Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National …...Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National...

Workshop Agenda

Trends and Future Challengesfor U.S. National Ocean andCoastal PolicyAugust 1999

January 22, 1999Washington, D.C.

Edited by Biliana Cicin-Sain,* Robert W. Knecht,* and Nancy Foster***Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware**National Ocean Service, NOAA

Proceedingsof a Workshop

NA

TIO

NA

L O

CEA

NIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN

ISTR

AT

ION

U.S

. DEPARTMENT OF COMM

ERC

E

Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy

PurposeThe purpose of the conference was to examine trends and future challenges (nationaland global) that are likely to affect U.S. national ocean and coastal policy in the next 25years. Such trends include demographic pressures on the coast; trends related toresource scarcity; technological and industry-driven innovations; changes in socialvalues and attitudes; changes in environmental and domestic governance frameworks;and changes in ocean industries. The meeting agenda is included in the Appendix.

OrganizersThe workshop was organized by the National Ocean Service, NOAA; the Center forthe Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware; and the Ocean Governance StudyGroup. Funding support has come from the National Ocean Service, NOAA. Theadditional support of the Center for Marine Conservation, BOAT/US, and the Gradu-ate College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, is acknowledged with sincerethanks.

Editors’ NoteThe views expressed in the contributions making up this volume are those of theauthors and not necessarily those of the organizers ( National Ocean Service, NOAA;the Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware; and the OceanGovernance Study Group).

AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the National Ocean ServiceSpecial Projects Office in Silver Spring, Maryland. Charles Bookman and Tom Cullitonreviewed the papers and made many important editorial suggestions. Davida Remerdesigned and produced the document. Pam Rubin served as technical editor anddesigned the cover. Their assistance was invaluable.

National Dialogues on Coastal StewardshipThe National Dialogues bring together the many partners who make up the coastalcommunity to focus on the most important coastal and oceanic issues facing the UnitedStates. The Dialogues combine systematic approaches and interactive problem-solving,building partnerships and a sense of community among all stakeholders. Under theNational Dialogues initiative, a number of national organizations have developed acomprehensive vision for the future of coastal stewardship; a national dialogue aboutthe vision is being conducted over the Internet from July to October, 1999 (www.state-of-coast.noaa.gov/natdialog/). Major activities in 1998 included the Stratton Commis-sion Roundtable; the organization of the Coastal Trends Conference, which resulted inthis proceedings; and the development of a newsletter, Ocean and Coastal Policy NetworkNews. These publications can be downloaded in PDF format from NOAA’s NationalDialogues Web site: http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/natdialog/index.html

For a copy of the report, contact Pam Rubin, Special Projects Office,NOAA, National Ocean Service, 1305 East-West Hwy., 9th Fl., Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281; ph. 301-713-3000, ext. 121, e-mail [email protected]

Workshop Agenda

Trends and Future Challengesfor

U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy

Proceedings

Edited by Biliana Cicin-Sain,* Robert W. Knecht,* and Nancy Foster***Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware

**National Ocean Service, NOAA

Organized by the National Ocean Service, NOAA; the Center for the Study of Marine Policy,University of Delaware; and the Ocean Governance Study Group.

Funding support has come from the National Ocean Service, NOAA. The additionalsupport of the Center for Marine Conservation, BOAT/US, and the Graduate College

of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, is acknowledged with sincere thanks.


Table of Contents

Introduction and Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 1

Looking Ahead: Future Challenges for U.S. Ocean and Coastal Policy ........................................................... 1Biliana Cicin-Sain,* Robert W. Knecht,* and Nancy Foster***Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware, **National Ocean Service, NOAA

1. The Next 25 Years: Global Issues ......................................................................................... 15

Ocean and Coastal Futures: The Global Context .................................................................................................. 17Allen Hammond, World Resources Institute

Global Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture ......................................................................................................... 21Richard Grainger, FAO Fisheries Department

The Coastal Population Explosion ........................................................................................................................... 27Don Hinrichsen, United Nations consultant and author

Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998. (Executive Summary) ..................................................................... 31Charles A. Bookman, Thomas G. Culliton, and Maureen A. Warren, National Ocean Service, NOAA

2. Trends in Managing the Environment ............................................................................... 35

New Approaches to Environmental Management: Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay ............................... 37Donald F. Boesch, University of Maryland

Perspectives on Marine Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 41Tim Eichenberg, Center for Marine Conservation and Clean Water Network

Conserving Ocean Biodiversity: Trends and Challenges ................................................................................... 45Thomas F. Hourigan, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Global Trends in Marine Protected Areas .............................................................................................................. 51Tundi Agardy, Conservation International

3. Industry-Driven Changes and Policy Responses ............................................................. 57

Changing Ship Technology and Port Infrastructure Implications .................................................................... 59Rod Vulovic, Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Deepwater Offshore Oil Development: Opportunities and Future Challenges............................................ 65Paul L. Kelly, Rowan Companies, Inc.

Challenges Facing the U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry .................................................................................. 69Pietro Parravano, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

ii

Workshop Agenda

Coastal Tourism and Recreation: The Driver of Coastal Development1 .................................................................................................... 73Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht,Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware

Assessing the Economic Benefits of America’s Coastal Regions ....................................................................... 77Howard Marlowe, American Coastal Coalition

A Profile of Recreational Boating in the United States1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 81Ryck Lydecker and Margaret Podlich, Boat Owners Association of the United Sates (BOAT/US)

Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Current and Future Policy and Management Challenges ...... 85M. Richard DeVoe, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Legal and Regulatory Concerns........ 95Alison Rieser* and Susan Bunsick,***University of Maine School of Law, **University of Delaware

The Potential for the Marine Biotechnology Industry ....................................................................................... 101Shirley A. Pomponi, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Florida

Emerging Challenges for U.S. Marine Biotechnology1 .................................................................................................................................................... 105Biliana Cicin-Sain,* Robert W. Knecht,* and Dosoo Jang,***Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware, **NOAA

4. Trends and Future Issues in the Coastal States............................................................... 109

Building Capacity for Ocean Management: Recent Developments in U.S. West Coast States ................. 111Marc J. Hershman, University of Washington

Coastal States’ Challenges ....................................................................................................................................... 117Sarah Cooksey, State of Delaware and Chair, Coastal States Organization

Development of a Comprehensive Ocean Policy for Florida ........................................................................... 121James F. Murley and Laura Cantral, Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee

Appendices

I. Biographies of Authors and Moderators ................................................................................................... 125

II. Workshop Agenda ........................................................................................................................................ 132

III. Workshop Participants .................................................................................................................................. 135

1. Paper submitted after the workshop.

iii

1

Introduction and Executive Summary


LOOKING AHEAD: FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR U.S. OCEANAND COASTAL POLICY

Biliana Cicin-Sain,* Robert W. Knecht,* and Nancy Foster***Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware, **National Ocean Service

The Changing Context of National Ocean andCoastal Policy

We see a changing context for U.S. ocean and coastalpolicy in the late 1990s. Some of these changes arephysical—the warming climate and the associatedeffects at the shoreline including accelerated sea levelrise and coastal erosion, the possibility ofincreased storm frequency and perhapsintensity; some are social and demo-graphic—the increasing flow of peopleand activities to coastal areas and theconsequent changes in coastal environ-ments; some are related to technology—the need for deeper navigational chan-nels and harbors to accommodate largerand faster vessels and the need torespond to the challenges of new tech-nologies such as marine biotechnology;and some represent changes in publicpolicy—a recognition that many environ-mental and resource problems are effectively ad-dressed only by partnerships, between levels ofgovernment and between the public and privatesectors.

Population growth will continue to be a driving forcein the 21st century. It is expected that populations—both globally and in the United States—will continueto concentrate incoastal areas.World megacities(defined as citieslarger than 8million) whichnumbered 20 in1990 will increaseto 30 in 2010.Twenty of these 30megacities will becoastal megacities(Nicholls 1995). Inthe United States, coastal populations are expected torise from 141 million in 1996 to 166 million in 2015(Bookman, Culliton and Warren, 1999, in this vol-ume). By 2010, for example, two coastal states—

California and Texas—will lead the nation in popula-tion, while Florida’s expected population of 16million will rank fourth in the nation, up from tenthin 1960 (Culliton et al, 1990). Population density incoastal areas—in 1988 it was 341 persons per squaremile, more than 4 times the U.S. average—is expectedto increase more than 10% between 1988 and 2010

(Culliton et al,1990).

Population pres-sures will typicallylead to increaseduser conflicts andcompetition forscarce ocean andcoastal resources,result in loss ofaccess to the oceancommons, and raisea variety of public

health issues. Concomitantly, coastal ocean degrada-tion is likely to continue in the form of decliningwater quality and coastal fisheries and destruction ofimportant habitats. Controlling nonpoint (or land-based) sources of marine pollution—such as rain-caused run-off from urban surfaces containing greaseand oil, plastics, salt, and other substances, stormwater run-off, and run-off from agricultural activities

containing fertilizers, pesticides, and otherchemicals used in farming practices—willpose one of the most significant chal-lenges to decision-makers since land-based sources such as these account formore than 75% of the pollutants enteringthe oceans (YOTO 1998, C-19). Changesin the global climate, as they materialize,are expected to result in rising sea levels,increased damage by storms and floods,and changes in rainfall and freshwaterflow to estuaries.

In the marine realm, we are likely to see increasedgrowth in coastal and marine tourism as travel andtourism, the world’s largest industry, continues torise. In 1995, the industry employed 211.7 million

Population growth willcontinue to be a drivingforce in the 21st century.It is expected that popu-lations - both globally andin the United States - willcontinue to concentratein coastal areas.

In the marine realm, weare likely to see increasedgrowth in coastal andmarine tourism as traveland tourism, the world’slargest industry, continuesto rise.

2


people, produced 10.9% of world gross domesticproduct, invested $693.9 billion in new facilities/equipment, and contributed more than $637 billion toglobal tax revenues (WTTC, no date). Hopefully,pressures for maintaining the health and attractive-ness of coastal areasfor tourism willprovide the neededpolitical will to pushfor such programs asclean water protectionand beach restorationand maintenance.Global trade, most ofit by ship, will con-tinue to grow inimportance and themarine transportationindustry will demand refurbished and modernizedport facilities, including deeper channels, to accom-modate the deeper-draft, larger, and faster ships nowcoming on line. Given the decline of fisheriesworldwide (60 percent of commercial stocks areeither overfished or fully harvested (FAO 1996)), thefocus in this area will likely be on conservation andon rebuilding stocks rather than on fisheries develop-ment.

Aquaculture currently accounts for about 25% ofworld food fish supplies, with China, India, Taiwan,and Thailand among the leaders in this field (YOTO1998, C-28). Aquaculture is likely to grow as asubstitute to wild fisheries but ways will need to befound to avoid the environmental problems that haveplagued aquaculture operations in some Asian andLatin American countries. Marine areas, too, willincreasingly be used for the “bioprospecting” ofnovel marine organisms and marine organisms withunique properties (such as the heat-tolerant hyper-thermophiles found in deep-ocean hydrothermalvents). Policy frameworks that establish standardsfor allowing access to and exploitation of suchresources will need to be developed, given the lack ofany policy guidance at present. In offshore oildevelopment, new challenges will be faced in at leasttwo areas: the dismantling of offshore oil platforms,in an environmentally sound manner, in oil fieldsthat have been depleted (approximately 4,000platforms will need decommissioning around theworld, and 1,000 in the Gulf of Mexico in the comingdecade), and, as industry develops oil resources indeeper and deeper areas of the Gulf of Mexico (Coyet al. 1997), new policy issues related to marinesafety, environmental impact, and relations withneighboring Mexico are likely to arise.

From an economic and political perspective, theglobalization of the economy will continue andworld economic and political interdependence willbe even more apparent than it is today. New factorswhich have become manifest in the last several years

such as the emergence of regionaleconomic blocs and growing interna-tional terrorism are likely to continue. Inthe period to 2025, we will see more,rather than fewer, demands for UnitedStates international leadership. In thisregard, the United States was once theacknowledged leader in ocean affairsinternationally. Now the United Statesfinds itself outside the ambit of some ofthe most important international agree-ments ever concluded on oceans, particu-larly the Law of the Sea Convention and

the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity and willincreasingly find it difficult to influence the course ofactions decided by international bodies set up underthese Conventions. Regaining U.S. leadership ininternational ocean matters thus looms as one of themajor challenges in national ocean policy in the nextdecade (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1999).

Meeting these challenges is not going to be easy andwill require the kind of advance planning andconcerted, integrated, and sustained action that wehave not recently demonstrated. Solving the fisher-ies problem, for example, will require more thansimply closing fisheries and allowing sufficient timefor the stocks to recover. To achieve improvedabundance on a sustainable basis, we will also haveto address such problems as continuing loss ofessential fish habitat, problems of bycatch, andproblems associated with land-based sources ofmarine pollution. Restoring and managing thenation’s recreational beaches will require much closercooperation and collaboration among organizationssuch as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, theFederal Emergency Management Agency and itsNational Flood Insurance Program, the coastalmanagement programs in place in each of the coastalstates, and local governments and their coastalcommunities which are clearly on the front line withregard to this problem. Modernizing the nation’sport system to meet the needs of the 21st century, foranother example, will require a significant effort atall levels from the local port community itself, to thehost coastal state, and to the national level where amore coherent national port policy is needed. All inall, a more integrated system of ocean governancewill be needed, one that looks at the ocean and itsresources as a whole and not only at its discreteparts.

Regaining U.S. leader-ship in internationalocean matters thuslooms as one of themajor challenges innational ocean policyin the next decade.

3


Discussions at the 1999 Workshop on Trends andFuture Challenges

This volume contains the papers presented at theTrends and Future Challenges for U. S. NationalOcean and Coastal Policy workshop held in Wash-ington, D. C. on January 22, 1999. The workshop,part of the series of Dialogues on National Ocean andCoastal Policy, sought to raise awareness of trendsand emerging challenges in national ocean andcoastal policy and to set the stage for continuingnational dialogues on these important issues. Theworkshop was organized by the National OceanService, NOAA; the Center for the Study of MarinePolicy, University of Delaware; and the OceanGovernance Study Group. Funding support camefrom the National Ocean Service, NOAA, the Centerfor Marine Conservation, BOAT/US, and the Gradu-ate College of Marine Studies of the University ofDelaware. The support of these organizations isgratefully acknowledged.

The main points presented in each of the paperscontained in this volume are outlined below.

In Ocean and Coastal Futures: The Global Context,Allen Hammond of the World Resources Instituteasks two questions: (1) What forces are shaping theworld, and where would we like to go; and (2) Canwe envision some development trajectories that willget us to the type of world that we would like toleave for the future? In seeking to answer thesequestions, Hammond focuses on environmentaltrends but also presents an overview of a number ofother interacting factors, including populationtrends, economic trends, sociopolitical trends andsecurity trends. The discussion of key trends isorganized via an exploration of three scenarios—Market World, Fortress World, and Transformed World.

Market World is a scenario where markets and theprivate sector play a major role in the future. It alsoenvisions the continuing technological revolution,the spread of democracy around the world, wide-spread improvements in literacy, and even environ-mental improvements in many industrialized coun-tries. The problem with a Market World future is thatmarkets do not automatically solve environmentalproblems, and they often exacerbate, rather thanameliorate problems of equity and other socialproblems.

Fortress World is a vision of what might result ifunattended environmental and social problemsundermine Market World. Trends such as increasingpopulation growth, urbanization, and consumption

coupled with widening disparities in wealth maylead to the demise of Market World. Fortress Worldenvisions islands of luxury and privilege surroundedby oceans of poverty, despair, and environmentaldegradation.

The final scenario is Transformed World, whichrecognizes that fundamental social and politicalreform is necessary to solve some of the problemsthat exist in Market World and Fortress World. Inorder to achieve Transformed World, changes inattitude and a new sociopolitical consensus areneeded. While Hammond concludes that thisscenario may require a bit of a leap of faith, he arguesthat many transforming trends are already under-way. Such transforming trends include changes inpolitical consensus and social attitudes, the rise ofcivil society, and the greening of corporations.

In Global Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture,Richard Grainger of the FAO Fisheries Departmentdescribes past trends in capture fishery and aquacul-ture production and compares the current productionwith fisheries potential. Grainger focuses particu-larly on the contribution of fisheries to food supplyand the economy; capture fisheries development andthe need for management; improving fisheriesmanagement; aquaculture development; and infor-mation needs.

With regard to the contribution of fisheries to foodsupply and the economy, both global fish productionand consumption have increased markedly since the1950s. Growing numbers of people have foundemployment in world fisheries and aquaculture, andtrade in fishery commodities has also significantlyincreased since 1970.

The section on capture fisheries development and theneed for management discusses fishing fleets, fisherylandings, and tracking fishery development. Apreliminary FAO assessment on industrial fishingvessels of over 100 GT indicates a significant decreasein fleet size, with very little change in tonnage pervessel between 1991 and 1997. Capture fisheryproduction has leveled off in the last decade, and theincrease in food fish production in recent years hasbeen due entirely to aquaculture. With regard tofishery development, a transition from largelyundeveloped fisheries to mainly senescent andmature fisheries is clear.

In the realm of fisheries management, Graingerconcludes that management has generally failed toprotect resources from overexploitation. However,recent developments such as the UN Straddling Fish

4


Stocks Agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fishing should allow an unprecedentedopportunity for improving fisheries management. Ifthis opportunity is lost and management does notimprove, there could be a shortfall of 10 to 40 milliontons between demand and supply for human con-sumption by 2010, despite increased aquacultureproduction.

Aquaculture has been the world’s fastest growingfood production system for over a decade. Graingerconcludes that the rapid growth in aquacultureseems set to continue in the near future. With regardto information needs, Grainger notes that fisherymanagers and policy makers will need to draw moreon fisheries research programs that encompasseconomics, sociology, and anthropology as well asbiology. There will be a major need for developmentand use of sustainability indicators to synthesize thevery broad range of information.

In The Coastal Population Explosion, UnitedNations consultant and author Don Hinrichsenemphasizes the increasingly skewed nature ofpopulation distribution. Recent studies have shownthat the overwhelming majority of people are con-centrated along or near coasts on just 10 percent ofthe earth’s land surface. In 1998, more than half ofthe world’s population (3.2 billion people) lived andworked in a coastal strip 200 kilometers (120 miles)wide. Two-thirds of the global population livewithin 400 kilometers of a coast.

Hinrichsen reviews population density throughcomparative regional analyses. The bulk of Asia’spopulation, with the exception of India, is coastal ornear-coastal. Of the region’s collective population of3.5 billion, 60 percent (2.1 billion) live within 300kilometers of a coast. Latin American and Caribbeancoastal states have a collective population of approxi-mately 610 million. Three-quarters of this populationlives within 200 kilometers of a coast. The majorityof the Caribbean Basin’s 200 million permanentresidents live on or near the seashore. Of all thecontinents except the Antarctic, only Africa has morepeople living in the interior than along or nearcoastlines and major river valleys. Even in Africa,demographic patterns are shifting. Over the past twodecades, Africa’s coastal cities have been growing by4 percent a year or more. In the MediterraneanBasin, the resident population might become as largeas 555 million people by 2025. According to BluePlan projections, the urban population of coastalMediterranean administrative regions could reach

176 million—30 million more people than the coastalpopulation in 1990. In the United States, 55 to 60percent of Americans now live in the 772 countiesadjacent to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulfof Mexico, and the Great Lakes. In 1990, the mostcrowded coastline in the United States, stretchingfrom Boston to Washington, D.C., had over 2,500people per square kilometer. Another 101 coastalcounties had population densities exceeding 1,250per square kilometer.

Hinrichsen concludes that now is the time to developand introduce management plans that protect vitalcoastal ecosystems, while permitting economicgrowth and ensuing a better quality of life for allcoastal dwellers. Continued denial of the problemswill only make solutions harder to achieve in thecoming decades.

In Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998,Charles Bookman, Thomas Culliton and MaureenWarren of the National Ocean Service, NOAAexamine emerging trends and underlying issues thatare shaping the coast, coastal resources and uses, andcoastal management and policy. Present and pro-jected trends are discussed in terms of populationsand settlement; social values; economic activity;resources; environmental quality; hazards; andgovernance and management.

The authors’ examination of coastal population andsettlement trends finds that the coastal population ofthe United States is projected to increase from 141million to 166 million between 1996 and 2015. Inorder to counter the deleterious impacts of increasingpopulation pressure, states and localities have begunto channel public investment for infrastructure intoareas that are best equipped to accommodate growth.An analysis of social trends finds that over the lastthirty years, public attitudes toward the environmenthave changed markedly. In addition to the evolutionof public attitudes that favor ocean protection,nongovernmental organizations have emerged towork towards conservation and management of theenvironment. The authors found the marine-relatedeconomic activities in the coastal zone and coastalocean account for up to two percent of the U.S. GNP.Recreation and tourism, waterborne commerce,energy and mineral production, and fisheries accountfor most economic activities along the coast. In theirdiscussion of environmental quality, the authors notethat coastal oceans and estuaries are extremelyvaluable and productive natural systems. However,these systems are threatened by a number of environ-mental stresses including nutrient over-enrichment,bacterial contamination, chemical pollution, oxygen

5


depletion, oil spills and unplanned habitat alter-ations. Concerning coastal hazards, the authorsfound that while a greater potential for loss existsnow than in the past, relatively fewer actual lossesoccur. This paradox has been attributed to improve-ments in forecasting and storm predictions andstricter building codes.

The authors conclude by noting that three importanttrends are occurring to address the fragmentednature of ocean governance and management. Thesetrends are: (1) the move towards greater enclosure ofthe oceans, as codified in the 1982 LOS Convention;(2) the establishment of special management areasand expansion of national capacities to plan for andmanage the coastal zone; and (3) the increasedadoption and utilization of integrated managementapproaches.

In New Approaches to Environmental Management:Lessons From the Chesapeake Bay, Donald Boeschof the University of Maryland begins by noting thatthe Chesapeake Bay Program represents perhaps themost ambitious and costly effort to restore a majorcoastal ecosystem. The Chesapeake Bay Programaims not only to restore the Bay, but also to manageactivities in the coastal zone and a catchment area of64,000 square miles. Boesch seeks to answer twofundamental questions about the 20-year old Pro-gram: (1) What can we learn from this experience;and (2) Where does this experiment in ecosystemmanagement need to go in the 21st century? Boeschexamines the Program’s commitments and goals, aswell as its science, model monitoring, sustainableresource use; growth management; and climatechange activities in order to answer these questions.

In answering the first question, Boesch finds that theChesapeake Bay Program owes its longevity andsuccesses to the high and sustained level of socialcommitment it has enjoyed. The Program has beengoal-oriented, even though setting appropriate goalshas often been clouded by uncertainty. The goal-oriented nature of the Program has lent it strength byfocusing bureaucratic attention and providing aframework and currency for debates. The Programprides itself in being science-based, and Boeschexplores its emphasis on the development andapplication of sophisticated computer models of theBay and its watershed. These models have tremen-dous power in tracking progress, identifying signifi-cant problems, and determining the effects of man-agement alternatives. Finally, the Chesapeake BayProgram operates the largest and most extensivemonitoring programs of any coastal ecosystem in the

world. This is another strength of the programbecause environmental monitoring is essential for thepractice of adaptive environmental management.

With regard to the second question, Boesch notes thatthe first generation of Chesapeake restoration goalswas based on nutrient inputs. The next generation ofrestoration goals will be based on living resources.Rates of land development are too fast to meet andhold Bay restoration goals, and they are also unsus-tainable in terms of infrastructure demands andquality of life considerations. As a result, the Chesa-peake Bay watershed has become a focal point of theSmart Growth movement. Finally, Boesch notes thatthe Program needs to begin to take heed of thepossible changes and implications associated withclimate change.

In Perspectives on Marine Water Quality, TimEichenberg of the Center for Marine Conservationand the Clean Water Network reviews the historicalstate of water quality in the United States, conditionsthat led to the adoption of the Clean Water Act in1972, progress that has been made since the enact-ment of the CWA, and areas that remain unad-dressed.Eichenberg begins by noting that until 1972, theUnited States had no national program for regulatingthe discharge of sewage and industrial pollutants.By 1972, more than 60 percent of assessed rivers,lakes, and estuaries were not fishable or swimmable,and over 50 percent of the wetlands in the continen-tal United States had been destroyed. Thus, condi-tions were ripe for the adoption of national cleanwater legislation. In 1972, the Clean Water Act wasoverwhelmingly passed over President Nixon’s veto.The Act had three primary goals: (1) to eliminate thedischarge of pollutants by 1985; (2) wherever attain-able, to provide for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish and wildlife, and recreation in and onthe water by 1983; and (3) to prohibit the discharge oftoxic pollutants in toxic amounts.

Eichenberg maintains that while significant progresshas been made in addressing water quality problemssince 1972, a great deal of work remains to be done inorder to meet the goals of the CWA. The Clean WaterAct has not been reauthorized since 1987, andEichenberg contends that new approaches areneeded to address remaining clean water challenges.Many such challenges have been identified. Forexample, the EPA estimates that 60 percent of waterquality impairment now comes from nonpointsources of pollution. Less than three percent of theState Revolving Fund (SRF) has been devoted to

6


nonpoint source pollution. Section 319 of the CWAprovides no mandatory controls on the major sourcesof nonpoint source pollution. NOAA’s CoastalNonpoint Pollution Control Program is currentlymoribund. There are no enforceable national stan-dards for monitoring and posting swimmingbeaches. There are no enforceable national standardsfor fish consumption advisories. These problemsrepresent only some of the challenges that need to beaddressed in the future. Eichenberg suggests anumber of potential approaches for managingcontinuing water quality problems.

In Conserving Ocean Biodiversity: Trends andChallenges, Thomas Hourigan of the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, NOAA discusses trends inthe health of marine biodiversity, specifically men-tioning fisheries, protected marine species, and keyecosystems. Hourigan also identifies five criticalelements of action for addressing the threats to livingmarine resources. The new Aquatic Restoration andConservation Partnership for Marine, Estuarine andFreshwater Living Resources is also described.

Hourigan begins by noting that the primary threatsto marine biodiversity are fisheries operations,chemical pollution and eutrophication, physicalalteration of coastal and marine habitats, invasions ofexotic species, and ultraviolet-B radiation damage tophytoplankton and zooplankton resulting fromstratospheric ozone depletion. With regard to trendsin the health of marine biodiversity, trends foroceanic resources have revealed that anthropocentricactivities are meeting and often exceeding theproductive and recuperative limits of the ocean.

Hourigan describes how the U.S. government, inpartnership with public and private stakeholdersdomestically and internationally, is working toaddress the threats to living marine resources and toensure the promise of these resources for futuregenerations. The core of this new strategic vision iscomprised of five critical elements: (1) investing inscience in the interest of stewardship; (2) applyingthe precautionary approach; (3) applying newtechnologies to ensure the environmentalsustainability of marine aquaculture; (4) buildingpartnerships; and (5) exploiting the full potential ofan ecosystem-based approach to resource manage-ment.

Hourigan also discusses the Aquatic Restoration andConservation (ARC) Partnership for Marine, Estua-rine and Freshwater Living Resources. Members ofthe partnership include NOAA, the U.S. GeologicalSurvey and other federal agencies, states, NGOs, and

professional organizations. The goal of the ARCpartnership is to ensure the conservation of thenation’s freshwater, estuarine, and marine livingresources by creating a common information baseand options for preserving the ecological and eco-nomic integrity of these resources.

Hourigan concludes that it is important to make fulluse of new approaches to management on scales thatare meaningful to ocean living resources. Suchapproaches can then be placed in watershed andintegrated marine and coastal area managementregimes that involve all stakeholders. Houriganmaintains that, together, these offer the promise ofbetter conserving marine biodiversity.

In Global Trends in Marine Protected Areas, TundiAgardy of Conservation International notes thatmarine protected areas are increasingly being used toprotect biologically rich habitats, resolve user con-flicts, and help restore overexploited stocks anddegraded areas. Agardy maintains that the increasein the designation and management of marineprotected areas is occurring on two tracks: (1) theestablishment of reserves to safeguard representativehabitats or particularly rich and diverse areas, and (2)the use of protected areas to complement bothfisheries and coastal management.

Agardy notes that protected area placement, design,and operation all relate to the scope and nature of thegoals being targeted—i.e. the specific objectives theprotected area is meant to achieve. She contends thatwhat is most necessary, and what is most oftenoverlooked when the process of establishing amarine protected area is initiated, is information onwhat the protected area is being established toachieve. Goal-setting or objective elaboration iscritical in order to determine expectations, effectivelydesign the reserve, and have in place targets andbenchmarks against which progress towards theobjectives can be measured. Thus, Agardy concludesthat the identification of these objectives is ultimatelysocietal, not scientific, and that the human element inmarine protected areas cannot be overlooked. Thesuccess of any protected area is closely related to howwell user groups and stakeholders are identified andbrought into the planning and management pro-cesses for the protected area.

Agardy also presents a summary of publishedliterature and anecdotal evidence that demonstratesthat marine protected areas have produced certainquantifiable benefits: (1) increases in abundance ofreef fish and invertebrates; (2) increases in individual

7


size/age; (3) increases in reproductive output; (4)increases in species diversity; (5) increases inspillover; (6) increases in replenishment; (7) increasesin preservation of genetic and demographic diver-sity; and (8) increases in habitat quality and diversity.

Agardy concludes that despite incomplete knowl-edge and imprecise science, steps must be taken toestablish protected areas now, and to use the addi-tional information gained as time goes on to alterthese reserves, remove superfluous ones, and addnew reserves. She maintains that by clearly definingobjectives and using science to design the bestpossible plans for meeting those objectives, themanagement of marine activities can be improved.

In Changing Ship Technology and Port InfrastructureImplications, Rod Vulovic of Sea-Land Service, Inc.addresses a number of topics including the changingface of world trade and its effects upon ship size,environmental impacts of mega-carriers,intermodalism, safe navigation, the ideal containerport, and ballast-water exchange. Vulovic begins bynoting that fully 90 percent of international trade iscarried by sea. He notes that while container shipsare the linchpin of cargo transportation, the totalsystem includes sophisticated shoreside terminals,intermodal extensions to inland points by rail andhighway, and automated information systems thattrack a shipment throughout its journey.

With regard to future trends in ship size, Vuloviccontends that the practicable upper limit of containership size has not been reached by the 7,000-TEU plusvessels now in existence. He proposes that aneventual ceiling might be found around levels of10,000 to 12,000 TEU, and that market forces willcontinue to influence the evolution of the system aslong as it moves in a way that continues to provideimprovements in cost, reliability, speed, and cus-tomer satisfaction.

Concerning environmental impacts of mega-carriers,Vulovic states that these ships display an increasinglyimportant characteristic that may directly affect airquality. In an operational environment in which thecontribution to atmospheric pollution by marinesources is being increasingly scrutinized, the opera-tion of a mega-carrier will result in a measurablylower release of pollutant gases than from an equiva-lent transportation capacity in smaller ships.

Vulovic concludes that an ongoing dialogue betweenport users, operating authorities, support andregulatory organizations, and government will

facilitate the provision of solutions to the manyproblems and challenges that currently exist forshipowners and port operators. Vulovic maintainsthat while the goal of seamless intermodalism is adifficult one to reach, it will eventually be achieved.

In Deepwater Offshore Oil Development: Opportuni-ties and Future Challenges, Paul Kelly of RowanCompanies, Inc. begins by noting that the extractionof petroleum resources from beneath the seabed is akey maritime activity in the Gulf of Mexico, offshoresouthern California, and in some regions of Alaska.Kelly points out that petroleum production fromoffshore federal lands presently comprises 20 percentof domestic oil production and 27 percent of domes-tic natural gas production. Currently, the offshore oiland gas industry and its attendant support servicessector provide 85,000 jobs. Kelly notes that it isprobable that the number of jobs provided by theindustry will more than double over the next 20years, and that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico isexpected to double by 2002. He also indicates thatrevenues from OCS oil and gas development gener-ate between $3 and $4 billion a year in federalreceipts and contribute to the Land and WaterConservation Fund and the National Historic Preser-vation Fund.

Kelly discusses the successful development oftechnology in offshore petroleum production andrelates how new exploration, drilling, and produc-tion-related technologies have resulted in unprec-edented production in 3,000 to 5,000 feet of water inthe Gulf of Mexico. Not only have technologicaladvances led to increased offshore production, butsuch advances have also improved the OCS safetyand environmental record. For example, less than0.001 percent of the oil produced from the OCS hasbeen spilled from production facilities during the lasttwo decades.

Kelly also addresses the efforts of the MineralsManagement Service to resolve conflicts and buildconsensus among stakeholders with regard to OCSoil and gas development. Kelly notes that such anapproach is being used in the current five year OCSleasing program, and that coastal state administra-tions appear to be more satisfied with the increase incommunication and consideration between thefederal government and the states regarding OCS oiland gas policy. For these reasons, among otherthings, Kelly maintains that President Clinton’sextension of the OCS moratorium beyond the year2000 was premature.

8


Kelly also touches upon the benefits of offshore oiltechnology for ocean research and other activitiesand the future challenges for deep water oil explora-tion and production. He closes his paper by empha-sizing that, as petroleum exploration advances intoever-deeper waters, it is critical that the United Statesratify the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention in order toassure 200 nautical miles of U. S. OCS jurisdiction.

In Challenges Facing the U.S. Commercial FishingIndustry, Pietro Parravano of the Pacific CoastFederation of Fishermen’s Associations maintainsthat the Fishery Conservation and Management Actof 1976 was the most significant piece of fisherieslegislation passed in this century. The FCMA estab-lished: (1) U.S. control of fisheries in waters offshoreout to 200 miles in a Fishery Conservation Zone(FCZ); (2) U.S. policy to “Americanize” U.S. fisheriesby phasing out foreign fishing offshore and develop-ing a domestic fleet fully capable of harvesting thefishery resources in the FCZ; and (3) federal manage-ment of U.S. fisheries in the FCZ through eightregional fishery management councils and theDepartment of Commerce.

Parravano contends that the “Americanization”policy, with its emphasis on fleet construction ratherthan research, has led to a vast overcapitalization ofthe U.S. fleet with far more harvesting capacity thanthere are resources to support that capacity. Theauthor also maintains that the policy has led tooverfishing of many species and the collapse of theNew England groundfish fisheries. Additionally,Parravano argues that the “Americanization” policyhad caused the Department of Commerce to ignorethe plight of smaller and more traditional fisheries,and to fail to act in a timely manner to prevent thenear extinction of some Pacific salmon species.

After reviewing the effects of several pieces offisheries-related legislation over the past 25 years,Parravano proposes seven focal points for fisheryplanning for the next 25 years: (1) full implementa-tion of the Sustainable Fisheries Act; (2) greaterfostering and support of small-boat and fishingfamily (owner-operator) operations; (3) encouragingfishery management decisions to be made at re-gional, state, and local levels, provided that they areconsistent with overall federal objectives; (4) in-creased funding for research purposes, gear develop-ment, and provision of autonomy for regional fisherycouncils; (5) greater emphasis on value-addedfisheries and low-impact/high-value fisheries; (6)fostering of aquaculture operations only where theyare nonpolluting, nondamaging and have high

conservation ratios; and (7) making fishing men andwomen with first-hand knowledge of the marineenvironment an integral component of fisheryresearch, management, and decision making.

In Coastal Tourism and Recreation: The Driver ofCoastal Development, Biliana Cicin-Sain and RobertW. Knecht, University of Delaware, note that whilethere is general recognition that coastal tourism andrecreation are important in the coastal zone, that theirimpact is systematically undervalued both economi-cally and as the most important driver of coastal de-velopment in many U.S. coastal areas. Travel and tour-ism are estimated to have provided $746 billion to theU.S. domestic product, about 10% of U.S. output, mak-ing travel and tourism the second largest contributorto GDP, just behind combined wholesale and retailtrade (Houston 1995). Although there are no preciseestimates of the magnitude of coastal travel and tour-ism in the U.S., studies have shown that beaches areAmerica’s leading tourist destination, ahead of nationalparks and historic sites. Approximately 180 millionpeople visit the coast for recreational purposes, with85% of tourist-related revenues generated by coastalstates (Houston 1996, 3).

Given these figures, it is significant to note that there isno federal agency with a mandate to manage coastaltravel and tourism, and that there is no overall nationalpolicy in place to plan for, and achieve, sustainable tour-ism in the U.S. A major reason for the lack of a formalprogram at the national level is that travel and tourismis viewed as a sector that requires relatively little for-mal management and is primarily a private sector en-deavor. The benefits of tourism on coastal areas aregreat, yet its adverse effects are often not immediatelyvisible, which leads to a sort of “management apathy.”Also, most aspects of coastal travel and tourism thatneed managing are already dealt with at one govern-mental level or another, but in separate programs andrun by different agencies, rather than as a coordinated,interconnected whole.

Cicin-Sain and Knecht discuss the major federal pro-grams most relevant to coastal travel and tourism—including coastal management and planning, manage-ment of clean water and healthy ecosystems, manage-ment of the impacts of coastal hazards, waterwayssafety— and set forth a number of policy challengesthat need to be addressed to promote sustainable andenvironmentally friendly tourism development inAmerican coastal areas.

In Assessing the Economic Benefits of America’sCoastal Regions, Howard Marlowe of the American

9


Coastal Coalition raises a number of issues related toincreasing growth in and development of coastalareas. Environmental challenges posed by coastaldevelopment include increasing pressure upondrinking water supplies and sewage systems, greaterdisruption of natural sand systems and subsequenterosion, more pollution, and increasing tensions andconflicts among various resource users. Marlowenotes that each of these issues is important, but thepolitical process at every level frequently adopts apiecemeal approach to these problems, focusing onone issue at a time rather than working in an inte-grated manner.

To illustrate his points, Marlowe discusses twoissues: (1) whether the Federal government shouldsupport beach nourishment; and (2) whether theFederal government should subsidize coastal floodinsurance policies. Marlowe uses these issues todemonstrate the somewhat myopic nature of publicpolicy making. He points out, for example, thatwhile the Army Corps of Engineers conducts abenefit-cost analysis of every potential shore protec-tion project, the analysis places its greatest emphasison the value of private property immediately adja-cent to the shoreline. Marlowe contends that such anapproach to analysis misses the benefits that accrueto homes and businesses in the area located else-where than adjacent to the shoreline as well as otherenvironmental benefits.

Marlowe emphasizes the economic benefits of anumber of beaches throughout the United States,including those in California, Florida, Delaware, andTexas. Marlowe concludes his partial review of theeconomic impact of coastal regions in the UnitedStates with data from the EPA. He notes thatAmerica’s coastal waters support 28.3 million jobsand generate $54 billion in goods and servicesannually. The coastal recreation and tourism indus-try is the second largest employer in the nation,serving the 180 million Americans who visit domes-tic coasts each year.

Marlowe concludes by maintaining that the develop-ment of a comprehensive set of data on all of thebenefits derived from America’s coastal regions iscritical. He notes that major steps need to be taken toimprove coastal management practices and policies.Such steps include restoring and maintaining erod-ing beaches, improving water quality, protecting andenhancing coastal wildlife, promoting policies thatmitigate coastal hazards, and generally improvingthe quality of the coastal environment.

In A Profile of Recreational Boating in the UnitedStates, Ryck Lydecker and Margaret Podlich of theBoat Owners Association of the United States(BOAT/U.S.) discuss the relative importance ofrecreational boating. They note that 75 millionAmericans were directly involved in on-the-wateractivities last year. Recreational vessels compriseAmerica’s largest fleet with 16.8 million boats in usenationwide.

Lydecker and Podlich also address the “yachtingmisnomer,” which has led some to believe thatrecreational boating is largely the domain of wealthy“fat cats.” The authors note that recreational boatingis a social activity and family sport, and that boaterscontribute to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fundthrough motorboat fuel taxes and fishing gear excisetaxes. Lydecker and Podlich point out that the Fundputs approximately $350 million a year into boatingsafety education, law enforcement, environmentalprotection, public access, and fishery restoration.

Lydecker and Podlich identify three major issues thatcurrently are and will continue to be of great impor-tance to recreational boaters in the future: (1) access,(2) natural resources, and (3) opportunity. Withregard to access, the authors note that in order toallow the general public the ability to get to thewater, ramps, access points, marinas and transientdockage, moorings, anchorage, and dry and winterstorage must be available. Lydecker and Podlich alsomaintain that in order to make exploration of water-ways a legacy of recreational boaters, they must worktowards making citizens coastal stewards interestedin preserving the areas they explore. Regardingnatural resources, the authors note that the enjoy-ment of recreational boating is heavily dependentupon clean water. The authors contend that newmethods of reducing both point and nonpoint sourcepollution are necessary. Lydecker and Podlich alsodiscuss the necessity of commercial and recreationalinterests working together to achieve flexible, timelymanagement of fish and wildlife. Considering theissue of opportunity, the authors point to costs, fees,government regulations, and maintenance as themost often cited reasons preventing the averagecitizen from engaging in recreational boating. Theymention a number of possible solutions to theseimpediments, including improved infrastructure andtimeshare boat owning arrangements. Lydecker andPodlich conclude by reiterating that much of thenation is heading for the coast, and recreationalboaters should be considered a major component inthe quest to create coastal stewards.

10


In Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Currentand Future Policy and Management Challenges, M.Richard DeVoe of the South Carolina Sea GrantConsortium provides an overview of domesticmarine aquaculture, addressing such issues as thecurrent status of the industry, the nature of theindustry, coastal and ocean use conflicts, aquacultureand the environment, legal and regulatory structures,marine aquaculture and federal policy, and the futureof marine aquaculture in the United States. DeVoebegins by noting that while domestic aquacultureproduction has not grown rapidly enough to balancethe consumer demand for seafood, the developmentof the industry is considered to be critical to thefuture of the United States because it has the poten-tial to produce: (1) high quality seafood to replacedeclining wild harvests; (2) products for export to aidin the reduction of the nation’s foreign trade deficit;(3) stock enhancement of important commercial andrecreational fisheries species; (4) economic develop-ment opportunities; and (5) new employmentopportunities.

Regarding problems confronting marine aquaculture,DeVoe notes that a number of issues have con-strained the development of marine aquaculture inthe United States These issues include the complexand diverse nature of the industry, conflicts withother, more traditional uses of the nation’s coastaland ocean waters, environmental concerns, and theexisting legal and regulatory climate, all of whichDeVoe discusses in some detail.

In conclusion, DeVoe maintains that the UnitedStates must return to the fundamental issues in orderto address the lack of development in the marineaquaculture industry. He specifically suggests: (1)reevaluation and reaffirmation of the nation’s aquac-ulture policy; (2) increased support of sustainablemarine aquaculture; and (3) strengthened policydevelopment through improved coordination.DeVoe summarizes that the key to the future ofmarine aquaculture in the United States is thecreation of technological and political systems thatprovide for sustainable marine aquaculture. Hecontends that sustainable aquaculture necessitatesthat all aspects of the industry, including productionand technology, economics and marketing, businessand financing, natural resource needs and protec-tions, and administrative and legal institutions areaddressed comprehensively and simultaneously.

In Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the U.S. ExclusiveEconomic Zone: Legal and Regulatory Concerns,Alison Rieser of the University of Maine School of

Law and Susan Bunsick of the University of Dela-ware begin by noting that the future development ofmarine aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ is constrained bylegal and regulatory concerns that need to be ad-dressed in order for the industry to become bothfinancially viable and internationally competitive.The authors describe the current federal regulatoryframework, identify important elements that need tobe included in an improved government framework,review the major obstacles to offshore aquaculture,and present an overview of recent U.S. governmentplanning initiatives.

Among the legal obstacles to consider in any revisionof the current regulatory framework, the authorsidentify five issues: (1) limited availability of prop-erty rights or other interests that can secure aproducer’s investment; (2) poorly defined standardsthat fail to reduce conflicts among competing users ofpublic resources; (3) poorly defined agency jurisdic-tions leading to delays in defining applicable stan-dards or regulations; (4) redundant regulations dueto overlapping agency responsibilities; and (5)inappropriate restrictions designed to protect wildstocks.

After reviewing the current status of U.S. govern-ment planning efforts, the authors note that a win-dow of opportunity for addressing the issues associ-ated with the development of marine aquaculturewas missed in the most recent reauthorization of theNational Aquaculture Act, which left the currentfederal approach unaltered. However, funding formarine aquaculture has been included in the ClintonAdministration’s National Oceans Initiative, whichwas announced in June 1998. The authors concludethat adoption of the draft National AquacultureDevelopment Plan could facilitate the changes in thelegal and regulatory framework that are necessary topromote the development of marine aquaculture inthe EEZ.

In The Potential for the Marine BiotechnologyIndustry, Shirley Pomponi of the Harbor BranchOceanographic Institution begins by noting that themarine environment is a rich source of both biologi-cal and chemical diversity, and the oceans represent avirtually untapped resource for discovery of noveland useful compounds. Pomponi focuses on thecurrent status and future potential of marine biotech-nology related to the discovery, development, andsustainable use of marine-derived compounds withbiomedical applications. She also identifies four ofthe challenges facing the marine biotechnologyindustry in the next millennium: (1) identifying new

11


sources of marine bioproducts; (2) developing novelscreening technologies; (3) providing a sustainablesource of supply; and (4) optimizing production andrecovery of bioproducts.

With regard to the first challenge, the identification ofnew sources of marine bioproducts, Pomponi notesthat federal agency support for deep ocean explora-tion for biotechnology is limited, and that mannedand unmanned submersibles are underfunded andrestricted. Pomponi contends that there is a need forthe development of versatile bioreactors that can bedeployed and operated in extreme environments.She also notes that another approach to the identifi-cation of new products is the incorporation ofminiaturized biosensors into both collecting toolsand bioreactors for rapid, in situ analysis of bothwild and cultivated marine organisms for targetmolecules. Concerning the second challenge,Pomponi states that none of the assays used in majorpharmaceutical drug discovery programs considersthe role of marine-derived compounds in nature, andthat the development of in situ biosensors wouldfacilitate the ability to explore the expression ofsecondary metabolites, lead to a greater understand-ing of the role of secondary metabolites in nature,and provide insight into the potential biomedicalutility of such compounds.

With regard to the third challenge, the author notesthat some options for sustainable use of marineresources are chemical synthesis, controlled harvest-ing, aquaculture of the source organism, in vitroproduction through cell culture of the microorganismor its source, and transgenic production. Consider-ing the fourth challenge, Pomponi points out that thearea in which marine bioprocess engineering has thegreatest potential is in the design and optimization ofbioreactors for marine metabolite production. Tosummarize, Pomponi states that the marine biotech-nology industry faces a unique challenge: inventing anew generation of tools and processes to discovernew bioproducts and designing methods for theirsustainable development.

