subsystems provide stand-alone data sets and analyses but are interdependent and function syn- ergistically, supplying the observational infrastructure that underlies national and international climate research and operational activities (see Figure 1). Currently, over 8,000 observational platforms are deployed throughout the global ocean, with plans to increase that number to bring the system into com- pliance with the initial GCOS design. NOAA sponsors nearly half of the plat- forms presently deployed in the global ocean, with over 70 other countries providing the remainder. Implementation of the U.S. obser- vational networks is accomplished by NOAA laboratories and university- based cooperative institutes, working in close partnership with each other under funding from the Climate Obser- vation Division. Satellites also provide critical contributions to global ocean observation, but operation of the satel- lites does not (all under the mandate of the Climate Observation Division.

Only US data solves international ecosystem management, historical ocean leadership roleUS Commission on Ocean Policy 4 (“CHAPTER 29: ADVANCING INTERNATIONAL OCEAN SCIENCE AND POLICY, 2003, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/chapter29.pdf)The United States has been a leader in ocean science and research since creation of the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries in 1871. Eleven years later, the 234-foot USS Albatross entered service as the first U.S. research vessel built exclusively for fisheries and occanographic research. On land, major centers of activity included the Woods Hole Occanographic Institution, which has attracted scientists from around the world for more than a century, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an innovator in marine technology since 1903. Over the last fifty years, dozens of other top-tier U.S. occanographic institutions have developed. If the United States is to maintain its leadership status, it must build on this tradition by strengthening international scientific partnerships for the purpose of deepening the world's understanding of the oceans. International Ocean Science Programs International ocean research is conducted and coordinated by a variety of endues including the U.N. Intergovernmental Occanographic Commission (IOC), which has sponsored conferences and meetings on an array of topics in this field. These programs include efforts to understand EI Nino, the role of the oceans in the global carbon balance, climate variability, and algal blooms. The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), an interdisciplinary body of the International Council for Science, focuses on large-scale ocean research projects for long-term, complex activities. SCOR also promotes capacity building in developing countries by including scientists from such countries in its working groups and other activities. Other institutions, including the World Meteorological Organization, the U.N. Environment Program and the International Hydrographic Organization, arc doing valuable work on climate change, coral reefs, and

ocean surveys. The United States participates in and contributes to collaborative international ocean research both to fulfill our global obligations and because it is in our national interest to do so. The more we know, the better we can protect our long-term stake in healthy and productive oceans. Recommendation 29—6. The United States should continue to participate in and fund major international ocean science organizations and programs. The Global Ocean Observing System An international effort is underway to gain a better understanding of the current state of the world's oceans, and to revolutionize the ability to predict future ocean conditions. When fully realized, the Global Ocean Observing System will use state-of-the-art technology to integrate data streams from satellites and globally- deployed ocean sensors. These data will then be made available in usable form to resource managers, businesses, and the general public. This initiative is part of a larger international effort to create a system that integrates ocean, atmosphere, and terrestrial observations. The U.S. role in helping to develop a Global Ocean Observing System is closely linked with efforts to improve ocean data collection on a national scale. The U.S. I ntegrated O cean O bserving S ystem will link the global system to regional ocean observing systems in the United States. The value of developing national and global observing systems is discussed in Chapter 26, as arc the needs for continued improvements in scientific and technological infrastructure, and enhanced international cooperation and coordination. Improving international coordination of ocean observations and integrating these observations into the broader suite of atmospheric and terrestrial observations, is a cornerstone of the ongoing effort to strengthen the role of science in international policy-making.

US Ecosystems Key Preserving US marine ecosystems is key to avoid extinction and global biosphere collapse. CP can’t put sensors in our watersCraig 3 (Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, focusing on Environmental Law, at Indiana University School of Law, Winter 2003, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, lexis)Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another

significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well

as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.¶ Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity.¶ [*265] ¶ Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong

effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860¶ Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.¶ However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of

how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even

though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time

we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever

we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.¶ We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.¶ The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. n865¶ Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as

well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.

