Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 173
D Report on the International Global Ocean Exploration Workshop To sol icit ideas for program di rection, feasibi I ity, and i International interest in an ocean exploration program an international workshop was held that included invited talks from oceanographers, explorers, educators, national ocean agencies, and nonprofit organizations. The International Global Ocean Exploration (IGOE) Workshop took place in Paris, at the headquarters of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), from May 1 3-1 5, 2002. Approximately 80 participants from 22 countries attended the meeti ng. The IGOE Workshop was organized to address the major issues in the statement of task to the committee: · the value of implementing an ocean exploration program at the international level; · existing programs and their strengths, weaknesses, and gaps; · priority areas for exploration; · technology and infrastructure needed; and · strategies for cooperation to implement such a coordinated, inter- national program. What follows below is a summary of the remarks of the speakers, as well as a synopsis of the open floor discussions that concluded each session. 1 73
OCR for page 174
1 74 APPENDIX D OPENING PLENARY SESSION: THE VALUE OF AN INTERNATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM Speakers The Plenary Session began with an address and welcome by the Execu- tive Secretary of IOC, Patricia Bernal. Dr. Bernal expressed regret that the ocean science community has had relatively little success in capturing the oublic imagination esoecialiv in comparison with the oublic's interest in . ~ , . . . . space exploration. Exploration has always been motivated by discovery (e.g., the discovery of new civilizations) and economic benefits (e.g., access to new resources), and ocean exploration is no exception. Scientific break- throughs often come from the most unexpected places, and a program of ocean exploration would open up new directions for scientific thought. Exploration now seeks things and places, but not processes. While explora- tion of the deepest ocean regions has resulted in dramatic discoveries, less dramatic but no less important are discoveries in other areas. For example "interfaces" between distinct objects such as the air-sea interface, and oceanic fronts have yielded new and exciting information. This theme of "interfaces" was repeated by several workshop participants throughout the event. Dr. Bernal described many challenges a new ocean exploration pro- gram would face. Certain provisions of the Law of the Sea (LOS) must be considered, there is the potential for conflicts between exploration and conservation, and exploration in waters of national jurisdiction may be problematic. A coordinated, international program should focus resources . . . On high priority areas and should take advantage of the opportunity to craft new partnerships. It should foster not only an international, but an inter- cultural dialog among scientists, industry, and the general public. Before establishing any program the concepts of ocean exploration must be agreed upon, and research, exploration, and prospecting must be clearly distinguished. Marcia McNutt clarified many of the distinctions between scientific exploration and scientific research (Table D.11. The first wave of ocean exploration was the voyage of the Challenger in the 1 870s, during which mid-ocean ridges were discovered, a new understanding of ocean sedi- ments was gained, and nearly 4,500 new species were identified. Ocean exploration should be revived to take advantage of the many new platforms, tools, and techniques available to ocean science and marine archeology. These i ncl ude:
OCR for page 175
APPENDIX D TABLE D.1 Differences between Research and Exploration 1 75 Question Research Exploration What is it? Testing of hypotheses Search for discoveries Who does it? Specialists Generalists Where is it done? Where it is needed to test a hypothesis Unknown area What do we use? Specialized tools Broad suite of tools How is it done? One-of-a-kind approach Systematic, broad-based approach Data policy? Initially property of principal investigator Immediate wide distribution What is role of public? Little involvement Public can be present . autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) which could be deployed in particularly harsh environments, such as the Arctic; · advanced mooring systems to enable exploration in time; · methods for macrobiological sampling that permit the capture of organisms that have not been well-studied; · techniques for microbiological sampling that permit the in situ analysis of samples and genetic discrimination of organisms; · chemical sampling tools such as an in situ ultraviolet spectrometer and laser instruments for the in situ analysis of sediments; and · software tools that enable new ways to visualize, analyze, and inte- grate data, resulting in products that are often data, rather than samples. Such a program should include voyages of discovery, targeted techno- logical development, data management, education and public outreach activities, and full international involvement. The science community needs to emphasize the excitement of discovery of new life forms and habitats to capture the interest of the general public. International cooperation is required because the oceans are so large that no single country can explore them alone. Expertise and assets from other countries are needed. The financial investment will result in new knowledge leading to new hypothesis that can feed a robust oceanographic research program. Joe Baker, Chief Scientist for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Commissioner for the Environment, discussed the value of ocean exploration exempl if fed by Austral ia's dependence on marl ne
OCR for page 176
