Navy, DOD and State Agree US Should Sign Onto UN Law of the Sea Treaty

By Lindsay Aylesworth

Short synopsis of Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting regarding ascension to the Law of the Sea Treaty with testimony from US Department of State, US Navy, and US Department of Defense.

There are not many times when the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, US Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations, all military department sectors, all combatant commanders, and the Coast Guard can all agree on one policy objective. However, testimony received on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at the Foreign Relations Committee Senate Hearing was one of those times. The topic warranting mass consensus from the Department of Defense, the Navy, Department of State, was US accession to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

The Law of the Sea Convention is the international legal instrument for public order in the world’s oceans. It demarcates coastal states territorial seas and exclusive economic zones, as well as regulates high seas and deep seabed mining. It regulates navigation, trade, military activities, communication, sustainable use of marine resources and many more issues regarding the world’s oceans.

The United States, as the world’s strongest maritime power and leader in maritime trade and commerce, is one of the last industrialized countries to sign the treaty, even though it abides by about 90% of its rules and regulations. The original delay on signing and ratifying the treaty in the 1980’s was due to provisions in Part XI on Deep Seabed Mining. However, the US worked with several other nations to create an amendment, in 1994, to the treaty rectifying US contentions with the Deep Seabed Mining provision.  Since 1994, concerns about what accession would mean for US sovereignty and national security have further delayed its passage through Congress.

With the current rush to claim a stake in the Arctic, as well as support from President Bush, there has been renewed pressure on Congress to finally ratify the UN Law of the Sea Convention. The testimonies of John D. Negroponte (Dept of State), Gordon England (Dept of Defense) and Admiral Patrick M Walsh (Navy), conclusively supported passage of the treaty and attempted to dispel some of the myths and counterarguments that are claimed by the opposition.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, from Alaska, posed the only question regarding Arctic issues- what the treaty would mean for the current US and Canada disagreement regarding the Northwest passage. Currently, the United States views the Northwest passage as an international waterway that does not fall under the sovereignty of any one country. Canada, who claims sovereignty over several Arctic Islands (Canadian Arctic Archipelago), also claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. With the potential opening of the Northwest passage due to global warming, it will be important to determine who has sovereignty over the waters, including rights to regulating navigation and to seabed and living resources.

The regulation of land-based pollution was another concern of several members of the Committee. In the Law of the Sea Convention, states are required to take measures to prevent the release of pollution from land based sources that can enter the ocean from the atmosphere or by dumping from a boat. It could be argued that since emissions add more CO2 into the atmosphere, and more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased uptake of CO2 by the oceans (acidification), then CO2 emissions are a form of ocean pollution. These Senators are afraid that other countries will try to hold the US accountable for its CO2 emissions not through the Kyoto Protocol, which addresses emissions, but through the land-based pollution clause in the Law of the Sea Convention. Currently, this is happening in the UK and several senators expressed concern that it would inevitably happen to the US with ratification of the Convention.

The other unusual concern of interest was the issue of taxes on resources mined in high seas areas. Under the Law of the Sea Convention, there is a tax of up to 7%, on resource extraction in high seas areas after seven years. The taxes collected from resources in the high seas, goes into a global fund, that a committee- made up of numerous members from various countries- can put to good use. Senators expressed many concerns that the US would be donating a portion of its profits without total control of where and what the money would be going towards. However, as clarified by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, John D. Negroponte, the taxes would begin after seven years of successfully extracting the resource, and it begins as a 1% tax. The taxes can increase up to only 7%.  He also reminded committee members that the US would have been successfully harvesting the resource for 7 years without a fee; if the US began to take mineral resources from the sea-bed and after several years, found that it wasn’t worth the time or the money, then there would be no charge. The United States would also have a member, with veto power, on the Commission that determines the cause and location for the tax money.

Many other issues regarding sovereignty and national security were addressed, of which all three testifiers insisted that ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention was in the best interest of the US to protect and enhance national security. As it currently stands, the Department of Defense, the US Navy and the Department of State all support US ratification of the treaty.  The land based pollution clause and the issues surrounding the Arctic are going to be important determinants as the Foreign Affairs Committee continues to hear testimony regarding the UN Law of the Sea Convention

Round 2 Law of the Sea Senate Hearing Controversial

By Lindsay Aylesworth

A short synopsis of the second Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting regarding the Law of the Sea Convention.