Effective coastal conservation in the US is key to human survivalPan 13 (Jeronimo Pan, PhD in Marine and Atmospheric Sciences from Stony Brook University; Dr. M. Alejandra Marcoval, Research Scientist at the Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata in Argentina; Sergio M. Bazzini, Micaela V. Vallina, and Silvia G. De Marco, “Coastal Marine Biodiversity Challenges and Threats,” Chapter 2 in Marine Ecology in a Changing World, p. 44, google books)Coastal areas provide critical ecological services such as nutrient cycling, flood control, shoreline stability, beach replenishment and genetic resources (Post and Lundin 1996, Scavia et al. 2002). Some estimates by Boesch (1999), mention that the ocean and coastal systems contribute 63% of the total value of Earth’s ecosystem services (worth $21 trillion year1). Population growth is a major concern for coastal areas with more than 50% of the world population concentrated within 60 km of the coast (Post and Lundin 1996); in the United States the expected tendency for the next decades is that the coastal population will increase by ~25% (Scavia et al. 2002). The continued growth of human population and of per capita consumption have resulted in unsustainable exploitation of Earth’s biological diversity, exacerbated by climate change, ocean acidification, and other anthropogenic environmental impacts. The effective conservation of biodiversity is essential for human survival and the maintenance of ecosystem processes.

2AC EU Science Diplomacy/Soft Power Internal NB

“Science diplomacy” undermines soft power because countries question political motivesNational Research Council 12 (The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine, “U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science,” [pg.26], 2012, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33)Youssef noted that one of the international science community’s main objectives, trust building, is not compatible with the idea of soft power. According to her, even though science diplomacy promises to rise above conflict, the term raises serious ideological questions and practical challenges. Such challenges are apparent in the Middle East, where U.S. policies evoke doubts about true intentions. John Boright, executive director for international affairs for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), cautioned against implying that potentially divisive national agendas are being pursued when using the term “science diplomacy,” in cases where the motivation is simply advancing science, addressing common problems, and building personal relationships. Scientific cooperation and exchanges between the United States and Iran were cited as an example of cases in which the label science diplomacy could affect scientific counterparts negatively.

And science diplomacy fails

A. Science has to be for science, diplomatic science is over-written by politiciansLaframboise 13 (Donna Laframboise, Canadian feminist, journalist, writer, “The IPCC: Politicizing Science Since 1988,” 6/13/13, http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/06/13/the-ipcc-politicizing-science-since-1988/)From September 23 to 26, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will host a meeting in Stockholm, Sweden.¶ The purpose of that meeting should raise eyebrows. There, in the historic Brewery Conference Centre, with its “breathtaking views” and “large terraces and balconies” all pretense that the IPCC is a scientific organization will vanish. ¶ Representatives of national governments – diplomats, politicians, and environmental bureaucrats – will gather to do something extraordinary. They will take a document authored by scientists and spend four days rewriting it. ¶ That document is supposed to be a summary of the contents of Part 1 of the forthcoming IPCC assessment (the previous assessment was released in 2007). Authored by the IPCC’s Working Group 1, this is the portion of the report that concentrates on hard science. This is the place in which the IPCC is supposed to answer the question: What does the most reliable climate research tell us is happening?¶ Writing such a summary is a difficult task. It involves boiling down 14 chapters of dense textual information, graphs, and charts into a few dozen pages.¶ My book-length exposé of the IPCC, The Delinquent Teenager, reveals that there are sound reasons to question the judgment of some of the scientists who helped write that underlying text. Rather than being rigorously neutral, dispassionate professionals, certain IPCC personnel have close links to activist organizations. Others have been described by their own colleagues as “not competent” and “clearly not qualified.”¶ But even

if every last individual who worked on the science section was of the highest integrity, and even if every last one of them was among the world’s best and brightest, it might not matter. Because the purpose of the Stockholm meeting is to both sanitize and politicize. ¶ According to those who’ve attended similar meetings, “every sentence” will be projected onto a screen “in front of representatives of more than 100 governments” who will then argue about it. Eventually, these political animals will collectively negotiate wording that everyone can live with. Then they will move on to the next sentence.¶ Yes, you read that right. The exact phrasing of what is supposed to be a summary of scientific evidence will be determined not by scientists but via political negotiations.¶ The IPCC has long claimed to be a transparent organization, but the Stockholm negotiations will be held behind closed doors. I observed some time ago that, if those proceedings were televised, the reality of the situation would become screamingly obvious.¶ The IPCC is not, in fact, about science. If it were a scientific body, scientists would summarize those 14 chapters and that would be the end of the matter.¶ Instead, governments from around the world will send people to Stockholm to ensure that “the science” is expressed in a manner that’s acceptable to them. Scientists don’t have the last word at the IPCC – their political masters do. ¶ First, the scientists who participate in the IPCC are selected by national governments. Afterward, those national governments have the last word regarding what the report they write actually says.

