Download The Evolution of, and Best Direction for Ocean Governance in the

Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 1
The Evolution of, and Best Direction for Ocean Governance in the United States
Presentation prepared for Law Seminars International’s
“Ocean Law: Emerging Legal, Regulatory and Business Developments
for Use of the Ocean Surface and Floor”
May 22-23, 2008, Seattle, WA
Dr. Gerhard F. Kuska
Associate Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Ocean governance in the United States has matured over the past 4 decades. Beginning
in the mid 1960s, a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (or
Stratton Commission) was established through legislation to review our nation’s progress
in marine affairs and science and technology. The Stratton Commission (named after its
Chairman, a former President of MIT, Dr. Julius Stratton) issued its report—Our Nation
and the Sea—in January of 1969. It included 122 recommendations to begin “a
comprehensive, long-term program for marine affairs designed to meet the present and
future national needs in the most effective possible manner” (see Our Nation and the Sea,
p. vi, 1969). Several of the Stratton Commission’s recommendations were adopted or
spurred new legislation. Examples include the creation of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in 1970 within the Department of Commerce and the
introduction and passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. In addition to
the CZMA, Congress enacted many ocean and coastal laws during the early 1970s. A
number of major laws included: The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972; the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976; and the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act Amendments of 1978. Internationally, the oceans and the environment more
generally were receiving significant attention as well, including the UN Convention on
the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 and the 3rd major conference on the Law
of the Sea.
Domestically, the US also saw an increase in the number of ocean policy players,
including not only non-governmental organizations and local and state government, but
also a variety of federal government organizations (federal agencies and Congressional
committees, which saw a significant increase in the number of committees with interest
in ocean issues). In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP)
counted at least 28 committees and subcommittees in the Senate and at least 30
committees and subcommittees in the House of Representatives with ocean and coastal
issue jurisdiction. Today, the US federal government has at least 11 cabinet departments
and 3 independent agencies with ocean activities and responsibilities (see Committee on
Ocean Policy web site at www.ocean.ceq.gov).
Due to NOAA’s placement within the Department of Commerce—which was not entirely
in line with the Stratton Commission’s recommendation—NOAA’s lower hierarchical
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 2
status limited de facto its ability to coordinate federal civilian marine programs as was
contemplated by the Stratton Commission. As a result, many proposals to reorganize the
federal management of ocean and coastal resources were put forward beginning in the
early 1970s (see U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century, p. 116-118, 2004).
In 1997, legislation was proposed to establish a new Ocean Commission to reassess our
nation’s understanding and stewardship of the oceans. Largely through the efforts of
Senator Fritz Hollings, the legislation passed several years later. It was known as the
Oceans Act of 2000 and created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
When the Commission on Ocean Policy issued its final report on September 20, 2004, it
represented the culmination of 3 years of hard work, including numerous hearings and
site visits around the nation along with the testimony of several hundred witnesses. Its
work truly represents a landmark assessment of ocean policy.
Other bodies provided assessments as well. The National Research Council of the
National Academies issued a report in 1997—Striking a Balance: Improving
Stewardship of Marine Areas—which called for a high level coordinating body for
oceans. And in 2003, the privately-funded Pew Oceans Commission released its 144page report—America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change—which
offered an assessment of US ocean governance that was similar to the work of the
Commission on Ocean Policy.
The President responded to the Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy on
December 17, 2004, just 3 months later, with Executive Order 13366 to establish the
first-ever, cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy, along with an Ocean Action Plan.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan
• summarized the Administration’s ongoing actions to advance ocean policy as the
Commission deliberated;
• identified additional near-term actions that provide direction for ocean policy;
• outlined comprehensive, long-term actions for the future; and
• improved governance between Federal, state, local and tribal authorities
The Ocean Action Plan aims to make our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes cleaner,
healthier, and more productive by
1. Focusing on achieving meaningful results
2. Ensuring continued conservation of coastal and marine resources while ensuring
that the American public enjoys and benefits from those same resources
3. Employing the best science and data to inform our decision making
4. Continuing to work towards an ecosystem-based approach
5. Encouraging innovation and employing economic incentives over mandates; and
6. Working with States, tribal and local governments, the private sector and other
interests to advance mutual objectives and ensuring that programs are conducting
effective and coordinated ocean and coastal activities
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 3
The coordinated ocean governance structure sets up a mechanism to implement the
Ocean Action Plan and provide (for the first time in history) high level coordination
across the federal government and with groups (government and others) outside the
federal government on cross-cutting ocean issues.
The cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy (COP) is chaired by the Chair of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality and is comprised of senior level officials,
including the
• Secretary of State
• Secretary of Defense
• Secretary of the Interior
• Secretary of Agriculture
• Secretary of Health and Human Services
• Secretary of Commerce
• Secretary of Labor
• Secretary of Transportation
• Secretary of Energy
• Secretary of Homeland Security
• The Attorney General
• Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
• Director, Office of Management and Budget
• Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Director of National Intelligence
• Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Director, National Science Foundation
• Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Assistants to the President (National Security Affairs, Homeland Security,
Domestic Policy, Economic Policy)
• An employee of the Office of the Vice President
Its functions include advising the President and, as appropriate, agency heads on the
establishment or implementation of policies concerning certain ocean-related matters.
Further, the COP, facilitates, among other things, the development and implementation of
common principles and goals for governmental activities on ocean-related matters; the
use of science in the establishment of policy on ocean-related matters; and the collection,
development, dissemination, and exchange of information on ocean-related matters.
Where appropriate the Committee works with States, Tribes, local officials, and others on
these actions.
The Committee on Ocean Policy is supported by a deputies committee, the Interagency
Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI), and
two subcommittees, the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST)
and the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR).
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 4
The membership of the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource
Management Integration (ICOSRMI) consists of Undersecretaries and Assistant
Secretaries or their equivalents from the Executive Branch Agencies and departments of
the Committee on Ocean Policy. The body meets quarterly (next meeting is planned for
the July 2008 time frame). It has been delegated the implementation of the Committee on
Ocean Policy’s day-to-day activities and decision making. ICOSRMI’s specific
functions include:
1. Coordinating and integrating activities of ocean-related Federal agencies and
providing incentives for meeting national goals;
2. Identifying statutory and regulatory redundancies or omissions and developing
strategies to resolve conflicts, fill gaps, and addressing new emerging ocean
issues for national and regional benefits;
3. Guiding the effective use of science in ocean policy and ensuring the availability
of data and information for decision making at national and regional levels;
4. Developing and supporting partnerships among government agencies and
nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, academia, and the public;
5. Coordinating education and outreach efforts by Federal ocean and coastal
agencies;
6. Periodically assessing the state of the Nation’s oceans and coasts to measure the
achievement of national ocean goals and
7. Making recommendations to the Committee on Ocean Policy on developing and
carrying out national ocean policy, including domestic implementation of
international ocean agreements.
The Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) was established
from a body that existed previously (Joint Subcommittee on Oceans) under the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Its members comprise all agencies
represented on the Committee on Ocean Policy. The JSOST is a forum for discussion
and coordination among Federal agencies involved with ocean science and technology,
and it provides advice to the NSTC Committee on Science and Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources on national ocean science and technology issues.
The Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources (SIMOR) is a new
body that began work in March of 2005. It includes members from all agencies
represented on the Committee on Ocean Policy. Like the JSOST, SIMOR reports to the
ICOSRMI. It meets bi-monthly; operates under a Statement of Purpose and a Work
Priorities Document, and implements its priority areas through several Work Plans. Key
points in SIMOR’s State of Purpose include a focus on:
• Multi-agency initiatives
• Respecting existing authorities and jurisdictions
• Building partnerships to address issues of mutual concern
• Collaborating with other interagency groups
• Working with JSOST to ensure strong connection and exchange of information
• Seeking advice and guidance from external advisory groups
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 5
SIMOR’s Work Priorities Document is based on the Statement of Purpose and Ocean
Action Plan, and includes 4 priority areas, each of which has its own Work Plan:
1. Support Regional and Local Collaboration
2. Facilitate Use of Ocean Science and Technology in Ocean Resource Management
3. Enhance Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Resource Management to Improve Use
and Conservation
4. Enhance Ocean Education
Other existing interagency coordination groups collaborate with the coordinated ocean
governance structure, including the Subcommittee on Oceans Policy or Oceans Sub-PCC.
This body was re-established in May 2001 as a subgroup of the Global Environment
Policy Coordinating Committee within the National Security Council. It meets quarterly
and provides a forum for interagency discussions on international ocean issues that
ultimately supports the identification of U.S. interests and concerns, and the formulation
of U.S. policy on international ocean issues.