1 76 APPENDIX D resources for its economic well-being. The scientific value of exploration is not the highest priority. It is the use of the data and the assimilation and transmission of information to decision-makers that is essential. Australia is one of the 12 mega-biodiverse countries, and the only developed country among the 1 2 mega-biodiverse countries. With the exception of Austral ia, the other eleven have an inverse proportion of gross national product to mega-biodiversity. Australia has a well-educated population, is politically stable, and has many special features such as the Great Barrier Reef. There is significant expertise in tropical marine systems, and as a result, Australia has responsibi I ity for leadersh ip i n management and conservation for pro- tection of mega-biodiversity. Dr. Baker's definition of ocean exploration is broad and includes a comprehensive awareness of the nature, role, and function of the oceans. It should be multidisciplinary and multinational. A coordinated international exploration program adds value bv sharing costs and assets. sharing output. , , O , , O , O , , . .. . . . ~ . . . . . . . .. ~ . and eliminating overlap. Such a program should Include studies ot Impacts of change on human populations, interactions at boundaries (e.g., ice, coastal margins, sea beds), the interdependency of living and nonliving components of ecosystems, big-prospecting for pharmaceuticals, and bio- mining for exploitation of natural resources. The challenge is to determine priorities and develop criteria for study selection. He emphasized that ocean exploration should not focus exclusively on offshore oceanic environments. Coastal ocean exploration is equally impor- tant as offshore because these are the areas where the impacts of change will be the most severe. Finally, he offered the opinion that good explora- tion shares costs and benefits with developing countries in order to help all parties achieve sustainable development of ocean resources. Victor Smetacek offered unique insights into exploration. Early in child- hood exploration begins as the senses develop and sensory perception can only be used after the target of discovery has been determined. The simplest approach to problems the box model does not reveal understanding or perception of dimensions. The best instrument for exploration is the human brain; perhaps one way to integrate the human brain into an exploration program is to identify new ways to perceive and communicate our dis- cover~es. As an example, consider the relationship between form and function. Beautiful and ornate radiolarians and foraminifera were described during the Challenger expedition, but the relationships between their form and function still is not understood. The distribution and behavior of planktonic
OCR for page 177
APPENDIX D species should be a priority for ocean exploration, but funding such explo- ration will be difficult without evidence for an economic benefit at the conclusion. Dr. Smetacek reviewed problems related to the oceans and carbon cycling, and introduced a new interdisciplinary program being conducted by the Alfred Wegener Institute on exploration of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This expedition is exploratory because so little is known about the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which is important to global cycles. The questions being posed are not yet hypotheses. Summary of Plenary Discussion During discussion of the plenary lectures, some important issues were introduced: . . How can results of exploration be reported in peer-reviewed jour- nals? What will be the reward system for explorers in our universi- ties? What can be done to encourage and develop the next genera- tion of explorers? Ocean versus space exploration: Why is there an apparent lack of public and political support for exploration of the oceans compared with space exploration? Space agencies mobilize billions of dollars for satellites that sometimes fail, but centralized space exploration maintains an effective public relations program. Perhaps the public perceives that the ocean is more accessible than space and does not require large-scale initiatives. This fallacy (e.g., ocean access must overcome difficulties of pressure and energy that do not exist in space) has not been adequately addressed. To initiate and develop an ocean exploration program the imagination of our children the oceanographers of the future must be captured. How can priorities be identified that will provide the most impact for human populations? This is especially important to encourage the participation of developing countries. Perceptions of competition for funding between ocean exploration and ocean research must be avoided. The resource base must be expanded and new sources of funding clearly delineated to support an ocean exploration program. · The old treaties of the 1 970s and 1 980s (LOS, Sea Bed Authority) will be very difficult to renegotiate in this new and different political envi ronment. 1 77
OCR for page 178
1 78 APPENDIX D FIRST SESSION: EXISTING PROGRAMS United States Craig McLean, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Ocean Exploration, described the cur- rent NOAA effort that is founded on a long tradition of ocean exploration in the United States. In 1998, the National Ocean Conference recommended the development of U.S.-based priorities on the ocean. In 2000, a panel of experts was convened by an Executive Order from President Clinton. This President's Panel made recommendations for priorities of an ocean explora- tion program, and NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration was initiated at a level of $4 million. The program has grown to $14 million annually. Ocean exploration i n itiatives i evolve th ree types of partners: 1 ~ government agencies; 2) academic institutions and researchers; and 3) commercial, or industrial, partners. Currently, the Office views industry advocacy and inter-agency collaboration as critical to the success of the program, and nontraditional funding alternatives are being sought. As demonstrated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), public aware- ness of program initiatives is also very important. Ten percent of the budget of the Office of Ocean Exploration will be spent on education and outreach, and there will be a strong focus on incorporating ocean themes into the curricula at the K-12 level. Accomplishments of the NOAA program will be measured by miles mapped and new species found. The initial focus will be on developing an inventory of our national maritime history, providing real time data telemetry, and producing education and outreach tools. As the program develops other challenges will be addressed. In particular, opportunities for specific projects and their products to be used in an international program will be identified. South Africa John Field, University of Cape Town, and Past-President of the Scien- tific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) and the SCOR-supported Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (IGOFS), provided both an international and southern hemisphere perspective on ocean exploration. Most of the current international ocean research programs are interdisciplinary and share char- acteristics of exploration, especially with respect to large time and space scales.