In Emerging Challenges for U.S. Marine Biotechnology,Robert Knecht, Biliana Cicin-Sain, and Dosoo Jangdiscuss the policy challenges that the U.S. marinebiotechnology industry will face in the near future-challenges related to the evolving internationalframework affecting marinebiotechnology operations. The first policy challengeis defining an appropriate regime for governingaccess to marine resources/organisms under thejurisdiction of coastal nations as well as to genetic

resources found in deep-sea areas; this will requireharmonization between the Law of the Sea Conven-tion and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Thesecond major policy challenge is the issue of safety inbiotechnology, or “biosafety,” as this issue hasbecome known. While there are not yet any bindingagreements to address the transboundary movementof living modified organisms, there has been a majoreffort underway to develop an international agree-ment on safety in biotechnology, under the aegis ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity. Such alegally-binding agreement will greatly affect anindividual nation’s behavior and its domestic policieson biotechnology in the next century. Finally, theissue of intellectual property rights represents amajor policy challenge for the U.S. marine biotech-nology industry at the international level—countriesin the “North” (developed nations, the U.S. included)want stricter intellectual property controls on newbiotech discoveries (to guarantee the biotech industrythe recovery of their investments and costs); while, incontrast, the “South” (the developing nations) areconcerned about inequitable sharing of benefitsarising from the utilization of their genetic resources.

In Building Capacity for Ocean Management: RecentDevelopments in U.S. West Coast States, MarcHershman of the School of Marine Affairs at theUniversity of Washington begins by noting that in aprevious paper, he had concluded that there was atrend toward increased state-level participation inocean management within the United States, and thatthis trend was likely to continue because the states’role in these issues had become institutionalized. Inthis paper, Hershman reports on recent develop-ments in the West Coast states of California, Oregon,and Hawaii to determine how their role in oceanaffairs has progressed since 1996.

After reviewing developments in California, Oregon,and Hawaii, Hershman concludes that all three stateshave continued to advance an ocean program. Henotes that political and leadership changes caninfluence progress in a new subject area like oceanmanagement. Organizational change and revision ofpolicy documents have hindered progress in the past,and Hershman states that with the exception ofOregon, this pattern may continue to dominate.Hershman finds that there appear to have beensubstantive shifts in at least three areas. The firstissue is fisheries policy. While fisheries-related issueswere previously unaddressed in the three states’ocean management programs because of existingfisheries management agencies, in the past two yearsall three states have adopted new laws or policies

12


dealing with fisheries management. The secondpolicy shift has been in the area of increased localgovernment involvement in ocean affairs. The thirdpolicy shift is in the area of maritime policy, particu-larly in establishing state maritime policy anddesignating responsible agencies.

Hershman concludes that the experiences of Califor-nia, Oregon, and Hawaii suggest that the scope ofocean issues of concern to coastal states is broaden-ing. He notes that these states’ capacity for oceanmanagement has improved since new laws andgovernmental responsibilities have been identifiedand added to the states’ suite of management tools.However, Hershman cautions that there is stillconsiderable flux in defining responsibility for oceanissues in the states.

In Coastal States’ Challenges, Sarah Cooksey of theDelaware Department of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Conservation and the Coastal StatesOrganization describes the importance of the CoastalZone Management Act (CZMA). Cooksey notes thatthe CZMA is the only federal statute that puts forth acomprehensive, voluntary, federal-state partnershipbased on the goal of maximizing sustainable eco-nomic and environmental objectives. Cookseymaintains that it is time for a major commitmentthrough the CZMA to provide for new and improvedplanning and management tools for local communi-ties so that they might better understand and addresscomplex economic and ecological dynamics ofcoastal systems and communities.

After providing background on the CZMA, Cookseypresents a summary of the Coastal StatesOrganization’s proposals for reauthorization of theCZMA in 1999: (1) provide increased support for thedevelopment of new tools which will build capacityat the state and local level through technical assis-tance and targeted support to states and communi-ties to implement place-based management in criticalcoastal areas; (2) provide for increased support forstate coastal programs to address the cumulative andsecondary impacts of development and land-basedsources of polluted runoff; (3) provide funding underthe Coastal Zone Management Fund for regionallysignificant projects, international projects, emergencyresponse to coastal hazards, and innovative demon-stration projects addressed at local communities; (4)clarify the role of and provide increased support forthe National Estuarine Research Reserves and seek tobuild closer links to coastal programs; and (5)enhance federal support for base programs under theCZMA consistent with increased challenges and

responsibilities, particularly in the nation’s largeststates where base grants have been capped for thepast seven years despite substantial increases in stateand local needs.

In Development of a Comprehensive Ocean Policyfor Florida, James Murley and Laura Cantral of theFlorida Governor’s Ocean Committee discussFlorida’s efforts to develop an ocean managementapproach that is coordinated and comprehensive,and that can account for a wide variety of uses andactivities. The authors include a brief history of thecurrent ocean planning initiative, describe thepreliminary projects that laid the groundwork for thecreation of the Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee,and summarize the Committee’s work to date.

Murley and Cantral note that the impetus for devel-oping an ocean management strategy for Floridabegan with the Florida Coastal Management Pro-gram (FCMP), located in the state’s Department ofCommunity Affairs. The FCMP serves as the coordi-nating agency for nine state agencies that regulatecoastal activities, and over time it became clear thatan integrated framework was needed to manageoffshore ocean resources and to eliminate inconsis-tencies between different agency responsibilities.

In order to provide shape and direction to the oceanmanagement effort, the FCMP funded a series ofpreliminary projects that, among other things, weredesigned to generate support for ocean planning andultimately to justify the creation of a high-level groupthat would be charged with developing coordinatedocean governance strategies for the state. Theprojects included a comprehensive analysis of thestatus of marine law and policy in Florida; a State-wide Ocean Resource Inventory (SORI); and theFlorida Ocean Policy Roundtable. Once theseprojects were complete, the next step toward thedevelopment of a comprehensive ocean managementstrategy was the formation of a formal policy com-mittee, known as the Florida Governor’s OceanCommittee (FGOC).

Murley and Cantral note that the FGOC developed anumber of ocean management strategies, containedin the Committee’s draft final report. The strategiesare organized into five broad categories: (1) improv-ing information on and understanding of oceanresources; (2) creating an improved ocean manage-ment framework that is more coordinated andcomprehensive; (3) achieving and sustaining diversemarine ecosystems that are capable of supportingmultiple uses; (4) raising awareness, promoting

13


education, and fostering stewardship of the ocean;and (5) facilitating greater financial support for oceanresearch, education, and management.

Taken together, the suite of papers presented in thisvolume provide, we think, a wide-ranging picture ofcurrent trends, issues, and emerging challenges in avariety of areas of national ocean and coastal policy.We expect that future National Dialogues will furtherdefine and expand on these themes.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this introduction are excerpted from Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1999. The assistance of RosemarieHinkel in summarizing the papers contained in thisvolume is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Bookman, Charles, Thomas Culliton and MaureenWarren. 1999. Trends in U. S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998 (Executive Summary), in this volume.

Cicin-Sain, Biliana and Robert W. Knecht. 1999. TheFuture of U. S. Ocean Policy: Choices for the NextCentury, Washington, D. C.: Island Press.

Coy, Peter, Gary McWilliams and John Rossant. 1997.The new economics of oil, Business Week. November3: 140-144.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1995.Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Adopted bythe 28th Session of FAO Conference on 31 October1995.

Houston, James R. 1995. The Economic Value of Beaches.CERCular, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vol.CERC-95-4, December.

Houston, James R. 1996. International Tourism and USBeaches. Shore and Beach.

Nicholls, Robert J. 1995. “Coastal Megacities andClimate Change.” GeoJournal. 37(3): 369-379.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), WorldTourism Organization, and Earth Council. No date.Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry:Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development.World Travel and Tourism Council, London, UnitedKingdom; World Tourism Organization, Madrid,Spain; and Earth Council, San Jose, Costa Rica. 78pp. (presented at the June 1997 United Nations

General Assembly, The Earth Summit plus Five, NewYork City).

Year of the Ocean (YOTO) Discussion Papers. March1998. Prepared by the U. S. Federal Agencies withocean-related programs. Washington, D. C.

15

The Next 25 Years: Global Issues

The development of human society is coupled to the health of the planet. Speakers in the first sessionof the conference addressed fundamental transformations and trends, which require societal re-sponses. These include changes in the distribution of wealth and the organization of society; theimplications of unchecked population growth for coastal regions; and global trends in fisheries andaquaculture. For the United States, this session included a comprehensive examination of underly-ing and emerging trends that are shaping the coast, coastal resources and uses, and coastal manage-ment and policy.

Ocean and Coastal Futures: The Global ContextAllen Hammond, World Resources Institute

Global Trends in Fisheries and AquacultureRichard Grainger, Fisheries Department,UN Food and Agriculture Organization

The Coastal Population ExplosionDon Hinrichsen, UN consultant and author

Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998Charles Bookman, Thomas Culliton, and Maureen Warren,

National Ocean Service, NOAA

1. The Next 25 Years: Global Issues

17


OCEAN AND COASTAL FUTURES: THE GLOBAL CONTEXT

Allen HammondWorld Resources Institute

The interaction of human society and the planet is acoupled nonlinear complex system. If you takecomplex systems apart and just study the parts, youmiss some of the important phenomena; you have tolook at the whole. So it is important totry to take an overview of how manyfactors interact—population trends,economic trends, social and politicaltrends, environmental trends, securitytrends. I will emphasize environmentaltrends in these remarks, but will touchon others too, to answer two questions:What are the forces that are shapingour world in coming decades, andwhere would we like to end up? Canwe envision some trajectories that willget us to the kind of world that wewould like to pass on to our grandchil-dren?

As a society, we’re not very good aboutlooking ahead. Much of our economicdecision-making is governed by the quarterly profitstatement, and our political horizons rarely go muchbeyond the next election. Yet we’re making choices,consciously or unconsciously, that are going to havegenerational implications: our use of energy and itsimplications for future climates, for example, or ourloss of species and the implications for a morebiologically impoverished planet.

Analysis of persistent trends can tell us a lot aboutthe future—about constraints or plausible ranges ofimportant variables. But trends are not destiny, andmany important factors that govern the future cannotreadily be quantified. So I also use scenarios toexplore different trajectories into the future, scenariosthat reflect radically different assumptions or worldviews about the future. Scenarios are not predictions,but they are powerful tools for thinking about thefuture precisely because we respond to them emo-tionally as well as cognitively. And that helpsgenerate a process of making choices—it highlightsand changes the way you think about the present inways that might influence your actions.

I will discuss three scenarios—Market World, FortressWorld, and Transformed World. They also turn out tobe a good way to organize a discussion of key trends.

Market World is the vision of the future that points tothe extended U.S. boom and the free market policiesthat have engendered it as a model for the world. Italso points to the continuing technological revolu-

tion, to the spread ofdemocracy aroundthe world, to wide-spread and rapidimprovements inliteracy, even toenvironmentalimprovements inmany industrializedcountries. It is ascenario that calls fordownsizing govern-ment by privatizingand deregulating andasserts that freemarkets and thegenius of the privatesector will solve our

problems and bring widespread prosperity. Thisworld view is broadly held in corporate boardroomsand among high-tech entrepreneurs, and it is sup-ported by many politicians. And markets do havethe upper hand at the moment—they often dictate togovernments, as Southeast Asia has recently found.Furthermore, economic reform and governmentaldownsizing have enormous momentum in manyparts of the world. Market World is a powerfulvision, because we suspect that at least parts of it areright—markets and the private sector will play amajor role in the future. On the other hand, we alsoknow that markets don’t automatically solve envi-ronmental problems, and they don’t solve equity orother social problems. In fact, they often make themworse.

Could unattended environmental and social prob-lems undermine Market World? Populations are stillgrowing rapidly, especially in the poorest parts of theworld. Urbanization is occurring even more rapidly,with a million new urban residents a week world-wide. In China, for example, experts expect 300million people to move from rural to urban areasbetween 1995 and 2010—the equivalent of all ofNorth America moving to the city in 15 years. Candeveloping societies build the necessary housing and

As a society, we’re notvery good about look-ing ahead. Much ofour economic decision-making is governed bythe quarterly profitstatement, and ourpolitical horizons rarelygo much beyond thenext election.

18


other infrastructure rapidly enough? Will there beenough jobs in urban areas? And what about theenvironmental impact of hundreds of newmegacities, many of them located in coastal areas andmost of them with inadequate pollution control?

If we look at environmental trends more systemati-cally, it is useful to focus first on those associatedwith industrial activity. Consumption of naturalresources to produce the goods and services that oureconomies provide also produces pollution andwaste. It turns out that it now requires annuallyabout 80 metric tons of natural resources per personto support the U.S. lifestyle and the U.S. GDP, and acomparable amount in other industrial countries. Asindustrialization spreads around the world, how willnatural resourceconsumption rise?The conventionalwisdom is thatworld energyconsumption islikely to grow by afactor of 2.5, andmanufacturingactivity by a factorof 3, over the nexthalf century. Butwith much of thatgrowth concen-trated in develop-ing regions, thepotential forincreased pollutionin those regions—especially air pollution and toxic pollu-tion—is muchhigher. And globally, if fossil fuels continue to be theprimary source of energy, the impact of this con-sumption pattern will be rapidly rising atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases, suggesting thatwe may well find out what global warming and achanging climate are all about.

A second set of environmental trends are thoseassociated with the degradation of Earth’s biologicalsystems. And these may have an even greater andmore direct impact on human welfare, because asmuch as a third of the earth’s population still de-pends directly on local environmental resources—what can be grown or gathered or caught—for mostof their sustenance and livelihoods. Yet the trendssuggest that soil loss is accelerating, that forestseverywhere are at high risk of degradation, thatmany of the most biologically rich coral reefs areeven now at high risk, and a majority of the world’smarine fisheries are overfished and in danger of

severe degradation. And as populations rise, a finiteamount of such renewable resources as fertile soil orwater must serve more and more people. So the riskis for growing biological impoverishment, and forhuman impoverishment as well, not to mention thepotential for growing resource conflicts.

In addition, if Market World fails to spread thewealth and improved welfare it generates to all ofEarth’s people, might we also have quite a largenumber of people who know more and more abouthow the rich live but who know that they don’t haveany chance to participate in such wealth or even tomeet their basic needs? And might such people, intheir frustration and even anger, become a vastrecruiting ground for terrorism and fuel growing

illegal migration? If there aren’tenough jobs in the swelling cities of thedeveloping world, might the result begrowing crime and instability and thepotential for violence? Might emergentdiseases—some 30 in the past 20 years,most arising from the degradedecosystems in developing countries—become an even greater global healththreat? In short, might there be newsecurity threats to cope with as well?

If you put all of these adverse trendstogether, the result is a different visionof the future, which I call FortressWorld. The fortress imagery comesfrom thinking of islands of luxury andprivilege surrounded by oceans ofpoverty and despair and environmen-

tal degradation. Whether on a small scale—like thehigh-rises on the beach at Rio surrounded by theshanty towns on the hills, or the gated communitiesthat you see spreading in this country—or on a largerscale—the whole United States as an island ofprosperity in an ocean of countries that are suffering,like Central America—the image is a powerful one.

Fortress World is a dark vision. It’s certainly not aworld that anybody wants to live in. But neither is itpossible to dismiss it. Private security forces nowoutnumber the police by four to one globally, and byten to one in places like South Africa and Russia.Think of how many places now where businessmenhave to have bodyguards and send their kids toschool in armored limousines—in Moscow, MexicoCity, Hong Kong. Even the middle class in Colombiaworry about kidnaping.

...the trends suggest that soilloss is accelerating, thatforests everywhere are athigh risk of degradation,that many of the most bio-logically rich coral reefs areeven now at high risk, and amajority of the world’s ma-rine fisheries are overfishedand in danger of severedegradation.

19


Fortress World is a symbol of what’s plausible butwhich we hope will not come to pass. What otheroptions are there?

That leads me to what I call Transformed World.That’s a vision that says we know we’re going toneed fundamental social and political reform to solvesome of these problems. We need some new forms ofgovernance, because we can’t run a global economywithout some form of regulation—the last yearshowed that all too clearly. And quite apart fromsuch things as regulation, we need new ways ofmaking decisions. We need to reform some of ourinstitutions. We need some changes in values andbehaviors. Transformed World is a scenario in whichthese things actually occur.

To some degree, such a scenario requires a leap offaith. But to a surprising degree, many of thesetransforming trends are already underway, at least ina preliminary form. And that offers both cause foroptimism and an agenda for action.

Think about the remarkable change in attitudestowards smoking in the United States in the last tenyears. Such changes in attitudes and behaviors are asource of great hope for the future. For instance, ifthe world decided that climate was important, wecould find ways to solve the climate problem. Partlywhat is required is policy reform, but more funda-mentally what is needed are changes of attitude, anew social and political consensus about where wewant to go. Then the policies will follow.

Places like Poland and the Czech Republic have beenessentially reborn with much more optimism andhope and progress, even though their physicalproblems haven’t at all gone away. And suchchanges illustrate that political consensus and socialattitudes can change very quickly and are absolutelyimportant in determining what’s going to happen.

Technology is also creating new options, new toolsthat can help, if we have the wit to use them cre-atively.

Still another hopeful trend is the rise of civil society:church groups, environmental groups, citizensorganizations, nonprofit aid agencies, universitystudents and faculty, and many others. Such non-governmental organizations (NGOs) already play animportant role locally and nationally, and they arebeginning to emerge as a force at an internationallevel—delivering services, setting political and socialagendas, brokering new forms of collaboration with

the private sector. A good example is the treaty toban land mines that was passed last year, largelydriven by a group of more than 700 NGOs aroundthe world.The Internet is empowering civil society in a uniqueway because it lets groups link together in coalitions.And civil society groups far outnumber both govern-ments and major corporations, and their numbers aregrowing rapidly. In effect, civil society is forging anew form of governance, a new mode of socialdecision-making and consensus-building that mayprove crucial in the decades ahead.

Finally, I want to point to the greening of corpora-tions as a still preliminary but potentially veryimportant transforming trend. Look at what hap-pened on the climate front just in the last fewmonths. Some 15 or 20 major global companies cameout actively endorsing the need for a climate treaty:GM, BP, Monsanto, Dupont, and a host of others. Inalmost every case they had worked with a group ofenvironmental NGOs, including my organization.The result is that these companies decided: (a) theycould live with a climate treaty, (b) it was sociallyresponsible to start acting as though that was goingto happen, and (c) there was a tremendous businessopportunity if they got out in front.

We’re beginning to see corporations going beyondnarrow compliance to take a leadership role, but thatmay accelerate. The larger the corporation, the morevulnerable it is to social expectations, and as compa-nies understand that, they’re increasingly going torealize that they can’t afford not to be perceived aspart of the solution, not part of the problem. Andglobal corporations do have very unique capabilities,if they could be harnessed to help solve environmen-tal and developmental problems.

So there are a number of reasons to have some faithin a Transformed World vision. And thinking aboutMarket World, Fortress World, and TransformedWorld poses the question of what choices we need tomake. What would shift us from one trajectory, onescenario, to another?

If we think about how these trends and these sce-narios might play out focused on our coastal andocean areas, I think you’ll see that while there aresome issues unique to the coastal zone, it is notpossible to isolate oceans and coasts from the trajec-tory of the larger society. So if we want to under-stand the forces shaping these regions, we have tolook very broadly, as I have tried to do here.

21


GLOBAL TRENDS IN FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE

Richard GraingerFAO Fisheries Department

Introduction

This paper aims to describe past trends in capturefishery and aquaculture production, particularlyconcerning thedevelopment ofmarine capturefisheries, and tocompare the currentproduction withfisheries potential.Food fish supplyprospects willdepend to a largeextent on theeffectiveness offisheries manage-ment and the responsible development of aquacul-ture, both of which will be tested in facing thesustainability challenge. An essential requirement forensuring sustainable fisheries and aquaculturethrough good policies and management will be theprovision of objective information on the state offisheries and aquaculture.

Contribution of Fisheries to Food Supply and the Economy

Global fish production has grown impressively,almost doubling average per capita food fish supplyfrom 8 kilograms in 1950 to almost 16 kilograms in1997 (Figure 1). The average consumption of fishprotein has risen from 2.7 grams per capita per day in

1960 to 4.0 grams today, now representing 16% of allanimal protein consumed by the world’s 6 billioninhabitants. Of the 30 countries most dependent onfish as a protein source, all but 4 are in the develop-

ing world. In addition to human food,fisheries have provided a major source ofhigh quality feeds for livestock and,increasingly, for aquaculture.

World fisheries and aquaculture havebeen a source of employment for arapidly growing number of people. Thenumber of fishers and fish farmers morethan doubled in the last 25 years, increas-ing from 13 million in 1970 to 30 millionin 1995, over 90% of them in Asia (Figure

World Fish Utilization and Food Supply

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18Feed

Food

Population

Per capita supply

Figure 1. Trends in global utilization of fish forhuman food and animal feeds and average per capitafood fish supply.

World fishers and fish farmers by continent

0

5

10

15

20

25

Asia Africa N.America

S.America

Europe Other

Mil

lio

ns

1970

1980

1990

Figure 2. Number of people employed in the fisheriesprimary sector as fishers or fish farmers in 1970, 1980and 1990 by continent.

2). The number of people dependent on fisheries fora livelihood has been estimated at 200 millionworldwide.

First sale value of capture fishery production wasworth an estimated $83 billion in 1995. Aquacultureproduction was worth a further $42 billion. Exportsof fishery products worldwide were worth $52billion in 1995. Since 1970, trade in fishery commodi-ties has increased by a factor of 16, compared to 6 foragricultural commodities and 13 for all merchandise.

The number of fishersand fish farmers morethan doubled in the last25 years, increasing from13 million in 1970 to 30million in 1995...

22


The Development of Capture Fisheries and the Needfor Management

Fishing Fleets

According to FAO statistics, growth in the number ofdecked fishing vessels has been much slower since1990, following two decades of rapid growth, par-ticularly in Asia (Figure 3). Average tonnage ofdecked vessels has also increased slightly over thisperiod.

Most of the increase in Asian fishing vessels since1980 is attributable to the Chinese fleet, whichincreased rapidly up to 1990. Since 1990, the increasehas been slower in terms of number but not muchslower in terms of tonnage, probably because vesselsize has been increasing in line with the policy ofdeveloping offshore fisheries. China’s fishing fleettotaling about 5.5 million GT is now by far the largestin the world, followed by the fleet of the RussianFederation with a tonnage of about 3 million.

A recent, and still preliminary, FAO assessment ofindustrial fishing vessels of over 100 GT (whichaccount for a large proportion of total landings), hasbeen undertaken based on data in the Lloyd’sRegister database. Lloyd’s data show a significantdecrease in fleet size from about 26,000 fishingvessels in 1991 to less than 23,000 in 1997, and withvery little change in the tonnage per vessel. As withthe FAO statistics, this contrasts with the growth inthe fleet observed up to 1990.

Fishery Landings

Capture fishery production for both food and non-food utilization has leveled off in the last decade. Theincrease in food fish production in recent years hasbeen entirely due to aquaculture (Figure 4). Percapita food fish supply from capture fisheries hasactually declined during the last decade.

Tonnage of Decked Fishing Vessels by Continent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Mill

ion

to

nn

es

Oceania

Africa

America, South

America, North

Europe

Former USSR

Asia

Figure 3. Trend in the total tonnage of the world’sdecked fishing vessels broken down by continentaccording to FAO statistics.

Production from capture fisheries and aquaculture according to utilisation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Mill

ion

met

ric

ton

s

Food fish fromaquaculture

Food fish fromcapture

Non-food usefrom capture

Figure 4. Fish production from capture fisheries andaquaculture destined for food and capture fisheryproduction for non-food use (e.g. feeds).

Total harvests of over 400 demersal fish speciesleveled off in the early 1970s (Figure 5). In contrast,pelagic fish catches, despite large fluctuations, haveshown an underlying trend of increasing catches.There are signs that the increasing trend may now becoming to an end.

Tracking Fishery Development

Fisheries development started in the NortheastAtlantic, spread throughout the Atlantic, then to thePacific and finally to the Indian Ocean. The marinefishery harvest potential of 100 million tonnesestimated by Gulland1 in 1970 is now being ap-proached.

A study undertaken by FAO2 used a simple fisheriesdevelopment model to track the state of fisherydevelopment of the world’s top 200 marine fishresources based on trends in catches (Figure 6). Atransition from mainly “undeveloped” fisheries tomainly “senescent” and “mature” is clear. About

World landings of the top demersal marine fish species and tota

0

5

10

15

20

25

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Mill

ion

to

nn

es

Alaska pollock

Atlantic cod

Haddock

Sandeels

Saithe

Atlantic redfishes

410 other species

Figure 5. World landings of demersal fish species.

23


60% of the resources are now categorized as “senes-cent” or “mature.” These require urgent managementaction to halt the increase in fishing effort or rehabili-tate overfished resources.

FAO analyses indicate that the Atlantic and PacificOceans are “fully fished,” but that further fisheriesexpansion may be possible in the Indian Ocean.There are very few underexploited resources left, andsome (e.g. krill and meso-pelagic fish) may not becommercially viable.

• Larger fish can often be fished more selectively,reducing discards and wastage.

Discards from marine fisheries have been estimatedat 27 million tonnes per year. More recent estimatesare about 22 million tonnes, still very significant.More selective gears and fishing practices can reducethe capture of unwanted bycatch. Utilization ofunwanted bycatch can be increased. This is alreadyhappening in tropical shrimp trawl fisheries where

FAO analyses3 provide estimates of marine fisherypotential. The most reliable of these is 93 milliontonnes, a gain of about 10 million tonnes from thepresent comprising 4 million tonnes from improvedmanagement in each of the Atlantic and PacificOceans and 2 million tonnes from further develop-ment in the Indian Ocean. Less reliable estimatesimply higher gains derived almost entirely from newfisheries.

The benefits of effective management could be high, of theorder of 10-20% of the present landed value of over US$80billion. Apart from increased yield in quantity andrevenue, there are other benefits to be derived fromimproved fisheries management, such as the following:

• Less fluctuation in yields from year to year asfish live longer, providing more stability to theindustry.

• Fish grow larger and larger fish are often morevaluable, increasing earnings per tonne.

Phase I - Undeveloped

Phase II - Developing

Phase III - Mature

Phase IV - Senescent

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

sou

rces

fish previously discarded are increasingly used forfood and aquaculture feed.

Fisheries Management: Turning Failure into Success

Fisheries management up to now has generally failedto protect resources from being overexploited. Thereare many reasons for this, including the following :

• Lack of political resolution to make difficultadjustments

• Persistence of direct and indirect subsidies• Lack of control on fleets by flag states

• Ineffectiveness of fishery commissions to whichmember countries are reluctant to delegatenecessary powers

• Lack of consideration of rights and potentialcontribution of traditional communities

Figure 6. Percentage of major marine fish stocks in various phases of fishery development.

24


• Success of industry lobbies in resisting change

• Lack of capacity for implementation of manage-ment in developing countries.

However, some recent developments have providedconditions which should allow anunprecedented opportunity for improv-ing fisheries management, the mostimportant of which are as follows:

• Widespread recognition of theproblems of fishery management,with readiness to change expressedat highest levels of governance

• New concerns for the environment,people’s participation, and empow-erment

• Consensus on the institutional originof the failure, with all other factors,including scientific uncertainty,being secondary

• Availability of international instruments andinitiatives (e.g. UNCLOS, UN Fish Stocks Agree-ment, FAO Code of Conduct), often embracingthe precautionary approach.

If this opportunity is lost and management does notimprove, there could be a shortfall of 10-40 milliontonnes between demand and supply for humanconsumption by 2010, despite increased aquacultureproduction. If domestic supplies of major importingdeveloped countries are not improved, alreadyexpanding trade for human consumption will befurther promoted, possibly leading to increaseddepletion of resources exploited by the major export-ing developing countries.

There are other risks associated with not improvingmanagement. Abrupt resource declines with rapidcorrective measures causing major socio-economicdamage (e.g. Canadian cod fishery) will continue tooccur. If the situation deteriorates, there may be slowchanges in species dominance and trophic relation-ships and environmental degradation. There may bea loss of traditional fishing rights to other sectorssuch as conservation, tourism, oil industry, andcoastal activities.

Aquaculture Development

Aquaculture, the farming of aquatic plants andanimals, has been the world’s fastest growing foodproduction system for over a decade, with global percapita “food fish” supply from aquaculture (i.e. the

production offarmed aquaticfinfish and shellfishon a whole liveweight basis, andexcluding farmedaquatic plants)increasing at anaverage rate of10.9% per year from1.5 kilograms in1984 to 4.6 kilo-grams in 1996.4 Bycontrast, per capitafood fish supplyfrom capturefisheries has re-

mained relatively static, increasing from 10.8 kilo-grams in 1984 to 11.0 kilograms in 1996 at an averagerate of 1.8% per year or equivalent to the growth ofthe human population (1.75%) over the same period.On the basis of the above data, one quarter of fishconsumed by humans in 1996, from a total averageper capita food fish supply of 15.6 kilograms, iscurrently being supplied by aquaculture.

Of particular importance was the fact that 28 milliontonnes or 82% of total world aquaculture productionin 1996 was produced within Low-Income FoodDeficit Countries.5 Moreover, aquaculture productionwithin LIFDC’s has been growing over 6 times faster(15% per year since 1984) than within developedcountries (2.4% per year since 1984).

China alone produced two-thirds of total worldaquaculture production, corresponding to 23 milliontonnes, in 1997. Aquaculture provided about 55% oftotal Chinese fisheries production of 35 milliontonnes in 1997. Moreover, in terms of meat produc-tion, total Chinese fisheries landings produced theequivalent of 22 million tonnes of aquatic meatproducts for human consumption in 1997, as com-pared with 55 million tonnes for total terrestrial meatproducts.

The rapid growth in aquaculture seems set to con-tinue in the near term. Indicators pointing to goodgrowth potential include increasing demand for fish,emergence of aquaculture as a sector for investment,

About 60% of the re-sources are now catego-rized as “senescent” or“mature.” These requireurgent managementaction to halt the in-crease in fishing effort orrehabilitate overfishedresources.

25


and recognition of its potential for expansion, andgrowing awareness of sustainability needs.6 Sustain-able development is the overriding strategic issueand challenge and, although most aquaculture isconducted with significant nutritional and socialbenefits and little environmental cost, actual andperceived negative impacts of some types of aquacul-ture have already constrained development, mainlyin coastal zones.7

Information Needs

Fishery managers and policy makers will need todraw more on fisheries research programs whichencompass economics, sociology, and anthropology,as well as biology. There will be a major need fordevelopment and use sustainability indicators tosynthesize the very broad range of information.Above all, there will be a major need for comprehen-sive, reliable, and objective information on fisheriesand aquaculture, including reviews, expert interpre-tation and analysis, the provision of scenarios andprognoses with associated benefits, losses and risks.FAO for its part plans to contribute to this.

Notes

1 Gulland, J.A. (ed.) 1971. The fish resources of theocean. Fishing News (Books) Ltd. 255pp.

2 Grainger, R.J.R. and S.M. Garcia 1996. Chronicles ofmarine fishery landings (1950-1994): Trend analysisand fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper No. 359. Rome. FAO. 51pp.

3 Garcia, S.M. and R. Grainger 1997. Fisheries man-agement and sustainability: A new perspective of anold problem? In Developing and sustaining worldfishery resources: The state of science and manage-ment. Proceedings of the 2nd World Fisheries Con-gress. Editors D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grantand J.P. Beumer. CSIRO, Australia. Pp 631-654.

4 Tacon, A. and R. Grainger. Contribution of aquacul-ture to food security. In prep.

5 LIFDCs have an average per capita income <US$1505/annum in 1996 and are net importers of food interms of calories.

6 Pedini, M. and Z.H. Shehadeh 1997. Global Out-look in Review of the State of World Aquaculture.FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886.

7 Shehadeh, Z.H. and M. Pedini 1997. Issues andChallenges. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886.

27


THE COASTAL POPULATION EXPLOSION

Don HinrichsenUnited Nations consultant and author

Humankind is in the process of annihilating coastaland ocean ecosystems. At the root of the problem areburgeoning human numbers and their ever-growingneeds. Population distribution is increasinglyskewed. Recent studies have shown thatthe overwhelming bulk of humanity isconcentrated along or near coasts on just10% of the earth’s land surface. As of1998, over half the population of theplanet — about 3.2 billion people —lives and works in a coastal strip just 200kilometers wide (120 miles), while a fulltwo-thirds, 4 billion, are found within400 kilometers of a coast.

Take the example of China, the world’smost populous nation. Of China’s 1.2billion people, close to 60% live in 12coastal provinces, along the Yangtze River valley, andin two coastal municipalities — Shanghai andTianjin. Along China’s 18,000 kilometers of continen-tal coastline, population densities average between110 and 1,600 per square kilometer. In some coastalcities such as Shanghai, China’s largest with 17million inhabitants, population densities averageover 2,000 per square kilometer.

In general, with the exception of India the bulk ofAsia’s population is coastal or near coastal. Of theregion’s collective population of 3.5 billion, 60% —2.1 billion — live within 400 kilometers of a coast.

Indonesia and Vietnam are two typical examples ofAsia’s population shift from the hinterlands tocoastal areas. Of Indonesia’s population of 200million, 130 million live on the main island of Java,on just 7% of the country’s land area, most of them inrapidly growing towns and cities. Similarly,Vietnam’s population is almost all coastal. Andcoastal populations are growing two-tenths of apercentage point faster than the rest of the country.Population densities along the country’s coastlineaverage between 500 and 2,000 people per squarekilometer. In parts of Hanoi, population densitiesaverage 35,000 per square kilometer.

Japan’s population is also overwhelmingly coastal.Japan transformed itself from a largely rural andnoncoastal nation into an overwhelmingly urban and

coastal country within two decades. In 1950, Japan’s83 million inhabitants were dispersed throughout thecountry, with nearly half living in farming house-holds. By 1970, most Japanese were living in urban

areas, the majorityof them in thePacific Coastal Belt,which extends fromTokyo southwestthrough the SetoInland Sea to thenorthern part of theisland of Kyushu. Asearly as 1970, thenational censusrevealed that over53% of the popula-tion lived in densely

inhabited districts that occupy 1.7% of the country’sland area. Population densities in this crowdedregion average over 11,500 per square kilometer.

In 1997, Japan’s total population amounted to 126million. Of this, nearly 80% or 100 million, areconsidered coastal. But no one in Japan lives morethan 120 kilometers from the sea. Furthermore, 77%of all Japanese live in urban areas along or near thecoast. The dramatic shift has left much of the interiordrained of workers. Nearly 47% of Japan’s land area,mostly in the interior, is now designated as “depopu-lated” and eligible for special funding.

The population of Latin America and the Caribbeanis even more littoral. The region’s coastal states havea collective population of around 610 million, a fullthree-quarters of whom live within 200 kilometers ofa coast.

The majority of the Caribbean Basin’s 200 millionpermanent residents (including over 20 millionpeople living in 99 coastal counties along the U.S.Gulf Coast) live on or near the seashore. The residentpopulation is swelled every year by the influx ofsome 100 million tourists, nearly all of whom end upon the region’s beaches.

Recent studies haveshown that the over-whelming bulk of hu-manity is concentratedalong or near coasts onjust 10% of the earth’sland surface.

28


Consider the following trends:

• On South America’s crowded west coast, some40 million people crowd along thin coastal strips.In Chile, three-quarters of the population liveand work along a 500-kilometer stretch ofcoastline between Valparaiso and Concepcion, on15% of the country’s land area.

• The east coast is even more crowded. Some 15million people live in the Buenos Aires-La Plata-Montevideo region.

• The largest and most crowded coastal area by faris the highly urbanized region stretching fromSao Paulo to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This areaalready bulges with 30 million people. If trendscontinue, it is expected to hold 40 million ormore inhabitants by 2010.

Of all the continents except the Antarctic, only Africahas more people living in the interior than along ornear coastlines and major river valleys. But evenhere, demographic patterns are shifting. Over thepast two decades, Africa’s coastal cities — centers oftrade and commerce —have been growing by 4% ayear or more, drawing people inexorably out of thecountryside. Cities such as Lagos, Mombasa, Dar esSalaam, Accra, Abidjan and Dakar have seen theirpopulations explode from in-migration.

Europe and North America

The forces at work in the developing world alsoaccount, in large measure, for the explosion of coastaltowns and cities in the industrialized countries ofEurope and North America. Historic patterns ofeconomic development that fueled the first industrialrevolution and transformed coastal cities into inter-national centers of trade and commerce have beenaugmented since the end of the Second World War bya massive population shift from the hinterlands tocoastal areas. Millions of middle class families nowhave significantly more disposable income and moreleisure time to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Sea-coasts, with their boundless economic opportunitiesand better quality of life, increasingly are viewed aspreferred places to live, work, play, and retire.

One of the most celebrated and threatened coastlinesin the world is the Mediterranean. Here, north andsouth meet, with all the tensions such a confluencecultivates. According to demographic projectionsworked out by the Mediterranean Blue Plan, the

socioeconomic part of the Mediterranean Action Planthat links the protection of the environment withvarious levels of development, the MediterraneanBasin’s resident population could go as high as 555million by 2025. Also, according to Blue Plan projec-tions, the urban population of coastal Mediterraneanadministrative regions could reach 176 million — 30million more people than the entire coastal popula-tion in 1990. Furthermore, depending on howtourism is developed in the future, the Mediterra-nean could be hosting up to 350 million seasonaltourists every year by 2025. At the same time, thenumber of the automobiles in the region’s is ex-pected to triple, causing serious air pollution prob-lems in many urban areas.

Michel Batisse, president and chief architect of theBlue Plan and former assistant director-general forscience at UNESCO, is convinced that the future ofthe region is in jeopardy. “While northern popula-tions with declining fertility rates will becomeprogressively older, the southern and eastern regionswill be dominated by young people,” points outBatisse. “The numbers arriving on the labor marketwill largely exceed those leaving it, with a maximumgap around 2020, creating considerable unem-ployment and probably spawning waves of migrantsheading to Europe in search of work.”

Batisse argues that these trends are likely to generateserious conflicts over dwindling resources in anincreasingly polluted environment. This will beespecially true for water availability, as well asmounting land use conflicts, traffic congestion,destruction of wetlands, soil erosion, and continuedpollution of coastal waters.

“In all the scenarios we developed for the southernand eastern rim countries, their development prob-lems are aggravated by rapid, pell-mell urbaniza-tion,” notes Batisse. “The greatest concentration ofpeople will continue to be in the narrow, mountain-lined coastal strips characteristic of the region.”

In the United States, 55-60% of Americans now livein 772 counties adjacent to the Atlantic and PacificOceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. TheWashington D.C.-based Population Reference Bureaureports that between 1960 and 1990 coastal popula-tion density in the United States increased from anaverage of 275 to nearly 400 people per squarekilometer. In 1990, the most crowded coastline in theUnited States, stretching from Boston south throughNew York and Philadelphia to Baltimore and Wash-ington D.C., had over 2,500 people per square

29


kilometer. Another 101 coastal counties had popula-tion densities exceeding 1,250 per square kilometer.

Florida, which is almost entirely coastal, is projectedto have more than 16 million residents by 2010, anincrease of over 200% from its 1960 level of 5 million.South Florida, which had a 1990 population of 6.3million, is expected to have 15 to 30 million peopleby 2050. Similar dramatic increases are projected forCalifornia and Texas.

The five states with the greatest rise in population areall coastal: California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, andVirginia. By the year 2025, nearly 75% of Americansare expected to live in coastal counties. These coun-ties already contain 14 of the country’s 20 largestconurbations.

Implications for Planning

What these demographic trends portend for theurban landscape and resource management aredisturbing, to say the least. Most of the developingworld lacks the capacity to manage current coastalpopulation growth in any equitable fashion. Nor domost developing countries have the political motiva-tion, expertise, or money to introduce comprehensivecoastal management plans. At the same time, thedeveloped world has not come to grips with theimplications of these demographic and resourcetrends.

Now is the time to develop and introduce manage-ment plans that protect vital coastal ecosystems,while permitting economic growth and ensuring abetter quality of life for all coastal dwellers. Contin-ued denial of the problems will only make solutionsharder to achieve.

References

Hinrichsen, Don. Coastal Waters of the World: Trends,Threats, and Strategies. Washington D.C. Island Press,1998.

31


Coastal areas are invaluable for their economicvitality and biological diversity. At the same time, thecoasts are under considerable pressure. This paperexamines underlying and emerging trends that areshaping the coast, coastal resources and uses, andcoastal managementand policy. Present andprojected trends arediscussed in populationand settlement; socialvalues; economicactivity; resources;environmental quality;hazards; and gover-nance and management.

Coastal populationand settlement

Population growth and its associated impacts may bethe most critical issue confronting coastal managersand decision-makers. Coastal areas are crowded andbecoming more so. About half the nation’s popula-tion presently resides in the narrow fringe of coastalcounties. From 1996-2015, the coastal population isprojected to increase from 141 million to 166 million.Population growth and consequent increases insettlement densities bring jobs, create economicprosperity, add new industry, improve regionalinfrastructures, enhance educational opportunities,and increase tax revenues—but they also burdenlocal environments. As coastal populations swell, thenatural features that may have attracted people to thecoast are lost or diminished. Population pressureslead to increased solid-waste production, highervolumes of urban runoff, losses of green space andwildlife habitat, declines in ambient water quality,and increased demands on wastewater treatment,potable water, and energy supplies. To control thesekinds of impacts, states and localities have begun tochannel public investment for infrastructure intoareas that are best able to accommodate growthwithout deleterious environmental impacts.

Social trends

Thirty years ago, most Americans believed thatresources were essentially infinite and could be

TRENDS IN U.S. COASTAL REGIONS, 1970-1988 1

Charles A. Bookman, Thomas J.. Culliton, and Maureen A. WarrenNational Ocean Service, NOAA

Table 1. The environment as a voting issue: Exitpolls, 1982-1992

Source: Adapted from Ladd and Bowman, 1996

Year Exit Pollster Most Important Issues Percentage

1982 CBS/NY Times Unemployment 38Environment 3

1984 LA Times Government Spending 22Environment 4

1988 CBS/NY Times Helping Middle Class 25Environment 10

1990 Voter Research and Surveys

Education 26Environment 21

1992 Voter News Service

Economy/Jobs 12Environment 5

Population growthand its associatedimpacts may be themost critical issueconfronting coastalmanagers and deci-sion-makers.

exploited forever. Today, in contrast, marine andcoastal resources are known to be finite, and capableof being harmed or lost by human activities. Asshown by national polling data, the transition of theenvironment from an issue of limited concern to one

of universal concern occurred years ago.Moreover, the public understands theocean’s importance to human health, anddemonstrates a sense of responsibility toprotect the ocean for present and futuregenerations. Coincident with the evolu-tion of public attitudes that favor oceanprotection, nongovernmental organiza-tions have risen to work with both land-owners and government agencies toconserve and manage the environment,and they have considerable technical andmanagerial capabilities and resources.

Economic and resource trends

Marine-related economic activities in the coastal zoneand coastal ocean account for up to two percent ofthe U.S. Gross National Product and are comparablein scope to other important sectors of the economy,such as agriculture. Recreation and tourism, water-borne commerce, energy and mineral production,and fisheries account for most economic activitiesalong the coast.

32


• Recreation and tourism. Outdoor recreation andtourism are the most significant economicactivities in the coastal zone, accounting for halfor more of total ocean-related economic activity.Despite the diversity and scope of recreationalactivities—from birdwatching, to boating-basedsports, to second-home developments—littleinformation is available on coastal and marinerecreation and tourism, its scope, importance,and impacts. Interestingly, the government playsan important role in providing the underlyingconditions for marine recreation and tourism.These include (1) ensuring a clean environment,(2) assuring coastal access, and (3) promoting asafe operating environment. Given the economicimportance of marine recreation and tourism,and the importance of the government role inproviding the basic underlying conditions forthese activities, much more could be done tounderstand, document, manage, and promotemarine recreation.

• Waterborne commerce. U.S. waterborne foreigntrade is projected to continue to grow at anaverage annual rate of 3.7 percent. Domesticwaterborne trade is also growing, and becomingmore diverse—the shifting of freight cargoesfrom ships to barges, and the growth in passen-ger traffic, especially ferries and day boats, areprominent domestic trends. The focus of all thisactivity is the major ports (about 145 of them),each of which handles more than 9 million metrictons of cargo annually. These ports need to keeppace with the growth in trade, and other changesin ships and shipping. U.S ports are affected byimportant changes in two areas: (1) the rapidlychanging intermodal freight transportationmarket, which moves increasing amounts ofcargo on ever more demanding schedules, and(2) the increasing number and complexity ofenvironmental regulations that pertain to ports.The U.S. Department of transportation and otheragencies have initiated a coordinated nationaleffort to highlight trends, promote coordinationat the national level, and encourage local solu-tions. This will help ensure adequate portinfrastructure, including appropriate channeland berth depths, real-time navigation informa-tion, modern port facilities, and efficientintermodal connections.

• Energy and minerals resources and production.About 19 percent of the nation’s produced oilcomes from federal offshore lands. Moreover,revenues and royalties earned on this production

are a significant source of revenue for the federalgovernment. Heightening the importance of theoceans to the U.S. energy supply is the fact thatabout 50 percent of oil consumed is imported byship, and the reliance on imported petroleum isslated to grow to 60 percent by 2010. An increas-ing fraction of domestic offshore oil and gas isbeing discovered and produced from wellsdrilled in deep water, especially in the Gulf ofMexico. Rapid and dramatic technology ad-vances, coupled recently with relief from payingroyalties on deepwater production, have com-bined to encourage the trend toward deep waterproduction. Current models suggest that federaloffshore lands contain 50 percent of the nation’sremaining undiscovered oil and gas resources;offshore oil production rates are projected toincrease by at least 10 percent between 1995 and2000.

• Fishery resources and food supply. U.S. fisherylandings have increased over the past 50 years,but have now reached the maximum capacity ofour oceans and coastal waters to produce fish.While landings in Alaska have increased dra-matically, they have declined in other regions formany species. In addition, for some marinespecies, recreational landings represent a signifi-cant and growing proportion of the catch. Thechallenge in fisheries management is to achievesustainable fisheries over the long-term. Toaccomplish this, it is necessary to end overfishingand allow depleted stocks to rebuild.

The acreage of designated shellfishing waters isat an all-time high. At the same time, healthrestrictions on these waters are at their lowestlevels since 1980. Overall, the condition ofshellfish harvest waters is improving.

The degradation and loss of coastal habitats, withother factors such as overfishing, are constrain-ing the contribution of fisheries to world dietaryneeds at a time when population growth andrising affluence are increasing the demand forfood. Aquaculture holds some promise as analternative to wild harvest, but has environmen-tal problems of its own.

Environmental quality

Coastal oceans and estuaries are among the mostproductive and valuable natural systems. They arealso among the most threatened. Environmentalstressors include nutrient overenrichment, bacterial

33


Source: Titus et al., 1991

Figure 2. Dry land loss by 2100 without shoreprotection

Los

s of

Lan

d (s

quar

e m

iles)

NE MA SA SW F LA Other GOM

WC0

1,000

2,000

3,000

Sea Level Rise Scenario

200 cm100 cm50 cmBaseline

Note: NE-Northeast; MA-Middle Atlantic; SA-South Atlantic; SWF-Southwest Florida; LA-Louisiana; Other GOM-Other Gulf of Mexico; WC-West Coast.

