Testimony By Admiral James D. Watkins, U.S. Navy (Retired) Chairman U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Before The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Room 138 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.
April 22, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which was released to the public on Tuesday, April 20. We believe this report offers a blueprint for a coordinated, comprehensive national ocean policy for the 21st century. It includes nearly 200 action-oriented recommendations that present workable solutions for a broad range of ocean- and coastal-related issues.
As you know, the last comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy took place more than 35 years ago when the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources—known as the Stratton Commission—issued its report, Our Nation and the Sea. Since then, considerable progress has been made, but many challenges remain and new issues have emerged. The value of the oceans to our nation has only grown in 35 years, and the time to act is now.
The simple fact is that the oceans affect and sustain all life on Earth. They drive and moderate weather and climate, provide us with food, oxygen, transportation corridors, recreational opportunities, energy resources and other natural products, and serve as a national security buffer. In our travels around the country, we heard and saw first-hand how communities care about the ocean and coasts, and how they worry about their future.
THE VALUE OF THE OCEANS AND COASTS
America’s oceans and coasts provide ecological and aesthetic benefits with tremendous value to our national economy. In 2000, the ocean economy contributed more than $117 billion to American prosperity and supported well over two million jobs. More than $1 trillion, or one-tenth of the nation’s annual GDP, is generated within the relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast. Considering the economies of all coastal watershed counties, that contribution swells to over $4.5 trillion, fully half of the nation’s GDP. The contribution to employment is equally impressive, with 16 million jobs in the nearshore zone and 60 million in coastal watershed counties.
The country also remains highly dependent on marine transportation. More than thirteen million jobs are connected to the trade transported through the nation’s network of ports and inland waterways. Annually, the nation’s ports handle more than $700 billion in goods. The cruise industry and its passengers account for another $11 billion in spending.
Offshore oil and gas operations have expanded into deeper waters with new and improved technologies. The offshore oil and gas industry’s annual production is valued at $25–$40 billion, and its yearly bonus bid and royalty payments contribute approximately $5 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
The commercial fishing industry’s total annual value exceeds $28 billion, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry valued at around $20 billion, and the annual U.S. retail trade in ornamental fish worth another $3 billion. Nationwide, retail expenditures on recreational boating exceeded $30 billion in 2002.
In the last three decades, more than 37 million people and 19 million homes have been added to coastal areas. Every year, hundreds of millions of Americans and international visitors flock to the coasts to enjoy the oceans, spending billions of dollars and directly supporting more than a million and a half jobs. In fact, tourism and recreation is one of the fastest-growing business sectors—enriching economies and supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the coasts of the continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island territories and commonwealths. These concrete, quantifiable contributions to the national economy are just one measure of the oceans’ value. We also love the oceans for their beauty and majesty, and for their intrinsic power to relax, rejuvenate, and inspire. Unfortunately, we are starting to love our oceans to death.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE
Development comes with costs, and we are only now discovering the full extent of those costs. Pollution, depletion of fish and other living marine resources, habitat destruction and degradation, and the introduction of invasive non-native species are just some of the ways people harm the oceans, with serious consequences for the entire planet.
In 2001, 23 percent of the nation’s estuarine areas were not suitable for swimming, fishing, or supporting marine species. In 2002, about 12,000 beach closings and swimming advisories were issued across the nation, most due to the presence of bacteria associated with fecal contamination. Marine toxins afflict more than 90,000 people annually across the globe and are responsible for an estimated 62 percent of all seafood-related illnesses. Such events are on the rise, costing millions of dollars a year in decreased tourism revenues and increased health care costs.
Experts estimate that 25 to 30 percent of the world’s major fish stocks are overexploited, and many U.S. fisheries are experiencing similar difficulties. Since the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth Rock, over half of our fresh and saltwater wetlands—more than 110 million acres—have been lost.
Our failure to properly manage the human activities that affect oceans and coasts is compromising their ecological integrity and diminishing our ability to fully realize their potential. Congress recognized this situation when it passed the Oceans Act of 2000 calling for a Commission on Ocean Policy to establish findings and develop recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. Pursuant to that Act, the President appointed 16 Commission members, including individuals nominated by the leadership in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. These individuals were drawn from diverse backgrounds with knowledge in ocean and coastal activities. Because of the vast scope of topics the Commission was required to address, it sought input from individuals across the country. The Commission members traveled around the United States obtaining valuable information from diverse marine-related interests. They heard testimony on ocean and coastal issues during nine regional meetings and experienced regional concerns first-hand during seventeen site visits. The regional meetings also highlighted relevant success stories and regional models with potential national applicability.
Four additional public meetings were held in Washington, D.C., after completion of the regional meetings, to publicly present and discuss many of the policy options under consideration for the Commission’s recommendations. In all, the Commission heard from some 445 witnesses, including over 275 invited presentations and an additional 170 comments from the public, resulting in nearly 1,900 pages of testimony (included as Appendices to the report).
The message we heard was clear: the oceans and coasts are in trouble and major changes are urgently needed. While new scientific understanding shows that natural systems are complex and interconnected, our decisionmaking and management approaches have not been updated to reflect that complexity and interconnectedness. Responsibilities remain dispersed among a confusing array of agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. Better approaches and tools are also needed to gather data to understand the complex marine environment. Perhaps most important, people must understand the role the oceans have on their lives and livelihoods and the impacts they themselves have on the oceans.