OCR for page 179
APPENDIX D if Many of the oceanographic scientific research projects SCOR supports nclude exploratory investigations, and have produced surprising discoveries of how the biological, chemical, and physical properties of the oceans interact. The JGOFS program produced unanticipated results on the role of dissolved oxygen, variability in deep mixing, and the importance of nitrogen- fixing organisms following the Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiment (SOIREE). SOIREE enriched the waters with iron to determine if primary production could be increased. To the surprise of the researchers the response was delayed and lasted much longer than expected. JGOFS, as a time series study, detected the longer-term effects of the iron fertilization. Similarly, Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics has found unexpectedly tight links between fish stock abundances and climate indices. Other SCOR activities include the emerging ocean biogeochemistry and ecosystems pro- gram and the Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms project. Citing personal research experience, Dr. Field described the South African Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction Training program Benguela Ecology Program, which depends upon an effective partnership between government and academic institutions and uses an ecosystem approach in studies of fisheries. Features of ocean exploration in this program include the use of new conceptual models linking physics and ecosystem structure and functioning to yield understanding of regime shifts. Unexpected aspects of the ocean circulation in this region have been revealed in ocean color images. Regionally, the Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction Train- ing program Benguela Ecology Program involves scientists from South Africa, Namibia and Angola in studies of the Benguela upwelling region, and has a significant training and capacity building component. Dr. Field also summarized the differences between international inter- governmental organizations such as IOC and the World Meteorological Organization, and nongovernmental organizations like SCOR. In the former, members are governments and their decisions are binding on government policy. The latter are made up of individual scientists and, since they are much less formal, can be flexible and responsive to scientific needs. These two types of organizations can be complementary; a future program of ocean exDIoration should take advantage of the strengths of each. Australia Jeremy Green, a marine archeologist at the Western Australia Museum in Freemantle, described the experience of Western Australia, which has 1 79
OCR for page 180
180 APPENDIX D taken the lead in the protection of Australian underwater cultural heritage sites. Their first archeological project was the exploration of a c. 1620 wreck of the Dutch East India Company vessel Batavia. Unexpectedly, the wreck contained building block for a Dutch fortress in Indonesia. A diploma program teaching graduate students the practice of maritime archeology has generated a cadre of trained experts for state and national governments in Australia. An unexpected spin-off has been training pro- grams in Thailand and China, tailored for local needs, specifically their underwater sites under threat from pollution, coastal development and treasure hunters. The objective is to aid local authorities in these countries to manage and preserve their underwater heritage. Dr. Green gave examples of the use of new technologies that are advancing the possibilities for underwater archeology. For instance, a new side-scan mosaic makes it possible to locate wrecks even in very low visibility waters. Aerial magnetometers are used to survey "underwater graveyards" of shipwrecks, taking only a few hours to map tens of square kilometers in deep water beyond the reach of divers. After sites are mapped new software allows three-dimensional visualization of the sites. Finally, Dr. Green highlighted the importance of international collaboration on large archeology projects, such as one offthe Turkish coast in which his museum cooperates with the Institute for Nautical Archaeology from the U n ited States. Canada Shubha Sathyendranath, Executive Director of the relatively new inter- national organization Partnership for Observation of the Global Ocean (POGO), reviewed the needs for international partnerships to conduct large- scale experiments of global dimensions. POGO's perspective is global, and its objective is to enhance participation by developing countries. She pro- vided examples of POGO programs with international partnerships: . . POGO supports and promotes the Array for Real-Time Geostrophic Oceanography float program by assisting in developing inter- institutional partnerships to work in under sampled regions of the ocean. POGO's 2000 "Sao Paulo Declaration" called for enhanced ocean observations in the southern hemisphere, and assisted in establish- ment of the Chilean National Centre for Excellency in Oceanography
OCR for page 181
APPENDIX D and planning of the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center Southern Ocean circumpolar expedition in 2003-2004. Dr. Sathyendranath reviewed POGO's capacity building efforts. Train- ing courses have been held in developing countries. The Austral Summer Institute was organized in South America. Finally, POGO, IOC, and SCOR cosponsor a fellowship program that provides intense training experiences in oceanographic labs of developed countries. China Jilan Su, the current Chairman of IOC and senior scientist at the Second Institute of Oceanography in China, described some of the major ocean exploration efforts in China in the last decade, focusing primarily on physical oceanographic efforts, such as: · participation in international programs (e.g., JGOFS, the World Ocean Circulation Experiment tWOCEl, the Land-Ocean Inter- actions in the Coastal Zone Project, the Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics, and the Array for Real-Time Geostrophic Oceanography); · expeditions in the Nansha (Spratly) Islands and in the Philippine seas; studies of the circulation of the South China Sea, conducted jointly with scientists from Taiwan, and including synoptic mapping and monsoon studies; joint projects with Japan on features of the Kuroshio near the RyuLu Islands, and the subtropical circulation system; Indo Pacific's warm pool study being planned to look at relative impacts of El Nino and monsoons on the climate of China (inter- national collaborations are still being developed); long-term monitoring of the Southern Ocean program utilizing the transects of supply ships between two Chinese Antarctic stations; and · an Arctic Expedition. if Dr. Su felt that all of these activities had features to contribute to an International program of ocean exploration. He emphasized, however, that for China to participate in an international ocean exploration program initiatives would need to be framed in economic terms and/or national 181