In general, the nationhas made a massiveand partially successfulinvestment over the lastgeneration to controlpoint sources, and theenvironment has ben-efited as a result.

contamination, chemical pollution, oxygen depletion,oil and grease spills and contamination, and plannedand unplanned habitat alterations. The importanceand severity of these stressors varies from region toregion and often is a consequence of human activity.

• Point sources. Point sources of pollution includedischarges of municipal and industrial wastewa-ter and dumpingof materials intoocean waters. Ingeneral, thenation has madea massive andpartially success-ful investmentover the lastgeneration tocontrol pointsources, and theenvironment hasbenefited as aresult. Two of theoutstanding successes include (1) more wide-spread wastewater treatment, and higher levelsof treatment, across the nation, and (2) theelimination of most ocean dumping and greatercontrol over the one major dumping activity thatremains—the disposition of materials dredgedfrom navigable waterways. The developments inwastewater treatment are mirrored and con-firmed in environmental measurements thatshow long-term reduction of heavy metal andorganic chemical pollution in the marine envi-ronment near urban areas, as well as improve-ments in other indicators of environmentalquality. Ocean dumping of dredged materialnow is confined to clean materials placed indesignated dump sites that are carefully moni-tored.

• Nonpoint sources. The remaining one- to two-thirds of pollutants contributing to the degrada-tion of coastal and marine waters are fromnonpoint sources, which include runoff andseepage from agricultural and urban areas, andair deposition onto land and into water. Seasonaleutrophication (oxygen depletion) of waterbodies is an important manifestation of nonpointpollution. The problem varies by region. Theaggregate picture indicates an increase in theseverity and extent of eutrophication in thefuture, with greater than 60 percent of themonitored estuaries expected to show worseningeutrophication symptoms. This is largely a

consequence of the anticipated populationgrowth in estuarine watersheds. Because ofprojected population increases, the need to limitnutrient inputs to estuaries must be emphasizedfurther as we move into the next century.

• Habitats. Human activities have changed,degraded or destroyed coastal habitats, threaten-

ing many important species. Untilrecently, many coastal habitat resourceswere undervalued or not fully appreci-ated in terms of our dependence onthem. Efforts have recently begun onevery coast to identify the habitatsessential for every life stage of everymanaged fish species. Once theseessential habitats have been identified,measures can then be taken to protectthem from direct damage, and fromdegradations such as nonpoint sourcepollution, eutrophication, and physicalhabitat loss resulting from coastaldevelopment.

Coastal hazards

Coastal storms damage property, take lives, anddisrupt ecosystems as a result of high winds, stormsurge, flooding, and shoreline erosion. The theorythat global warming will make storms stronger andmore frequent is under intense study; the data are

34


incomplete about whether global warming will leadto more destructive coastal storms. It is known,however, that sea level is rising in many regions, andthat global warming may speed this process. Globalsea level is projected to rise on average about 5 mm/yr. A rise in sea level and increased storm frequenciescould accelerate erosion and associated habitat loss,increase salinity, alter tidal ranges, change sedimentand nutrient transport patterns, and increase coastalflooding.

The societal cost of coastal hazards is determined notonly by the annual variability in their occurrence, butalso by the increasing population at risk, the growingnumbers and value of structures and businesses, andother manifestations of economic activity. Bothpopulation and wealth have increased greatly, andthese changes have increased the exposure of the U.S.population to damages from coastal hazards.

When the losses from coastal storms are normalizedto account for these changes, the extent of damagesactually has decreased (on average) over the years.The explanation for this conundrum of greaterpotential for loss, but relatively fewer actual losses,lies in the success of major and long-term efforts toprepare and plan for coastal hazards, and to mitigatetheir effects. These efforts include (1) better predic-tions, forecasts and warnings that enable timely andtargeted preparations and evacuations of high hazardareas, and (2) building codes that incorporate hazard-resistant construction standards, as well as guidelinesfor appropriate siting of structures in areas wherethey are less likely to suffer wind or water damage.

Governance and management

The great number of activities that occur in thecoastal zone and in, on, and under the coastal oceanare governed by a complex and often fragmentedframework of laws, regulations, and practices. Threefundamental trends are occurring to address thissituation. First, on an international scale since 1973,the idea of the oceans as a “commons” has beensupplanted by principles, codified in the Law of theSea Convention, which(1) recognize the rights of nation-states to establish200-mile exclusive economic zones over oceanresources and uses, and (2) authorize regionalmanagement arrangements for ocean uses. This trendhas led to increases in resource utilization, such asfisheries development and offshore energy produc-tion. Second, federal environmental mandates haveestablished special ocean and coastal managementareas, and expanded the national capacity to plan for

and manage the coastal zone. Third, integratedmanagement approaches are coming into use thatbring together diverse stakeholders to address theeconomic, environmental, and social demands placedon finite ocean and coastal resources.

Notes

1. This is an Executive Summary of the NOAA reportentitled, “Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998:Addendum to the Proceedings of the Workshop on Trendsand Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean andCoastal Policy.”

35

Trends in Managing the Environment

Integrated management approaches are increasingly being employed to address environmentalproblems. The second session of the meeting reviewed trends in non-point source pollution, habitatand biodiversity. Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay are examined for their management implications.National progress in attaining the goals of the 1972 Clean Water Act are reviewed, and remainingchallenges are highlighted, especially those concerning non-point sources of pollution and integratedmanagement of watersheds and the coastal ocean. Trends and challenges in biodiversity are ad-dressed, as are trends in the identification, designation and management of marine protected areas.

New Approaches to Environmental Management: Lessons from the Chesapeake BayDonald F. Boesch, Center for Environmental Studies, University of Maryland

Perspectives on Marine Water QualityTim Eichenberg, Center for Marine Conservation

Conserving Ocean Biodiversity: Trends and ChallengesThomas Hourigan, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Global Trends in Marine Protected AreasTundi Agardy, Conservation International

2. Trends in Managing the Environment

37


NEW APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT:LESSONS FROM THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

Donald F. BoeschUniversity of Maryland

Ecosystem Management

Coastal management is evolving from a limited,compartmentalized endeavor that seeks to manageland uses and human activities in the narrow coastalzone to an expansive, integrated activity that reachesfar inland, addresses water and air quality, incorpo-rates fisheries and other living resource management,and engages society’s future life style choices. Thisrequires an ecosystem approach that broadly em-braces the physical environment and the biota,including the humans that dominate these ecosys-tems. Furthermore, an ecosystem approach must beplace-based, thus restricting the efficacy of uniformlyapplied solutions. Everyone seems to embrace thisconcept, but how do we actually employ ecosystemmanagement, particularly on the large, regionalscales necessary for major estuaries and bay.

The Chesapeake Bay Program represents perhaps themost ambitious and costly effort to restore a majorcoastal ecosystem and manage activities not only inthe coastal zone but also in a vast catchment area—64,000 square miles in this case. It has been going on,in one way or another, for about 20 years and is theconceptual parent of the National Estuary Programin which some 28 estuaries are enrolled. What canwe learn from this experience? Where does thisexperiment in ecosystem management need to go inthe 21st Century?

Commitments

The Chesapeake Bay Program owes its longevity andsuccesses to the high and sustained level of societalcommitment it has enjoyed. It is directed by anExecutive Council that includes the Governors ofPennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, the Mayor ofthe District of Columbia, the Administrator of theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and theChair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, anorganization of the state legislatures of the region.They are actually involved, they show up at theannual meetings, and they know that their constitu-ents support this effort. They bring the weight andforce of the agencies in their jurisdictions to partici-pate. Furthermore, the glue which has held this

together has been a sustained federal appropriationfor administration, assessment, public outreach, andimplementation. But this federal investment ismultiplied multi-fold by investments of states andlocal communities. The commitments are high level,sustained, significant, and popularly based.

Goals

The Chesapeake Bay Program has set goals, evenwhen it was not crystal clear what those goals shouldbe. The major focusing goal has been to reducecontrollable sources of nutrients by 40% by the year2000, but there have been other numerical goals aswell. These goals serve to focus bureaucratic atten-tion and provide a framework and currency fordebates. Goals have a dimension that assists publicunderstanding and stimulates political commitments.For example, the recalcitrant former Governor ofVirginia finally surrendered to the pressure of theother members of the Executive Council for a ripar-ian restoration goal of 2000 miles by 2010, butbecause of his political genius suggested that the goalof 2010 miles by 2010 sounds better!

Science

The Chesapeake Bay Program prides itself in beingscience-based. The initial directions and goals wereestablished following a 5 year study phase. There isa remarkable level of “science literacy” among theoperatives, assisted by the remarkable and widelydistributed Bay Journal. There is a heavy reliance oncomputer modeling and environmental modeling.There is perhaps the largest aggregation of coastalscience in the nation in the region. However, as wemove past the year 2000 milestone, it is clear thatscientific activities need to be more strategic andforward-looking. Furthermore, because so many keyuncertainties now reside on the land, in the water-shed, there is a need to boost and link the science oflandscape changes, hydrological dynamics, andsocial choices into the Program.

38


Models

Great emphasis has been placed on the developmentand application of sophisticated computer models ofthe Bay and its watershed. Thesemodels are linked so that one canexamine the effects of changes in futureland uses or agricultural practices oreven the effects of the Clean Air Act ondelivery of nutrients to the Bay andtheir effects on dissolved oxygen, foodchains, and seagrasses. Although thesemodels may sometimes seduce manag-ers in believing that they represent thereal world rather than a virtual world,they have tremendous power in track-ing progress, identifying more signifi-cant problems, and determining theeffects of management alternatives.

Monitoring

The Chesapeake Bay Program, in conjunction withthe State agencies, operates the largest and mostextensive monitoring program of any coastal ecosys-tem in the world. It has been going on for over 13years now. The monitoring program is theplowhorse in contrast to the flashy show horse that isthe modeling program. To managers, modelsprovide firm results and can make predictions, whilemonitoring results are subject to natural and stochas-tic variability and are inherently retrospective. Themonitoring program costs lots of money, money thatcan be spent to implement programs, hire more officestaff, or hold meetings. They are hard to sustain. Yet,environmental monitoring is absolutely essential ifwe are to practice adaptive environmental manage-ment, i.e. management that recognizes that it’s hardto predict anything about a complex ecosystem,particularly about the future, and approaches its taskwith humility and an interest in observing andlearning.

Sustainable Resource Use

Why are we trying to reduce nutrient inputs andimprove water quality if not for the fish, shellfish,and birds we enjoy and use? Furthermore, does itmake much sense for us to restore this ecosystem andoverfish or otherwise abuse these resources? More-over, it has become increasingly clear that steps takento manage one species, striped bass, for example,may have consequences to other resources, menha-den and blue crabs, for example.

The first generation of Chesapeake Restoration goalswas based on something we could measure andcount—nutrient inputs. The next generation ofrestoration goals will be living resource-based. But

what kind of meaning-ful goals can we set andmeasure? And how dowe develop strategiesfor multi-speciesmanagement in anecosystem context?This is one of the majorchallenges for thefuture of ChesapeakeBay restoration andmanagement.

Managing Growth

The commitments andgoals for Chesapeake

Bay restoration include a “cap,” by which once thenutrient input goals are met they will not be ex-ceeded in the future. This means that the effects ofall future population growth and land developmentmust be offset by gains in efficiency. With conversionof forested and agricultural land taking place at ratesthree times greater that the rate of population growthin some areas, for example in the greater Washington,D.C. area, this is a daunting proposition. The rates ofland development are clearly unsustainable, not onlyto meet and hold Bay restoration goals but also interms of infrastructure demands and quality of lifeconsiderations. As a result, the Chesapeake Baywatershed, and the Washington-Baltimore region inparticular, has become the hotbed of the SmartGrowth movement. The recently announced Clinton-Gore initiative in this area provides opportunities forother coastal regions to begin to address the prob-lems of their future landscapes.

Climate Change

We live in a changing world. Not only is the Chesa-peake Bay of today not John Smith’s Bay of the 17thCentury, the Bay of 100 years from now will bedifferent from either of these. Not only will theoutcome be related to how well we have met restora-tion goals and held gains in the face of populationgrowth and social change, but it is becoming increas-ingly clear that our climate will change in non-trivialways, both on global and regional scales. TheChesapeake Bay Program needs now to begin to takeheed of these possible changes, both in terms of itsscientific investigations and management alterna-

The Chesapeake BayProgram, in conjunc-tion with the Stateagencies, operatesthe largest and mostextensive monitoringprogram of anycoastal ecosystem inthe world.

39


tives. Much has been written about accelerated sealevel rise in the warmer world we face. This willhave consequences for the Chesapeake Bay as well asother coastal areas. An additional, and perhaps moresignificant, challenge that we face in the Chesapeakeis the prospect for increased freshwater runoff thatclimate models indicate are likely. These would notonly affect the salinity distribution in the estuary, butwould deliver more nutrients and result in greaterdensity stratification, thus worsening the effects ofeutrophication. The hill we are climbing to restorethis great ecosystem may become even steeper.

41


PERSPECTIVES ON MARINE WATER QUALITY

Tim EichenbergCenter for Marine Conservation and Clean Water Network

Editors’ Note: This is an outline of Mr. Eichenberg’s talk.

Until 1972, the United States had no national pro-gram for regulating the discharge of sewage andindustrial pollutants

• For 200 years, the only remedies for pollutionwere legal actions under common law nuisanceand riparian rights.

• The 1899 Refuse Act (§13 of the Rivers andHarbors Act) provided criminal liability for thedischarge of refuse, but it was minimally en-forced and rarely used to control water pollution.

• Federal clean water laws enacted in 1948, 1956,1965, and 1966 provided funding to states for theconstruction of sewage treatment plants, anddeveloped requirements for state water qualitystandards.

• However, ambient water quality standards, orWQS (i.e., instream uses and water qualitycriteria to protect those uses) were largelyineffective due to inadequate implementationand enforcement, inadequate means to identifypolluters, and no national permitting program oreffluent standards.

• By 1972, more than 60% of assessed rivers, lakes,and estuaries were not fishable/swimmable, andover 50% of the wetlands in the continentalUnited States had been destroyed.

In 1972, conditions were ripe for the adoption ofnational clean water legislation.

• The Clean Water Act (CWA) was overwhelm-ingly passed over President Nixon’s veto (52-12/Senate, 247-23/House).

• Objective of the CWA: “To restore and maintainthe chemical, physical and biological integrity ofthe Nation’s waters” [§101(a)]

• Goals of the CWA [§101(a)(1-3)]:

•Eliminate the discharge of pollutants by 1985.

• Wherever attainable, provide for the protec-tion and propagation of fish, shellfish andwildlife, and recreation in and on the waterby 1983.

• Prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants intoxic amounts.

• Basic provisions of the CWA:

• §301 makes illegal the discharge of pollutantswithout a permit .

• §402 requires National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permits forsewage and industrial point source dis-charges; administered by the Environmentalprotection Agency (EPA) and assumable bythe states.

• §304 requires technology-based, nationaleffluent limits for toxic and conventionalpollutants.

• BPT for existing sources of pollution.

• BCT (economically achievable) forconventional pollutants (pH, ss, BOD,secondary treatment).

• BAT economically achievable for toxics .

• BADT for new sources.

• §404 establishes a national permitting programfor the discharge of dredged or fill material intonavigable waters administered by the Corps andEPA, and assumable by the states.

• §303 requires states to establish water qualitystandards to:

• Provide additional controls where technol-ogy-based controls are inadequate to protectwater quality.

• Keep clean waters clean (antidegradation).

• Restore impaired waters [§303(d)].

42


We have made significant progress in addressingwater quality problems since 1972.

• Federal, state and local governments and indus-try have spent more than $200 billion on reduc-ing the discharge of sewage and industrialpollutants.

• The number ofpeople served bysecondary andadvanced wastewa-ter treatment hasdoubled (to about180 million), andpollutant loadsfrom POTWs havedecreased by 40%.

• Over 100,000 tons of toxic metals and organicmaterial are removed from discharges annually.

But we still have a long way to go to meet the goalsof the CWA

• 40% of rivers, lakes, and estuaries “assessed” stillare not fishable/swimmable, and only 16% ofmajor watersheds have good water quality.

• We know very little about the condition of ourwaters; few are adequately surveyed (less than20% of rivers, 10% of ocean waters, 40% of lakes,and 72% of estuaries).

• We still lose about 120,000 acres of wetlands peryear which protect water quality, prevent flood-ing, and provide habitat and recreational oppor-tunities.

• More than 4,000 beaches were closed or posteddue to contamination in 1997.

• More than 2,100 fish consumption advisorieswere posted in 1996.

• More than 30% of our shellfish beds are harvest-restricted.

• More than 50% of all estuaries have low or nooxygen levels at some point during the year; theGulf of Mexico has a 7,000 square mile dead zonethat appears each summer.

• Between 1972 and 1998, the number of HABsdoubled (pfiesteria, red and brown tides).

• The General Accounting Office (GAO) reportsthat 20-25% of major facilities are in significantnoncompliance with the CWA.

• We still have major infrastructureneeds: $137 billion is needed forsecondary and advanced treatment,

combined and sanitary seweroverflows.

The CWA has not been reauthorized since1987; new approaches are needed toaddress remaining clean water challenges

• EPA estimates that 60% of waterquality impairment now comes fromnonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution.

• The leading source of NPS pollutionis agriculture which causes 60% of the river,50% of the lake, and 54% of the estuaryimpairment.

• About 130 times more animal waste thanhuman waste is produced, but there areno federal regulations for the handling,storage, use or disposal of animal waste.

• Most large CAFOs are unregulateddespite CWA §502(14) permittingrequirements (about 2,000 of the 450,000feedlots are permitted).

• Less than 3% of the SRF has been devoted toNPS pollution.

• §319 of the CWA provides no mandatorycontrols on the major sources of NPS pollu-tion.

• NOAA’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution ControlProgram is moribund:

• Established under §6217 of the 1990amendments to CZAMA, it still has notproduced an approved state plan

• It has received only $1M in federalfunding since 1995 (although $8M wasappropriated in FY 1999, and $12 millionis requested in FY2000 budget).

• Therefore, an enforceable national program toprevent polluted runoff should be established to

EPA estimates that60% of water qualityimpairment nowcomes fromnonpoint sources(NPS) of pollution.

43


reduce the major cause of water quality impair-ment that:

• Identifies and targets significant sources ofNPS.

• Applies enforceable measures with mile-stones and deadlines to meet WQS in 10years .

• Requires immediate mandatory controls forsignificant new sources of NPS.

• Provides adequate EPA backup authorityand WQ monitoring.

• Requires NPS controls/monitoring onfederal lands.

• Provides adequate federal funding (up to$500 million/year) as provided in thePresident’s 1998 Clean Water Action Plan.

• Requires permits for large factory farms withminimum standards for manure storagestructures, setbacks from water bodies,manure application requirements, advancedtreatment for large operations (7,000 = city of45,000), and provides bonding and publicnotice for permits.

• Regulates stormwater discharges from smallmunicipalities, industries, and constructionsites.

• There are no enforceable national standards formonitoring and posting swimming beaches

• There have been more than 20,000 beachclosures and advisories since 1988 frompolluted runoff, stormwater, sewage spills,and overflows

• Only 8 states comprehensively monitor theirbeaches and notify the public (NJ, NH, NC,DE, IL, CT, IN, OH).

• Five states lack any regular monitoring ofbeach water quality (AL, GA, LA, OR, WA).

• Most states have not adopted EPA’s sug-gested criteria, and still use fecal and totalcoliform indicators.

• Therefore, national standards should beestablished for beach water quality, monitor-ing beaches and for posting waters that posea public health threat.

• There are no enforceable national standards forfish consumption advisories.

• Fish consumption advisories rose by 26% in 1996to 2193, including advisories in 100% of the GreatLakes and their connecting waters and a largeportion of the nation’s coastal waters.

• Most of the advisories were for mercury (76%);PCBs, chlordane, dioxins and DDT were alsofrequently cited.

• differences among state programs are vast.

• Therefore, federal standards are needed toprovide consistency, additional training andenforceable mandates for testing and postingfishing areas to ensure that the public health isprotected adequately.

• State water quality standards are not protectingadequately existing and designated uses, nor dothey address adequately excess nutrients,sediment contamination, and the loss of habitat.Therefore, EPA should strengthen its rulesgoverning water quality standards by:

• Adopting water quality criteria for nutrients(nitrogen and phosphorous), sediments, physicaland biological resources, and requiring theadoption and implementation of such criteria bystates.

• Strengthening the implementation of stateantidegradation policies to protect waters thatmeet or exceed minimum fishable/swimmablestandards.

• Prohibiting the use of mixing zones, especiallyfor toxic pollutants and pollutants that persist orbioaccumulate in the environment.

• Bringing impaired waters into compliance withCWA standards within 8-10 years by ensuringthat states identify and list waters that do notmeet WQS, and develop TMDLs and WLAs toreduce pollutants from point and nonpointsources.

45


CONSERVING OCEAN BIODIVERSITY: TRENDS AND CHALLENGES

Thomas F. HouriganNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Introduction

The ocean’s biological diversity—its genetic re-sources, species, and ecosystems—provides immensebenefits to the United States and to all of humansociety. Knowledge about these resources is stillrudimentary; however, trends in the beststudied species and ecosystems—commercially exploited fishes, protectedmarine mammals and turtles, and certaincoastal ecosystems, such as coral reefs—indicate that these resources and theirbenefits are threatened by humanactivities both in the United States andglobally. The U.S. government is alreadytaking steps to address the threats, andactions are paying dividends in healthierresources. Recent initiatives, such as thePresident’s Executive Order on CoralReef Protection, signal a commitment tocontinue to improve the state of themarine environment. The key to furtherprogress will depend on strengthening scientificresearch; applying a precautionary approach toresource use; strengthening partnerships with allstakeholders; and managing marine resources on anecosystem basis. This paper highlights the ecosystemapproach and the new Aquatic Restoration andConservation (ARC) Partnership for Marine, Estua-rine and Freshwater Living Resources as parts of aconceptual framework for organizing future actionsto protect marine biodiversity.1

The Living Ocean Treasure

The ocean’s biological diversity—the living resourcesthat compose it and the ecological processes thatsustain it—forms a foundation for the quality ofhuman life as well as the raw materials to enrich it.Biological diversity, or biodiversity, refers to thevariety and variability among living organisms, andamong the ecological complexes of which they are apart. Marine living resources provide essentialeconomic, environmental, aesthetic, and culturalbenefits to humanity. Sixteen percent of all animalprotein consumed worldwide comes from the ocean.The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO) estimates the total value to fishers of the

world’s commercial marine catch at $80 billion peryear. The comparable value of fishes landed in theUnited States is $3.5 billion, and commercial fisheriescontribute $21 billion to the U.S. economy. Besidesfood, marine living resources provide myriadproducts including fertilizers, animal feed, medi-

cines, and aquariumfishes.

The value of marinebiodiversity extendsfar beyond fisheriesand other products.Marine ecosystemsalso provide naturalgoods and servicessuch as carbonstorage, atmosphericgas regulation,nutrient cycling, andwaste treatment.Coral reefs, man-

groves, and kelp forests protect coastal areas fromstorm damage. Marine algae contribute nearly 40percent of global photosynthesis. The values of thesemarine ecosystem services greatly exceed direct usevalues, yet they generally are not incorporated intoeconomic or policy calculations. Globally, the valueof marine ecosystem services has been estimated at$8.4 trillion per annum for open ocean ecosystems,and $12.6 trillion for coastal ecosystems (Costanza etal. 1997). These services depend on marinebiodiversity, even though the processes that underliethis dependence are still unclear.

As human populations increase, demands haveaccelerated for food, products, and services from theocean, as well as for living and recreational space onits shores. The primary threats to marinebiodiversity are fisheries operations (both directoverfishing and indirect fishing impacts—e.g.,bycatch of non-target and protected species, habitatdestruction by trawls and other gear or techniques,and other ecosystem effects that may accompanyfishing activities), chemical pollution and eutrophica-tion, physical alteration of coastal and marinehabitats, invasions of exotic species, and ultraviolet-Bradiation damage to phytoplankton and zooplanktonresulting from stratospheric ozone depletion (NRC

The ocean’s biologicaldiversity—the living re-sources that compose itand the ecological pro-cesses that sustain it—forms a foundation forthe quality of human lifeas well as the raw materi-als to enrich it.

46


1995). Looming on the horizon is the threat ofhuman-caused climate change with potentially majornegative effects on tourism, freshwater supplies,fisheries, and biodiversity. These factors also havebeen identified by the Parties to the Convention onBiological Diversity2 as key threats (UNEP/CBD1995).

Trends in the Health of Marine Biodiversity

Knowledge about marine species and ecosystemslags far behind that of terrestrial systems. We cannoteven characterize the health of many commonmarine species and ecosystems. What relatively littleis known about the state and trends of living marineresources is based on species exploited commerciallyfor fisheries; protected marine mammals, turtles, andfishes; and certain commercially significant andaccessible coastal ecosystems such as wetlands andcoral reefs. Until recently, the oceans were thought tobe a limitless source of food and natural resources,and a limitless sink for human pollution. Trends forthese resources during the last few decades, however,

have shown that human activities are reaching andoften exceeding the productive limits and recupera-tive potential of the ocean.

A. Fisheries

Many commercial fish stocks reveal a pattern ofdeclining populations. Recent trends indicate thatabout one-third of the resources on which fishersdepend are overfished in the United States andworldwide (Fig. 1). Without major changes in fisherymanagement, FAO estimates that global landingswill not be able to exceed current levels despiteincreased demand from growing populations, andcould be reduced by as much as 25 percent (FAO1996a). Despite the collapse of certain fisheries, U.S.management actions have contributed to severalsuccesses, including Alaska groundfish, king andSpanish mackerel, striped bass, and surf and oceanquahogs.

Beyond the impacts of overfishing, fishery operationsalso have tremendous impacts on marine ecosys-

Figure 1. Status of selected marine living resources. a) World fisheries (FAO 1996a); b) U.S. Federally managedfisheries (NMFS 1998); c) & d) Marine mammals and sea turtles sea turtles (NMFS 1996).

AAAAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

A

AA A

AAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AA

a) Status of 200 Major World Commercial Fishery Stocks

b) Status of 844 Federally Managed Fishery Species in U.S. Waters

c) Status of 163 Marine Mammal Stocks in U.S. Waters

d) Status of Ten Sea Turtle Stocks in U.S. Waters

Overfished

Approaching Overfished

Not Overfished

Insufficient Data

Overfished

Fully Fished

Developing Fishery

Declining

Stable

Increasing

Insufficient Data

Declining

Stable

Increasing

Insufficient Data

40% 35%

25%

40% 20%

20%20%

5%15%

14%66%

11%1%

24%

64%

47


tems. Globally, about 60 billion pounds of sea life aredestroyed as discarded bycatch each year (FAO1996b). Additionally, it has recently been estimatedthat bottom trawls and similar fishing gear scrape14.8 million squarekilometers of seabottom annually, anarea equivalent toover half the world’scontinental shelves(Watling and Elliot,1998). Although theimpact of this destruc-tion on biodiversityand productivity isunknown, its magni-tude must give uspause.

B. Protected Marine Species

Protected marine species in the United States includemarine mammals and species listed under theEndangered Species Act (ESA). In the past, theexploitation or incidental capture of marine species,along with a lack of adequate natural resourcemanagement policies, led to the decline and evenextinction of many species. Protection under theESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and theInternational Whaling Commission has led toincreasing populations of certain marine mammals(e.g., gray whales) and at least two sea turtle speciesin U.S. waters. Still, habitat destruction and humanactivities continue to place other species in jeopardy.For example, 23 salmonid populations have beenlisted or proposed for listing as endangered orthreatened since 1991, while populations of thenorthern right whale and Hawaiian monk sealcontinue to decline. Meanwhile, less well—studiedmarine organisms are being lost before ever beingidentified, much less protected.

C. Key Ecosystems - the Coral Reef Example

As the world’s most biologically diverse marineecosystems, coral reefs are home to one-third of allmarine fish species and tens of thousands of otherspecies. Coral reef areas under U.S. jurisdictioncover approximately 16,879 square kilometers(NOAA 1998b). Despite their importance, shallowwater coral health and cover have declined world-wide over the last two decades. It is estimated that 58percent of the earth’s coral reefs are at high ormoderate risk from overexploitation, coastal devel-opment, and pollution (Bryant et al. 1998). In theUnited States, coral reefs appear threatened wherever

they are close to large concentrations of people;however, data are available to evaluate the status andtrends of U.S. coral reefs in only a few sites (NOAA1998b). The International Year of the Reef, 1997, and

President Clinton’s 1998 Executive Orderon Coral Reef Protection are providingimpetus to new reef monitoring programsthat should greatly increase our under-standing of the status and outlook for coralreefs worldwide.

A Challenge for the Future: The EcosystemApproach to Conserving MarineBiodiversity

The U.S. government, in partnership withpublic and private stakeholders at homeand internationally, is taking action to

address the threats to living marine resources and toensure the promise of these resources for futuregenerations. Hourigan et al. (1998) outlined fivecritical elements at the heart of this new strategicvision:

1. Investing in science in the interest of stewardship.Basic assessment and monitoring of the status andtrends of resources, as well as economic and socialinformation, are the fundamental tools of naturalresource managers.

2. Applying the precautionary approach. Even thebest science cannot ensure adequate management,since marine systems are characterized by a greatdeal of natural variability. The precautionary ap-proach states that in the face of uncertainty, managersand decision makers must err on the side of conser-vation of living marine resources and protection ofthe environment. The precautionary approach hasbeen conceptually best developed in the fisherysector (e.g., the FAO Code of Conduct for Respon-sible Fisheries and the United Nations StraddlingStocks Agreement) and is being integrated into U.S.fishery policy and practice. The challenge will be toimplement the precautionary approach in fisheriesand to broaden its application to other arenas ofocean resource management.

3. Applying new technologies to ensure the environ-mental sustainability of marine aquaculture. Worldpopulation is expected to increase by one billionpeople during the next decade, yet future seafoodharvests from the wild are not expected to increase.As humans once moved from hunting to agricultureon land, they must soon move from reliance on wildfish stocks to marine aquaculture in the oceans. Thesuccess of this move depends upon employing new

Recent trends indicatethat about one-third ofthe resources on whichfishers depend areoverfished in theUnited States andworldwide.

48


technologies to address the environmental problemsthat have plagued aquaculture in the past.

4. Building Partnerships. Successful management ofocean living resources is often less a question ofscience and technology than one of human behaviorand balancing legitimate short- and long-term socialneeds and aspirations. U.S. federal programs andpolicies are reaching out to involve stakeholders indecision-making and implementation.

5. Exploiting the full potential of an ecosystem-basedapproach to resource management. Each individualorganism has a habitat, which it needs to live andreproduce, and depends on a commu-nity of other species for food andsurvival. This interconnected commu-nity of living things, including hu-mans—their dynamic interactions witheach other and the physical environ-ment, and their overlapping mosaic ofhabitats—together constitute anecosystem.

Increasingly, the United States isadopting an ecosystem approach tomanagement designed to sustain orrestore natural systems and theirfunctions and values (InteragencyEcosystem Management Task Force 1995). Theecosystem approach has also become a major touch-stone advocated by the Convention on BiologicalDiversity for the conservation and sustainable use ofmarine biodiversity (UNEP/CBD 1995). An ecosys-tem approach to management is applied within ageographic framework defined primarily by ecologi-cal boundaries. The ecological boundaries of oceanecosystems and the services they provide reachacross traditional state and international boundaries,and they are linked to water and soil systems inwatersheds and to each other through ocean cur-rents. Thus, effective management will requireexpanding both interstate and international coopera-tion.

Applying this ecosystem approach represents thegreatest challenge of the coming decades. Currentmanagement still generally deals with fish or endan-gered species as isolated stocks, and with threats asindividual rather than cumulative insults to oceansystems. The ecosystem approach requires integrat-ing the current patchwork of management tools thataddress endangered species, fisheries, pollution,watersheds, and coastal zones into a coherent whole.Federal and state integrated coastal zone manage-ment programs and watershed management plans

that address non-point source pollution are impor-tant pieces of the puzzle. So also are the new“Essential Fish Habitat” provisions of the 1996Sustainable Fisheries Act and increasing use ofhabitat conservation agreements with states, tribes,and private land owners to address endangeredspecies management. To date, however, these havenot been placed in a context that recognizes the scaleand interconnectedness of ocean living systems.

Marine and coastal protected areas in the NationalMarine Sanctuary Program, the National EstuarineResearch Reserve System, the National EstuaryProgram, and other national and state parks can

provide importantrefuges for marinebiodiversity. However,these areas currentlyprovide only limitedprotection from fishingimpacts. Twenty-twopercent of U.S. federallands are “no-take”wilderness areas. Incontrast, the federalgovernment hasjurisdiction overmarine areas eighttimes larger than the

federal land areas, but only 0.002% of these arecurrently “no-take” marine wilderness areas(Brailovskaya, 1998).

Management of terrestrial systems has been revolu-tionized by the application of watershed manage-ment and coastal zone management approaches. Thechallenge over the next century will be to expandthese zoning approaches to the nearshore waters andbeyond. We must:

1. Identify areas of important biological diversity andproductivity, habitats for endangered species andcommercial and recreational fisheries species, andcoastal and marine areas that provide key ecosystemfunctions;

2. Map sources of pollution and other human impactson these areas; and

3. Conserve representative productive and pristineareas and restore priority habitats that are degraded.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion has recently formed a partnership with the U.S.Geological Survey and other federal agencies, states,NGOs, and professional organizations to take the

As the world’s mostbiologically diversemarine ecosystems,coral reefs are home toone-third of all marinefish species and tens ofthousands of otherspecies.

49


first analytical steps in this direction on a nationwidebasis. We have begun the Aquatic Restoration andConservation (ARC) Partnership for Marine, Estua-rine and Freshwater Living Resources. The goal ofthe ARC Partnership is to ensure the conservation ofour nation’s freshwater, estuarine and marine livingresources by creating a common information baseand options for preserving the ecological and eco-nomic integrity of these resources into the 21stCentury.

ARC builds on the successful Terrestrial Gap Analy-sis Program. Gap analysis is a science-based pro-gram for identifying the degree to which nativeanimal species and natural communities are repre-sented in our present—day mix of conservationareas. Those species and communities not ad-equately represented in the existing network ofconservation areas constitute conservation “gaps.”The Gap Analysis Program provides broad geo-graphic information on the status of species and theirterrestrial habitats in order to provide managers,planners, and policy makers with the informationthey need to make better—informed decisions.

Making full use of new approaches—analytic toolssuch as ARC and management tools such as fishery“no-take” zones that protect fishes, their habitat, andbiodiversity—will allow management on scales thatare meaningful to ocean living resources. They canthen be placed in watershed and integrated marineand coastal area management regimes that involveall stakeholders. Together, these offer the promise ofbetter conserving marine biodiversity, our ocean’sliving treasure.

Literature Cited

Brailovskaya, T. 1998. Obstacles to protecting marinebiodiversity through marine wilderness preservation:Examples from the New England region. ConservationBiology 12:1236-1240.

Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J., and Spaulding,M. 1998. Reefs at Risk: A map-based indicator of threats tothe world’s coral reefs. World Resources InstituteReport. 56 pp.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S.,Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,O’Niell, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., and vanden Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystemservices and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (UnitedNations). 1996a. State of the World Fishery and Aquacul-ture. FAO Fisheries Circular. FAO.

FAO 1996b. Report of the technical consultations onreduction of wastage in fisheries. FAO Fisheries Report547. Tokyo, Japan.

Hourigan, T.F., Milazzo, M., Kiraly, S.J. and Osborn,K.W. 1998. Ensuring the Sustainability of Ocean LivingResources. Proceedings of the Ocean CommunityConference ‘98. pp. 651-655.

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force.1995. The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems andSustainable Economies, Volume I. National TechnicalInformation Service. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 55pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. OurLiving Oceans: Report on the Status of U.S. LivingMarine Resources, 1995. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-19, 160 pp.

NMFS. September 1997. Report to Congress on theStatus of Fisheries in the United States.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). 1998a. Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers.NOAA.

NOAA. 1998b (on-line). The extent and condition ofU.S. coral reefs by S.L. Miller and M.P. Crosby.NOAA’s State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD:NOAA. http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov

National Research Council. 1995. UnderstandingMarine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda for the Nation.National Academy Press; Washington D.C. 114 pp.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/CBD. 1995. The Jakarta Mandate on Marine and CoastalBiological Diversity: Decisions of the Second Meeting ofthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention onBiological Diversity. Jakarta, Indonesia, November 6-17, 1995. .UNEP.

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of theseabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forestclearcutting. Conservation Biology 12:1180-1197.

50


Notes

1 The trends in marine living resources described inthis paper draw on the recent review developed forthe Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers (NOAA 1998a;and Hourigan et al. 1998). The conclusions derivedfrom these trends, and suggested options for futureaction, are the author’s and do not necessarily reflectthe policies of the U.S. Government.

2 The United States has signed, but not yet ratified,the Convention on Biological Diversity.

51


GLOBAL TRENDS IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

Tundi AgardyConservation International

Introduction

Marine protected areas are increasingly being used toprotect biologically rich habitats, resolve user con-flicts, and help restore over-exploited stocks anddegraded areas. The upsurge in the use ofthe tool is in part due to the fact thatfisheries managers are now looking toreserves to complement conventionalfisheries management techniques. In theUnited States, the legislative requirementto identify and protect essential fishhabitat for managed fisheries species hascontributed to the debate over and use ofmarine protected areas in all their variousforms. Similarly, fisheries managers andgovernment agencies abroad are nowrealizing that marine protected areas canserve to enhance sustainable resourceutilization in addition to promotingconservation. We are thus witnessing anincrease in the designation and manage-ment of marine protected areas that isoccurring on two tracks: 1) the establish-ment of reserves to safeguard representa-tive habitats or particularly rich anddiverse areas, and 2) the use of protectedareas to complement both fisheries and coastalmanagement. Many will claim the new wave ofmarine protected areas is characterized by a strongreliance on marine sciences—scientific knowledgethat has at long last matured to the point that it hasbecome useful to marine resource managers. Itshould be noted, however, that protected areaplacement, design, and operation all relate to thescope and nature of the goals being targeted—i.e. thespecific objectives the protected area is meant toachieve. The identification of these objectives isultimately societal, not scientific. Subsequent to theelaboration of specific objectives, conservationbiology and other sciences can be harnessed to helpidentify what needs to be protected and in whatmanner, leading to optimally effective marineprotected areas. A few good examples of such well-planned protected areas have now emerged aroundthe world, but unfortunately this number is smallcompared to the vast number of ill-designed “paperparks” around the world.

Global Trends in Marine Protected Areas

The designation “marine protected area” encom-passes everything from small marine parks estab-lished to protect an endangered or threatened

species, aunique habitat,or a site ofhistorical orcultural inter-est, to vastreserves thattarget a rangeof conservation,economic, andsocial objectivesand encompassdifferent typesof protection.The use ofmarine pro-tected areas hasenjoyed asudden up-surge inpopularity asmarine reserves

are being invoked to complement and strengthentraditional fisheries management. In the UnitedStates this has been driven by the revision of theMagnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act, now mandating fisheries managersto identify and protect essential fish habitat. Parallel-ing this new push for the use of protected areas infisheries management regimes has been an upsurgein multiple objective protected areas. Indeed, manyof the newest marine protected areas are moreambitious than conventional marine protected areas,resulting in multiple use reserves that try to accom-modate many different users groups, each with theirown needs and objectives. Administrators arefinding different uses can indeed be fostered withoutadverse impacts on ecosystem function, as long asplanning is based on ecological realities, relies onspecific objectives from the outset, and balancesestablished objectives (Agardy, 1993). These pro-tected areas can provide a footing for integratedcoastal management and better ocean governance

We are thus witnessing anincrease in the designationand management of ma-rine protected areas that isoccurring on two tracks:(1) the establishment ofreserves to safeguard rep-resentative habitats orparticularly rich and di-verse areas, and (2) theuse of protected areas tocomplement both fisheriesand coastal management.

52


overall. Whatever the scope of the protected area,the science of conservation biology has contributedimportant theories, perspectives, and tools, many ofwhich await critical testing (Allison et al., 1998).

The terms marine protected area, marine reserve,closed area, harvest refugium, marine park, andsanctuary may cause semantic difficulty since theyare often used interchangeably and without defini-tion. The spectrum in size, design, and managementobjectives that comprise marine protected areas isvast—ranging from the small and focused harvestrefugium (a place where harvest of one or morespecies, usually of fish or shellfish, is restricted) tothe large and ambitious sanctuary. Closed area andharvest refugium are sometimes synonymous, butclosed areas can also be closed to entry in general, orcan be used to restrict non-living resource extractionsuch as oil and gas. Reserve is the term that mostclosely approximates a synonym of marine protectedarea in some countries though “reserve” can refer toa particular type of protected area such as a bio-sphere reserve, or, as in Britain, to an area closed toall fishing (in other words, a harvest refugium)(Gubbay, 1995). Lastly, there is that problematic term“marine park,” which outlived its usefulness whenprotected areas shifted away from being places ofrecreation. The term “marine protected area, ” andonly that term, encompasses all of the other terms,and is thus the term used herein.

Arguments abound about the nature of marineprotected areas and how they relate to conventionalland parks; the fact remains that marine protectedareas do significantly differ from protected areas onland. The greatest single factor underlying thisdifference is the nebulous nature of boundaries in thefluid environment of the sea (Steele, 1974). It isnotoriously difficult to attach boundary conditions tomarine ecological processes, just as it is difficult tobound the impacts that affect those processes. Whilethis is also true for inland freshwater systems, theseecosystems usually have distinct horizontal layersand outer bounds. In essence, it is impossible to“fence in” living marine resources or the criticalecological processes that support them, just as it isimpossible to “fence out” the degradation of oceanenvironments caused by land-based sources ofpollution, changes in hydrology, or ecologicaldisruptions occurring in areas adjacent or linked to aprotected area. This holds true not only for openocean pelagic environments but for the coastal zonesas well, where functional linkages between habitatsare so geographically widespread. The vastness oflinkages between species and between critical

habitats in a coastal area requires comprehensivemanagement of all its parts (Caddy and Sharp, 1986).

The open nature of coastal and ocean areas exists as aspectrum ranging from relatively fixed and “land-like” systems to highly dynamic and complexsystems. Coral reef ecosystems, for instance, harbororganisms that are largely confined in their move-ments to the specific habitats of reef, surroundingsoft or hard benthos, and coastal wetlands. Thestructural framework for reef systems is fixed inplace and can be mapped, much like a tropical forestprovides a relatively fixed framework for the interac-tions of the forest community. The functional linksbetween the water column in reef areas and thebenthos are strong, so one can treat the ocean spacetogether with reef structures themselves. In contrast,temperate open ocean systems such as estuarine/gulf/banks complexes are highly dynamic and in noway “fixed.” Here, living marine resources move inspace and time according to physically dominated,largely non-deterministic patterns. The ecology ofthe benthos is not strongly linked to that of the watercolumn, and physical reference points for the systemcannot easily be mapped. This wide array of systemtypes thus presents a challenge to conservationistsand resource managers, requiring that protected areameasures be appropriate to the system in question.The random application of terrestrial models to themarine environment will not result in a viable meansof protecting resources and the underlying ecologythat gives rise to them. New paradigms areneeded—and the newest generation of marineprotected areas reflects this new way of thinking.

Modern marine protected areas serve a wide varietyof functions. However, there is no single “model”marine protected area. The size, shape, and means ofimplementation in any single marine protected areawill be a function of the primary objectives thatprotected area sets out to achieve. If the goal of aprotected area is, for instance, the protection of asingle vulnerable habitat type from a specific type ofuse (e.g. protection of a fringing reef system fromprospective shipping accidents), the resulting pro-tected area can be simple in both design and manage-ment. If, however, the conservation goal targets awide range of habitats/resources, the protected areawill have to be necessarily more complex. Where afunctional approach is adopted, in other wordswhere the object of conservation is not a single stockof resources or a single species but the ecosystem andits processes, marine protected areas will tend to belarge and encompass many types of linked habitats(Lauck et al., 1998). These large, multiple-use

53


protected areas can be thought of as demonstratingthe concept of ecosystem-based management, wherethe limits of protection in a geographical sense arebased on the extent to which movements of organ-isms and physically-linked processes (Hatcher et al.,1989; Dayton et al., 1995). The underlying ecologythus defines the outer boundaries for the area ofprotection, or management unit. In recognizing theselinkages, marine protected area planners can worktowards conserving ecosystem integrity, not justindividual resources or ecosystem structures.

Globally, marine protected areas are being desig-nated according to at least two major approaches: 1)preservation of ocean or coastal “wilderness” areas(the term wilderness is in quotation marks becauseno part of the world’s oceans, inland seas, or coast-lines is pristine) and 2) resolution of conflicts amongusers (current or in the future). Most existing na-tional marine protected area networks follow the firststrategy. For instance, Parks Canada is currentlydesigning a network of Marine National Conserva-tion Areas to represent each of the 29 distinctecoregions (based on large-scale biophysical units) ofCanada’s Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific, and Arcticcoasts. The long-term goal of this program is toestablish a protected area in each region. Similarly,the federal government of Australia is developing astrategy for establishing a National RepresentativeSystem within Australian Coastal and MarineEnvironments. In designing such a system, siteselection will be guided by representativeness,opportunity, and redundancy (meaning that thegovernment’s policy is to designate more than oneprotected area per representative habitat type).Other national efforts are currently underway. Infact, the 1995 publication of the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority, the World Bank, and IUCN,which is the most comprehensive overview ofexisting marine protected areas and gaps in coverage,strongly urges all countries to establish such repre-sentative networks (Kelleher et al., 1995).

Conflict resolution is the other major driving forcebehind the establishment of networks or systems ofreserves or protected areas. Virtually all the world’scoasts and nearshore areas are characterized byconflict between and among user groups or jurisdic-tional agencies, or at a minimum a serious lack ofcommunication between these factions. Shippingand mineral extraction, for instance, often conflictwith recreational use of coastal areas. Fishing, bothcommercial and subsistence, conflicts with skin andscuba diving and nature-based tourism. In suchcases of conflict, zoning can be used to accommodate

a wide variety of user groups in relative harmony,and can be a tool for dispute resolution whereconflicting uses clash (Reynard, 1994; Valdez-Pizzini1995).

The human element in marine protected areas cannotbe understated. The success of any protected area isclosely related to how well user groups and stake-holders are identified and brought into the planningand management processes for the protected area.Marine protected areas cannot afford to be elitist, norcan they be exclusionary—again underscoring thedifference between terrestrial and marine protectedareas. Wilderness is not a concept easily applied toocean areas—nor does it provide a particularly usefulperspective for marine conservation. Humans andtheir needs are the driving force for marine protectedarea work, and humans stand most to benefit fromtheir effective implementation. The designation of amarine protected area can provide local communi-ties, decision-makers, and other stakeholders with adefined arena in which to promote effective manage-ment—a sense of place, as it were.