B. Such politicization obstructs the actual political potential of science Sütçü 12 (Güliz Sütçü, Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, “Science in Foreign Policy Implementation: The US Approach Toward the Middle East,” 12/12, http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/2/26/2013/2013022675979913.pdf)However, despite the fact that the core of science diplomacy is the integration of S&T with policy-making, ¶ drawing apparent lines between science and politics is crucial as well. In other words, since the politicization of ¶ science would hamper its possible impact on the establishment of cooperative relationships (Flink & Schreiterer, ¶ 2010, p. 676), clarifying the limits of science for the use of foreign policy goals is essential. The policy makers’ ¶ awareness of the distinction between these two related yet different fields of science diplomacy, which are ¶ foreign policy and S&T, facilitates the interaction between the scientific community and the policy makers. Not ¶ neglecting the main orientation of these two fields of science diplomacy while integrating them with each other ¶ in the conduct of science diplomacy allows for sold policy formation by the policy makers and appropriate ¶ delivery of policy objectives by the scientific community (The Royal Society, 2010, p. vi).

EU Soft Power Fails all the time, empiricsDempsey 11 (Judy Dempsey is a nonresident senior associate at Carnegie Europe and editor in chief of Strategic Europe, “The Failure of Soft Power,” 10/5/11,http://archive.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/The_Failure_of_Soft_Power_) The soft power instruments Europeans have used over the years consist of development aid and civilian assistance, such as training the police and judiciary in some countries. The Europeans also sometimes couple soft power with trade incentives or with sanctions. Above all, they pride themselves on basing their actions on the defense of human rights which are, at least officially, at the core of Europe's

value system. But Europe's record in making soft power the cornerstone of its security strategy has been patchy. It has been worked incredibly well in Eastern Europe. Enlargement with its plethora of promises and incentives is soft power at its most powerful. But Europe cannot enlarge to the rest of the world. That is where Europe's soft power policies have had so little, if any success. Take Iran. Years of negotiations with Iran to get it to abandon its nuclear ambitions have gotten the Europeans nowhere. Promises of technical assistance and closer economic cooperation have had no impact on the regime in Teheran, even though some of the sanctions are biting. The reason why the Europeans have failed is because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just too stubborn. He seems determined to develop a nuclear military capability for Iran's own geo-strategic interests no matter what the cost to his people. Soft power can find no grip there. Bosnia-Herzegovina is another case where the instrument has failed. Fifteen years after the Dayton accords that ended the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia is mired in corruption and misrule. This is despite the presence of a large EU police force, not to mention the billions of euros the European taxpayer has poured into this tiny country. The state that the EU is trying to build has never really been accepted by the ethnic communities living there. And the EU is not prepared to stop the bullying and separatist tactics of the Bosnian Serbs in particular. Afghanistan is another stain on the EU's soft power record. There, the Europeans have done too little and too late, wasting the initial good will of the Afghan people after the Taliban regime was overthrown in 2001. While the U.S. and its coalition forces were distracted by the war in Iraq, the Europeans did little to fill the gap left in Afghanistan. Europe's most abject failure is its police-training mission there. It is still under-financed and under-staffed. What a shame for what should have been a stellar example of the EU's use of soft power.

EU Soft power fails, Kosovo provesDempsey 12 (Judy Dempsey is a nonresident senior associate at Carnegie Europe and editor in chief of Strategic Europe,“Europe Cannot do Soft Power,” 11/5/2012, http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=49886) Any doubts you might have harbored about the effectiveness of the EU’s soft power have been confirmed by a devastating report by the European Court of Auditors. The detailed report , published last week , gives a blow-by-blow account of the EU’s failure in Kosovo. It shows how the EU mission staff is poorly selected and poorly trained . It explains how the EU has failed to monitor and improve Kosovo’s institutions—police, courts, judiciary, and local administration. As a result, corruption is still rampant and human trafficking continues unabated . This is despite the fact that these two issues increasingly preoccupy the EU’s member states because they spill over into crime at home. The member states seem indifferent to the EU’s incompetence and to the lack of political will that Kosovo’s government and presidency have demonstrated to tackle corruption and organized crime.

1AR EU Science Diplomacy/Soft Power Internal NB

Scientists lack unity and can’t effectively engage governmentsNational Research Council 12 (The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine, “U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science,” [pg.33], 2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33)Many workshop participants underlined the failure of scientists to effectively engage policy makers and the public in the understanding the role of science and its potential value in diplomacy and in development. According to Volker ter Meulen, the main challenges are the lack of a unified voice to speak on behalf of science and the lack of experience within the political institutions to use science and effectively communicate with the science community. This challenge is often compounded by the multiplicity of other voices in a crowded world. In a very complicated diplomatic system, involving NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, media, and new communication modes and networks, the scientific community must learn how to inform and engage more effectively with all these groups and governments. Furthermore, several participants underscored the importance or recognizing that many of the major policy challenges require science in diplomacy across a broad front. For example, tackling the Millennium Development Goals requires understanding and action on food, health, and the environment, which involves multiple government departments and requires a coherent and integrated policy. Unfortunately, noted one discussant, there are often organizational barriers within and between governments, in addition to the low public understanding and support for such policies.