OCR for page 182
182 APPENDIX D priorities. Such priorities might include the exploration of Antarctica, or an improved understanding of the ocean's role in climate change and variability. United Kingdom Sunil Murlidhar Shastri, University of Hull, described the International Ocean Institute and its activities. Founded in 1970, when the first "Pacem in Maribus" (Peace in the Oceans) workshop was held, the International Ocean Institute is based in Malta and now operates from twenty offices around the world. The organization focuses on developing countries to promote training, education, and research to facilitate the management, regulation, and protection of coastal resources. Dr. Shastri emphasized the importance of involving individuals, the community, and the country in efforts to safeguard the oceans. He reminded meeting participants that it is critical to capture the imagination of the young people to sustain any pro- gram. Dr. Shastri ended his presentation with a comment that underscores his concern about a U.S.-led IGOE program: "Although Britannia no longer rules the waves, this does not mean we need to be the hands of Americans." Mexico Rene Drucker-Colin, Vice Chancellor of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, introduced the Mexican oceanography program. From its modest beginnings in 1 957 to its present breadth it now utilizes a substantial infra- structure, the result, at least in part, of cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme. Through the efforts of the National Council for Science and Technology (Mexico), the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, and the Petroleos Mexicanos, two vessels have been acquired which provide the infrastructure for a successful oceanography program. A diversified research program has been developed, concentrating mainly on the waters off eastern and western Mexico. Subsequent to the development of a national oceanography program, substantial international collaboration evolved. In many instances the collaboration is with institutions from the United States and other major players in ocean research, and the Mexican institutions are eager to pursue their ocean research programs in close col laboration with i Institutions from abroad. Dr. Drucker-Colin concluded by noting that developed and developing countries may have very different priorities in scientific research. Eco- nomic, cultural, and historical differences between such countries will
OCR for page 183
APPENDIX D it .nfluencetheirattitudesto management end conservation of resources and their priorities for participation in an international ocean exploration pro- gram. He expressed the opinion that large countries that can contribute a larger proportion of the funding for international research programs must take care not to control the planning and implementation of the programs. In other words, international participation must be meaningful to all partici- pating countries. (, , , (, New Zealand Rob Murdoch, Director of the National Institute for Water and Atmo- spheric Research, described the oceanic conditions around New Zealand and noted that many areas of seabed in this complex and geologically active region are still unmapped. A recent expedition explored and manned ~ ~ ~~ I ~ e. · I r 1 1 '~,uuu ems, discovering many new undersea features. Many habitats are threatened, especially by destructive or unsustainable fishing methods. Exploring marine biodiversity is a priority for New Zealand. Although little of New Zealand's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) has been explored, it is estimated to contain up to 10 percent of global species. A program of biodiversity and natural products research seeks to discover new bio- products. The New Zealand Antarctic program is conducting seabed map- ping of the Ross Sea region and conducting biodiversity studies with Italian scientists. International collaboration is important to New Zealand. New Zealand collaborates with Japan and Australia in the Southern Ocean, and the coun- try also participates in the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP). Dr. Murdoch described international marine ecosystem studies that seek to explain the decline of top predator species in the Southern Ocean. New Zealand also participates in SOIREE to decipher the factors controlling deep sea productivity and the potential impacts of deep sea sequestration of carbon. Dr. Murdoch noted several potential problems in international collabora- tion, referring to issues of intellectual property, permits for research in EEZ, and the failure of some research vessels to provide data or meet other requirements of the permitting process. Summary During the presentations and ensuing discussion the following ideas were repeated. Programs that can incorporate government/academia/ 183
OCR for page 194