Specific MPA Objective Relative Size Complexity

Protecting an Endangered Species

Small to Medium Simple

Protecting a Migratory Species

Large (or Network) Simple to Complex

Protecting Habitat from Single Threat

Medium Simple

Protecting Habitat from Multiple Threats

Medium to Large Complex

Preventing Overfishing Small Simple

Enhancing Stocks Small to Medium Simple

Protecting an Area of Historic or Cultural Interest

Small Simple

Providing a CZM Model or Empowering Local People

Small to Medium Somewhat Complex

Promoting Marine Ecotourism

Small Simple

Providing Site(s) for Scientific Research

Small Simple

Conserving Biodiversity Large (or Network) Simple to Complex

Table 1. Relationship between marine protected areaobjectives, size, and design complexity.

Scientific information on biomass, dispersal patterns,recruitment dynamics, trophic interactions, andcritical habitat are all needed for designing the size,shape, and management of marine protected areas.But what is needed first and foremost, and what ismost often overlooked when the process of establish-ing a marine protected area is initiated, is informa-tion on what the protected area is being establishedto achieve. This goal-setting or objective elaboration

54


is critical in order to determine expectations, effec-tively design the reserve, and have in place targetsand benchmarks against which progress towards theobjectives can be measured. Thus, the most crucialinformation for protected areas is inherently societal,and not scientific. Table 1 suggests how reservedesign and management can be a function of thespecific objectives that the protected area is trying totarget.

We now know that marine protected areas can bedesigned to help make fisheries and coastal manage-ment more effective. In the last 5 years, new, rigor-ous, and defensible evidence has emerged to showthat marine protected areas do indeed improve fishyields while conserving biological diversity moregenerally. These benefits have included increasedfish stock size inside the reserve as well as spillovereffects in which fish populations have also increasedoutside the reserve (Roberts, 1995). One of the mostcited examples of this spillover effect has been thework of Russ and Alcala (1996; 1997) in the Philip-pines, where a small protected area in Apo Islandwas shown to increase fish yields well outside theboundaries of the reserve less than a decade after itsestablishment. Other marine protected areas thatappear successful in helping manage fisheriesinclude Kenyan refuges (McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara, 1996; McClanahan and Shafir, 1990); NewZealand fishery reserves (Ballantine, 1991,1995;McCormick and Choat, 1987); several Mediterraneanreserves (Dugan and Davis, 1993); invertebratereserves in Chile (Castilla and Duran, 1985); coralreef reserves throughout the Caribbean (Rakitin andKramer, 1996; Reynard, 1994; Roberts and Polunin,1991); Red Sea reserves (Roberts and Polunin, 1992);and fisheries zones in Florida (Bohnsack, 1996a,1996b), inter alia.

A summary of published literature and anecdotalinformation shows that marine protected areas haveyielded the following quantifiable benefits(Ruckelhaus, in Florida Forum Report #1, 1997): 1)increase in abundance of reef fish and invertebrates;2)increase in individual size/age; 3) increase inreproductive output; 4) increase in species diversity;5) increase in spillover; 6) increase in replenishment;7) increase in preservation of genetic and demo-graphic diversity; and 8) increase in habitat qualityand diversity. All of these factors increase thepotential for fisheries production and yields (Robertsand Polunin, 1993). There are even more examples ofsuccessful marine protected areas that have enhancedfish stocks through broader conservation measuresaimed at protecting habitat and biological diversity

more generally (e.g. Agardy, 1997). An ideal situa-tion seems to be the establishment of harvest refugiawithin the context of a larger multiple-use protectedarea such as a coastal biosphere reserve, marinesanctuary, or other large-scale marine protected area.

Fishers, nations, and indeed the entire biosphere canbenefit from the establishment of marine protectedareas at all scales and in all coastal environments. Asnoted above, the rationale for marine protected areaestablishment is no longer lacking —but the courageto go forward is often hard to summon. Despiteincomplete knowledge and imprecise science, stepsmust be taken to establish protected areas now—anduse the additional information we gain as time goeson to alter these reserves, remove superfluous ones,and add new reserves. By clearly defining objectivesand using science to design the best possible plansfor meeting those objectives, we can improve ourmanagement of marine activities before the health ofthe seas is compromised and with it the ability ofmarine systems to provide us with the resources andservices upon which we increasingly depend.

Literature Cited

Agardy, T. 1993. The Science of Conservation in theCoastal Zone: New Insights on How to Design, Implementand Monitor Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland.

Agardy, T. 1994. Advances in marine conservation:the role of marine protected areas. Trends in Ecologyand Evolution 9(7):267-270.

Agardy, T. 1997. Marine Protected Areas and OceanConservation. R.E. Landes Press, Austin, TX.

Allison, G., J. Lubchenco, and M. Carr. 1998. Marinereserves are necessary but not sufficient for marineconservation. Ecological Appications 8(1) supplement:S79-S92.

Ballantine, W. 1991. Marine reserves for NewZealand. Leigh Laboratory Bulletin 25.

Ballantine, W. 1995. The practicality and benefits of amarine reserve network. In: Gimbel, K. (ed.), LimitedAccess to Marine Fisheries: Keeping the Focus on Conser-vation. World Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.pp. 205-223.

Bohnsack, J. 1996a. Marine reserves, zoning, and thefuture of fishery management. Fisheries 21(9):14-16.

55


Bohnsack, J. 1996b. Maintenance and recovery of reeffishery productivity. In: Polunin, N. and Roberts, C.(eds.), Reef Fisheries. Chapman & Hall, London. Ch.11.

Caddy, J. and G. Sharp. 1986. An Ecological Frameworkfor Marine Fishery Investigations. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper 382.

Castilla, J. and L. Duran. 1985. Human exclusionfrom the rocky intertidal zone of Central Chile: theeffects of Concholepas concholepa (Gastropoda).Oikos 45:391-399.

Dayton, P., S. Thrush, T. Agardy and R. Hofman.1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. AquaticConservation of Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5:1-28.

Dugan, J. and G. Davis. 1993. Applications of marinerefugia to coastal fisheries management. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50:2029-2042.

Florida Forum Report #1. 1997. Marine reserves andspecial management areas. Florida Institute of Oceanog-raphy, Jacksonville, FL.

Gubbay, S. (ed.). 1995. Marine Protected Areas: Prin-ciples and Techniques for Management. Chapman andHall, London, UK.

Hatcher, B., R. Johannes, and A. Robinson. 1989.Review of the research relevant to the conservation ofshallow tropical marine ecosystems. Oceanographyand Marine Biology 27:337-414.

Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley and S. Wells. 1995. A GlobalRepresentative System of Marine Protected Areas.Publication of The World Bank.

Lauck, T., C. Clark, M. Mangel and G. Munro. 1998.Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheriesmanagement through marine reserves. EcologicalApplications 8(1) supplement: S72-S78.

McClanahan, T. and B. Kaunda-Arara. 1996. Fisheryrecovery in a coral-reef marine park and its effect onthe adjacent fishery. Conservation Biology 10:1187-1199.

McClanahan, T. and S. Shafir. 1990. Causes andconsequences of sea urchin abundance and diversityin Kenyan coral reef lagoons. Oecologia 83:362-370.

Ratkitin, A. and D. Kramer. 1996. Effect of a marinereserve on the distribution of coral reef fishes inBarbados. Marine Ecology Progress Series 131:97-113.

Reynard, Y. 1994. Resolving conflicts for integratedcoastal management: the case of Soufriere, St. Lucia.Caribbean Parks and Protected Areas Bulletin 5(2):5-7.

Roberts, C. 1995. Rapid build-up of fish biomass in aCaribbean marine reserve. Conservation Biology 9(4):815-826.

Roberts, C. 1997. Connectivity and the design of marinereserve networks. Presented at the symposium “Ma-rine Conservation Biology: Application to ProtectedAreas,” Society of Conservation Biology AnnualMeeting, June 1997, Victoria.

Roberts, C. and N. Polunin. 1991. Are marine re-serves effective in management of reef fisheries?Review of Fisheries Biology, Fisheries 1:65-91.

Roberts, C. and N. Polunin. 1992. Effects of marinereserve protection on Northern Red Sea fish populations.Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral ReefSymposium, Vol. 2: 969-977.

Roberts, C. and N. Polunin. 1993. Marine reserves:simple solutions to managing complex fisheries?Ambio 222(6):363-368.

Russ, G. and A. Alcala. 1996. Marine reserves: Ratesand patterns of recovery and decline of large preda-tory fish. Ecolical Applications 6(3): 947-961.

Russ, G. and A. Alcala. 1997. Do marine reserves exportadult fish biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, CentralPhilippines. MEP.

Steele, J. 1974. The Structure of Marine Ecosystems.Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Valdes-Pizzini, M. 1995. La Parguera marine fisheryreserve: involving the fishing community in planninga marine protected area. Caribbean Parks and ProtectedAreas Bulletin 5 (2):2-3.

57

Industry-Driven Changes and Policy Responses

Panel Three focused on recent trends in coastal and ocean industries and the responses to thesetrends. One key trend has been an increase in the size of ships involved in the rapidly growingmaritime industry. Another trend has been the exploration and development of oil and natural gasfrom deeper waters in coastal and ocean areas. Overfishing is yet another important development incoastal areas during the past 25 years. As coastal industries grow and expand, an assessment of theeconomic importance of coastal areas is also required, including the importance of beach and boatingactivities. Recent trends in marine aquaculture show that it has the potential to become a majorgrowth industry in the United States. However, the industry is still very young, and is constrainedby legal and regulatory concerns. The marine environment is also a rich source of unique chemicalcompounds with the potential for industrial development as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, nutritionalsupplements, molecular probes, enzymes, fine chemicals, and agrichemicals.

Changing Ship Technology and Port Infrastructure ImplicationsRod Vulovic, Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Deepwater Offshore Oil Development: Opportunities and Future ChallengesPaul L. Kelly, Rowan Companies, Inc.

Challenges Facing the U.S. Commercial Fishing IndustryPietro Parravano, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

Assessing the Economic Benefits of America’s Coastal RegionsHoward Marlowe, American Coastal Coalition

A Profile of Recreational Boating in the United StatesRick Lydecker and Margaret Podlich, Boat Owners Association of the United States (BOAT/US)

Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Current and Future Policy and ManagementChallenges

M. Richard DeVoe, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):Legal and Regulatory ConcernsAlison Rieser* and Susan Bunsick**

*University of Maine School of Law, **University of Delaware

The Potential for the Marine Biotechnology IndustryShirley A. Pomponi, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Florida

3. Industry-Driven Changes and Policy Responses

59


CHANGING SHIP TECHNOLOGY AND PORTINFRASTRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS

Rod VulovicSea-Land Service, Inc.

The Changing Face of World Trade

An anonymous seer once stated that world trade isthe engine that drives civilization. How right hewas! The closing 100 years of the second millenniumhave seen world trade grow astonishingly.With this growth, not only have tradepatterns and the types of cargoes changedradically, but the ships that carry the goodshave changed almost beyond recognition.Today’s cargo-handling methods bear notthe slightest resemblance to what had beenthere before. The key to the change?Containerization, intermodalism andglobalization–interlocked concepts that are muchmore than fashionable epithets.

Before the advent of the container, world trade was apiecemeal undertaking, with the land and seasegments accomplished in isolation, with littlecoordination between the various independentoperations. The shipowner accepted the cargo whenit arrived at the pier. Shipper and recipient alike didnot expect, nor could they even envision, so-called“just-in-time” service. That luxury was simply notavailable, and the en-route delays, which were a partof the transport system, were an unavoidable part ofdoing business internationally.

All of this has changed. Sea-Land’s initial voyagesover 40 years ago proved the feasibility of containertransport, revolutionizing the movement of goods byallowing the land and sea portions to function as asystem. Within these four decades, this technologicaland commercial breakthrough has resulted in thenear demise throughout the world of the break-bulkship, in which cargo was stowed virtually by hand, apractice which had existed almost without change forhundreds of years.

Today’s container ship is the linch-pin of cargotransportation, but it is only a part of the total systemwhich includes sophisticated shoreside terminals,intermodal extensions to inland points by rail andhighway, and automated information systems thattrack a shipment throughout its journey.

The importance of this to the people of the world isthat fully 90 percent of international trade is carriedby sea. To and from the United States alone, theyearly waterborne foreign trade amounts to over 1billion tons, having a value of more than $ 625

billion. Tankers, bulkcarriers, containerships, and othervessels all share theenormous tonnage,using the samewaterways, the samenavigational aids, thesame ports.

Of the port users, the container vessel is the mosttime-sensitive. High value cargoes demand expe-dited handling, which requires coordinated actionsby ship operators, port authorities, landside trans-port organizations, and regulatory and supportagencies. Nearly 15 million TEU of container cargo ishandled through American ports per year, over halfof which moves through the five largest ports. Themandate of the American people to keep this cargoflowing is clear.

Trade and its Effect upon Ship Size

In addition to the radical change in the way cargo ishandled, there is another evolutionary force that hassignificantly affected international trade over the pastfive decades since the end of World War II. Worldtrade has escalated as the population of the worldhas risen.

The net effect of the market forces has been tochallenge technology in the development of increas-ingly economic methods of moving cargo. In respectto this, engineers have responded by devisingentirely new vessel types and expanding the frontiersof deadweight tonnage and speed. The result hasbeen an ocean transportation system, that is able tocarry the vastly increased amount of cargo swiftlyand safely.

The pioneering container ships could carry only 59containers having a length of 35 feet and stackedtwo-high on deck. Once this seemingly radical idea

...fully 90 percent ofinternational trade iscarried by sea.

60


of carrying boxes by ship had been proven suffi-ciently in the coastwise trade, the first true containerships, having cellular holds into which containerswere loaded by cranes came into being.Their capacity was around 200 TEU –thedesignation “TEU” (for twenty-footequivalent units) being the standardmeasure of capacity adopted by theindustry.

Through the 1960s and 1970s vesselcapacity grew, individually and collec-tively, as European and Far Eastern shipoperators, following the lead of theirAmerican counterparts, realized that thecontainer revolution had indeed takenplace. During the latter part of thisperiod, container ships of around 2000 to2500 TEU were becoming more prevalenton the major trade routes. Size graduallycrept upwards over the next 10or 15 yearsas did the quantity of trade in container cargo. In thelate 1980s the 4000 TEU barrier in ship size had beencrossed. The next phase, the age of the mega-container ship, came rapidly once that point hadbeen reached.

The Mega-Container Ship is Unveiled

The definition of the mega-container ship haschanged in lock step with the construction of largerand larger vessels. In the mid-1980s, when UnitedStates Lines built its “Jumbo Econ” container ships(now owned by Sea-Land as its Atlantic Class), their4354-TEU capacity was classified in the “mega”region. Today, “mega-container ship” describes onlythose vessels having a capacity in excess of 6000 TEUand the definition changes as each new generation ofvessels is delivered.

Around 7700 TEU are carried on today’s mega-carrier, which is about 1138 feet (347 meters) inlength–almost a quarter mile, or, in the popularidiom, nearly “four football fields”– and has a beamof 140 feet (42.8 meters). The container stack is 17wide.

Future Trends in Ship Size

For several years, designs have been available forvessels with capacities of up to about 8700 TEU. Thedesign and construction of such vessels is well withinthe state of the art. In fact, a consensus amongshipbuilders and ship operators is that a containership able to load 15,000 TEU may well be a possibil-

ity. For such a ship to become a viable reality mayrequire a complete rethinking of the way containersare handled to– and from the ship as well as to and

from–and withinthe shoresideterminals.

Although theship may betechnologicallyfeasible, theremust be a level oftrade sufficient tosupport such avessel. Of equalor greater impor-tance, there mustbe shoresidefacilities to matchits capacity. Themajor problem is

the need to minimize port time (There is a truism thata transportation asset, whether ship, aircraft, rail car,or truck must be in motion to assure its economicsurvival) In addition, and of great importance, theharbor waters, berths, and approach channels mustbe of sufficient depth and the berths themselves mustbe large enough and properly equipped to handle thelarger (longer, wider, and deeper) vessel.

In the case of this mega-container ship, the terminalmust have sufficient area to accommodate the largernumber of boxes that will accumulate before the shiparrives and as she is being discharged and loaded;crane capacity (in terms of both the number of cranesand their cycle time) must be sufficient to minimizeport stays; and, needless to say, the requirements forsufficient water depth and appropriate vessel berthsmust be considered.

We believe that we have not seen the practicableupper limit of container ship size in the 7000-TEUplus vessels now in existence. An eventual ceilingmight be found around the 10,000 to 12,000 TEUlevel. Market forces will continue to influence theevolution of the system as long as it moves in a waythat continues to provide improvements in cost,reliability, and speed and customer satisfaction.

The Question of Water Depth

One aspect of the mega-container ship, that must befaced by ship operators and port authorities alike isthe water depth required to permit these vessels tooperate efficiently. In the Far East and Europe, the

Around 7,700 TEU arecarried on today’smega-carrier, which isabout 1,138 feet (347meters) in length—almosta quarter mile, or, in thepopular idiom, “nearlyfour football fields”—andhas a beam of 140 feet(42.8 meters).

61


problem of water depth is not a serious one at mostmajor ports, and where controlling depths aremarginally satisfactory, steps are taken to ensure thata safe environment is available for the ships servingthe ports concerned. Under-keel clearance of not lessthan one meter (slightly more than 3'-3") is available,at any state of the tide.

A 50-foot deep channel would accommodate nearlyall container ships now in existence. As ship capacityincreases to 8000 and 10,000 TEU, the required waterdepth will not increase proportionally. This is due toother changes in the configuration of the vessels. Forexample, they will be wider–up to 22 containers fromthe current maximum of 17 and they will be longer.

The question of how to achieve sufficient waterdepth is a vexing one for many U. S. ports, particu-larly on the East Coast. There must be found a wayaround the fiscal, environmental, and other road-blocks that are thrown in the way of port progress.To do otherwise is to steer the nation irrevocablytowards second-class statehood.

Environmental Impact of the Mega-Carrier

Much has been said of the economic superiority ofthe mega-container carrier in terms of cost of trans-portation per TEU-mile. The mega-carrier alsodisplays an increasingly important characteristicwhich may directly affect air quality. In an opera-tional environment in which the contribution toatmospheric pollution by marine sources is comingunder closer scrutiny (even though the total releaseof exhaust gases from all marine sources accounts fora small percentage of the worldwide total release),the operation of a mega-carrier will result in ameasurably lower release of pollutant gases thanfrom an equivalent transportation capacity in smallerships.

Given the much improved fuel efficiency of modernships, the relatively small contribution to air pollu-tion from marine sources, and the continuing re-search to improve engine performance, we believethat the shipowner is doing his part to keep thespectre of fouled air under reasonable control.

In the other significant marine environmentalconcern–the discharge of oil into navigable waters–acontinuing effort by all players is resulting in mea-surable improvement.

What Is Intermodalism?

The term intermodalism is heard with increasingfrequency in the 1990s, but the concept has been adriving force in container transportation since thebeginning. Intermodalism may be defined as theability of a transportation system to move freightfrom source to destination over a number of modeswithout intercession by shipper or consignee. Inother words, a container may originate in an inlandpoint in the United States, travel over road and rail toa port, then by ship to a port, perhaps on anothercontinent, and thence by rail and road to the finaldestination, all without touching the cargo within thecontainer.

The concept is simple, its execution, difficult. Thecontainer must move swiftly and connect at eachmodal change point speedily, but of even greaterimportance is for the transportation company toassure that the sometimes complex and burdensomepaperwork which follows the box is processed withdispatch. This is of importance with any domesticshipment involving road and rail modes only, but thevalue of true intermodalism is tested in internationalshipments, where customs documentation addsanother layer to the complexity of the process.

For intermodalism to have existed in the formerregulatory climate in the United States was nearlyimpossible. Dating back to the mindset of the“robber baron” days of the late 19th Century, it wasnot possible under law for a transportation companyto operate in more that one mode. For this reason,when the Founder of Sea-Land Service, MalcolmMcLean, started his marine container business, hewas forced to divest himself of his extensive truckinginterests, which, of course, could have formed animportant part of an early intermodal system.

This and similar cases are typical examples ofexisting regulatory processes being unable to recog-nize and adjust to innovative change and, moreimportantly, not being able to ameliorate the legisla-tive morass that is encountered when innovativechange is encountered.

Seamless Transport Ashore and Afloat: TheIntermodal Pipeline

An intermodal cargo transportation system betweencontinents may be likened to a pipeline. To run atpeak efficiency with maximum throughput, thepipeline must offer minimum resistance to flow. Thisis accomplished by utilizing proven design and

62


construction practices. It must also be free of operat-ing constrictions such as partially closed valves.

In the intermodal case, the features designed into thesystem include ships of a size, seakeeping ability, andspeed properly considered for reliable operation,logically located ports; efficient rail and highwaytransport; and efficient and unobtrusive regulatoryformalities. In the ideal operation of such a system,the cargo will flow into the source location and becarried to the final destination through severalchanges of mode (e.g., truck to rail to ship to rail totruck) as if, in a manner of speaking, all valves werefully open.

But in actual operation, the intermodal pipeline issusceptible to the partial closing of too many valves,at least one of which may be present–and poised alltoo ready to close–at each change of mode. Whatvalves are likely to close?

• The first valve is accessibility of the port from theopen sea. Can the port terminals be reachedwithout the need for a long inland passage by theship?

• Next, is the port appropriately located fortransfer of cargo to the rail or highway mode?Do these connections have easy access to remotedestinations? Is there a significant local market?Is there a ready source of personnel to man theterminals?

• Of significant concern is the question of terminalexpandability. Can this be accomplished, consid-ering the probable expansion of world trade inthe future?

• Has the port sufficient water depth, in channelsand alongside the berths, to permit the safe andefficient movement of the largest ships which arelikely to enter the port? What are the prospectsfor future increases in water depth? Of muchgreater importance, can the ship operator beassured that the water depths can and will bemaintained over the long term?

• Is there sufficient length of berthing area fittedwith container cranes to accommodate theperceived normal maximum throughput withoutcausing an inordinately long queue of vesselswaiting to berth?

• Is all necessary documentation and informationexisting, accurate, and available when needed?

The Ideal Container Port

Commercial waterside land is increasingly underpressure as the beautifiers of the world lay claim tomore and more of this valuable commodity throughgentrification, preservation, zoning changes, designa-tion as wildlife areas, and other artifices. Elsewherein the world, land reclamation has been used withgreat success to provide port acreage. In this country,such an approach would likely be greeted withdismay, anger, and no small measure of “not in mybackyard” attitude.

Where, then, can and should a port be located?Ideally, the time-sensitive nature of container-basedliner services, where departures are regulated by theclock, calls for the landside terminal to be as close tothe open sea as possible, but with easy connections tothe rail and highway portions of the system. Thecontainer port need not be in the middle of a metro-politan area as was the case in the 19th Century, butit should not be too far distant from significant localmarkets.

Finally, the container port should have its ownsupport infrastructure, should be distant fromresidential areas (but not so far away as to createmanning difficulties), and should not result inunduly great competition with other vessel types foraccess channels, anchorage, and support facilities.

The Protection of Local Waters Through BallastWater Exchange

An increasingly important problem in ship operationis the possibility of introducing foreign animalspecies into an area in ballast water, that has beencarried from another part of the world and dis-charged. This was first noted on the Great Lakeswith the zebra mussel, but other species have ap-peared in various locations around the world.

A number of solutions have been proposed, all ofwhich have positive and negative features. One ofthe most promising is ballast water exchange, inwhich water taken aboard in one port is dischargedinto the open sea and replaced with deep-oceanwater as the ship proceeds to her destination. Thekey to the success of this practice is to ensure that thesafety of the vessel in terms of stability is not com-promised at any time during the transfer.

Other ideas include chemical treatment aboard thevessel and the discharge of ballast into holding tanksashore, both of which appear to have significantly

63


greater operational challenges. The former wouldrequire additional equipment and an additional taskaboard the ship and the latter a complex shoresideinstallation.

The problem of rogue species is solveable, but theimplementation of a workable way to avoid theproblem will take dedication on the part of all partiesconcerned.

Competition within the Port

Competition within a port between various types ofvessels must be given consideration, particularlywhen the mega-ship is a regular visitor. We havedwelled above on the mega-container ship, but thereare other vessels, in the “mega” category, and someof these do compete within American ports.

The original mega-ships–tankers and bulk carriersabove 250,000 dead weight tons (ships which have alength of more than a 1,000 feet and a beam of 140feet or more–are not a factor in the United States, buta proliferation of mega-cruise ships is being seen inAmerican waters, primarily in the Southeastern portswhich serve the Caribbean region. Some of thesevessels approach the largest of the tankers and bulkcarriers in physical size.

Not to be forgotten are the smaller ships whichtraverse the waters of many ports, including recre-ational and fishing vessels, towboats, and flotillas ofbarges, ferries and other vessels which must also usethese waterway. The question of competition is notso much one of priority as of having a common rightof way, much as exists on the landside highwaysystem.

A Plea for Safe Navigation

From the shipowner’s viewpoint, the safe operationof a container port is built around three issues: anefficient vessel traffic control system, regular mainte-nance dredging of berths and channels as the needarises, and unfailing accuracy in the charting of allwaters from the open sea to the berth.

Vessel traffic control schemes are expensive andrequire continuing dedication on the part of thesystem operators. Not only should the marinecommunity take a cue from the air traffic controlsystem, but the marine system itself should be a free-standing operation in which the persons who man alocal system should be marine professionals inti-mately familiar with the area’s needs and not subjectto periodic replacement.

Regular maintenance dredging must be carried outas necessary. We hear too frequently of areas, thathave become shoaled in the wake of competition forthe appropriation of funds. This problem must beremoved from the political arena.

The charting of waters throughout the port and itsapproaches must be undertaken with unfailingaccuracy. Again, we hear the shipmaster’s horrorstories about uncharted obstacles, obsolete charts,and similar impediments to safe navigation. Theadvent of electronic chart displays makes the prob-lem of keeping up-to-date charts a simpler one,provided that the argumentative discussion ofelectronic chart standards is solved.

The litany of concerns about in-port menaces tonavigation includes a variety of hazards, typical ofwhich are the following:

• Competition with other vessel traffic on acrowded waterway.

• Narrow and/or tortuous waterways.

• Channels with insufficient water depth.

• Extreme tidal variations or local current prob-lems.

• En route physical hazards on the surface, such asthe presence of bridges.

• En route submerged man-made hazards, such asthe presence of pipelines or underwater cables.

• Limited overhead clearance (air draft).

• Local regulations prohibiting night arrivals anddepartures.

• Frequent weather-related delays caused by fog orice.

Some of these hazards are to be found in every port.Some ports have more than their fair share. TheHouston Ship Channel and the lower MississippiRiver, for example, offer challenges to any shipvisiting the ports at those waterways’ ends.

Although not directly a part of the port challenges,another concern relating to navigation is the questionof protection of marine mammals. The maritimecommunity is keenly aware of the importance of thisissue and will, I am sure, continue to monitor theseenvironmental concerns.

64


The Port: Commonweal or Private Preserve?

A port serves much more than the ships that callthere or population that inhabits the local area. Eventhose persons who will never smell saltwater—fromthe hard rock miner in Vanadium, New Mexico, tothe general store owner in Ida Grove, Iowa, to theblack dirt farmer in Issaquena County, Mississippi—are direct beneficiaries of the international tradewhich passes through any port. In actual fact arethey and nearly 275 million others not the realowners of the American port system?

The provision and maintenance of facilities for thecommon carriage of freight has long been a responsi-bility of government. Although it is realized that theuser has his own responsibility in respect to this–hisown terminal and facilities, whether owned orleased, for example–the fact remains that, because theport itself is there for the commonweal, an equitablemethod of public funding on behalf of the realowners must be considered.

Those persons in New Mexico and Iowa and Missis-sippi are the owners of the national parks, themonuments and activities in our nation’s capital, anduntold other aspects of life, and they benefit in anintangible way from all of these. They, too, benefitfrom the ports in a much more discernable manner.

Concluding Remarks: The Challenge

The challenges facing the shipowner and the portoperator are certainly real. For the nation to ignorethe needs of the ports in this increasingly competi-tive, globally oriented world of commerce equates, asI mentioned earlier, to the acceptance of second-classstatehood.

We sincerely believe that with a continuing dialogueamong the port users, the operating authorities, thesupport and regulatory organizations (be they local,state or federal–such as customs authorities, pilots,police and public safety groups), and government,solutions will be found to the problems and thechallenges that confront us. The road ahead maypresent a difficult journey, but the goal of building acargo pipline, with fully open valves, will be reached.

My closing thoughts turn to a parable totally unre-lated to maritime commerce: the metric system. TheUnited States is one of three nations, which, afternearly a century of domestic debate, does not usemetric measurements. The others are Liberia andMyanmar. Question: Is this where we belong?

65


DEEPWATER OFFSHORE OIL DEVELOPMENT: OPPORTUNITIESAND FUTURE CHALLENGES

Paul L. KellyRowan Companies, Inc.

Introduction

As we move into the next millennium, a largerpercentage of oil and natural gas will come from theoceans. The United States has a significant opportu-nity to influence the future course of events fromboth a private sector and government perspectiveand guarantee thatthere will be secureaccess to thisimportant source ofenergy in the yearsahead.

Extraction ofpetroleum resourcesfrom beneath theseabed is a majormaritime activity inthe Gulf of Mexico,offshore southernCalifornia, and insome regions of Alaska. Petroleum production fromoffshore federal lands currently accounts for 20percent of our oil production and 27 percent ofdomestic natural gas production. The offshore oiland gas industry, including the support servicessector, provides Americans with approximately85,000 well-paying jobs, a number whichis likely to more than double in the nexttwo decades. Oil production in the Gulfof Mexico, where there is a high level ofindustry interest and activity in watersas deep as 8,000 to 10,000 feet, is ex-pected to double by the year 2002.Revenues from OCS oil and gas develop-ment generate an average of $3-4 billiona year in federal receipts and help fundthe Land and Water Conservation Fundand the National Historic PreservationFund.

Deepwater Successes

Offshore petroleum production is a major technologi-cal triumph. New exploration, drilling, and produc-tion-related technologies have brought about world-record complex industrial projects in 3,000 to 5,000

feet of water, which would have been unimaginable ageneration ago. Exploration wells have been drilledin almost 8,000 feet of water and 10,000 feet seemswithin reach. There are at least 8 known fields atdepths exceeding 1,500 feet of water with 1 billionbarrels or more of oil in place. These are locatedoffshore 5 countries– the United States, Brazil,

Nigeria, Cabinda, and Angola. In all,there have been 52 deepwater discoveriesin the U.S. Gulf, 20 offshore Brazil, and 17offshore West Africa, for a combined totalof almost 23 billion barrels of oil equiva-lent. Much of this technology can be usedin other ocean exploration endeavors andin scientific research, as well as in non-ocean fields such as communications andmedicine.

Subsalt Plays

The same 3D seismic technology that hasenabled oil and gas explorers to look into

ever-deeper water at deeper geological targets hasalso enabled improvement in subsalt imaging in theGulf of Mexico. Approximately 60 percent of theocean floor in the Gulf contains salt structuresbeneath it which, until the advent of this new tech-nology, kept us from seeing potential hydrocarbon–

bearing structuresbelow them. Thesubsalt play in theGulf holds excellentpotential for signifi-cant new finds andperhaps a number ofgiant fields. Only 44wildcat wells havebeen drilled in thesubsalt compared tomore than 600wildcats in the Gulf’sdeepwater.AnadarkoPetroleum’s discov-

eries last year at Tanzanite and Hickory representimportant new oil and gas discoveries in the shal-lower waters of the Gulf, and similar potentialdiscoveries lie in deeper water.

Petroleum productionfrom offshore federallands currently ac-counts for 20 percentof our oil productionand 27 percent ofdomestic natural gasproduction.

Oil production in theGulf of Mexico, wherethere is a high level ofindustry interest andactivity in waters asdeep as 8,000 to 10,000feet, is expected todouble by the year2002.

66


Safety and the Environment

Advances in technology and pacesetting safetymanagement systems have also contributed to animproved Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) safety andenvironmental record. Over the past 20 years, lessthan 0.001 percent of the oil produced from the OCShas been spilled from production facilities. There hasnot been a spill larger than 1,000 barrels from oil andgas platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf since1980; in fact, natural seeps introduce approximately100 times more oil into U.S. marine waters than dospills from offshore development and productionactivities. Today industry, the Department of theInterior’s Minerals Management Service, and the U.S.Coast Guard are working in partnership to raise thebar for environmental and safety performance evenhigher.

Moving beyond Conflict to Consensus; Extension ofMoratoria Premature

Under the past two administrations, the MineralsManagement Service (MMS) in the Department ofthe Interior has committed itself to resolve conflictsraised in connection with OCS oil and gas develop-ment and build a consensus among stakeholders asto where, when, and how activities should proceed.A parallel theme has been science-based decision-making. This approach is being used in the current1997-2002 five-year OCS leasing program, and ourcoastal state administrations seem to be much moresatisfied with the degree of communication andconsideration that now exists between the federalgovernment and the states regarding OCS oil and gaspolicy. For this reason, I believe it was premature forPresident Clinton last June, at the National OceanConference held in Monterey California, to extendOCS moratoria beyond 2000. We should have letthese consensus-building policies work and evalu-ated their success before extending moratoria further.

Another consideration is the incredible advances indrilling technology made over the past decade,which make the extraction of oil and natural gasfrom the ocean much safer from an environmentalstandpoint and much less intrusive physically. Anumber of the areas in moratoria contain importantreserves of natural gas, which cannot be spilled andis more and more the fuel of choice. Moreover,despite current appearances, the world will have adifficult enough time as it is supplying the energyneeds of the 7 billion citizens who will inhabit ourplanet by 2010–at least a billion more than there aretoday, another China. We need to leave ourselves

some flexibility to deal with changing internationalconditions or evolving domestic conditions andattitudes.

Global Leadership

As exploration of the ocean for hydrocarbonsglobalizes, the U.S. private sector and governmenthave an unparalleled opportunity to lead the worldin terms of management, technology, and our abilityto demonstrate how to extract these resources in anenvironmentally sound manner for the benefit of allmankind.

Benefits of Offshore Oil Technology for Other OceanResearch and Activities

In 1998, we experienced a mini-boom in state-of-the-art mobile offshore drilling rig construction. Rigsdelivered last year cost around $1.2 billion; rigs onorder or planned will cost their owners at least anadditional $12 billion, an average cost of $205million per unit. New construction will peak in 1999at 34 deliveries, then taper off to almost nothing asrig demand reacts to continuing low oil prices.Research done for such facilities on subjects such ascomposite materials, synthetic mooring lines, andother topics targeted at reducing the weight ofmaterials in deep water should benefit many sectorsin the marine environment. An industry/governmentcoalition known as “Deep Star” has spent more than$6 million in research on deepwater technologychallenges in the last few years.

Parallel developments have occurred in the offshoreservice vessel fleet, where new deep-draft, very large,high-horsepower anchor handling/tug /supplyvessels have evolved to move these large newsophisticated drilling rigs, handle their anchors,chain and mooring lines, and meet all kinds ofservice demands of the new generation of deepwaterrigs and production platforms.

As stated recently in a report of the National Re-search Council,1 “ocean observations have alwaysbeen the driver of new knowledge and predictivecapabilities in the ocean and its basins. Ocean drillinghas produced sediment cores that provide our bestlong-term records of natural climate fluctuations.Submersible observations (both piloted and robotic)opened our eyes to hydrothermal vents and theunique life forms that surround them.” Many of thetechnological improvements enabling us to makethese observations are driven by the needs of oil andgas explorers in the ocean. Certainly this is the case

67


with drilling, submersible vessels, and robotics.Much of our knowledge of seabed geology andgeomorphology is directly owing to the offshore oiland gas industry. Just last month, a Louisiana-basedcompany announced the development of a newprocess that gives a clearer picture of the ocean floorfor better planning of drilling and construction. Anew scanning sonar system collects seafloor featuresdata in conjunction with proprietary image enhance-ment and analyzes software. The combination givesgreater definition and resolution of seafloor featuresand hazards. Today in Houston we have a large-screen, interactive visualization center which allowsengineers and earth scientists to course through 3Dvolumes of subsurface data worldwide. Also, compa-nies are discussing the possibility of making avail-able to the scientific community video film taken byvarious petroleum companies around wellheads inultra–deep water for purposes of examining themarine ecosystem at these depths and identifyingorganisms not previously seen. As all these examplesindicate, there is much potential for acquiringknowledge about the ocean environment throughmore joint efforts among industry, government,universities, and the scientific community at large.Today, scientists are using offshore rigs and plat-forms to study everything from marine organisms,physical oceanography, and meteorological data tobird migration. The day is approaching when aban-doned offshore oil and gas platforms will be used foraquaculture projects. A converted offshore drillingrig is preparing to leave Russia for Long Beach,California, where it will be stationed to begin its newlife as a privately owned commercial offshore rocketlaunch platform. Seventeen satellite launches arealready contracted. Opportunities for the use of thistechnology are diverse and just abound!

Challenges Ahead

Before the potential of the deep water can be fullyunlocked, there are a variety of economic, technologi-cal, environmental, and regulatory challenges to beovercome.

Costs reduction is a very important factor, particu-larly in the low oil price environment we are experi-encing currently. One of the biggest challenges is theaddition of a drilling function to a floating produc-tion, storage, and offloading system (FPSO) so as tohave minimum reliance on shore-based facilities.MMS is currently studying FPSOs for application inthe deepwater Gulf of Mexico along with industry.Another means of reducing costs is to operatethrough a “hub system” which handles production

from two or more producing zones at a singlefacilities measurement point. This provides technicaland regulatory challenges for the industry and theMMS as they meet their respective responsibilities toproduce and measure production.

Deeper and colder waters create real and expensiveproblems with hydrates, paraffin, and solids build-up, so much research is being done to enhance flowassurance with solutions such as new types ofinsulation materials and coiled tubing. At the sametime, the depths of some of the wells themselveshave brought us to new pressure and temperature(excess of 200ºC) frontiers that have to be dealt with.

Multilateral completions are driving the need formore sophisticated downhole production systems.

For the geophysical industry, ever deeper water,deeper geophysical targets, the need to get theappropriate velocity field below salt and othercomplex frontier stratigraphy present far greaterchallenges to accurate acquisition of 3D seismic datathan do normal depths and geology. The technologi-cal cutting edge that is reducing these obstacles toaccurate surveys is proving to be the towing oflonger cables on multi-streamer programs.

Deeper geological targets may require streamerlengths between 4,000 and 6,000 meters or more,rather than the standard lengths up to 3,600 meters.When four to eight streamers of the longer lengthsare towed over large areas it can be a challenge todeploy them and maintain their positions.

These examples should give you some idea of thechallenges deepwater operators are dealing withevery day.

Law of the Sea Treaty

In closing, I want to make one more point that, aspetroleum exploration moves into deeper and deeperwaters, it is important that the United States becomea party to the Law of the Sea Treaty this would assurethe United States of a minimum of 200 nautical milesof OCS jurisdiction and establish rules and proce-dures for delineating the outer limits of the geologi-cal continental shelf, which in some areas extendsconsiderably farther. That component of the Treatywhich protects the right of both commercial andmilitary ships and aircraft to move freely throughand over straits used for international navigation, toengage in “innocent passage” through States’ territo-rial seas, and to enjoy high seas freedom of passage

68


through exclusive economic zones, also is importantto U.S. energy security as our sources of petroleumglobalize and diversify in the years ahead and webecome even more dependent on secure oceantransportation.

There presently exist about 200 undemarcated claimsin the world with 30 to 40 actively in dispute. Thereare 24 island disputes. The end of the Cold War andglobal expansion of free market economies havecreated new incentives to resolve these disputes,particularly with regard to offshore oil and gasexploration. During the first 6 months of 1997, alone172 licenses, leases or other contracts for explorationrights were granted in a variety of nations outsidethe United States. These countries are eager todetermine whether or not hydrocarbons are presentin their continental shelves, and disputes overmaritime boundaries are obstacles to states andbusiness organizations. We have two such cases herein North America, where bilateral efforts are under-way to resolve the maritime boundaries between theUnited States. and Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico andbetween the United States. and Canada in theBeaufort Sea. Both of these initiatives have beendriven by promising new petroleum discoveries inthe regions. As I understand it, the Canadians do notseem to be in a hurry to resolve that boundary line.On the other hand, negotiations with Mexico areexpected to resume in the spring of this year, after theMexicans complete some geological analyses andtechnical research now underway.

The Law of the Sea Convention provides stabilityand recognized international authority, standards,and procedures for use in areas of potential bound-ary dispute as well as an additional forum fordealing with such disputes and other issues.

_______________________________________

Notes

1 Opportunities in Ocean Sciences: Challenges on theHorizon, Ocean Studies Board, Commission onGeosciences, Environment and Resources, NationalResearch Council.

69


CHALLENGES FACING THE U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY

Pietro ParravanoPacific Coast Federation on Fishermen’s Associations

• The Fishery Conservation & Management Act of1976 (HR 200). now referred to as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, was the most significant piece offisheries legislation passed in this century. Itestablished,- a) U.S. control of fisheries in watersoffshore the nation out to 200 miles in a FisheryConservation Zone (FCZ) (later incorporated byPresident Reagan into the U.S. Exclusive Eco-nomic Zone (EEZ)) - b) U.S. policy to “American-ize” the U.S. fishery with a phase-out of foreignfishing offshore the U.S. and the development ofa domestic fleet fully capable of harvesting thefishery resources of the EEZ; and c) federalmanagement of U.S. fisheries in the EEZ througheight regional fishery management councils andthe Department of Commerce-

• The Fishery Conservation & Management Actdid contain language to “prevent overfishing,” tomanage fisheries for “optimum yield” —imply-ing sustainable fisheries, and “managing fisher-ies throughout their range” —implying, at leastin the case of anadromous fish that some consid-eration would be given of the habitat factorsaffecting those stocks. This language was notexplicit enough, and various regional councilsand Commerce subsequently allowed overfish-ing, did not manage for sustainability, andturned a deaf ear on pleas to speak out againstthe dam operations, water diversions and longthat were decimating west coast salmon stocks.

• The Maguson-Stevens Act has succeeded ingaining U.S. control of the fisheries of the EEZ;phasing out foreign fishing and “Americanizing”(with the exception of some foreign ownership ofU.S. -registered factory trawlers) the fishing fleetoperating in the EEZ; and developing the systemof federal management of fisheries based onrecommendations made to Commerce by theeight management councils.

• The “Americanization” policy carried outfollowing the 1976 passage of HR 200 put itsemphasis on building a fleet capable of harvest-ing the fish that were being taken by the foreignfleets as well as develop harvesting, processingand marketing for “underutilized fish species,rather than developing a sound data base on

which to make management decisions. Too littleemphasis was given research to determine whatlevel of exploitation (elect size and capability) thevarious fish stocks within the EEZ could sustain.Indeed, there was even reliance on some of theself-serving research done by the foreign fleetsthat had operated in the EEZ.

• The “Americanization” policy was one of “biggeris better” that promoted the construction (orreconstruction) of large trawlers, factory trawler/processors, and large longlining vessels (mostlyall of 25 meters in length or greater) throughprograms of tax deferrals (Capital ConstructionFund) and loan guarantees- Commerce alsopromoted management measures allocating hugechunks of the catch to the large trawl and factorytrawl operators (in some instances Commerceoverruled its regional council recommendations,in order to allocate more quota to the largeoperators).

• The “Americanization” policy as carried out byCommerce gave short shrift to the smaller fishingvessel operators the more traditional fisheries,and the “family fishing” vessel owner-operators.Little, if any, financial assistance was providedthese fleets (as opposed to the large trawl andlongline operators) even to improve safety orproduct quality. At the management level, thesmall boat fleets lost part (sometimes all) of itsfishery to a reallocation to the trawlers for“bycatch.” In other instances the smaller, moretraditional flees were denied limited entrypermits or had there catch levels significantlyreduced in order to accommodate the large fleets.

• The “Americanization” policy, with its emphasison fleet construction rather than research, has ledto a vast overcapitalization of the U.S. fleet withfar more catching capacity than resource tosupport that harvest capability. It has led tooverfishing of many species and the near totalcollapse of the groundfish fishery in NewEngland. The policy also caused Commerce, forat least 15 years following the passage of HR 200,to ignore the plight of the smaller and moretraditional fisheries and most, specifically, fail toact in a timely manner to prevent the near

70


extinction of some Pacific salmon species (andtheir fisheries) from federally or state permitteddam operations, water diversions and logging,

The regional council process has been fraught withconflict. The intent of providing regional input intofederal fisheries management has been subverted ina number of ways.State fisherymanagers, jealousof their turf, oftenact to preventcouncils fromtaking actions tohelp a fisherywhere such anaction mightconflict with astateadministration’spolicy. The publicmembers are oftenfinancially conflicted and too often are associationheads, lawyers or executive directors, instead ofcommercial or sport fishing men and women with“on-the-grounds” experience as envisioned in HR200. The councils do not have independent legalcounsel; they depend on NCAA General Counsel fortheir legal advise. They are also subservient toCommerce with it comes to their funding,

The problems facing U.S. fisheries are not unique tothis nation. Overfishing is a problem around theworld and much of it is coming from government-subsidized fishing operations, most notably largetrawl and factory trawl operations. Most of the largetrawl and factory trawl operations are owned orcontrolled by corporations where the driving force isshort term profits — satisfying shareholder demandsfor maximum quarterly dividends — rather thanlong term sustainability.

• Loss of habitat and pollution are also a majorfactor in the depiction of many of the world’sfisheries. Coastal aquaculture operations,intended to increase fish production, are, ironi-cally, one of the major sources of habitat loss andpollution (as well as a source of introduced exoticspecies, disease and parasites) in much of theworld. Farmed shrimp and salmon operationsare particularly troublesome.

• Throughout the world, most small boat andtraditional fishing family operations have beenconducted on a sustainable basis. But increased

demand for fish coupled with newer and largerfishing vessels, many government subsidizedand corporately owned.

• Many of the successful efforts over the past twodecades in the U.S. aimed at sustainable fisherieshave come at the state level or from fishery and

conservation non-governmental organi-zations (NGOs). In California, forexample, the effort to save that state’ssalmon resource has come from fishinggroups, not the regional councils orCommerce. This is not surprising,responsible fishing groups, such asPCFFA, want sustainable fisheries thatprevent waste and provide the consumerthe very best product at an affordableprice.

• In response to the failures of theFCMA and the “Americanization”policy, Congress, at the urging of

conservation and some fishing groups, amendedthe Magnuson FCNU during the 1996 reauthori-zation, with the Sustainable Fisheries Act,explicitly prohibiting overfishing and calling fora reduction of bycatch in fisheries and an activeconsultative role on the part of Commerce aimedat preventing the destruction of essential fishhabitat (EFH). That act also calls for the protec-tion of fishing communities.

• To date, the regional councils and Commercehave not met their statutory timelines to developplans to prevent overfishing or documentsidentifying essential fish habitat as called for inthe Sustainable Fisheries Act. And, at least in thecase of New England, the council and Commerceare certainly not following the spirit of the 1996act in protecting fishing communities and fishingfamilies. On the west coast, management mea-sures are resulting in the waste of vast amountsof groundfish and the loss of the small boat fleet;and, in New England it appears the small boatoperator is being sacrificed.