As the result of significant thought and deliberation and the consideration of a wide range of potential solutions, the Commission prepared its preliminary report containing bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform—reform that needs to start now, while it is still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting opportunities, and sustain the oceans and their valuable assets for future generations.
VISION AND STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Any strategy for change must begin with a clear picture of the desired endpoint. In the desirable future we wish to create, the oceans and coasts would be clean, safe, and sustainably managed. They would contribute significantly to the economy, supporting multiple beneficial uses such as food production, development of energy and mineral resources, recreation, transportation of goods and people, and the discovery of novel medicines and other products, while preserving a high level of biodiversity and a full range of natural habitats. The coasts would be attractive places to live, work and play, with clean water and beaches, easy public access, sustainable economies, safe bustling harbors and ports, adequate roads and services, and special protection for sensitive habitats. Beach closings, toxic algal blooms, proliferation of invasive species, and vanishing native species would be rare. Better land use planning and improved predictions of severe weather and other natural hazards would save lives and money.
The management of our oceans and coasts would also look different: it would follow ecosystem boundaries, considering interactions among all elements of the system, rather than addressing isolated areas or problems. In the face of scientific uncertainty, managers would balance competing considerations and proceed with caution. Ocean governance would be effective, participatory, and well coordinated among government agencies, the private sector, and the public.
Managers and politicians would recognize the critical importance of good data and science, providing strong support for physical, biological, social, and economic research. The nation would invest in the tools and technologies needed to conduct this research: ample, well-equipped surface and underwater research vessels; reliable, sustained satellites; state-of-the-art computing facilities; and innovative sensors that withstand harsh ocean conditions. A widespread network of observing and monitoring stations would provide data for research, planning, marine operations, timely forecasts, and periodic assessments. Scientific findings and observations would be translated into practical information, maps, and products used by decisionmakers and the public.
Better education would be a cornerstone of ocean policy, with the United States once again joining the top ranks in math, science, and technology achievement. An ample, well-trained, and motivated workforce would be available to study the oceans, set wise policies, apply technological advances, engineer new solutions, and teach the public about the value and beauty of the oceans and coasts throughout their lives. As a result of this lifelong education, people would understand the links among the land, sea, air, and human activities and would be better stewards of the nation’s resources.
Finally, the United States would be a leader and full partner globally, sharing its science, engineering, technology, and policy expertise, particularly with developing countries, to facilitate the achievement of sustainable ocean management on a global level.
The Commission believes this vision is practical and attainable. To achieve it, national ocean policy should be guided by a set of overarching principles including the following:
Sustainability: Ocean policy should be designed to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Stewardship: The principle of stewardship applies both to the government and to every citizen. The U.S. government holds ocean and coastal resources in the public trust—a special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the continued benefit of all Americans. Just as important, every member of the public should recognize the value of the oceans and coasts, supporting appropriate policies and acting responsibly while minimizing negative environmental impacts. Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Connections: Ocean policies should be based on the recognition that the oceans, land, and atmosphere are inextricably intertwined and that actions that affect one Earth system component are likely to affect another.
Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components, including humans and nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Applying this principle will require defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. Multiple Use Management: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean and coastal resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that balances competing uses while preserving and protecting the overall integrity of the ocean and coastal environments.
Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine biodiversity should be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of maintaining or recovering natural levels of biological diversity and ecosystem services. Best Available Science and Information: Ocean policy decisions should be based on the best available understanding of the natural, social, and economic processes that affect ocean and coastal environments. Decisionmakers should be able to obtain and understand quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful management of ocean and coastal resources. Adaptive Management: Ocean management programs should be designed to meet clear goals and provide new information to continually improve the scientific basis for future management. Periodic reevaluation of the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of new information in implementing future management, are essential.
Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws governing uses of ocean and coastal resources should be clear, coordinated, and accessible to the nation’s citizens to facilitate compliance. Policy decisions and the reasoning behind them should also be clear and available to all interested parties.
Participatory Governance: Governance of ocean uses should ensure widespread participation by all citizens on issues that affect them. Timeliness: Ocean governance systems should operate with as much efficiency and predictability as possible.
Accountability: Decisionmakers and members of the public should be accountable for the actions they take that affect ocean and coastal resources. International Responsibility: The United States should act cooperatively with other nations in developing and implementing international ocean policy, reflecting the deep connections between U.S. interests and the global ocean.
Ecosystem-based Management
Ecosystem-based management emerged as an overarching theme of the Commission's work. To move toward more ecosystem-based approaches, managers must consider the relationships among all ecosystem components, including human and nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Management areas should be defined based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. A balanced precautionary approach should be adopted that weighs the level of scientific uncertainty and the potential risk of damage before proceeding.
In moving toward an ecosystem-based approach, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy considers the following actions absolutely critical. First, a new national ocean policy framework must be established to improve Federal leadership and coordination and enhance opportunities for State, territorial, tribal, and local entities to improve responses at the regional level. Second, decisions about ocean and coastal resources need to be based on the most current, credible, unbiased scientific data. And third, improved education about the oceans is needed to give the general public a sense of stewardship and prepare a new generation of leaders to address ocean issues.
IMPROVING GOVERNANCE
Many different entities at the Federal, regional, State, territorial, tribal and local levels participate in the management of the nation’s oceans and coasts. At the Federal level, eleven of the fifteen existing cabinet-level departments and four independent agencies play important roles in the development of ocean and coastal policy. All of these Federal agencies also interact in various ways with State, territorial, tribal, and local entities.