The major goal of scientific diplomacy is political manipulation, not science. The populations needs go ignored. MacDonald 10 (Rhona MacDonald, Freelance editor, “Scientific diplomacy: new idea but the same old political agenda,” 7/1/10, http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/2010/07/01/scientific-diplomacy-new-idea-but-the-same-old-political-agenda/)We have all heard of political diplomacy and thanks to a recent series in PLoS Medicine, now know more about health diplomacy . But have we even heard of the new kid on the diplomatic block– science diplomacy? According to an opinion piece by Naiyyum Choudhury published on the science and development network (http://www.scidev.net/) the idea of science diplomacy is fast gaining ground as an effective tool for building ties between developed and developing countries and forging closer working relationships. Seemingly “Science diplomacy can open the door for collaborative action to mitigate the effects of poverty and lead to greater global stability.” Perhaps it can. But the key point to be aware of is that diplomatic efforts are driven by national self-interests in order to fulfil political objectives. So under the cloak of scientific diplomacy, many countries, particularly the USA, are looking to build on scientific relationships to reduce negative perceptions and achieve broader

political objectives.¶ Given the enthusiasm with which the diplomacy agendas seem to have been embraced, this situation may be inevitable. But does that make it morally acceptable? Like health research and innovation, scientific innovation should meet public needs not political agendas. Otherwise, the needs of those populations will continue to be neglected.¶ Diplomacy. of whatever kind, may oil the wheels of the world to make things run more smoothly. But sometimes, the road to progress in improving global health and alleviating global poverty has to be bumpy in order to tackle the key issues, such as social injustice, head on.

EU Soft power is meaninglessRettman 13 (Andrew Rettman, Foreign Relations specialist for EU Observer, “Nato chief: EU soft power is 'no power at all’,”6/5/13, http://euobserver.com/defence/120046) Nato head Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said there cannot be a credible EU foreign policy without the military means to back it up. "We Europeans must understand that soft power alone is really no power at all. Without hard capabilities to back up its diplomacy, Europe will lack credibility and influence," he told MEPs on the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee in Brussels on Monday (6 May). "If European nations do not make a firm commitment to invest in security and defence, then all talk about a strengthened European defence and security policy will just be hot air," he added. He also indicated that European countries are too dove-ish in their approach to foreign crises.

EU soft power is utterly ineffectivePollock 12 (Helen Pollock, “The Soft Power Dilemma: Can the European Union Sacrifice the Carrot and the Stick and Command with Soft Power Alone?,” Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union: Vol. 2009, Article 11, 3/7/12, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=urceu)The sources of European power have been identified, but it remains to be seen whether its reliance on soft power is a formula for lasting international influence. A number of problems remain for the EU regarding the effectiveness of its power and the limits of its diplomatic tools, and the EU's international power is still being defined. Iran is an example of the limits of European power on the global stage; the nuclear conflict is one of the most dangerous situations that the world faces, and the EU has shown that it cannot handle it with soft power alone. Its participation in the negoti ations has contributed to its growing reputation, but the EU was not able to solve the conflict or succeed where th e United States has not. The problem of security has the potential to derail the EU's reliance o n soft power. The European Union's relationship with the United States is especially troubling, because the EU needs the US to provide its basic military legitimacy. The EU will continue to rely on the US or another great power with military presence as long as it is without an army of its own, which gives it much less leverage internationally. The EU is associated with American military operations in many co untries by its own accord or through NATO, and if these operations go awry, the EU is also responsible . Even when the EU is not in agreement with the United States' military policies, they have few means of opposing these decisions. As member states' defense budgets continue to decline," it is questionable that they will be able to protect themselves as needed.