Despite the fact that in the first hearing, the Department of State, Navy, and Defense, fully supported ratification of the UN Law of the Sea Convention, the second round of panel hearings provided a brief showcase of the tense debate around the Law of the Sea, as two out of the seven witnesses called before the Committee vehemently opposed the treaty.
The second senate hearing on the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea began much as the first, citing widespread support for the treaty across all sectors. Senator Menendez (D-NJ) opened with a statement asking his fellow senators to “listen to the experts”. Senator Lugar (R-IN) echoed his statement and cautioned that this treaty has been in operation for many years and that it will go forward as the basis for international maritime law regardless of whether or not it is ratified by the United States.

Arctic Issues:
The UN Law of the Sea Convention is not the only way to solve Arctic conflicts according to one witness, Mr. Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy. His interpretation is that the Arctic conflict is a border dispute and US interests can be more favorably served to deal with these borders disputes in other forums such as the Arctic Council or bilateral treaties. With Russia’s effort to prove its sea floor and thus continental shelf extends over half of the Arctic Ocean, undoubtedly the US will want to put in its own claim.
Currently the extension of a country’s continental shelf falls under the Law of the Sea Convention and the authority in determining the validity of extension claims is vested in the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Although Gaffney claims that the Arctic Council is one way to resolve Arctic conflicts, the Arctic Council has no authority to extend a country’s continental shelf. A bilateral treaty could be possible but since the other Arctic States have agreed to Law of the Sea, their claims will be affirmed or denied by the Continental Shelf Commission- a commission in which the US currently has no voice. A law professor, Mr. Oxman, who also testified before Congress, stressed the importance of being a member to the treaty. He argued that in order to ensure the US has a “seat at the table” when future rights of the treaty are modified and to protect US interests concerning jurisdiction in the Arctic, the US needs to sign onto the Law of the Sea Convention.

Threats to US Sovereignty
Much of the opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty comes from fear that the treaty will threaten US sovereignty. It is important to keep in mind the inherent nature of any international law treaty; in order to sign onto the treaty a state must make some concessions and some view these concessions as threats to sovereignty. Much of the testimony in opposition addressed these concerns.

Arbitration and Dispute Settlement:
The main objection to the treaty claimed to threaten US sovereignty regards the procedures for arbitration and dispute settlement. Gaffney and Smith, President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that because mandatory settlement procedures are not just for navigation rules but also to any ocean-related disputes that the US would find itself undoubtedly before one of several international tribunals. If the disputing parties cannot agree on which type of dispute resolution tribunal, the dispute automatically goes to an arbitral tribunal whose decisions are binding.
Gaffney, Smith, and Senator Vitter (R-LA) are concerned about the selection procedures to determine the judges for the tribunals because there could be a situation where the majority of tribunal judges were from countries not friendly to US interests. The US is allowed to decide at least on arbiter for the tribunal and in some instances two. But on a panel where majority decisions are made with 5 judges, this decision could be “a recipe for disaster” according to Vitter (R-LA) because the decisions are binding. Oxman confirmed that if the two countries requiring arbitration could not agree on arbitrators, three would be appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General, possibly ending in a panel with 4 out of 5 arbiters from countries not friendly to US interests.

Military Actions: Are they Exempt?
Despite the military branches being in favor of the treaty, Gaffney, Smith and Senator Vitter (R-LA) are concerned about UNCLOS regulating military actions. All three oppose the treaty because they say the treaty does not specify who is to determine what actions fall under military exemptions and it is unclear whether intelligence gathering would also fall into this category. This issue is important because military actions are exempt from dispute resolution procedures.  Mr. Oxman’s response to this issue was to restate the letters of support from the military and intelligence communities. He further clarified the issue by explaining that as part of the ratification process each country is allowed to declare certain interpretations of the treaty. The most common one in regards to law of the sea is the declaration that only the home country can determine what constitutes a military action.