A lack of communication and coordination among the various agency programs at the national level, and among Federal, State and local stakeholders at the regional level, continues to inhibit effective action. A new National Ocean Policy Framework is needed to provide high-level attention and coordinated implementation of an integrated national ocean policy.
National Coordination and Leadership A first step in enhancing management, and a central part of the new National Ocean Policy Framework, is improved coordination among the many Federal programs. A number of attempts have been made to coordinate on particular topics, such as coral reefs or marine transportation, or within a broad category, such as ocean science and technology. Within the Executive Office of the President, three entities have specific responsibilities relevant to oceans: the Office of Science and Technology Policy that addresses government-wide science and technology issues and includes an ocean subcommittee; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that oversees broad Federal environmental efforts and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act; and the National Security Council’s Policy Coordinating Committee that addresses international issues and also includes a subcommittee on international ocean issues.
While all these coordinating bodies are helpful in their designated areas of interest, they do not constitute a high-level interagency mechanism able to deal with all of the interconnected ocean and coastal challenges facing the nation, including not only science and technology, the environment, and international matters, but the many other economic, social, and technical issues that affect the ocean.
The value of the ocean to American society also cries out for greater visibility and leaderships. Only the Executive Office of the President can transcend traditional conflicts among departments and agencies, make recommendations for broad Federal agency reorganization, and provide guidance on funding priorities, making it the appropriate venue for coordinating an integrated national ocean policy.
National Ocean Council
Congress should establish a National Ocean Council within the Executive Office of the President to provide high-level level attention to ocean and coastal issues, develop and guide the implementation of appropriate national policies, and coordinate the many Federal departments and agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities. The National Ocean Council, or NOC, should be composed of cabinet secretaries of departments and directors of independent agencies with relevant ocean- and coastal-related responsibilities and should carry out a variety of functions including the following:
• developing broad principles and national goals for ocean and coastal governance;
• making recommendations to the President on national ocean policy;
• coordinating and integrating activities of ocean-related Federal agencies;
• identifying statutory and regulatory redundancies or omissions and developing strategies to resolve conflicts, fill gaps, and address new and emerging ocean issues;
• developing and supporting partnerships between government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, academia, and the public.
Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy A Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, co-chaired by the chair of the National Ocean Council and a non-Federal member, should advise the President on ocean and coastal policy matters and serve as a formal structure for input from non-Federal individuals and organizations. It should be composed of a representative selection of individuals appointed by the President, including governors of coastal states, other appropriate State, territorial, tribal and local government representatives, and individuals from the private sector, research and education communities, nongovernmental organizations, watershed organizations and other non-Federal bodies with ocean interests. The members should be knowledgeable about and experienced in ocean and coastal issues.
Need for Presidential Action—the Assistant to the President
Although Congress should establish the National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy in law to ensure their long-term future, the Commission is cognizant of the complex and often lengthy nature of the legislative process. While awaiting congressional action, the President should immediately establish these entities through Executive Order, and should appoint an Assistant to the President to chair the Council. As chair of the NOC and co-chair of the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, the Assistant to the President should lead the coordination of Federal agency actions related to oceans and coasts, make recommendations for Federal agency reorganization as needed to improve ocean and coastal management, resolve interagency policy disputes, and promote regional approaches. The Assistant to the President should also advise OMB and the agencies on appropriate funding levels for important ocean- and coastal-related activities, and prepare a biennial report as mandated by section 5 of the Oceans Act of 2000.
Office of Ocean Policy
Because the National Ocean Council will be responsible for planning and coordination rather than operational duties, the support of a small staff and committees will be required to carry out its functions. An Office of Ocean Policy should support the Assistant to the President, the National Ocean Council, and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy. The Office of Ocean Policy should be composed of a small staff that reports to the Assistant to the President, managed by an executive director responsible for day-to-day activities. Strong links should be maintained among the National Ocean Council, its committees and staff, other parts of the Executive Office of the President, and ocean-related advisory councils and commissions.
Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations
A committee under the National Ocean Council will be needed to assume the functions of the current National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), a congressionally-established government coordination and leadership organization for oceanographic research programs on the national level. By placing the NORLC under the NOC and broadening its responsibilities to include operational programs and educational activities in addition to research, it will become more visible and more effective. In recognition of its broader mandate, the NORLC should be redesignated as the Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO). Strong connections between the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the NOC (through COSETO) will be essential. To eliminate overlapping functions, the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Oceans, should be subsumed into COSETO.
Committee on Ocean Resource Management
The National Ocean Council will need a second committee, to coordinate Federal resource management policy, including the many existing, single-issue coordination efforts such as the Coral Reef Task Force, the Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System, the National Dredging Team, Coastal America, and many others. The NOC Committee on Ocean Resource Management (CORM) would perform high-level, cross-cutting oversight of these issue-specific efforts to ensure consideration of cumulative impacts, minimize conflicting mandates, and implement an ecosystem-based management approach. Because of the Council on Environmental Quality’s role in environmental issues, this office should also maintain strong connections with the National Ocean Council and its CORM.
A Regional Approach
In addition to improved coordination at the national level, an important component of the new National Ocean Policy Framework is the promotion of regional approaches that allow decisionmakers to address issues across jurisdictional lines. The nation’s ocean and coastal resources are affected by human activities that span cities, counties, States, and sometimes nations. Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments need the ability to respond to ocean and coastal issues in a coordinated fashion within regions defined by the boundaries of ecosystems rather than somewhat arbitrary government jurisdictions. The voluntary establishment of regional ocean councils, improved coordination of Federal agency efforts at the regional level, and dissemination of regionally significant research and information would enhance regional coordination and improve responses to regional issues.
