Back ||NOAA Home Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. International Legislators' Conference on Land Use, Watersheds and Marine Ecosystems Museum of Natural History Friday, May 3, 2002 12:00-12:15 p.m. Honorable Ministers, Congressmen and invited guests. It is a great honor and privilege to be with you today. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this very important Conference on Land Use, Watersheds, and Marine Ecosystems. I also express my deepest appreciation to Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, other distinguished members of the US Congress, and the executive and organizing committees of GLOBE USA for initiating the conference and recognizing that engaging the legislative branch in land use and watershed decisions is vital to protecting the world's fresh and marine waters. Land/water linkages are key. So are productive, continuing partnerships between and within legislatures, government agencies, and the public. Natural resource management and protection, especially for marine and coastal waters, depend on these linkages. As you have heard from previous speakers, the Global Program of Action provides a conceptual framework for how to protect the marine environment. I will share with you how the US has achieved some successes and continues to face some challenges. NOAA is the primary federal agency in the US responsible for coastal and marine management. We were established over 30 years ago by an Act of Congress to conserve and wisely manage the Nation's coastal and marine resources, amongst other functions. (Short description of NOAA) With legislative support—fiscal, legal, and programmatic—NOAA has been able to address problems outlined in the Global Programme of Action. However, we have not done it alone, and continued success depends on legislative support as well as effective federal, State, and local partnerships within our country and with international counterparts. The basic physical problem is easy to comprehend and you have heard a great deal about the details of these issues from a technical and scientific point of view. My intention is to give you a few thoughts on the practical implementation of programs to support responsible management and mitigation of the effects. The problem you have heard described in detail during the past two days can be summarized very simply. The fact is that fresh water runs downhill and spills into the sea. Within the watershed as trees are cut or soil is tilled, the sediments and nutrients from forestry and agricultural run-off move downhill with the fresh water into the ocean. [I think you all probably witnessed some significant urban water run-off yesterday as well!] When wetlands are dredged and developed, or mangroves are harvested for wood and aquaculture, the environment also loses the filtering effect that these ecosystems provide. What can we do and more specifically what can you do as legislators about this relatively simple physical problem? First let me talk some or our experience in the US. There are two acts that have made a significant difference in our ability to manage and mitigate environmental issues in the coastal zones—the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. These two acts have been instrumental in facilitating a multi-sector approach to managing resources among different agencies and among Federal, State, and public partners. (Let me emphasize that our experience has shown that a multi-sector approach and partnerships at all levels of government and with the private sector are critical to success.) Briefly, the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that for every major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement be included on the environmental impact of the proposed action. Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal agency must consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Equally as important is the fact that these reviews are subject to public comment so that the government can receive their valuable input. This law has been critical in helping agencies recognize that their actions can do one of two things: either adversely affect or mutually reinforce the mandates of other agencies. The result is that agencies now consult and cooperate more, even on non-NEPA issues. The second, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) also mandates better management at the watershed level and greater cooperation between parties at the federal, state and local levels. This approach is totally consistent with the conceptual framework outlined in the Global Programme of Action. The CZMA creates a unique federal-state partnership, which leaves day-to-day management decisions to the States, based on federally approved coastal management programs. The CZMA is a voluntary program for the States, but once a state elects to participate, it must develop and implement a Coastal Management Plan (CMP) pursuant to federal guidelines and in consultation and participation of Federal agencies, industry and other interested groups and the public. The Federal-State partnership has been overwhelmingly popular—99.9% of the US shoreline is managed by the Program. The CZMA provides coastal States with: broad policy guidance for developing and implementing their programs, federal financial resources, and legal tools. State coastal programs address a wide range of coastal management issues, including providing public access to the coast, protecting and restoring coastal resources and habitats, providing for water dependent industries, reducing the risks associated with coastal hazards and addressing the effects of land-bases sources of pollution on coastal waters. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States with federally-approved coastal management programs were required to develop plans to address the effects of polluted runoff from sources such as agriculture and urban areas on coastal waters. All thirty-three participating coastal States have successfully developed a road map for solving their unique coastal runoff pollution problems, including 10 with fully approved programs. Polluted runoff (or, "nonpoint source pollution") is the leading cause of water quality problems in the U.S., causing considerable economic, health and ecological impacts. Impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal habitats are widespread, resulting in degradation of coral reefs, the Adead zone@ in the Gulf of Mexico, and loss of valuable spawning areas for salmon in the Pacific Northwest. In 14 of 21 coastal states included in the National Shellfish Register, more than 95% of the areas closed to shellfishing were impaired by nonpoint sources. Addressing "end of the pipe" pollution discharges (or, "point source pollution") has been relatively easy compared to the diffuse sources of polluted runoff, which often reach far inland from the coast and cover multiple jurisdictions. This has made addressing the nonpoint source issue politically challenging. Our Congress is interested in this issue, but tackling tough problems like this one is hard—it is difficult to address everyone's political