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:
exploration program