194 APPENDIX D Paul Egerton, Executive Scientific Secretary of the European Polar Board, described the European infrastructure and scientific assets for polar and sub- polar marine exploration and offered some perspectives for the future. European nations have a need for an optimized science platform to allow multi-disciplinary Arctic investigations of the sensitivity and responses of the Arctic system to global climate change. The European strategy is to tie together agencies, assets (such as ships), and science programs. There is broad interest for a global exploration program from the Euro- pean Polar Board, with three key missions identified: a Southern Ocean systems program (biogeochemistry, Earth systems and history); preparations for the International Polar Year; and a new research icebreaker for the Arctic, the Aurora Borea/is. This is a new concept for an icebreaker that can operate at all seasons, will carry a removable drilling platform, and will also support traditional polar sciences. This will be the major European contri- bution to the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). Dr. Egerton recommended developing a truly international cooperation in Arctic science, with at least a 1 0-year plan, involving assets from Euro- pean countries, the United States, and others. In addition, implementation of a flagship Southern Ocean exploration program could yield an under- standing of global thermohaline circulation. Larry Mayer, a professor from the University of New Hampshire, and an expert on ocean mapping technology, does not believe mapping can be separated from ocean exploration. Mapping is the first step in removing the veil of the unknown and the framework for future exploration. Technological advances have always preceded times of great exploration. The recent convergence of technologies (e.g., sonar, computers, navigation) as led to . · . advances In ocean mapping. Echo sounding was the first major advance in mapping of depth, and although it was not very accurate it could produce a standard hydrographic chart. Twenty years ago, the development of multi-beam sonar, which uses a broad beam of sound, made it possible to get a large number of measure- ments across a wide swath rather than a single measurement. Now three- dimensional images of the seafloor are readily attainable, but accurate only if combined with precise ship positioning technology. Current precision is approximately 5 cm in the x, y, and z dimensions. Vessel motion can also be accurately and precisely measured to identify where the mapping beam intersects the seafloor. Dr. Mayer maintains, however, that the future of deep-water mapping is shallow-water mapping; fleets of AUVs should be operated from platforms close to the bottom to get higher resolution.
OCR for page 195
APPENDIX D One problem is the huge increase in data density, and the challenge is to manage the data, interact with the data, present it, and verify it. Current computer technology is up to this challenge. By combining different kinds of data sets and representing them in ways that are natural, we will be able to visualize data in new ways that are easy for the public to understand. Ireland recently completed mapping 880,000 km2 of its FEZ at a cost of $30 million (U.S. dollars). Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and France all have similar plans. International collaboration would benefit all parties involved. Promising applications of these advanced technologies lie in marine archaeology, fisheries habitat mapping, prediction of effects of sea level rise, and aids to navigation. The technology exists to complete incred- ibly detailed ocean mapping, but is there the will to do so? Kiyoshi Suyehiro, Director of the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center's Deep Sea Research Department, focused on the realization of long- term seafloor observations. Seafloor cabled networks are being designed to use decommissioned telecommunications cables, for example the Ocean Hemisphere Network, and VENUS projects. Fiber-optic systems have been established around Japan since 1997forearthquake monitoring. These systems are employed to understand earthquake dynamics, with increased accuracy in hypocentral resolution, and especially in depth and detection threshold. One example of international cooperation is the Borehole Geo- physical Observatory Network, part of an international ocean network using ODP drill holes. This program is studying the aseismic motion of the Pacific plate beneath Japan. Japan is now building a new drilling vessel Chikyu, with the shakedown cruise planned for 2005-2007. Plans are to initially drill in water less than 2,500 m, but to then go to deeper water and to drill into seismogenic zone. Chikyu will be the major drilling vessel for IODP. Summary Opportunities for ocean mapping were discussed. Since the cost of mapping increases exponentially as water gets shallower the speed a maneuverability of AUVs could save hundreds of millions of dollars from current costs. There was some discussion of new advances in AUV tech- nology, including the possibility of launching them from planes. It was noted that many U.S. charts are outdated, even in the Gulf of Mexico. Bathymetry was identified in the U.S. regional workshops spon- sored by NOAA as the top priority for data needed. The costs should be 195
OCR for page 196
196 APPENDIX D borne by mission-related agencies and not be deducted from research funding. Opportunities for collaborations should be sought; the missed opportunity for multi-beam mapping in the Arctic aboard the icebreaker Hea/y was lamented. Though navigating in the Arctic, and equipped with an advanced multi-beam sonar, no mapping will take place. Better plan- ning and coordination could capitalize on these types of opportunities. The speakers were asked to comment on how they would advise the World Bank as to which technologies would be most useful to a developing country in developing wise management of its resources. Dr. Mayer responded that a program of exploration and evaluation of resources must start with the best maps one can produce. It is relatively easy to estimate costs for mapping by water depth. If mapping is completed in combination with other methods, one could get even more results for other applications, for example fisheries monitoring. Finally, participants were reminded that an important driver for map- ping out to the edge of continental shelf is LOS. Jurisdiction of resources exists if the shelf extends beyond 200 miles. . . . ~ Each country with large shelves is required to make a recommendation on the base of the slope and the depth of sediments on the rise. Data will be submitted to a continental shelf commission. FOURTH SESSION: STRATEGIES FOR AN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM Speakers Jean-Frangois Minster, Chair of the Institut Franc~ais pour ['Exploitation de la Mer, first identified the major research priorities for France: life sciences, environment issues, and science and technology for information and communication. These priorities are driven by socioeconomic demands. He then discussed available policy mechanisms for international coopera- tion in ocean exploration by providing specific examples of collaborative programs: . . shared investments that require formal long-term agreements at the national level (e.g., the Jason 11 satellite involved NASA, the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, NOAA, and the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites); shared operational costs, which only requires informal, ad hoc agree- ments at the agency level (e.g., ODP and the International Marine Global Change Study);