• Fishery planning for the next 25 years, based onthe experience of the past quarter century needsto focus on:

1. Full implementation of the Sustainable Fisher-ies Act. Overfishing has to be stopped, needlesswaste must be prevented by reducing fisheriesbycatch and essential fish habitat must beprotected. Fishing communities and fishingfamilies have to be protected.

Overfishing is a problemaround the world andmuch of it is coming fromgovernment-subsidizedfishing operations, mostnotably large trawl andfactory trawl operations.

71


2. Small-boat and fishing family (owner-opera-tor) operations should be fostered and sup-ported, These types of operations tend to have amuch stronger commitment to resourcesustainability and culturally derived desires topass along “their” fishery to future generations.An emphasis on small-boat and family fishingoperations is also consistent with the languagecalling for protection of fishing communities inthe Sustainable Fisheries Act.

3. With firm federal objectives for fishery conser-vation and management in hand (i.e., preventoverfishing reduce bycatch, protect habitat,protect fishing communities), fishery manage-ment decisions should be left at the regional stateand local levels, provided they are consistentwith the overall federal objectives.

4. More funds will be needed for researchpurposes, to develop better and more selectivetypes of fishing gear, and to provide the regionalfishery councils greater autonomy. With greaterautonomy, the selection of public members to theregional councils should be limited to personsfrom the commercial, sport and conservationsectors with “on-the-ground” knowledge offishing operations.

5. Greater emphasis must be made on “value-added” fisheries and fisheries that have low-impact and high value, consistent with providingconsumers high quality, healthful and affordablesources of fish.

6. Aquaculture operations to supplement existingfisheries should be fostered only where they arenon-polluting, do not damage habitat, or resultin the introduction of exotic species, disease orparasites into the wild. Only aquacultureoperations with good conversion ratios (e.g,amount of feed to amount of edible meat) shouldbe supported.

7. Fishing men and women who have a first bandknowledge of the marine environment, have tobe an integral part of fishery research, manage-ment, and decision making concerning the usesof the marine environment (e.g., the designationof marine protected areas).

73


COASTAL TOURISM AND RECREATION: THE DRIVER OFCOASTAL DEVELOPMENT

By Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. KnechtCenter for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware

While there is general recognition that coastaltourism and recreation are important in the coastalzone, we believe that their impact is systematicallyundervalued both economically and as the mostimportant driver of coastal development in manyU.S. coastal areas. In California alone, itis estimated that coastal tourism is thelargest “ocean industry,” contributing$9.9 billion to the California economycompared to $6 billion for ports, $860million for offshore oil and gas, and $550million for fisheries and mariculturecombined (Wilson and Wheeler 1997).Travel and tourism are estimated to haveprovided $746 billion to the U.S. domes-tic product, about 10% of U.S. output,making travel and tourism the secondlargest contributor to GDP, just behindcombined wholesale and retail trade (Houston 1995).Although there are no precise estimates of themagnitude of coastal travel and tourism in theUnited States, studies have shown that beaches areAmerica’s leading tourist destination, ahead ofnational parks and historic sites. Approximately 180million people visit the coast for recreational pur-poses, with 85% of tourist-related revenues generatedby coastal states (Houston 1996, 3).

The following examples highlight the very high valueof coastal travel and tourism in the United States (YOTO1998, F5). A 1996 EPA study on the benefits of waterquality improvement, in terms of the numbers of peopleinvolved and the economic value of the activities inwhich they partake, found that saltwater fishing gen-erates expenditures of over $5 billion annually, and over200,000 jobs. Over 77 million Americans participateannually in recreational boating, with the total num-ber of recreational boats by the year 2000 estimated tobe 20 million. Over 80 million Americans participatein outdoor (non-pool) swimming, and in seven states,beachgoers spent $74 billion. Finally, birdwatchinggenerates around $18 billion annually, a great deal ofwhich occurs in coastal regions.

Given these figures, it is significant to note that there isno federal agency with a mandate to manage coastaltravel and tourism, and that there is no overall nationalpolicy in place to plan for, and achieve, sustainable tour-

ism in the United States. Although it is recognized as ahighly valuable revenue earner, promotion and mar-keting of travel and tourism in the United States lagswell behind other countries; the United States ranks31st in international tourist market advertising, with

Spain, for example,spending ten timesmore in advertisingthan the United States(Houston 1996, 3).

A major reason for thelack of a formal pro-gram at the nationallevel is that travel andtourism is viewed as asector that requiresrelatively little formal

management and is primarily a private sector endeavor.The benefits of tourism to coastal areas are great, yetits adverse effects are often not immediately visible,which leads to a sort of “management apathy.” Also,most aspects of coastal travel and tourism that needmanaging are already dealt with at one governmentallevel or another, but in separate programs and run bydifferent agencies, rather than as a coordinated, inter-connected whole.

The YOTO paper on coastal tourism and recreation(YOTO 1998) (prepared largely by the authors) notesthat sustainable development of coastal tourism de-pends on a number of factors, including:

• Good coastal management practices, especially re-lated to location of infrastructure and provision ofpublic access;

• Clean air and water, and healthy ecosystems;

• Maintenance of a safe and secure recreational en-vironment, specifically relating to management ofhazards, and provision of adequate levels of safetyfor boaters, swimmers and other recreational us-ers;

• Beach restoration, including beach nourishmentand other efforts that maintain and enhance therecreational and amenity values of beaches; and

...studies have shownthat beaches areAmerica’s leadingtourist destination,ahead of nationalparks and historic sites.

74


• Sound policies for coastal wildlife and habitat pro-tection.

Healthy and sustainable coastal tourism requires at-tractive, safe, and functional recreational beaches, cleancoastal waters, and healthy coastal ecosystems produc-ing abundant fish andwildlife. In most partsof the burgeoning U.S.coastal zone, these fac-tors do not exist bychance. Most recre-ational beaches haveto be maintained withoccasional replenish-ment of sand lost tostorms and erosion.Clean and healthycoastal waters are theresult of effective pro-grams of pollutioncontrol—of municipalsewage treatments, ofseptic tanks, of agricultural run-off, and a large num-ber of other point and nonpoint sources. Coastal fishand wildlife depend on the existence of healthy eco-systems; wetlands have to be protected and, where al-ready degraded, restored. Failure in any of these areascan seriously affect tourism. A failed sewage treatmentplant can close a beach to swimming—in 1996, therewere nearly 3000 such closings or advisories (Heinz1998) at U.S. beaches. The state of New Jersey report-edly lost $800 million in tourism revenues followingreports that medical wastes had washed up on someof its beaches (Bookman, pers. com. 1997).

While there are already programs in place dealing witheach of these areas, there is no agency or mechanism inexistence to coordinate them toward the overall goalof sustainable tourism development. Federal programsmost relevant to coastal travel and tourism include thefollowing:

• Coastal management and planning is administered byNOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal ResourceManagement (OCRM) and includes programs in34 states and territories. Three management prac-tices under the Coastal Zone Management programare particularly important in the context of sustain-able tourism development: provision for the man-agement of coastal development; provisions toimprove public access to the shoreline; and provi-sions to protect and, where necessary, to restorecoastal environments.

Healthy and sustain-able coastal tourismrequires attractive,safe, and functionalrecreational beaches,clean coastal waters,and healthy coastalecosystems producingabundant fish andwildlife.

• Management of clean water and healthy ecosystems isa second, and especially important, category in thiscontext. There are a number of federal agenciesand programs involved with water quality, includ-ing the Clean Water Act (e.g. the National EstuaryProgram) administered by the EPA; protection of

the marine environment from oil spills,covered by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990and administered by the U.S. CoastGuard; and NOAA’s work with states un-der the CZMA to deal with nonpointsource water pollution.

• Management of the impacts of coastal hazards, including flood and erosion protection and the use of siting methods suchas setback lines, is dealt with underboth the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program and the Coastal ZoneManagement Program. Also important here is safety and accident prevention for visitors involved in coastal recreation—the U.S. Coast Guard is the

principal federal agency responsible for user safetyand accident prevention. Beach restoration andnourishment programs are managed at the federallevel through the Army Corps of Engineers. In-creasingly, however, it is local communities, some-times with state assistance, that are being forced toundertake such restoration programs.

Given the very large contribution to the economy as-sociated with coastal tourism and recreation, it wouldseem that special policy and pragmatic coordinationefforts are needed among the federal, state, and localagencies responsible for the activities mentioned above.We note four policy challenges in this regard.

Policy Challenges

1) Federal policies and programs essential for sustain-able tourism development are interrelated and shouldbe treated as such. Consideration should be given tothe creation of a standing interagency group devotedto coastal tourism among the various federal agencieswith programs in this area. State and local governmentrepresentatives should also be included.

2) Little guidance is currently available to states andcommunities for sustainable tourism development incoastal areas. The federal government could play arole in providing guidelines to communities and states(standards, codes of conduct, manuals, etc.) to assist intheir efforts to manage coastal tourism and recreationsustainably.

75


3) At present, there is little systematic collection ofdata and information on the magnitude, nature, andeconomic and social impacts of tourism in the coastalzone. This needs to be changed to provide greater in-formation on issues, trends, and the value of tourismat all levels in the United States. The availability ofthis kind of information will help attract the appropri-ate level of attention to this issue.

4) Recreational beaches are in great demand in theU.S. both by its own citizens and foreign tourists.Yet there is no comprehensive national program ofbeach standards yet in effect. EPA is launching abeach action plan dealing primarily with waterquality (EPA 1998) and the House of Representativespassed, in 1999, the Beaches Environmental Assess-ment, Cleanup and Health bill which sets minimumstandards for beach water quality, requires the EPA toestablish performance criteria for beach monitoringand closure notification, and to establish a nationalbeach water pollution database. While these aresignificant steps, we think that a national program onbeach standards should be broader in scope. TheEuropean Blue Flag program, now in place at about1,000 beaches in different nations of the Europeancommunity, provides a good model. The flag canonly be flown at beaches that meet pre-set standardsin water quality, safety (lifeguards, first aid, stormplanning), beach management (erosion control,replenishment, clean-up), and environmental infor-mation and education (information on fish andwildlife, beach dynamics, tides, currents, etc.). Whilethe program has been encouraged by the EuropeanUnion and individual governments, the actualoperation (judging beaches against the standards) isperformed by nongovernmental committees set up ineach nation. The U.S. could benefit from a programsimilar to this one.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a summary of the paper on tourism andrecreation prepared for the Year of the Ocean (YOTO1998) by the authors in collaboration with othercontributors. It is excerpted from Cicin-Sain andKnecht (1999).

References

Bookman, Charles A. 1997. Personal communica-tion.

Cicin-Sain, Biliana and Robert W. Knecht. The Futureof U.S. Ocean Policy: Choices for the New Century(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999).

Heinz Center. 1998. Our Ocean Future: Themes andIssues Concerning the Nation’s Stake in the OceansDeveloped for Discussion During 1998, The Year of theOcean. Washington, D.C.: The H. John Heinz IIICenter for Science, Economics and the Environment.

Houston, James R. 1995. The Economic Value ofBeaches. CERCular, Coastal Engineering ResearchCenter, Vol. CERC-95-4, December.

Houston, James R. 1996. International Tourism andU.S. Beaches. Shore and Beach.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Brief-ing Papers on CWA.

Wilson, Pete and Wheeler, Douglas P. April 1997.California’s Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future.The Resources Agency of California.

Year of the Ocean (YOTO) Discussion Papers. March1998. Prepared by the U.S. Federal Agencies withocean-related programs. Washington, D.C.

77


ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AMERICA’SCOASTAL REGIONS

Howard MarloweAmerican Coastal Coalition

Although coastal areas comprise one-fifth of the landarea of the contiguous 48 states, they account formore than half of the nation’s population andhousing supply. In 1990, over 133 million Americanslived in the 673 counties along the Atlantic andPacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the GreatLakes. Since 1960, these areas increased by 41percent. That rate was above the national average–atrend that is expected to continue. About 820,000new homes are constructed in coastal areas each year.These areas also account for about half of all newindustrial, office, retail and recreational building.1

The public discussion of this growth is too oftenfocused solely on the so-called problems caused bythis growth. Coastal growth poses challenges–andsometimes damages–to the environment. Theincrease of housing units taxes drinking watersupplies and sewage systems. Human intervention,mostly through the construction of channels anddams, disrupts the natural sand system, causingsandy beaches to erode. This development not onlyharms recreational opportunities and decreases localand regional tax revenues, it also undermines theprotection that coastal property owners need fromstorm surges. That in turn raises the issue of floodinsurance and disaster relief policies. There aretensions between commercial and recreationalfishermen, and an increasing shortage of fish for bothinterests. The pollution of estuaries and beachwaters, as well as the relatively unexplained increasein harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, each take theirtoll on coastal interests.

Each of these issues, of course, is quite important,and the political process at all levels often deals withthem on a one-by-one basis. Should the Federalgovernment support beach nourishment? Should it“subsidize” coastal flood insurance policies? Bytaking just these two issues alone, we can see symp-toms of myopic public policy-making. Let us assumefor the sake of discussion that the Flood InsuranceProgram provides lower-than-market-cost insurancepolicies for at least certain coastal homeowners. Letus also assume that current proposals to denyFederal flood insurance to certain coastalhomeowners with repetitive losses will affect morethan a handful of coastal property owners. By

increasing the cost of living for these homeowners,what is gained and what is lost? The public wouldlikely believe that a significant increase in insurancepremiums will encourage these homeowners toretreat from the coast. But suppose that we insteadinvest in repairing and nourishing the protectionthese homeowners get from sandy beaches. Byincurring this cost (which is shared by Federal, State,and local taxpayers), what is gained and lost?

Too often we are able to measure costs quite easily.The Federal Shore Protection program, for example,costs about $100 million a year in Federal dollars.2

What are the benefits of that rather modest expense?While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does abenefit-cost analysis in connection with every shoreprotection project, that analysis suffers from its ownmyopia. It places its greatest emphasis on the valueof the private property that is immediately adjacentto the coastline. It is not reasonable to assume that ahealthy beach with natural dunes and vegetation willbenefit only that first row of homes and businesses.The homeowners spend money in the region; thehotels attract tourists, who also spend money; localresidents who live inland come to the beach forrecreation. They, too, spend money. There are avariety of service businesses, from T-shirt vendors tobanks, whose existence depends on these expendi-tures. In addition, there is an environmental benefitderived from renourishing our beaches. Propertyowners do not retreat from an eroding shorefront.They build seawalls and other hard structures toprotect their property. These hard structures, whichoften exacerbate beach erosion, provide an un-friendly home to the birds and turtles that nest in thesand.

If we know the costs of the Federal Shore ProtectionProgram, what then, are its benefits? If we can alsostate with a fair certainty what it costs to “subsidize”the flood insurance policies of coastal residents, whatis our measurement of the benefits derived from that“subsidy”? It is regrettable that we cannot answerthe benefits side of the equation with the samecertitude as the cost side. As long as we cannotquantify the benefits, those who make policiesaffecting coastal regions must make their decisions ina factual vacuum. In addition, the public is subjected

78


to the repeated carping of those who mistakenlybelieve that some form of forced retreat from thecoast will return our coastal regions to their “natural”condition. There is every reason for each of us tosupport policies that result in sustainable coastalgrowth and which encourage –if not require– thatresponsible economic and environmental decisionsbe made along each of our coasts and in each of ourcoastal communities. However, even if the 54 percentof our population that lives along the coast retreatedinland, it would not bring the coast back to theconditions that existed prior to European settlement200-plus years ago, or the Industrial Revolution overa century ago.

We are, of course, not lacking in hard informationabout the benefits derived from our coastal regions.The immense natural resources of these regions areresponsible for a significant amount of commercialactivity. In 1993, the U.S. commercial fishing indus-try produced and marketed products valued at $10.8billion. Saltwater recreational anglers generated $15billion from 64 million fishing trips. In 1990, 2.15billion tons of cargo valued at over $500 billionmoved through the nation’s 190 seaports. 3

We also know a good deal about theattraction that coastal regions have fortourists. In 1997, total tourism expendi-tures in U.S. coastal congressionaldistricts was over $185 billion, whiletourism payroll was almost $50 millionand tourism jobs in these districts wereover 2.7 million. 4 Beaches and coastalregions are not only the Number Onedestination for domestic tourists, theyalso are the top destination for foreigntourists. Each year, the Federal govern-ment receives about $4 billion in taxes from foreigntourists, while state and local governments receiveanother $3.5 billion. Foreign tourists spent over $11billion in Florida in 1992, $2 billion of that amount inthe Miami Beach area alone. This Florida spendinggenerates over $750 million in Federal tax revenues,more than the total received by the State and localgovernments combined. Focusing on Miami Beachalone, annual Federal tax revenues from foreigntourists ($2 billion) are about 17 times more than theFederal government spent on the entire FederalShore Protection program from 1950 to 1993 ($34million in 1993 dollars). If the Federal share of beachnourishment averages about $10 million a year, theFederal government collects about 75 times more intaxes from foreign tourists in Florida than it spendsrestoring that State’s beaches. 5

Foreign tourism to the United States in 1995 wasexpected to generate a trade surplus of $26 billion,compared to a surplus of $17 billion in 1992 and adeficit of $7 billion in 1986. During the 1995 to 2000period, the number of tourism-related jobs is ex-pected to double. 6

When it comes to beach spending, we have a largeamount of additional benefit-related information. Onthe one hand, for example, we know that 55 percentof the visitors to Broward County, Florida (the Ft.Lauderdale area) would not come if there were nobeaches. Another 27 percent would come less often.Out-of-state visitors generate $350 million in eco-nomic benefits to that county annually. In addition,Broward’s beaches generate county property taxcollections in excess of $28 million a year and createnearly 18,000 jobs. 7

From discussing the State and county levels, let usspend a moment looking at the impact of beachnourishment at the local level. In 1993, the Federalgovernment spent $5.5 million, while the State andlocal governments spent another $4.3 million,nourishing 5 miles of beach on Anna Maria Island

(which lies on theWest Coast of Floridabetween Tampa andSarasota). Thatbeach restorationadded $67.5 millionto local propertyvalues, and boostedthe island’s economyby $25.9 million and711 jobs. Propertyvalues for areas ofthe county that are

away from the beach restoration area increased by$32.1 million, mostly due to increased beach recre-ational opportunities. 8

Moving to the West Coast, California’s beachesexperienced more visitor attendance days in 1996than all of the State’s other tourist attractions –including Disneyland– combined. Beach tourismspending contributes over $10 billion in directbenefits to the State and another $17 million inindirect benefits–almost 3 percent of the total eco-nomic activity in the State. Beach tourism creates ahalf million California jobs and $1 billion in statesales, income, and gasoline tax revenues. 9

Now, going from the Nation’s largest State to one ofits smallest, Delaware receives 5.1 million “person

The immense naturalresources of theseregions are responsiblefor a significantamount of commercialactivity.

79


trips” each year in a State where just over 21,000people actually live in beach communities andanother 373,000 people live within day-use traveldistance. Beach tourism generates $173.2 million inexpenditures each year. Just as significant, beacherosion results in an estimated loss of over 471,000visitor days a year, a figure which is estimated toincrease to over 516,000 after five years. During that5-year period, beach erosion will cost an estimated$30.2 million inconsumer expendi-tures, the loss of 625beach area jobs, andthe reduction ofwages and salariesby $11.5 million.Business profitswill drop by $1.6million and Stateand local taxrevenues willdecrease by $2.3 million. Finally, beach erosion willreduce beach area property values by nearly $43million over the five-year period. 10

Our nation’s estuaries are also major tourist andrecreational attractions. For example, nature tourismin Corpus Christi, Texas is the fastest growingcomponent of a tourism sector that generates $23billion annually. Recreational fishing providesaggregate net benefits to the area of $83 million,including $37 million per year in state and localtaxes. The economic impact of water quality-depen-dent uses in Long Island Sound is estimated at morethan $5 billion annually. Commercial and recre-ational fishing contributed more than $1.2 billion ofthe total, while beach going has a direct benefit ofmore than $800 million annually. 11

Let us conclude this partial review of the economicimpact of our coastal regions with data from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. America’s coastalwaters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54billion in goods and services every year. The coastalrecreation and tourism industry is the second largestemployer in the nation, serving the 180 millionAmericans who visit our coasts every year. Thecommercial fish and shellfish industry contributes$45 billion to the economy every year, and recre-ational fishing contributes $30 billion. 12

It is critical that we develop a comprehensive set ofdata on all of the benefits derived from America’scoastal regions. As stated above, policy makerscannot make sound decisions without this knowl-

edge. 1998 was the Year of the Ocean. The year maybe finished, but our work has just begun. A criticaland somewhat overlooked component of the activi-ties related to the Year of the Ocean is our coastline.What we do in that one-fifth of our land that com-prises coastal America has a significant impact onour oceans, and vice versa. The fact is that takenfrom a comprehensive point of view, we in theUnited States need to take major steps to improve

our coastal management practices andpolicies. We must restore and maintainour eroding beaches, improve the qualityof beach water and coastal communitydrinking water, protect and enhancecoastal wildlife, promote policies thatmitigate coastal hazards, and in generalimprove the quality of our coastal livingenvironment.

Since our inception in 1996, the AmericanCoastal Coalition has supported the full

assessment of the economic and ecological benefits ofbeach nourishment. Today, I announce our supportfor a major study by the National Academy ofSciences of the economic and ecological benefits ofour nation’s coastal regions.

Notes

1 Data cited are from NOAA. The H. John HeinzCenter for Science, the Economy, and the Environ-ment found in November 1997 that 112 millionpeople live in counties entirely or substantiallywithin 50 miles of the coast.

2 Over the past 45 years, the average annual Federalshore protection outlay is actually less than $50million. It is only in the last three to four fiscal yearsthat it has reached $80 million to $110 million.

3 Data from Heinz Center report, op. cit. In addi-tion, in 1996, saltwater recreational fishermen spent$8.7 billion on a variety of items to participate in theirfishing. These dollars had a ripple effect of $25.1billion, supported the equivalent of 288,000 full-timejobs, and generated $1.24 billion in State and Federaltaxes, according to a 1998 study by the AmericanSportfishing Association.

4 Data from American Coastal Coalition analysis ofa June 1998 study by the Travel Industry Associationof America.

It is critical that wedevelop a compre-hensive set of data onall of the benefits de-rived from America’scoastal regions.

80


5 Data derived from an article by Dr. James R.Houston, published in the American Shore and BeachPreservation Journal.

6 See “Coastal Tourism and Recreation” by BilianaCicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht, published in Year ofthe Ocean Discussion Papers, March 1998.

7 Data from 1997 study by Broward County Depart-ment of Natural Resource Protection.

8 Data based on a February 1997 study by RegionalResearch Associates, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

9 Data from a May 1997 study by the University ofSan Francisco’s Public Research Institute.

10 March 1998 study by Jack Faucett Associates(Bethesda, MD) in cooperation with independentconsultants Linda Kent (Bethesda, MD) and Christo-pher Jones (Charlottesville, VA) for the DelawareDepartment of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalControl.

11 Cicin-Sain and Knecht, “Coastal Tourism andRecreation” in Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers.

12 July 9, 1998 testimony of Robert H. Wayland, II,Director of EPA’s Office of Water, before the SenateEnvironment and Public Works Committee.

81


A PROFILE OF RECREATIONAL BOATING IN THE UNITED STATES

Ryck Lydecker and Margaret PodlichBoat Owners Association of the United States (BOAT/U.S.)

“There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthdoing as simply messing about in boats.”

With apologies to Water Rat in KennethGrahame’s Wind in the Willows, there isnothing half so much worth the coastalplanner’s attention than the future ofrecreational boating in this country.

To get a sense of boating’s future as wesail into the next millennium, it is impor-tant to understand the roots of a recre-ational activity that directly involved, ason-the-water participants, 75 millionAmericans last year.1 Recreationalfishing alone contributed more than $108billion to the economy in 1996, andsupports 1.2 million jobs, creating wagesof about $28 billion. It is a huge industry, with U.S.anglers outnumbering golfers nearly 2 to 1.2

Another way to look at the significance of thispleasurable activity is that recreational boatingcomprises America’s largest fleet, dwarfing the totalvessels in merchant shipping, commercial fishing,passenger traffic, the Navy, and the U.S. CoastGuard.

There are over 16,800,000 boats in use nationwide.With 75 million people cruising, sailing, fishing,water skiing, racing, camping, wildlife-watching orjust exploring, it’s easy to see that boating is verymuch a social activity, and a real family sport. 3 Infact, in a recent nationwide survey of marina custom-ers, nearly 50% were reported to be families withchildren. The second largest group was retiredcouples or singles at 20%.4

The Yachting Misnomer

Despite the fact that 50% of all registered boats areless than 16 feet long, and 93% of all registered boatsare less than 26 feet long,5 boating has alwayssuffered from the “yachting” stigma. In the public’seye, boating has been the exclusive domain of therich. The person who probably had more to do withetching that erroneous view in the public psychethan anyone was J.P. Morgan, the great and certainlyvery wealthy yachtsman of the early part of this

century. When asked how much one of his legendarysteam yachts cost, Morgan is said to have replied, “If

you have to ask howmuch it costs, youcan’t afford it.”

Certainly when the20th Centurydawned, spendingtime in a boat forany other purposethan wresting aliving from thewater was unheardof. Boating for themiddle class onlyarrived, like somany other leisure

pursuits, after World War II. Participation roughlydoubled in each decade until the number of boats inuse hit 13 million in 1985.

But Morgan’s legacy stuck and boaters were seen as“fat cats” in the 1980s, wealthy yachtsmen to be

Boaters and Boats Number

People participating in recreational boating 74,847,000

Water skiers 10,314,000

All Boats in use 16,824,000

Outboard boats owned 8,300,000

Inboard boats owned 1,609,000

Sterndrive boats owned 1,673,000

Personal watercraft 1,100,000

Sailboats owned 1,669,000

Miscellaneous craft owned (canoes, rowboats, dinghies, and other craft registered by the states)

949,000

Other (estimated canoes, rowboats, etc. not registered by the states)

1,524,000

Marinas, Boatyards, Yacht Clubs, Dockominiums, Parks and other

10,320

1998 Boaters and Boats in the United States:Population Estimates

Source: “Boating 1998” prepared by the National MarineManufacturers Association, Chicago, ILThe “in-use” figures are based on actual state and Coast Guardregistrations and estimates of non-registered boats.

...recreational boatingcomprises America’slargest fleet, dwarfingthe total vessels inmerchant shipping,commercial fishing,passenger traffic, theNavy, and the U.S.Coast Guard.

82


saddled with taxes disguised as “user fees” to helpbalance the federal budget. After a protractedstruggle, cooler heads in Congress prevailed whenthey realized that boaters already had been payingtheir way for yearsthrough motorboatfuel taxes and fishinggear excise taxes.

Today these taxes gointo the AquaticResources Trust Fund(Wallop-Breaux),which pumps about$350 million annuallyinto boating safetyeducation, lawenforcement, envi-ronmental protection,public access, andfishery restoration. Asa result, there is hardly a stretch of water anywhere thathasn’t benefited in material ways from America’s boaters.

Boating Benefits

Alongside these economic benefits, recreationalboating offers our nation’s citizens lifelong opportu-nities for healthy, outdoor, family activity. It pro-vides an important cultural link to our nation’smaritime heritage, and a critical gateway for youththrough such nationwide programs as Sea Exploring(Sea Scouts), Red Cross and YMCA water sports, and4-H camps as well as countless local sailing schools,canoe clubs, and community boatbuilding programs.

It seems fair to speculate, then, that recreationalboating may be the largest clearly defined constituentgroup for NOAA and its National Ocean Service,National Marine Fisheries Service, even its marineweather services, as well as for the U.S. Coast Guard,whether these agencies realize it or not.

Issues for the Future

As we think about the coast and coastal issuesheading toward the year 2025, there are several coreissues important to this large user group. Boaterscount on being able to get to the water (access), beingable to enjoy the water and related wildlife (naturalresources), and having the time and desire to pursueboating for recreation (opportunity). These threeelements constitute the base of possibilities forrecreational boating into the next millennium.

Access

Boaters rely on being able to get to the water, and usethe water for a variety of activities ranging from

fishing and sailing to cruising andovernight boat camping. In order forboaters to peacefully co-exist with otheruser groups on our coastal waters,waterways must be seen as a commonresource that is available to all. Theymust be protected as a public openspace, able to accommodate a variety ofusers.

Access to these waters must be main-tained through both public and privatelands. Those lucky enough to ownwaterfront property should be able tolaunch their boat from their own yard,and those not so fortunate should haveready access to public launch sites and

marinas open to the public. To insure that averagecitizens can get to the water, ramps, access points,boat parking facilities in the form of marina andtransient dockage, moorings, and anchorages, as wellas on-land dry storage and winter storage, must beavailable to the general public.Once on the water, boaters rely on clearly marked,maintained, and dredged channels, along withaccurate, updated, and available charts. In recentyears, federal budget cuts have reduced the channelmaintenance and charting abilities of the govern-ment, and recreational areas are often the first tosuffer. Innovative ways of maintaining charts for therecreational boater may be necessary, including theuse of trained volunteer labor for sounding harbors.Volunteer data collection may be the key to safety,when you realize that millions of recreational boatscan lose their way, run aground, or hit bridges andbuoys without updated charts.

Boaters use a variety of destination choices, rangingfrom developed city docks (Baltimore Inner Harbor)and historic maritime areas (Mystic Seaport), toislands (Catalina Island) and remote areas withdiverse wildlife (Apostle Islands National LakeShore). Freedom to explore the waterways is ourbirthright. To make it our legacy, we must makecoastal stewards out of all citizens, educating all howto preserve those areas we explore.

Natural Resources

Like other recreational users of the coast, boaters relyon clean, unpolluted water. “Going boating” con-

Boaters count on beingable to get to the water(access), being able toenjoy the water andrelated wildlife (naturalresources), and havingthe time and desire topursue boating for rec-reation (opportunity).

83


jures up images of relaxing in an aestheticallypleasing, natural area, with crisp, clear water, freshair, and interacting with fish, birds, and other wild-life. No one wants to spend precious leisure time ona river with oil slicks, floating garbage, and deadfish. As a result, individual boaters and the marineindustry as a whole have been increasingly involvedin initiatives to clean up our waterways, restoreaquatic habitat, and protect natural resources. Theyall rely on clean coastal waters that sustain anabundance of fish and wildlife, whether they arepulling fish out of the water for dinner, or swimmingin the water, or just getting splashed with a roguewave.

In order to improve coastal water quality, newmethods of reducing both point and nonpoint sourcepollution will be required. This will be increasinglydifficult as coastal populations soar by 2025 and putmore stress on the coastal areas. With more potentialpolluters in the same coastal area, we’ll have to doeven more to keep pace with existing water qualityissues, much less improve them.

Flexible, timely management of fish and wildlife isrequired. Diversity and sustainability must be

embraced in this management as key ingredients forthe long-term viability of our oceans. Both commer-cial and recreational interests must be brought in tothe solutions to current overharvesting of fisheries,and bycatch must be better addressed. The introduc-tion, spread, and control of alien species should alsoreceive special attention, since they continue tothreaten entire native populations and ecosystems,and pose grave consequences for recreational boatingand fishing.

Opportunity

The water is clean, there are fish to catch, birds towatch, and the access ramp is right down the street.What’s stopping the average citizen from taking tothe water – from “simply messing about in boats?”

Access to a boat is probably the first thing. Whilethere is approximately one boat in this country forevery 17 people,6 many people may not have theresources to own their own boat. Those people thatdo buy a boat are often precariously on the edge ofselling it, depending on variables in their own lives,costs, available free time, and hassles associated withowning the boat. Individual boaters must find a

1997 Registered Boats Distribution by state

MI8% CA

7%FL6%

MN6%

TX5%

WI4%NY

4%OH3%

SC3%

IL3%

Other States51%

This chart reflects the 12,309,724 boats registered in the states in 1997. The 10 states shown above host nearly half ofall registered boats in the country. Note that 3 of the 5 states (CA, TX, FL, GA, VA) with the greatest rise in predictedpopulation are already among the states with the largest number of registered boats.

Source: “Boating 1998” prepared by the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Chicago, IL.

84


balance between limited free time and the time ittakes to do maintenance work before leaving thedock. In order for boaters to continue boating,boaters will have to feel that the “recreation” elementsurmounts the perceived obstacles to this use of theirlimited free time. These obstacles are often cited ascosts, fees, government regulations, and mainte-nance.

No matter who owns the boats, it can be assumedthat recreational boating will be only one activityamong many at the water’s edge. Resolving userconflicts over the use of these waters will be a risingchallenge in the next century.

Another challenge for the industry and for coastalmanagers may be how to address carrying capacityissues through better use of existing boats. Sincemost boats are used less than 10% of the time, gettingmore use out of one boat may be an option thatworks better for the boater and for the coastalenvironment. Encouraging timeshare boat owningarrangements and community boating and boatrental programs may help more people enjoy life onthe water, without a correlated increase in infrastruc-ture needs.

Alongside the needs of the individual, there areneeds for some infrastructure to maintain safeboating standards. Most of these recreational needspiggyback well with existing commercial require-ments. For example, maintaining adequate lawenforcement, search and rescue services, weatherforecasting and satellite navigation, and educationalprograms will be required to serve a growing,diverse boating population.

Challenges

The speakers at this workshop told us an indisput-able fact:The bulk of our nation’s population is heading for thecoast.

They are going there for a reason. They want to beable to walk on the sand, to show their kids a seabird, to watch the dolphins off the beach. They wantto be able to swim, to fish, to boat, and to appreciatethe waters of that coast.

They don’t want to walk a beach polluted by sewageoutfalls or industrial waste. They don’t want to see afish floating upside down in the surf. They don’twant to be afraid to touch the water.

We must remember these hard facts while consider-ing the future of the limited natural resources on ourcoasts. We must remember that the average citizen’sability to interact with the water may win or lose thatperson’s active commitment to coastal water issues.Recreational boating plays a key role in this ongoing questto create stewards of the coast.

Notes

1. Boating 1998, National Marine ManufacturersAssociation, Chicago, IL.

2. “Fishing’s $40 Billion Allure,” USA Today, Febru-ary 16, 1999.

3. Boating 1998, National Marine ManufacturersAssociation, Chicago, IL.

4. “1998 Annual Industry Review,” Boating IndustryMagazine, February 1999.

5. 1997 State Registered Boat Data, U.S. Coast Guard,1997.

6. U.S. Census Bureau, on-line information estimat-ing the current U.S. population at 272,085,093(www.census.gov).

85


MARINE AQUACULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES: CURRENT AND FUTUREPOLICY AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

M. Richard DeVoeSouth Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

Introduction

Aquaculture in the United States has the potential tobecome a major growth industry in the 21st Century.Global seafood demand is projected toincrease by 70 percent by the year 2025(Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, JSA1993). With harvests from capturefisheries stable or in decline, aquaculturewould have to increase production by700 percent to a total of 77 million metrictonnes annually to meet the projecteddemand (JSA 1993). The potential ofaquaculture worldwide to meet thechallenges of food security and to gener-ate employment has been demonstrated by its rapidgrowth at an annual rate of 10 percent since 1984 (ascompared with 3 percent for livestock meat and 1.6percent for capture fisheries production) (FAO 1997).

The United States currently imports more than 60percent of its fish and shellfish. In 1996, $6.8 billionof seafood products were imported, while $3.0billion were ex-ported. In 1997seafood importsincreased to $7.8billion, while exportsdecreased to $2.7billion, representinga $5.1 billion tradedeficit (NOAA—NMFS, 1998).Seafood products arethe nation’s largestagricultural import,second only topetroleum (JSA1993). Each year,Americans consumemore than $800million of foreign–grown aquaculture products.Obviously, domestic aquaculture pro-duction has notgrown at a rate necessary to offset the consumerdemand for seafood.

Nevertheless, the development of the U.S. aquacul-ture industry is felt to be vital to the future of the

nation because it promises to produce: (1) highquality seafood to replace that supplied through theharvests of wild stock in decline or at maximumsustainable yields; (2) products for export to help

reduce the nation’sforeign trade deficit;(3) stock enhance-ment of importantcommercial andrecreational fisheriesspecies; (4) eco-nomic developmentopportunities forrural and suburban

communities; and (5) new employment opportunitiesfor skilled workers (National Research Council, NRC1992).

Marine Aquaculture in the United States

The U.S. marine aquaculture industry is extremelyyoung. While the culture of freshwater species suchas catfish and trout has existed for many decades, the

cultivation of marine species hasemerged only over the last 30 years.Total production from all domesticaquaculture operations grew from 572.5million pounds in 1990 to 693.7 millionpounds in 1996, a 21 percent increase,while marine aquaculture productionalone went from 49.3 to 66.8 millionpounds, a 35.5 percent increase over thesame time. In 1996, about 86 percent ofU.S. marine aquaculture yield wasrepresented by oyster and salmonproduction, with oyster productiondeclining and salmon production greatlyincreasing from 1990 to 1996. More than50 species made up the remaining 12percent. While the U.S. marine aquacul-ture industry is relatively small, it

remains vital since most of the huge seafood deficitin fishery products comes from the import of marine,not freshwater, seafood (Sandifer 1994).

Aquaculture is now practiced in more than 80precent of the states and territories of the UnitedStates. Nevertheless, cultivation of all marine species,

The United States cur-rently imports more than60 percent of its fish andshellfish.

The U.S. marine aquacul-ture industry is extremelyyoung. While the cultureof freshwater speciessuch as catfish and trouthas existed for manydecades, the cultivationof marine species hasemerged only over thelast 30 years.

86


except oysters, is in the early stages of commercialdevelopment in the United States, and many opera-tions have yet to achieve economic stability (NRC1992). It goes without saying that the U.S. marineaquaculture industry has not kept pace with thegrowth of the world industry during the last 25 years(NRC 1992).

The future for marine aquaculture in the UnitedStates is much less certain than that of its freshwatercounterpart. One serious problem is that mostmarine aquaculture is conducted in shallow coastaland estuarine waters, which are affected by increas-ing population pressures and industrial and residen-tial development. By the year 2010, 70 percent of thetotal population of the United States will live within120 kilometers of the coast (Culliton et al. 1990). Inaddition, whereas the transition from fishing toaquaculture in freshwater systems is analogous tothat of hunting to farming, marine aquaculturistsface an additional hurdle — they have no propertyinterest in the “lands” they need(Nixon 1994). Because the ocean hastraditionally been viewed as a commonproperty resource, there are alsoconflicts with other commercial andrecreational users which may slow orprevent the development of marineaquaculture (Harvey 1994).

Growth of the domestic marine aquac-ulture industry is dependent upon theattainment of 4 basic requirements(DeVoe and Mount 1989): high water-quality locations; access to the aquacul-ture site; assertion of exclusive fishingand culturing rights; and financialinvestment. These authors also arguethat government commitment, in thecase of marine aquaculture, may be themost critical. Government mustdemonstrate its support by clearlydefining the term aquaculture, provid-ing supporting policy statements andimplementation strategies, offeringincentives (which do not necessarily have to be solelyfinancial) to underscore its commitment, and defin-ing and streamlining its regulatory and legal require-ments.

Issues Confronting Marine Aquaculture

There are a number of issues that have constrainedthe development of marine aquaculture in the UnitedStates. The complex and diverse nature of the

industry, conflicts with other, traditional, uses of thenation’s coastal and ocean waters, environmentalconcerns, and the existing legal and regulatoryclimate all contribute to this situation.

Nature of the Marine Aquaculture Industry

Marine aquaculture represents a relatively new useof the nation’s coastal resources, and it must competefor access to those resources (Nixon 1994). Newcom-ers to the industry, as well as local authorities, sufferfrom a lack of experience, inappropriate advice onsite selection, inadequate evaluation of marketopportunities and product diversification, and a lackof understanding of marine aquaculture develop-ment in relation to other forms of competition(Chamberlain and Rosenthal 1995). Much of thisconfusion stems from its uniqueness and complexity.

A number of finfish, shellfish, and crustacean speciesare cultivated in the United States, including catfish,

trout, salmon,striped and hybridbass, tilapia, hardclams, oysters,mussels, crawfish,and penaeidshrimps. Theindustry is techno-logically diverse,with ponds, race-ways, silo, circularpools, closed (waterreuse) systems,cages and net–pens,sea ranches, rafts,and long lines usedaccording to thespecies cultured(JSA 1983). Aquac-ulture remains arelatively youngscientific disciplinethat is developingrapidly, with

incorporation of a variety of modern technologies,most not yet fully adapted for widespread use(Rosenthal 1985). Indeed, there has been a trendtoward intensification in both traditional and con-temporary culture systems.

Aquaculture practices range from extensive, with fewinputs and modest output, to intensive, with highinputs and output. On an annual yield per hectare ofwater basis, increased intensification requires greater

There are a number ofissues that have con-strained the developmentof marine aquaculture inthe United States. Thecomplex and diversenature of the industry,conflicts with other, tradi-tional, uses of the nation’scoastal and ocean wa-ters, environmental con-cerns, and the existinglegal and regulatory cli-mate all contribute to thissituation.

87


resource use, ranging from simple pond culture tointensive tank and closed system aquaculture (Muir1985). These varying technologies are what makeaquaculture the diverse industry it is, but they havewide—ranging resource needs, produce differingenvironmental impacts, and require a suite of techno-logical and management responses.

Further complicating the future of marine aquacul-ture is the complexity that stems from unique factorsthat distinguish it from other forms of agriculturalactivity, including: (1) the interaction of marineaquaculture with other marine and coastal activitiesand interests–interactions that are often characterizedby conflict; (2) the fact that although marine aquacul-ture is ocean–based, it depends on the use of landand freshwater resources as well; and (3) the numer-ous environmental and regulatory considerationsinvolved in the development and use of coastal zoneland and water resources, usually held in the publictrust (NRC 1992).

Coastal and Ocean Use Conflicts

While culturists, scientists, and resource managersface the task of resolving these issues throughresearch studies, monitoring programs, and technicalassistance support, the marine aquaculture industrycontinues to deal with its “growing pains.” In arecent survey of state aquaculture coordinators,industry representatives, and extension specialists,Sand-ifer(1994) found that only 9 out of the country’s24 coastal states and 5 territories reported moderategrowth, and 8 no growth. Asked to identify themajor factors responsible for this situation, therespondents indicated that of 12 limiting factors, thetop three were use conflicts (92%), permitting (92%)and the regulatory environment (88%)(Sandifer1994).

Use conflicts represent one of the primary issues U.S.marine aquaculturists must face, and are likely tobecome more pronounced and frequent in the future(Chamberlain and Rosenthal 1995). DeVoe et al.(1992) found through a survey of the marine aquacul-ture industry and state regulatory agencies that thecompeting use of the coastal zone by recreationalusers, commercial fishermen, and developers wasfrequently encountered. The escalating costs ofacquiring access to coastal lands and waters in thecountry exacerbate the problem.

In 1992, the National Research Council of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences predicted that, due toincreasing pressures along the coastal zone, the best

opportunities for future commercial aquaculturedevelopment are in recirculating (closed) systems onland and in confinement systems in the open ocean.Research and development emphasis has been onclosed system aquaculture rather than on offshorefacilities. Yet, after more than 20 years of R&Dactivity, the economic viability of closed systemaquaculture remains elusive. The United States isonly now exploring the potential for establishingfacilities in unprotected offshore areas.

Aquaculture and the Environment

Much has been published over the last 15 years onthe environmental impacts of marine aquaculture(e.g., Ackefors and Sodergren 1985, Weston 1986,Rosenthal et al 1988, DeVoe 1992, Goldburg andTriplett 1997, Naylor et al.1998, also see Estuaries, Vol18: 1A, 1995). However, ecological concerns had beenraised by a number of authors in the 1970s (Odum1974, Ackefors and Rosen 1979). One of the majorchallenges to the marine aquaculture industry in theUnited States will be how it responds to theseenvironmental sustainability issues (Chamberlainand Rosenthal 1995).

Aquaculture practices can generate environmentalimpacts as a function of (1) the applied technique, (2)site location, (3) size of the production, and (4)capacity of the receiving body of water (Ackefors andSodergren 1985). These can include impacts on waterquality, the benthic layer, the native gene pool, andthe ecosystem as a whole, and impacts from non-native species, disease, and chemicals.

The state of knowledge regarding the environmentalimpacts of aquaculture is rapidly improving.Whereas two decades ago very little research datawere available, there has been a surge in the numberand scope of research and monitoring programsseeking to document these effects. Much workworldwide has focused on the effects of net-penculture on the environment, with the InternationalCouncil for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) leadingthe way. In the United States, early research effortsdealt with fish hatchery effluents and catfish ponds.As the domestic industry diversified, so did environ-mental research, with major federal studies examin-ing the impacts of marine shrimp pond culture andsalmon net—pen culture, and the issues regardingspecies introductions, the use of chemicals in aquac-ulture, and effluent discharges.

88


Legal and Regulatory Structures

The current regulatory environment for marineaquaculture in the United States is a major constraintto its development (NRC 1978, NRC 1992, JSA 1993,and others). No formal federal framework exists togovern the leasing and development of privatecommercial aquaculture activities in public waters(NRC 1992).

In a 1981 study commissioned by the Joint Subcom-mittee on Aquaculture, the Aspen Corporationexamined the federal and state regulatory frameworkfor aquaculture (Aspen Corp. 1981). As many as 11federal agencies are directly involved in regulatingaquaculture and another 10 are indirectly involved.However, only a limited number of permitting andlicensing requirements are directly imposed byfederal agencies. More characteristic are federalagency programs that indirectly regulate fish farmers(e.g., restrictions on drug use, federal laws adminis-tered by states, etc.).

Some 50 federal statutes (with accompanying regula-tions) were found to have a direct impact on theaquaculture industry, although the actual number ofstatutes that affect an individual operation varydepending on its size, location, the species beingcultured, and other factors. In total, over 120 statu-tory programs of the federal government were foundto significantly affect aquaculture development.About one-half require direct compliance from thefish farmer.

Seven federal agencies have regulatory programsthat directly affect the marine aquaculture industry:the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, theU.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. NationalMarine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard.Federal oversight of the marine aquaculture industryis fragmented; there is no overall federal frameworkto address aquaculture development in the coastalzone or offshore waters. Further, while recentevaluations of marine aquaculture suggest thatoffshore locations may represent a viable alternative(NRC 1992), no formal policies have been developedto manage aquaculture development in the U.S.Exclusive Economic Zone. As a result, existingfederal policies vary from one agency to another (andmay even differ among divisions within the sameagency) and the permitting process can be time-consuming, complex, and costly.

The majority of laws and regulations that specificallyauthorize, permit, or control aquaculture are usuallyfound at the state level. The Aspen Corp. studyexamined 32 state regulatory programs and discov-ered that over 1,200 state laws have some significantbearing on aquaculture operations. Policies andregulations were found to affect aquaculture in eightmajor areas: aquaculture species use; water quality;water use; land use; facility and hatchery manage-ment; processing; financial assis-tance; and occupa-tional safety and health.