Veto Power
Questions were raised by Senator DeMint (R-SC), Gaffney and Smith, about the validity of US veto power on the Council of the International Seabed Authority. The treaty guarantees the US a seat on the Council, but Gaffney and Smith argued that this in no way guarantees the US the right to veto issues pertaining to economic use of taxes or other financial matters. Senator DeMint (R-SC) argued that it was naive to assume that other countries will follow treaty rules even if the US does and that would put the US at a disadvantage. Mr. Oxman refuted all claims by referring everyone to section 161.8.D that assures procedures in the Council of a financial matter are conducted by consensus, thus giving the US veto power. This issue arises as important because it has to do with taxes to be paid from mining operations that take place in high seas areas, and can be extrapolated to future concerns about the Arctic.

Land Based Pollution: a backdoor to Kyoto?
The Land based pollution clause was also a contentious issue in this hearing as it was in the first. The testimonies of Mr. Gaffney and Mr. Smith conflicted with Mr. Oxman’s on the outcome and interpretation of this clause, and questions from Senator Corker (R-TN) and Senator Vitter (R-LA) attempted to clarify these discrepancies. In the first hearing on Law of the Sea several senators expressed concerns that the land based pollution clause of UNCLOS in essence would be a way to force Kyoto regulations on the United States because the treaty reads that any input to the oceans, including those man made as well as those that come from the atmosphere, are viewed as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is emitted via the burning of fossil fuels into the atmosphere, and CO2 from the atmosphere is taken up by the ocean, critics fear this section of the treaty would be a way to force the US to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.
The testimony of Mr. Smith supported this argument. His interpretation of this clause is that the UN will “look upstream” at causes of marine pollution and pass regulations binding the US to international standards.  He cited an example of a legal battle over a MOX fuel plant in the UK and the battle before an UNCLOS tribunal between the UK and Ireland over issues regarding radioactive waste. Senator Corker (R-TN) tried to confirm this issue with Mr. Oxman, the professor of law, asking if the language of UNCLOS could be applied to global warming issues. Oxman disagreed with the testimony by Smith quoting the article directly, Article 207-Land Based Pollution, and stated that in an international law context the language in the treaty is designed to encourage member states to regulate pollution. He emphasized that it does not include hard obligations, binding standards or dispute settlement. Senator Vitter (R-LA) further questioned Oxman, as to why there was a section of the treaty labeled enforcement with respect to pollution from land-based sources. Oxman clarified this point stating that similarly this part of the treaty encourages member states to enforce land based pollution regulation. Since the US does have land-based marine pollution regulations and that the US enforces those rules, this section has satisfied the requirements set out by the treaty. Therefore signing onto the UN Law of the Sea Convention would not change current US land-based marine pollution regulations or enforce harsher standards.

Hearing Proceedings Flawed
Gaffney and Smith both raised objections to the process by which the Senate was gathering information about the Law of the Sea Treaty. They both objected that the number of witnesses called to testify against the treaty were far less (2 of 11) than those called in favor. Both witnesses also complained that the first hearing did not have any witnesses that were against the treaty. Gaffney called the procedure “ hasty, ill-considered and lethal” because of its bias in witnesses in favor of the treaty. Gaffney and Smith also resented the time allocation (of 5 minutes) to present their arguments against the treaty, although this is the same amount allotted for all witnesses. Due to Gaffney and Smith’s objections, Senator Vitter (R-LA) requested that the hearings be continued at least one more session to allow more groups opposed to the treaty to testify. Whether or not this will actually happen is up to Senator Biden (D-DE), the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The second round of the Senate Hearing on the UN Law of the Sea Convention drew out several of the conflicting views on what ratification of the hearing would mean. Senator Isakson (R-GA), apparently frustrated with the he-said, she-said manner of the second hearing proceedings, requested that Gaffney and Oxman both write statements supporting their positions and submit them to the Committee. It is unknown if the Senate Committee will indeed hold a third round of testimonies on the issue, however urgency in addressing the UN Law of the Sea Convention should not be forgotten. As claims in the Arctic and extension of coastal states continental shelves are left up to the procedures outlined in the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States will not have a “seat at the table” to discuss the nuances of these procedures or to stake a claim for its own extension.

Wayne Gilchrest Loses His Seat, Oceans Lose A Champion

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Wayne Gilchrest has been a champion of oceans and leader in science policy. After nine terms in office, he lost his seat to conservative Andy P. Harris.

Politics aren’t as black and white as they sometimes appear and Congressman Wayne Gilchrest from Maryland is a wonderful example of a Republican who has been a tremendous champion of the environment. His journey to Congress was nontraditional and when he arrived, Gilchrest stood out from most members of the GOP.  From the Washington Post:

Gilchrest shunned the Washington party circuit, preferring most nights to drive two hours back to his family and farm on the Eastern Shore. When he stayed in the city, he slept in his office rather than “waste money” on an apartment. He rarely cast votes that followed any party or ideological lines, and he became known as the quintessential political maverick, winning the odd distinction last year of being the Republican most likely to vote against his own party.

Wayne Gilchrest has been a champion of oceans and leader in science policy. He has served as Chairman on the Fisheries & Oceans Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the House Oceans Caucus and House Coastal Caucus. He had a central role in the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006.  After nine terms in office, I am saddened by his loss to Andy P. Harris by 11 points.   Harris spent over 1 million dollars on his campaign promoting his conservative credentials and attacking Gilchrest for being too moderate.  After defeat following nearly two decades in Congress, he refused to congratulate Harris because of “unseemly behavior” on the campaign trail, saying “The integrity of my eternal soul is infinitely more valuable than a pathetic political career.”

While I’m pleased Congressman Gilchrest maintains his integrity (and sense of humor), this loss puts our oceans in more peril than ever.

The Vote on Law of the Sea

By Lindsay Aylesworth

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on sending the Law of the Sea Treaty to the Senate floor.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on the Law of the Sea Treaty this morning (October 31, 2007), in an attempt to bring the long awaited Convention for a full vote on the Senate floor.  Thirteen years after the United States helped re-write critical aspects of the treaty to its favor, it is still awaiting ratification from the Senate. The Law of the Sea Treaty passed by majority vote of 17-4, with several Senators opposing the treaty; the last vote on the treaty in 2004, passed by a unanimous 19-0 support in favor of bringing the treaty to the floor. Even though at that time there was complete support in the committee to bring the treaty to a vote, it failed to make it onto the Senate floor.

The important question after the vote today is if Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) will send the Law of the Sea Treaty for a full vote on the Senate floor. The treaty needs 66 votes for ratification as well as to prevent a filibuster. Senator Inhofe (R-Ok) who is not a member of the Committee, has indicated that if the treaty goes to the floor he is prepared to filibuster to delay or prevent a vote on its passage. This can be avoided if there is supermajority support for the Law of the Sea Convention. Based on the vote in Committee, 17-4, there are some senators that are hesitant to support the treaty. This reflection in committee can be extrapolated to what might happen on the senate floor. Senator Reid will not send the treaty to the floor if it is not expected to receive the 66 votes necessary for ratification.

Of the senators that voted no, Senator Coleman (R-MN) was the only surprising addition. He changed his vote relative to 2004 most likely due to pressures associated with his upcoming re-election. He made several brief remarks about his concerns with the dispute resolution mechanism of the treaty and with the International Seabed Authority. Senator Vitter (R-LA), also another no vote, requested another hearing and tried to push for a vote to delay but withdrew the motion due to lack of support.  Of those that voted yes- Senator Corker (R-TN) made a statement reflecting that he is still not sure about the treaty, but his “first instinct” is that accession will be good for the US and he wants it to be considered by the full Senate.

Roll Call on Law of the Sea

Oceans on Science Friday at AAAS

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

NPR’s most recent Science Friday focused on oceans and featured Nicholas’ own Larry Crowder.

At the annual AAAS meeting in Boston, I had the opportunity to watch the broadcast of two of NPR’s Science Friday programs. The first session touched on the state of science, politics, and hopes for the next administration.   The second featured our own Larry Crowder and the discussion focused on the recent publication of a map which highlights human impacts on the oceans from 17 different activities. Alongside Larry were Carl Safina, Jane Lubchenco, and Ben Halpern with Ira Flatow as moderator. For details on the episode, click here and listen to the 46 minute long podcast.

Planktos Puts Iron Fertilization On Hold

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Planktos has canceled field tests due to a lack of funds blaming a “highly effective disinformation campaign.”

Last October, we released a white paper about the growing interest in iron fertilization the ocean to mitigate excess carbon in the atmosphere. 