Link take out - Scientific Diplomacy DAAny European scientific projects include US partners – either no tradeoff or CP links to DAFisher ‘13 (Cathleen, President of American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and has taught at the George Washington University, Georgetown University, and Emory University. Ph.D. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland and an M.A. in International Relations from The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "The Invisible Pillar of Transatlantic Cooperation: Activating Untapped Science & Technology Assets" 3/11/2013. Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2013/invisible-pillar-transatlantic-cooperation // M.O.)Cooperation in science and research is embedded in the transatlantic relationship. And yet, ironically, it is politically and diplomatically underused and often considered marginal—or ignored entirely—by the transatlantic policy community. This should change. Science and technology (S&T) is and will be important to the security and prosperity of both the United States and Europe. As outlined in the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s report Global Trends 2030, the nexus of food, water, energy, and other resources, in connection with climate change, is likely to have broad global impact over the coming decades. In addition, technological innovations related to the accumulation and use of data, advanced manufacturing, resources, and health could transform economic, political, and military activities around the world.1 The economic interface between Europe and the United States and the reliance of both economies on science and technological innovations also compel both to deepen S&T cooperation. This is especially true when it comes to the great emerging challenges of our time—energy and climate change, urbanization, resource scarcity, and aging societies, to name a few—all of which demand scientific cooperation and effective integration of scientific perspectives into policymaking processes. Now more than ever, it is time to give S&T cooperation a more central role in the transatlantic relationship. The U.S.-European partnership is foundational for U.S. foreign policy. The transatlantic relationship is a proven alliance based on common values, dense economic and institutional connections, and a long history of cooperation in service of mutual interests. Mirroring the close political relationship, scientific collaboration across the Atlantic is extensive, reflecting a shared commitment to the highest standards of scientific inquiry and integrity and excellence in science and research. At a time of drift in the transatlantic relationship, the partnership between the United States and Europe needs a new sense of purpose, value, and relevance. Strategic transatlantic cooperation on science and technology could yield tangible benefits to both parties by delivering better policy and good science. It would provide a stabilizing pillar for transatlantic relations during a period of fundamental and rapid change in the relationship and the global system. The successful “mainstreaming” of scientific cooperation in transatlantic relations also might offer useful lessons on how to more fully integrate S&T into U.S. foreign policy. While government agencies play an important role in this process, alone they are insufficient to effect a successful realignment of transatlantic ties. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—Think Tanks, scientific associations, universities, and other organizations engaged in research, dialogue, and cooperation across the Atlantic—could contribute significantly to a strategic realignment of transatlantic policy and transatlantic S&T collaboration. To achieve this goal, governments and NGOs will need to bridge the gaps between the worlds of transatlantic science and transatlantic policy and overcome the impediments to better integration of S&T into transatlantic policy cooperation. Clearly, there are actions that NGOs—leveraging their unique strengths—can take to ensure that transatlantic S&T expertise and networks are more effectively integrated into U.S. engagement with Europe. International S&T Cooperation—Integral to Transatlantic Relations, but Marginal in Transatlantic Policy Transatlantic S&T collaboration and transatlantic policy cooperation thrive in parallel, but separate, worlds. Most scientific collaboration across the Atlantic is bottom-up—driven by the creative enthusiasm of