Major aquaculture problems that arise from statelaws and regulations are caused by the lack ofuniformity of laws among the states, the sheernumber of permits, licenses, and certifications thatmust be obtained, and the difficulty in obtainingthem (NRC 1978, 1992). Each state has its ownunique legal, political, and economic climate foraquaculture, and culturists must navigate the regula-tory environment differently in each. Only a fewstates have developed the information managementcapability to present the applicant with a comprehen-sive list of all the legal requirements that must bemet. State regulatory programs can be and usuallyare more restrictive than federal guidelines andregulations dictate. The result is that state agenciesvary greatly as to what standards they apply toaquaculture (McCoy 1989), and some still apply lawsdesigned for other applications such as those forpublic fisheries management (NRC 1978, 1992).

Federal agencies which establish the ground rulesthat most state agencies must follow have adoptedvague, confusing, and poorly conceived regulations,or none at all (McCoy 1989). This translates intoinconsistencies in the development and applicationof laws and regulations at the state level (deFur andRadar 1995). Few states have a comprehensiveregulatory plan which satisfactorily balances eco-nomic development and environmental protection.As a result, regulations governing aquaculture arescattered throughout state statutes and do notnecessarily fit aquaculture (Breaux 1992). Complicat-ing matters is the fact that existing permit programsdo not have provisions for determining the capacityof the coastal and estuarine system for aquaculture,land-based or in situ (deFur and Radar 1995).

The complexity that results from the involvement ofmany federal, state, and local agencies responsiblefor all aspects (including advocacy, promotion,conduct, and regulation) of marine aquaculture leadsto an array of planning acts, policies, and regulations

89


(NRC 1992). Federal laws are applied differently invarious geographic regions of the country (NRC1978), and the industry remains concerned about thelack of coordination among agencies regulatingaquaculture (JSA 1993). Unfortunately, the federalgovernment has yet to make any significant headwayin reducing regulatory constraints (McCoy 1989).

Another limitation to the current regulatory regimefor marine aquaculture in the United States is thelack of long-range and whole systems planning(deFur and Radar 1995). Aquaculture policy appearsto be made by granting permits on a case-by-casebasis (Rubino and Wilson 1993), and the require-ments are often determined using regulations andtechnical standards not originally developed orintended for aquaculture (Ewart et al, 1995). Eachpermit is considered individually by the issuingagency, usually with no provision for examiningcumulative impacts (deFur and Radar 1995).

Marine Aquaculture and Federal Policy

On September 26, 1980, the National Aquaculture Actof 1980 was passed to “promote aquaculture in theUnited States” through a declaration of a nationalpolicy, development and implementation of a na-tional aquaculture development plan, establishmentof a coordinating group of federal agency representa-tives, establishment of a National AquacultureInformation Center, and encouragement of aquacul-ture activities and programs in both the public andprivate sectors. The 1980 Act was amended in 1985and 1990, and reauthorized most recently in 1998.

The Act clearly states an aquaculture policy for thecountry: that it is “in the national interest, and it isthe national policy, to encourage the development ofaquaculture in the United States.” The NationalAquaculture Act of 1980 gives principal responsibil-ity for the development of aquaculture to the privatesector but jointly assigned three federal agenciesaquacultural-related responsibilities- the Depart-ments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. AnInteragency Agreement was reached among theseagencies regarding “Designation of Areas of Respon-sibility in Aquaculture.”

The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) wascreated to serve as a federal interagency coordinatinggroup to increase the overall effectiveness andproductivity of federal aquaculture research, technol-ogy transfer, and assistance programs. While receiv-ing no direct funding, the JSA, composed of theheads or their designees of more than 12 federal

agencies, is generally thought of as a model coordi-nating mechanism. The JSA exists now as a statutorycommittee that operates under the aegis of theNational Science and Technology Council (NSTC) ofthe Office of Science and Technology Policy in theOffice of the Science Advisor to the President. TheJSA reports to the NSTC’s Committee on Health,Safety and Food Research and Development, whichis one of nine research and development committeesestablished by NSTC to prepare coordinated R&Dstrategies and budget recommendations for accom-plishing national goals. Chairmanship of the JSAwas originally planned to rotate among the Secretar-ies of the three primary departments; however, the1985 amendments specifically established the Secre-tary of Agriculture as permanent chair of the JSA.

The JSA completed the first and only version of anational aquaculture development plan in 1983.Volume I of the plan presented information on thestatus of aquaculture, current technologies, impedi-ments to development, existing federal programs,recommended programs and actions, and anticipatedimpacts. Volume II reviewed those aquatic speciesthat have or show potential for development asaquaculture products. Unfortunately, no assessmentregarding progress on the original plan’s recommen-dations was ever made. It was not until 1996 thatrevision of the 1983 plan was considered. A draftupdated national aquaculture development plan isnow being finalized for submission to the NSTC forreview and comment.

The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 and its amend-ments provide a federal policy framework for andendorsement of aquaculture in the United States.The 1983 plan constituted the first coordinated effortin the United States to assess the aquaculture indus-try, identify its needs, and suggest steps to improvethe climate for aquaculture development. The JSAalso provides a mechanism whereby informationexchange and program coordination can occur.Nevertheless, although the 1980 Act was reautho-rized in 1998 as part of the Farm Bill, recent failure oflegislation explicitly extending and funding the 1980Act suggests that difficulties persist in seeking aconsensus on a government policy for aquaculture.

The Future of Marine Aquaculture in the UnitedStates

The reasons that marine aquaculture has not pro-gressed as rapidly as freshwater aquaculture are ascomplex as the nature of the industry itself. Theseissues manifest themselves not only at the federal

90


level, but in each of the nation’s coastal states as well.Progress is occurring throughout the country, albeitat a fairly slow pace. The potential of marine aquac-ulture remains high as research information andtechnologies continue to be generated for cultivatinga diversity of marine species, ameliorating the realenvironmental effects of the industry, and developingcost—effective and sustainable culture techniquesand practices. Realization of that potential is beingseverely limited by many institutional and legalconstraints and sustainability issues.

These issues are not new to the industry or to gov-ernment. Conclusions of two National ResearchCouncil (National Academy of Sciences) panels thatmet in 1978 and 1992 to review the growth andpotential of the U.S. aquaculture industry are enlight-ening. In 1978, an NRC panel concluded that con-straints on the development of the U.S. aquacultureindustry “tend to be political and administrative,rather than scientific and technological” (NRC 1978).Fourteen years later, a second NRC panel stated that“solutions to the environmental problems constrain-ing marine aquaculture will involve approaches thatcombine technological ‘fixes’ with improved regula-tory and management structures, as well as publiceducation” (NRC 1992). It is unfortunate that manyof the issues identified in 1978 and again in 1992remain unresolved to this day.

Becker and Buck (1997) identify an important factorthat has not seriously been considered by aquacul-ture pundits; that is, the federal government hasactually put itself in a conflict-of-interest position vis-à-vis its roles in aquaculture. On one hand, it acts asenforcer of regulatory requirements aimed at protect-ing consumers, natural resources, and the environ-ment and, on the other, as administrator of programsthat support and promote the growth of the industry.What results is a tug-of-war where progress isdifficult to achieve. Obvious in their analysis is theview that complete consensus on the future role ofthe federal government in support of aquaculturewill be difficult to achieve.

In addition to the many federal departments andagencies that are involved in aquaculture policy,regulation, management, and/or support, Beckerand Buck (1997) point out that jurisdiction overaquaculture–related issues is divided among severalcongressional committees as well. In the Senate,aquaculture and related issues are divided amongthe Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition andForestry; Commerce, Science and Transportation;Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and

Public Works; and Labor and Human Resources. Onthe House side, the Agriculture Committee, Com-merce Committee, and Resources Committee havejurisdiction over components of aquaculture. Ofcourse, each of these committees has differentmandates and responsibilities which may overlap attimes, and each has its own agenda and perspectiveon aquaculture issues and needs. These committeesmust also deal with a wide range of constituencies,some of which may take positions counter to those ofthe marine aquaculture industry. Here again,reaching agreement on issues related to aquaculturecan be difficult.

Whither U.S. Marine Aquaculture Policy?

There have been many studies and analyses con-ducted over the last 20 years by federal agency,congressional office, academic, and industry authorsexamining the issues facing the U.S. marine aquacul-ture sector and offering a myriad of recommenda-tions and strategies to address them (e.g., NRC 1978,DeVoe and Mount 1989, NRC 1992, Rubino andWilson 1993, Stickney 1994, DeVoe 1994, DeVoe 1997).While these authors and others have providedreasonable and proactive suggestions for enhancingthe marine aquaculture industry, the situation ingeneral has changed little over that time. Why?

The United States must return to the more funda-mental issues to address the lack of growth of themarine aquaculture industry. More to the point, thecountry must:

1. Reevaluate and Reaffirm the Nation’s Aquacul-ture Policy

While Japan continues to focus use of its coastal andmarine resources on food production, the UnitedStates continues to look to the coast and ocean forrecreation, tourism, and other economic pursuits. Weas a country of plenty have not had to look to theseas to provide sustenance for our citizens. Pressuresto effect a major cultural change in the way we nowuse our coastal and marine resources have not risento a critical level; why change when we can importseafood from overseas? The impetus to unite theindustry, U.S. Congress, the federal agencies, thestates, and constituents together to create this cul-tural shift has been lacking. As a result, marineaquaculture’s place among the many uses of thenation’s coastal and ocean waters is not as yetestablished.

91


The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 contains aclear and unambiguous statement in support ofaquaculture development in the United States. TheUnited States, through Congress and the Administra-tion, with the support of industry and the involve-ment of all constituencies, must take a hard look atthe current situation and decide if it wishes toaggressively pursue the policy. Many scholars,academics, industry leaders, and others have offereda wide range of possible solutions to address theconstraints limiting marine aquaculture develop-ment, but without strong commitment and leader-ship by the federal government to work toward thisgoal, the current situation will be hard to improve.

2. Support Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

Marine aquaculture in coastal and offshore waters ofthe United States must be developed with an eyetoward sustainability — with a goal of producingproducts while conserving natural resources. Itsdevelopment must have a solid ecological perspec-tive that is compatible with the social, economic, andenvironmental goals of coastal communities, whichwill require the active involvement of communityleaders and other relevant parties in the process. Thedevelopment and use of risk assessment tools, bestmanagement practices, and educational and trainingprograms must be incorporated into all federalefforts to develop and support the industry. Thedevelopment of environmental criteria for marineaquaculture operations must be base on the genera-tion of science-based information. These and otherfactors must be incorporated into federal policies andplans if we are to see the marine aquaculture sectorgrow in the future.

3. Strengthen Policy Development through Im-proved Coordination

Assuming the United States is truly committed to thedevelopment of the marine aquaculture industry,mechanisms must be put into place to refine existingand establish new implementation measures to guideits growth. The fundamental framework to meet thischallenge already exists with the Joint Subcommitteeon Aquaculture. Currently, JSA plays an importantrole in coordinating federal agency activities andensuring communication among the agencies in theareas of research, transfer, and assistance programs inaquaculture, and providing recommendations forfederal aquaculture policy. The potential for enhanc-ing the role of the JSA in dealing with and resolvingthe many issues facing marine aquaculture lies withits membership. However, it presently operates

without a budget, participation by any of the agen-cies is not mandatory, and there is no formal votingstructure nor dispute resolution process in place.Areas where the role of the JSA could be strength-ened include:

a. Status of the JSA

* The role of the JSA in the administration should beexpanded to include policy development and imple-mentation.

* The permanence of the JSA should be establishedthrough the provision of a stable source of fundingand staff assistance to improve coordination andconsistency of policy development and implementa-tion.

* The JSA should enhance the involvement of keyrepresentatives from the marine aquaculture indus-try, environmental community, and other constituen-cies in its deliberations and decision-making.

b. Federal Permitting and Regulatory Structure

* The JSA should be charged with designing astreamlined planning and permitting framework formarine aquaculture activities in the coastal zone,emphasizing joint local, state, and federal coordina-tion in consultation with the marine aquacultureindustry, the states, and pertinent constituencies.

* The JSA should be charged with the primaryresponsibility for developing a coordinated manage-ment and regulatory framework for offshore aquac-ulture activities, in consultation with all relevantfederal and state agencies and constituencies.

c. Federal Research and Development Activities

* The JSA should conduct an assessment of allongoing federal funding programs to assess thenature and scope of current activities and whetherthey are meeting the needs of the industry and thepublic.

* The JSA should, based on the assessment, develop acoordinated, cross-cutting funding plan to ensurethat future key needs and issues related to marineaquaculture are being addressed in an efficient andnon-duplicative manner.

92


Conclusion

The key to the future of marine aquaculture in theUnited States is the creation of technological andpolitical systems that provide for sustainable marineaquaculture. Sustainable aquaculture will only beachieved if all facets of the industry — productionand technology, economics and marketing, businessand financing, natural resource needs and protec-tions, and administrative and legal institutions — aredealt with simultaneously. This is a lofty goal, giventhe diverse nature of the marine aquaculture indus-try, but the modus operandi of the last three decadesin dealing with the needs of the industry will not beenough. Systems that will move the industry for-ward will require an unequivocal commitment by thenation’s political leadership to create them, by thefederal bureaucracy to implement them, by theacademic community to generate and extend infor-mation to improve them, and by the industry to putthem into practice. Coordination, cooperation,communication, and education will be the primarytools required to move the United States toward aviable and sustainable marine aquaculture industry.

Literature Cited

Ackefors, H. and C. G. Rosen. 1979. Farming aquaticanimals: The emergence of a worldwide industrywith profound ecological consequences. Ambio 8(4):132—143.

Ackefors, H. and A. Sodergren. 1985. Swedishexperiences of the impact of aquaculture on theenvironment. International Council for the Explorationof the Sea, C.M. 1985/E:40.7

Aspen Corporation. 1981. Aquaculture in the UnitedStates: Regulatory constraints. Final Report, ContractNo. 14-16-009-79-095 to U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. 51 pp.

Bardach, J. 1995. Aquaculture and sustainability.World Aquaculture 26(1):2.

Becker, G.S. and E.H. Buck. 1997. Aquaculture and thefederal role. Congressional Research Service, U.S.Library of Congress. 97-436 ENR. 29 pp.

Breaux, P.W. 1992. Comparative study of state aquacul-ture regulation and recommendations for Louisiana. LCL93, Louisiana Sea Grant Legal Program, Baton Rouge,LA. 8 pp.

Chamberlain, G. and H. Rosenthal. 1995. Aquacul-ture in the next century: Opportunities for growth—challenges of sustainability. World Aquaculture26(1):21-25.

Culliton, T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, D.G.Remer, C.M. Blackwell, and J.J. McDonough III.1990. Fifty years of population change along the nation’scoasts. National Ocean Service, NOAA, Rockville,MD. 41 pp.

deFur, P.L. and D.N. Rader. 1995. Aquaculture inestuaries: feast or famine? Estuaries 18(1A): 2-9.

DeVoe, M.R. (editor). 1992. Proceedings of a Conferenceand Workshop on Introductions and Transfers of MarineSpecies: Achieving a Balance Between Economic Develop-ment and Resource Protection. S.C. Sea Grant Consor-tium, Charleston. 201 pp.

DeVoe, M.R. 1994. Aquaculture and the marineenvironmental: Policy and management issues andopportunities in the United States. Bulletin of NaturalResources of the Institute of Aquaculure, supplement1:111-123.

DeVoe, M.R. 1997. Marine aquaculture regulation inthe United States: Environmental policy and manage-ment issues. In: Interactions Between Cultured Speciesand Naturally Occurring Species in the Environment,Proceedings of the 24th U.S.–Japan AquaculturePanel Symposium, Oct. 8-10,1995. Texas A&MUniversity Sea Grant College Program. 16 pp.

DeVoe, M.R. and A.S. Mount. 1989. An analysis of10state aquaculture leasing systems: Issues andstrategies. Journal of Shellfish Research 8(1):233-239.

DeVoe, M.R., R.S. Pomeroy, and A.W. Wypyszinski.1992. Aquaculture conflicts in the eastern UnitedStates. World Aquaculture 23(2):24-25.

Ewart, J.W., J. Hankins, and D. Bullock. 1995. Statepolicies for aquaculture effluents and solid wastes in thenortheast region. NRAC Bull. No. 300-1995, Northeast-ern Regional Aquaculture Center, North Dartmouth,MA. 24 pp.

Food and Agricultural Organization . 1997 (on-line).Fisheries Statistics. http://www.fao.org

Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. 1997. Murky waters:Environmental effects of aquaculture in the United States.Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC. 196pp.

93


Harvey, D.J. 1994. Outlook for U.S. aquaculture. Agri-cultural Outlook Conference, Outlook ’94, Session 20.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 6 pp.

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA). 1993.Aquaculture in the United States: Status, opportunitiesand recommendations. Report to the Federal Coordi-nating Council on Science, Engineering and Technol-ogy. 21 pp.

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. 1983. NationalAquaculture Development Plan, Volume I. Washington,DC. 67 pp.

McCoy II, H.D. 1989. Commercial aquaculture zones:A legislative proposal. Aquaculture (6): 39-46.

Muir, J.F. 1985. Aquaculture–Towards the Future.Endeavour, New Series. 9(1):52-55.

National Research Council (U.S.). 1978. Aquaculture inthe United States: Constraints and Opportunities.National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 1,123 pp.

National Research Council (U.S.). 1992. MarineAquaculture: Opportunities for Growth. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC. 290 pp.

Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M.Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N.Kautsky, J. Lubchenko,J. Primavera, and M. Williams. 1998. Nature’s subsi-dies to shrimp and salmon farming. Science 282:883-884.

Nixon, D.W. 1994. Aquaculture: Impediments togrowth. Maritimes 37(2):2-4.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998 (on-line).Fisheries Statistics for the United States. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

Odum, W.E. 1974. Potential effects of aquaculture oninshore coastal waters. Environmental Conservation1(3):225-230.

Rosenthal, H. 1985. Constraints and perspectives inaquaculture development. GeoJournal 10(3):305-324.

Rosenthal, H., D. Weston, R. Gower, and E. Black.1988. Environmental impact of mariculture. Report ofad hoc study group. International Council for theExploration of the Sea, 1988/No. 154. 83 pp.

Rubino, M.C. and C.A. Wilson. 1993. Issues in Aqua-culture Regulation. Bluewaters, Inc., Bethesda, MD. 72pp.

Sandifer, P.A. 1994. U.S. coastal aquaculture: Flirtingwith opportunity. Water Farming Journal 8(4):3-16.

Stickney, R. Offshore aquaculture: Technology and policyissues. Draft report prepared for the Office of Technol-ogy Assessment. 60 pp.

Weston, D.P. 1986. The environmental affects of floatingmariculture in Puget Sound. Report 87-16 to Washing-ton Dept. Fisheries and Ecology. 148 pp.

95


OFFSHORE MARINE AQUACULTURE IN THE U.S. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMICZONE (EEZ): LEGAL AND REGULATORY CONCERNS

Alison Rieser* and Susan Bunsick***University of Maine School of Law, **University of Delaware

Future development of marine aquaculture in theU.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is constrainedby legal and regulatory concerns which need to beaddressed inorder for theindustry tobecome finan-cially viable andinternationallycompetitive.These concernsrelate to prop-erty rights foraquacultureoperators,conflicts withcompeting usesof public waters,and regulatory gaps and overlap. Failure to resolvethese issues creates uncertainties for the economicviability of offshore aquaculture projects, making itdifficult for potential investors to obtain financing.While some states have addressed these concerns forprojects within the portion of the EEZ under theirjurisdiction (for most states, out to 3 nautical miles),the federal government approach with respect toaquaculture facilities in the federal portion of theEEZ (from the state boundary out to 200 nauticalmiles offshore) is piecemeal. Mostimportantly, there is no clear legal basisfor granting property rights that areneeded to protect the large investmentsnecessary to build and operate offshoreaquaculture facilities in the open ocean.

A major study coordinated by the Na-tional Research Council’s Marine Boardconcluded there are significant opportu-nities for future growth of marine aquac-ulture in the United States.1 More re-cently, the Environmental Defense Fundgave the industry a qualified blessingwhen it concluded that “aquaculture need not be apolluting industry.”2 However, the industry willcontinue to face serious obstacles until the legal andregulatory regime is modified to clarify rights andjurisdictions, eliminate overlap, and fill regulatorygaps.

This paper describes the current federal regulatoryframework, identifies important elements that needto be included in an improved government frame-

work, reviews the major legal obstacles tooffshore aquaculture, and presents anoverview of recent U.S. governmentplanning initiatives.3

Current Federal Regulatory Framework

Federal authority over offshore marineaquaculture rests primarily with twoagencies: the Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Under the Rivers andHarbors Act,4 as amended by the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act (OCS),5 theCorps is responsible for issuing permits

for structures located in navigable waters. In its“public interest review”6 of requests for aquaculturefacilities, the Corps considers the benefits anddetriments to the public interest, including environ-mental, economic, aesthetic, navigation, propertyrights, and international interests. Under the CleanWater Act,7 EPA asserts regulatory authority overdischarges from aquaculture facilities as “concen-trated aquatic animal production facilities.”8 Otherfederal agencies, including NOAA’s National Marine

Fisheries Serviceand the Fish andWildlife Service,have an opportu-nity to reviewand comment onany permitproposed forissuance by theCorps or EPA. Inaddition,NOAA’s regionalFisheries Man-agement Coun-

cils have authority over the harvesting of speciescovered by fishery management plans.9 Federalleasing of portions of the seabed beyond state watersfor aquaculture is not presently possible under theOuter Continental Shelf Lands Act.10

A major study coordi-nated by the NationalResearch Council’s MarineBoard concluded thereare significant opportuni-ties for future growth ofmarine aquaculture in theUnited States.

...the industry will continueto face serious obstaclesuntil the legal and regula-tory regime is modified toclarify rights and jurisdic-tions, eliminate overlap,and fill regulatory gaps.

96


Elements of An Improved Government Frameworkfor Aquaculture

The Marine Law Institute11 has developed a set of 10recommendations to improve the regulatory frame-work for aquaculture:

1. Marine Zones - The responsible governmentagency should identify marine zones favorable to seafarming and consistent with desired environmentalconditions and potential use conflicts.

2. Common Application Procedure - All state andfederal permits and leases should share a commonapplication procedure, siting criteria, and site evalua-tion and monitoring protocols.

3. Property Interests - Aquaculture leases or licensesshould convey an exclusive property interest in thecultured species as well as in the right to harvest itfrom the leased area, as far as it is consistent withpublic rights of navigation and fishing. This isnecessary to secure the sea farmer’s investmentagainst negligence, theft, and vandalism, and toallow for civil causes of action against persons whointerfere with or damage aquaculture facilities.

4. Agency Coordination - State and federal agenciesshould adopt memoranda of understanding oncoordinating enforcement, research, and technicalassistance.

5. Cooperative Arrangements - Maximum acreagelimitations should not apply to contracts, jointventures, or partnerships between small-scale seafarmers and larger aquaculture companies so thatcooperative arrangements can be implemented.

6. Economic Priorities - Government agencies shouldprovide priorities in licensing or leasing to fishermendisplaced by conservation restrictions on the capturefisheries as an appropriate non-discriminatory meansof promoting local economic benefits from seafarming.

7. Community Relations - Sea farm applicants shouldbe encouraged to enter into private agreements withlocal fishermen’s organizations, cooperatives, orcommunity groups for work in the sea farmingoperation, to prevent use conflicts and promote localeconomic benefits and acceptance of sea farms.

8. Public Hearings - Agency public hearing proce-dures should balance the due process rights of seafarm leaseholders with the public right of participa-

tion in decisions affecting public resources. Hearingsshould be formal enough to exclude interventionsnot relevant to the licensing decision, but not soformal that small-scale sea farm applicants are facedwith prohibitive application costs.

9. Insurance Pool - Public and private efforts shouldwork to create an insurance pool to compensate seafarmers for losses due to product destruction orwater impoundment orders to protect public health.

10. Small-Scale and Experimental Farming - State andlocal licensing authorities should adopt license-by-rule procedures for small-scale and experimentalfarming, with reduced application requirements andexpedited procedures.

Legal Obstacles to Consider in Revising the Regula-tory Framework

In 1978, the National Research Council12 identifiedthe major legal obstacles to development of theaquaculture industry. These concerns remain rel-evant to current discussions about the federal regula-tory framework.

1. Limited availability of property rights or otherinterests that can secure a producer’s investment

2. Poorly defined standards that fail to reduceconflicts among competing users of public resources

3. Poorly defined agency jurisdictions leading todelays in defining applicable standards or regula-tions

4. Redundant regulations due to overlapping agencyresponsibilities

5. Inappropriate restrictions designed to protect wildstocks

Any changes in the federal regulatory frameworkneed to keep these obstacles in mind in the develop-ment of provisions relating to property rights,conflicts with other users, and regulatory require-ments.

Property Rights

The key concern with respect to the legal frameworkaffecting marine aquaculture is: how secure is theinterest that the sea farmer receives from the govern-ment? For the interest to function as a propertyinterest, it needs to have some or all of the following

97


attributes: transferability, duration and renewability,and revocability only for failure to perform specifiedconditions.

In addition, special legal principles designed toprotect public uses, known as public trust rights,come into play.13 These public property interestsmust be balanced against the sea farmer’s needs for asecure interest in the cultured species and for protec-tion against damage from other activities.

Future federal regulatory policy must also considerthe legal differences between the lease and licenseforms of tenure. Leases have certain advantages overlicenses in terms of security of tenure. Neither,however, can convey permanent, exclusive control ofan area of the ocean because of the public propertyrights and other principles mentioned above.

Finally, the federal government needs to provide forcriminal sanctions and a civil right of action againstindividuals who violate the sea farmer’s rights aslessee of the seabed and water column.

Conflicts Among Competing Users

Even when the sea farmer’s lease or license is backedby criminal sanctions against persons damaging orinterfering with the farm, peaceful co-existenceamong all users of the marine environment cannot beensured. The process for issuing leases or licensesmust therefore protect the sea farmer from conflictswith other marine uses. Other public and privateuses of the marine environment that are potentiallyaffected by aquaculture activities (navigation, fishing,etc.) need to be identified in the statutory authorityfor the leasing of public waters or submerged lands,and a mechanism for considering information aboutother uses needs to be included in the decisionprocess. Failure to consider other uses in the licens-ing process can result in serious use conflicts, leadingto court challenges that interfere with operations andcould ultimately produce judicial decisions adverselyaffecting future sea farming opportunities.

Agency Regulatory Requirements

The issue of fragmentation and overlapping agencymandates has two sides. An apparently redundantregulatory requirement may actually serve a usefulpurpose. Jurisdictional overlap can improve thesecurity of the interest the sea farmer obtains when itsignals that an agency with a different constituencyhas accepted an aquaculture project both in principleand in reality. The objective should be to provide the

sea farmer with the advantages of obtaining theapproval of multiple agencies without imposingheavy costs in time and money to obtain them.

The administrative process should include a speedymechanism for exempting aquaculture from regula-tions that are designed to conserve wild fish stocks,such as restrictions on harvesting or limited vessel-days at sea . These decisions should not have to bemade on a case-by-case basis or require a specialwaiver or exemption, and conflicts of interest shouldbe avoided. Because fishermen are likely to opposeaquaculture ventures they perceive as producingcompetition for limited fishing grounds or seafoodmarkets, the federal regional fishery managementcouncils (which include strong fishing industryrepresentation) are not an appropriate authority forEEZ aquaculture decisions.

Current Status of U.S. Government Planning Efforts

The U.S. government has begun to focus on the issueof offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive EconomicZone, although much more remains to be done. Themajor initiatives come from the interagency JointSubcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) and the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).

The JSA’s draft National Aquaculture DevelopmentPlan14 calls for “an appropriate and harmonizedFederal regulatory framework” for aquaculture. Theplan highlights “the complex, fragmented, anduncertain regulatory environment” and points outthat “as a result, aquatic farmers may either berequired to comply with a daunting and expensivearray of regulations or, as exemplified by offshoremarine aquaculture initiatives, be forced to operate ina highly uncertain regulatory framework” (Section4.4.8). The plan’s list of needed regulatory improve-ments includes “permits and regulations for com-mercial aquaculture operations in public waters,including Federal marine waters” (Section 5.8).Although the Plan was revised in 1996, the draft hasyet to be formally adopted by the JSA.

Within NOAA, marine aquaculture issues are beingaddressed in several ways. In February 1998, NOAAadopted an agency-wide aquaculture policy, ele-ments of which have been incorporated in its strate-gic plan. The agency has also drfated an aquaculturepolicy for the entire Department of Commerce, whichis expected to be adopted in February 1999. Inaddition, the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) has drafted legislation for aquaculture

98


leasing in the EEZ. The proposed legislation isundergoing internal review within the Department ofCommerce, and its prospects are uncertain at thistime.

NOAA’s strategic plan15 includes agency promotionof robust and environmentally sound aquaculturedevelopment. The plan recognizes the need for atimely regulatory process, and specifically mentionsthe need to emphasize “a regulatory framework andpermitting process for aquaculture in the EEZ.” Theplan includes the following performance measuresfor the next 5 years:

1. Promote the commercial rearing of at least sevennew species.

2. Reduce the time and cost ofpermittingenvironmentally sound aquacultureventures.

3. Provide financial assistance for environmentallysound aquaculture ventures.

4. Identify areas in coastal waters and the EEZsuitable for environmentally sound aquaculturedevelopment.

5. Develop and implement environmentally soundaquaculture technologies and practices.

NOAA’s implementation strategy specificallymentions the need to develop a coordinated policyon the use of the EEZ for private aquaculture, toaddress user conflicts affecting aquaculture develop-ment, and to determine requirements for the siting ofaquaculture operations in the EEZ.

Conclusion

Progress with respect to federal regulation of offshoremarine aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ is slow. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) funded aregional open ocean aquaculture initiative for NewEngland in Fiscal Year 1998, and regional fisherymanagement councils have begun to incorporateaquaculture provisions in their fishery managementplans. However, as noted above, this may not be themost desirable approach to developing a regulatoryframework for offshore aquaculture in federalwaters.

A window of opportunity for addressing the issuesdiscussed in this paper was missed in the most recentreauthorization of the National Aquaculture Act16

(June 1998), which made no modifications to theexisting federal approach. However, funding formarine aquaculture is included in the ClintonAdministration’s National Oceans Initiative, an-nounced in June 1998. If enacted, the proposal willprovide $ 3 million annually over a 3-year peirodbeginning in fiscal year 2000. Adoption of JSA’s draftNational Aquaculture Development Plan could serveas a vehicle for promoting needed change in the legaland regulatory framework for offshore aquacultureand devising a federal policy for leasing federalwaters in the EEZ.

Notes

1. Committee on Assessment of Technology andOpportunities for Marine Aquaculture in the UnitedStates, National Research Council (U.S.), MarineAquaculture: Opportunities for Growth: Report of theCommittee on Assessment of Technology andOpportunities for Marine Aquaculture in the UnitedStates, Marine Board, Commission on Engineeringand Technical Systems, National Research Council(Washington: National Academy Press, 1992).

2. Rebecca Goldburg and Tracy Triplett, MurkyWaters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the U.S.(New York: Environmental Defense Fund, 1997).

3. Portions of this paper are based on earlier work byone of the authors. See Alison Rieser, “Defining theFederal Role in Offshore Aquaculture: Should ItFeature Delegation to the States?” in Ocean andCoastal Law Journal 2 (1997): 209-234.

4. 33 U.S.C. § 403 (1994).

5. 43 U.S.C. § 1333(e) (1994).

6. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(1) (1995).

7. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (1994).

8. 40 C.F.R. § 122.24(a) (1995).

9. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Manage-ment Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882 (1994), amended bySustainable Fisheries Act, Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110Stat. 3559 (1996) does not expressly authorize theregional fishery management councils or the Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service to license aquacultureprojects in the EEZ. See William J. Brennan, “To BeOr Not To Be Involved: Aquaculture Management

99


Options for the New England Fishery ManagementCouncil,” 2 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 261 (1997). How-ever, NOAA’s Office of General Counsel has con-cluded that aquaculture constitutes “fishing” underthe Magnuson Act because it involves harvesting fishfrom the EEZ by U.S. vessels. See Memorandumfrom Jay S. Johnson, NOAA Deputy General Coun-sel, and Margaret F. Hayes, NOAA Assistant GeneralCounsel for Fisheries, to James W. Brennan, NOAAActing General Counsel (Feb. 7, 1993) (discussingthe applicability of federal laws to aquaculture in theEEZ).

10. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356 (1994).

11. Marine Law Institute, Legal Methods for PromotingLocal Salmon Farming Operations in Down East Maine,Report to the National Coastal Resources Researchand Development Institute (1992).

12. National Research Council, Aquaculture in theUnited States: Constraints and Opportunities (1978):90.

13. According to the public trust doctrine, the stateshold all navigable waters, and the lands under them,in trust for the common use of the public. PhillipsPetroleum v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469 (1988). Tradi-tionally, courts have protected the public right tofishing and navigation in public trust waters andlands, and have even expanded the scope of thepublic trust to include other uses such as recreationand ecological preservation.

14. National Science and Technology Council, JointSubcommittee on Aquaculture. National AquacultureDevelopment Plan of 1996 (Draft, 5 March 1996). Seehttp://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/publicat/govagen/usda/dnadp.htm

15. See http://www.nmfs.gov/bortniak/straplan/obj-4.html

16. National Aquaculture Act of 1980, as amended.16 U.S.C. 2801.

101


THE POTENTIAL FOR THE MARINE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

Shirley A. Pomponi Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Florida

Introduction

The marine environment is a rich source of bothbiological and chemical diversity. This diversity hasbeen the source of unique chemical compounds withthe potential for industrial development as pharma-ceuticals, cosmetics, nutritional supplements, mo-lecular probes, enzymes, fine chemicals, andagrichemicals. Each of these classes of marinebioproducts has a potential multi-billion dollarmarket value (BioScience, 1996). Thousands ofunique chemical compounds have been identifiedfrom a relatively small number of the ocean’s biologi-cal and chemical diversity (Ireland et al, 1993). Theoceans represent a virtually untapped resource fordiscovery of even more novel compounds withuseful activity.

There are several marine-derived products currentlyon the market (Table 1). Although this discussion willfocus on the current status and future potential ofmarine biotechnology related to the discovery,development, and sustainable use of marine-derivedcompounds with biomedical applications, the needs,approaches, and opportunities apply equally to othermarine bioproducts. The challenge facing the marinebiotechnology industry in the next millenium is to:

• identify new sources of marine bioproducts;

• develop novel screening technologies;

• provide a sustainable source of supply; and

• optimize production and recovery of thebioproducts.

Identification of New Sources of Marine Bioproducts

Marine bioproducts have, to date, been derived fromrelatively shallow-water organisms using routinemethods, such as scuba diving. Evaluation of thepharmaceutical, cosmetic, nutritional, and chemicalpotential of products derived from deep waterorganisms has been limited, although at least onecompound—discodermolide (Gunasekera et al, 1990;ter Haar et al., 1996), derived from a deep watersponge—has been recently licensed by Harbor

Branch Oceanographic Institution to NovartisPharma AG, and is in advanced preclinical trials fortreatment of cancer.

Federal agency support (e.g., NSF, NOAA, ONR,NIH) for deep ocean exploration for biotechnology islimited, at best. Manned and unmannedsubmersibles are woefully underfunded and re-stricted to a few systems. The trend toward develop-ment of remote platforms for understanding theoceans and atmosphere has had little applicationrelative to marine biodiversity—and the potential ofthis diversity to yield useful products. Despite thetrend toward remotely operated systems, there is stilla need for manned submersible programs to studyand sample biodiversity in the deep oceans. Al-though some submersible systems are equipped withspecialized tools and chambers that allow samples tobe maintained under ambient conditions, i.e., highpressure and, low temperature, there is still a needfor the development of versatile bioreactors that canbe deployed and operated in extreme environments

Product Application Original SourceAra-A antiviral drug marine sponge,

Cryptotethya cryptaAra-C anticancer drug marine sponge,

Cryptotethya cryptaokadaic acid molecular probe:

phosphatase inhibitordinoflagellate

manoalide molecular probe: phospholipase A2 inhibitor

marine sponge, Luffariella variabilis

Vent™ DNA polymerase

polymerase chain reaction enzymes

deep-sea hydrothermal vent bacterium

Formulaid® (Martek Biosciences, Columbia, MD)

fatty acids used as additive in infant formula nutritional supplement

marine microalga

Aequorin bioluminescent calcium indicator

bioluminescent jellyfish, Aequora victoria

Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP)

reporter gene bioluminescent jellyfish, Aequora victoria

phycoerythrin conjugated antibodies used in ELISAs and flow cytometry

red algae

Resilience® (Estée Lauder)

marine extract additive in skin creams

Caribbean gorgonian, Pseudopterogorgia elisabethae

Table 1. Some Examples of Commercially AvailableMarine Bioproducts

102


(e.g., hypersaline, vent, anoxic, and deep-sea habi-tats). Such bioreactors could be used for collection,at-sea maintenance, and evaluation of novel macro-organisms and microorganisms so that their metabo-lites can be evaluated under physiological conditionsthat are as similar as possible to ambient conditions.

Another approach to the identification of newproducts is the incorporation of miniaturizedbiosensors into both collecting tools and bioreactorsfor rapid, in situ analysis of both wild and cultivatedmarine organisms for target molecules. A number ofminiaturized biosensors and probes to study humandisease processes are in development. Adaptation ofthese for in situ evaluation of marine-derived prod-ucts would be aninteresting bioengi-neering challenge.Potential applica-tions are theidentification ofnew or previouslyuntested species, aswell as analysis ofgene expressionthat may be specificto a particulardisease or thera-peutic area.

Development ofNovel ScreeningTechnologies

The biological evaluation of marine-derived extractsand pure compounds for pharmaceutical develop-ment has been based on assays developed for thehigh-throughput screening of large libraries ofsynthetic compounds. They measure a number ofend-points, such as activation or inhibition of en-zymes or receptors involved in human diseaseprocesses, inhibition of growth of human pathogenicmicroorganisms, and toxicity against human cancercells (Ireland et al, 1993; McConnell et al, 1994;Munro et al, 1994). None of the assays used in majorpharmaceutical drug discovery programs takes intoaccount the role of marine-derived compounds innature, i.e., the in situ biochemical functions of bothprimary and secondary metabolites, and how thosefunctions may be applied to the discovery of newdrugs and probes to study human disease processes.Marine organisms as model systems offer the poten-tial to understand and develop treatments for diseasebased on the normal physiological role of theirsecondary metabolites. For example, the mecha-

nisms of action Conus toxins are well-known(Hopkins, et al, 1995; Shon et al, 1997), and arecurrently being applied to the development of newclasses of drugs. Development of in situ biosensorswould enhance our ability to probe the expression ofsecondary metabolites in response to various stimuli,lead to a better understanding of the role of thesecondary metabolites in nature, and perhapsprovide clues to the potential biomedical utility ofthese compunds

Sustainable Use of Marine Resources

With the enormous potential for discovery, develop-ment, and marketing of novel marine bioproducts

comes the obligation to develop meth-ods by which these products can besupplied in a way that will not disruptthe ecosystem or deplete the resource.Supply of most marine-derived com-pounds is a major limiting factor forfurther pharmaceutical development.Often, the metabolite occurs in traceamounts in the organism, and a steadysource of supply from wild harvestcannot provide enough of the targetcompound for preclinical studies. Ingeneral, the natural abundance of thesource organisms will not supportproduction based on wild harvest.

Some options for sustainable use ofmarine resources are chemical synthe-

sis, controlled harvesting, aquaculture of the sourceorganism, in vitro production through cell culture ofthe macroorganism or microorganism source, andtransgenic production. Each of these options has itsadvantages and limitations. Not all methods will beapplicable to the supply of every marine bioproduct,and most of the biological supply methods are still indevelopment. The approach to be used will be basedon a number of factors:

• Complexity of the molecule: Can it be synthe-sized using an industrially feasible process?Synthetic processes have been published formany marine bioproducts in development aspharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, most of theseare multi-step processes that are not amenable toeconomic, industrial-scale synthesis.

• Abundance of the organism in nature: What dowe know about the impact of collections on thehabitat or species populations? Prior to large-scale wild harvest of an organism for recovery of

With the enormous poten-tial for discovery, develop-ment, and marketing ofnovel marine bioproductscomes the obligation todevelop methods by whichthese products can besupplied in a way that willnot disrupt the ecosystemor deplete the resource.

103


a bioproduct, harvesting feasibility studiesshould be conducted. These should definefactors such as the standing stock of the organ-ism, its growth rate and the factors that affectgrowth, and the harvesting and post-harvestingrecovery of the target organism. These impactdata could then be used not only to assess thepotential of supply from wild harvest, but also todevelop models for aquaculture and/or in vitroproduction. Unfortunately, this is rarely done.

• Source of the compound: Is it microbially pro-duced? A significant number of marinebioproducts with pharmaceutical potential havebeen identified from heterotrophic marinemicroorganisms isolated from coastal sediments(Fenical, 1993; Davidson, 1995; Kobayashi andIshibashi, 1993). In addition, some marinebioproducts originally isolated frommacroorganisms, such as sponges, have beensubsequently discovered to be localized inmicrobial associates (e.g., Bewley et al, 1996). Ifthese symbiotic microorganisms can be isolatedand cultured, optimization of production inmarine microbial bioreactors may lead to anindustrially feasible supply option. If the sourceof the compound is the macroorganism itself,development of in vitro production methodscould provide bulk supply of the compound.Research in progress in our laboratory focuses onestablishing cell lines of bioactive marine inverte-brates that can be used as models to study invitro production of bioactive metabolites and thefactors which control expression of production(Pomponi et al, 1997, 1998). This could ultimatelylead to in vitro production of marinebioproducts. More importantly, an understand-ing of the cellular and molecular processes thatcontrol production of these metabolites could beused to enhance upstream processing/cultureoptimization and to stimulate production of“unnatural” natural products—i.e., chemicalsthat the organism would not produce undernormal conditions, but which may be morepotent than the “natural” product.

• In situ growth conditions: Is aquaculture anoption for deep-water organisms? Both in-the-sea and land-based aquaculture methods havebeen developed for production of bioproductsfrom shallow-water organisms. CalBioMarineTechnologies (Carlsbad, CA) has successfullyaquacultured the bryozoan, Bugula neritina, andEcteinascidia turbinata, the ascidian from whichthe antitumor compound, ecteinascidin 743, has

been isolated (Wright et al, 1990; Rinehart et al,1990). These are both common, shallow-waterorganisms for which reproduction and growthhave been studied, but the factors controllingproduction of the compounds are not yet com-pletely known. The New Zealand deepwatersponge, Lissodendoryx sp., is the source of theantitumor compounds, halichondrins. Thesponge occurs at 85-105 meters, but has beencultured successfully from cuttings on lanternarrays in shallower water, maintaining produc-tion of the bioactive halichondrins (Battershill etal, 1998). Current efforts are directed towardmodification of metabolite production by alter-ing the microenvironment (Battershill, personalcommunication). This indicates that aquacultureof some deep water sponges is feasible; however,species from deeper water may have morecritical growth requirements, such as highpressure and low temperature.Although in-the-sea aquaculture is a cost-effective method ofproduction, it may not afford the opportunity forover-expression of production of the compoundsor for complete control of environmental param-eters. Development of closed-system bioreactorsfor the culture of both shallow water and deepwater organisms is a particularly challengingopportunity for marine bioprocess engineers.

• Biosynthetic pathway: Is genetic engineeringrealistic for the compound? If the biosynthesis ofthe target compound is understood, it may bepossible to identify, isolate, clone, and express ina heterologous host the genes responsible forproduction of the metabolite. In many cases, ofcourse, biosynthesis of the product is not known,or it is a multi-step process involving severalenzymatic reactions. For these cases, transgenicproduction is not a trivial process. Alternatively,chemoenzymatic synthesis, by which marinebioproducts are synthesized in cell-free, enzyme-based systems, offers a complementary techniqueto in vitro and transgenic production methodsfor marine bioproducts (Kerr et al, 1996 a, b).

Optimization of Production

Perhaps the area in which marine biotechnology ingeneral, and marine bioprocess engineering inparticular, has the greatest potential is in the designand optimization of bioreactors for marine metabo-lite production. A variety of bioreactor designs havebeen implemented, with varying degrees of success.The opportunity to produce new, bioactive structuralanalogs of known compounds via manipulation of

104


culture conditions presents marine biotechnologistswith a unique challenge for new bioproduct discov-ery. Innovations in media development (chemicalengineering), bioreactor design (bioprocess engineer-ing), and transgenic production (molecular engineer-ing), coupled with efficient downstream processingand product recovery, will be necessary to meet theneeds of both discovery and bulk production ofnovel marine bioproducts.

In summary, the marine biotechnology industry facesa unique challenge for the millenium: Inventing anew generation of tools and processes that willenable a greater understanding of the ocean and itsresources and lead to the discovery of newbioproducts for the future, and designing methodsfor the sustainable development of these uniquebioproducts.

Literature Cited

Battershill, C.N., Page, M.J., Duckworth, A.R., Miller,K.A., Bergquist P.R., Blunt, J.W., Munro M.H.G.,Northcote, P.T., Newman D.J., and Pomponi S.A.(1998). In Origin and Outlook: 5th International SpongeSymposium 1998, Book of Abstracts, QueenslandMuseum, Brisbane, Australia, p. 16.

Bewley, C.A., Holland, N.D., and Faulkner, D.J.(1996) Experientia, 52, 716-722.

BioScience (1996) Marine Biotechnology Special Issue,46.

Davidson, B. S. (1995) Current Opinions in Biotechnol-ogy 6:284-291.

Fenical, W. (1993) Chemistry Review 93:1673-1683.

Gunasekera, S.P., Gunasekera, M., Longley, R.E., andSchulte, G. (1990) Journal of Organic Chemistry 55,4912-4915.

Hopkins, C., Grilley, M., Miller, C., Shon, K.J., Cruz,L.J., Gray, W.R., Dykert, J., Rivier, J., Yoshikami, D.,Olivera, B.M. (1995) Journal of Biological Chemistry 38,22361-22367.

Ireland, C.M., Copp, B.R., Foster, M.D., McDonald,L.A., Radisky, D.C., and Swersey, J.C. (1993) inAttaway, D.H. and Zaborsky, O.R. (Eds.) MarineBiotechnology, Vol. 1: Pharmaceutical and BioactiveNatural Products. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-43.

Kerr, R.G., Lawry, J., and Gush, K.A. (1996a) Tet.Letters 37, 8305-8308.

Kerr, R.G., Rodriguez, L., and Kellman, J. (1996b) Tet.Letters 37, 8301-8304.

Kobayashi, J. and Ishibashi, M. (1993) ChemistryReview 93, 1753-1769.

McConnell, O.J., Longley, R.E., and Koehn, F.E. (1994)In: Gullo, V.P., (Ed.), The Discovery of Natural Productswith Therapeutic Potential. Butterworth-Heinemann,Boston, pp. 109-174.