A critical piece of the coordinated ocean governance structure is the provision of
independent advice and guidance from a balanced group of non-federal individuals with
expertise in a ocean-related field. The Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel
(ORRAP) is the senior-level advisory body that has been expanded from a previous
organization, ORAP (Ocean Research Advisory Panel). This body provides independent
advice and guidance to the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource
Management Integration and SIMOR and JSOST. Its membership consists of a balance
of representatives among various geographies and ocean sectors, including ocean
resource management. It is guided by an Executive Committee, and includes sub-panels
of non-federal individuals to address specific topics (e.g., industry, education). It meets
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act in public session twice annually.
Federal agencies are coordinating and providing leadership at levels never seen before,
and many states are working to do the same. And there are lessons to be learned by
examining interagency coordination mechanisms up close.
Interagency coordination is a key government function, particularly in the ocean policy
arena, since “ocean policy is such a large, cross-cutting field that no single agency of the
federal government, on its own, has the necessary legal authorities, human and financial
resources, and experience to move the country ahead in ocean science and management”
(see Ocean Principals Group, The Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers, p.iv, 1998).
However, often times existing mandates and resource constraints leave interagency
collaboration in a less prominent position than it deserves.
It is also important to note that more coordination is not always better. Rather it is most
beneficial to focus on developing the appropriate level and scale of collaboration among
the respective organizations. Further, structure is often given more prominence than it
deserves on a practical level. Often times, rather than understand what the symptoms of a
faltering interagency process might mean, we create a new body and increase the size of
government as well as often perpetuating the weaknesses inherent in the previous
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 6
interagency body. These other factors are non-structural factors or external/political
variables that play as important a role in determining the success or failure of an
interagency coordination process as the structural elements of the interagency mechanism
itself. These elements have been summarized under a series of categories or pillars of
interagency collaboration, as follows: Purpose, Leadership, Membership, Structural
Support, External Considerations, and Funding (see Gerhard Kuska, Collaboration
Toward a More Integrated National Ocean Policy: Assessment of Several U.S. Federal
Interagency Coordination Groups, 2005).
Purpose
An important part of promoting collaboration is the establishment of a clear purpose with
focused issues. It is vital to establish objectives that focus on multi-agency initiatives,
problem-solving, and move preferably beyond the mission of a single agency. The
purpose and activities always should be transparent to internal participants and external
interests (see Gerhard Kuska, 2005).
Leadership
The presence and participation of high-level leadership is a key factor in promoting
collaboration; but also choosing individuals who are not overly time-constrained.
Ideally, leadership should be encouraged to choose an approach that fits the type and
level of members and the issues that are being addressed. Leaders must rise above their
individual agency responsibilities and focus on the common interagency agenda (see
Gerhard Kuska, 2005)
Membership
The choice of members for the group is an important structural aspect for collaboration.
This includes the type of individuals selected (e.g., scientists, attorneys, managers) as
well as the appropriate level of members (e.g., senior executives, mid-level managers,
staff associates). Existing relationships or past positive experiences among members are
important factors for trust and collaboration. Developing interest among members as
well as sustained engagement is an important aspect of promoting collaboration. One
way to improve participation is to increase the members’ perception of benefits in
participating in the collaboration. Further non-structural factors that hinder collaboration
include negative experiences among members as well as agency and member frustration.
Oftentimes the lack of follow-up or follow-through by agencies presents a significant
obstacle to collaboration (see Gerhard Kuska, 2005).
Structural Support/Meetings
Supporting structures, including working groups, also are important factors for promoting
collaboration. Although some may view additional staff support or the establishment of a
secretariat as fostering additional bureaucracy, this argument fails to acknowledge the
burden placed on existing personnel when additional duties are thrust on them through
the creation of interagency mechanisms with no increase in staff to provide substantive
and administrative support. The conduct of regular, substantive meetings is also a vital
mechanism for promoting collaboration as are other regular opportunities for
communication and information exchange. However, leaders also must be cognizant of
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 7
the amount of work created for members and agencies through the group’s activities (see
Gerhard Kuska, 2005).