concerns. NOAA is working with staffs on both sides of the aisle to develop a reasonable approach for nonpoint through reauthorization of the CZMA. Building on legislation that has already been enacted and shown to be popular appears to be the path of least resistance Before leaving this area, let me mention in passing the challenges inherent in the concept of legislative "jurisdiction". In the U.S. Senate, for example, there are different Committees for Energy and Natural Resources, Commerce Science and Transportation, Agriculture and Forestry, as well as Environment and Public Works - each providing oversight to various natural resource and regulatory agencies and their respective budgets. Understandably, this can lead to a debate about natural resource priorities both in authorizing and appropriating legislation. I always encourage the building of an organizational system which minimizes unnecessary friction in this area. Recent actions to protect coral reefs provide a great example of effective cooperation between the executive and legislative branches in this country and illustrate the importance of agencies and legislators communicating to respond to environmental problems. Over the past decade, scientists, managers and communities around the world have sounded the alarm that the world's coral reefs are being devastated by a variety of impacts. Over 100 nations depend on coral reefs for food, jobs, revenues, and storm protection. Reflecting these concerns, the U.S. and six other nations launched the International Coral Reef Initiative in 1994 to help build capacity to reverse the loss of reefs. In 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force was established by Executive Order, bringing together 11 federal agencies and the governors of 7 states and territories to lead U.S. efforts to address the crisis. Another Executive Order in 2000 established the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve in response to the serious decline in coral reefs around the world. While the United States has only three percent of the world's coral reefs, approximately 70 percent of them are in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. As called for in the Order, NOAA recently began the process for designating the Reserve as the nation's 14th national marine sanctuary, thus affording the most protection. Currently the draft management plan is in the "scoping" process and open to public review and comment. In concert with these executive branch and other efforts, Congress also took action in 2000 by appropriating the first funding in NOAA's budget specifically to conserve coral reefs, and passing the Coral Reef Conservation Act. The Act authorizes NOAA to establish a new grants program, build national capabilities, and build public-private partnerships for coral reef conservation. While many different factors helped bring about this commitment by the President and Congress, a good part was the ability of NOAA, other federal agencies, and our partners in states, territories, academia, and non-governmental organizations to communicate the consequences of the coral reef crisis and for the legislators to respond. The problems, affecting coral reefs such as nutrients, sewage, and overfishing, aren't contained by national boundaries. The circulation of oceans naturally spreads problems across the region. Therefore it is necessary for parliamentarians to ratify relevant international conventions, countries to cooperate across boundaries, and agencies to support international endeavors. International Legislation: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides the basic legal framework – covering all aspects of marine protection and utilization. With 150 governments participating in its creation, it took 14 years to establish this comprehensive regime. The convention entered into force in 1994, has been ratified by almost 100 countries. President Bush is committed achieving ratification of this keystone oceans treaty. Cooperate Across Boundaries: The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Marine Resources Working Group is a consensus based group seeking to protect and sustainably development marine resources to ensure continuing socio-economic and environmental benefits. Last week I was in Seoul, representing the United States at the 1st Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ocean-related Ministerial Meeting. That meeting resulted in the Seoul Ocean Declaration that is a strong statement of a collective Asia Pacific vision for oceans. It is my hope that this Declaration, and its calls for the establishment of ocean observing systems, sustainable fisheries and the conservation and management of marine resources, will set the benchmark for the World Summit on Sustainable Development as well as raise the issue of ‘oceans' and sustainable development to the attention of APEC Leaders when they meet in Mexico later this year. International agency endeavors: NOAA seeks internationally to assist other countries and regions with implementation of the GPA based on our experiences. Through the Arctic Council, the eight Arctic countries agreed to create a Regional Plan of Action to ameliorate the most severe land-based pollution in that area. The countries gave special attention and expertise to Russia, helping formulate a National Program of Action tailored to Russia's needs and political structure. NOAA soon intends to host a roundtable event with Russia to bring private and public sectors together in a unique partnership to address land based sources of pollution. I hope these examples have given you an overview of some of our experience in working through the management and implementation of mitigation measures. Where do we go from here? I am a great believer in partnerships. When constructed properly they work extraordinarily well, and in reality represent the only way to make progress. I believe in exchanging data and sharing experience to learn and build on world knowledge as rapidly as possible. I also believe that all of us need to do a better job of including and explaining the economic benefits, including the short and long term economic issues within our plans to solve these ecosystem management problems. In the end enlightened self-interest usually proves to be the strongest motivation for any action. I would also add that it is in our interest to build plans that allow for responsible development and improvements in the quality of life. Without continuing economic development there will be no additional resources to improve the management of our watersheds and coastal ecosystems. Another way to say that is we need to subscribe fully to the three pillars of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection and social development. In closing, I again express my thanks to Congress Wayne Gilchrest and his colleagues, the executive committee of GLOBE and the organizing committee for this conference as well as to all of you who attended. I wish you well in taking on these challenges we have discussed in the past two days and I look forward to working with you in whatever capacity is appropriate. Thank you!