OCR for page 197
APPENDIX D · coordinated international programs without money exchange, just the informal, good-will cooperation of partners (e.g., the Inter- national Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and the World Climate Research Programme) (insecurity of funding is a disadvantage; the advantage is flexibility); and cooperative experiments that only need specific, short-term agree- ments between agencies (e.g., tectonics in the Gulf of Corinth or deep water formation in the North Atlantic). . if Assuming that there is agreement on scientific objectives of a specific International program, formal agreements are preferred to share operation costs for infrastructure; to negotiate specific funding at the national level; and to pool funds for implementation of common objectives. But these agreements lackflexibility, and it is importantto include assessment end evaluation procedures. Informal agreements are preferred for program management, sharing existing tools and infrastructure and maintaining flexibility. ~ ~ , ~ There are, however, barriers to effective ocean exploration: ocean sciences require a variety of large infrastructures; ocean exploration needs an investment strategy on the global scale; and coordination and efficient use of large asset needs to be improved. Ocean exploration can benefit from technology development; therefore, we need to accelerate technology transfer from other disciplines and include technology programs in ocean exploration. European science management is moving towards a "European Research Area" to increase efficiency. New research management tools are being introduced in the European Union's 6th Framework, which includes inte- grated projects and networks of excellence and will stimulate the construc- tion of major assets in Europe. There will be a Marine Science Plan as part of th is plan n i ng process. It wi 11 1 i kely i ncl ude: . new networks (e.g., fisheries agencies, marine biogeochemistry); · new integrated projects (e.g., Euromargins, operational oceanography); and · new intergovernmental projects (e.g., IODP). Mario Caceres, Head of the Technical Division of the Oceanography Department of the Ch i lean Navy, described an i n itiative on ocean explora- tion in the southeast Pacific Ocean that involves Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile. Its objective is to study the dynamics of an area of high biological 197
OCR for page 198
198 APPENDIX D productivity, intensive fisheries, and frequent harmful algal bloom episodes, especially in southern Chile. The area is significantly impacted by El Nino/ Southern Osci I ration. The goal of this effort is to establish a sub-tropical moored buoy and coastal network in the southeast Pacific to monitor ocean-atmosphere dynamics. Agreements have been concluded between numerous agencies from the four nations, and the World Bank is the source of funding for part of the program. Dr. Caceres suggested that international organizations could coordinate a global ocean exploration effort in the Pacific. Regional Global Ocean Observing System alliances could be useful at the national level. The Permanent Commission of the South Pacific has facilitated scientific col- laborations. He concluded that long-term studies are important. Existing programs should be strengthened and new ones added. Barriers include lack of funding, national awareness, and expertise. . ... . · . .. Fangli Qiao, from the First Institute of Oceanography in China, empha- sized that China's top priority is the coastal zone, which includes marginal and semi-enclosed seas such as the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea. This is driven by the need for marine resources. A second priority for Chinese ocean science is east Asian and global climate. This includes studies of the Asian monsoon systems, El N i no/Southern Osci I ration cycles, and exploration of the warm pool. The third is polar exploration. Dr. Qiao reviewed a number of specific, current programs. Some have international and bilateral arrangements. International cooperation in China is mostly through the State Oceanic Administration and its three major institutes. The sensitive factors for international cooperation are that it must be important for the Chinese economy and not a threat to national security. They hope to share ships, instruments, technology, and data in an international ocean exploration program. Robert Knox, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, addressed the prob- lems involved in facilitating a coordinated international exploration pro- gram. First, there must be good funding resources with open and fair competition. The level of organization should be kept as simple as possible. As examples, he cited WOCE and ODP. Such programs may have a sub- stantial organizational structure, as appropriate to their needs, but interested scientists are heavily responsible for program planning and administration. He suggests the following as the principal barriers to effective ocean exploration:
OCR for page 199
APPENDIX D · funding; · early establishment of genuine collaboration not as an afterthought; · publication issues must be agreed early to avoid later misunder- standing; and . language issues. LOS rights of coastal states are not in dispute, but the machinery is bureaucratic. Exploration of "friendly privileges" between participating nations could improve results. Exploration needs more flexibility than tradi- tional research cruises have to adapt cruise plans in real time. Such changes can imperil ships clearances and will need consideration ahead of time among the participating nations. Montserrat Gorina-Ysern, American University, is an expert on the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). She provided a brief background on the regulation of fundamental oceanographic research and marine science research as distinct from exploration in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and the 1 982 LOSC, Part X111, respectively. She outlined the main principles, rights and duties