External Considerations
We often underestimate the role that external/political factors play. In addition to highlevel road blocks and political maneuvering, other factors, both positive and negative,
such as legislative oversight, high-level executive branch support, engagement by state
and local government, and actions by organizations outside of government can have an
important impact on federal interagency collaboration. Unless participating agencies
view collaboration as a necessary step to achieving their own missions, collaboration
must be mandated with a high-level of accountability and oversight, using some method
of tracking performance, such as outcome-based performance measures (see Gerhard
Kuska, 2005)
Funding
There is a need for adequate funding authority and sources, including removing funding
hurdles. It that is not possible, it is important to mitigate the negative impacts, such as
the difficulties which arise in connection with interagency monetary transfers. Further,
individual budget item lines can enhance funding support (see Gerhard Kuska, 2005).
The federal government spends approximately $9.5 Billion annually in support of oceanrelated activities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended a ramping up of
approximately $4 Billion in additional funding—a daunting task in any fiscal
environment. Through efforts in the Committee on Ocean Policy and the Ocean Action
Plan, the Administration is focusing existing resources on the most important problems
and spending the taxpayers’ dollars more effectively and efficiently through improved
coordination across the federal government, and through collaboration and partnerships
with State, regional, tribal, local entities, and partnership with interested private entities.
To build upon these efforts, the Administration’s FY’08 Budget Request proposed $143
million in new funding for an Ocean Initiative. The Administration’s FY ’09 Budget
Request includes $217 million for the President’s Ocean Initiative, $74 million more than
was requested for the Oceans Initiative in 2008, and about $64 million more than
Congress approved in the recent 2008 omnibus appropriations act.
The Administration has been taking aggressive and responsible action in prioritizing our
national ocean policy objectives. The Ocean Action Plan (OAP), which is comprised of 6
sections, includes 88 actions, of which 10 were completed in 2004 when the OAP was
released, and 24 new actions were completed in 2005. Good progress has been made and
today we have completed or are on schedule to complete all 88 actions. Many actions
have begun which are building upon the actions in the OAP and going beyond. Some
highlights from each of these priority areas, include:
Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination
Executive Order 13366 of December 17, 2004 established a new cabinet-level Committee
on Ocean Policy, chaired by the CEQ Chairman. The committee advises the President
and, as appropriate, agency heads on the establishment and implementation of policies
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 8
concerning a variety of ocean-related matters. It is supported by a coordinated ocean
governance structure with a mechanism to provide external input into the federal process.
The Administration also released a NOAA Organic Act to establish the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The Administration and federal agencies continue to coordinate federal support for the
Great Lakes regional effort. Further the federal agencies have come together to respond
to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance of States to support their development of a regional action
plan. This plan, which the federal agencies developed in partnership with the states, was
unveiled at a Gulf of Mexico Alliance Summit in March of 2006 in Corpus Christi,
Texas. Tremendous progress has been made toward completing the Action Plan, and
discussions are underway to develop a longer term vision for the Gulf with
commensurate actions. A coordinated federal approach has been initiated to support the
New England States in their development of a Northeast Regional Ocean Council
Initiative, and over the past year the federal agencies under SIMOR have been working
with California, Oregon and Washington to support the Governors’ West Coast Regional
Initiative. Additional activities and discussions are taking place in the Southeast Atlantic,
the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Islands, and in Alaska.
Advancing our Understanding of the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes
In January 2007 we released the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy, as outlined in the Ocean Action Plan, which was developed through a peerreviewed process and broad stakeholder input. We also continue to build a Global Earth
Observation Network, including an Integrated Ocean Observing System, and are
developing and deploying new state-of-the-art research and survey platforms. A report
on developing a National Water Quality Monitoring Network was completed and pilot
projects are being developed as part of next steps. We have increased ocean education
coordination through the establishment of a standing Joint Working Group on Ocean
Education to coordinate ocean education and outreach efforts across the federal
government. We continue to expand the Coastal America Coastal Ecosystem Learning
Center (CELC) Network. Over the past few years, several aquaria have been added to
the CELC network, including the North Carolina Aquarium Complex, the Georgia
Aquarium (the world’s largest aquarium), and the Veracruz Aquarium in Mexico (the
first international CELC). In November of 2008, Mrs. Bush designated the J.L. Scott
Marine Education Center as a Coastal Ecosystem Learning Center. This established the
21st partnership between the federal government and a marine education center to bring
awareness to the public about ocean issues. In addition, a new permanent exhibition
about the ocean opens September 2008 in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural
History in Washington, D.C. The 23,000-square-foot Ocean Hall uses hundreds of
fossils, artifacts and high-definition underwater video footage to explore the changing
nature of the ocean and ways in which we are affecting it (see Smithsonian’s Ocean Hall
web site at www.nmnh.si.edu).
