- Email: [email protected]
Changing perceptions of the ‘American’ coastal ocean
318
Roundtable discussion
Changing Perceptions of the 'American' Coastal Ocean R o b e r t W. K n e c h t Graduate College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA
This short essay will focus on values and ocean governance from a domestic (national) point of view. In doing so, the author will touch briefly on two points: (1) the manner in which our national perception of the oceans has changed over the last century or so; (2) a discussion of developments during the 1980s which could foretell changes in the way in which we govern the oceans. The authors' thesis is that changes in perception can lead to changes in values which could, in turn, cause changes in policy. And policy changes would normally lead to changes in governance (the actual mechanics of ocean management, both for development and conservation). To the extent that this is a generally correct description of the sequence of events, then understanding how perceptions and values may be changing could help us to anticipate changes in actual governance and management. Of course, the situation is not really quite that linear. Perceptions and values affect policy-making and ocean governance decision-making in many ways resulting in some 'short circuiting' of this linear model. Collective values held by lawmakers (and those who advise lawmakers) find their way into legislation and policy. Decision-making by the ocean agencies formally involved in the ocean governance process is often affected by the values held by administrators and policy-makers in such programs. And since most ocean laws (and, indeed, other laws as well) allow for a substantial amount of discretion in their implementation, the value systems of an Administration and its leaders can very much affect the operation of ocean governance programs. Finally, differences in the value systems of those involved with different ocean sectors often underlie serious ocean conflicts. Ocean development interests, whether they be oil and gas or minerals related, generally have a set of values that often contrast sharply with those held by environmental and conservation groups. Often, objective numerical information on a particular issue will do relatively little to resolve conflicts that have their roots in such value differences.
Roundtable discussion
319
CHANGING OCEAN PERCEPTIONS AND VALUES During the first 100 years in the life of the US republic, the ocean was seen as a necessary and, indeed, vital communication link that supported the fledgling states in the new land. Occasionally, the vastness of the sea was seen as a useful aspect in the defense of the nation keeping some of our adversaries at distance. Psychologically, the sea and the long voyage all were required to take, represented a transition from the old world to the newmfrom the old constraints and limits to the new and limitless opportunity. The second half of the 19th century saw a new value added to the oceans as fisheries began to be an important economic activity in the nation. Coastal communities began to be shaped by their marine activities ranging from harvesting and processing whales, to shipbuilding, to fishing for cod, and lobstering. During the first 50 years of the present century, the sea again took on an important military cast as the nation moved mountains of material and armies of men across the sea to join their colleagues in the European and Pacific war theaters. About mid-century, the emergence of offshore oil and gas activities began to change the way in which oceans were perceived in the USA. In relatively short order, the extraction of oil and gas from offshore areas became an important (and controversial) ocean activity. Meanwhile, the 1960s saw a great acceleration in ocean science following the very successful international geophysical year (1957-58). Ocean scientists aided and abetted by ocean entrepreneurs tried with only partial success to convince the public that the ocean would follow outer space as the next frontier and rich economic benefits were promised. The emphasis on science and technology and ocean development, however, got a rude setback in 1969 with the Santa Barbara oil blowout. Earlier books by Rachael Carson and others were beginning to sensitize the American people to environmental and ocean issues as were the highly effective TV programs by Jacques Cousteau and others. But it was the image of oiled beaches and dying birds that drove the point home in the American consciousness. Changes in public policy and ocean governance were to follow shortly. In fact, Congress had a legislative field day in the environment and oceans field between about 1969 and 1978. By this time, Congressional decentralization, which had started in the early 1970s, had proceeded to the point where one Congressman in three was a chairman of a subcommittee with a 'hunting license' to legislate virtually as they saw fit. This development was paralleled by the emergence of special
320
Roundtable discussion