Creating Regional Ocean Councils
There are many examples where concern for the health of a particular ecosystem (such as the Chesapeake Bay, Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, or Mississippi River Basin) has motivated a wide range of participants to create new structures for addressing regional concerns. There is a growing awareness that existing regional approaches can be strengthened and similar approaches can benefit the health and productivity of all the nation’s ocean and coastal regions.
Regional ocean councils can serve as mechanisms for a wide range of participants to join forces to address issues of regional concern, realize regional opportunities, identify regional goals, and promote a sense of stewardship for a specific area among all levels of government, private interests, and the public. It will be up to the participants—including representatives from all levels of government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia—to determine how the council will operate in each region. Possible council functions might include: • designating ad hoc subcommittees to examine specific issues of regional concern;
• mediating and resolving disputes among different interests in the region;
• monitoring and evaluating the state of the region and the effectiveness of management efforts;
• building public awareness about regional ocean and coastal issues;
• facilitating government approvals or permitting processes that involve several Federal, State, and local government agencies within the region; and
• helping to link activities located in upstream, coastal, and offshore areas within an ecosystem-based management context.
Regional ocean councils should be created by interested parties at the State and local level, rather than mandated by the Federal Government. However, to stimulate the process, the National Ocean Council should develop flexible guidelines for the voluntary creation of regional ocean councils. Initial efforts should be encouraged in regions where readiness and support for a regional approach is already strong. The first councils can then serve as pilot projects, allowing those involved to learn what works in the region, building support to implement a regional ocean council, and paving the way for councils in other regions. Once established, regional ocean councils will most likely evolve, as participants identify the structure and functions that best suit their needs. Whether a council has decisionmaking authority will be up to the regional participants. National involvement may be necessary to implement more formal decisionmaking mechanisms such as legislation, interagency agreements, and interstate compacts.
Regional ocean councils should encompass an area from the inland extent of coastal watersheds to the offshore boundary of the nation’s EEZ. The boundaries of the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) may be considered as a starting point, although these regions may not always be suitable. For example, more than one regional ocean council will probably be necessary within California where there is only one RFMC. A regional ocean council for the Great Lakes region is also desirable.
Improving Regional Coordination of Federal Agencies
While the process of planning, establishing, and testing regional ocean councils is underway, Federal agencies should be directed to immediately improve their own regional coordination and provide stronger institutional, technical, and financial support for regional issues. Currently, the actions of Federal agencies often overlap, conflict, or are inconsistent with one another at the regional and State levels. Although several Federal agencies already divide their operations into regions, the boundaries of these regions differ from one agency to the next, the functions of regional offices vary widely, and it is common for the regional office of one agency to operate in isolation from the regional offices of other agencies. Improved regional coordination should be a first step, followed in time by Federal reorganization around common regional boundaries.
Enhancing Regional Research and Information
Decisionmakers at all levels need the best available science, information, tools, and technology on which to base ocean and coastal management decisions. However, research and data collection targeted at regional concerns is severely limited. Furthermore, the data that do exist are rarely translated into products that are useful to managers. Regional ocean information programs should be established to set priorities for research, data collection, information products, and outreach activities in support of improved regional management. Where and when they are established, regional ocean councils will be the logical bodies to administer these programs.
Improved Governance of Offshore Waters
Converging economic, technological, legal, and demographic factors make Federal waters an increasingly attractive place for enterprises seeking to tap the ocean’s resources. The challenge for policymakers will be to realize the ocean’s potential while minimizing conflicts among users, safeguarding human and marine health, and fulfilling the Federal Government’s obligation to manage public resources for the maximum long-term benefit of the entire nation. While institutional frameworks exist for managing some ocean uses, increasingly unacceptable gaps remain.
The array of agencies involved, and their frequent lack of coordination, can create roadblocks to public participation, discourage private investment, cause harmful delays, and generate unnecessary costs. This is particularly true for new ocean uses that are subject to scattered or ill defined Federal agency authorities and an uncertain decisionmaking process. Without an understandable, streamlined, and broadly accepted method for reviewing proposed activities, ad hoc management approaches will continue, perpetuating uncertainty and raising questions about the comprehensiveness and legitimacy of decisions.
To start, each existing or foreseeable activity in Federal waters should be overseen by one lead Federal agency, designated by Congress to coordinate among all the agencies with applicable authorities while ensuring full consideration of the public interest. Pending such designations, the NOC should assign agencies to coordinate research, assessment, and monitoring of new offshore activities.
But better management of individual activities is only a first step. To move toward an ecosystem-based management approach, the Federal Government should develop a broad understanding of offshore areas and their resources, prioritize all potential uses, and ensure that activities within a given area are compatible. As the pressure for offshore uses grows, and before serious conflicts arise, coordination should be improved among the management programs for different offshore activities. The National Ocean Council should review each single-purpose program that regulates some offshore activity with the goal of determining how all such programs may be better coordinated.