Enhancing the Use and Conservation of Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Resources
To bring an end to overfishing and continue moving toward an ecosystem-based
approach to management, the Administration worked with Congress to reauthorize our
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 9
nation’s premier fishery management legislation. President Bush signed the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, reaffirming
our commitment to protect America's fisheries and keep our commercial and recreational
fishing communities strong. This law will end overfishing, help us replenish fish stocks,
and advance international cooperation and ocean stewardship. We are working with
regional fishery management councils to promote greater use of market-based systems
for fisheries management and in fostering a balanced representation for the Regional
Fishery Management Councils. We are promoting sustainable aquaculture through the
introduction of the Administration’s National Offshore Aquaculture legislation, and we
are striving to enhance the protection of marine mammals through an Administration
proposal to reauthorize the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
In August of 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law.
Notably, the law grants authorities to the Department of the Interior to develop plans for
production, transportation, or transmission of alternative energy resources from Outer
Continental Shelf lands, including wind, wave or solar power alternatives.
President Bush created the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in June
2006, designating nearly 140,000 square miles of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to
receive our Nation's highest form of marine environmental protection. This Marine
National Monument is the largest single area dedicated to conservation in the history of
our country and the largest protected marine area in the world. A joint permitting process
was released by the co-trustees (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Hawaii), and a joint management plan for
the Monument was recently released on Earth Day.
Signed by the President in December 2006, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and
Reduction Act works to reduce and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the
marine environment. The Act specifically targets types of fishing gear that are a threat to
the marine environment and navigation safety. In November 2007, Mrs. Bush announced
a new Marine Debris Initiative to address the estimated 6.4 million tons of marine debris
that litters the ocean. The initiative encourages the private sector to clean up marine
debris and educate the public on what they can do to prevent its spread.
In October 2007, President Bush signed an Executive Order to conserve two of
America’s most popular recreational fish–striped bass and red drum fish–for the
recreational, economic, and environmental benefit of present and future generations of
Americans. This Order moves to prohibit the sale of striped bass and red drum caught in
Federal waters, promotes more accurate scientific records about fish population levels,
and helps the Federal government work with state and local officials to find innovative
ways to conserve these species for future generations.
Managing Coasts and their Watersheds
In addition to a number of actions that were completed in 2004, significant progress is
being made on the Administration’s Wetlands Initiative. After four years of working
toward the President’s five-year goal, the team of six federal agencies working with
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 10
multiple states, communities, tribes, and private landowners has exceeded the three
million acre target a year early. Since the President established the goal, 3,600,000 acres
of wetlands have been restored or created, improved, or protected. We also anticipate
progress between Earth Day 2008 and Earth Day 2009, during which time the Bush
Administration expects an additional 893,000 wetland acres to be restored or created,
improved, or protected.
Collaboration with state and local authorities to improve watershed protection is the focus
of community workshops that were conducted in Alabama and Puget Sound. Additional
workshops in other areas will follow.
Supporting Marine Transportation
The Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation was elevated to cabinet-level
committee status, chaired by Transportation Secretary Mineta. Its work has started and
will be coordinated with the work of other groups under the Ocean Action Plan. Other
important activities continue and are taking next steps in the areas of assessing short sea
shipping and toward implementation of the Administration’s National Freight Action
Agenda. The CMTS plans to release a National Strategy for the MTS in the next several
months.
Advancing International Ocean Policy and Science
In October 2006, the President directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in
consultation with Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, to strengthen efforts to
protect sustainable fisheries and call for an end to destructive fishing practices, such as
unregulated bottom trawling on the high seas. The President emphasized that it remains
United States policy to support protection and use of sustainable fisheries as a food
source and to meet the needs of commercial and recreational fishing.
The Administration continues to support U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea. On May 15, 2007, the President issued a statement urging the Senate to
act favorably on US accession to the Convention (see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-2.html). Final open
questions have been addressed, and the time is now for the U.S. Senate to provide its
advice and consent in favor of US accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.
In December 2007, the Administration announced its support for six nations in Southeast
Asia as they enhance coral conservation, promote sustainable fisheries, and ensure food
security. The U.S. intends to commit $4.35 million in new funds to the Coral Triangle
Initiative.