interest (often single interest) groups which focused on specific problems and issues. Consequently, there was a ready-made match between specific interest groups and subcommittees focusing on single problems and issues which gave rise to a spate of single focus ocean legislation during that period. Individual pieces of legislation were enacted to deal with coastal management, marine mammals, endangered species, deep water ports, water quality, marine sanctuaries, offshore oil and gas, and a host Of other issue areas. A different law was written and passed for every perceived ocean problem or opportunity. Unfortunately, however, little or no legislation was enacted dealing with the oceans p e r se, that is, dealing with the oceans in totality and in their planning and management. This was, in large part, because there was no ocean interest group specifically calling for such legislation. In our society, perhaps unfortunately, interest groups organize around specific problems or goals. In a way, narrower is better. Think only of the National Rifle Association and its single-minded, narrowly-focused, goal. Or the pro- and anti-abortion-related interest groups. Comprehensive ocean governance is not the kind of issue that attracts contributions, support, or passionate involvement. What did not exist (and does not exist) is some sort of a 'league of ocean voters', a group concerned with the welfare and long-term well-being of the oceans as a whole. Environmental organizations will argue that they serve this broader purpose and, to a certain extent some of them do. However, they generally do not place the same value on economic development of ocean resources that other interests would. In any event, the 1980s saw much of the single purpose legislation enacted in the 1970s move into the implementation stage. A n d , not surprisingly, it was discovered that the ocean was not 'single-purposed'--that, indeed, ocean dumping affects beaches and oil activities affect marine m a m m a l s - - a n d that marine mammals affect fisheries, and so on. In short, it was discovered that our approach to governance did not adequately take into account the complex and interdependent ocean system. The single-purpose ocean m a n a g e m e n t tools of the 1970s were increasingly seen as blunt and primitive instruments when compared to the challenges of the 1980s and the 1990s. For example, the present approach to the governance of offshore oil and gas activities takes little or no explicit account of the fact that a significant piece of ocean space is being effectively removed from other uses from a period of 20-30 years. Similarly, some of the 'absolutes' in the marine mammal protection statute now are seen as overly inflexible and rigid.
Roundtable discussion
321
N E W D E V E L O P M E N T S IN T H E 1980s The author turns now to some developments that have occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s, which, he feels, could point to some changing perceptions with regard to the American ocean and parts of the global ocean as well. First, there have been some important jurisdictional changes on the domestic scene. The creation of the 200-mile E E Z added a vast ocean area to US ocean resource jurisdiction and the extension of the US territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles in 1988 quadrupled the size of ocean space adjacent to the USA under direct US sovereignty. These two actions, taken together, have defined, in a much more concrete sense, the spatial extent of US ocean jurisdiction off our nation's coasts. Internationally, the last decade and a half has seen the adoption of eleven international conventions under the Regional Seas Program of the United Nations Environmental Program. There are geographically focused efforts by groups of nations surrounding enclosed or semienclosed bodies of water such as the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas. The emphasis is on 'water body management' to achieve a range of goals tailored to the particular problems of the various regions. While the initial thrust of most of these plans dealt with marine pollution, the programs are now focusing on resource management, the identification and management of marine protected areas, fisheries development, and the like. The trend, therefore, is away from single resource, sectoral management and towards a multiple purpose, areawide approach to management of these valuable ocean regions. In the USA, the 1980s saw the occurrence of a number of well publicized incidents involving medical wastes, sewage, and other noxious material washed up on some of the beaches of Long Island, New Jersey, and elsewhere. These events, together with the notorious Exxon Valdez oil spill and similar spills shortly thereafter in Narragansett Bay, Delaware Bay, and in the Houston Ship Canal, all served to focus attention on various marine water bodies and the insults being perpetrated on them. In a way, the public ocean mind set shifted from the science and glamour of the sea (flipper, Cousteau's ship Calipso and its deep sea adventures, discovery of the Titanic and fishing boats returning to port loaded with their catches) to ocean 'places' that were being damaged in one way or another by man's activities. Perhaps these insults have highlighted the fact that the oceans c a n be damaged--that in some sense they are delicately balanced systems easily thrown out of equilibrium. On seeing their vulnerability, a concerned public calls for
322
Roundtable discussion