In certain regions of the ocean, a lack of iron limits the growth of phytoplankton.  When dust containing iron settles onto these regions, plankton blooms occur which take up CO2 from the atmosphere that sinks when the algae die.  It is a natural process that stores carbon for varying amounts of time.

Now for-profit corporations want to spread Fe where it currently limits phytoplankton to offset carbon emissions.  Investors in these geo-engineering ventures hope to earn carbon credits which would be traded through markets or sold as offsets for greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the leading for-profit corporations, Planktos, has just canceled field tests due to a lack of funds blaming a “highly effective disinformation campaign.” The company called back its iron fertilization vessel and crew this month and cited “ideological hostility” and “misrepresentations” have halted progress.

But the truth is, iron fertilization cannot be viewed as a simple input and output equation and therefore it’s difficult to quantify what to expect.  The great deal of uncertainty makes policy governing these kind of large scale geo-engineering projects critical before action is taken for profit.  The implications of altering our climate and oceans have the potential to impact everyone.

Key elements of our white paper, Iron Fertilization in the Ocean for
Climate Mitigation: Legal, Economic, and Environmental Challenges include:

* Location, season, temperature, water chemistry, species composition, and so on – factors that are already independently in flux – may significantly impact the phytoplankton response.

* We do not know much about the ability to manipulate ecosystems.

* Effectiveness will depend on the the environmental consequences of the process and the final fate of carbon in the system.

* Results observed in studies so far may not apply to areas where future iron fertilization would take place.   In fact, some areas that have not been tested may be more promising for iron fertilization.

* In the short-term, iron fertilization typically leads to phytoplankton blooms, but the long-term effects are mostly unknown.

* Science has a great deal to learn about creating the right market to facilitate offset efforts.  The scientific community has yet to reach a consensus on biophysical and social impacts of the process.

Read more on Iron Fertilization from this month’s issue of Oceanus magazine here.

Does Losing Gilchrest Matter?

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Wayne Gilchrest is a champion for oceans policy. He’s lost his seat, so now what?

It’s obvious Wayne Gilchrest has been a tremendous voice for oceans, but the truth is, it may not be all that evident he’s gone.

Wayne co-chaired the House Oceans Caucus, but be assured, in his absence, Representative Sam Farr will not drop the fight and members will work to rebuild it.   It’s important to remember that a caucus has no oversight or legislative authority.  While there’s no question that Gilchrest has been a champion of oceans and environmental issues and caucuses are good evidence and support for legislation, our focus should be on the Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee.

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over programs within the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and serves as congressional steward of 547 national wildlife refuges, 70 federal fish hatcheries, 13,000 miles of coastline and 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean.

Wayne Gilchrest chaired the subcommittee for six years, but his role was marginalized by the House Resources Committee chairman Richard Pombo who oversaw oceans issues on the full committee level.  When Pombo lost his seat, Nick Rahall took over and he allows subcommittees to take a more active role on bills before the full committee considers them.  Representative Madeleine Bordallo is now the acting chair and supports “long-term protection and responsible use of our nation’s marine and terrestrial wildlife resources, as well as the environmental health of our coasts and oceans.”

So while Wayne will be missed tremendously in the oceans community, the fight for oceans policy in Congress will continue in his absence.

U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement and the Future of Fisheries

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Plans have begun to review a 1995 treaty on management of migratory fish stocks because of research suggesting current yields are not sustainable.

According to Greenwire, plans have begun to review a 1995 treaty on management of migratory fish stocks because of research suggesting current yields are not sustainable. The treaty is known as the U.N. Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, otherwise known as the Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA).  It attempts to standardize conservation approaches, regional governance practice, scientific research and cooperation and enforcement of regional and international fishing laws.  Attention is back on the treaty after reports from the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization and the U.N. Environment Programme that most of the world’s stocks are either fully or overexploited.

There are a myriad of culprits including destructive fishing practices, illegal harvest, ineffective management, increasing global consumption, the dead zones, and beyond.  Scientists believe we face a looming food crisis.

According to the article, Western Hemisphere and South Pacific governments have been more willing to accept aggressive regulations, however Asian and European states appear less urgent to accomplish change.  Last year, the General Assembly called on states to enact strict permitting for their flagged vessels to fish in international waters and the UN is also considering drawing up a global list of vessels permitted to operate in the high seas and a “black list” of vessels suspected of illegal fishing practices.  In 2008, the focus is expected to be on illegal, unreported and unregulated high seas fishing.

The United States is not a member of the Law of the Sea convention, but was one of the first nations to sign and ratify the FSA.  However, the FSA has only gathered 68 state parties while Law of the Sea has 155 full members.  The UN Law of the Sea was designed to address territorial and navigation issues, and the FSA is often viewed as an addendum.

Right Whale, Right Rules?

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

S. 2657 would require the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe regulations to reduce the incidence of vessels colliding with North Atlantic right whales by limiting the speed of vessels, and for other purposes. This week it’s up for vote in the Senate Commerce Committee.

This week, the Senate Commerce Committee votes on S. 2657 which would extend the reach of Congress into Office of Management and Budget.  Senator Kerry introduced the bill to force the White House to finalize a long-delayed rule to protect right whales from ship strikes.  The legislation is meant to expedite the implementation of rules from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that were finished one year ago now tied up in the review process.  These rules require large ships to reduce their speed in an effort to stop them from hitting and killing the endangered North Atlantic right whales.  On average, two whale collisions occur each year resulting in fatality and strikes are the greatest known loss to the right whale population that NMFS estimates at less than 350 individuals.  The proposed rule would require ships longer than 65 feet to reduce speed along the shore during peak right whale migratory months.

According to E&E News, NOAA submitted a draft final rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in February 2007 after going through the formal proposal, comment and review process and the rules were judged “economically significant.” Currently, the process allows unlimited time for the White House to review the regulations and S.2657 would require the administration to issue the rules within 30 days.  Additionally, it would require the incorporation of protections first proposed in June 2006.

Shipping companies call the restrictions are too expensive, with estimated costs over of $100 million per year. For perspective, the East Coast shipping trade is valued at $300 billion.  The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council of Economic Advisers have provided feedback on the rules and OIRA has consulted both the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the World Shipping Council.

Oceans 21 One Step Closer

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

On April 23, 2008, the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, met to markup H.R. 21 (Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act) also called Oceans 21. It passed 11-3 and the subcommittee opposed all amendments that would weaken the bill.

On Wednesday, April 23, 2008 the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, met to markup H.R. 21 (Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act) also called Oceans 21.  It passed 11-3 and the subcommittee.   The House bill currently has 66 cosponsors and it has not yet been introduced in the Senate.

The bill was introduced by Congressman Sam Farr (D-Ca,17^th), who is a co-chair of the bipartisan House Ocean Caucus, made up of over 50 members who represent coastal areas.  It was first introduced in the 108th Congress and has now been revised based on input from the oceans and fishing communities. Oceans advocates have been pushing for the bill for three years  and Wednesday’s approval is the furthest it has progressed.

Oceans 21 intends to provide better ocean management and prioritize healthy oceans and coasts.  It would serve several purposes including, but not limited to, setting a national policy for oceans and establishing a national and regional ocean governance structure.  It would implement key recommendations of the Congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the report of the Pew Oceans Commission.  It would establish a “national oceans adviser” for the president and federal advisory bodies on ocean policy and  contains–of extreme significance–language that authorizes NOAA.  The agency has existed since 1970, but has not been authorized by Congress.  The bill provides $1.3 billion each year to develop and implement regional ecosystem based management plans by establishing an Oceans and Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund.

There are also objections to Oceans 21.  Congressman Henry Brown (R-S.C.) and other Republicans filed 17 amendments against it, which would strike entire sections of the bill including the creation of a committee on ocean policy, requirements for ecosystems-based management and a charge for agencies to develop a national oceans policy.  Ranking member Brown believes the bill’s requirements for agencies to consider oceans health could go too far, expressing concern over the potential to create further confusion and regulatory hurdles. Republicans Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Jim Saxton of New Jersey voted in favor of the bill, while all other Republicans present objected to passage.

In the face of objections, Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) offered an amendment that would change a requirement that agencies review each project for its potential effects on ocean health.  Instead, federal agencies would be required to revise existing regulations as needed to ensure that they are carried out consistantly with oceans conservation policy.