Ultimately, the nation needs a coordinated offshore management regime that encompasses traditional and emerging uses, and is flexible enough to incorporate uses not yet foreseen. The new regime will need to make decisions and resolve disputes through an open process accepted by all parties. Congress, working with the NOC and regional ocean councils, should establish such an offshore management regime and establish principles for offshore use, including the need to:
• integrate single-purpose programs within the broader offshore regime;
• create a planning process for new and emerging activities; and
• ensure a reasonable return to the public in exchange for allowing private interests to profit from public resources.
Establishing a coordinated offshore management regime will take time, and it will not be easy. No regime for governing ocean activities will eliminate all conflicts, given the complexity of the problems and the diverse perspectives of competing interests. However, the National Ocean Council, Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, regional ocean councils, and other components of the National Ocean Policy Framework provide a promising basis for more coordinated, participatory management of ocean activities. Marine Protected Areas
In contemplating the coordinated, ecosystem-based management of both nearshore and offshore areas, marine protected areas can be a valuable tool. Marine protected areas can be created for many different reasons, including conserving living marine resources and habitat, protecting endangered or threatened species, maintaining biological diversity, and preserving historically or culturally important submerged archeological resources. These areas have also been recognized for their scientific, recreational, and educational values. The creation of new MPAs can be a controversial process: supported by those who see their benefits, while vigorously opposed by others who dislike the limitations MPAs impose on ocean uses. Thus, it is important to engage local and regional stakeholders in the design and implementation of marine protected areas to build support and ensure compliance with any restrictions. Because marine protected areas also have national implications, such as possible impacts on freedom of navigation, Federal involvement and oversight will still be needed. With its multiple use, ecosystem-based perspective, the National Ocean Council should oversee the development of a flexible process—which is adaptive and based on best available science—to design and implement marine protected areas. Regional ocean councils, or other appropriate entities, can provide a forum for applying the process developed by the NOC, with broad stakeholder participation.
Strengthening and Streamlining the Federal Agency Structure
Although improved coordination is a vital aspect of the new National Ocean Policy Framework, changes to the Federal agency structure itself will also be needed. The proliferation of Federal agencies with some element of responsibility for ocean and coastal activities immediately suggests that some consolidation is possible. Combining similar ocean and coastal functions and programs could improve government performance, reduce unnecessary overlaps, facilitate local, State, and regional interactions with the Federal Government, and begin to move the nation toward a more ecosystem-based management approach.
However, the complex Legislative and Executive Branch process for making such changes compels a cautious, methodical, multi-phased approach for improving the Federal structure.
Strengthening NOAA—Phase I
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage ocean and coastal resources to meet the nation’s economic, social, and environmental needs. Since its creation, NOAA has made significant strides in many areas, despite programmatic and functional overlaps and frequent disagreements and disconnects among its five line offices. Although the organization has evolved over time, including the recent creation of a sixth line office to improve integration on specific issues, these changes take time and results can be hard to quantify.
There is widespread agreement that NOAA needs to manage its current activities more effectively. Moreover, if the recommendations in the Commission’s preliminary report are implemented, NOAA will be required to handle a number of new responsibilities. A stronger, more effective, science-based and service-oriented ocean agency—one that contributes to better management of oceans and coasts through an ecosystem-based approach—is needed.
NOAA’s three primary functions can be summarized as follows:
1) Assessment, prediction, and operations for ocean, coastal, and atmospheric environments, including mapping and charting, satellite-based and in situ data collection, implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, data information systems, and weather services and products.
2) Marine resource and area management, including fisheries, ocean and coastal areas, vulnerable species and habitats, and protection from pollution and invasive species.
3) Scientific research and education, including a focus on applied research, the availability of scientifically valid data, and promotion of educational activities.
One of the critical objectives for a strengthened NOAA is improved performance within these categories and smoother interactions among them. For example, resource management decisions should be based on the best available science, research itself should be planned to support the agency’s management missions, and research in different areas—sea, land, and air—should be connected and coordinated. Changes of this nature will likely require adjustments to the internal operation of the agency, including possible additional changes to the current line office structure.
These changes can be promoted by codifying the establishment and functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through passage of an organic act for the agency. The act should ensure that NOAA’s structure is consistent with the principles of ecosystem-based management and with its primary functions: assessment, prediction, and operations; management; and research and education. NOAA will require budget support commensurate with its important, varied, and growing responsibilities.
Reviewing NOAA’s Budget
NOAA’s placement within the Department of Commerce has an unusual history and continues to be questioned by many observers. If nothing else, this affiliation has distinct budgetary implications. As part of DOC, NOAA’s budget is reviewed within the Office of Management and Budget’s General Government Programs, along with other DOC programs with fundamentally different characteristics and missions. NOAA’s OMB review also fails to consider its ocean and atmospheric programs in context with other Federal resource management and science programs. To support the move toward a more ecosystem-based management approach, NOAA’s budget should be reviewed within OMB’s Natural Resources Programs, along with the budgets of more similar departments and agencies.
Consolidating Ocean and Coastal Programs—Phase II
As I have said, many agencies across the Federal Government—in addition to NOAA—administer ocean- and coastal-related programs. Although I have focused on NOAA as the primary ocean agency, the other agencies should also be strengthened in similar ways.
However, even solid performance within each agency will not eliminate the many similar or overlapping activities. In some cases, programmatic overlap can provide useful checks and balances as agencies bring different perspectives and experiences to the table. In other cases, the number of separate agencies addressing a similar issue is not helpful. Such fragmentation diffuses responsibility, introduces unnecessary overlap, raises administrative costs, inhibits communication, and interferes with the development of a comprehensive management regime that addresses issues within an ecosystem-based context.