action from government and, at the same time, begins to understand the need for active stewardship of such a valuable resource. The author would argue also that the creation of a 12-mile territorial sea and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone by the USA also served to highlight the spatial dimension of the oceans that, together, can now be said to form the 'American Ocean'. Really for the first time, the 'range' was fenced in and the size and extent of the property became clear (to use a western ranch analogy). Previously, the extent of our ocean interest and jurisdiction was related to the resource or use in question. As a nation, we had jurisdiction over oil and gas development out to one distance (the edge of the continental shelf), fisheries jurisdiction out to another (the 200-mile E E Z ) , and environmental controls out to still a third. Recently, several of the US coastal states have begun the process of developing oceati resource management programs for large portions of the ocean areas adjacent to its shorelines. The state of Oregon, for example, has recently declared an 'ocean stewardship zone' in the ocean adjacent to their coastline. This zone, which contains many of the natural resources of direct and immediate economic interest to the state (primarily fisheries) generally follows the location of the continental shelf adjacent to Oregon and varies from 30 to 70 miles offshore. Now, what do these recent developments have in common? It is clear to the author that the commonality involves the spatial and geographic connotations associated with each of these developments. They are all place or space related. The emphasis is on area, location and spatial extent, and less so on a particular resource or function or economic sector. A related point involves new uses of the ocean and the extent to which these uses are going to be space related. Think for a moment about the ocean activities that are going to be important in the 1990s. They will include platforms for producing oil and gas, perhaps ocean mining sites, certainly sensitive military deployments of listening equipment on the continental shelf, marine sanctuaries and other forms of marine protected areas, and probably some continuing ocean dump sites. These activities will commit sizeable portions of ocean space to single uses for periods of 10-20 years or more. In this sense, then, ocean governance in the 1990s may increasingly involve the allocation of sizeable portions of ocean space to particular activities. Are we, as a nation, prepared to allocate ocean space in a fair and equitable manner? Do we have a governance scheme designed for this purpose? The answer, of course, is no. Our present governance arrangements, with the possible exception of the coastal zone manage-
Roundtable discussion
323
ment programs of the coastal states, are geared to managing specific uses or particular resource-related activities and not to managing ocean space p e r se. T h e one other exception to this is the present national marine sanctuaries program where, for the dozen or so sites that have been (or are being) designated as marine sanctuaries, area-based, multiple purpose management programs exist. It seems to the author that the interested and concerned public represents another force that will be encouraging and supporting area or space-based governance. After an incident like Exxon Valdez, the public raises its voice asking 'who is in charge of Prince William Sound?'. Earlier they asked 'who was responsible for the Santa Barbara Channel?'. Similarly, 'who is in charge of the ocean off Long Island or the Jersey Shore or for that matter, the oceans anywhere off our shoreline?.' 'How can we allow these 'insults' to our ocean to continue?' 'Is anyone in charge?' Unfortunately, the answer is 'no one' at the present time. A number of government agencies staffed by caring and competent people all have a little piece of the action but no agency has overall responsibility for the American ocean as a whole, or for any of the important parts of it. And that may be one of the principal problems in ocean governance at the present time---no one is responsible or accountable for the stewardship of the US coastal ocean. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has some important responsibilities concerning marine fisheries, national coastal zone management, and the marine sanctuaries program among others. The Environmental Protection Agency has similar responsibilities with regard to coastal water quality and ocean dumping. Additionally, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense all have responsibilities that directly affect ocean resources and ocean space. But no single agency has responsibility for the health and well-being of particular areas of the American ocean. No one is in charge of developing long range plans for its conservation and use; no one is in charge of identifying potential conflicts between uses; no one is in charge of setting priorities between various uses; and no one is in charge of making tradeoffs between competing uses. The bottom line is that no one has the responsibility or duty to insure that the equities that are an inherent part of ethical ocean governance are achieved. It seems to the author that the essence of the ethical governance of public resources requires that several kinds of equities be maintained. Two kinds of equity come to mind--spatial equity and temporal equity.
