Posted on 04/21/2004 9:15:58 AM PDT by cogitator
Rather than read the various media interpretations, here's the commission's press release in its entirety.
Oceans in Serious Trouble: Must Act Now
Delicate Balance Between Use and Sustainability is Key to Future of Our Oceans
Historic Report to be Reviewed By Governors and Stakeholders
Washington, D.C. – Calling on Congress and President Bush to establish a new national ocean policy that balances use with sustainability, is based on sound science and educational excellence, and moves toward an ecosystem-based management approach is the centerpiece of the Preliminary Report released today by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
“Our oceans and coasts are in trouble, and we as a nation have an historic opportunity to make a positive and lasting change in the way we manage them before it is too late,” said retired Admiral James D. Watkins (USN), Chair of the US Commission on Ocean Policy. “If the recommendations contained in our report are adopted, we will create sustainable oceans and coasts for many, many years. We will create sustainable ocean resources; sustainable fisheries; sustainable recreation for our children and their children; sustainable economic development; and a sustainable future for our oceans and coasts.”
The last comprehensive review of U.S. Ocean Policy was conducted thirty-five years ago by the Stratton Commission. Since then our nation’s oceans and coasts have changed drastically. More than 37 million people, 19 million homes, and countless businesses have been added to coastal areas. Marine transportation and coastal recreation and tourism have become two of the top drivers of the national economy. These developments, however, come with costs, and we are only now discovering the extent of those costs in terms of depleted resources, lost habitat, and polluted waters.
Living ocean and coastal resources, once thought to be boundless, have revealed their limits. Coastal areas are essential spawning, feeding, and nursery areas for over three quarters of U.S. commercial fish catches, however about 40,000 acres of coastal wetlands disappear yearly. Current projections indicate 50-60 percent of coral reefs may be lost during the next 30 years. Twelve billion tons of ballast water is shipped around the world each year, spreading alien and invasive species.
When Congress passed the Oceans Act 2000 (P.L. 106-256) it acknowledged both the costs and the significance of the oceans and coasts to this country. Pursuant to the Act, the President appointed 16 members from diverse backgrounds to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Commission’s mandate was to establish findings and develop recommendations for a new and comprehensive national ocean policy.
The Commission began its work in September 2001 with a series of 15 public meeting and 17 additional site visits in every coastal region of the country and the Great Lakes. The Commission heard testimony from 440 experts, including many of the nation’s top ocean scientists and researchers, environmental organizations, industry, citizens and government officials, as well a receiving written testimony from countless others. It was the most comprehensive and thorough review ever conducted of our nation’s oceans and coasts.
After significant thought, careful deliberations and the consideration of a wide range of potential solutions, the Commission is releasing its Preliminary Report to be reviewed by the nation’s Governors and other stakeholders. The Commission’s recommendations balance the interest of stakeholders to create a the framework for a national ocean policy that effectively and efficiently preserves and utilizes our nation’s oceans and coasts and their resources.
“Our report puts forth long overdue bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform to our national ocean policy,” said Watkins. “ Reform that needs to start now, while it is still possible to reverse distressing declines, seize exciting opportunities, and sustain the oceans, coasts and their valuable assets for future generations.”
The over-arching theme of the Commission’s Preliminary recommendations is ecosystem-based management. The Commission concluded that it is critical that ocean and coastal resources be managed to reflect the complex interrelationships among the ocean, land, air, and all living creatures, including humans, and consider the interactions among the multiple activities that affect entire systems. The Commission identified a number of needed changes based upon three fundamental themes:
* Creating a new national ocean policy framework to improve decision-making
* Strengthening science and generating high-quality accessible information to inform decision makers;
* Enhancing ocean education to instill future leaders and informed citizens with a stewardship ethic.
According to the report, a new national ocean policy framework must be established to improve federal leadership and coordination to enable agencies to address the ocean, land and air as one inter-connected system. This framework also enhances opportunities for state, territorial, tribal, and local entities to develop common regional goals and priorities.