researchers and the desire of individuals, institutions, or companies to advance discovery and knowledge or enhance their competitiveness. For its part, with the exception of the environment and climate, the transatlantic policy community generally pays too little attention to the S&T content of issues on the U.S.-European agenda and overlooks the potential contribution of U.S.-European scientific cooperation to transatlantic relations. These parallel realities represent lost opportunities. On the research side, according to the U.S. National Science Board, the United States and the European Union (EU) member states continue to be world leaders in research and development (R&D), accounting for nearly 55 percent of R&D expenditures worldwide in 2010. The strength of their respective scientific establishments makes U.S. and European scientists attractive partners for each other and for scientists in other parts of the world. The types of S&T cooperation across the Atlantic can vary and include full-blown collaborative projects, nationally funded research projects that include transatlantic and other international partners, and foreign research stays and informal exchanges. Although information is fragmented and incomplete, bottom-up scientific collaboration between the United States and Europe appears to be both extensive and broad ranging. A few examples illustrate the breadth of S&T collaboration across the Atlantic. The number of articles coauthored by U.S. and European researchers comprises a significant share of each country’s international coauthored articles. According to the National Science Board, in 2010 U.S. coauthors accounted for nearly a third (32.3 percent) of UK-coauthored articles, 30.4 percent of German-coauthored articles, and 27.5 and 33.4 percent of French- and Italian-coauthored articles, respectively. U.S. authors, in turn, most often coauthored articles with colleagues from the United Kingdom (14.1 percent), followed by China (13.7 percent), Germany (13.3 percent), and Canada (11.8 percent). The National Science Foundation collaborates with thirteen European states, as well as other nations, in the Materials World Network (cooperative materials research). Six European states either participate or have participated in the past in the International Collaboration in Chemistry, which is run by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). The EU’s 7th Framework Program for Research and Technological Development from January 2007 through June 2012 funded more than 220 collaborative research projects in which more than 270 U.S. researchers and research institutions participated, with particular emphasis on health, information technology, and environment and climate change.2 In 2012, the institutes of the Max Planck Society collaborated on more than six hundred projects with U.S. scientists, spanning research in chemistry, physics, technology, biology and medicine, and human sciences. The Max Planck Society also hosted more than five hundred scientists from the United States. Bottom-up flows of talent across the Atlantic continue to be substantial as well. According to a study by the Council of Graduate Schools, most international joint and dual degree collaborations involving U.S. universities include partnerships with European universities. Some 17 percent of doctoral collaborations of U.S. institutions are with partners in Europe, compared to 5 percent with South Korea and 3 percent with China. At the master’s level, collaborations with European partners account for fully 36 percent of U.S. partnerships. Outside of structured degree programs, U.S. graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields may have opportunities to participate in international collaborations in Europe through the NSF’s Partnership for International Research and Education (PIRE) program. Between 2005 and 2012 at least half of PIRE awards to U.S. grantees involved collaborations with at least one European research partner in addition to other international partners. Despite the contraction in academic opportunities at many U.S. public research universities, thousands of European postdoctoral students come to the United States each year, drawn by the excellence of U.S. research institutions and universities, career opportunities, and an entrepreneurial culture that tolerates failure and rewards risk taking. Across the Atlantic, funding agencies both at the EU and member-state level offer a variety of research opportunities to postdoctoral students from the United States. Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, for example, awards roughly eighty fellowships a year to the best early career and more established U.S. scientists and scholars to pursue research in Germany. To encourage even more mobility across the Atlantic, in July 2012 the NSF and the European Commission announced an agreement to provide NSF-funded early career U.S. scientists with the opportunity to collaborate with European scientists supported through awards from the European Research Council. In addition to bottom-up scientific collaboration, the United States pursues numerous official scientific dialogues, both with individual European states and with Europe-wide institutions. The United States has completed and/or implemented bilateral scientific cooperation agreements with seventeen member states or acceding member states of the EU, as well as a separate bilateral S&T agreement with the EU. The United States also participates in three joint U.S.-EU task forces or working groups on energy, biotechnology research, and measures to combat antimicrobial resistance.3

Mirroring the dense web of bottom-up scientific collaboration is an extensive transatlantic network of (national and sub-national) government agencies, Think Tanks, technical and scientific associations, and other NGOs engaged in policy dialogue across the Atlantic. The latter include both geopolitically focused NGOs, such as the German Marshall Fund and the Atlantic Council, and technical NGOs with deep functional expertise in a given area, such as the World Resources Institute. The topics of transatlantic exchanges have broadened considerably over the last three decades, as reflected both in the agendas of official summits as well as the projects and activities of leading transatlantic NGOs.