324
Roundtable discussion
First, with regard to spatial equity and the balances and accommodations needed to achieve and maintain it, the American ocean has two important interfaces---one with the coastal zone and inland areas and one with the larger international ocean. Seen in this context, governance of the American ocean (for these purposes, from 3 to 200 miles offshore), has to take account of needs, desires, and interests of the inhabitants of US coastal communities and states, on the one hand, and the needs and interests of the broader global community on the other. In terms of temporal equity, the author sees the governance task as one of attempting to achieve our present perceptions of the national interest concerning American ocean goals and objectives, on the one hand, without foreclosing ocean-related options for future generations and, at the same time, attempting to reflect commitments (or moral obligations) to present descendants of past generations (i.e. the question of preferential rights to ocean resources of indigenous peoples).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS In this paper, the author has attempted to show that the oceans adjacent to America's shores are becoming 'places' of concern to increasing numbers of Americans. The remarkable increase in ocean areas now being considered for designation as future marine sanctuaries underscores this point. Recent extensions in US ocean jurisdiction also have served to clarify the areal extent of the American ocean. Coupled with these trends is an increasing tendency to commit ever larger volumes of ocean space to particular uses for long periods of time. Unfortunately, the present governmental scheme for making decisions with regard to these long term commitments cannot be viewed as a model of balanced decision-making. Such decisions are usually made on the basis of narrow, single purpose legislative frameworks. The author urges, therefore, strengthened effort to develop ocean governance schemes that are area based--that refer to specific, identifiable portions of the American ocean which are of concern and interest to important blocks of the public. Such a governance scheme needs to be seen as equitable and ethically appropriate. As mentioned above, the scheme has to balance a number of different kinds of interests across both the spatial and temporal dimensions. This scheme has to involve an open process, fully accessible to the interests that are affected by the ultimate ocean use decision. A n d , finally, and perhaps
Roundtable discussion
325
most importantly, a particular agency or governmental entity has to be responsible and accountable for that piece of ocean space. The American ocean and its bountiful resources have become too important, too valuable, to leave its stewardship in the hands of a highly fragmented, and highly fractious assembly of government agencies. The pressures will grow, the need is clear, so let the work begin.
Roundtable discussion
Changing Perceptions of the 'American' Coastal Ocean R o b e r t W. K n e c h t Graduate College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA
This short essay will focus on values and ocean governance from a domestic (national) point of view. In doing so, the author will touch briefly on two points: (1) the manner in which our national perception of the oceans has changed over the last century or so; (2) a discussion of developments during the 1980s which could foretell changes in the way in which we govern the oceans. The authors' thesis is that changes in perception can lead to changes in values which could, in turn, cause changes in policy. And policy changes would normally lead to changes in governance (the actual mechanics of ocean management, both for development and conservation). To the extent that this is a generally correct description of the sequence of events, then understanding how perceptions and values may be changing could help us to anticipate changes in actual governance and management. Of course, the situation is not really quite that linear. Perceptions and values affect policy-making and ocean governance decision-making in many ways resulting in some 'short circuiting' of this linear model. Collective values held by lawmakers (and those who advise lawmakers) find their way into legislation and policy. Decision-making by the ocean agencies formally involved in the ocean governance process is often affected by the values held by administrators and policy-makers in such programs. And since most ocean laws (and, indeed, other laws as well) allow for a substantial amount of discretion in their implementation, the value systems of an Administration and its leaders can very much affect the operation of ocean governance programs. Finally, differences in the value systems of those involved with different ocean sectors often underlie serious ocean conflicts. Ocean development interests, whether they be oil and gas or minerals related, generally have a set of values that often contrast sharply with those held by environmental and conservation groups. Often, objective numerical information on a particular issue will do relatively little to resolve conflicts that have their roots in such value differences.