The Commission found that policies and decisions about ocean and coastal resources need to be based on the most current, unbiased, credible scientific information. This requires new investment in the infrastructure to support data collection and research and the means to effectively translate scientific findings into useful, timely information for policy managers, educators, and the public.
The report also focuses on the importance of enhancing ocean education to improve decision makers’ understanding of the oceans, for the general public to develop a sense of stewardship, and to prepare a new generation of leaders to confront issues dealing with oceans and coasts.
Building on the foundation of these themes, the Commission’s report contains recommendations that span the gamut of ocean and coastal issues, ranging from upstream areas to the depths of the oceans floor, from the practical problem-solving issues, to philosophical approaches that will guide us into the next century.
The Commission concluded that the following actions are critical:
* Establishment of a National Ocean Council in the Executive Office of the President chaired by an Assistant to the President;
* Creation of a non-federal President with Presidential Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy;
* Strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and improving federal agency structure;
* Develop a flexible, voluntary process for creating regional ocean councils, facilitated and supported by the National Ocean Council;
* Double U.S. investment in ocean research;
* Implement the national Integrated Ocean Observing System;
* Increase attention to ocean education through coordinated and effective formal and informal programs;
* Strengthen the link between coastal and watershed management;
* Create measurable water pollution reduction goals, particularly for nonpoint sources, and strengthen incentives, technical assistance, and other management tools to reach those goals;
* Reform fisheries management by separating scientific assessment and allocation, improving the Regional Fishery Management Council system, and exploring the use of dedicated access privileges;
* Accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; and
* Establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund based on revenue from offshore energy activity and other new and emerging offshore uses to pay for implementing the recommendations.
“This is a crossroads moment for our country and the future of our nation’s oceans and coasts,” said Watkins. “It will require great political will, investment and support of the public. But the benefits and pay off to this country--and its citizens--will far exceed the cost and the effort for generations to come.”
-- end –
The Commission’s Preliminary Report is part of a two-stage process. In this stage, the report will be available for review and comment by the nation’s governors and interested stakeholders. Availability of the Preliminary Report appears in the Federal Register and includes information about the comment period, which begins April 21, 2004 and ends May 21, 2004. An electronic copy of the report and detailed instructions for submitting comments also is available on the Commission website, http://oceancommission.gov.
Stage two begins when the public comment period closes on May 21, 2004. At that point, the Commission will take time for a comprehensive review of the comments received from the governors and others. Once all comments are considered, the Commission will prepare and deliver its final report and recommendations on a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy to the President and Congress.
Not really. There was not one specific proposal in the whole report to reduce the problem. Just a bunch of create this commission, increase funding to study this, increase communication. I did not see one specific proposal that would do anything to help the environment. All I see is a bunch of jobs created for environmental bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable about the Law of the Sea convention, but I expect that it would infringe on U.S. territorial rights to some extent. That may not be as important as many of the other critical recommendations in the report, and I think to focus on that particular one as a "deal-breaker" might cause many to tend to ignore the other important things that need to be done. There's a lot the U.S. can do by itself without worrying about the U.N. at this stage.
Some of them are like that. Some of them are more forceful, like doubling research investment, changing the way that fisheries are managed, and establishing an Oceans Trust Fund. Those are decent "action items".
It must really be serious. They don't even have time to use verbs or pronouns.
Yeah but get some Ranch dip and Salsa and man o'man is that a meal or what?
I wouldn't quote him as an expert.
I'm not sure, but I think the oceans still survive.
Fortunately, nature is somewhat resilient. The report doesn't say that the oceans are doomed; it says they're in trouble. It's a call for action before the situation gets significantly worse.
Again, what exactly does any of those mean in concrete terms. Do they want to put more regulations on fishing? I assume they know what the problem is, so why double research, why not say what they think needs to be done? Establish a Oceans Trust Fund for what? These weenies are afraid to take a specific stand and say what they think. They just want blanket authority so they can create regulations without any input from the public. If they think we are over fishing, why not say we must reduce fishing by half? Instead they want to create some regulatory body that can do that without saying that is what they are doing up front.