Munro, M.H.G., Blunt, J.W., Lake, R.J U., Litaudon,M., Battershill, C.N., and Page, M.J. (1994) in VanSoest, R.W.M., Van Kempen, T.M.G., and Braekman,J-C. (Eds.), Sponges in Time and Space, Proceedings ofthe 4th International Porifera Congress, A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 473-484.

Pomponi, S.A., Willoughby, R., Kaighn, M.E., andWright, A.E. (1997) in Maramorosch, K. andMitsuhashi, J. (Eds.), Invertebrate Cell Culture: NovelDirections and Biotechnology Applications. SciencePublishers, Inc., pp. 231-237.

Pomponi, S.A., Willoughby, R., Wright, A.E.,Pecorella, C., Sennett, S.H., Lopez, J., and Samples, G.(1998) in Le Gal, Y. and H. O. Halvorson, H.O. (Eds.),New Developments in Marine Biotechnology. PlenumPress, New York, pp. 73-76.

Rinehart, K.L., Holt, T.G., Fregeau, N.L., Stroh, J.G.,Keifer, P.A., Sun, F., Li, L.H., and Martin, D.G. (1990).Journal of Organic Chemistry 55, 4512-4515.

Shon, K.J., Grilley, M., Jacobsen, R., Cartie, G.E.,Hopkins, C., Gray, W.R., Watkins, M., Hillyard, D.R.,Rivier, J., Torres, J., Yoshikami, D., Olivera, B.M.(1997) A noncompetitive peptide inhibitor of thenicotinic acetylcholine receptor from Conuspurpurascens venom. Biochemistry 31, 9581-9587.

ter Haar, E., Kowalski, R.J., Hamel, E., Lin, C.M.,Longley, R.E., Gunasekera, S.P., Rosenkranz, H.S.,and Day, B.W. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 243-250.

Wright, A.E., Forleo, D.A., Gunawardana, G.P.,Gunasekera, S.P., Koehn, F.E., and McConnell, O.J.(1990) Antitumor tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloidsfrom the colonial ascidian Ecteinascidia turbinata.Journal of Organic Chemistry 55, 4508-4512.

105


EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR U.S. MARINE BIOTECHNOLOGY

Robert W. Knecht*, Biliana-Cicin-Sain, and Dosoo Jang***Center for the Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Biotechnology has become a rapidly burgeoningindustry worldwide.1 It is expected to have profoundimpacts on health, agriculture, and aquaculture, byimproving food products, enhancing environmentalbioremediation, curing fatal diseases, and bringingpotential socio-economic changes. Although still inthe incipient stage, the field of biotechnology standsat the threshold ofthe next ‘biotechcentury.’2

It is assumed thatmost of the issuesapplicable to thebiotechnology fieldin general will alsobe applicable tomarine biotechnol-ogy, because thelatter can simply bedefined as biotech-nology applied tomarine livingorganisms.3 Ma-rine biotechnologyhas recently been embraced as a field of great poten-tial by molecular biologists and by the biotechnologyindustry because the oceans, covering nearly 70% ofthe earth surface and comprising 90-95% of thebiosphere by volume of living organisms on earth,4

contain a tremendous range of diverse biologicalresources and unique resources and conditions—forexample, the largely unexplored deep-sea hydrother-mal vents, and extreme ocean environments such ascold polar waters and the deep ocean floor character-ized by intense pressure.5

In spite of the increasing attention on the part ofmolecular scientists and industry on the potentialdevelopment of marine biotechnology, there are nocoherent guidelines, framework conventions, guidingnorms or principles to specifically govern the con-duct of marine biotechnology development neither inthe United States nor in other countries. A numberof existing international agreements related tomaritime jurisdictions, protection of biodiversity, andintellectual property, however, will significantly

affect the operations of the U.S. marine biotechnol-ogy industry both in the U.S. and in the jurisdictionsof other nations.

We see three important emerging issues or challengeswhich will affect the path of development of themarine biotechnology industry: 1) access to marine

resources/organisms; 2) biosafety; and3) intellectual property rights.

Issues of Access to Marine GeneticResources/Organisms

The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)6 and the 1982 Law of the SeaConvention (LOS Convention) areimportant treaties in the emerginginternational marine biotechnologyfield. The regime for governing accessto marine resources/organisms underthe jurisdiction of coastal nations formarine biotechnology purposes (bothfor samples and experimental researchand for harvesting and productionpurposes) is in the process of redefini-

tion. Traditionally, access to marine resources/organisms found within other nations’ 200-mileExclusive Economic Zones has been relatively easyand was governed under the terms of the 1982 LOSConvention which entered into force in 1994. Ar-ticles 237 through 265 provide that nations conduct-ing scientific research get advance permission fromthe coastal nations in whose ocean zones suchresearch is to take place. Provisions for sharing ofbenefits derived from the research under the LOSConvention only call for such measures as promotionof the flow of scientific data and information, thetransfer of knowledge resulting from marine scien-tific research (especially to developing states), andthe strengthening of autonomous marine scienceresearch capability of developing states (such asincluding local scientists in research cruises).

In contrast, the CBD paves new ground in interna-tional norms governing access to genetic resources,defined as “genetic material of actual or potentialvalue.” The Convention calls for the conservation of

Marine biotechnology hasrecently been embracedas a field of great poten-tial by molecular biologistsand by the biotechnologyindustry because theoceans...contain a tre-mendous range of diversebiological resources andunique resources andconditions...

106


biological diversity, the sustainable use of its compo-nents, and the fair and equitable sharing of thebenefits arising out of the utilization of geneticresources. The CBD recognizes the sovereign right ofnations to control access to their genetic resources,and requires the users of genetic resources to takemeasures to promote equitable sharing of the ben-efits, including technologies, with the providers ofthose resources.

There is thus a current need to harmonize the provi-sions of the LOS Convention and the CBD regardingmarine biotechnology prospecting and any follow-onactivities that may be involved. It would seemdesirable, from the standpoint of the development ofthe field of marinebiotechnology, forcoastal nations toagree on the proper-ties of a unifiedregime governingaccess to marineorganisms, andperhaps, formalize itas a protocol to theCBD. As part of thedevelopment of sucha protocol, nationswill have to face thedifficult question ofvaluing the informa-tion containedwithin particular marine organisms relative to the R& D investment of the prospecting firm (both beforeand after prospecting) as it attempts to decode theorganisms, determine any unique properties theypossess, and where it can, develop those uniqueattributes into useful products or services.

Another important issue relates to access to marinegenetic resources/organisms in the deep seabed.There is a controversy whether the exploitation ofhyperthermophiles in the deep seabed would fallunder the LOS regime regarding marine scientificresearch, the deep seabed mining regime, the highseas fisheries regime, or whether a new regime isneeded.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is not currently in a positionto play an effective international role in harmonizingthe provisions of the LOS Convention and theBiodiversity Convention concerning marine biotech-nology since it is not yet a party to either convention.While the U.S. can participate as an observer at themeetings of both conventions, in the continued

absence of ratification of these treaties, it will bedifficult for the nation to significantly affect theinterpretation and implementation of these conven-tions.

Issues of Biosafety

The greatest controversies surrounding the issue ofsafety in biotechnology (or “biosafety” as the issuehas become known) have focused on the develop-ment of living modified organisms (LMOs) throughmodern biotechnology techniques. Contained useand field release have been distinguished as the maincategories of intended use of LMOs. Biotechnologyhas been developed and applied under contained

conditions since the early 1970s, andfor direct applications and release inthe environment since the mid-1980s.Under contained conditions, LMOsare developed and employed forresearch purposes and are regulatedby well-established risk-managementtechniques for work in a laboratoryenvironment. The field testing ofLMOs, on the other hand, continuesto pose questions about the interac-tion of LMOs with natural ecosys-tems, such as with respect to: possibleunintended changes in the competi-tiveness of natural species; virulenceor other characteristics of targetedspecies; possibility of adverse impact

on non-targeted species and ecosystems; stability ofthe inserted genes.

Internationally, there are as yet no binding interna-tional agreements to address the transboundarymovement of LMOs. However, given the rapiddevelopment in the use of biotechnology, the lack ofsufficient knowledge regarding the interactionbetween LMOs and the environment, the problemswhich may exist with LMO transboundary move-ment, and growing concern of the developingcountries (the major source of genetic raw materials)that they could be used as LMO testing grounds,there is currently a major effort underway to developan international agreement on safety in biotechnol-ogy. This is taking place under the aegis of theConvention on Biological Diversity, which calls for“the safe transfer, handling, and use of any livingmodified organisms resulting from modern biotech-nology.” CBD’s Article 8(g) requires contractingparties to “establish or maintain means to regulate,manage, or control the risks associated with the useand release of living modified organisms resulting

...there is currently a majoreffort underway to de-velop an internationalagreement on safety inbiotechnology...whichcalls for “the safe transfer,handling, and use of anyliving modified organismsresulting from modernbiotechnology.”

107


from biotechnology which are likely to have adverseenvironmental impacts that could affect the conser-vation and sustainable use of biological diversity,taking also into account the risks to human health,”and, in the past several years, negotiations have beenunderway to produce a legally-binding protocol onbiosafety under the CBD.

After the Sixth Meeting of the Open-Ended Ad HocWorking Group on Biosafety (BSWG-6) held fromFebruary 14 to 22, 1999, in Cartagena, Colombia, thefirst Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference ofParties (Ex-COP) to the CBD was held February 22-23, 1999, at the same venue and attempted to finalizea protocol on biosafety for adoption by the ExCOP,but failed to pass it. The main areas of controversywere trade issues, treatment of commodities anddomestic vs. international regulatory regimes. Thecontinued debate on a protocol on biosafety will betransmitted to the resumed ExCOP session, no laterthan the fifth meeting of the Conference of theParties.7 Although the biosafety protocol has not yetbeen adopted, this attempt has catalyzed the atten-tion of the biotechnology industry and of countrieswhich have advanced biotechnology, in particular theU.S., because such a legally-binding treaty willgreatly affect an individual nation’s behavior and itsdomestic policies on biotechnology in the nextcentury.

Issues of Intellectual Property Rights

The issue of intellectual property rights (IPRs) is acontroversial subject in the context of the CBD,involving the developed nations (the North)—andgenerally those nations with advanced biotechnol-ogy— vis-à-vis the developing nations (the South)—generally nations endowed with rich genetic re-sources. The North wants stricter IPRs on newbiotechnology discoveries, which may guarantee thebiotech industry the recovery of their investmentsand costs, plus profits. In contrast, the South com-plains of inequitable sharing of benefits and lack ofguarantees for compensation for the utilization oftheir genetic resources.8

The issue of the protection of IPRs on biotechnologyis not an isolated phenomenon but is linked withissues of equitable benefit-sharing, compensation fortraditional indigenous knowledge, community rightson the ownership of genetic resources, and transfer oftechnology. Therefore, the South adheres adamantlyto the concept of a package deal, that IPRs must bedealt with as a cluster of all related issues, whereas

the North, in particular U.S. and OECD membernations, argue that IPRs must be treated as a separateissue.

In the past, six major international agreementsprovided the policy framework for internationalpatent law (from the Paris Convention in 1884, to theestablishment of the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization in 1970). More recently, adequatesystems of intellectual property rights are being seenas an important component of free trade and, assuch, are increasingly being dealt with in the WorldTrade Organization and GATT-related issues.

Traditionally, these intellectual property policieswere generally thought to be relevant only to indus-trial application, and not to the store of valuableknowledge held by indigenous peoples around theworld. Several of the international agreements andprescriptions emanating from the Earth Summit,especially the CBD and parts of Agenda 21, placestrong emphasis on the protection of indigenousknowledge, on the awarding of benefits for the use ofsuch knowledge, and on the transfer of technologiesto the developing world, including those protectedby patents and other intellectual property rights.

Novel forms of agreements are being negotiated, indifferent countries, among biotechnology companies,governments, NGOs, and the public, to governbioprospecting, with the aim of achieving a properbalance between protection of biodiversity resources,protection of industry’s interests, and protection ofthe public’s rights to receive benefits from theexploitation of public marine resources/organisms.Evaluating the pros and cons of different types ofagreements for bioprospecting and adapting appro-priate forms to the special needs and requirements ofthe U.S. marine biotechnology industry in its opera-tions in the U.S. and abroad is an important futurechallenge.

Work in progress

A detailed discussion of these issues may be found inPolicy Issues in the Development of Marine Biotechnol-ogy: Access, Biosafety, and Intellectual Property, which iscurrently in preparation by the authors. The book,based on work funded by the Sea Grant program,examines the relevant international and nationalpolicy frameworks, analyzes the perspectives ofvarious parties involved in these policy debates,including scientists working in the field, representa-tives of marine biotechnology companies, national

108


governments, international organizations, andinternational NGOs, especially from the developingworld. Topics covered include the development ofmarine biotechnology around the world; currentstatus of the marine biotechnology field; and issuesof access to marine organisms, biosafety, and intellec-tual property rights. A set of findings and recom-mendations to address policy issues in each of theareas noted above that attempt to balance the com-peting interests at stake are also presented.

Notes

1. FCCSET, (Federal Consulting Council for Science,Engineering, and Technology), Committee on LifeScience and Health. Biotechnology for the 21st Century:Realizing the Promise. Washington, DC.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1993; OTA (U.S. Congress Office ofTechnology Assessment). New Developments inBiotechnology. U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC., 1988; Rudolph, F. B. and McIntire,L. V. (eds.). Biotechnology: Science, Engineering, andEthical Challenges for the 21st Century. Joseph HenryPress: Washington DC., 1996.

2. Jeremy Rifkin. The Biotech Century: Harnessing theGene and Making the World. New York: Tarcher/Putnam, Inc. 1998, p. xii.

3. D. H. Attaway and O. R. Zaborsky. (eds). MarineBiotechnology: Volume I, Pharmaceuticals and BioactiveNatural Products. New York: Plenum. 1993.

4. P. Weber. “Abandoned seas: Reversing the declineof the oceans.” World Watch. Paper 116, November,1993, p.5 and D. A. Powers “New frontiers in marinebiotechnology: Opportunities for the 21st century.”In: Marine Biotechnology in the Asian Pacific Region(eds). C. G. Lundin and R. A. Zilinskas. The WorldBank and SIDA. Stockholm. 1995, p. 17.

5. NSTC (National Science and Technology Council).Biotechnology for the 21st Century: New Horizons. AReport from the Biotechnology Research Subcommit-tee under Committee on Fundamental Science,National Science and Technology Council, July, 1995,p. 49.

6. The Convention on Biological Diversity wasopened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, on 5 June 1992 and entered into forceon 29 December 1993.

7. hangbo Bai, Stas Burgiel, Chad Carpenter, JoannaDepledge, Leila Mead, and Lavanya Rajamani.“Report of the BSWG-6 and ExCOP Session to CBD,”Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol. 09, No. 117.

8. Raustiala, K. and Victor, D.G. “Biodiversity sinceRio: The future of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.” Environment, vol. 38, no. 4:17-45 (1996).

109

Trends and Future Issues in the Coastal States

Panel Four examined recent and projected trends at the state level. The scope of ocean issues ofconcern to coastal states is broadening. Concern about fisheries management, maritime and boatingissues, and direct involvement of local governments are new additions to what had been an agendaprimarily concerned with environmental impacts. States have recognized the importance of guidingcommunity development, conserving open space, discouraging sprawl development in rural areas,and protecting agricultural lands. However, it is also becoming clear that coastal communities needmore support for an improved capacity to efficiently plan for and manage growth and development.In addition, states are also broadening their focus to include “deep blue water” issues in their overallcoastal management efforts.

Building Capacity for Ocean Management: Recent Developments inU.S. West Coast States

Marc J. Hershman, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington

Coastal States’ ChallengesSarah Cooksey, State of Delaware and Chair, Coastal States Organization

Development of a Comprehensive Ocean Policy for FloridaJames F. Murley and Laura Cantral, Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee

4. Trends and Future Issues in the Coastal States

111


BUILDING CAPACITY FOR OCEAN MANAGEMENT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN U.S. WEST COAST STATES

Marc J. HershmanSchool of Marine Affairs, University of Washington

Introduction

In a recent paper (Hershman 1996) this authorsummarized the ocean management initiatives of tenUnited States coastal states. These states wereconsidered “activist” because, to varying degrees,they had taken steps to advance state policy, institu-tions, and management over the use ofthe ocean areas adjoining the state. Thepaper concluded that there was a trendtoward increased state-level participationin ocean management within the UnitedStates, and that this trend was likely tocontinue because the state’s role in theseissues had become institutionalized.States are active in the national CoastalZone Management (CZM) program, theNational Sanctuary program and inregional bodies dealing with fisheries andpollution control. I concluded that as newocean issues arise they are likely to be resolvedthrough new policies and institutions that increasestate responsibilities and powers. The purpose of thispaper is to report recent developments in the WestCoast states of California, Oregon and Hawaii todetermine how their role in ocean affairs has pro-gressed since 1996.

California

California reached a major milestone in March 1997,with the issuance of “California’s Ocean Resources:An Agenda for the Future” (the Ocean Agenda)(Wilson and Wheeler 1997). This comprehensivepolicy was developed by state government officialswith broad-based participation from many sectors. Itassesses the current situation in California’s oceanwaters from legal, economic, institutional, andscientific perspectives. It identifies four over-archinggoals, details the economic importance of oceanresources to the state, describes the ocean ecosystem,lists the responsible management agencies, and offersrecommended directions for the future in ninesubstantive issue areas. The recommendationsaddress such issues as the need for better resourceinventories, a better system of managed areas,improved fisheries management, and many others.

The report, which took 5 years to develop, waspresented and discussed at a statewide conferenceinvolving over 800 people.

In conjunction with the report’s release and theconference, about 50 bills were introduced into thelegislature, and 15 became law in 1997 (dubbed the

“Coastal Flotilla” ofbills by the environ-mental organiza-tions partly respon-sible for advancingthem). These dealwith a range ofissues addressingfisheries, waterquality, habitatprotection, andshoreline erosion. In1998, the Marine

Life Protection Act was adopted. This legislationstrives to reform fisheries management for selectedfisheries and to change the standards and proceduresfor fisheries management. It sets up pilot fisherymanagement plans, restores professional manage-ment to the fisheries agency, and calls for an ecosys-tem approach to management.

Parallel to the legislative activity, the Governorissued Executive Order W-162-97 implementingmany of the goals from the Ocean Agenda. TheExecutive Order calls for an inventory of waterquality monitoring programs, development of amaritime policy through a special Executive Order, acomprehensive review of living resources manage-ment programs, an analysis of Federal agencyresponsibilities, an ocean information system, and aresearch agenda. The responsible agency for eachgoal is identified and due dates listed.

Many of these actions have been taken. A statewideMaritime Policy (Ex. Order W-182 -98) designed tostrengthen the state’s role in port-related issues wassigned on August 28, 1998. The analysis of federalresponsibilities was completed in June of 1998(Wheeler and Rooney 1998). The ocean informationsystem is now available on the web (ceres.ca.gov/

...as new ocean issuesarise they are likely tobe resolved throughnew policies and insti-tutions that increasestate responsibilitiesand powers.

112


ocean). The state’s Sea Grant Advisory Panel hasidentified the ocean research needs to support theplan. The inventory of water quality monitoringprograms and the living resources review are still inprogress (Baird 1999). (With a new Governor takingoffice in California, it can be assumed that some ofthese initiatives will be re-examined).

Finally, the state announced $3.6 million in grants tolocal governments under the coastal resources grantprogram, which under a 1996 law redefined thedistribution of offshore OCS revenues and reducedlocal cost-sharing requirements (California,Governor’s Office 1998). The 32 projects receivingfunds are in the central coast region (in proximity toocean areas where offshore oil and gas activityoccurs) and address diverse needs such as impactreduction, acquisition, restoration, fishing, and waterquality improvements.

Oregon

Oregon’s ocean affairs over the past 3 years havecentered on implementation of the Territorial SeaPlan (TSP) of 1994 (Oregon Ocean Policy AdvisoryCouncil 1994). The TSP establishes a managementframework, a process for making resource usedecisions, and a strategy for the rocky shore environ-ments along the Oregon outer coast. The organiza-tion responsible for overseeing the plan is the OceanPolicy Advisory Council (OPAC), a broadly represen-tative group. Implementation of the plan occursprimarily through various state agencies. A new rolefor local governments is emerging. The OregonCoastal Management Program (OCMP) provides thetechnical, administrative, and legal support neces-sary for effective implementation (Bailey 1999).

The OPAC is currently undertaking a comprehensivereview of the TSP for the purpose of clarifying policy.An example of one change is the rephrasing of thepolicy to protect renewable resources. The newpolicy being considered calls for “higher priority tobe given to the protection and conservation of livingmarine resources.” This statement of policy is in-tended to replace an earlier one that emphasized thepriority of renewable over non-renewable resourceuse.

State agencies have upgraded their regulation ofnear-shore areas in conformity to the TSP. Forexample, the Department of Fish and Wildlife hasissued regulations affecting fishing near rockyshores, the Department of State Lands has revisedtheir procedures for review of kelp harvesting, and

the State Parks Department has taken measures toprotect rocky shores.

The OCMP is facilitating a dispute between thefishing industry and those installing submarinecommunication cables. The intent is to proposepolicy recommendations to the OPAC for inclusion inthe TSP. These recommendations would address theways damage to fishing gear can be reduced, howfishing areas can remain open even in the vicinity ofcables, and procedures for establishing a fisheriescompensation fund.

Four local communities are beginning to use the TSPas a framework for resolving site-specific problems.Problem-solving is facilitated and supported by theOCMP using a consensus-based process. Once policyrecommendations are formulated, they are submittedto the OPAC for inclusion in the TSP. The communityplan that is farthest along addresses Cape Arago,near Coos Bay and North Bend. A 15-month policydevelopment process has been completed. Thepolicies strive to balance growing recreational andtourist use of the rocky shore environment with theprotection of marine creatures and their habitat. Aprimary recommendation is the establishment of anIntertidal Marine Protected Area. Plans for PortOrford, Cannon Beach/Ecola State Park, and New-port are being considered using the same approachas in the Cape Arago plan.

The OCMP promotes research to support implemen-tation of the TSP. They oversee the multi-year andinterdisciplinary Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosys-tem Regional Study, which studies the links betweenecological and socioeconomic systems. They are alsopromoting new research to address rock reef ecosys-tems cooperatively with California and Washington.

Hawaii

Hawaii adopted the Hawaii Ocean Resources Man-agement Plan (HORMP) in 1991. The plan was theguiding document for comprehensive ocean andcoastal resource management and contained 66policies and 364 implementing actions for the 10sectors and 16 designated agencies. During 1997, astatus report on the implementation of the plan wasproduced by the Hawaii Office of Planning (1998)and published early in the year. That report gave theplan a mixed review, noting that many sectorsranked high in priority but received little attention(e.g., research and education, ocean recreation,beaches, and coastal erosion) and that sectors likefisheries and energy received low priorities and little

113


implementation. They did note that the wastemanagement, marine minerals, and aquaculturesectors were being implemented appropriately giventhe status assigned to them.

The report addressed institutional issues as well,pointing out that in 5 of the 10 sectors identified nolead agency was assigned and as a result concertedefforts were lacking. They underscored the impor-tance of the Marine and Coastal Zone ManagementAdvisory Group (MACZMAG) as the forum “ideallysuited” to address the findings of the 1997 reviewand to coordinate more effective implementation ofthe HORMP.

The MACZMAG is required by law to advise on thestatus of the state’s CZM program and on the imple-mentation of the HORMP. MACZMAG has 20members, 6 non-governmental and 14 from local andstate agencies. The non-governmental members issuea separate report yearly to the legislature. In their1998 report, they point out the importance of morepublic awareness and participation in the work of theMACZMAG, and the need for greater independenceby the state CZM program. At least one membermade an impassioned plea for greater participationby state agencies and county officials in the work ofMACZMAG.

The Hawaiian legislature passed several laws in 1998dealing with management of marine fisheries. A WestHawaii Fishery Management Area (FMA) wasestablished, requiring the state DLNR to formulate aplan designating a minimum of 30% of the FMA as“no-take” zones and establishing a mooring buoysystem with no anchoring zones. The state’s Depart-ment of Aquatic Resources was given greaterrulemaking authority over certain fishing practices,and the law increased participation by fishers in theprocess. The state DLNR was given greater authorityto protect irresponsible fishing practices.

The legislature also addressed boating recreation in avariety of ways. Thrill craft regulation was extendedand a special advisory committee established toadvise on education and training requirements forthrill craft operators. The Hawaii Maritime Authoritywas set up to address statewide issues and to changethe management of small boat harbors (HB2998).

Hawaii addressed some challenging opportunities innew ocean uses during this 2-year period. The statewill be a key link in a new submarine cable connect-ing the United States, Australia and New Zealand,due to be completed in 1999. The use of offshore

floating platforms for many types of industry, and forlaunching communication satellites, is actively underevaluation and a site near Hawaii is being evaluatedby Boeing’s Sea Launch venture (but licensing issuesremain). Mariculture issues received continuingattention in the legislature, but most of the measuresdid not pass. One bill establishing an offshoremariculture demonstration site passed. Finally,acoustic impact issues from the Navy proposal formonitoring submarines is of great concern to Hawai-ian citizens.

It should be pointed out that many of the coastal andocean-related bills introduced into the Hawaiianlegislature in the last 2 years were sponsored by stateRepresentative David Tarnas, a specialist in coastaland ocean affairs. The fact that he was not re-electedin 1998 may slow legislative action on behalf ofcoastal issues.

As Hawaii addresses implementation of the HORMP,some larger issues play a critical role. The first is thechallenge of a stagnant economy. This reduces theability of the state to finance coastal and oceanprograms and pushes the state toward seeking novelavenues for economic development (such as leasingstate lands for mariculture and investing in marinebiotechnology). Next is the goal of Hawaii to expandits Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to include theremote islands of the archipelago. Should this cometo pass, it would greatly heighten the need forHawaii to improve its ocean management capacity toaccount for such issues as the Johnston Atoll Chemi-cal Agent Disposal Site.

Discussion

All three states have continued to advance an oceanprogram. In California, new initiatives came prima-rily from the executive branch, with considerableadditional leverage exerted by the powerful coastaland marine environmental NGO’s. In Oregon, thestate government apparatus centered in the OCMPpursued its implementation program systematicallywith considerable accomplishment. The Hawaiianefforts at the executive branch level are still some-what unfocused, and the legislative initiatives havebeen the primary vehicle for change.

Political and leadership changes can influenceprogress in a new subject area like ocean manage-ment. A new governor from a different political partyis entering office in California, and a key legislator inHawaii was not re-elected. (Similarly, a new gover-nor is taking office in Florida and the Governor’s

114


Ocean Committee established under Governor Chilesin 1997 likely will not survive). In California andHawaii, new shifts have occurred in assignment ofocean responsibilitiesto executive agencies,similar to shifts madein the past. Interest-ingly, the Oregonprogram seems tomaintain steadyprogress regardlessof political changessince it is firmlyrooted in a respectedprogram activity ofthe executive branch.As noted in theearlier article(Hershman 1996,p.33), organizationalchange and revision of policy documents havehindered progress. With the exception of Oregon thispattern may still dominate.

There appears to be a substantive shift in at leastthree areas. One of these is fisheries policy. Over thepast decade, issues centering on adverse impactsfrom offshore oil and gas, dumping or discharge ofpollutants, and other effects from industrial-typeuses primarily drove ocean policy development. Inoted in the earlier article that fisheries-related issueswere left untouched because of existing fisherymanagement agencies (Hershman 1996, p. 34).However, in the past two years all three states haveadopted new laws or policies dealing with fisheriesmanagement. California’s new law seeks to changefisheries management by promoting pilot projectsusing new techniques. Oregon agencies haveadopted new rules for rocky reef fisheries, and amajor research initiative is underway to betterunderstand ecosystem issues for rocky coasts.Hawaii has established a new fishery managementregime for the West Hawaii region that includesmandatory no-take zones and use of buoys ratherthan anchoring. Given the national and internationalpolitical attention to depletion of world fisheryresources, it is not surprising that the states shouldstart experimenting with new strategies.

A second policy shift since the last report is in thearea of local government involvement in oceanaffairs. Oregon has initiated local coastal planning forrocky shore areas, with the Cape Arago plan as thefirst to be completed. This strategy involves localcommunities in the evolution of the state’s territorial

sea plan. California’s coastal grants program pays forspecific projects, but there is no linkage with theOcean Agenda. An interesting development in

Washington State adds to this localgovernment emphasis. When theproposal for a national marine sanctuaryfor the Northwest Straits reachedpolitical roadblocks, the U.S. Congresspassed the Northwest Straits MarineConservation Initiative (Title IV, HR3461, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess.). This lawestablishes a new Northwest StraitsAdvisory Commission to pay for andcoordinate the planning efforts of sevenlocal governments in marine resourceprotection and restoration.

A third policy shift is in the area ofmaritime policy. California and Hawaiipassed new laws establishing maritime

policy for the state and designating responsibleagencies. California’s law was aimed at clarifying astate role in advancing the commercial ports of thestate, especially in areas like dredging policy,intermodal coordination, and environmental policy.Hawaii’s new maritime authority will strive to bringtogether the commercial shipping and recreationalboating interests of the state under a single indepen-dent public entity to improve planning and coordi-nated use of maritime resources.

Conclusion

The experience of these three states suggests that thescope of ocean issues of concern to coastal states isbroadening. Concern about fisheries management,maritime and boating issues, and direct involvementof local governments are new additions to what hadbeen an agenda primarily concerned with environ-mental impacts. For these three states, one couldconclude that their capacity for ocean managementhas improved since new laws and governmentalresponsibilities have been identified and added to thestates’ suite of management tools.

On the other hand, many of the cautionary com-ments mentioned in the 1996 paper still hold. Withthe exception of Oregon, there is considerable flux indefining responsibility for ocean issues in the states.Further, the states are dependent on federal pro-grams such as the national CZM program, theNational Marine Sanctuary program, and the Na-tional Sea Grant Program for much of their progress.This suggests that new initiatives often will bepartnerships between federal and state programs.

Concern about fisheriesmanagement, maritimeand boating issues, anddirect involvement oflocal governments arenew additions to whathad been an agendaprimarily concerned withenvironmental impacts.

115


These partnerships may restrain state initiatives butin return provide greater resources and stayingpower once a federal-state accommodation isreached. In fact, the institutional structure providedby federal programs may be the vehicle for overcom-ing the vicissitudes of state and local political forces.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Andrew Bennett and JenniferWadell for research assistance in this paper.

Literature Cited

Bailey, Bob, 1999. Telephone interview with AndrewBennett on 1/5/99.

Baird, Brian, 1999. Telephone interview with theauthor on 1/7/99.

California and the World Ocean, 1997. Proceedings of aconference in San Diego, CA, March 24 - 27, 1997. NewYork: American Society of Civil Engineers.

California, Governor’s Office, 1998. Press Release 98 -399: Governor Wilson announces $3.6 million to localgovernments. December 22, 1998.

Hawaii Ocean and Marine Resources Council, 1991.Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan. Honolulu:State of Hawaii, Dept. of Business, Economic Devel-opment and Tourism.

Hershman, Marc, 1996. Ocean management policydevelopment in subnational units of government:Examples from the United States. Ocean and CoastalManagement 31: 25 - 40.

Hawaii Office of Planning, 1998. Survey Overview andAnalysis of the Hawaii Ocean Resources ManagementPlan. Report to the Nineteenth Legislature of theState of Hawaii. Honolulu, January 1998.

Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council, 1994.Territorial Sea Plan. Portland: State of Oregon, LandConservation and Development Commission.

Wheeler, Douglas P, and Peter M. Rooney, 1998. Ananalysis of federal responsibilities related to ocean resourcemanagement in California. Sacramento: State of Califor-nia, Secretary for Resources and Secretary for Envi-ronmental Protection.

Wilson, Pete and Douglas P. Wheeler, 1997.California’s Ocean Resources: An Agenda for theFuture. Sacramento: State of California, The Re-sources Agency. (Available at “ceres.ca.gov/cra/ocean”)

117


COASTAL STATES’ CHALLENGES

Sarah CookseyState of Delaware and Chair, Coastal States Organization

Editor’s note: The following remarks represent theauthor’s dual capacity as the Administrator of the Divi-sion of Soil and Water of the Delaware Department ofNatural Resources and EnvironmentalConservation and as the current Chair of theCoastal States Organization (CSO). CSO wasformed in 1970 to represent the interests ofcoastal states, including territories andcommonwealths.

The Coastal Zone Management Challenge

As we seek to enhance our nation’sprosperity, revitalize communities andenhance economic development, we havea concurrent responsibility to address theincreased demands that growth anddevelopment places on our coastal re-sources.

Congress was prescient when in 1972 it passed theCoastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) providingincentives for states, on a voluntary basis, in coopera-tion with local governments

...to encourage and assist the states to exerciseeffectively their responsibilities in the coastal zonethrough the development and implementation ofmanagement programs to achieve the wise use ofthe land and water resources of the coastal zone,giving full consideration to ecological, cultural,historic, and esthetic values as well as the needsfor compatible economic development pro-grams...(16 USC 1452(2))

It is becoming increasingly clear the coastal commu-nities need more support for an improved capacity toefficiently plan for and manage growth and develop-ment. An increased commitment is needed if we aregoing to achieve cost-effective investment in publicinfrastructure; identify and encourage a compatiblemix of residential, commercial, and open-space uses;revitalize communities; and conserve and restorenatural resources.

States have recognized the importance of guidingcommunity development to make it more efficient,environmentally compatible, and integrated amongthe various government agencies. As of early 1998,

10 states have adopted comprehensive growthmanagement acts that establish more rigorousrequirements for local planning of community

development andfor related state andregional actions.States have alsorecognized theimportance ofconservation ofopen space, discour-aging sprawldevelopment inrural areas, andprotecting agricul-tural lands. Thepublic also hasindicated its strong

support for these initiatives. In 1998, nearly 200ballot initiatives were approved by voters in callingfor the management of development and the conser-vation of open space.

It is time for a major commitment through the CZMAto provide new and improved planning and manage-ment tools for local communities to help them betterunderstand and address the extremely complexeconomic and ecological dynamics of coastal systemsand communities.

Background

The CZMA incorporated the essential principles ofthe “smart growth” and “sustainable development”movements over 20 years before the terminologycame into vogue. It is not surprising that theseprinciples were recognized first as essential to propermanagement of coastal resources and developmentwhere the concentration of people and their demandfor the use of natural resources was most acute.

Providing suitable incentives and encouragingcooperation among the federal, state, and localgovernments is more important today than everbefore. Coastal areas become more crowded everyday. The rate of growth is fastest in coastal counties,where population densities are already five times thenational average. In addition to being home to over

It is becoming increas-ingly clear that coastalcommunities need moresupport for an improvedcapacity to efficientlyplan for and managegrowth and develop-ment.

118


50 percent of the U.S. population and most of itsmajor cities, economic activity in coastal areas is vitalto the nation–supporting 28.3 million jobs, incalcu-lable indirect economic benefits as well as directsupport for port and maritime trade, fisheries andmariculture industry, travel, recreation and tourism,oil and gas development; and, other ocean andcoastal dependent industries.

The growingimportance ofwise coastalmanagement ineconomic andhuman terms wasdramaticallydemonstrated in1998 by theoutbreaks ofharmful algalblooms and theexpansion of the“dead zone” of theGulf coast, as wellas the extensivedamage thatresulted fromhurricanes and theeffects of El Ninoevents. Theseevents demonstrate the need for increased supportfor state and local efforts to control land-basedsources of coastal pollution and to improve planningfor coastal hazards. The potential impacts of humanactivities on coastal resources and conflicts amongthe competing uses for coastal resources will increasesubstantially in the years ahead as population anddevelopment increase.

The CZMA is the only federal statute which sets fortha comprehensive voluntary federal-state partnershipbased on the goal of maximizing sustainable eco-nomic and environmental objectives. The CZMAalso provides a framework to enhance integrationamong federal, state, and local governments, encour-age interagency coordination, provide incentives andassistance to communities, streamline the regulatoryprocess, and encourage proactive planning andcoastal management at the local level.

Summary of CSO’s proposals for Reauthorization ofthe CZMA in 1999

(1) Provide increased support for the develop-ment of new tools, which will build capacity at

the state and local level through technicalassistance and targeted support to states andcommunities, to implement place-based manage-ment in our nation’s critical coastal areas.

(2) Provide for increased support for state coastalprograms to address the cumulative and second-ary impacts of development and land-based

sources of polluted runoff.

(3) Provide funding under the CoastalZone Management Fund for regionallysignificant projects, internationalprojects, emergency response to coastalhazards, and innovative demonstrationprojects addressed at local communities.

(4) Clarify the role of and provideincrease support for the National Estua-rine Research Reserves and seek to buildcloser links to coastal program

(5) Enhance federal support for baseprograms under the CZMA consistentwith increased challenges and responsi-bilities, particularly in the nation’slargest states where base grants havebeen capped for the past seven yearsdespite substantial increases in state andlocal need.

What Are the Current Trends in Coastal Managementin the First State - Delaware?

Many things are happening in the Coastal Manage-ment arena:

We have almost completed construction of a 5,550-square-foot building for research and education forcoastal management, the first phase construction atour Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve.That building will be used for targeted, focusededucation and research for current CMP needs.

We have a new process to focus decision-making.Partnering with NOAA, Delaware Coastal Programshas institutionalized a method that uses internal andexternal experts and the public to problem solve in amuch shorter time frame. Successful projects thathave used this process include the Pea Patch IslandSpecial Area Management Plan, COMPAS Delaware:Kent County Resource Protection Module, Dredgingin Delaware, and Delaware Coastal Zone Act Envi-ronmental Indicators Project). The process recog-nizes the importance of good planning, but is ori-

The growing importance ofwise coastal managementin economic and humanterms was dramaticallydemonstrated in 1998 bythe outbreaks of harmfulalgal blooms and the ex-pansion of the “deadzone” of the Gulf coast, aswell as the extensive dam-age that resulted fromhurricanes and the effectsof El Niño events.

119


ented toward implementation of methods to providefor reasonable growth and development whileconserving and protecting our irreplaceable coastalresources.

121


DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN POLICY FOR FLORIDA

James F. Murley and Laura CantralFlorida Governor’s Ocean Committee

Background

The state of Florida is a thin strip of land measuringnearly 35.7 million acres, and bounded on three sidesby the ocean. Approximately 8,400 miles of tidalcoastline wrap around it, and off its southern tip liethe only living coral reefs in NorthAmerica – third largest in the world.Florida’s territorial waters stretch for 3miles off the Atlantic coast and 3 marineleagues in the Gulf of Mexico, withapproximately 6 million acres of sub-merged lands underneath. Withoutdoubt, Florida’s ocean is its mostdistinctive feature.

Much of that distinction lies in theocean’s cultural, environmental, andeconomic importance. Florida’s veryidentity is intimately linked to theocean; millions come to the state toexperience the ocean’s ability to relax,rejuvenate, comfort, and inspire. Inaddition to its intangible powers, the ocean is liter-ally life-giving. It is the source of oxygen we breathe,water we drink, food we eat, and medicines thatmaintain our health. As an economic engine, it is thebasis for some of Florida’s most important industries,including fishing, shipping, and tourism. But whileits abilities are great and its resources vast, they arenot inexhaustible. Increasing demands for Florida’socean resources, coupled with an ever-growingability to recover those resources, are threatening thehealth and vitality of Florida’s ocean.

When the United Nations proclaimed 1998 to be theInternational Year of the Ocean, it provided anexcellent opportunity to highlight the importance ofthe ocean to life on this planet. The proclamationspurred many efforts and activities aimed at raisingawareness of the ocean’s value, and encouragedindividuals, organizations, and governments to lookfor ways to make changes needed to sustain theworld’s precious ocean resources.

Following that lead, the late Governor Lawton Chilesproclaimed 1998 the Year of the Ocean for Florida,and encouraged the state to focus on the importanceof the ocean to its cultural, economic, and environ-

mental health. Governor Chiles also appointed theFlorida Governor’s Ocean Committee (FGOC). ThisCommittee is responsible for promoting publicawareness of the significance of the ocean to Florida,as well as guiding the state’s efforts to develop andimplement a coordinated and comprehensive ocean

resources manage-ment strategy.

This article discussesFlorida’s efforts todevelop an oceanmanagement ap-proach that is coordi-nated and comprehen-sive, and that canaccount for a widevariety of uses andactivities. It includes abrief history of thecurrent ocean plan-ning initiative,describes the prelimi-

nary projects that laid the groundwork for thecreation of the Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee,and summarizes the Committee’s work to date.

History

Impetus for developing an ocean managementstrategy for Florida began with the Florida CoastalManagement Program (FCMP), which is housed inthe state’s Department of Community Affairs. TheProgram’s motivation sprang from a number offactors. For example, even though in recent years thestate has made great progress in terms of responsiblemanagement of Florida’s coastlines and near-shorewaters, management of offshore resources continuesto be conducted on an issue-by-issue basis, oftenwith conflicting and contradictory results. As thecoordinating agency for the nine state agencies thatregulate coastal activities, it became apparent to theFCMP that the state needs an integrated frameworkto manage offshore ocean resources and to eliminateinconsistencies between different agency responsi-bilities. Furthermore, through administration of thefederal consistency review process, it became clear tothe FCMP that there are conflicts between privateand public activities–for example, between fishing

Increasing demandsfor Florida’s oceanresources, coupledwith an ever-growingability to recover thoseresources, are threat-ening the health andvitality of Florida’socean.

122


activities and military missile testing over the Gulf ofMexico.

In addition, the need for an ocean managementstructure could be seen through the analysis ofimportant emerging trends in the state.Information from a number of sources,including the FCMP’s own trend reports,Florida Assessment of Coastal Trendsand The State of the Coast, has consis-tently maintained that pressures oncoastal and ocean resources will continueto grow as transportation needs, boatingactivity, tourism, and population growthall increase at astronomical rates.

Finally, influences outside the state had abearing on FCMP’s decision to initiateocean planning efforts for Florida. Byrecognizing the need to address “deepblue water” issues, Florida joined theefforts of several other state coastalmanagement programs, includingOregon, California, Hawaii, Maine,Massachusetts, and North Carolina, infocusing attention on offshore resources and activi-ties and including them in their overall coastalmanagement efforts. Provisions in Section 309 of thefederal Coastal Zone Management Act, whichauthorize the use of federal coastal zone funds tosupport ocean policy projects, helped enable theFCMP to fund a series of preliminary projects todevelop an understanding and appreciation of theneed for comprehensive ocean resource manage-ment. With the Year of the Ocean proclamations, thetime was ripe for a policy dialogue on ocean issues.

Preliminary Projects

To give shape and direction to the ocean manage-ment effort, the FCMP funded a series of preliminaryprojects that were designed to provide not onlybaseline data on the status of Florida ocean resources,but also to generate support for ocean planning andultimately to justify the creation of a high-level groupthat would be charged with developing coordinatedocean governance strategies for the state, includingthe means to ensure their implementation.

The first in a series of three preliminary projects is acomprehensive analysis of the status of marine lawand policy in Florida. Looking Seaward: Develop-ment of a State Ocean Policy for Florida updates anearlier study completed in 1989, and is a detailedoverview and assessment of law and policy related tothe management of Florida’s “deep blue water”

ocean resources. With financial support from theFCMP, the report was developed by the Florida StateUniversity College of Law, and provides backgroundand perspective on ocean issues. It also summarizesthe ocean management efforts of other states, reviews

federal and state lawand policy regardingFlorida’s oceanresources, and offerssuggestions forimproving thestate’s managerialregime.

The second prelimi-nary project isentitled the State-wide Ocean Re-source Inventory(SORI). Comple-menting LookingSeaward’s focus onlegal and policyissues surroundingocean resources,

SORI is designed for use by the marine resourcemanagement community and attempts to provideaccurate and up-to-date information about oceanresources. Funded by the FCMP and developed bythe Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection’s research arm, the Florida Marine Re-search Institute (FMRI), SORI is an ArcView-basedGeographic Information System (GIS). Using datacompiled by and permanently housed at FMRI, SORIenables a user with World Wide Web access to viewand download existing ocean resource information.While it does not contain all the data ever collectedon ocean resources, it continues to grow and evolve,and is a valuable tool to help policy-makers identifywhat is known and what is not known aboutFlorida’s ocean resources.

While the first two projects addressed legal andpolicy issues surrounding ocean resources and theresources themselves, the third in the series ofpreliminary projects focused on ocean users andmanagement issues related to the use and protectionof Florida’s ocean resources. Invited by the ExecutiveOffice of the Governor and the Florida CoastalManagement Program, the Florida Ocean PolicyRoundtable was comprised of state agency represen-tatives, maritime industry professionals, and techni-cal experts – all knowledgeable about the numerousissues facing Florida’s offshore areas. The purpose ofthe Roundtable meetings was to encourage discus-sion at the state level concerning ocean resource

By recognizing the needto address “deep bluewater” issues, Floridajoined the efforts ofseveral other statecoastal managementprograms... in focusingattention on offshoreresources and activitiesand including them intheir overall coastalmanagement efforts.

123


management in Florida and to identify current andpotential problems and conflicts that result from theexisting management regime. The participantsidentified numerous issues, including issues relatedto marine habitat, water quality, fisheries manage-ment, oil and gas development, boating and marinerecreation, as well as legal and policy issues andconservation and protection considerations. Of themany issues identified by the Roundtable as impor-tant and in need of consideration, fisheries manage-ment and marine habitat, the development of oceanenergy resources, and marine pollution were identi-fied as top priority issue areas.

With the preliminary projects complete, the next steptoward the development of a comprehensive oceanmanagement strategy was the formation of a formalpolicy committee, known as the Florida Governor’sOcean Committee (FGOC). To assist the FGOC, afinal discussion piece was prepared – a synthesisdocument entitled Florida’s Ocean Horizon. In-tended to be a coherent package that conveys thechallenges and opportunities facing Florida as itdevelops a comprehensive ocean policy, the docu-ment describes and offers highlights from LookingSeaward, SORI, and the Ocean Policy Roundtable.While not intended to dictate to the FGOC whatissues it should consider, it served as a point ofdeparture for the Committee’s discussions by focus-ing on the three priority issue areas as identified bythe Roundtable.

The Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee

The Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee wascreated by executive order on January 9, 1998. TheCommittee is composed of 24 members representinggovernment, conservation, education, science,recreation, and business interests. The FGOC ischaired by University of South Florida PresidentBetty Castor. It is assisted by 6 ex officio membersrepresenting federal agencies, and is staffed by theFlorida Coastal Management Program, Florida StateUniversity, and 1000 Friends of Florida. Processdesign and facilitation services for the Committee’smeetings are provided by the Florida ConflictResolution Consortium.

The FGOC is charged with several important respon-sibilities including identification of instances wherecurrent responses to ocean issues are inadequate orconflicting; development of strategies that addressthose inadequacies or conflicts; improvement ofcoordination of management efforts by local, state,and federal governments; and, finally, promotion of

public awareness of the importance of the ocean toFlorida.