Roundtable discussion
319
CHANGING OCEAN PERCEPTIONS AND VALUES During the first 100 years in the life of the US republic, the ocean was seen as a necessary and, indeed, vital communication link that supported the fledgling states in the new land. Occasionally, the vastness of the sea was seen as a useful aspect in the defense of the nation keeping some of our adversaries at distance. Psychologically, the sea and the long voyage all were required to take, represented a transition from the old world to the newmfrom the old constraints and limits to the new and limitless opportunity. The second half of the 19th century saw a new value added to the oceans as fisheries began to be an important economic activity in the nation. Coastal communities began to be shaped by their marine activities ranging from harvesting and processing whales, to shipbuilding, to fishing for cod, and lobstering. During the first 50 years of the present century, the sea again took on an important military cast as the nation moved mountains of material and armies of men across the sea to join their colleagues in the European and Pacific war theaters. About mid-century, the emergence of offshore oil and gas activities began to change the way in which oceans were perceived in the USA. In relatively short order, the extraction of oil and gas from offshore areas became an important (and controversial) ocean activity. Meanwhile, the 1960s saw a great acceleration in ocean science following the very successful international geophysical year (1957-58). Ocean scientists aided and abetted by ocean entrepreneurs tried with only partial success to convince the public that the ocean would follow outer space as the next frontier and rich economic benefits were promised. The emphasis on science and technology and ocean development, however, got a rude setback in 1969 with the Santa Barbara oil blowout. Earlier books by Rachael Carson and others were beginning to sensitize the American people to environmental and ocean issues as were the highly effective TV programs by Jacques Cousteau and others. But it was the image of oiled beaches and dying birds that drove the point home in the American consciousness. Changes in public policy and ocean governance were to follow shortly. In fact, Congress had a legislative field day in the environment and oceans field between about 1969 and 1978. By this time, Congressional decentralization, which had started in the early 1970s, had proceeded to the point where one Congressman in three was a chairman of a subcommittee with a 'hunting license' to legislate virtually as they saw fit. This development was paralleled by the emergence of special
320
Roundtable discussion
interest (often single interest) groups which focused on specific problems and issues. Consequently, there was a ready-made match between specific interest groups and subcommittees focusing on single problems and issues which gave rise to a spate of single focus ocean legislation during that period. Individual pieces of legislation were enacted to deal with coastal management, marine mammals, endangered species, deep water ports, water quality, marine sanctuaries, offshore oil and gas, and a host Of other issue areas. A different law was written and passed for every perceived ocean problem or opportunity. Unfortunately, however, little or no legislation was enacted dealing with the oceans p e r se, that is, dealing with the oceans in totality and in their planning and management. This was, in large part, because there was no ocean interest group specifically calling for such legislation. In our society, perhaps unfortunately, interest groups organize around specific problems or goals. In a way, narrower is better. Think only of the National Rifle Association and its single-minded, narrowly-focused, goal. Or the pro- and anti-abortion-related interest groups. Comprehensive ocean governance is not the kind of issue that attracts contributions, support, or passionate involvement. What did not exist (and does not exist) is some sort of a 'league of ocean voters', a group concerned with the welfare and long-term well-being of the oceans as a whole. Environmental organizations will argue that they serve this broader purpose and, to a certain extent some of them do. However, they generally do not place the same value on economic development of ocean resources that other interests would. In any event, the 1980s saw much of the single purpose legislation enacted in the 1970s move into the implementation stage. A n d , not surprisingly, it was discovered that the ocean was not 'single-purposed'--that, indeed, ocean dumping affects beaches and oil activities affect marine m a m m a l s - - a n d that marine mammals affect fisheries, and so on. In short, it was discovered that our approach to governance did not adequately take into account the complex and interdependent ocean system. The single-purpose ocean m a n a g e m e n t tools of the 1970s were increasingly seen as blunt and primitive instruments when compared to the challenges of the 1980s and the 1990s. For example, the present approach to the governance of offshore oil and gas activities takes little or no explicit account of the fact that a significant piece of ocean space is being effectively removed from other uses from a period of 20-30 years. Similarly, some of the 'absolutes' in the marine mammal protection statute now are seen as overly inflexible and rigid.