Some of them are like that. Some of them are more forceful, like doubling research investment
Has there ever been a report by any commission that suggested a reduction in government spending in their area?
Answering that might require reading the report rather than just the press statement. I admit that I haven't done that, because it just came out, but I'd like to have it looked over by the end of the month.
Kinda looking at your questions in general; regarding research, there may be ways to determine how climate variability acts fisheries (i.e., lower the catch quotas in "bad" years). Regarding cutting fishing in half, that's a rather antiquated way to address the problem and the commercial fishing community wouldn't like it. Part of the problem with fisheries management is that commercial fishermen frequently exaggerate their catch statistics to make the fishery look more robust than it actually is. Fisheries managers use catch statistics to set quotas, and higher-than-actual reports lead to higher-than-they-should-be quotas. This kind of positive feedback was one of the main reasons that the Grand Banks cod fishery collapsed. Since it doesn't work, there needs to be a better way.
Imagine the volumes of waste paper that would be created by these new UN commissions and studies. Now the UN building is in NYC, on the Hudson River which flows into the Atlantic Ocean, right?
Where does NYC dump the UN's waste?
Probably not, but I can confidently say that if the report indicated a potential crisis (or at least a serious situation requiring rectification) that the report wouldn't ask for less money.
This one statement identifies the authors as left wing enemies of the US. Any other recommendations they have would have to be seen through a "how are they trying to screw the US with this one" filter
I didn't see the main proposal that would improve our oceans. Increase off shore drilling for petroleum. The Gulf of mexico is being poisoned by oil leaking into it from natural fissures. We need to increase drilling to decrease the pressure pushing this oil into the ocean
It's all about money, duckets, rand, cash , sources of revenue for the polidiots ! Has nothing to do with our environments future at all..........
That's my rant on the matter......Stay safe !
But aren't you completely ignoring the possibility that reports are biased by the fact that the authors are directly benefiting only if a "crisis" is identified? It sounds to me like you're saying we must judge reports based on the need for more money - and the need for more money must mean there is a potential crisis.
You seem to have omitted the possibility that this is little more than a sham.
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would hinder seabed development and as currently written, is inimical to American interests. The convention would set up a burdensome UN bureaucracy to administer the oceans. The system would force private firms to share their profits with, and provide free mine sites to, the new UN agency. The treaty would apply anti-density and anti-monopoly provisions disproportionately to U.S. mining companies and might impose production limits. Last, the revised language, while not explicitly mandating technology transfers, remains a potential time bomb.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will be the first international organization with the ability to levy taxes upon the U.S. while also engaging in economic activity on its own account. Becoming party to such a treaty would have a profound impact on America's sovereign rights, national security, and economic interests. Before consenting to ratify the convention, the Senate must address such critical issues as what authorities should the treaty's institutions be granted, and to what extent will the treaty interfere with U.S. military operations.
Establish an Ocean Policy Trust Fund based on revenue from offshore energy activity and other new and emerging offshore uses to pay for implementing the recommendations.
I suppose this would be funded by an additional tax above and beyond the 16.7% federal royalty tax. Does anyone remember the Windfall Profits Tax that had to be repealed because it cost more to collect the tax and fund the tax collection bureaucracy than it collected in tax revenue?
In general, perhaps caution in such judgment is warranted. With respect to the oceans, a wide variety of data from many different sources and regarding many different aspects of ocean "health" indicates that the basic conclusions which state cause for concern in the report are reasonably accurate.
The original question asked if any report from a commission had ever recommended less funding for its particular area of inquiry. I don't know if a commission has ever concluded that a problem that it was formed to consider had been essentially remedied (there may have been one or two in the history of the Republic!). If they did make such a conclusion, it would be hard to justify a call for more funding to address a problem that no longer exists.
If a commission concludes that there is a problem/crisis in their area of inquiry, one would plausibly suspect that they would request funding to address the problem/crisis. As you note, there may be a bias or conflict-of-interest in some of the commission members that would lead to their benefit if a crisis is identified and funding accrues from that identification. Because of that, the conclusions should be examined independently for their validity and support -- which is the next step in the process of evaluating this preliminary report.