The Commission’s preliminary report presents specific recommendations on program consolidation in areas such as nonpoint source pollution, area-based ocean and coastal resource management, vessel pollution, invasive species, marine mammals, aquaculture, and satellite-based Earth observing. Using these recommendations as a starting point, the Assistant to the President, with advice from the National Ocean Council and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy, should review Federal ocean, coastal and atmospheric programs, and recommend further opportunities for consolidation.
Programs not suitable for consolidation—such as security-related programs that cannot be transferred without harm to the overall enterprise—should continue to be coordinated through the National Ocean Council and the regional ocean councils. However, in most cases, judicious consolidation of ocean- and coastal-related functions will improve policy integration and program effectiveness.
Presidential Reorganization Authority
The recommended program consolidation will not be easy within the current legislative process. The creation and reorganization of agencies is often contentious, lengthy, and uncertain, involving multiple committees in both houses of Congress. Recognizing this shortcoming, Congress has several times in the past chosen to give the President limited reorganization authority. Renewing this authority by allowing the President to propose agency reorganization, with an expedited and limited congressional review and approval process, would provide an excellent mechanism to achieve reorganization of Federal ocean- and coastal-related agencies in a timely fashion.
Managing all Natural Resources in an Ecosystem-based Management Context—Phase III
Strengthening the performance of ocean, coastal, and atmospheric programs through coordination and consolidation are important steps in moving toward an ecosystem-based management approach. By immediately establishing the National Ocean Council and strengthening NOAA, followed by the consolidation of suitable ocean and coastal programs and functions, the nation will be poised to take a further step in strengthening the Federal Government structure.
Based on a growing understanding of ecosystems, including recognition of the inextricable links among the sea, land, air, and all living things, a more fundamental reorganization of Federal resource agencies will eventually be needed. Consolidation of all natural resource functions, including those involving oceans and coasts, would enable the Federal Government to move toward true ecosystem-based management. This could be implemented through the establishment of a Department of Natural Resources or some other structural unification that brings together all of the nation’s natural resource programs.
SCIENCE-BASED DECISIONS: ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OCEANS
Ecosystem-based management provides many potential benefits, but also imposes new responsibilities on managers. The need to collect good information and to improve understanding is perhaps foremost among these new responsibilities. Despite considerable progress over the last century, the oceans remain one of the least explored and most poorly understood environments on the planet.
Greater knowledge can enable policymakers and managers to make wise, science-based decisions at the national, regional, State, and local levels. However, existing research and monitoring programs, which tend to be agency-specific and single issue oriented, will need to be reorganized to support ecosystem-based management. The current mismatch between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and the fragmented research and monitoring programs for coastal and ocean ecosystems must be resolved.
The nation also lacks effective mechanisms for incorporating scientific information into decisionmaking in a timely manner. As knowledge improves, it must be translated into useful terms and actively incorporated into policy through an adaptive process. To make the translation effective, local, State, regional, and national managers need avenues to communicate their information needs and priorities to the research community.
In addition to these practical needs, ocean science and technology will continue to be an integral part of the overall U.S. basic research enterprise and future discoveries will undoubtedly contribute greatly to society. Fundamental knowledge about the oceans is essential to understanding the Earth’s environment and how it changes over time, assessing and predicting the status of marine resources, finding beneficial new uses of ocean resources, and protecting national security.
Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology
Our Commission defines ocean science and technology broadly to include: exploration of new ocean environments; basic and applied research to increase understanding of the biology, chemistry, physics, and geology of the oceans and coasts, their interactions with terrestrial, hydrologic, and atmospheric systems, and the interactions between ocean and coastal regions and humans; and the development of new methodologies and instruments.
Today, 15 Federal agencies support or conduct diverse activities in ocean science, technology, assessment, and management. The heads of these agencies direct the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), which coordinates national oceanographic research and education. NOPP has provided a useful venue for agencies to support a small number of ocean science and technology projects, but it has not realized its full potential as an overarching mechanism for coordination among Federal agencies and State, local, academic, and private entities.
Under the proposed National Ocean Policy
Framework, the National Ocean Council’s Committee on Ocean Science, Education, Technology, and Operations (COSETO) will assume leadership of NOPP to implement a broad national strategy for ocean research, education, observation, exploration, and marine operations. NOPP’s existing offices and committees will be incorporated within this structure. Ocean.US, the lead office for planning the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), and the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee which provides advice on oceanographic facilities, will both report to COSETO.
Creating a National Strategy for Ocean Science and Technology
The United States needs a national strategy for ocean and coastal research, exploration, and marine operations that can help meet the ocean resource management challenges of the 21st century and ensure that useful products result from Federal investments in ocean research. Much more needs to be known about how marine ecosystems function on varying spatial scales, how human activities affect marine ecosystems and how, in turn, these changes affect human health. Coordinated and enhanced research activities and marine operations are needed to:
• understand biological, physical, and chemical processes and interactions
• maintain overall ecosystem health and biological diversity
• observe, monitor, assess, and predict environmental events and long-term trends
• explore the ocean depths for new resources
• map ocean and coastal areas for safe navigation and resource management
Furthermore, the ocean and coastal environment is rife with conflicts among competing users and between groups of people applying different sets of values to the same issues. To resolve these conflicts, information is needed not only about the natural environment but also about relevant social, cultural, and economic factors.