Roundtable discussion
321
N E W D E V E L O P M E N T S IN T H E 1980s The author turns now to some developments that have occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s, which, he feels, could point to some changing perceptions with regard to the American ocean and parts of the global ocean as well. First, there have been some important jurisdictional changes on the domestic scene. The creation of the 200-mile E E Z added a vast ocean area to US ocean resource jurisdiction and the extension of the US territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles in 1988 quadrupled the size of ocean space adjacent to the USA under direct US sovereignty. These two actions, taken together, have defined, in a much more concrete sense, the spatial extent of US ocean jurisdiction off our nation's coasts. Internationally, the last decade and a half has seen the adoption of eleven international conventions under the Regional Seas Program of the United Nations Environmental Program. There are geographically focused efforts by groups of nations surrounding enclosed or semienclosed bodies of water such as the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas. The emphasis is on 'water body management' to achieve a range of goals tailored to the particular problems of the various regions. While the initial thrust of most of these plans dealt with marine pollution, the programs are now focusing on resource management, the identification and management of marine protected areas, fisheries development, and the like. The trend, therefore, is away from single resource, sectoral management and towards a multiple purpose, areawide approach to management of these valuable ocean regions. In the USA, the 1980s saw the occurrence of a number of well publicized incidents involving medical wastes, sewage, and other noxious material washed up on some of the beaches of Long Island, New Jersey, and elsewhere. These events, together with the notorious Exxon Valdez oil spill and similar spills shortly thereafter in Narragansett Bay, Delaware Bay, and in the Houston Ship Canal, all served to focus attention on various marine water bodies and the insults being perpetrated on them. In a way, the public ocean mind set shifted from the science and glamour of the sea (flipper, Cousteau's ship Calipso and its deep sea adventures, discovery of the Titanic and fishing boats returning to port loaded with their catches) to ocean 'places' that were being damaged in one way or another by man's activities. Perhaps these insults have highlighted the fact that the oceans c a n be damaged--that in some sense they are delicately balanced systems easily thrown out of equilibrium. On seeing their vulnerability, a concerned public calls for
322
Roundtable discussion
action from government and, at the same time, begins to understand the need for active stewardship of such a valuable resource. The author would argue also that the creation of a 12-mile territorial sea and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone by the USA also served to highlight the spatial dimension of the oceans that, together, can now be said to form the 'American Ocean'. Really for the first time, the 'range' was fenced in and the size and extent of the property became clear (to use a western ranch analogy). Previously, the extent of our ocean interest and jurisdiction was related to the resource or use in question. As a nation, we had jurisdiction over oil and gas development out to one distance (the edge of the continental shelf), fisheries jurisdiction out to another (the 200-mile E E Z ) , and environmental controls out to still a third. Recently, several of the US coastal states have begun the process of developing oceati resource management programs for large portions of the ocean areas adjacent to its shorelines. The state of Oregon, for example, has recently declared an 'ocean stewardship zone' in the ocean adjacent to their coastline. This zone, which contains many of the natural resources of direct and immediate economic interest to the state (primarily fisheries) generally follows the location of the continental shelf adjacent to Oregon and varies from 30 to 70 miles offshore. Now, what do these recent developments have in common? It is clear to the author that the commonality involves the spatial and geographic connotations associated with each of these developments. They are all place or space related. The emphasis is on area, location and spatial extent, and less so on a particular resource or function or economic sector. A related point involves new uses of the ocean and the extent to which these uses are going to be space related. Think for a moment about the ocean activities that are going to be important in the 1990s. They will include platforms for producing oil and gas, perhaps ocean mining sites, certainly sensitive military deployments of listening equipment on the continental shelf, marine sanctuaries and other forms of marine protected areas, and probably some continuing ocean dump sites. These activities will commit sizeable portions of ocean space to single uses for periods of 10-20 years or more. In this sense, then, ocean governance in the 1990s may increasingly involve the allocation of sizeable portions of ocean space to particular activities. Are we, as a nation, prepared to allocate ocean space in a fair and equitable manner? Do we have a governance scheme designed for this purpose? The answer, of course, is no. Our present governance arrangements, with the possible exception of the coastal zone manage-
Roundtable discussion
323