The first challenge facing the FGOC was how toorganize its consideration of Florida’s many oceanissues. Consequently, considerable effort was put intodeveloping a structure for the Committee’s discus-sions and a process for formulating a package ofrecommendations to the Governor. Using the priorityissues identified by the Ocean Policy Roundtable as aframe of reference, the discussion of the issues wasorganized into three broad issue areas: environmen-tal protection, living marine resources, and economicdevelopment. In addition, issues related to intergov-ernmental coordination and public outreach andeducation were added to the Committee’s work plan.

The Florida Governor’s Ocean Committee met forthe first time in February 1998. The Committee’swork is being conducted in two phases. Phase I,recently completed, explored the issues related toenvironmental protection, living marine resources,economic development, intergovernmental coordina-tion, and public outreach and education through thecourse of five full committee meetings and numeroussmall working group meetings. The result is thedevelopment of two documents. The first, entitledFlorida’s Ocean Challenges, is a companion to theCommittee’s earlier discussion piece, Florida’s OceanHorizon, and serves as the Committee’s interimprogress report to the Governor. The report describeswhat the Committee sees as Florida’s “Ocean Assets”– those resources that make a valuable contributionto the state’s quality of life – such as living marineresources, recreation and tourism, ports, nationaldefense operations, and marine education andresearch capacity. The report also includes what theCommittee sees as “Ocean Management Challenges”– those issues, conflicts, or problems that threaten thehealth of Florida’s ocean resources. Consideration ofthose ocean assets and challenges forms the basis forthe development of “Ocean Management Strate-gies”–recommendations about actions the state cantake to better manage ocean resources in a way thatbalances protection with reasonable and responsibleuse.

The Ocean Management Strategies are contained inthe Committee’s Draft Final Report. They are orga-nized into five broad categories that address:

• Improving information on and understanding ofocean resources

124


• Creating an improved ocean managementframework that is more coordinated and compre-hensive

• Achieving and sustaining diverse marine ecosys-tems that are capable of supporting multiple uses

• Raising awareness, promoting education, andfostering stewardship of the ocean

• Facilitating greater financial support for oceanresearch, education, and management

Each strategy contains a number of recommendedspecific actions aimed at implementing the oceanmanagement strategies, including suggestions forstate agencies that should play a lead or implement-ing role in executing strategies and specific actions.

In addition, the Committee has proposed one“Overarching Recommendation.” It recommendsthat the Florida Legislature create a Florida OceanCouncil to provide leadership on ocean issues,coordinate ocean resource management, and identifypriorities for research, education, and informationneeds. The Council would be a nonregulatoryoversight group, with the primary purpose ofproviding clear policy direction on ocean issues andreducing duplication among agencies with responsi-bility for managing ocean resources and activities.

The Draft Final Report will be the focus of Phase II ofthe Committee’s work, which will consist of adedicated public outreach effort and the refinementof the draft. The draft will be presented to GovernorBush, state and federal agencies, and the public forcomment and refinement in the early months of 1999.The Committee will then meet again in Spring 1999to review the public comments and make necessaryadjustments to the Draft Final Report before finaliz-ing the report and delivering it to the Governor onJune 30, 1999.

Conclusion

As of this writing, the Committee is preparing for itsnext meeting, during which it will reach consensusupon and formally adopt its Draft Final Report. Stategovernment is presently in a period of transition;Florida’s new governor was inaugurated on January5, 1999. With a new administration and many legisla-tive changes, there is some uncertainty about the nextsteps for implementing the FGOC’s work. There is,however, a surprising amount of consensus amongthe Committee members on what the important goals

and strategies should be. In addition, there is strongCommittee support for establishing a nonprofitgroup to advocate for ocean issues and education.Finally, there is a move to have the FGOC appointedby the Legislature as the Florida Ocean Study Com-mission, with a one-year term to further refine anddevelop recommendations. In any event, the workthat has been done so far lays a solid foundation forfuture efforts. Through the leadership of the FGOC,Florida stands poised to develop a truly comprehen-sive ocean management strategy. As a result, the statewill be able to better manage its ocean resources andensure that future generations will have a healthy,vital ocean to depend upon and to enjoy.

125

Workshop Participant Biographies

Tundi Spring Agardy

Tundi Spring Agardy joined Conservation Interna-tional in June 1997. As Senior Director of Coastal andMarine Programs, she oversees CI’s global marineconservation work and provides the organizationcounsel on marine policy and science. Throughresearch and applied work in tropical marine ecologyand biodiversity conservation, Tundi has institutedmarine protected areas and other coastal manage-ment measures around the world. She is author ofMarine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation, acomprehensive treatise published by Academic Press,UNESCO’s Guidelines on Coastal Biosphere ReservePlanning, numerous scientific publications on marinebiodiversity, species conservation, and marineprotected areas, and several other popular andtechnical books on the sea.

Tundi is an avid diver and has done extensive marineresearch and surveys in many parts of the globe. Inher current capacity as Senior Director at Conserva-tion International and her former position as SeniorScientist at WWF, and as an independent consultantto the World Bank, UNDP, and private consultingfirms, she has undertaken field research in Algeria,the Black Sea region, Canada, Cape Verde, through-out the Caribbean, Guinea Bissau, Indonesia, Mexico,Papua New Guinea, Tanzania and Zanzibar. Prior tocoming to Washington, Tundi spent three years as aresearch fellow/scientist at the Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institution. She received her Ph.D. inBiological Sciences and her Masters in Marine Affairsfrom the University of Rhode Island, and did herundergraduate work at Wellesley and DartmouthColleges.

Don Boesch

Don Boesch is a Professor in and President of theUniversity of Maryland Center for EnvironmentalScience. Previously, he was the first ExecutiveDirector of the Louisiana Universities Marine Con-sortium, and was Professor of Marine Science atLouisiana State University. An internationallyknown marine ecologist, he has conducted researchin coastal and continental shelf environments alongthe Atlantic Coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico, easternAustralia and the East China Sea.

Don Boesch is particularly active in extendingknowledge to environmental and resource manage-

ment at regional, national and international levels.He is a science advisor to the Chesapeake BayProgram and to Maryland agencies and in suchdiverse regions as Alaska, San Francisco Bay, South-ern California, coastal Louisiana and south Florida.Over a twelve-year period he was a member of theMarine Board and the Ocean Studies Board of theNational Research Council, chairing committees thatproduced significant reports on marine environmen-tal monitoring, ecosystem science and coastal scienceand policy. He has served on numerous agencyadvisory committees and currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Governing Board of the Consortium forOcean Research and Education (CORE).

Charles A. Bookman

Charles A. Bookman (Charlie) works with the SpecialProjects Office of NOAA’s National Ocean Service,where he is responsible for the National Dialogues onCoastal Stewardship.

Last year, Charlie directed the Year of the OceanProject at The Heinz Center, which brought togetherleaders from industry, government, academia andenvironmental organizations to address the nation’sstake in the oceans. “Our Ocean Future,” the reportof that effort, has been widely discussed.

Charlie directed the Marine Board of the NationalResearch Council from 1986-1997. The Marine Boardorganized teams and implemented more than 80high-level assessments of important national issuesaffecting oceans and coasts. The activities of theMarine Board were supported by 24 governmentagencies.

Charlie is a graduate of the URI Marine Affairsprogram and also Columbia University. He con-ducted oceanographic research at Lamont-DohertyEarth Observatory of Columbia University, andhelped develop the Maryland Coastal Zone Manage-ment Program. He is a past director and member ofthe executive committee of the Marine TechnologySociety and also the Society of Naval Architects andMarine Engineers.

Susan Bunsick

Susan Bunsick is pursuing a Master’s degree inmarine policy at the University of Delaware, whereshe is focusing on policy issues in the development

Appendix I. Biographies of Authors and Moderators

126


of offshore marine aquaculture in the United States.Earlier, she spent many years working in Washing-ton, D.C., most recently as a consultant in interna-tional energy for the U.S. Energy Information Admin-istration. Ms. Bunsick holds an M.A. in Public Affairsfrom the George Washington University and a B.A. inPublic Service from the Pennsylvania State Univer-sity.

Laura Cantral

Laura Cantral is a consultant in Tallahassee, Florida.She has worked in the coastal and ocean manage-ment field for more than ten years. Her primarywork experience has been related to ocean policyissues, and she serves as a legal and policy advisorthrough research, writing, workshops, and confer-ences. Her academic training is in law, and she hastaught legal research and writing. She also conductsworkshops on enhancing communication andleadership skills for scientists and resource manag-ers. Cantral works closely with NGOs and publicsector entities, including academics, managers,policy-makers, and scientists, to address a variety ofissues related to understanding, using, and manag-ing coastal and marine resources.

Biliana Cicin-Sain

Biliana Cicin-Sain is Professor of Marine Policy in theGraduate College of Marine Studies at the Universityof Delaware where she also holds a joint appoint-ment in the Department of Political Science and inthe School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy.Professor Cicin-Sain serves as Co-Director of theCenter for the Study of Marine Policy and as Editor-in-Chief of Ocean and Coastal Management, aninternational journal devoted to the analysis of allaspects of ocean and coastal management. She chairsthe Secretariat of the Ocean Governance Study Groupand has written many articles and books on coastaland ocean governance; most recently, IntegratedCoastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices(1998), and The Future of U.S. Ocean Policy: Choices forthe New Century (1999).

Among her current advisory positions, she is aconsultant to the United Nations (UNESCO), theWorld Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank,and NOAA, and serves on the Marine Board, Na-tional Research Council, and the Department ofInterior’s Scientific Committee on the Outer Conti-nental Shelf. She has a PhD in political science fromUCLA and has done postdoctoral work at HarvardUniversity.

Sarah Cooksey

Sarah Cooksey is an Environmental Program Admin-istrator for the State of Delaware’s Coastal Manage-ment Programs. Since 1992, Ms. Cooksey has beenresponsible for ensuring that federal and state actionsare consistent with state policies to provide reason-able growth and development while conserving andprotecting Delaware’s irreplaceable coastal resources.She utilizes Delaware’s National Estuarine ResearchReserve as a field site to implement research andeducation to better coastal management. She wasrecently elected by her peers to serve as Chair of theCoastal States Organization. CSO represents Gover-nors of coastal states, islands and territories onimportant coastal issues.

Prior to working for the State of Delaware, Sarahworked at the United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency in Washington, D.C. At EPA she workedon industrial and municipal National PollutionDischarge Elimination System permits, specializingin water quality based effluent controls. Sarah has aMasters Degree in Biology from Towson StateUniversity. She is married, has two young sons andenjoys spending time with her family at the beachand in the garden.

Thomas J. Culliton

Thomas J. Culliton is a Physical Scientist in theSpecial Projects Office of NOAA’s National OceanService. Mr. Culliton has led or participated prima-rily on marine assessment, marine monitoring andintegrated coastal management projects during his14-year tenure at NOAA. He has also workedextensively on planning activities associated withNOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program. Hehas authored several papers related to populationand development in coastal areas. He holds both anMA in geography and a BS in physical geographyfrom the University of Maryland.

Richard Delaney

Richard Delaney is the Director of the Urban HarborsInstitute. The Institute was founded in 1989 at theUniversity of Massachusetts, Boston. It is a publicpolicy and scientific research institute dedicated topublic service, research and education. The Instituteconducts multidisciplinary research on urban harborplanning issues ranging from water quality andcoastal resource protection to harbor managementand port planning. Previously, Mr. Delaney has

127


served as President of the Coastal States Organiza-tion and as Director of the Massachusetts coastalzone management program.

Rick DeVoe

Rick DeVoe is Executive Director of the SouthCarolina Sea Grant Consortium, Research Associateof the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biologyand Coastal Research at the University of SouthCarolina, and Associate Faculty Member of theGraduate Program in Marine Biology at the Univer-sity of Charleston, S.C. He earned degrees fromFairleigh Dickinson University (B.S. in MarineBiology), CUNY/City College of New York (M.S. inBiological Oceanography), and the University ofRhode Island (M.M.A. in Marine Affairs).

DeVoe was involved in establishing the agency’sprogrammatic and procedural protocols for adminis-tering and managing the Consortium’s grant pro-grams. Now, as Consortium Executive Director, heserves as the Principal Investigator for the state SeaGrant Program and other Consortium federal, stateand private grants, which totaled more than $4.1million in FY1998. DeVoe has also published articleson policy and management aspects of marine aquac-ulture development in South Carolina and the UnitedStates, and is currently involved in federal Sea Grantinitiatives in marine aquaculture and coastal naturalhazards.

Tim Eichenberg

Tim Eichenberg is Program Counsel for the Centerfor Marine Conservation in Washington D.C. and Co-Chair of the Clean Water Network, a coalition ofmore than 1000 organizations working to reauthorizethe Clean Water Act. He has served as Legal Counselfor the California Coastal Commission, the Environ-mental Defense Center, and the Marine Law Institute.He has written extensively on ocean and coastalissues, and has lectured at he University of MaineLaw School, Golden Gate University Law School,and the Environmental Law Institute. He is agraduate of the Washington University School ofLaw and Earlham College, and was a Post-DoctoralFellow in Marine Policy at the Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institution. He is a member of the Bar inCalifornia and the District of Columbia.

Nancy Foster

Nancy Foster, Ph.D., was recently appointed theAssistant Administrator for Ocean Services and

Coastal Zone Management. Prior to that she servedas the Deputy Assistant Administrator for theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,U.S. Department of Commerce. She also served asthe Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries fromJanuary through October 1993.

Dr. Foster received her M.S. in Marine Biology fromTexas Christian University and her Ph.D. in MarineBiology from the George Washington Universitywhere her doctoral research focused on the ecologyand systematics of polychaetous annelids. She beganher career with the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration in 1977, first with the Officeof Research and Development, followed by 9 years asthe Deputy Director then Director of the NationalMarine Sanctuary Program and the National Estua-rine Research Reserve Program.

Richard Grainger

Richard Grainger is Chief, Data and InformationService of the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations.

Allen Hammond

Allen Hammond is Senior Scientist and Director ofStrategic Analysis at World Resources Institute. Hisresponsibilities include institute-wide leadership fornew analytic approaches and for WRI’s Communica-tions 2000 effort; he also directs the Strategic Indica-tor Research Initiative and writes and does researchon long term sustainability issues. Prior to his currentposition, he was director of the WRI Program inResources and Environmental Information where hisresponsibilities included oversight of the WorldResources series and he leads WRI’s policy researchon environmental and sustainable developmentindicators. His WRI publications include ResourceFlows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies;Environmental Indicators; editor-in-chief of WorldResources 90-91, 92-93, and 94-95; and editor-in-chiefof the Information Please Environmental Almanac for1992, 1993, and 1994.

Dr. Hammond is an accomplished scientist andscience journalist whose experience includes servingas founder and editor of Science 80-Science 86magazine for the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, founding editor of theNational Academy of Sciences’ Issues in Science andTechnology, and research news editor of Science. Inaddition, he was a broadcaster for CBS radio and is

128


the author or editor of 9 books and numerousscientific publications. He has won a number ofnational magazine awards and other journalistichonors. Dr. Hammond has served as a consultant tothe White House science office, to several U.S. federalagencies, and to the United Nations. He has degreesfrom Stanford (in engineering) and Harvard (inapplied mathematics).

Marc Hershman

Marc Hershman is a professor and Director of theSchool of Marine Affairs, University of Washington.His expertise includes business, environmentalissues, fisheries, international affairs, and oceanogra-phy in a variety of subjects that include coasts, shoresand beaches, ocean and coastal development policy,offshore drilling, and ports. His interests include theneed to simplify regulation of wetlands; coastalzones; development of wetland mitigation bankingand law; and planning and managing coastal re-sources.

Don Hinrichsen

Don Hinrichsen lives in London and is contributingeditor to Amicus Journal and People and the Planet.He is also United Nations consutant specializing inenvironment and populations issues.

Thomas Hourigan

Thomas Hourigan is the Biodiversity Coordinator atthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). He has responsibility for both U.S. domes-tic and international marine biodiversity policy andinitiatives, including those under the Convention onBiological Diversity. He is spearheading the develop-ment of a NOAA Marine Biodiversity Initiative,including the Aquatic Restoration and Conservation(ARC) Partnership for Marine, Estuarine and Fresh-water Living Resources as well as componentsrecently announced by President Clinton as part ofthe new Lands Legacy Initiative. Before coming toNMFS, Dr. Hourigan was the Senior Policy Advisorfor Biodiversity and Climate Change at the U.S.Agency for International Development, where he ledthe development of the Agency’s Biodiversity Policyand Strategy. He received his doctorate from theUniversity of Hawaii working on the ecology ofcorals and coral reef fishes, followed by postdoctoralresearch in Antarctica and Japan.

Dosoo Jang

Dosoo Jang is currently a John A. Knauss MarinePolicy Sea Grant Fellow at the International Pro-grams Office of the National Ocean Service, NOAA,where he is specializing in international exchangeson coastal management between the United Statesand Asian nations. Mr. Jang is completing hisdoctoral degree in marine policy at the University ofDelaware on policy issues facing the U.S. marinebiotechnology industry. Earlier, he served as ChiefResearch Assistant, Center for the Study of MarinePolicy, University of Delaware. In 1997, Mr. Jangreceived the Walter B. Jones Memorial and NOAAExcellence Award for “Excellence in Coastal andMarine Graduate Study,” and in 1998, he was aconsultant for the Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission in Paris.

Paul L. Kelly

Paul L. Kelly is senior vice president of RowanCompanies, Inc., with responsibility for specialprojects and government and industry affairs.Rowan is a major provider of international anddomestic offshore contract drilling and helicopterservices. Through its subsidiary, LeTourneau, Inc.,Rowan also operates a mini-steel mill, a manufactur-ing facility that produces heavy equipment for themining and timber industries, and a marine divisionthat has built over one-third of the worldwide fleet ofmobile offshore jack-up drilling rigs.

Mr. Kelly represents the oil service/supply industryon the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Outer ContinentalShelf Policy Committee, serving as chairman of theCommittee from 1994 to 1996. He also serves as amember of the U.S. Coast Guard’s National OffshoreSafety Advisory Committee (NOSAC), which pro-vides advice to the U.S. Department of Transporta-tion on offshore mineral and energy issues. He is amember of the American Petroleum Institute Execu-tive Committee of Exploration Affairs, as well as anadvisory member of the executive committee of theGulf of Mexico Offshore Operators Committee.

Mr. Kelly has written widely on the subject of energypolicy and is a member of the Editorial Board ofWorld Oil. He has appeared on behalf of industry innumerous Congressional and federal agency hear-ings dealing with offshore oil and gas issues. Mostrecently, during 1997, Mr. Kelly served on an OCSPolicy Committee Working Group which produced areport for the Secretary of Interior recommendingthat an OCS impact assistance and ocean/coastal

129


resource protection program be added to a revivedand enhanced Land and Water Conservation Fund.He represented the offshore petroleum industry onthe U.S. Steering Group planning activities related tothe UN “1998 International Year of the Ocean.” Mr.Kelly holds B.A. (Political Science) and law degreesfrom Yale University.

Robert W. Knecht

Robert W. Knecht is Professor of Marine Policy in theGraduate College of Marine Studies of the Universityof Delaware. He is also Co-Director of the Center forthe Study of Marine Policy and holds joint appoint-ments in the School of Urban Affairs and PublicPolicy and in the Department of Political Science.From 1972 to 1980, as Assistant Administrator forNOAA in Coastal Zone Management, he directed theinitial implementation of the Federal Coastal ZoneManagement Program. He has written many articleson national ocean policy.

Ryck Lydecker

Ryck Lydecker is Associate Director for State Affairsfor the Boat Owners Association of The United States(BOAT/U.S.), with 500,000 members, the nation’slargest organization of recreational boaters. Heis also Associate Editor of BOAT/U.S. Magazine,covering boating, fisheries, public policy and marineresource issues.

As a free lance writer he has written about boating,fisheries, marine policy and maritime issues forconsumer magazines, trade publications and news-papers for over 20 years. In addition, Lydeckercovered boating policy and politics as WashingtonCorrespondent for Boating Industry Magazine fornearly 10 years. Prior to that, he served as Communi-cations Manager for the University of Minnesota SeaGrant Program and was subsequently selected for athree-year assignment to NOAA’s National Sea GrantCollege Program as Director of Communications.

Howard Marlowe

Howard Marlowe is president of Marlowe & Com-pany, a Washington, D.C. public affairs consultingfirm. He has 25 years of experience as a lobbyistworking with Congress and the executive branch.Founded in 1984, Marlowe & Company providesWashington representation, coalition-building,grassroots lobbying, and public relations services toits clients. One of those clients is the AmericanCoastal Coalition, of which Mr. Marlowe serves as

President. The ACC is a national advocacy organiza-tion for local governments, business people, propertyowners and others who live or do business in thecoastal regions of the United States.

James F. Murley

James F. Murley has spent his entire professionalcareer working to strengthen local communities. Hefirst joined the Florida Department of CommunityAffairs in 1983 as its director of Resource Planningand Management. In that position, Jim helped draftand gain passage of Florida’s landmark GrowthManagement Act. In 1987, Jim left DCA to head 1000Friends of Florida—a nonprofit, public interest groupthat works to promote sensible planning, economicdevelopment and environmental preservation. Jimwas lured back to DCA in 1995 by Governor LawtonChiles who called him a “seasoned leader on growthmanagement issues with nearly two decades ofexperience under his belt.”

While at DCA, Jim oversaw a department with animportant mission—to help Floridians create safe,vibrant and sustainable communities. The Depart-ment of Community Affairs protects Floridians fromnatural and man-made disasters, encourages soundland-use planning and environmental protection andpromotes a broad spectrum of economic develop-ment initiatives which includes involvement with theWAGES Welfare Reform Board.

Jim is a 1974 graduate of George Washington Univer-sity Law School where he specialized in environmen-tal and land use law. Before coming to Florida, heworked for the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration in coastal zone management. InFebruary, Jim will be taking over as interim directorof the FAU-FIU Joint Center for Environmental andUrban Problems in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Michael Orbach

Michael Orbach is professor of anthropology in theDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology andsenior scientist with the Institute for Coastal andMarine Resources at East Carolina University. His BAin Economics from the University of California atirvine, and his MA and PhD are in Cultural Anthro-pology from the University of California at SanDiego.

From 1976 to 1979 Mike served as social anthropolo-gist and social science advisor to the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Wash-

130


ington, D.C. From 1979 to 1982 he was the AssociateDirector of the Center for Coastal and Marine Studiesat the University of California at Santa Cruz, duringwhich time he also served as a member of thescientific and statisitical committee of the PacificFisheries management Council. He has been at ECUsince 1983.

Mike has worked with coastal and marine policyissues on all coasts of the U.S. and in Alaska, thePacific and Central America. He has publishedwidely on marine social science topics includingfisheries limited entry and effort management,IndoChinese fisherman adaptation, marine mammal-fishery interactions and state, regional and federalfisheries and marine policy including “Hunters,Seamen and Entrepreneurs”, an ethnography of theSan Diego tuna fishermen published by the Univer-sity of California Press.

Margaret Podlich

Margaret Podlich is the Director of the BOAT/USClean Water Trust, a national nonprofit organizationpromoting environmentally sensitive boating andangling through education. She is also an environ-mental advisor to the Boat Owners Association of theUnited States, the largest membership association ofrecreational boaters nationwide.

During her career, Ms. Podlich has conductednumerous education projects with boaters, at theTrust, and previously at the Center for MarineConservation, and the Chesapeake Bay foundation.She is a lifelong boater who actively competes at thelocal, national, and international level in sailboatraces.

Shirley A. Pomponi

Shirley A. Pomponi received her Ph.D. in BiologicalOceanography in 1977 from the University of Miami,Rosenstiel School of Marine and AtmosphericScience. Since that time, she has conducted researchon the systematics, ecology, physiology, and cellbiology of marine sponges at the University ofMiami, the University of Maryland, and HarborBranch Oceanographic Institution. She joined HarborBranch in 1984, and was Group Leader of the SampleAcquisition Program for the SeaPharm Project andthen the Division of Biomedical Marine Research. In1994, she was appointed Director of the Division ofBiomedical Marine Research, a multidisciplinaryresearch program for the discovery of novel, marine-

derived, biologically-active compounds with thera-peutic potential. A major emphasis of her research ison the development of methods for sustainable useof marine resources for drug discovery and develop-ment, and in particular, on developing cell lines ofbioactive marine invertebrates and determining therole of associated microorganisms in the productionof bioactive secondary metabolites.

Pietro Parravano

Pietro Parravano has served as Pacific Coast Federa-tion of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) presidentfor the past seven years. His work on behalf offishing fleets and his work to protect fish stocks andhabitat earned him the 1997 “Highliner of the Year”award given each year by National Fishermanmagazine. He is an ardent advocate in the U.S. andabroad on behalf of fishing family operations. Heserved as president of his local that first gainedprominence when Half Moon Bay fishermen success-fully halted a plan by the Port of Oakland, Californiaand the Army Corps of Engineers to dump dredgespoils in a near shore site off San Mateo County,California that was prime crab and fishing grounds.As a result of these efforts, all dredge materials fromSan Francisco Bay disposed of in the ocean must bedumped off the shelf at a site in 1200 fathoms,approximately 50 miles west of the Golden Gate.

Alison Rieser

Alison Rieser is Professor of Law at the University ofMaine School of Law in Portland, Maine and Directorof the School’s Marine Law Institute, where sheoversees legal and policy research on fisheriesmanagement, coastal land and water use, marinebiodiversity protection, and international maritimerelations. She teaches courses in coastal zonelaw, marine resources law, environmental law, andlaw of the sea. Professor Rieser is a consultant tostate and federal agencies and faculty advisor to theOcean and Coastal Law Journal. She is co-author ofthe leading textbook in coastal and ocean law andhas published numerous articles on environmentallaw and ocean law. Her previous governmentservice includes work with the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. She spenttwo years at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-tion as a Research Fellow in marine policy and oceanmanagement before joining the Law School. Herbachelor’s degree is from Cornell University and herlaw degrees from George Washington University andYale Law School.

131


Rod Vulovic

Rod Vulovic is a graduate of the University ofBelgrade with degrees in mechanical engineering aswell as in naval architecture and marine engineering.Mr. Vulovic is Vice President of Sea-Land Service,Inc., responsible for the ocean transportation ser-vices. This encompasses all aspects of fleet opera-tions, maintenance repair, crewing, asset acquisitionsand chartering for both U.S. flag and foreign flagfleets.

Maureen A. Warren

Maureen A. Warren is a geographer and BranchChief in the Special Projects Office, National OceanService, NOAA, working for over 20 years in thefield of coastal and marine resource assessment andmanagement. She has contributed to and coordinatedthe development of four regional and one nationaldata atlas projects, several management plans forcoastal protected areas, and authored or co-authorednumerous publications and presentations. Ms.Warren presently supervises a staff of geographersand physical scientists in the Integrated PlanningBranch who are involved in the integration ofinformation and resources for planning and decisionmaking, consensus-based design and planning toaddress coastal resource use issues of nationalsignificance, data synthesis and analysis projectsrelated to coastal resource use and resource useconflicts, and use of the Internet as a medium forinformation dissemination. Ms. Warren holds under-graduate and graduate degrees in geography fromthe Hunter College, CUNY and the University ofPittsburgh respectfully, and has completed graduatecoursework in the doctoral program in geographyfrom the University of Maryland.

132


Appendix II: Workshop Agenda

8:30 A.M.

Welcome and IntroductionNancy Foster, NOS/NOAA

8:45 to 10:15

PANEL 1. The Context of the Next Twenty-fiveyears: Continued Economic Globalization, Re-source Decline, Population Pressures on the Coast,Changes in Social Values: National and GlobalPerspectives.

Biliana Cicin-Sain, University of Delaware, Chair

Ocean and Coastal Futures: The Global ContextAllen Hammond, World Resources Institute

Global Trends in Fisheries and AquacultureRichard Grainger, Fisheries Department, UN Foodand Agriculture Organization

The Coastal Population ExplosionDon Hinrichsen, UN consultant and author

Coastal Megacities and Sea Level RiseRosemarie Hinkel, University of Delaware

Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998Charles Bookman, Thomas Culliton, and MaureenWarren, National Ocean Service, NOAA

10:15 to 10:30 Coffee Break

10:30 to Noon

PANEL 2. The State of the Coastal and MarineEnvironments: Trends in Non-point Source Pollu-tion, Habitat, and Biodiversity.

Michael K. Orbach, Duke University, Chair

New Approaches to Environmental Management: Lessonsfrom the Chesapeake BayDonald F. Boesch, Center for Environmental Studies,University of Maryland

Perspectives on Marine Water QualityTim Eichenberg, Center for Marine Conservation

Conserving Ocean Biodiversity: Trends and ChallengesThomas Hourigan, National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice, NOAA

Global Trends in Marine Protected AreasTundi Agardy, Conservation International

Noon to 1:00 Lunch

1:00 to 3:15

PANEL 3. Industry-Driven Changes and PolicyResponses

Robert W. Knecht, University of Delaware, Chair

Changing Ship Technology and Port InfrastructureImplicationsRod Vulovic, Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Deepwater Offshore Oil Development: Opportunities andFuture ChallengesPaul L. Kelly, Rowan Companies, Inc.

Assessing the Economic Benefits of America’s CoastalRegionsHoward Marlowe, American Coastal Coalition

A Profile of Recreational Boating in the United StatesRick Lydecker and Margaret Podlich, Boat OwnersAssociation of the United States (BOAT/US)

Trends and Future Challengesfor U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy

Friday, January 22, 1999Hotel Washington

15th St. and Pennsylvania Ave.Washington, D.C.

133


Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Current andFuture Policy and Management ChallengesM. Richard DeVoe, South Carolina Sea GrantConsortium

Aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):Legal and Regulatory ConcernsAlison Rieser* and Susan Bunsick***University of Maine School of Law, **University ofDelaware

The Potential for the Marine Biotechnology IndustryShirley A. Pomponi, Harbor Branch OceanographicInstitution, Florida

Challenges Facing the U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry*Pietro Parravano, Pacific Coast Federation ofFishermen’s Associations

3:15 to 3:30 Coffee Break

3:30 to 4:30

PANEL 4. Trends and Future Issues in the CoastalStates

Michael K. Orbach, Duke University, Chair

Building Capacity for Ocean Management: RecentDevelopments in U.S. West Coast StatesMarc J. Hershman, School of Marine Affairs, Univer-sity of Washington

Coastal States’ ChallengesSarah Cooksey, State of Delaware and Chair, CoastalStates Organization

Development of a Comprehensive Ocean Policy for FloridaJames F. Murley and Laura Cantral, FloridaGovernor’s Ocean Committee

4:30 to 5:00

Summary and Conclusions

Michael K. Orback, Duke University

5:00 to 6:00 Reception

Workshop Agenda

135

Appendix III: Workshop Participants


Dr. Tundi AgardyConservation International2501 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20037Tel: 202 973 2203Fax: 202 887 0193E-mail: [email protected]

W. AndahazyWashington, D.C. RepresentativeWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionWoods Hole, MATelephone: 202-863-0001Fax: 202-863-0096E-mail: [email protected]

Allison AreiasCouncil on Environmental QualityOld Executive Office Bldg., Room 360Washington, D.C. 20502Telephone: 202-395-5750

Stephanie BailensonU.S. Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries428 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510Telephone: 202-224-7874Fax: 202-228-0326E-mail: [email protected]

Ronald C. Baird, DirectorNational Sea Grant College Program1315 East West Hwy.Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-2448Fax: 301-713-1031E-mail: [email protected]

Miriam BalgosCenter for the Study of Marine PolicyGraduate College of Marine StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19716-3501Telephone: 302 831 8086Fax: 302 831 3668Email: [email protected]

Christopher BallDirector of OutreachOzone Action1636 Connecticut Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20009Telephone: 202-265-6738Fax: 202 986 6041E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel J. BastaChief, Strategic Environmental Assessment Div.NOAA/National Ocean Service1305 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910-3281Telephone: 301-713-3000 x128Fax: 301-713-4384E-mail: [email protected]

Paul H. Bea, Jr.Port Authority of NY & NJ1001 Connecticut Ave., NW #610Washington, DC 20036Telephone: 202-887-5240Fax: 202-887-0282E-mail: [email protected]

Barbara A. BestMarine Resource SpecialistUSAID/Global Environment Center1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC 20523-3800Telephone: 202-712-0553Fax: 202-216-3174E-mail: [email protected]

Julia BlackwellNOAA/NOS1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3000 x213Email: [email protected]

Dr. Donald F. BoeschCenter for Environmental and Estuarine StudiesUniversity of MarylandP. O. Box 775Cambridge, MD 21613Telephone: 410-228-9251 Ext. 601Fax: 410-228-3843E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Charles A. BookmanSpecial Projects OfficeNational Ocean Service, NOAA1305 East-West Hwy.SSMC4, 9th floor

136


Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3000Fax: 301-713-4384E-mail: [email protected]

Baruch Boxer, ProfessorVisiting ScholarRutgers UniversityResources For the Future2801 New Mexico Avenue, NW #1117Washington, DC 20007Telephone: 202-939-3423Fax: 202-939-3460E-mail: [email protected]

Glenn BoledovichNational Ocean Service, NOAA1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3074Fax: 301-713-4269

Brian Braginton-SmithThe Conservation Consortium Foundation, Inc.1 Atlantic Avenue, Suite BSouth Yarmouth, MA 02664Telephone: 508-775-1367Fax: 508-380-3800E-mail: [email protected]

Leah L. BunceContractor1305 East West HighwaySSMC4 #13403Telephone: 301-713-3078 x 129Fax: 301-713-4263

Susan BunsickGraduate College of Marine StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19716-3501Telephone: 302 831 8754E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Young Tae Chang, Visiting ScholarKorea-America Joint Marine Policy Research CenterDepartment of Environmental and Natural Resource EconomicsUniversity of Rhode Island319 Lippitt HallKingston, RI 02881Telephone: 401-874-7427Fax: 410-782-4766E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain, Co-DirectorCenter for the Study of Marine PolicyGraduate College of Marine StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19716Telephone: 302-831-8086Fax: 302-831-3668E-mail: [email protected]

Jessica CoganEnvironmental Protection SpecialistEPA401 M Street, SW (4504F)Washington, DC 20460Telephone: 202-260-7154Fax: 202-260-9960E-mail: [email protected]

Sarah CookseyDNREC, State of DelawareDivision of Soil and WaterP. O. Box 1401Dover, DE 19903Telephone: (302) 739-3451Fax: (302) 739-6724E-mail: [email protected]

Tom CullitonNOAA/National Ocean Service1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910-3281Telephone: (301)713-3000 x 142Fax: 301-713-4384E-mail: [email protected]

Penny DaltonSenate Commerce Committee566 Dirksen Office bldg.Washington, D.C. 20510Telephone: 202-224-4912Fax: 202-228-0303

Chris DarnelOcean Policy AnalystCoastal States Organization444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 322Washington, DC 20001Telephone: 202-508-3860Fax: 202-508-3843E-mail: [email protected]

Margaret A. DavidsonDirector2234 South Hobson AvenueCharleston, SC 29405-2413

137


Telephone: 843-740-1216Fax: 843-740-1297E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Delaney, DirectorUrban Harbors Institute100 Morrissey BoulevardBoston, MA 02125-3393Telephone: 617-287-5570Fax: 617-287-5575E-mail: [email protected]

Richard DeVoeSouth Carolina Sea GrantOcean & Coastal Resource Management Office287 Meeting StreetCharleston, SC 29401Telephone: 843-727-2078Fax: 843-727-2080E-mail:

Milen DyoulgerovSea Grant Fellow11305 East West Highway, SSMC4 13408Silver Spring, MD

Charles Ehler, DirectorInternational Program Office/National Ocean ServiceNOAA1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-2989Fax: 301-713-4389E-mail: [email protected]

Tim EichenbergCenter for Marine Conservation1725 DeSales St., NWWashington, DC 20036Telephone: 202-429-5609Fax: 202-872-0619E-mail: eichent%[email protected]

William ErbDepartment of StateWashington, D.C. 20520Telephone: 202-736-7912Fax: 202-647-0774E-mail: [email protected]

John FieldFish and Wildlife Committee

Dr. Nancy Foster, Assistant AdministratorNational Ocean Service, NOAA

1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3074Fax: 301-713-4269E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Annamarija FrankicCoastal States OrganizationHall of the States444 North Capitol Street, NWSuite 322Washington, D.C. 20001Telephone: 202-508-3860Fax: 202-508-3843E-mail: [email protected]

Peter FrickeNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA1315 East-West HighwatSilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-0596E-mail: [email protected]

Walter R. Gerich, CounselorThyssen Group/TRT1762 Baltimore-Annapolis Blvd.Annapolis, MD 21401Tel: 410 974 0635Fax: 410 757 3530

Tony GiordanoChief, International Activities and Marine MineralsDiv.Dept. of the Interior/MMS381 Elden Street, Mail Stop 4030Herndon, VA 20170-4817Telephone: 703-787-1300Fax: 703-787-1284E-mail: [email protected]

Linda K. GloverSpecial Assistant/Policy OfficeOceanographer of the Navy3450 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20392Telephone: 202-762-1008Fax: 202-762-0480E-mail: [email protected]

Joelle GoreNOAA/National Ocean Service1305 East West Hwy11311 SSMC4Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281Telephone: 301-713-3117 x177

138


Fax: 301-713-4367E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Richard GraingerChief, Data and Information ServiceFAORome, ItalyTelephone: 39 06 57054828Fax: 39 06 570 52476E-mail: [email protected]

Melissa GrimmAmerican Association of Port Authorities (AAPA)1010 Duke StreetAlexandria, VA 22314Telephone: 703-684-5700Fax: 703-684-6321

Geoff GrubbsEnvironmental Protection Agency401 M Street, SW4503 FWashington, DC 20024Telephone: 202-260-7040Fax: 202-260-7024

Alan D. Guimond126 Robert’s Lane #301Alexandria, VA 22314Telephone: 703-683-3270E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Allen HammondSenior Fellow & DirectorStrategic AnalysisWorld Resources Institute1709 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20006-5283Telephone: 202-662-2556Fax: 202-662-2511

Professor Marc HershmanSchool of Marine AffairsUniversity of WashingtonBox 355685Seattle, WA 98195-5685Telephone: 206-685-2469Fax: 206-543-1417E-mail: [email protected]

Don Hinrichsen235 E 53rd Street, Apt. 3CNew York, NY 10022Telephone: 212-223-5842Fax: 212-207-3888E-mail: [email protected]

Tom HouriganMarine Biodiversity CoordinatorOffice of Protected ResourcesNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAASSMC 31315 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-2319Fax: 301-713-0376E-mail: [email protected]

Kathy HurldOceans and Coastal WatersEPATelephone: 202-260-9134

Suzanne JacobsonThe Heinz Center for Science, Economics and theEnvironment1001 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 735SWashington, DC 20004Telephone: 202-737-6307

Dosoo JangInternational Program Office/National OceanService/NOAA1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3078n x173Fax: 301-713-4263E-mail: [email protected]

Marcella R. Jansen, Issues Team LeaderNOAA/Coastal Programs DivisionSSMC4, 11th Floor (N/ORM3)1305 East West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3098 x 143Fax: 301-713-4367E-mail: [email protected]

Jennifer JarrattVice PresidentCoates & Jarratt, Inc.Washington, D.C.E-mail: [email protected]

Gary JensenNational Program LeaderUSDA/CSREESStop 22201400 Independence Avenue, SW 20250-2220Washington, D.C.Telephone: 202-401-6802Fax: 202-401-1602E-mail: [email protected]

139


Peter JensenDeputy Director, Division of FisheriesMaryland Dept. of Natural ResourcesTawes State Office Building C-2Annapolis, MD 21401Telephone: 410-260-8261Fax: 410-260-8278E-mail: [email protected]

Catherine JohnstonCenter for the Study of Marine PolicyGraduate College of Marine StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19716-3501Telephone: 302 831 8086Fax: 302 831 3668E-mail: [email protected]

You-Sub JungFirst Secretary for Maritime Affairs and FisheriesKorean Embassy2450 Massachusetts AvenueWashington, DC 20008Telephone: 202-939-5676Fax: 202-387-0402E-mail:

Jonathan JustiNOAA/ OAR1315 East-West HighwaySuite 11415Silver Spring, MD 20910Tel: 301 713 3080,Fax: 301 713 1459E-mail: [email protected]: presently at OAR, moving to NOS next week

Dr. Jeanne KellyCoates & Jarratt, Inc.Washington, D.C.

Paul L. KellyRowan Companies, Inc.5450 Transco Tower2800 Post Oak BoulevardHouston, TX 77056-6196Telephone: (713) 960 7580Fax: (713) 960-7678E-mail: [email protected]

John L. KermondVisiting ScientistNOAA/Office of Global ProgramsSuite 12251100 Wayne Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-427-2089 x 137Fax: 301-427-2222E-mail: [email protected]

Anne KitchellGraduate College of Marine StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19716-3501Telephone: 302 831 4665Fax: 302 831 6838E-mail: [email protected]

Professor Robert W. KnechtCenter for the Study of Marine PolicyGraduate College of Marine StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewark, DE 19716Telephone: 302-831-8086Fax: 302-831-3668E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Virginia LeeUniversity of Rhode IslandNarrragansett, RITelephone:E-mail: [email protected]

Howard MarlowePresidentAmerican Coastal Coalition1667 K Street, NW, Suite 480Washington, DC 20006Telephone: 202-775-1796Fax: 202-775-0214

Kelli McGeeAmerican Oceans CampaignTelephone: 202-543-3561

Jack B. MingusLegislative ProfessionalVan Ness Feldman1050 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, 7th floorWashington, DC 20007Telephone: 202-298-1899Fax: 202-338-2416E-mail: [email protected]

Ben Mieremet10920 Ralston RdRockville, MD 20852

140


Robert J. MoranDirector, Government AffairsNational Ocean Industries Association1120 G Street, NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20005Telephone: 202-347-6900Fax: 202-347-8650E-mail: [email protected]

Jim MurleyDepartment of Community AffairsState of FloridaTallahasse, FloridaTelephone: 850-488-8466Fax: 850-921-0781E-mail: [email protected]

Kwang Suk OhUniversity of DelawareGraduate College of Marine StudiesNewark, DE 19716Telephone: 302-731-8091Fax: 302-831-6838E-mail: [email protected]

Shauna OhMarine SpecialistCalifornia Sea Grant CollegeUniversity of California at San Diego9500 Gilman Drive , Dept. 232La Jolla, CA 92093Telephone: 619 534 4440Fax: 619 534 2231E-mail: [email protected]

Professor Michael K. OrbachCoastal Environmental Management ProgramSchool of the EnvironmentDuke University Marine Laboratory111 Pivers Island RoadBeaufort, NC 28516Telephone: 252-504-7655 or 7606Fax: 252 504 7648E-mail: [email protected]

Pietro ParravanoThe Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associa-tions (PCFFA)Southwest OfficeP. O. Box 29910San Francisco, CA 94129-0910Telephone:Fax: 650-726-1607

Nick PeruginiSenator John Kerry’s Office

Margaret PodlichBOAT/U.S.880 S. Pickett StreetAlexandria, VA 22304Telephone: 703-461-2878 x 3369Fax: 703-461-2855E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Shirley Pomponi, Division DirectorBiomedical Research DivisionHarbor Branch Oceanographic Institution5600 US Rt. 1, NorthFort Pierce, FL 34946Telephone: 561-465-2400 x 449Fax: 561-461-5415E-mail: [email protected]

Kennard PottsEPA Oceans ProtectionWashington, DCTelephone: 202-260-7893

Nancy RaglandNational Centers for Coastal Ocean ScienceNOAA/National Ocean Service1305 East-West Hwy, Rm. 13446 N/COPSilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3060E-mail: [email protected]

John RayfieldSubcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and OceansCommittee on ResourcesUS House of Representatives805 O’Neill House Office BldgWashington, D.C. 20515Telephone: 202-226-0200Fax: 202-225-1542E-mail: [email protected]

Jim ReillyS.C. Sea Grant Consortium287 Meeting StreetCharleston, SC 29401Telephone: 843-727-2078Fax: 843-727-2080E-mail: [email protected]

Ed RhodesAquaculture coordinatorNOAA/National Marine FisheriesService1315 East West Hwy.Silver Spring, MD 20910

141


Telephone: 301-713-2334 x 102Fax: 301-713-0596E-mail: [email protected]

Peyton RobertsonNOAA/National Ocean Service1305 East West Hwy11311 SSMC4Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281Telephone: 301-713-3098 x137E-mail: [email protected]

Naomi A. RoseMarine Mammal ScientistThe Humane Society of the U.S.2100 L Street, NWWashington, DC 20037Telephone: 301-258-3048Fax: 301-258-3080E-mail: [email protected]

Craig RussellNational Ocean Service, NOAA1305 East-West HighwaySSMC4, 9th floorSilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3000Fax: 301-713-4384

Jae H. RyooUniversity of DelawareGraduate College of Marine StudiesNewark, DE 19716Telephone: 302-894-0126; Fax: 302-831-6838E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel Sayre, Editor-in-ChiefIsland Press1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20009Telephone: 202-232-7933Fax: 202-234-1328E-mail: [email protected]

Amy Schick, FMP CoordinatorAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission1444 Eye St., NW 6th floorWashington, DC 20005Telephone: 202-289-6400Fax: 202-289-6051E-mail: [email protected]

Rich SchwabacherCousteau SocietyTelephone: 703 660 8683

Fax: 703-660 6329E-mail: [email protected]

Harry Strong, DirectorMitretek Systems7525 Colshire DriveMcLean, VA 22102Telephone: 703-610-1722Fax: 703-610-1767E-mail: [email protected]

Boyce Thorne-MillerSeaWeb1731 Connecticut Ave., NWWashington, DC 20009

Richard VolkCoastal ProgramsUSAID/G/ENV/ENRRRB, Room 308Washington, DC 20523-3800Telephone: 202-712-5373Fax: 202-216-3174E-mail: [email protected]

Rod VulovicOcean Transportation ServicesSea-Land Service, Inc.6000 Carnegie BoulevardCharlotte, NC 28209-4637Telephone: 704-571-2250Fax: 704-571-4653

Katherine WannamakerKnauss Fellow, Senate Commerce CommitteeTelephone: 202-547-6516

Maureen WarrenSpecial Projects OfficeNational Ocean Service, NOAA1305 East-West HighwaySSMC4, 9th floorSilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301-713-3000Fax: 301-713-4384E-mail: [email protected]

Eli WeissmanSea Grant FellowCongressman Frank Pallone’s office410 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515-3006Telephone: 202-225-4671Fax: 202-225-7665E-mail: [email protected]

142


Christopher WhiteGovernment AffairsNational Ocean Industries Association1120 G Street, NW, Suite 900Washington, DC 20005Telephone: 202 347 6900Fax: 202 347 8650

John L. WickhamNOAA/Coastal Ocean Program1315 East-West HighwayRoom 9700Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282Telephone: 301-713-4044E-mail: [email protected]

Lori C. WilliamsVice President for Ocean ProgramsCenter for Marine ConservationE-mail: [email protected]

144


Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National …...Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National...

Documents

Transcript of Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National …...Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National...