Better coordination and increased support of ocean science and technology activities nationwide will help the United States to address numerous management challenges, and will position the nation to quickly tackle new issues as they emerge.
Advancing Ocean and Coastal Research
The United States has a wealth of ocean research expertise spread across a network of government and industry laboratories and world-class universities, colleges, and marine centers. With strong Federal support, these institutions made the United States the world leader in oceanography during the 20th century. However, a leader cannot stand still. Ocean and coastal management issues continue to grow in number and complexity, new fields of study have emerged, new interdisciplinary approaches are being tried, and there is a growing need to understand the ocean on a global and regional scale. All this has created a corresponding demand for high-quality scientific information. And while the need for increased information continues to grow, the Federal investment in ocean research has stagnated in recent decades.
The current annual Federal investment in marine science is well below the level necessary to address adequately the nation’s needs for coastal and ocean information. Unless funding increases sharply, the gap between requirements and resources will continue to grow and the United States will lose its position as the world’s leader in ocean research.
Congress should double the Federal ocean and coastal research budget over the next five years, from the 2004 level of approximately $650 million to $1.3 billion per year. As part of this increase, the National Ocean Council or Congress should:
• fund the research component of the regional ocean information programs to provide practical, management-oriented information at regional, State, and local levels;
• create a national program for social science and economic research to examine the human dimensions and economic value of the nation’s oceans and coasts, with funding of at least $8-10 million a year;
• establish a joint Oceans and Human Health Initiative funded at $28 million a year;
• significantly increase the budget of the National Sea Grant College Program.
To ensure that increased investments are used wisely and that important research activities continue, Federal agencies will need to create long-term strategic plans. A mechanism is required to coordinate federally-funded ocean research, support long-term projects, and create partnerships throughout all agencies and sectors. Transparent and comprehensive research plans would achieve these goals and ensure that research results can be translated into operational products in a timely manner. The National Ocean Council should develop a national ocean research strategy that reflects a long-term vision, promotes advances in basic and applied ocean science and technology, and guides relevant agencies in developing ten-year science plans and budgets.
Ocean Exploration
About 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in harsh environments such as the polar latitudes and the Southern Ocean. Experience teaches us, however, that these vast and remote regions teem with undiscovered species and resources. On virtually every expedition, oceanographers discover fascinating new creatures. Advances in deep-sea technologies have also made it easier to locate shipwrecks and historical artifacts lost in the ocean depths, such as the stunning discovery of the RMS Titanic in 1985. The continued exploration of marine archaeological sites will help us to better understand human history and our global cultural heritage.
Very little is known about the ocean depths due primarily to the lack of a long-term, large-scale national commitment to ocean exploration. In 2000, recommendations from the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration led to the establishment of the Office of Exploration within NOAA, at a modest funding level of $4 million in fiscal year 2001, and $14 million in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This program is helping NOAA to fulfill its applied science, environmental assessment, and technology development responsibilities; although the program’s small budget and agency-specific focus limit its effectiveness.
NOAA and NSF, by virtue of their missions and mandates, are well positioned to lead a global U.S. ocean exploration effort. NOAA currently runs the Office of Ocean Exploration, but NSF’s focus on basic research provides an excellent complement to NOAA’s more applied mission. Working together, the two agencies have the capacity to systematically explore and conduct research in previously unexamined ocean environments. To succeed, coordination, joint funding, and interactions with academia and industry will be essential. Congress should appropriate significant funding for an expanded national ocean exploration program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation should be designated as the lead agencies. An expanded national ocean exploration program will require a budget of approximately $110 million annually, plus additional funds for required infrastructure.
Mapping, Charting, and Assessments
The need for routine mapping, monitoring, and assessment of U.S. waters has grown significantly in the past two decades. Accurate, up-to-date maps and charts of harbors, coastlines, and the open ocean are necessary for many activities, including shipping, military operations, and scientific research. In addition, expanded regulatory regimes rely heavily on routine assessments of living and nonliving marine resources and water quality. Modern sensor technologies, which can detect new variables in greater detail in the water column and seafloor, have improved our ability to follow changing ocean and terrestrial dynamics. But as these new technologies are implemented, they need to be calibrated against previous methods, as well as with each other, to provide useful environmental characterizations and ensure the consistency of long-term statistical data sets.
At least ten Federal agencies, almost all coastal states, and many local agencies, academic institutions, and private companies are involved in mapping, charting, and assessing living and nonliving resources in U.S. waters. However, different organizations use varying methods for collecting and presenting these data, leading to disparate products that contain gaps in the information they present. Ideally, a variety of information (e.g., bathymetry, topography, bottom type, habitat, salinity, vulnerability) should be integrated into maps using Global Positioning System coordinates and a common geodetic reference frame. In addition, these maps should include living marine resources, energy resources, and environmental data when available, to create complete environmental characterizations necessary for developing and implementing science-based ecosystem-based management approaches.
Coordination of the many existing Federal mapping activities will increase efficiency and help ensure that all necessary surveys are conducted. Drawing upon the mapping and charting abilities found in the private sector and academia will also be necessary to achieve the best results at the lowest cost.
The National Ocean Council should coordinate Federal ocean and coastal resource assessment, mapping, and charting activities with the goal of creating standardized, easily accessible national maps that incorporate living and nonliving marine resource data along with bathymetry, topography, and other natural features.