ment programs of the coastal states, are geared to managing specific uses or particular resource-related activities and not to managing ocean space p e r se. T h e one other exception to this is the present national marine sanctuaries program where, for the dozen or so sites that have been (or are being) designated as marine sanctuaries, area-based, multiple purpose management programs exist. It seems to the author that the interested and concerned public represents another force that will be encouraging and supporting area or space-based governance. After an incident like Exxon Valdez, the public raises its voice asking 'who is in charge of Prince William Sound?'. Earlier they asked 'who was responsible for the Santa Barbara Channel?'. Similarly, 'who is in charge of the ocean off Long Island or the Jersey Shore or for that matter, the oceans anywhere off our shoreline?.' 'How can we allow these 'insults' to our ocean to continue?' 'Is anyone in charge?' Unfortunately, the answer is 'no one' at the present time. A number of government agencies staffed by caring and competent people all have a little piece of the action but no agency has overall responsibility for the American ocean as a whole, or for any of the important parts of it. And that may be one of the principal problems in ocean governance at the present time---no one is responsible or accountable for the stewardship of the US coastal ocean. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has some important responsibilities concerning marine fisheries, national coastal zone management, and the marine sanctuaries program among others. The Environmental Protection Agency has similar responsibilities with regard to coastal water quality and ocean dumping. Additionally, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense all have responsibilities that directly affect ocean resources and ocean space. But no single agency has responsibility for the health and well-being of particular areas of the American ocean. No one is in charge of developing long range plans for its conservation and use; no one is in charge of identifying potential conflicts between uses; no one is in charge of setting priorities between various uses; and no one is in charge of making tradeoffs between competing uses. The bottom line is that no one has the responsibility or duty to insure that the equities that are an inherent part of ethical ocean governance are achieved. It seems to the author that the essence of the ethical governance of public resources requires that several kinds of equities be maintained. Two kinds of equity come to mind--spatial equity and temporal equity.
324
Roundtable discussion
First, with regard to spatial equity and the balances and accommodations needed to achieve and maintain it, the American ocean has two important interfaces---one with the coastal zone and inland areas and one with the larger international ocean. Seen in this context, governance of the American ocean (for these purposes, from 3 to 200 miles offshore), has to take account of needs, desires, and interests of the inhabitants of US coastal communities and states, on the one hand, and the needs and interests of the broader global community on the other. In terms of temporal equity, the author sees the governance task as one of attempting to achieve our present perceptions of the national interest concerning American ocean goals and objectives, on the one hand, without foreclosing ocean-related options for future generations and, at the same time, attempting to reflect commitments (or moral obligations) to present descendants of past generations (i.e. the question of preferential rights to ocean resources of indigenous peoples).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS In this paper, the author has attempted to show that the oceans adjacent to America's shores are becoming 'places' of concern to increasing numbers of Americans. The remarkable increase in ocean areas now being considered for designation as future marine sanctuaries underscores this point. Recent extensions in US ocean jurisdiction also have served to clarify the areal extent of the American ocean. Coupled with these trends is an increasing tendency to commit ever larger volumes of ocean space to particular uses for long periods of time. Unfortunately, the present governmental scheme for making decisions with regard to these long term commitments cannot be viewed as a model of balanced decision-making. Such decisions are usually made on the basis of narrow, single purpose legislative frameworks. The author urges, therefore, strengthened effort to develop ocean governance schemes that are area based--that refer to specific, identifiable portions of the American ocean which are of concern and interest to important blocks of the public. Such a governance scheme needs to be seen as equitable and ethically appropriate. As mentioned above, the scheme has to balance a number of different kinds of interests across both the spatial and temporal dimensions. This scheme has to involve an open process, fully accessible to the interests that are affected by the ultimate ocean use decision. A n d , finally, and perhaps
Roundtable discussion
325
most importantly, a particular agency or governmental entity has to be responsible and accountable for that piece of ocean space. The American ocean and its bountiful resources have become too important, too valuable, to leave its stewardship in the hands of a highly fragmented, and highly fractious assembly of government agencies. The pressures will grow, the need is clear, so let the work begin.