Perm solves Scientific DiplomacyUnique relationship from the perm generates US and EU scientific diplomacy and improves relationsFisher ‘13 (Cathleen, President of American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and has taught at the George Washington University, Georgetown University, and Emory University. Ph.D. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland and an M.A. in International Relations from The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "The Invisible Pillar of Transatlantic Cooperation: Activating Untapped Science & Technology Assets" 3/11/2013. Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2013/invisible-pillar-transatlantic-cooperation // M.O.)Moving S&T Cooperation to the Center of Transatlantic Relations Science and technology cooperation should not be considered solely a cosmetic add-on to the transatlantic partnership. Rather, science and technology should be a central pillar of a new architecture of cooperation between the United States, the EU, and the scientific enterprises of the United States and leading European states. To achieve this strategic integration, the transatlantic policy community should make a serious effort to integrate science, scientific expertise, and scientific networks into its activities. By the same token, the S&T community needs to look beyond its scientific aims, and consider how scientists and scientific expertise might be appropriately and strategically connected to policy dialogues, including high-level exchanges such as the Transatlantic Economic Dialogue, the Transatlantic Climate Bridge, or the German Embassy’s “Skills Initiative.” Much of S&T collaboration of course will be pursued independent of transatlantic policy aims, as will transatlantic policy dialogues with little S&T content or relevance. But many issues on the expanded transatlantic agenda can and should integrate scientific considerations and expertise, including but not limited to discussions of climate change; sustainable development; water, food, and energy; and the impact of technological innovation on the transatlantic and global economy. Governments alone cannot effect this change. The decentralized nature of the U.S. and European research landscapes, and diversity of the transatlantic policy community, will likely doom government-led, top-down initiatives to failure. Rather than fighting this fragmentation, a new bottom-up, strategic approach is needed—one that builds on and leverages the diversity of players in transatlantic scientific collaboration and policy. Such an approach would embed S&T cooperation more centrally in the U.S.-European relationship through the creation of a large integrated transatlantic network of networks, which brings together policymakers and analysts, experts on the functional and regional issues that now comprise the transatlantic agenda, and, where appropriate and relevant, scientists and their scientific expertise. NGOs—both those with a primary focus on geopolitics from a transatlantic perspective, and technical NGOs—can play a critical role in this bottom-up strategy aimed at creating an integrated, networked architecture for transatlantic relations. The central responsibility falls to the traditional transatlantic institutions, which need to institutionalize science and technology competencies, but some technical NGOs could broaden their international cooperation with European partners beyond pursuit of development aims. Specifically, nongovernmental organizations can perform four critical functions in bridging the gap between transatlantic policy and transatlantic scientific collaboration: “Thought Leaders” and “Test Beds”: First, NGOs can serve as laboratories for integrated transatlantic dialogues. Rather than attempting to further expand their portfolios, leading NGOs in transatlantic relations should seek to form strategic alliances with the organizations that have the closest connections to science and scientists—the academies, the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of Science & Diplomacy), relevant scientific associations, and technical NGOs with S&T expertise.8 To encourage such alliances, the foundations and the other funders that support the policy programs of transatlantic NGOs should require grantees to bridge the gaps between science and foreign policy. Foundations that in the past have been path-breakers in linking policy and science, such as the MacArthur Foundation, as well as foundations with strong connections to technological innovators (Hewlett, Google), could provide critical financial and other assistance for policy/scientific exchanges on issues at the nexus of transatlantic policy and S&T. By pooling their respective networks, policy and science organizations can help to identify those issue areas where it makes sense—both for U.S. and European science and for foreign policy—to bring scientists and scientific expertise to the transatlantic conversation. Among the key issues to consider are the vision and the objectives of an integrated transatlantic science diplomacy agenda. What mixture of policy and scientific expertise is necessary for constructive transatlantic dialogues on trade,

climate, energy, sustainable development, and policy toward critical regions such as North Africa and the greater Middle East? What outcomes from this dialogue might one expect? Facilitation and Education: Both transatlantic and technically specialized NGOs can help educate scientists about policy and policy makers about science. Two examples illustrate the potential mutual benefits that might accrue to each. The negotiation of a twenty-first century transatlantic free trade agreement will require a strong and forward-looking understanding of technology and innovation as it pertains to trade. Similarly, current efforts to bolster cooperation between U.S. science agencies and the EU might benefit from a nuanced understanding of how current political and economic developments within the EU might impact scientific collaboration, both within the EU and between Europe and the United States. By providing neutral ground for meetings and facilitated discussion, NGOs can help to enhance the scientific literacy of policymakers and analysts and the political literacy of scientists. Talent Pipeline: Attracting more scientists to careers in foreign policy, including those able to inform transatlantic policies, remains a difficult challenge. Initiatives such as the AAAS S&T Policy Fellowship or the Jefferson Science Fellowship bring valuable scientific expertise into federal agencies, but the numbers are limited by the relatively small amount of resources available to these programs. Unfortunately, transatlantic NGOs by default tend to draw on promising young professionals with backgrounds in political or other social sciences, such as international relations, area studies, and public policy. While individuals with scientific or technical backgrounds in energy or environment policy can bring valuable perspectives to the table, real S&T expertise, rather than S&T literacy, may be necessary and desirable. To expand the opportunities available to scientists and technical experts with an interest in international policy, transatlantic policy NGOs should offer visiting fellowships to scientists, technologists, and engineers interested in working on U.S.-European projects with strong S&T content and relevance. As NGOs often serve as talent pools for government appointments, the transatlantic NGO community has an opportunity to become an agent of positive change in integrating S&T perspectives in U.S. foreign policy, rather than being part of the problem. Network of Networks: U.S. and European S&T networks are an underutilized resource in transatlantic relations. This is a missed opportunity, both for transatlantic policy and for transatlantic relations. On many pressing issues, S&T networks are a potential source of scientific expertise and advice for transatlantic policy makers and political leaders. Additionally, U.S.-European scientific networks constitute a robust, but nearly invisible, pillar of the transatlantic relationship. At a time when societal connections across the Atlantic are thinning, the network of scientists and researchers engaged in collaborative and cooperative activities across the Atlantic can help to keep transatlantic ties strong. The postwar experience of Germany is relevant in this regard. In 1953, the German government, as part of its foreign cultural policy, supported the reestablishment of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) to bring foreign scientists and scholars to Germany. The bulk of the foundation’s financial support came initially from the Federal Foreign Office, which viewed research exchange as a way to rehabilitate Germany and its reputation in science and to create lasting goodwill around the world. The Federal Foreign Office’s strategic experiment has been a resounding success. The foundation’s network of “Humboldtians”—scientists and scholars supported by the AvH—now includes more than 25,000 researchers in more than 130 countries. The majority of the more than 5,000 U.S. alumni, by and large, express positive feelings about Germany; and many have continued to build bridges between the United States and Germany throughout their careers.9 Going Forward Despite repeated assurances of shared interests and values, transatlantic relations today are permeated by a sense of disappointed expectations and uneasy questions about the alliance’s future and relevance. Beyond the orchestrated unity of high-level meetings, U.S. and European leaders find it harder to agree on a common approach to both urgent, near-term crises and the grand challenges of our time. To many Americans, Europe seems increasingly unlikely to emerge any time soon as the strong and united partner that the United States seeks and requires. To Europeans, the United States appears paralyzed by mounting debt and political dysfunction that threaten its long-term prosperity and hamper American efforts to exercise continued global leadership. As policy experts debate the need for a fundamental overhaul of U.S. government processes and structures, the transatlantic relationship should not be ignored. Science diplomacy can and should be central to one of the oldest and most important foreign relationships of the United States—its partnership with Europe. The strategic integration of S&T into U.S.-European relations, outlined here, could give new relevance to transatlantic cooperation and help build the foundation for the expansive global cooperation that is needed to navigate the dangers and opportunities of the emerging global system.