Achieving a Sustained, Integrated Ocean Observing System
About 150 years ago, this nation set out to create a comprehensive weather forecasting and warning network and today most people cannot imagine living without constantly updated weather reports. Recognizing the enormous national benefits that have accrued from the weather observing network, it is time to invest in a similar observational and forecasting capability for the oceans. This system would gather information on physical, geological, chemical, and biological parameters for the oceans and coasts, conditions that affect—and are affected by—humans and their activities. The United States currently has the scientific and technological capacity to develop a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) that will support and enhance the nation’s efforts for:
• improving the health of our coasts and oceans;
• protecting human lives and livelihoods from marine hazards;
• supporting national defense and homeland security efforts;
• measuring, explaining, and predicting environmental changes;
• providing for the sustainable use, protection, and enjoyment of ocean resources;
The National Ocean Council should make the development and implementation of a sustained, national Integrated Ocean Observing System a central focus of its leadership and coordination role. The United States simply cannot provide the economic, environmental, and security benefits listed above, achieve new levels of understanding and predictive capability, or generate the information needed by a wide range of users, without implementing the IOOS.
The IOOS is based on two components: 1) open ocean observations conducted in cooperation with the international Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and 2) a national network of coastal observations conducted at the regional level. The coastal component will include the U.S. exclusive economic zone, the Great Lakes, and coastal and estuarine areas.
A strong national governance structure is required to establish policy and provide oversight for all components of the IOOS and to ensure strong integration among the regional, national, and global levels. Interagency coordination and consensus through the National Ocean Council and Ocean.US will be essential. While regional systems will retain a level of autonomy, achievement of the IOOS with nationwide benefits will require the regional systems to follow some national guidelines and standards. In addition, developers of the IOOS must ensure that the global component is not minimized and that the connectivity with the GOOS, including U.S. funding and leadership, remains strong and viable.
Formalizing Ocean.US
Ocean.US has made significant progress as the lead organization for the design and implementation of the national IOOS. However, a fundamental problem current exists in that Ocean.US has a number of responsibilities without any real authority or control over budgets. Its ephemeral existence under the Memorandum of Agreement which created it, its dependence on personnel detailed from the member agencies, and its lack of a dedicated budget severely detract from its stature within the ocean community and its ability to carry out its responsibilities. Congress should formally establish Ocean.US under the National Ocean Council structure so that it may effectively advise the NOC and achieve its coordination and planning mandates. The office requires consistent funding and dedicated full-time staff with the expertise and skills needed to ensure professional credibility. In addition, outside experts on rotational appointments could help Ocean.US better meet its responsibilities.
Coordinating Regional Observing Systems
Ocean.US envisions the creation of a nationwide network of regional ocean observing systems that will form the backbone of coastal observations for the IOOS. Although Ocean.US has proposed the creation of Regional Associations, coordinated through a national federation, as the governing bodies of the regional systems, this concept is unnecessarily narrow. To fully address the needs of coastal managers, ocean observations need to be integrated into other information gathering activities such as regionally-focused research, outreach and education, and regional ecosystem assessments. Thus, the proposed regional ocean information programs provide a more comprehensive mechanism for developing and implementing regional ocean observing systems, in coordination with their broader responsibilities. Regular meetings among all the regional ocean information programs and Ocean.US will be important for providing regional and local input into developing requirements of the national IOOS.
Reaching Out to the User Community
The IOOS must meet the needs of a broad suite of users, including the general public. To get the most out of the IOOS, resource managers at Federal, State, regional, territorial, tribal, and local levels will need to supply input about their information needs and operational requirements and provide guidance on what output would be most useful. Other users, including educators, ocean and coastal industries, fishermen, and coastal citizens, must also have a visible avenue for providing input. Ocean.US and the regional ocean information programs will need to devote significant time and thought to proactively approaching users and promoting public awareness of the enormous potential of the IOOS.
Planning Space-based Observations
An integral part of the national IOOS are the space-borne sensors that provide comprehensive, real-time, widespread coverage of ocean conditions and features. However, implementing sustained observations from space requires intense planning with long lead times. Given the cost, the time frame for constructing and launching satellites, and the inability to modify satellites once in orbit, five- to ten-year plans are required to ensure that satellite observations will be available on a continuous basis and employ the most useful and modern sensors. Ocean.US and NOAA must work with NASA to ensure that ongoing satellite operations are fully integrated into the national IOOS.
Both NOAA and NASA currently operate civilian, space-based, Earth observing programs that measure terrestrial, atmospheric, and oceanic variables. NOAA’s primary mission in this area is to provide sustained, operational observations for monitoring and predicting environmental conditions and long-term changes, with a focus on weather and climate. In contrast, NASA’s mission is to advance research efforts and sensor development. A NASA project can last from a few days to a few years, and NASA has repeatedly asserted that it is not in the business of providing data continuity. In many instances, the lifetime of a NASA satellite, and its continued ability to collect and transmit data, outlasts its funding, resulting in premature termination at odds with the pressing demands for data in the operational context. Thus NASA’s efforts have not, and will not, result in the sustained capabilities needed for the national IOOS. Congress should transfer the operation of NASA’s Earth environmental observing satellites, along with associated resources, to NOAA to achieve continuous data collection. NOAA and NASA should work together to plan future missions and then ensure the smooth transition of each Earth environmental observing satellite after its launch. By consolidating Earth, and particularly ocean, observing satellite missions in NOAA, more seamless, long-term planning will be possible, resulting in a smooth concept-to-operations data collection process.