Other important areas of U.S. leadership in international ocean issues continue in the
areas of partnership creation related to the White Water to Blue Water Initiative and the
International Coral Reef Initiative.
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 11
Looking to the Future
Looking ahead, we have many challenges facing this nation, including in the ocean
policy arena. We have spent that last century focusing on the land and the last half
century mesmerized by space and the prospects of life on other worlds. Only in stories,
or through the voyages of explorers—some known, some lesser known—have we had the
opportunity to focus on the watery space that makes up seven tenths of the surface of our
globe. Technology has allowed us, as the saying goes, to go where no man has gone
before. An yet, so much remains unexplored and misunderstood—both in terms of what
is there and what we can, should or should not be doing there. It appears that in general
we have not yet been successful in making the connections for the public between
conservation and wise use. Many disconnect these two concepts, and often it is a case of
supporting one or the other. Society needs the resources that the ocean has to offer, but
must do so in a responsible and sustainable manner that is supported by science. The
next century must be more about our oceans.
However, the question will always remain, “What is the best direction for ocean
governance in the United States?” Is there a one ‘best’ direction? Can we even answer
this question?
The literature in the field of marine policy/marine affairs, in the field of public
administration, and in the field of political science, as well as the authors own research
and experience seems to suggest that there is no one ‘best’ approach, because ‘best’ is a
value judgment. It is most often in the eye of the beholder, meaning that a single
situation or issue can be positive in one light and negative in another, all depending on
the perspective, value, beliefs and political motivations of the various involved actors,
factions or stakeholders (see Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political
Decision Making, 1997). We might be better served by identifying and avoiding pitfalls
and focusing a series of principles to help us address our most important challenges. It
would be ideal to be able to agree on what those challenges are. A partial list might
include the following:
• Addressing the issues associated with expanding use and competing interests in
the oceans
• Helping the public recognize ocean assets and key concepts (i.e., sustainable
development) to be able to engage in the debate and voice informed opinions
• Focusing efforts on most serious challenges based on sound science (i.e. the
greatest percentage of pollution into our marine waters comes from non-point and
land-based sources of pollution)
• Address fiscal challenges partially through innovative partnerships and refocusing of resources to most urgent needs
• Maintaining a strong and active ocean governance structure that includes highlevel interagency coordination at the federal level, strong linkages with regions
and states, partnerships with the broader ocean community, and US leadership
internationally
• Promoting and enabling innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit where possible
• Supporting smooth transitions to new government administrations that maintain
or enhance momentum
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA
Gerhard Kuska of Committee on Ocean Policy
Speaker 1b: 12
Only through a coordinated effort will we be successful in addressing the most important
problems and working to make our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier and
more productive. To address some of the issues noted above, we are taking some
important next steps in 2008, which include:
Meeting Implementation Commitments
• Making certain that Ocean Action Plan commitments are met, along with other
later commitments (i.e., SIMOR work plan)
• Completing outstanding rules
• Implementing Management Plans (i.e., Papahānaumokuākea Marine National
Monument)
Improving Managed Area Approaches
• Advancing the dialogue on approaches to managing the marine environment,
including the treatment of marine protected areas as a type of marine managed
area
• Considering other potential marine areas that would benefit from enhanced
management; and ensuring appropriate dialogue with the community, and
ensuring that decisions are informed by sound science
• Beginning a discussion on the need and approaches for marine spatial planning in
federal waters (i.e. addresses USCOP recommendation for an offshore regime)
Promoting Legislative Action
• Several proposals for Congress have been put forward by the Administration. Top
priorities for the remaining time in the 110th Congress include US accession to
the Law of the Sea Convention; Coral reef legislation; and Aquaculture
legislation.
Looking Forward
• In order to maintain the momentum in our progress in ocean policy, discussions
and steps are needed to ensure a smooth transition to a new Administration.
• The external community has a key role in developing the priority areas and in
educating the incoming Administration on programs and activities that should be
maintained as well as those that could use enhancement of some kind.
In closing, we are grateful for the foundation of collaboration between the U.S.
Government and its partners here and abroad on issues of common concern. We look
forward to continuing and strengthening those relationships as we implement and build
on the work that has been done to implement the Ocean Action Plan and beyond.
Law Seminars International | Ocean Law | 05/22/08 in Seattle, WA