concerning the conduct of marine science research in different jurisdictional maritime zones and proposed how these would apply to IGOE activities. "Exploration" has different meanings for different purposes (i.e.. marine . . , ~ science research versus discovery of natural resources). ~ , The definition problem is compounded because marine science research has not been defined in LOSC. IOC has defined marine science research as referring to the scientific investigation of the ocean, its biota and its physical boundaries with the solid Earth and the atmosphere. The results of marine science research, normally published in journals of international circulation, are said to benefit humankind at large; whereas, exploration (also referred to as applied research) is concerned with ocean resources, and the results of this type of research are considered to be the property of the persons, corpora- tions, or governments initiating the research. Four legal principles would apply to the IGOE project. IGOE activities should be undertaken exclusively for peaceful pur- poses. This has a precedent in the provisions on exploration and scientific investigations under the Outer Space Treaty, and to scien- tific investigations, observations, expeditions and scientific research under the Antarctic Treaty. 199
OCR for page 200
200 APPENDIX D 2. IGOE activities must use appropriate scientific methods and means. 3. IGOE activities must not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea compatible with LOSC. 4. IGOE activities should comply with all relevant regulations adopted in compliance with LOSC, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The conduct of IGOE activities may straddle across several parts of LOSC and also across various international conventions, agreements or arrangements, all of which share a similar organizational structure. With slight differences, they are organized around a council, commission or equivalent, a representative advisory body, an executive secretary or secre- tariat, and a scientific committee or panel. The latter carries out the scientific research decided by commissioners, through joint planning, coordination and evaluation of results. The IGOE partners have a range of organizational and legal options at their disposal, such as establishing bilateral or multi- lateral agreements coveri ng IGOE activities. In light of the extensive array of international and regional agreements and arrangements dealing with all aspects of ocean science, the issue of compatibility between those regimes and LOSC was discussed, and some major programs and arrangements were identified. Effective coordination among those programs and arrangements would be desirable in order to avoid duplication of scientific efforts by IGOE, where the existing programs are considered effective and sufficient. IGOE activities can be effectively regulated under the marine science research cooperation regime of Part X111, 1982 LOSC, in a manner compatible with existing bilateral and multi- lateral structures and programs for pure and applied marine science of global benefit. Sergei Shapovalov, Head of the Center for the Coordination of Oceano- graphic Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, reminded partici- pants that many nations have developed ocean exploration programs. It is impossible to plan for discovery. One can only propose what areas one would search for new discoveries. After such a decision, it is worthwhile to combine resources and efforts to accomplish the agreed objectives. A Russian initiative, World Ocean, has been under way since 1999. It consists of ten different programs, but only one is research and exploration; others are concerned with security and management. Research on the World Ocean includes Ocean and Climate, Ecosystem Dynamics and
OCR for page 201
APPENDIX D Geochemical Cycles, Geology and Geophysics of the Ocean Floor, and Russian Surrounding Seas. He argued that we need to know what resources would be available for an international program we need a resource database as soon as pos- sible. Russian resources include the vessels Akademik Mstislav Ke/dysh which supports two Mir deep sea submersibles, the Akademik lode ice breaker, and the Akademik Sergei Vavilov. These two ships have acoustic capabilities and multi beam sonar. In Russia, the principal barriers to cooperative international ocean exploration are a shortage of young ocean- ographers, and conflicts with their own navy regarding permits to do ocean science in their FEZ. Russia as a nation would like to see an IGOE program set up as an informal and decentralized program under an international organization such as SCOR or IOC. Institutions, however, would probably prefer bilateral or multilateral agreements between organizations. He used the example of WOCE as a good model. Steven Bohlen, President of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), noted that many participants suggested that ODP is an example of a suc- cessful international science program. He agrees, but pointed out that ODP is focused around a single facility and primary objective whereas an inter- , , , national ocean exploration program may require many facilities. The parai- lels may not be direct. The goals and advantages of international collaboration include: ~ever- aging of funds; generation of new ideas; efficient use of resources; and facilitated consent requirements through direct involvement of scientists from the participating countries. He presented some examples of successful international col laborations: . . r · . .. , ,,, .. International Physics. For the large centers around the world that have international support, there are program advisory committees to help the facilities prepare for high priority scientific programs. Each one also has a research review board to review proposals. The research review boards work with collaboration boards that are charged to bring together the components of the project. There are also resource review boards to deal with funding. Internationa/ Planetary Exploration. Th is model has proven to be fairly contentious. NASA has an "international" advisory council and a space science advisory committee, but they are actually heavily dominated by U.S. members. Subcommittees exist on var 201
OCR for page 202