Just for sake of completeness, here's the page with brief biographies of each of the commissioners. It's a decent mix of academics and industry (and a few others).
I can't speak for everyone on the commission, but I particularly like Watkins as the chairman.
Fish farming is definitely part of the overall solution. However, not all species (particularly the big pelagic species, like swordfish, bonito, bluefin tuna) can be easily farmed. Salmon, catfish, shrimp, tilapia, and others -- it works. (You just have to feed them something other than FISH!)
You're correct. There's already a recognized way to do this: individual transferable quotas (ITQs).
Yes, they are. But some of the ways to address the problem effectively are pretty cheap (better land management and improved sewage treatment are two things that would make a big difference).
Actually, in Iraq they're refilling a large marsh area that was drained by Saddam, because he didn't like the indigenous people that lived there (considering that they fought against him!)
The Mesopotamian Marshlands of the Tigris-Euphrates River
That's actually better than draining the swamp.
This is more garbage horses**t for the consumption of idiots who believe everything they're told.
"The children", "future generations", "sustainable". Same dum-dum keywords you hear every time certain wheels want to get greased, pockets want to get lined and agendas want to get implimented.
This is nothing but another enviro-industrial-complex money and power grab waiting to happen.
"Slacking off" would be a good idea for a large number of species right about now. Hatcheries will work for some species, but not all of them, unfortunately.
The short-term answer may be: eat more beef, chicken, turkey, pork, veal, lamb, etc.
ITQs are the best system that I've seen. U.S. law would have to be changed to implement them; but it would be a step in a good direction. Another good step would be to completely close U.S. waters to foreign fishing vessels.
"Tuna farming is now well-established, with the fish netted in the Southern Ocean, transferred to cages and slowly towed to Pt Lincoln. The SBT are kept in a an enclosure consisting of a large (up to 80m) diameter floating ring, from which a net of about 15m depth is suspended. They are fed a controlled diet for a period from 3 to 8 months to improve their condition and fattem them. Until recently, that diet was almost entirely pilchards, most of which were imported. However, a grain-based pelletised food has been developed by staff working at the LMSC, and these pellets are now rapidly being introduced. The pellets have many advantages over pilchards, including increased feeding efficiency, ease of storage, reduced reliance on imports, reduced wastage, quality control, etc. Most of the farmed Southern Bluefin Tuna are exported to the Japanese Sashimi market. ('Sashimi' means uncooked or raw food.)"
Cousteau may have been a bit premature. The situation is NOT good.
Coral Reef Decline Actually Began Centuries Ago
"By 1900 -- decades before the first scuba divers experienced the splendor of coral reefs -- this slow death had already started in more than 80 percent of the reefs worldwide, the scientists found. Today, in the regions where the process is most advanced, such as Jamaica, the corals are either dead or dying, the fish are tiny, few other organisms such as shellfish exist, and the formerly vibrant reef structure is dull and coated with algae. The Great Barrier Reef sometimes is said to be largely pristine, but it's actually as much as a third of the way toward ecological extinction, Bjorndal said."
Nature cover story - Only 10% of all large fish are left in global ocean
90 % of all large fish including tuna, marlin, swordfish, sharks, cod and halibut are gone - leading scientists say need to attempt restoration on a global scale is urgent
"This study not only confirms the bad news emerging from individual fisheries showing that species like cod can be fished below recovery, but it also reveals a grim global mosaic that demands immediate action. "The impact we have had on ocean ecosystems has been vastly underestimated," says co-author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University and the University of Kiel in Germany. "These are the megafauna, the big predators of the sea, and the species we most value. Their depletion not only threatens the future of these fish and the fishers that depend on them, it could also bring about a complete re-organization of ocean ecosystems, with unknown global consequences."
This is not an area where denial of the situation is useful.
It's a Presidential commission. See reply 28 for a link to a page with biographies of all of the commissioners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.