EU ocean development badEU control causes over fishing and exploits developing countriesBrittin ‘13 (Rachel, communications officer for Pew Environment Group. "EU Subsidies Favor Industry, Promote Overfishing Abroad" November 27, 2013. The Pew Charitable Trust, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/11/27/eu-subsidies-favor-industry-promote-overfishing-abroad // M.O.)The European Union, or EU, pays 75 percent of the access fees for European vessels to fish in the waters of developing countries in Africa and the South Pacific, according to a new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia. Industry pays the remaining 25 percent, but that represents only about 2 percent of the revenue it receives from selling the catch. The EU subsidies provide strong incentives for overfishing, according to the study, published November 27, 2013 in the journal PLOS ONE. “Frequently, subsidies cover the cost of fuel or equipment, but in this case, the government covers a large part of the access fees as well,” says Frédéric Le Manach, lead author of the study and a fisheries expert with the Sea Around Us Project at the UBC Fisheries Centre in Vancouver. “Since the fishing fleets don't pay the full cost of access, greater profit allows for spending on more efficient vessels. This may lead to over-exploitation of the developing countries' tuna populations and other already vulnerable marine resources.” In the study, supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, the UBC researchers analyzed agreements the EU made with developing countries to access their waters between 1980 and 2012. These agreements include fees that range from roughly €400,000 to €230 million per year per country (about US$470,000 to US$305 million at today's exchange rates). The text of the agreements shows that the EU government paid a total of about €5 billion toward the access fees during this period. To compare the industry's fee to its revenues from fishing, the researchers used data from the agreements and a database of global fish prices. Such calculations were possible only for agreements relating to tuna because other agreements did not consistently include the catch level available to EU vessels. The study found that the fishing industry paid about one-fourth the cost of access. Assuming that ratio holds for all agreements, this equates to about €1.7 billion over the 33-year period. But revenue from fishing in these waters totaled about €96 billion, so the fees paid by the industry amounted to only about 2 percent of its revenue (1.5 percent for tuna and 3.2 percent for other species). “The EU has the potential to lead the world in sustainable fisheries,” says Daniel Pauly, principal investigator with the Sea Around Us Project and a study co-author. “But as they stand now, these access agreements are being subsidized in ways that disadvantage developing countries and contradict the EU's own development goals by forcing their citizens to essentially pay twice for the fish they're taking off of the plates of developing countries.” The authors recommend that host countries learn from Pacific nations that recently began to charge higher fees for access to their waters—up to 50 percent more than the world average in the case of the island nation of Kiribati. They also note that a senior representative of the French tuna fleet recently acknowledged that the fees paid by the industry are low and that it would be reasonable to set them at up to 7 percent of the value of fish landed.