202 APPENDIX D . . . ous areas of space exploration. The voice of the scientists them- selves is fairly weak. Engineering issues dominate. Internationa/ Astronomy. The focus is on the Gem i n i program with its two very large telescopes in Hawaii and Chile. It has mimicked the structure of ODP. There is a Gemini Program Office, indepen- dent of any national funding agency. A Science Committee plans use of facilities. The United States participates through a U.S. Science Support Program. Ocean Dri//ing Program. The 23 national members contribute $46 million per year. There have now been 30 years of ocean drilling. ODP includes interdisciplinary research. NSF is the international banker, and funds go to JOI. JOI oversees the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling advisory structure, which is complex but independent of national funding control. The Science committee and its sub-groups determine the scientific program for each year. All this is in the context of international participation- membership in panels is roughly proportional to each nation's finan- cial contribution. Integrated Ocean Dri//ing Program. IODP will be starting in 2003. The new science plan identifies three primary objectives. IODP will be a multi platform program with at least two vessels and equal partnership between the United States and Japan. Possibly, there will be a third equal partner (i.e., the Europeans may bring in a shallow water vessel). The following factors contribute to a successful collaboration: · facilities and science objectives need to be well matched and flexible; projects must be driven by science objectives; scientists must have a strong voice in decision-making; · oversight must incorporate the needs of the international community; and . management and governance must be viewed as ecumenical and balanced and should be distant from any strong national control. Nil Odunton, Chief of Resource and Environmental Monitoring for the International Seabed Authority, described the work of the International Sea- bed Authority for management of deep sea mineral resources. The efforts of the International Seabed Authority have culminated in a set of recommen- dations for col laborative marine scientific research to assist the International
OCR for page 203
APPENDIX D Seabed Authority in managing impacts from the proposed mining of deep seabed polymetallic nodules. As a result of a series of workshops, it was agreed that major knowledge gaps existed in at least three key areas that should be the focus of collaborative studies over the next five years: levels of biodiversity, species ranges and rates of gene flow in abyssal nodule provinces (particularly the Clarion-CI ipperton Fracture Zone); 2. disturbance and recolonization processes at the seafloor following mining-track creation and mining plume resedimentation; and 3. mining-plume impacts on water-column ecosystems (e.g., nutrient enrichment, sediment loading, iron enrichment and heavy-metal toxicity). The value of cooperation and the development of consortia have been seen as an accepted way of sharing risk where the investments are too great for any one organization to commit. Summary An international ocean exploration program must be nonbureaucratic and flexible. Perhaps a decentralized structure, evolving through time, would be the most effective. Many countries already have ocean explora- tion programs. Others do not, often forfinancial reasons. As we consider "global" ocean exploration, we need to consider it not only in the geo- graphic sense, but also in the sense of participation. The gap between developed and developing in science is widening. If we really want to carry out an international program, we must consider issues of wide participation. The cooperation must be rooted in shared interests. Standardization of data to facilitate data management, access, and transfer is important. The situa- tion with regard to data accessibility is changing and some of these issues are being dealt with in international agreements. More data have commer- cial interest and this is a growing problem. More data are now being used in real time and this means they must be shared much more rapidly. Various international laws are forming the basis for changes in management of EEZs to protect the proprietary interests of nations. While fully respecting the rights of coastal states and LOS, we should seek to simplify the regulatory complexity where possible. The definition of "exploration" is not the same as it is defined in LOS (i.e., exploration as a precursor of production, but rather in the context of scientific discovery). An international ocean explo- ration program should ensure a strong education and public outreach com- ponent. 203
OCR for page 204
204 APPENDIX D FINAL PLENARY SESSION Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, recently met with other Explorers-in-Residence to discuss the past, present, and future of exploration. She felt that the greatest oceanography era is just about to begin. It has been more than 40 years since Piccard and Walsh made their historic deep dive in the Trieste, but we still have only explored less than one percent of the deep sea. A few men have walked on the moon, dozens have orbited Earth, and hundreds have climbed Everest. Why has not man been to the bottom of the ocean? Dr. Earle acknowledged that some say manned exploration is not necessary. She bel loves that ocean exploration needs al I avai fable tech- nology. Until we can design a tool, probe, or sensor that can perceive, understand, evaluate, and make decisions better then the human brain, there will be a role for human presence in the sea. No machine can evaluate the unexpected. Human presence in the ocean is a small, but important, component of exploration. As the new millennium begins, we have few vehicles capable of accessing the average depths of the ocean, and only one that can go to the greatest depths. She argued for underwater habitats and laboratories (only one now exists) and expeditions that incor- porate deep diving components. There is a growing sense of urgency for ocean exploration the ocean is vital to humankind and it is under threat, as is the health of Earth. The ocean is the life support system of Earth. Dr. Earle concluded by urging participants to know everything we can about our life support system, and to do everything we can to maintain and protect that life support system. Our responsibility does not end at the seashore.
Representative terms from entire chapter: