Marine Technical Assistance to Developing Countries

The U.S. Role MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE U.S. ROLE

Marine Technical Assistance Group Ocean Policy Committee Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources National Research Council

National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1982 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the .ouncils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authcors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of'Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicne. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1944 and 1970, respectively, under !.he charter cf the National Academy ,f Scicnces.

Available from

Ocean Policy Committee National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418

Printed in the United States of America OCEAN POLICY COMMITTEE

PAUL M. FYE, woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Chairman RITA R. COLWELL, University of Maryland JOHN P. CRAVEN, University of Hawaii JAMES A. CRUTCHFIELD, JR., University of Washington ROBERT L. FRIEDHEIM, University of Southern California JOHN G. GISSBERG, Anchorage, Alaska EDWARD D. GOLDBERG, Scripps Institution of Oceanography G. ROSS HEATH, Oregon State University JUDITH KILDOW, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN A. KNAUSS, University of Rhode Island JOHN LISTON, University of Washington CHARLES MAECHLING, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace JOHN J. MAGNUSON, University of Wisconsin, Madison ROGER REVELLE, University of California, San Diego DAVID A. ROSS, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

MARY HOPE KATSOUROS, National Research Council, Executive Secretary

MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP *JOHN LISTON, University of Washington, Chairman *BERNHARD J. ABRAHAMSSON, University of Denver JOHN P. CRAVEN, University of Hawaii VIC KLEMAS, University of Delaware *RICHARD E. MEUNIER, Denver, Colorado ROGER REVELLE, University of California, San Diego DAVID A. ROSS, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution HARRIS B. STEWART, JR., Old Dominion University *CHRISTOPHER K. VANDERPOOL, Michigan State University *FRANCIS WILLIAMS, University of Miami

*Menber of Marine Technical Assistance Group Evaluation Team

John V. Byrne, Oregon State University, was a member of the Ocean Policy Committee and the Marine Technical Assistance Group from 1979 until February 1981.

iii COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND RESOURCES

HERBERT FRIEDMAN, National Research Council, Cochairman ROBERT M. WHITE, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Cochairman STANLEY I. AUERBACH, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ELKAN R. BLOUT, Harvard Medical School WILLTAM BROWDER, Princeton University BERNARD F. BURKE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology HERMAN CHERNOFF, Massachusetts Institute of Technology WALTER R. ECKELMANN, Exxon Corporation JOSEPH L. FISHER, Office of the Governoc, Commonwealth of Virginia JAMES C. FLETCHER, University of Pittsburgh WILLIAM A. FOWLER, California Institute of Technology GERHART FRIEDLANDER, Brookhaven National Laboratory EDWARD A. FRIEMAN, Science Applications, Inc. EDWARD D. GOLDBERG, Scripps Institution of Oceanography KONRAD B. KRAUSKOPF, Stanford University CHARLES J. MANKIN, Oklahoma Geological Survey WALTER H. MUNK, University of California, San Diego NORTON NELSON, New York University Medical Center DANIEL A. OKUN, University of North Carolina GEORGE E. PAKE, Xerox Research Center DAVID PIMENTEL, Cornell University CHARLES K. REED, National Research Council HATTEN S. YODER, JR., Carnegie Institution of Washington

RAPHAEL G. KASPER, Executive Director

iv CONTENTS

PREFACE vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 RATIONALE FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 10 2 U.S. MARINE ASSISTANCE IN RELATION TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE POLICY 22 3 U.S. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COOPERATION AND 29 4 U.S. PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 41 5 INTERNATIONAL ORGA14IZATONS AND PROGRAMS FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 50 6 TRENDS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 66 7 U.S. ROLE IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 74 La.g.

..

•al PREFACI

The role of the United States in providing marine scientific and technical assistance to developing countries has been of continuing concern to the Ocean Policy Committee. In 1974 the committee convened a conference to consider issues and problems of U.S. involvement in marine technical assistance and to bring to the attention of the U.S. marine science community the importance of such assistance in view of the changing political climate affecting the world oceans. 1 The meeting of an Ocean Policy Committee working group in Miami a year later brought together scientists and technologists from the Caribbean region to consider the needs of developing countries for marine technical assistance and to discuss their views of the adequacy of 2 current U.S. assistance efforts. The workshop also considered the implications of developing countries' changing perceptions of their control over ocean resources. In 1976 the committee's technical assistance working group was reconstituted as the Marine Technical Assistance Group (MTAG). The group was concerned with the changing needs for U.S. marine technical assistance and cooperation in fisheries and oceanography in light of the international negotiations at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Discussions with " presentatives of federal agencies involved in marine a-s~sance led to a request in Nov!mbe: 1978 from David H. Wallace, th,h. Policy Advisor for International Marine Affairs, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for a study that

lists past and present U.S. programs of marine technical assistance and cooperation in fisheries and oceanography;

iU.S. Marine Scientific Research Assistance to Foreign States: Proceedings of a Conference. Ocean Policy Committee, Ocean Affairs Board; National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, second 2 edition, 1975). Exploratory Workshop in Marine Technical Assistance in the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean Region: A Staff Report. Ocean Policy Committee, CommissiL.i on International Relations; National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).

vii evaluates the future environment for marine technical cooperation; and makes recommendations for future direction in U.S. technical cooperation p:ograms.

The study began in 1979 with funds from the Agency for International Development, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of State; later the Department of the Navy supported a part of the study. MTAG members were selected with a view to achieving a balance of expertise in marine science and technology and other fields. The members represent broad experience in technical assistance and cooperative research with developing countries and in dealing with the related economic, social, and political issues. In approaching its task, the Marine Technical Assistance Group drew upon reports of past study groups that have examined aspects of U.S. marine assistance to developing countries. These include the 1969 report, Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for National Action, by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, chaired by Julius Stratton; the report of the Marine Science Workshop held in Bologna, Italy, by the Johns Hopkins University in 1973; Fisheries and Aquaculture Collaborative Research in the Developing Countries: A Priority Planning Approach, a 1978 report to the Agency for International Development and the Board on International Food and Agricultural Development; and U.S. Science and Technology for Development: A Contribution to the 1979 U.S. Conference, prepared for the Department of State by the National Research Council. The present report derives from deliberation and study by the Marine Technical Assistance Group over a two-year period. There have been disctssions with representatives from the federal agencies involved in marine assistance, and some have provided a great deal of information on their activities. We have also exchanged information and ideas with scientists from developing countries, U.S. scientists, and representatives of U.N. agencies, international banks, and some foreign countries that are donors of marine technical assistance. The report is based in part on an inventory of publicly and privately funded U.S. marine assistance programs, an evaluation of fishery and aquaculture programs of the Agency for International Development, and an international workshop on marine technical assistance and cooperation. Detailed reports of the last two activities are published separately (see Executive Summary). During the drafting of this report, the Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted on April 30, 1982, at the eleventh session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The report is presented in seven chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the rationale for U.S. marine technical assistance to, and cooperation with, developing countries. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 discuss U.S. policies and programs for marine assistance and cooperation. Marine assistance activities of other developed countries and of international organiza­ tions are discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 projects the future environment for U.S. marine assistance and cooperation by examining a number of current trends. The conclusions and recommendations of the study are presented in Chapter 7.

viii Although this report is the responsibility of the Marine Technical Assistance Group and was written by MTAG members and staff, it reflects the contributions of many other individuals as well. They include scientists, administrators, and government representatives from the United States and other countries, and we wish to acknowledge our debt to them all. Members of the Ocean Policy Committee have reviewed and commented on various aspects of the study as the work proceeded. Foreign and U.S. scientists journeyed far from home to attend our workshop in La Jolla, California. We gratefully acknowledge support for a drafting committee meetiri made possible by the Marine Policy and Ocean Management Program of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution through an award from the Pew Memorial Trust. We also take pleasure in acknowledging the conscientious and professional efforts of the Ocean Policy Committee staff, headed by Mary Hope Katsouros, Executive Secretary, with assistance from Debra Luks, Hollys Harloff-Ender, and H. Dale Langford. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Marine Technical Assistance Group and to the small group of federal agency personnel who have worked consistently and diligently with us. I believe the reports of the Marine Technical Assistance Group have benefited from the personal and professional rapport of this working team.

John Liston, Chairman Marine Technical Assistance Group

ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Only in recent years has the ocean begun to be considered as more than a medium for transport and a barrier separating the land masses of the world. This change has occurred because of developments in marine science and technology over the last two decades and is signaled politically by the almost universal claims of coastal nations to jurisdiction over the resources within 200 miles of their coasts. Exploitation of newly claimed marine resources could be vital to a nation's economic growth but will be difficult and slow for developing countries lacking the scientific and technical basis to benefit from their new resource acquisitions. This report presents the findings of a study of marine technical assistance and cooperation in fisheries and oceanography. The Marine Technical Assistance Group (MTAG) of the National Research Council's Ocean Policy Committee conducted the study to (1) assess the objectives of U.S. marine technical assistance and cooperation programs and the means that have been developed to achieve them, (2) project future needs of developing countries for marine technical cooperation, (3) assess U.S. capabilities to fulfill the requests of developing countries, and (4) recommend policies and mechanisms for future U.S. marine cooperative programs in light of evolving foreign policy objectives. The study was supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Navy, and the Department of State.

SCOPE OF STUDY

For purposes of this study, marine technical assistance and cooperation were considered to include the transfer of marine-related technology and equipment; the education and training of marine scientists, technicians, and managers; educational exchange programs; and cooperative research and development programs in oceanography and fisheries, including inland fisheries and aquaculture. MTAG analyzed past U.S. assistance policies and programs, compiled an inventory of marine assistance projects conducted by U.S. government agencies between 1969 and 1979, and examined ongoing and planned assistance activities. This inventory was augmented by a survey of

1 2

U.S. universities and research institutions to obtain information about their involvement in marine technical assistance and cooperation. In response to a request from the Agency for International Development, MTAG also evaluated the AID assistance program in fisheries and aquaculture since World War II. Three inajoc fishery programs were analyzed in detail, and the report also includes summary evaluations of foo'L regional programs and an in'entory of AID programs in fisheries and aquaculture during the period 1969-1979.1 The report recommended, inter alia, that AID take immediate steps to clarify and enhance the position of fisheries within agency programs, to make effective use of the fishery-related expertise of U.S. universities, and to place renewed emphasis on strengthening marine and inland capture fisheries in recipient countries. Finally, MTAG convened an international workshop in La Jolla, California, in January 1981. Its purpose was to solicit the views of scientists and technologists from the United States and abrcad with regard to future needs for marine technical assistance and cooperation. Workshop parLicipants prepared papers on future developments in marine science and technology and the need for outside assistance in developing countries. 2 The workshop revealed a broad consensus that developing countries favor expanded technical assistance from the United States and other developed nations but seek more acti%'e participation in future assistance programs on a cooperative, bilateral basis.

RATIONALE FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

By providing technice assistance to developing countries in the assessment, development, and management of the marine resources off their coasts, the United States not only fulfills important humanitarian obl.igations but also can derive economic, scientific, and other benefits as well as political advantage. Putential economic benefits from technical assistance cannot be predicted with certainty but could include the creation of markets foL marine equipment, services, and expertise. Economic benefits also could come from joint development of resources in the exclusive economic zone and from fostering conditions favorable to future investment by U.S. industry.

An Evaluation of Fishery and Aquaculture Programs of the Agency for International Development. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committee; Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, National Rezearch Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982). 21nternational Cooperation in Marine TechnoZogy, Science, and Fisheries: The Future U.S. Role in Development. Proceedings ot a workshop, January 18-22, 1981, La Jolla, California. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committee; Commission on International Relations, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981). 3 To the extent that marine technical assistance promotes economic growth and is seen as assistance rather than exploitation, it can contribute to international political stability as well as build support for U.S. policies in international forums. The scientific returas on technical assistance and cooperation include access to coastal waters of developing countries and the research contributions of colleagues familiar with local ocean con(c.Itions and phenomena. Exclusive economic zones, occurring on the ocean boundaries of land masses, include many unique oceanographic features. Joint operations with scientists from coastal developing countries hold the potential for mutual benefits for all participants. Cooperative data collection and analysis further such shared interests as navigation, weather and climate prediction, marine fisheries management, and environmental protection. Technical cooperaLion programs also offer a way for researchers from developed nations to provide for coastal state participation, and data sharing will. be required under the Law of the Sea Treaty.

U.S. MARINE POLICY AND COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS

The United States has no single, coherent policy governing marine technical assistance and cooperation. Various policies bearing on marine assistance derive from overall U.S. foreign assistance policy or from decisions by federal agencies conducting domestic marine-related activities. These policies have reflected changing views and priorities in overall U.S. development assistance as well as shifting emphases in U.S. ocean interests. The potential contributions of marine science and technology to developing countries have geneLally received only marginal attention. Organizationally, U.S. government programs for marine assistance and cooperation are spread through a number of federal agencies. The coordination of these various assistance activities is inadequate, and there is an absence of mechanisms to focus U.S. government efforts for greatest effect. Moreover, there are few formal channels for exchange of information about marine assistance either within or outside the federal government. Past U.S. efforts in marine science and technology assistance have concentrated mainly on fishing and shipping. Fisheries development has been viewed as a means to improve the food supply and to promote economic growth through export sales. Partly as a result of the success of the Marshall Plan in Europe, AID initially emphasized the development of industrial-scale commercial fishing fleets. U.S. fisheries support later swung to U.N. agencies. More recently the emphasis has shifted to artisanal fisheries and farm-level aquaculture operations, although some capital-intensive infrastructure programs persist. Congressional guidelines enacted n 1973 direct U.S. assistance efforts to the problems of the most impoverished sectors in developing countries. Under this policy framework, U.S. marinp technical 4

assistance has been redirected primarily toward small-scale and artisarial fisheries. Recognition of different political, social, and economic conditions among developing countries, however, implies widely varied needs for marine technical assistance. Allocations for technical assistance should also reflect the recipient's ability to use U.S. assistance effectively- to build self-sustaining marinp institutinns and industries. Future U.S. assistance will likely stress the development of marine fisheries and the expertise to manage both living and nonliving marine resources. Training programs and the strengthening of local scientific and technical institutions will become increasingly important. Promising approaches to the latter are illistrated by the Sea Grant International Program administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Science in Developing Countries Program administered by the National Science Foundation. Both programs support U.S. institutions working directly with counterparts in developing countries but may be jeopardized by reductions in funding. Marine technical assistance and cooperation projects also are carried out V, U.S. industry, universities, and several private foundations and other nongovernmertal organizations. U.S. universities with marine science and fishery programs have conducted numerous training courses for 'tudents, marine scientists, and technicians from developing countries. They have been involved in various marine technical assistance activities overseas, principally with governmental funding. Marine prograics, however, have been on a much smaller scal.e than the agricultural development programs of land-grant universities. The Sei Grant College ProgLdm administered by NOAA has addressed this problem through establishment of extension services, but more needs to be done. Experience in providing core support for the strengthening of U.S. universities in areas related to development assistance (for example, under Section 211(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act) suggests that university units devoted solely to foreign assistance activities must remain closely coupled with the more traditional research and teaching comporents of the university. The marine scientific and technological capabilities of U.S. universities have not been well or fully used for overseas programs, and new mechanisms tor university involvement need to be explored. The principal involvement of U.S. industry in marine-related assistance is through joint ventures with companies in developing countries. Joint-venture agrcements by U.S. industry can provide for the progressive transfer of new, technology-based industries to the host country. However, the success of such industries depends largely upon the continued availabiity of managers and technical personnel, which requires an eictensive training system that may not be part of the joint-venture agreement. Joint ventures can be highly effective ways to enhance technological development and could be encouraged through complementary training programs and federal insurance protection for participating U.S. industries. U.S. marine technical assistance and cooperation constitutes only a small portion of the assistance available to developinq countries. Various other national and multilateral organizations, both private and 5 governmental, provide development assistance in marine science, fisheries, and atmospheric sciences. This report briefly summarizes MTAG's review of selected programs of other countries, United Nations agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. Although some coordina­ tion occurs through the U.N. and the World Bank, cooperation among the majo. donors of marine scientific and technical assistance tends to be ad hoc and project specific. Nevertheless, improved communication among donor countries would be especially useful in view of the continuity and interrelatedness of ocean cesources. Marine assistance programs of all donors, including the United States, of course are affected by political and economic developments that have altered international patterns in technical assistance. Recent inflation and the leveling off of assistance from the major donor nations mean that marine projects must compete for shrinking aid funds. New donor nations have appeared (OPEC countries, for example), but they lack a marine orientation and capability. In order to maximize the impact of assistance, projects increasingly will be funneled through regional organizations and the more advanced developing countries within a region. Emphasis on direct human services to the poorest sectors of developing countries also tends to lower the priority given to basic science and applied research and development. Marine technical assistance, however, receives a special impetus from the emerging regimes of extended coastal. state jurisdiction.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

MTAG recommends that the United States recognize the growing importance of the oceans to developing countries by devoting a larger share of U.S. foreign assistance efforts to development of ocean resources. Marine programs in the recent past have received inadequate support relative to other aid sectors. A disproportionate emphasis has been placed on agriculture and land-based projects, particularly in coastal and insular nations where ocean resources are vital for economic development. MTAG finds it especially crucial to upgrade marine expertise and proqrams within AD headquarters and field offices. A useful fir:;t step for AID would be to commission a comprehensive inventory of marin~e resources within the jurisdiction of potential recipient nations. Much of this information is already available through existing sources, although its scope and usefulness vary widely. vMarine techinical assistance may further, at least indirectly, U.S. national objectives '.X other related spheres, such as foreign policy or trade. U.S. marine technical assistance should not be tied to the question of access to coastal waters of recipient countries, because technical assistance works best when it merger into a spirit of true cooperation and friendship. There also may be overriding humanitarian considerations or broad policy reasons for offering marine technical assistance even to nations that have denied eccess requests by U.S. research vessels. 6

Nevertheless, U.S. marine technical assistance and cooperation should be confined to circumstances that are beneficial, or at least not overtly damaging, to U.S. interests. Each project can have multiple, long-term effects, which could ultimately conflict with other U.S. objectives. Consequently, requests from developing countries must be judged on a case-by-case basis. MTAG underscores the need for a coherent U.S. policy that relates marine assistance to overall U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance objectives. This policy should allocate responsibility among federal agencies and make appropriate changes in agency mission statements to accommodate technical assistance by maritime agencies. Input from nongovernmental organizations that contribute to U.S. marinp technical assistance (universities, foundations, research institutions) should be sought. Present U.S. marine technical assistance programs are scattered among various governmental agencies, universities, and private research organizations throughout the country. Although this arrangement stimulates new directions for research, it is not an appropriate system for coordinating technical assistance programs. U.S. government­ sponsored assistance requires some centralized control or coordination that is currently lacking. Such a mechanism would help avoid duplication and wasted expenditures and could represent the United States more effectively in negotiations with recipient countries. NOAA's broad marine mission and expertise make it the best candidate among the federal agencies to coordinate and assume the Lead in marine assistance (assuming close contacts with AID and a broadened statutory mandate for NOAA overseas assistance). Moreover, full use of U.S. scientific and technical resources will require a better system for information dissemination, probably under the leadership of one or more central institutions. Clear policy guidelines for marine assistance programs also would permit selection of recipients best able to absorb and profit from the limited means available. Marine assistance programs should be justified by the existence of a local resource base that will contribute to long-range industrialization. Marine resource development obviously can be achieved most rapidly by a nation that has a history of marine commerce and is establishing a modern infrastructure in marine science and technology. Augmenting scientific capabilities in developing countries requires great flexibility, especially in ocean-related fields where capabilities vary widely. Marine technical assistance may in some cases be most effective when delivered through existing regional organizations or the scientifically more advanced nations. Program mechanisms for marine assistance must be designed to address the unique problems of developinq ocean capabilities. Marine activities require special skills and equipment unlike those associated with the land, because ocean problems are seldom soluble by land­ oriented skills and techniques. For example, fishi.rmen use methods of production (hunting and gathering) that have disappearqd from all but a few agricultural societies. Long-term linkages between marine institutions in the United States and developing countries have been effective means of transferring these special ocean skills and knowledge. 7

Development assistance agencies such as AID should have in-house staff with ocean expertise. As in other fields of technical assistance, AID and other assistance agencies will continue to rely on marine organizations or agencies for advisers, technology, and project execution. However, more effective mechanisms are necessary to broaden the involvement of other marine institutions in setting policy directions and executing marine assistance projects. The desired outcome of U.S. marine assistance is scientific and technical self-sufficiency in recipient countries. Rational management and exploitation of marine resources requires training and education for personnel ranging from technicians to managers. Moreover, effective resource management requires scientific understanding of the ecosystems to which the resources belong. The most pressing need in many developing countries is for food, particularly animal protein. Fisheries development, including aquaculture, must receive a high priority and must include related operations such as better preservation and distribution of the catch. Managing the resource base is equally critical and mnust always be a component of fisheries development assistance. This implies a broadly based assistance plan covering all marine disciplines. Of course, underlying all programs for marine assistance should be the strategy to build local capabilities through local participation. Cooperative projects in the true sense require developing country participation from the earliest stages.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It should be U.S. policy to offer marirne technical and scientific assistance to coastal nations seeking to develop the resources within their exclusive economic zones where this would help achieve U.S. national objectives, including trade, national defense, research, and humanitarian aid.

2. Assistance should be focused on creating in the recipient country a high degree of technical self-sufficiency and capability in marine science as quickly as possible by the development of in-country training systems and institutions and by moving rapidly toward a cooperative mode of operation.

3. Although marine technical assistance may be offered in exchange for access to restricted waters for scientific research, such use should not be accepted as a necessary concomitant in every case nor should assistance necessarily be denied where scientific access is refused.

4. Assistance should be targeted where it will be most effective and not be directed automatically to the most impoverished recipients.

5. The United States should recognize the growing importance of marine development for coastal countries. An increased proportion of U.S. 8

foreign assistance appropriations should be allocated to marine technical and scientific assistance, and greater attention should be given to delivery mechanisms and program coordination.

6. Greater efforts should be made to select the proper combination of people to provide the necessary technical expertise, including social and economic impact assessment, for marine assistance projects.

7. Mechanisms should be established to coordinate and channel U.S. marine technical assistance and to provide for the dissemination and exchange of information about assistance programs.

8. NOAA and other technical agencies shoula be given explicit executive and statutory authorization to engage in appropriate marine technical assistance activities in conjunction with the Department of State and AID.

9. AID should quickly reestablish its capability to manage marine programs by appointment of marine and fisheries experts at the policymaking level and by the creation of a Marine Resources Office independent of the Office of Agriculture.

10. Larger numbers of marine specialists should be assigned to AID country missions and field offices (as well as the regional bureaus in Washington), especially in regions such as Southeast Asia and Africa, where marine resources are of major importance.

11. The U.S. government agencies should make more effective use of the scientific and technological expertise of universities and other private sector institutions, including industry, by involving them in both the planning and the execution of overseas marine technical assistance.

12. Marine assistance programs should involve close association between U.S. experts and developing country participants in joint planning and execution of programs, using a cooperative mode wherever possible.

13. AID should commission a qualitative inventory of the marine resources within the jurisdiction of potential recipient countries in cooperation with local personnel. This inventory could be used as a basis for evaluating requests for marine technical assistance.

14. Third country assistance through upper- or middle-tier developing nations should be considered where a large technological gap exists between the United States and the ultimate recipient or where political differences make direct assistance difficult.

15. Consideration should be given to mounting regional programs, possibly using U.N. agencies through the "designated funds" 9

approach to deal with marine resource developments in the exclusive economic zones of smaller developing countries within a defined region, such as the Caribbean or the Gulf of Guinea.

16. Bilateral arrangements between universities or other institutions in the United States and existing or new institutions in developing countries should be encouraged as a cost-effective mechanism for rapidly constructing an indigenous training and research capability.

17. Mechanisms should be established to enhance the technical assistance aspects of joint venture enterprises between U.S. companies and developing country counterparts, perhaps by subsidizing training programs.

18. Various mechanisms should be explored to make the marine expertise and facilities of U.S. universities more widely available for development assistance and cooperation, particularly institutional linkages and fellowships for education and training.

19. Where appropriate, the United States should seek to be involved as a sponsor or as a partner in future intensive exploitation of marine resources in the exclusive economic zones of developing countries to assist in providing the necessary management expertise.

20. The United States should monitor new developments in ocean resource exploitation and ensure that U.S. science and scientists are active in those developments and ready to assist when asked.

21. The United States should establish an advisory group including scientists from the United States and developing countries to advise on the planning and evaluation of U.S. marine technical assistance programs. CHAPTER 1

RATIONALE FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

Water is essential for life on this planet. Weather, climate, agriculture, and perhaps even the composition of the atmosphere are dependent on thp oceans, which cover 72 percent of the earth's surface. A recent study indicated that the contribution of the ocean sector to the U.S. economy "is roughly comparable to [that of] such industries as agriculture, mining, transportation, and communications" (Pontecorvo et al. 1980, p. 1000). Nevertheless, the importance of the oceans, other than for transportation and fisheries, has been little appreciated until recently. Historically, most of the ocean was beyond national jurisdiction and essentially unrestricted in use, but technological limitations prevented more than a superficial penetration into this remote and largely inhospitable environment. Recent advances in science and technology have greatly increased human access to the ocean, opening its potentially vast resources to exploration and increased exploitation. The United Nations conferences on the law of the sea have turned the attention of more than 150 nations toward the ocean. More than 80 coastal nations, most of them developing countries, have declared economic controls over adjacent waters and the seabed extending 200 nautical miles from their shores. Many of these nations have few marine capabilities and will probably look to the industrialized nations, perhaps especially the United States, for assistance in manaotng and exploiting their marine resources. One measure of U.S. capability to provide such assistance is the number of U.S. personnel involved in marine activities. In 1977, there were more marine scientists in the United States than in all the developing countries combined, accounting for nearly a quarter of the marine scientists in the world (FAO 1977). Currently, there are more than 4,000 U.S. scientists working in marine-related fields, up from about 3,000 in 1975 (NRC 1982), and there are more than 2,600 U.S. doctoral oceanographers (NRC 1981a). Approximately 56,000 people are involved in the ocean-related programs of federal agencies (OTA 1981). U.S. capabilities are also demonstrated by the numbers of U.S. ocean-research vessels and institutions. Many of the world's major oceanographic institutions are in the United States, and there are at least 36 universities with the experience or the technical capacity to engage in fishery-related research with counterparts in developing

10 11 countries (Craib and Ketler 1978). The world fleets of research vessels are concentrated in a few countries; the largest research fleets are those of the United States, Japan, and the Soviet Union. As of mid-1980, the U.S. fleet consisted of 79 oceanographic research vessels, many of which were owned or sponsored by six federal agencies. These vessels include most of the 27 ships of the U.S. academic fleet in the University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) but not the many small vessels used for inshore work. Most larger vessels in the UNOLS fleet are owned by federal agencies and operated by universities or research institutes, with project funding provided by these federal agencies (OTA 1981). Past U.S. assistance in the marine area has been directed principally toward enhancement of fisheries for food and employment and toward such trade- or defense-related activities as port development, navigation, hydrography, and seamanship training. This assistance has been relatively small when compared with assistance for agriculture and other land-based activities. For example, of the $50.2 million budget request by the AID Agricultural Office in FY 1981, only $2.3 million, or about 5 percent, was for fisheries and aquaculture. No clear policy has been developed to guide U.S. foreign assistance in the maritime field, and no mechanism for dealing exclusively with marine technical assistance and cooperation has been established. Coordination and formal allocation of responsibility among federal maritime agencies has been inadequate. Nevertheless, advances in marine science and technology, combined with growing rec;ognition of the political and economic importance of the ocean, clearly indicate that marine scientific and technical assistance must be greatly expanded. There are many reasons why the United States should respond to developing country requests for marine technical assistance and cooperation. These reasons include humanitarian considerations, pursuit of various U.S. national interests, attaining objectives of mutual benefit to both donor arid recipient countries or to mankind as a whole, and adapting realistically to recent changes in the legal regime governing use of the oceans. Most marine technical assistance and cooperation can be justified on the premise that it will ultimately benefit not only the recipient but also the donor country. Some payoffs may be immediate and tangible; others may be indirect and long-term contributions to more general U.S. objectives, especially in foreign policy. Together, these reasons state a compelling case for a long-term and coordinated effort to share U.S. expertise with developing coastal countries around the world.

THE HUMANITARIAN IMPERATIVE

Foreign assistance is commonly associated with the relief of hunger, disease, and poverty in the countries that receive aid. Indeed this humanitarian imperative is a principal objective of U.S. assistance programs and must be the rationale for marine technical assistance as it is for foreign assistance in any other field. 12

The link between a population's standard of living and its scientific and technological capabilities was recognizee as the theme of the 1979 United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development. The role of science and technology in specific areas of national development, including use of the oceans, is addressed in a report prepared by the U.S. National Research Council for the U.N. conference (NRC 1978). Using modern fishing techniques and gear, some countries, including Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Iceland, can regard the sea as a major source of food. Current estimates are that the potential world catch of conventional marine fish species is on the order of 100 million tons a year (Rothschild 1981), compared with the 1980 catch of 66 million tons, and much greater gains could be made by harvesting krill and other species now little used. Indeed, the living resources of the sea may be a critically important addition to the food supply as land-based agriculture begins to approach limits cf cropland and groundwater availability and soil fertility (Brown 1981). The potential for other countries to derive more food from the sea is great, particularly in Africa and the Near East (FAO 1981; NRC 1981b), but many developing countries lack the technological means to do so. Aquaculture and mariculture promise greatly increased supplies of fish through such techniques as ocean ranching, cage and raft culture, and controlled husbandry. New techniques in biotechnology and genetic engineering are likely to change food production cechnologies on land and in salt water by creating new, locality-specific strains of organisms. For populations of developing countries to benefit from such techniques, it is necessary that they have access to technical expertise and work toward improving their own scientific and technical capabilities to select and manage new technologies. Other marine resources are even more inaccessible to people of developing countries in the absence of technical assistance. These resources include marine plants, corals, sand and gravel, minerals, and oil and gas (Earney 1980). In addition, new sources of energy may be available from the ocean through exploitation of differences in salinity and temperature as well as from wave and tidal action. With the widespread declaration of 200-mile exclusive e ;unomic zones (EEZs), many developing countries suddenly have acquired title to marine resources of vast extent and economic value. Indeed, universal adoption of a 200-mile EEZ would place a total of 50 million square miles, an area approximately equal tc' the land area of the earth, under the control of coastal states. Most developing countries, however, have neither the technical expertise ior the physical capability to manage these areas properly. The Uni:ed States is one of the few nations with expertise in most areas of marine science and resource development and, therefore, could receive many requests for marine technical assistarce. Coastal developing countries need assistance not only to exploit their marine resources. They need assistance to preserve and develop marine-related tourism and to develop harbors and other facilities for ocean commerce. Moreover, these countries will need to protect the physical structure, ecology, and human inhabitants of their coastal 13

zones from tsunamis and storm surges and from slower deleterious changes such as pollution and shore erosion. Their efforts to meet these needs are severely constrained by shortages of investment capital and scientific and technical personnel, and by conflicting demands from other sectors of their own economies for specialists and capital. Likewise, developing countries need to upgrade their human resources for the management and controlled exploitation of their nearshore ocean areas. Developing countries can enhance their own scientific capabilities only by participating in the world scientific enterprise. This will require institution building, training, and direct scientific services. Future marine training and manpower development programs must involve a broader range of scientific disciplines than the traditional resource-related disciplines such as fisheries scierice and technology. New basic marine science knowledge is necessary to understand the ocean environment and its functioning.

MEETING U.S. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

Although U.S. development assistance is motivated partly by humanitarian concerns, the economic, political, scientific, and security-related benefits accruing from marine technical assistance and cooperation should not be underestimated. Potential benefits to the United States from such assistance are multifaceted and, in some cases, may contribute directly to meeting critical national goals.

Trade Benefits

Technical assistance may foster increased U.S. trade with recipient countries. Technical assistance and cooperation create a market for the knowledge, materials, and technologies needed to enhance fishery and oceanographic infrastructure ii developing countries. To provide U.S.-built boats, equipment, fishing gear, and technical hardware is to benefit U.S. suppliers of these goods. Assistance also could generate repeat demand through repair and replacement of U.S. manufactured products. In addition, developing nations that have invested in marine capabilities may become suppliers of marine-related products to U.S. markets and thereby help to reduce costs to U.S. consumers. Marine technical assistance could be especially valuable in creating a favorable climate for future investment and access by U.S. industry to the marine resources of developing countries. This could include oil exploration, mining, engineering, and tourism as well as fishing. Joint ventures by U.S. and foreign companies could yield important mutual benefits. Currently about 30 of the approximately 500 fishery joint ventures worldwide involve U.S. companies (Kaczynski and LeVieil 1980). Finally, the economic health of the United States and the developing world are more closely tied today than ever before--not only through trade in the tools and technology of development but also through efforts to understand and use the world's resources. It is in 14

the long-term U.S. economic interest to foster rational exploitation and management of marine resources by developing countries. Technical assistance and cooperation are key aspects of building marine management capabilities in developing countries. Traditionally, marine exploitation has been restricted to resources in shallow coastal waters, which become rapidly depleted as modern technology is applied without informed and technically effective management. Marine resource management capabilities therefore could help to conserve global resources, ensure future supplies of raw mraterials, protect world markets against sudden dislocations, and safeguard the interest of U.S. firms engaged in marine joint ventures. Strengthening developing countries' understanding of the oceans also will help prevent the overselling of the oceans as a panacea for the world's resource problems.

U.S. National Security

Most marine technical assistance projects have at least indirect military implications in the sense of expanding the recipient country's marine knowledge or capabilities. U.S. marine technical assistance could strengthen developing countries' capabilities for surveying and policing their exclusive economic zones, broadening their knowledge of the local marine environment, an. increasing their surveillance capabilities. The scientific information developed by research installations around the world studying oceanographic parameters can also have military significance. For example, an oceanographic research station in the Canary Islands played a vital role in the location of the lost U.S. submarine Scorpion in 1968. Assistance or cooperative programs also may foster a climate of cooperation between military personnel from the United States and from the recipient country. The navies of developing countries are often involved in oceanographic research. The programs may facilitate port calls by U.S. Navy vessels for logistical support, rest and recreation, and demonstration of resolve in regional theaters, which are essential elements of global deployment of U.-. naval forces. Other types of informal military cooperation or sharing of information may result. Such informal cooperation may be especially helpful to the United States in a crisis. Other implications of marine technical assistance fo U.S. national security include the possible enhancement of political stability in countries bordering on strategically important sea routes and the improved technical ability of all recipient countries to carry out responsibilities associated with safe navigation, weather forecasting, and so forth. Clearly, improvement in a nation's domestic marine technology also yields benefits for the United States where the recipient countries are bound by military treaties or agreements with the United States. In addition, certain types of oceanographic information are critically important for military aq well as civilian use and can be provided to the United States by friendly coastal countries. 15

Political Interests

For the past three decades, the United States has operated the largest bilateral foreign assistance program and has contributed the largest share of financial support to the United Nations and the development proyrams sponsored by U.N. specialized agencies. It should not relinquish this moral leadership in an area of such clear future importance as the oceans. The accelerating pace of attempts to exploit coastal resources makes such leadership particularly critical in coming years. Most developing countries will "shop around" for marine assistance among the industrial nations. If the United States does not respond to their requesto, these nations may seek assistance from our economic competitors in Western Europe or Japan, or from the Eastern bloc nations. Likewise, the United States seeks to exert leadership in various international forums, including the U.N. specialized agencies, the development assistance organizations, and the law of the sea negotiations. Marine technical assistance programs are a vehicle by which the United States can maintain its leadership in these multinational organizations, fulfill ics treaty commitments, and steer these organizations in directions it deems most productive and most conducive to U.S. interests. For example, the United States has made commitments through the ]OC/TEMA program (see ChaFter 5) and in the UNCLOS negotiations to support expanded marine technical assistance and cooperation. Failure to fulfill those pledges would be damaging to U.S. stature in the world. Marine technical assistance programs also can indirectly further other U.S. foreign policy objectives. Recipient nations; that develop strong domestic economies are likely to maintain political stability and to deal responsibly with international issues. Similarly, U.S. technical assistance may help to create stable world markets for marine products and may ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits from the exploitation of marine resources. This could help deter conflict between nations over marine resources and ameliorate North-South conflict over the oceans, which has delayed resolution of negotiations on the law of the sea and has occasioned much criticism of the United States. It is in the interest of the United States for it to be perceived as a partner in development rather than an exploiter of developing nations. This is crucial in light of growing U.S. reliance on certain developing countries for raw materials. Marine technical assistance could be a bargaining chip in securing supplies of those materials. The cne-nation-one-vote rule in the United Nations vests disproportionate political power in numerous island "mini-states," many of which have acquired jurisdiction over large tracts of ocean adjacent to their coasts. Because the surrounding marine environment shapes all aspects of life on oceanic islands, marine assistance to these nations may be a particularly effective means of building support for U.S. policies and positions in international organizations. 16

Scientific Interests

In many ways, the United States is still developing its own capabilities in fisheries science and, to a lesser extent, in oceanography. Cooperative programs can further this process by promoting a flow of information not only from, but also to, the Uited States, as has occurred in some cooperative aquaculture projects in Southeast Asia. Technical assistance and cooperation also can produce technological spin-offs that enhance U.S. domestic capabilities in fisheries and crntribute to the progress of U.S. marine science. Future progress in basic oceanogrephic research will probably depend more strongly on international cooperation than it has in the past. The oceans are so vast and. so little known that almost any nation that borders on the sea can make important scientific contributions. Developing countries that have invested in marine capabilities may be more likely to work with the United States in solving mutual problems such as marine pollution and marine resource management. Technical assistance can be implemented as part of these scientific programs, and, with appropriate funding, can lead to future cooperative science programs (which indeed might be one measure of successful technical assistance). Under the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states are encouragad to grant research clearances in normal circumstances, but retain wide discretion to refuse permission for entry. In addition, research applicants must meet certain procedural conditions and ensure that the coastal state can interpret the research. The Draft Convention therefore not only limits the freedom of scientific research, but imposes obligations to assist the coastal state in interpreting and benefiting from the research. These latter obligations include, inter alia, coastal state participation in the project, access to and explanation of the data and samples collected, and preliminary and final reports delivered to the coastal state. Operationally, these conditions will probably require that some type of technical cooperation be built into all research in the EEZs or on the continental shelves of developing countries (Jacobson 1981). One recent study'conservatively estimated that nearly one-third of the 407 U.S. requests for research vessel clearance into foreign waters between 1972 and 1978 were denied outright or were delayed sufficiently to damage the research program, with no clearly stated reason given for almost half of these refusals (Wooster 1981). It is by no means certain that marine technical assistance will guarantee access for all U.S. vessels and researchers, or even for the cooperating U.S. institution, as subsequent political events may change coastal state policy. Yet technical assistance can create a climate of cooperation and a network of personal ties that facilitate later cooperative projects. The world's oceans form an interconnected system and to understand its functioning, it is necessary to measure events both near shore and in deep, distant waters. Roughly 36 percent of the surface area of the oceans is within the expanded jurisdictional zones claimed by the majority of the 135 coastal states, and these zones include many of the 17

areas of greatest interest to marine science (Ross 1981). Many important ocean phenomena and nearly all the important life-cycle events of commercially important fish species occur in inshore regions well within the ecoromic zones of coastal countries. Included are early life-history stages of fish and other marine animals, the strong, narrow veastern boundary currents and the broad, slow eastern boundary currents of oceans. Upwelling and its accompanying high biological productivity, as well as many important geological processes, occur at the margirns of tectonic plates, which are often within EEZs. Tbus it is particularly important that scientists have access to data from inshore marine waters, most of which are now effectively under the jurisdiction of coastal states. It seems likely that a willingness to provide technical assistance and cooperation would facilitate access by U.S. marine scientists to many unique areas of the sea and seabed lying within the EEZs of developing countries. Such areas include fracture zones, geothermal vents, and crustal discontinuities and nonhomogeneities. Cooperative programs permit U.S. scientists to test general models in particular marine regions. In many instances this would be impossible without drawing upon the expertise available only in developing countries. Many important marine studies that are geographically dependent--for example, studies of storm surges, tsunamis, and climate--can be accomplished only through cooperative research with foreign countries. Far-distant ocean events can exert a considerable influence on the coast and on inland weather. For example, ocean events throughout the South Pacific directly affect the weather over the South American fisheries. Improved weather forecasts for the Americas depend in part on improved cooperative monitoring and research in the mid-Pacific. Finally, marine technical assistance and cooperation programs can help to make foreign officials more sensitive to the needs, benefits, and problems of marine science and development. Such programs should help to cultivate scientific and diplomatic contacts that will make subsequent research in the host country easier. This is important because, under the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, arrangements to carry out marine science projects will be administered through official governmental channels.

MUTUAL OR GLOBAL BENEFITS

Some advances in marine science and technology will benefit both developed and developing countries equally. Many of the marine resource and environmental problems faced by the United States are shared by other coastal countries, and their solution will require cooperation among many nations. However, data on certain critical processes of the marine environment must be assembled on a global or regional basis, and oceanographic research cannot be limited to the waters adjacent to industrial nations. For example, U.S. interests in broader uses of the ocean would be furthered by the participation of developing countries in research 18 involving such activities as weather and sea-state prediction, navigation, and communications. The possibility of predicting variations in terrestrial climate from year to year probably depends largely on measurement and greater understanding of oceanic conditions. Because of the interconnectedness of the oceans, these changes must be studied on an ocean-wide basis. From a longer-range point of view, the probable consequences of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the role of the oceans in absorbing a large fraction of CO 2 production will affect all nations. An understanding of these phenomena will require cooperative ocean studies on a global scale. With the prospect of a global energy crisis, all countries are concerned with the need to increase world reserves of oil and natural gas. If a developing country discovers and exploits the oil or gas reserves on its continental shelf or slope, other countries will benefit from reduced demand by that nation and, possibly, from increased supplies of fossil fuel moving in international trade. Cooperative programs could also facilitate environmental conservation and management. They could permit development of consistent and workable rules in shipping and other areas ttat are especially important to U.S. interests. Developing countries can learn much from U.S. successes and failures in establishing rules for environmental conservation, especially in coastal development and marine oil drilling and production, but the United States can learn from their experiences as well. Contrary to the popular view, concern for environmental protection is increasing in developing countries, particularly for special areas such as mangrove swamps and coral reefs. Marine technical assistance prograns can help developing countries to manage ocean pollution and to recognize that every coastal nation shares a responsibility to protect the marine environment. Finally, it is highly desirable to secure the endorsement and cooperation of the developing nations for scientific programs of mutual interest. Developing countries must have the scientific capability to meet their responsibilities in these programs and to exercise their rights under the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea. Governmental policies must be initiated to promote greater understanding of the marine realm. This will require an extensive learning process on the part of developed and developing countries. Both sides will benefit more quickly if the learning can be undertaken cooperatively. Because the primary purpose of basic scientific research is to increase knowledge, there is mutual benefit in increasing the number of trained researchers from all countries. This is true particularly with regard to marine scientific research because of the great expanse of the oceans and the limited capability of any single country to deal with so vast an area in its entirety.

SUMMARY

In sum, U.S. interests in the use and exploitation of the oceans are diverse and strong. These interests warrant increased marine 19 technical assistance and cooperation, which can be justified not only as altruism toward developing countries, but also by the immediate and potential payoffs to the United States. During the past two decades, the political relationships between technologically advanced nations and developing nations have undergone a marked transformation as the latter have gained a numerical in many majority international political organizations. The law negotiations of the sea have had a major impact in educating the developing countries about the economic potential of the oceans and the technological requirements for exploiting ocean resources. In the short run, U.S. fisheries and marine science may be adversely affected by these trends. Current practice emerging from negotiations the law of the sea extends coastal states' jurisdiction over fisheries marine and scientific resea-ch out to 200 nautical miles now difficult from shore. It is to plan broad international ocean research programs without obtaining the explicit consent and cooperation of the off whose coasts the nations research will be conducted. U.S. marine science and fisheries industries must adapt to the changing legal regime of the oceans. The need for technical assistance is driven partly by the expanding jurisdiction of coastal states over their adjacent waters. instances In most this includes control over living marine resources nautical miles within 200 of shore and the mineral resources of the continental margin (which may extend as far as 350 nautical miles from shore). is It natural in such circumstances that these countries assistance would seek from industrialized nations and that they would conditions impove on entry into their coastal waters. In negotiations involving the United States and developing coastal countries, the issue of scientific and technical assistance has been repeatedly raised by both sides as a partial quid pro quo for access and ocean use. In particular, technical assistance may become a necessary concomitant of research within the exclusive economic zones of developing countries. Most resource zones are not nearly as extensive as that of the United States, and many are relatively small. Many resources and all major oceanic phenomena occur in more than one zone and in the ocean beyond. open As a result of jurisdictional changes, all coastal countries will increasingly find it necessary to take an active bilateral part in and multilateral arrangements to ensure effective conservation use and of shared resources and to deal with major oceanic phenomena that bear on their economies. Programs of marine technical assistance and cuoperation could help to entablish scientific and official contacts that will foster easier relationships in subsequent marine research of interest to U.S. scientists. They can also the means provide to meet certain requirements in the Draft Convention Law of the Sea, on the such as the requirement to help developing countries assess data collected during expeditions in their exclusive zones. Several economic articles of the Draft Convention implicitly encourage cooperative oceanographic research that promotes the active participation of scientists from developing countries. In the broad areas of negotiation for scientific access and for use of coastal waters for exploitation activities, the availability of 20 trained marine scientists in the coastal state should promote a more reasoned understanding of the local conditions, of the state's self-interest, and of the benefits to be derived from cooperative activities in both research and exploitation. The declaration of exclusive economic zones by many developing countries and their concern for wise management and exploitation of the resources in their ocean territory require a greatly expanded and reoriented U.S. effort in marine scientific and technical assistance. An expanded assistance effort could result in political and national security benefits to the United States; it could also lead to expanded and more stable international commerce in narine-related products, better access for marine research, and improved international relations. Without such an effort, the United States may lose access to important marine areas; it would certainly forfeit its leadership in world assistance activities. Developing countries might seek such assistance elsewhere. Through expanded marine technical assistance, the United States can foster a mutually beneficial scientific interdependence with developing countries and thereby ease the transition to the new reality of ocean use.

REFERENCES

Brown, L.R. (1981) World population growth, soil erosion, and food security. Science 214:995-1002. Craib, K.13. and W.R. Ketler, eds. (1978) Fisheries and Aquaculture Collaborative Research in the Developing Countries: A Priority Planning Approach. A report to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Joint Research Committee, Board for International Food and Agriculture Development. Resources Development Associates, Los Altos, Cajifornia. Earney, F.C. (1980) Petroleum and Hard Minerals from the Sea. New York: Halstead Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1977) 1977 International Directory of Marine Scientists. Fishery Data Centre, Fishery Resources and Environment Division, Fisheries Department. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1981) Review of the State of World Fishery Resources. FAO Fish Circular 710, Revision 2. Fisheries Department. Rome: FAO. Jacobson, J.L. (1981) Marine scientific research under emerging ocean law. Ocean Development and International Law Journal 9(3/4): 187-199. Kaczynski, V. and D. LeVieil (1980) International. Joint Ventures in World Fisheries. Sea Grant Technical Report, USG 80-2. National Research Council (1978) U.S. Science and Technology for E:.velopment: A Contribution to the 1979 U.N. Conference. Printed by U.S. Department of State. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printinq Office. National Research Council (1981a) Doctoral Scientists in Oceanography. Manpower Tiends and Curriculum Needs Panel, Ocean Sciences Board; Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 21

National Research Council (1981b) International Cooperation in Marine Technology, Science, and Fisheries: The Future U.S. Role in Development. Proceedings of a workshop in La Jolla, California, January 18-22, 1981. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committee; Commission on International Relations. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1982) U.S. Directory of Marine Scientists, 1982. Ocean Sciences Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. i!ashington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (1981) Technology and Oceanography: An Assessment of Federal Technologies for Oceanographic Research and Monitoring. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pontecorvo, G., M. Wilkinson, R. Anderson, and M. Holdowsky (1980) Contribution of the ocean sector to the United States economy. Science 208:1000-1006. Ross, D.A. (1981) Marine science and the law of the sea. EOS 62(35): 650-652. Rothschild, B.J. (1981) More food from the sea? BioScience 31(3):216-222. Wooster, W.S. (1981) Research in troubled waters: U.S. research vessel clearance experience, 1972-1978. Ocean Development and International Law Journal 9(3/4):219-239. CHAPTER 2

U.S. MARINE ASSISTANCE IN RELATION TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE POLICY

United States programs to assist foreign nations in the development of marine resources have grown in response to changing international conditions. Although there is no single, coherent U.S. policy on marine development assistance and cooperation, such policy as does exist has evolved in two ways. On the one hand, it has grown out of numerous ocean-related policy decisions by the executive and legislativo branches of government and out of the activities of federal agencies in performance of their missions. For the most part, such policy decisions have been domestically oriented and only indirectly concerned with foreign assistance aspects of marine affairs. For example, the Sea Grant College Program established in 1966 was intended to upgrade U.S. domestic marine capabilities, and assistance activities under Sea Grant were negligible until creation of its international component 13 years later. On the other hand, marine technical assistance and cooperation constitute on component, albeit a minor one, of U.S. foreign assistance policy. The overall objectives of U.S. foreign assistance have shaped marine technical assistance in the sense that program mechanisms and project assessment criteria in this area are derived from U.S. practice in other assistance contexts. For example, the Agency for International Development's major fisheries programs during the 1970s were effected through institutional strengthening grants under Section 211(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and AID scientific programs are subject to the same restrictions on the selection of recipients (ceilings on per capita income) as are applied in other programs. The contribution of marine science and technology to the foreign policy objective of promoting economic development has been minimal. The following is a general discussion of U.S. marine technical assistance in relation to policy on foreign 3 assistance.

For a more detailed discussionf see "Marine Science and Technology for Development: In Search of a Policy" by Christopher K. Vanderpool, available from the Ocean Policy Committee, National Research Council.

22 23

Sustained, large-scale assistance by the United States to the poorer countries of the world began during World War II as the United States recognized the need for reconstructing nations devastated by the war. In December 1945, the United States supported the creation of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which was seen as a vehicle for maintaining the peace by ensuring prosperity in the postwar era. Peace and prosperity came to be linked to the economic recovery of industrialized countries and the future economic developing countries, growth of which were seen as making substantial contribu­ tions to U.S. economic and security interests. The first major U.S. assistance program was the 1948 European Recovery Plan Plan) initiated (the Marshall through the Economic Cooperation Act. It the Economic established Cooperation Administration to provide aid to European Far Eastern countries and where industry had been destroyed but where the capacity for rebuilding remained. A national policy for developmental assistance was announced President Truman in by his 1949 inaugural ,ddress. He described a "bold new program," the Point Four Program, which would make available U.S. science and technology for developing the resources of, and the living improving conditions within, developing countries. Technical assistance and capital investment in developing countries were the theme of the 1949 Act for International Development: It is declared to be the policy of the United States to aid the effort of the peoples of economically undeveloped areas to develop their resources and improve their living and working conditions by encouraging the exchange of technical knowledge and skill and the flow of investment capital to countries which provide conditions under which such technical assistance and capital can effectively and constructively contribute to raising standards of living, creating new sources of wealth, increasing productivity, and expanding purchasing power. These initial objectives and mechanisms have been expanded by the Congress and by every presidential administration since that of Truman. In general, U.S. foreign assistance objectives that evolved during this period are of four types: Economic--to generate and sustain economic development; e.g., increase per capita income, create new sources of wealth, and increase employment opportunities and the productivity of labor. Social--to build and improve the social and institutional bases necessary for enhancing the quality of life and the human resource potential of developing countries; e.g., encourage population planning, improve food supply and nutrition, develop educational, scientific, and technological infrastructure, and improve health and living conditions. Political--to promote a set of values and conditions that encourage and support governments friendly to the United States, cooperation among nations of the world, and 24

international peace and security; e.g., increase the political stability of developing countries, protect and promote U.S. economic and security interests, encourage respect for the dignity and freedom of the individual, and promote intercultural understanding. Resource-oriented--to develop and conserve the natural resource base and protect the natural environment; e.g., promote development and use of renewable resources, develop agricultural, physical, and energy resources, and protect the natural environment from the effects of pollution and environmental degradation.

These objectives are interrelated in most U.S. foreign assistance activities. Certain objectives have, at times, received more attention than others, and the predominantly resource-oriented objectives have been formally stated only within recent years. For the most part, however, U.S. foreign assistance objectives have been multifaceted. Objectives related to fisheries and ocean energy production are grouped in the fourth category with agriculture and energy resources. In legislation and agency actions, marine science and technology gen­ erally have received only marginal attention as potential contributors to the development process when compared with industrialization, rural developmnt, and traditional land agriculture or farming. Solutions to food and nutrition problems in developing countries through improve­ ments and increases in protein sources are directed mainly toward agriculture rather than fishing. There are three major assistance approaches for fulfilling U.S. foreign assistance objectives--scientific and technical, economic, and political. Scientific and technical approaches stress the use of U.S. technical knowledge to help solve developmental problems, to promote international cooperation in science and technology, to build scien­ tific and technical infrastructure in developing countries, and to promote equitable transfer of technology. The economic approach focuses on the provision of capital and material to generate self­ sustaining economic growth, open new markets, and promote balanced economies. The political approach includes various means for encouraging developing countries to adopt self-help measures, promote reforms, and establish a more stable political environment. Most U.S. foreign assistance programs involve combinations of these approaches. The objectives of U.S. foreign assistance, as well as the project mechanisms used, have changed over time. U.S. technical assistance efforts in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations stressed economic and political objectives more than social objectives or resource conservation. Efforts to increase trade and per capita income while at the same time promoting internal political stability and inter­ national peace and security were seen as enabling developing countries to reach a take-off point from which development would be self­ sustaining. The principal mechanisms selected for meeting these objectives included the provision of public capital and the promotion of private investment. In addition, reliance on local efforts has 25

been a consistent feature of U.S. foreign assistance policy. U.S. assistance is designed to contribute to the growth of developing countries by attracting foreign investment or by assistirg them to mobilize their own capital. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, several important assistance acts were passed and new assistance agencies were created. In 1951 the Economic Cooperation Administration was replaced by the Mutual Security Agency, which in turn was replaced by the Foreign Operations Administration in 1953. The Food for Peace program was established by Public Law 83-480, the Agricultural Trade Develop­ ment and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701-1736d). In 1955 the International Cooperation Admiristration (ICA) was established, replacing the Foreign Operations Administration. It was during this period that the United States began several large-scale fisheries assistance programs, notably in South Korea and India, through the ICA and in cooperation with other developed nations and U.N. agencies. In the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, U.S. assistance stressed the need for creating a partnership between the "northern" and "southern" countries to foster global interdependence. During that period, the industrialized nations expressed their intent to participate in a joint effort to improve the lot of the many newly independent nations. In the marine area, this involved an increase in fisheries assistance, particularly from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and from the Scandinavian assistance agencies. Another U.S. objective during this period was to encourage developing countries to undertake fundamental reforms, such as land reform and income redistribution. Continued emphasis was placed on infrastructural support through construction of buildings and roads and the provision of equipment. Furthermore, a new working concept of aid emerged whereby assistance programs would be geared to each recipient country's stage of development. Aid became contingent upon the recipient's efforts at resource mobilization, self-help, and internal reform. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195, 75 Stat. 424) reorganized U.S. assistance programs through the creation of the Agency for International Development, which replaced the International Cooperation Administration and the Development Loan Fund as the lead agency in U.S. assistance efforts. The establishment of AID, the Alliance for Progress, and the Peace Corps signaled a growing commit­ ment by the United States to grass-roots development assistance. Establishment of the Peace Corps was particularly significant because the agency was designed to deliver assistance at the village level and acted as a vehicle for the transfer of less complex technologies and for the transmission of new knowledge into the developing world. Peace Corps volunteers were specifically involved in fisheries develop­ ment from the beginning; this was in connection with development of nonindustrial fishery projects. The Peace Corps supported the develop­ ment of fishery cooperatives and FAO projects for the training of fishermen. 26

Assistance objectives and mechanisms were reappraised during the Nixon and Ford ;administrations, leading to an emphasis on increasing agricultural production, encouraging population planning, and expanding health care in the developing world. The United States also fostered support for multilateral assistance efforts, placed a greater emphasis on increasing the opportunities for private enterprise to engage in the development process, and began to relax the foreign assistance procurement policies in order to increase the export potential of developing nations. For example, the United States supported such multilateral efforts as the Caribbean Fisheries Development Program and the development of fisheries in Southeast Asia. A quid pro quo approach emerged whereby foreign companies working in developing countries were expected to provide technical assistance and training for the people of these countries. Some U.S. and Japanese fishing enterprises (e.g., the tuna industry) had operated in such a manner for several years. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-189, 87 Stat. 714), which amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, established what has been called the "new directions" policy, redirecting U.S. assistance programs toward the needs of the poorest people in developing countries. The act stipulated (1) that the United States should give developing countries food and technical information before capital; (2) that planning for development must be the responsibility of the developing country; and (3) that the quality of life of the poor in the Third World must be the focal point of assistance efforts. This policy implied criticism of the industrialization approach characteristic of earlier assistance efforts aimed at increasing the gross national product of poor nations. The new directions policy advocated tackling the problems of the poor directly by providing for their most basic needs, spreading the benefits of development more equitably, accelerating balanced economic growth, and reducing population growth. In the marine area, these policy shifts were evident in the increasing emphasis given to artisanal and small-scale fisheries. Projects were designed to increase the protein intake of the poor and improve the employment opportunities of fishermen, who are often in the lowest economic stratum in developing countries. The Carter administration proposed that increased agricultural production, greater employment opportunities, and more equitable distribution of income are critical to fulfillment of the new directions policy. Strengthening the scientific and technological capabilities of developing countries through technology transfer, exchanges of personnel, and collaborative research was an important cornerstone of the Carter policies. Although there was a proposal to establish an Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation (ISTC) for support of scientific and technical activities for 4 development, ISTC did not receive congressional funding.

4In the latter part of the Carter administration, Executive Order 12163 of September 19, 1979 (44 F.R. 56673), established the 27

Also during the Carter administration, there were increasing calls to modify U.S. assistance to meet the diverse needs of developing countries whose various political, social, and economic conditions reflect different stages of development. The developing world was divided into (1) "upper-tier" countries, which have substantial financial surpluses (e.g., OPEC nations) or are industrializing rapidly (e.g., Brazil and Mexico); (2) "middle-tier" countries, which require some form of assistance to maintain their current level of economic growth (e.g., Tunisia and Costa Rica); and (3) "lower-tier" countries, which rely heavily on concessional aid to finance their development programs and need assistance in meeting the basic human needs of their populations (e.g., Bangladesh and nations of the Sahel region of Africa). Recognition of these important differences among developing countries has important consequences for marine assistance and cooperation. It raises the question of which countries are best able to use marine technical assistance and to sustain marine activities after such assistance is terminated. Most of the lower-tier countries have the least developed marine infrastructure and would require extensive and sustained support to develop a marine capability. On the other hand, many nations in the upper and middle tiers already have some marine capability and interest. Arguably, U.S. marine assistance in some cases would be more cost-effective in middle-income nations rather than the poorest nations. In addition to tailoring assistance to the different stages of development, foreign assistance policy under the Carter administration placed new emphasis on energy production, technology transfer, the role of women in the development process, and the promotion of labor-intensive technology. In the late 1970s many of these elements were incorporated in Title XII--Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger--which was added to the Foreign Assistance Act by the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-161, 89 Stat. 849). Title XII was aimed at strengthening the capacities of U.S. land-grant and Sea Grant colieges and other eligible institutions in agricultural research and development directed at problems of food production in developing countries. Title XII recognized the value of marine technology to food production by specifying that agricultural research and development includes

International Development Cooperation Agency (IDCA), which would have responsibility for overseeing AID bilateral assistance programs, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the proposed Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation. The IDCA als would assume responsibility for U.S. participation in certain international organizations and multilateral development banks. Multilateral financing programs, the Peace Corps, and the Food for Peace program would have retained some degree of autonomy. Before these plans could be fully implemented, a change of administration took place. The future of IDCA and the types of functions it will carry out are uncertain. 28

fisheries research and development; that is, fishermen and farmers were placed on equal footing with regard to development assistance. The Board for International Food and Agricultuial Development was established to oversee the various activities under Title XII. The act also amended Public Law 83-480 by requiring the President to give priority to countries most seriously affected by food shortages. Under Title XII, support is provided for various research programs, including the long-term Collaborative Research Support Program, in the areas of food production, distribution, storage, and marketing. Although the Reagan administration's policy on development assistance is still in its early stages, its directions are becoming clear. First, the administration has indicated that it will emphasize bilateral rather than multilateral assistance programs, believing the former are easier to control and more beneficial to both parties. Second, principal recipients of U.S. assistance will be those nations considered central to U.S. foreign policy, in particular, U.S. security interests. There may be difficulties in making this policy compatible with current assistance legislation, which emphasizes aid to the poorest people in recipient countries, but there is probably sufficient statutcry latitude to permit some change in direction. Third, the Reagan administration will encourage private investment as a key element in development strategy. Accordingly, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation will play a larger role in U.S. development assistance. Finally, the Reagan administration advocateu encouraging indigencus business enterprises as a self-help approach to development. In the marine area, these changes will probably lead to a greater emphasis on bilateral fishery agreements and joint ventures between U.S. fishing industries and their counterparts in developing countries. CHAPTER 3

U.S. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

The present complex of U.S. programs and projects referred to as "marine technical assistance and cooperation" derives from a variety of concerns. Humanitarian interests are central to the rationale for the AID program, while strategic interests predominate in naval or hydrographic training of allies. Pragmatic needs of the U.S. marine scientific community often occasion marine scientific cooperation. Potential long-range political and economic benefits underlie most assistance programs, regardless of other motives, even though such indirect benefits rarely can be guaranteed. The operational objectives of U.S. marine technical assistance and cooperation are in three main areas:

Science and technology--to enhance developing countries' knowledge of the marine environment and to provide the technological means for exploiting marine resources; e.g., develop marine scientific and technological capabilities, cooperate in exchange of scientific and technical information, and encourage the freedom of scientific research. Food--to increase the supply of fish to meet food and nutrition needs in developing countries, to improve employment opportunities through the development of fisheries, in particular, artisanal and small-scale fisheries, and to preserve world fish stocks through sound management policies; e.g., improve harvest and postharvest technology, reduce postharvest losses, expand marketing and distribution systems, and promote natural and social science research on fisheries. Marine environment--to generate adequate means for conserving, managing, protecting, and using the living and nonliving resources of the oceans (and rivers and lakes); e.g., control pollution of the marine environment, increase understanding of climate change, and develop and improve equipment for exploration and recovery of marine resources.

29 30

U.S. AGENCY PROGRAMS

Formal U.S. programs of marine assistance began in the early 1950s, and informal assistance by private institutions and government agencies has always accompanied their overseas operations. Historically, most assistance in marine science has come through fellowships for foreign students or as components of research cruises in foreign waters. Major cooperative ocean science programs, such as those of the International Geophysical Year and the International Decade of Ocean Exploration, have involved research participation by foreign scientists, including a small number from developing countries. Before the 1970s, however, fisheries science and production were the focal point for most U.S. marine assistance. Fisheries assistance naturally makes the most immediate and tanc'ble contribution to the needs of developing countries. In some coastal countries (e.g., Southeast Asian countries), fish may be the major source of animal p;:otein in the local diet. Fisheries assistance is also important to landlocked nations with large freshwater bodies, and aquaculture in both fresh and brackish water has assumed increasing importance in developing countries in recent years. Since the 1950s, the United States has consistently supported fisheries-related activities that affect many developing countries. These activities include the FAO exploratory fishing programs, the regional fisheries commissions and international tuna commissions, and the development of fish protein concentrate. During the 1970s, the United States broadened the scope of its assistance efforts by expressing a willingness to explore, primarily through multilateral agencies, various ways of providing marine technology and education in marine science. The objective was to improve the ability of developing countries to interpret and use marine scientific information, and as a by-product, to assure the freedom of marine research. There was also an awareness that impending scarcities of global resources would increase the desire of developing countries to acquire marine technology. Moreover, the United States advocated increasing the global fish catch through greater use of unexploited species and increases in the use of mariculture and aquaculture. Recent policy decisions have suggested an increased emphasis on self-help, private sector investment, and market growth as means to overcome development problems. This approach has not been spelled out with regard to marine programs bu': implies greater emphasis on industrial development and perhaps less on artisanal and small-scale fisheries. This chapter sketches briefly the marine technical assistance programs of the federal agencies most directly involved with the oceans. Those programs are summarized in greater detail in the proceedings of MTAG's workshop in La Jolla. The principal mechanisms used by AID for fisheries assistance and the problems and advantages associated with each of those mechanisms are described in the report of 31

MTAG's evaluation of the AID program in fisheries and aquaculture. 5 MTAG also has produced an inventory of marine technical assistance programs conducted by the various federal agencies. 6 This chapter also discusses two topics that MTAG has concluded are essential to an expanded or more efficient U.S. marine technical assistance effort: (1) strengthening institutional capabilities in developing countries and (2)providing for better coordination of U.S. assistance programs. The former is a priority concern both because of the stated desire of developing countries to acquire technological self-sufficiency and because of the scientific interest in supporting local science institutions that can assist in cooperative programs requiring global data collection and monitoring. TAo recent approaches to the problem of building institutional capabilities are summarized: the Sea Grant International Program administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Science in Developing Countries Program within the National Science Foundation. Other similar programs, such as the proposed Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation and the research grants program of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Science and Technology for International Development, are also promising models for fostering institutional capabilities in science, but because of space limitations are not discussed here. Given the lack of an overall U.S. oceans policy, MTAG also considers coordination among U.S. marine agencies to be a critical need for future marine technical assistance and cooperation. If technical cooperation becomes a regular concomitant of entry into the exclusive economic zones of coastal developing countries, such coordination will become particularly necessary to ensure the effective use of U.S. funds for marine research and marine technical assistance.

Department of State

The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has principal responsibility within the Department of State for scientific and technological aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including international ocean affairs. The bureau also has cognizance over a broad range of foreign policy issues and global problems related to oceans, fisheries, environment, population, and so forth. The Deputy

5 An Evaluation of Fishery and Aquaculture Programs of the Agency for International Development. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committee; Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982). 6 This inventory is most complete for AID. Many marine technical assistance projects conducted by other agencies were small, informal components of programs in other areas or were so small that records are not available. This document, "An Inventory of U.S. Marine Technical Assistance Programs and Projects," is available upon request from the Ocean Policy Committee. ".4 32 "..

Asitn Sertr for.4~ O'ean,,an Fihre Affairs4~.,.4..§s the Scetii an Tcholgia **ale~rg.an.'hVFsere Attache

Inentoa CoprtOcns cadFihisAffairsdir)Tet.te'~

coordinates federal'activity4 in marine'cooperative affairs,-including~

____ maine-technical.-and-scien.ifi-dezeJopme-nt-. - ),444~ -- _The Stt .cnrbtosoeveralUN~ seatetamnses. agencies that have ocean-related miissions 6nd conduct marineitechnical ~~

assistance (see Chapter 5). The Department of State~lso. adrninisters , V, U.S.. 'cnrbuin t6,egtitrainl.fse scmisos established~bl- eatelfr mainagement~of v'arious~fisheries stocks or regions. Through ,PIPICOt ,the.Departmnet'.of State coordinates U.S. participationi:ntheInternational Council for,Exploration-'of 4the Sea (ICES), whichproposes and organizes fishery and'oceanographic research in the 4 Iorth Atlantic' Ocean and disseminates the research resultsl and in the'ntergovernmental ,Oceanographic Commission (IOC),~ which promotes and coordinates rarine>sdcientific research,4 services, training and education 'tlroughou~t the wold

V.. 4 ,. ' Agency for International Development .~ The' Agency for,.International Development is the principal U.S.

'444agency 'responsible for nonmilitary foreign assistance to developing countries. A recent AID reorganization established the Bureau for 44Science and4Technologyi(BST) as one of the four central bureaus (in4 4 - ' -addition td four regionial bureaus) within AID headquarters. This signals . a'renewed emphasis' on the scientific and technological aspects of development, which. were~downplayed at AID after 1973 because of both

4.4-444a a'lac of 'scientific personnel within~the agency and the direct-services

orientation of 4AID's congressionally mandated "new directions"' policy. Centrally funded assistance projects in fisheries and aquaculture , are4 now managed through the Office of Agriculture within the Food and 444.".Agriculture Directo~rate of the Bureau for. Science and Technology. The 44'"'BST also provides technical advice on) request to the regional'bureaus i and AID .country missions. Fisheries expertise is provided through

'~' 'advisers~on loan'~from "the NationalMarine Fisheries Service. ,~Among the fishery-related projectq' currently managed by the office of Agriculture are '(1) 'collaborative research ,(pond dynamics, stock assessment, arid

4 . postharvest losses). in-d~eveloping countries; (2) core support for the International"'Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management in the

Phili'ppines; (3)""activiti.L; at' the University of Rhode Island '.. '4 ',ji~.. International Center for Marine Resources Development; and (4)

211(d) 'of.th'ePoreinAssac Act of 1961, as amended. ' 4 .

44.4In accordance witn .AID policy, fishery-related assistance is 4')

4 . diirected toward deivelopment of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture, although there is no generally accepted definition of ",small-scale.,"...... ID oliy,. ..44 . equrestha suh as istan e be' designcd to. benefit the -''" AID~ ~ ~ 44poiyrqietatsu 33

rural poor directly through increased production and distribution of low-cost fish protein and through employment for rural people in jobs in fishing and related support activities. Title XII of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-161, 89 Stat. 849) established the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) as a mechanism for AID funding of collaborative research, including projects related to fisheries and aquaculture. On the basis of a 1977 BIFAD planning study, one collaborative research support program (CRSP) in aquaculture has been undertaken and others are being considered. Many large agricultural projects at AID contain small fishery development components. Although currently projected AID funding priorities for the 1980s indicate increasing attention to fisheries and aquaculture, especially in West Africa, overall funding for fishery projects remains small in comparison with funding for agriculture.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) carries out technical assistance activities concerning oceanography, fisheries, and training under the general terms of various pieces of legislation. The Sea Grant International Program, a component of the Sea Grant College Program, is the only marine technical assistance program at NOAA for which there is specific legislative authority. Sea Grant International i3 described in detail later in this chapter. NOAA administers a number of international fisheries training programs in which students from developing countries obtain under­ graduate and graduate education in U.S. universities. Fellowships are generally sponsored by AID, the Department of State, the United Nations, private foundations, or the recipient's home country. Administration of bilateral cooperative programs is another mechanism for NOAA's marine technical assistance activities. An agreement with the People's Republic of China includes two protocols involving marine and fishery-related science and technology and atmospheric science and technology, respectively. The former involves data exchange and establishment of a marine data center as well as studies of aquaculture and marine sedimentation dynamics in the Yangtze River outflow. NOAA also administers bilateral agreements with Nigeria and Senegal for purchasing technical assistance, primarily fishery resource assessment. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has assigned four fisheries experts to AID under an advisory services contract. In addition, NMFS has allocated one position to AID for exclusive use in their joint smaMl-scale fisheries project in Indonesia. Cooperation with foreign countries is also carried out through NMFS regional centers, which sponsor training courses, exchange data, and collaborate with scientists from neighboring countries. NOAA's marine environmental research laboratories in Miami and Seattle carry out numerous inter­ national programs on their own initiative with little or no specific budgetary support from their parent agency. 34

National Science Foundation

Concern with marine science and technology and technical assistai.ce cuts across several units of the National Science Foundation. However, NSF's principal mission .s support of scientific programs, rather than technical assistance per se. The NSF Division of Ocean Sciences supports about half of all federally sponsored oceanographic research by U.S. universities, including the large-scale multidisciplinary tr ,jects formerly supported through the International Decade for Ocean E-cpJoration. The Division of International Programs Lupports the U.S. component of approximately 300 cooperative programs annually in about 40 countries and currently participates in 21 formal agreements for scientific cooperation. Eight of those agreements are with developing countries, and three--with India, Korea, and Taiwan--include marine­ related elements. The Division of International Programs also administers the Science in Developing Countries PtJgram, which is described in detail later in this chapter. The Special Foreign Currency Program of the Division of International Programs uses U.S.-owned foreign currency 1-o support international science activities, while the International Travel Grant Program supports travel by U.S. scientists to participate in international meetings and conferences.

Department of the Navy

The principal cooperative marine science activities of the U.S. Navy are directed through the Naval Oceanographic Office. The 48-week International Training Program in Hydrographic Surveying/Coastal Oceanography assists maritime nations in nautical charting. Since its inception in 1957, nearly 400 students from more than 40 developing nations have received such instruction. The Naval Oceanographic Office also directs the Hydrographic Survey Assistance Program (HYSAP), which was established under a different name in 1964 to stimulate hydrographic data collection by Latin American countries through training and technical assistance for harbor survey operations. A similar program, the Republic of Korea-U.S. Cooperative Hydrographic Survey program, was initiated in 1970. In Indonesia, the Naval Oceanographic Office's Magnetic Programs and Projects includes both field operations and data analysis. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) directs a Contract Research Program, which involves field investigations performed under contract with U.S. investigators or under contracts and grants directly to developing country institutions. When U.S. Navy research vessels are conducting research in foreign territorial waters, ONR arranges for scientists from that country to participate in the research. ONR also worked with the University of Michigan in planning the series of International Symposia on Remote Sensing of the Environment, which addressed the needs of developing nations. 35 The Naval Research Laboratory initiated a cooperativ, program with the Brazilian Navy in 1979, and its marine experiments have included two 1976 Caribbean cruises with participation from developing countries. The Navy has trained officers from developing countries in the Air-Ocean Sciences Program at the Naval Postgraduate School. In cooperation with NSF, the Navy h .s supported large-scale marine science projects such as the Mid-Oce&an Dynamics Experiment (MODE) and the North Pacific Experiment (NORPAX) under the International Decade of Ocean Exploration.

United States Coast Guard The Coast Guard has broad responsibilities related to the Safety of Life and Property at Sea as well as protection of the Marine Environment and Resources. The Coast Guard has assisted other U.S. agencies in training programs for individuals from numerous developed and developing countries and has dispatched mobile training teams to Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Training extends to all of the Coast Guard's mission areas, especially search and rescue. The Coast Guard carries out other marine scientific and operational functions in conjunction with such activities as the International Ice Patrol through operational and technical direction of electronic navigation stations overseas and through participation in U.N. activities, including the International Maritime Organization.

Peace Corps

Most Peace Corps fisheries assistance has involved freshwater aquaculture. About 85 percent of the 350 volunteers now working on fisheries in 32 countries are working on freshwater fisheries. Since 1962, Peace Corps volunteers have worked in about 45 marine fisheries projects in 29 countries.

Smithsonian Institution The marine-related activities of the Smithsonian Institution focus on the classification and ecology of marine organisms and investigation of biological and geological phenomena of marine environments. The most significant international marine-related activity is the Mediterranean Marine Sorting Center in Tunisia, established in 1966. The center provides logistical support to a number of projects in Tunisia funded from the Smithsonian Foreign Currency Program and also provides administrative support for a study of eutrophication elements in Lake Tunis. The latter study is being undertaken with the Environmental Protection Agency. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama conducts research on basic biological processes, supports advanced training, and works on behalf of conservation in the tropics. 36

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior has maintained a modest marine science program with developing countries. These projects have been initiated primarily in response to specific requests. The USGS also actively participates in the Deep Sea Drilling Program/International Phase of Ocean Drilling planning and implementation, which is an important forum for the transfer of scientific and technical information.

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted several cooperative marine science projects with developing countries through its Scientific Activities Overseas Program. A current project in Egypt involves water quality for recreation and pollution control.

Other Agencies

The Commodity Credit Corporation of the Department of Agriculture administers the ocean transportation of U.S. agricultural products donated to foreign governments and voluntary assistance organizations. The Department of Energy carries out cooperative international programs in energy-related matters, including nuclear waste disposal and renewable energy from the oceans. The Federal Maritime Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency also perform specialized activities that may involve marine science and technology. Other organizations also consider marine topics; for example, an ad hoc committee convened by the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, under the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is concerned with technical assistance in obtaining food from the oceans.

STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES

A consistent aspect of U.S. foreign assistance has been the provision of training in order to strengthen scientific and technological capabilities in developing countries. In the marine area, the pattern has been to send people to the United States for training or to support programs of U.N. agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization for training at a re-iknal level in foreign countries. Assistance programs that have neglected training have been ineffective in the long-run development of a scientific capability in the recipient nation. An unfortunately typical example is that of a team of U.S. investigators spending a period of time in a developing country on a project of their own generation and returning home at the end of the project leaving nothing behind. Effective technical 37

assistance requires more than a foreign location for research by investigators from a developed country. It requires more than the infusion of dollars into the existing marine science community. "Assistance" is the key word; and to be effective, any program of marine technical assistance must include a component of major involvement by personnel from the developing country. Ideally the project should be planned jointly by scientists and administrators from both countries and should be directed to some problem whose solution will benefit the developing nation. A term coined to express the means whereby such effective assistance can be accomplished is "institution­ building mechanisms." Two promising examples of U.S. programs designed to strengthen institutional capabilities include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Grant International Program and the National Science Foundation's Science in Developing Countries Program.

Sea Grant International

The Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-461, 90 Stat. 1961), established the International Cooperation Assistance Program, later renamed the Sea Grant International Program (SGIP). The goals of the program are to (1) "enhance the research and development capability of developing foreign nations with respect to ocean and coastal resources" and (2) "promote the international exchange of information and data with respect to the assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of such resources." The Congress envisioned that the grants made under this legislation would promote cooperation between U.S. universities and their counterparts in developing countries. Grants were to be made only to U.S. institutions, and consultation with the Secretary of State was required before grants were made. The guidelines for SGIP proposals, published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1978, explicitly requested (1) an indication of commitment by the developing country to the proposed project, (2) a statement of the anticipated impact of the project on the foreign participant as well as benefit to the United States, and (3)a direct institution-to-institution approach in project design and implementation. Since its inception, the SGIP granting strategy has been to promote continuity of effort that will result in sustained beneficial impact on developing countries, while continuing to offer opportunities to fund new projects over an expanding geographical distribution. In the first operational year (FY 1978), SGIP used its budget of about $900,000 to fund seven academic institutions for projects in Chile (two grants), Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Malaysia, and Mexico. To date, SGIP has expanded its support to a total of twelve projects, five of which have been satisfactorily completed. Program growth has been achieved in spite of a budget fixed at the 1978 level of $900,000 until July 1981, when funds were reduced to roughly $260,000. 38

Several key elements have contributed to the effectiveness of the Sea Grant International Program as a mechanism for institution building. First, education and training of developing country personnel are integral parts of each project. Second, projects are developed on an institution-to-institution basis rather than a government-to-government basis. Third, as a result of this form of project development, there is an absence of unnecessary administrative intervention and bureaucratic delay. This allows principal investigators administrative freedom in carrying out their projects while prcviding necessary program accountability. Endorsement of SGIP from developing nations and the U.S. marine science community suggests that the program has been a success. Other marine technical assistance programs could benefit by establishing links with SGIP. For example, at the close of FY 1981, the Agency for International Development invited NOAA to submit proposals to help develop marine and atmospheric sLiince capabilities in developing countries. Several of the proposals that had been declined by Sea Grant on fiscal rather than scientific grounds were sent to AID for consideration. Some of these projects will be funded directly by AID. In future years, it may be advisable for AID and NOAA to formalize a coordinated review and funding procedure for these types of projects.

Science in Developing Countries

Over the years, the National Science Foundation has supported numerous programs involving U.S. scientists working cooperatively with their counterparts in other countries. Some of these were regional programs, some were bilateral, and some were administered by NSF but funded by another agency, such as AID. In 1980 the National Science Foundation established a set of uniform guidelines for projects involving international scientific collaboration with developing countries. The objective of this program--Science in Developing Countries--is "to strengthen science and engineering cooperation with developing countries according to mutual benefit." The program provides that "scientists and engineers from cooperating institutions abroad will ha\e the advantage of collegial relationships with U.S. scientists and engineers in specific projects that address priority problems of mutual interest." The program especially seeks proposals for projects "that are relevant to the developing country and that contribute to its capacity to train and utilize scientists and engineers." Like the Sea Grant International Program, the Science in Developing Countries Program provides funds to U.S. institutions and expects that counterpart institutions and scientists will participate in both the planning and the execution of the research. Consistent with the program's other institution-building objectives is the National Science Foundation', requirement that every Science in Developing Countries project pr.duce wutual benefits that persist beyond the term of support. Grants are made to U.S. institutions working with counterpart 39

institutions in developing countries for research participation, conferences, and work on dissertations. This last activity is to provide support for graduate students from developing countries enrolled in U.S. universities and working on a thesis project relating to a developing-country problem. It is too early for the Science in Developing Countries Program to have developed a track record on which one could judge its effectiveness, but certainly the program's objectives and guidelines are structured to contribute to the upgrading of the scientific capabilities of developing countries. However, like Sea Grant International, Science in Developing Countries appears to be suffering seriously from the federal budget reductions imposed in mid-1981. With Lhese two programs in serious financial trouble, the ability of the United States to provide innovative marine technical assistance to developing countries has been sharply curtailed.

POLICY AND PROGRAM COORDINATING MECHANISMS

It has been stated repeatedly that the United States has no declared policy concerning the oceans and their resources. This is probably true if by "policy" is meant a single document setting forth a coherent and comprehensive set of objectives and guidelines for all U.S. activities related to the oceans. The United States does have some quite clearly stated policies for many ocean activities, such as those related to defense of the country and to rights of innocent passage for ships and aircraft. The principal U.S. agency concerned with overseas assistance activities has no explicit policy governing participation in marine technical assistance and cooperation. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of assistance going on through programs of a number of federal agencies. It ranges from scientific participation in research operations to direct developmental assistance for artisanal fishermen and for farmers undertaking pond fish culture. Information exchange on the nature and extent of assistance activities among agencies seems to depend principally on an informal personal network. The Panel on International Programs and International Cooperation in Ocean Affairs (PIPICO), directed by the Department of State, was established as an interagency mechanism to coordinate the involvement of U.S. agencies in international cooperative marine science programs. Some of these programs included participation by developing countries, but PIPICO has neither the staff nor the mandate to perform extensive development assistance activities in marine science and fisheries. Thus, although PIPICO presumably provides a mechanism for exchange of information on international science projects, there does not appear to be a program­ coordinating mechanism or any formal mechanism for exchanging development-assistance information among U.S. agencies. Perhaps the absence of a general policy and the lack of a coordinating mechanism arise, in part, from the diversity of marine assistance requests and actions and from the fact that ocean elements 40 are often minor components of larger development programs. Thus, agriculture programs supported by AID might include a fisheries component that ultimately involves National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration personnel in marine assistance activity. On the other hand, marine science assistance might arise from a State Department initiative at the Secretary level as part of an agreement reached, for primarily political objectives, on cooperation in science and technology with a developing country. A third and probably increasingly important example would be the case in which technical assistance is a quid pro quo for access to an area for oceanographic research. (A similar situation is the requirement for development assistance as part of a private-sector joint venture agreement, but this will rarely involve direct participation by a U.S. government agency.) It may be unrealistic in the face of such diversity of policy objectives to expect that a coherent policy for U.S. marine technical assistance can be developed. But it is clearly desirable to develop mechanisms for rapid and reasonably complete exchange of information among agencies and for coordination of assistance activities. If such a system can be assembled, it is not unreasonable to expect formulation of a common set of marine assistance objectives that would be consistent with overall U.S. ocean policy. Additionally, guidelines might be drafted to help agencies derive maximum benefit from their assistance activities. The need for a coordinating and information dissemination office for U.S. marine assistance and cooperation activities has been repeatedly stated by U.S. officials as well as foreign assistance recipients. There is currently no single federal office that can direct requests from individuals or in'stitutions to the appropriate agency for marine technical assistance. Although the U.S. Agency for International Development is designated as the lead assistance agency and the Department of State has the responsibility to coordinate international activities of the federal government, many agencies engage in foreign assistance. This creates a persistent problem of communication both within and between agencies. It would be important to include representation from nongovernmental components in any coordinating office in view of the large involvement of universities and private foundations in the present marine assistance programs. Perhaps a marine equivalent of the Registry of Resources currently being prepared by the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development would be a useful model to follow. CHAPTER 4

U.S. PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

Private sector involvement in marine technical assistance and cooperation has waxed and waned according to trends in development assistance, interests of sponsors, and commercial considerations. Although private-sector organiz-.tions involved in assistance are not arms of the U.S. government, they do reflect, to some extent, trends in domestic political thinking and U.S. foreign policy. Some of these organizations, particularly universities, receive their funding for foreign activities primarily from the U.S. government. Numerous private organizations in the United States conduct foreign operations that include, or border on, technical assistance. The principal examples--foundations, universities, and industry--are discussed in this chapter. Other organizations that may occasionally conduct marine-related technical assistance, such as church groups or disaster relief agencies, have been omitted, but their contributions should not be overlooked. Nor is the following discussion intended to be comprehensive; these descriptive summaries do not convey the totality of marine assistance activities of the organizations involved.

FOUNDATIONS The two principal U.S. foundations traditionally concerned with international assistance and technological development have been the. Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Both were active in supporting training, education, development, and some research related to fisheries in the 1950s and early 1960s, when there was a general belief that ocean resources were limitless. Interest swung to population growth and other social problems in the late J960s, and the Ford Foundation discontinued its fisheries support. The Rockefeller Foundation greatly reduced its support of fishery-related programs at the same time but retained a strong interest in aquaculture connection in with its ongoing agricultural research activities. Support was given for research in tropical aquaculture and for fisheries conferences. At the 1973 Rockefeller-sponsored fisheries conference entitled "Perspectives in Aquaculture," a proposal was made to provide initial support for the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources

41 42

Management (ICLARM). The foundation launched ICLARM in the following few years. iCLARM is intended tc serve aquatic food production in the way that the very successful internatioial agricultural research centers have served agriculture. It was decided to structure ICLARM as an international nongovernmental organization headquartered in a developing country in which marine products are important. ICLARM was incorporated in Manila in 1977 as "a non-stock, philanthropic and non-profit corporation . . . for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes, "7 with baseline funding from a number of sponsors, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, and the Federal German Ministry for Economic Cooperation. ICLARM has already carried out important studies of scientific, socioeconomic, and political aspects of fisheries, has published excellent scientific and technical information bulletins, and has conducted cooperative studies in aquaculture with universities and government agencies, particularly in Southeast Asia. ICLARM is unique among fisheries research and development agencies. It is a private organization (unlike U.N. agencies, for example, which must answer to member governments) and may be able to address problems of living resources management and exploitation with minimal political interference. This is particularly important at this time when governments and industry everywhere are trying to grapple with problems of zones of extended jurisdiction and management of marine resources within such zones. Potentially, ICLARM provides a neutral agency through which project funding from a number of sources could be channeled and coordinated. The Rockefeller Foundation plans to channel much of its future support for aquatic food studies through ICLARM. However, the foundation is still supporting conferences on fisheries topics independently of ICLARM. Recently, the Tinker Foundation, which is concerned with assistance to Spanish-speaking countries, has initiated studies related to marine resource problems-in Latin American countries. A major initiative of this foundation has been the funding of the Tinker Center for Tropical Marine Coastal Studies in Latin America at the University of Miami. This organization is working actively on problems related to regional resource utilization and management in the Caribbean and South America. The Tinker Foundation also provides support for marine assistance activities in Latin America to the University of Delware, the State University of New York, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Another foundation, the William H. Donner Foundation, has recently funded a program at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for marine policy assistance to developing countries. There is little evidence of significant support of marine development-related research by any other major private foundation. The International Agricultural Development Service provides fellowship

/From "Articles of Incorporation," ICLARM information bulletin No. 1 (1977). 43

support for advanced training in fisheries science for Indonesian scientists, and it is probable that other nonprofit organizations also sponsor a limited amount of inland fisheries activity. Other nongovernmental organizations that provide marine-related assistance include disaster relief agencies such as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (OXFAM), development assistance organizations such as the Caritas Fund, and other service agencies, such as religious or conservation organizations. The programs of such agencies frequently are aimed at community development and may include marine components. Although these programs generally are carried out on a smaller scale than the programs of governmental agencies, they often are highly effective because of extensive grass-roots contacts within recipient countries. A number of hybrid governmental-private organizations, such as the Inter-American Development Fund and Canada's International Development Research Centre, combine governmental funding support with autonomous management. These organizations could serve as management agencies for channeling governmental funds for assistance and may provide useful models for U.S. organizations involved in marine technical assistance and cooperation. The hybrid programs are attractive because they permit a more active role for the counterpart scientific group within the recipient country than in most traditional bilateral arrangements. The possibilities for dominance by the donor country are greatly reduced even though the donor retains considerable influence, which may be helpful in politically difficult situations.

UNIVERSITIES

Most U.S. universities with marine science or fisheries programs are involved to some extent with training of foreign students and research scientists. In the vast majority of cases, such students enter existing degree programs. The support for foreign students in fisheries and oceanography comes from a variety of sources, including national governments, U.N. agencies, other international organizations, the U.S. Agency for International Development, foundations, family resources, and occasionally private companies. In some cases the training is carried out under funded programs that require subsequent work in the home country. Most cooperative university programs in marine science and technology are nearly totally dependent on outside funding sources for foreign assistance activities. Private universities usually do not have discretionary funds for large programs of this nature, and state universities naturally are concerned primarily with public services to their state or region. Cooperative programs therefore must be piggybacked onto existing funded research programs or receive outside support from the private foundations or U.S. government agencies, principally AID. A few institutions conduct special training programs for foreign marine scientists and technicians either on a continuing or ad hoc basis. Examples include the two-month marine science course held annually at Duke University and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a 44

Scripps Institution of Oceanography program in conjunction with the Southwest Fisheries Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service for training of Mexican scientists, and various programs at the University of Miami. Auburn University and the University of Rhode Island, which received grants under AID's university-strengthening program (that is, Section 211(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended), have mounted a number of fishery-related projects over the past ten years. Auburn maintains a continuous training program in freshwater aquaculture for students from developing countries. A number of U.S. universities have carried out specific training programs in marine science and technology in developing countries. Some of these have been long-term, extensive programs involving institutional development and, often, the initiation of new courses and degrees. Examples are the programs of Oregon State University in Chile, the University of Delaware in Costa Rica, the University of Miami in Colombia, and the University of Washington in Chile, Brazil, and Indonesia. Numerous short courses have been conducted by U.S. universities at home and abroad for training foreign scientists in marine science and technology. They include a sequence of courses in remote sensing conducted by University of Delaware faculty in at least eight developing countries, courses and symposia in Central America by the University of Rhode Island, courses in Mexico offered by the Mississippi State University, and short courses conducted by University of Washington faculty in Peru and elsewhere. The universities often are the sites of training activities sponsored by assistance agencies. One example is the FAO-sponsored FAO/UNDP training course, "Fish Feed Technology," offered at the University of Washington in 1979. The East-West Center, situated on the campus of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, has a significant ongoing program in marine resource utilization. The center is not strictly speaking a university institution; it is funded by direct congressional appropriation and supports large numbers of students, mainly from Southeast Asia. Between 1972 and 1976 the center held a total of 16 workshops, conferences, and training programs covering both technical and socioeconomic aspects of fisheries and aquaculture; more than 180 people from throughout Southeast Asia attended. U.S. universities therefore are, or have been, involved in various long-term programs overseas in marine science and fisheries, but these have not been on the scale of the land-grant universities in agricultural programs. This reflects the imbalance of interest within U.S. assistance agencies between marine and land resources-­ particularly between fisheries and agriculture. Two of the universities most deeply involved over the long run have been Auburn University and the University of Rhode Island. Their involvement stems from their association with AID under the agency's university-strengthening program. These institutions were funded by AID as centers of excellence in inland fisheries and marine fisheries, respectively, and provided assistance to AID-sponsored programs in many countries. General institutional funding for universities engaged in development work is now largely provided through grants to land-grant 45

and Sea Grant institutions under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. This could provide a broader basis of support for a greater number of universities. However, programs supported under Title XII have reflected a bias toward agriculture and land-based resources, and this has resulted in a relatively low level of support for marine technical assistance and cooperation. The activities of Auburn University and the University of Rhode Island are dealt with in detail in MTAG's evaluation of fishery and aquaculture programs of AID (NRC 1982). Here it may be sufficient to note that although both universities, but particularly the University of Rhode Island, initiated activities during the period, the bulk of their work was in response to requests from AID. Several universities have carried out development activities largely with support from the Sea Grant International Program. The projects include those of the State University of New York in Chile, the University of Delaware in Costa Rica, the University of Rhode Island in Malaysia, Louisiana State University in Mexico, Oregon State University in Chile, Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Israel, and the University of Miami in Colombia. A number of institutions have obtained funding from the National Science Foundation for cooperative research programs in marine science and fisheries. Such programs are conducted by the University of Illinois in the People's Republic of China, Iowa State University in Indonesia, the University of Guam in Taiwan, and Oregon State University and the State University of New York in Peru. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has mounted a number of cooperative studies in the Middle East funded by various countries in the region. It is apparent that the involvement of U.S. universities in overseas development and cooperative assistance and research projects has been quite extensive. The scale of the operations has generally fallen far short of the corresponding agricultural programs, however. It has been rare indeed for marine-related programs to be funded at a level approaching $1 million, and most projects have been operated at less than $100,000 per year. Because universities are geared to the processes of education and research, it is generally in those fields that their overseas activities have been most successful. The university system does not adapt well to the management of actual development programs except where the programs involve the staffing and operation of educational and research institutions or training systems. Where land-grant universities have administered development programs in agriculture, they have generally set up essentially independent units nominally headed by regular university personnel but staffed by individuals hired specifically for the project. One reason for this is the need to retain permanent faculty at the home campus to carry out university responsibilities in teaching, research, and administration. The cooperative extension systems of the agricultural universities provide a model for university participation in development projects overseas. Generally, marine universities are much less prepared for extensive involvement in overseas 6evel oment projects per se. Lacking funded experiment stations and with on±1 46

small extension systems, marine universities cannot move faculty in and out of the teaching function as agricultural universities can. A review of past activities of the marine universities indicates that probably only one, Auburn, has been able to follow the pattern set by agricultural universities in hiring staff on a long-term basis specifically for overseas work; it is no accident that Auburn is also an agricultural university. In most of their marine and fisheries projects, universities have used their own faculty, staff, and students, typically on short-term assignments. This procedure can exert a severe strain on the regular program of the university, and this is recognized to some extent in the grant program under Title XII. Some relief from the pressure can be obtained through the formation of operating consortia, which distribute the burden among a number of institutions. Consortia also make a broader range cZ expertise available to address technical assistance needs. Universities and marine research institutions are particularly important as development mechanisms in light of the new emphasis by developing countries on cooperative rather than assistance programs and their heightened sensitivity to the political implications of assistance programs. In general, universities are somewhat detached from the political process and capable of working in sister relationships with institutions in developing countries. Another reason for enhancing U.S. university involvement is the now widely held view that effective development depends on the creation of scientific and technological capabilities within the developing country. This requires long-term cooperative research programs as well as enhanced local technical education systems. Universities are best suited to carry out this type of technical assistance, which can lead to continuing relationships with institutions in developing countries in ways that are beneficial to U.S. foreign relations. Marine science spokesmen from developing countries are insistent that future bilateral arrangements emphasize cooperation rather than assistance. Though this may be unrealistic for many countries because of insufficient scientific and technological development, the United States must recognize these countries' claims to treatment as equals in scientific agreements. Universities can operate in a cooperative mode successfully since they include all levels of scientific and techno­ logical expertise in their ranks. Exchange can be at the student level, where appropriate, and technical training can often be made available on research vessels or in university laboratories. The great diversity among U.S. universities assures that a suitable institution can be found to match most countries' needs. Moreover, universities operate in disciplines ranging from physical science to sociology, making possible a holistic approach to technical assistance. It should be noted that many people in developing countries do not understand how U.S. universities function and the limits of governmental control over universities. It is often difficult for officials in other ccuntries to understand that U.S. universities are not creatures of the federal government and that individual faculty and staff members cannot be directed by the government to particular overseas functions. 47 Misunderstandings can occur when the wishes of an aid-recipient country for the services of certain individuals cannot be met immediately. The situation can be avoided or alleviated if all parties to the agreement have a clear understanding of the assistance project.

INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE

Technology transfer by mean, of industry and commerce occurs through normal business channels and is a consequence of the desire in both developed and developing countries to profit from the economic use of resources. The problem is less one of transferring of technology than of ensuring the continued success of that technology. This requires trained personnel as well as capital and management expertise. The involvement of industry in technical assistance is now largely confined to the oil and gas and fishing industries. The oil and gas industry was not dnalyzed during the present study because it stands somewhat apart from most science and technology development activities, being a high-technology enterprise dominated by international companies. Nevertheless, it is known that training of developing country nationals (and their employment by the companies), technology transfer, and even educational development assistance commonly are features of the agreements between oil companies and developing countries. The almost universal adoption of exclusive economic zones by coastal states has brought about a rapid and widespread increase in joint ventures, mostly between fishing companies from developed countries and local private or government-owned companies in developing countries. There were about 500 such enterprises worldwide in the late 1970s, the majority involving Japanese companies. U.S. companies were partners in about 30 fisheries joint ventures with developinq countries in 1979. The purpose of joint ventures from the standpoint of a company in a developed country is to obtain access to the fishery resource of the developing country. This clearly implies some kind of payoff agreement, which, in addition to royalties, usualy includes both training arid technology transfer. The training ic principally on-the-job and technical, but in a few cases the agreement may call for sending developing country personnel to the United States for advanced training, including academic degree programs. Not a-11. joint ventures are successful, however. Indeed, there nave been a number of instances in which a company from a developed country has take advantage of its developing-country partner. This has happened often enough that some developing countries are now unwilling to enter into joint-venture agreements. This is unfortunate because joint ventures can be an effective way to enhance technological development rapidly. Because joint-venture agreement:! frequently call for a progressive transfer of various parts oa the operation from the developed-country partner to the developing­ country indLstry or institution, continuing technical training must be provided to sustain the system. Indigenous training proyLams can be greatLy helped by a close liaison with the joint-venture activity, which provides practical experience. 48

Industries ancillary to the fishing industry, such as boat building and the manufacture of fishing gear and accessories, may also be based in the developing country. Again, there can be considerable employment of developing country nation.ls, and by necessity, both training and technology transfer. A good example can be seen in the operations of the Seattle-based Marine Research & Construction Company in Latin America, which included the exchange of personnel to receive training at all levels. It is probably unrealistic to think of mobilizing U.S. industry specifically for marine technical assistance and cooperation. The increasing involvemerlt of U.S. companies operating overseas in this type of activity is inevitable, howeve:r, and can be promoted by a willingness of the U.S. goveirnment tc, provide insurance protection and perhaps direct support for training. This would be inexpensive technical assistance with some obvious potential benefits to the U.S. economy.

CONCLUSIONS

The U.S. program in marine technical assistance and cooperation is small, especially when expenditures for marine-related assistance are compared with expenditures for agricultural assistance. The scope of the program is surprisingly wide, however, involving many foreign countries, a number of U.S. universities and foundations, and several U.S. federal agencies. Although marine technical assistance is spread rather thinly, at least a few projects have been successful. The influence of the United States in marine technical and scientific development is much more widespread and indeed pervasive than the relatively small direct investment would suggest. This is because of the large role that the United States and, particularly, its academic in titutions play in ocean science and technology worldwide. Large numbers of students have studied .-U.S. universities and returned to cheir home countries to occupy important positions in marine industries or government departments. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of those individuals 'i developing an indigenous marine science and technology base often has been greatly reduced by the lack of any U.S.-sponsored continiiny marine assistance program. This is itself partly a result of an ad hoc approach to marine assistance, seeking limited and immediate objectives without adequate concern for long-.erin results or for the relationship of the programs to general ocean science and technoogy development. There is a need for more continuity in assistance proqrams and for broader, more informed management to ensure that project- complement each other. In recent years it has become clear to scientists and planners in the Uni-ed States and in developing countries that the fisheries problems most frequently targeted for development action cannot be addressed effectively without also considering oceanographic or limnological f;actor- and the socioeconomic consequences of fishery development, Yet, all too often these areas of concern are dealt with independently because each is a different discipline area and 49

development assistance is likely to be provided through different agencies or different parts of the same agency. Obviously, the probability of duplicative or overlapping activity is greater when different national and international agencies are promoting technical assistance and cooperation in the same area. In some cases duplication of effort may be unavoidable, but generally some degree of coordination can be achieved when common work is proposed. The preceding discussion underscores the desirability of establishing a U.S. office to coordinate and compile information on U.S.-sponsored marine technology assistance and cooperation programs. In view of the international implications, this office should interact with appropriate agencies of other nations and with the United Nations and other international agencies.

REFERENCE

National Research Council (1982) An Evaluation of Fishery and Aquaculture Programs of the Agency for International Development. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committee; Coi'mission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. Washington, D.C.: Natonal Academy Press. CHAPTER 5

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS FOR MARINE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

Programs of marine technical assistance and cooperation are carried out principally by international and regional organizations and by a relatively small number of developed countries besides th! United States. Additionally, a few upper-tier developing countries recently have undertaken marine technical assistance to a limited extent. For example, Thailand has provided fisheries technical assistance to Bangladesh. The purpose of this chapter is to place U.S. programs and methods in perspective by presenting a representative cross section of non-U.S. bilateral and multilateral programs in marine technical assistance. Although the United States contributes in many ways, particularly financial, to the marine technical assistance programs of the United Nations, the World Bank, and other organizations mentioned in this chapter, the formidable task of comprehensive analysis and comparison with U.S. programs was not an objective of this study.

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The principal Urit d Nations agencies concerned with marine technical assistance and cooperation are the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Development Programme. Also involved, but to lesser degrees, are the United Nations Environment Programme, the Word Meteorological Organization, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, the Ocean Economics and Technology Branch of.-the U.N. Secretariat, and the recently formed U.N. Interim Fund for Science and Technology for Development. Coordination of U.N. agency activities in this field is handled by the Inter- Secretariat Committee on Scientific Programs Relating to Oceanography.

Note: This chapter is based in large part on papers prepared by participants in the Ocean Policy Committee's workshop in La Jolla, California, January 18-22, 1981, and published in the workshop proceedings, International Cooperation in Marine Technology, Science, and Fisheries: The Future U.S. Role in Development.

50 51

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The Food and Agriculture Organization is the principal U.N. agency concerned with living aquatic resources, primarily through its Department of Fisheries. In particular, FAO assists efforts of developing countries to achieve maximum nutritional, social, and economic benefits from both marine and inland fisheries. Thus, the FAO is most concerned with the use of aquatic resources, whereas the more fundamental scientific aspects of the aquatic environment are the concern of UNESCO/IOC and UNESCO's Division of Marine Sciences. Funding for the FAO Department of Fisheries comes from both FAO regular program and extrabudgetary sources, such as the UNDP, Technical Cooperation Program, and trust funds. Like most U.N. agencies, the Department of Fisheries works with a large number of advisory committees and scientific and technical working groups. The most important of these are the Committee on Fisheries, which sets policy, and the Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research, which also advises the IOC. The Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea and the adoption of exclusive economic zones by coastal nations have resulted in a reevaluation and reorientation of Department of Fisheries policies and programs to correspond better to the needs of member countries. The new priority areas for activities of the Department of Fisheries are (1) advice to member governments on the economic use and management of living resources in exclusive economic zones; (2) improved use of the fish catch; (3) technology transfer and development at the level of artisanal or small-scale fishery operations with special emphasis on the socioeconomic benefits to the producer; (4) economical use of energy in fisheries; (5) increasing the effectiveness of fishery management; (6)decentralizing the delivery of technical assistance, that is, from FAO headquarters in Rome to the regional offices; and (7) strengthering of support of field programs in fisheries. Additionally, activities of the Department of Fisheries are directed toward improving the collection of fisheries information and improving national technical capabilities and self-reliance through training. Two trends are discernible in the funding and operation of the field programs of the Department of Fisheries. First, there is a reduction in UNDP project support and an increase in support from other donors through trust funds. Second, extrabudgetary donors are now showing a preference for long-term, integrated assistance programs in fisheries.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

In response to the desire of marine scientists to continue the collaboration begun during the International Geophysical Year, UNESCO convened conferences in 1960 that resulted in the formation of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) in 1961. At the same time, the Office of Oceanography was created to carry out the oceanography program of UNESCO as well as to serve as Secretariat for 52

the IOC. The IOC is a semiautonomous body whose stated purpose is to study the nature and resources of the ocean through concerted action of the member states. Membership in the IOC has grown from 40 nations in 1961 to more than 100 at present. All marine scientific activities of UNESCO were handled by the Office of Oceanography until late 1972, when, at the request of member states, the Secretariat and the operations of the IOC were separated from the now Division of Marine Sciences (DMS). Activities of IOC and DMS in(Aude regular UNESCO budget items as well as extrabudgetary activities deriving financial support from the United Nations Development Programme, Funds-in-Trust, the Voluntary Assistance Programme, and other sources. Both IOC and DMS work through many subsidiary working groups and committees, often in conjunction with other U.N. organizations and international bodies.

Division of Marine Sciences

The regular UNESCO budget provides for implementation by the Division of Marine Sciences of a program designed to upgrade national marine science capability and infrastructure through basic and advanced training projects. These include provision of fellowships (up to 9 months), study grants, visiting lecturers, exchange of scientists, and selection and purchase of books and equipment, as well as design of marine science curricula and research programs. The division seeks to upgrade the weakest oceanographic discipline in a given country and to promote an interdisciplinary approach to marine science. This approach is extremely important for new projects providing research and training related to integrated management of coastal systems. Many of the extrabudgetary activities of the Division of Marine Sciences have resulted from the catalytic effect of small amounts of money from the division's regular program funds or from the IOC. An increasing number of extrabudgetary activities have resulted from regional and global projects developed with othec agencies, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

The role of the IOC is to promote member states' scientific investigations of the nature and resources of the ocean. The IOC is committed to support global and regional ocean science and survey projects for the benefit of member nations. Recent global programs of the IOC acting alone or in cooperation with other groups include the Global Investigation of Pollution in the Marine Environment, Global Atmospheric Research Program, General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans, Ocean Science in Relation to Living Resources, and the Committee on Climatic Changes and the Ocean. Examples of regional projects are the Cooperative Investigation in the North and Central Western Indian Ocean, the Program Group for the Western Pacific (WESTPAC), and a 53

number of projects concerned with the ocean-warming phenomenon known as El Ni~o and its effects on fisheries in the region of the Peru Current. One major regional project is the IOC Regional Association for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (IOCARIBE), established in 1976 as the follow-on to the IOC-sponsored Cooperative Investigations of the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions. IOCARIBE focuses on specific projects reflecting the marine science needs of the member states of the region and provides the regional implementation mechanism for IOC global programs. Member states have indicated that living marine resources are their major marine interest, but because fisheries development and management are the purview of the Food and Agriculture Organization, IOCARIBE has agreed that its primary objective would be to provide the marine science knowledge needed for fisheries development and management. In this way the IOC and FAO are able to cooperate with minimal jurisdictional problems. The first cooperative project is to be located in the Lesser Antilles in the area of St. Lucia and Martinique. Additional projects include a petroleum pollution monitoring program (CARIPOL) as the regional component of the global IOC program, a multination Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium scheduled for 1983, and an active program in training, education, and mutual assistance. The IOC also supports certain ocean services through the Integrated Global Ocean Station System, the International Tsunami Information Center, and other programs. Ocean services include marine science information programs such as the International Oceanographic Data Exchange and the publication and dissemination of the results of oceanographic investigations. The IOC Working Group on Training, Education, and Mutual Assistance (TEMA) is made up of specialists in marine sciences and, with the DMS, is the principal mechanism within the U.N. system for promoting marine-related training. Despite numerous developing country requests for assistance, the TEMA mechanism has been hindered by inadequate funds, conflicting views among member states with regard to program objectives, and, to some degree, inadequate program visibility. However, in view of the needs of developing countries, TEMA is expected to remain a critical IOC program until member states achieve a much higher standard in marine science and technology. Indeed, this is emphasized and reinforced in deliberations of the Third Uniteo Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and by the implications of the nearly universal adoption of exclusive economic zones. TEMA is supported from the regular program budget and the IOC Trust Fund budget and may obtain support in the future from the U.N. Interim Fund for Science and Technology and from the UNDP. The IOC Voluntary Assistance Programme (VAP) circulates requests for marine science assistance from IOC members to potential donor members for specific help, which may be in cash or in kind (such as shipboard training). The VAP is a bilateral form of voluntary funding. There is considerable extrabudgetary support--especially from agencies represented on the Inter-Secretariat Committee on Scientific Programs Relating to Oceanography (ICSPRO)--for major new IOC 54 activities, such as projects on pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, information and data retrieval systems, and river inputs to the oceans. In addition, the ICSPRO agencies also support regular IOC program items, such as regional investigations, often through secondment of personnel.

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations support for development, including support for fisheries, has been under way since 1945. Intensive stimulus has been given to fisheries worldwide since about 1958, when the United Nations Special Fund initiated support of integrated large-scale fisheries projects. The United Nations Development Programme, supported by voluntary contributions, was formed in 1965 to assume the functions of the Special Fund and the Expanded Program in Technical Assistance. For the worldwide fishery development projects of the UNDP, the executing agency has been the FAO. In addition to the funds provided by UNDP, a similar amount of project support has been received from the recipient countries (counterpart contributions in cash or in kind) and f::om contributions by other donors. Increasingly UNDP funding has been given for support of multidisciplinary subregional, regional, and interregional projects for enhancing technical capabilities of nations to identify their resources and use them efficiently. Greatest success has been achieved where efforts have been concentrated in zoogeo­ graphically defined areas, as evidenced by UNDP programs started in the 1970s in the Indian Ocean, in the east central and west central Atlantic, and in aquaculture. The UNDP has attached highest priority for the 1980s to assistance in management of national marine resources within exclusive economic zones. New forms of technical and economic collaboration will be necessary where fish stocks are shared by two or more nations. UNDP support of the FAO Department of Fisheries program for "Assistance in the Development and Management of Fisheries in Exclusive Economic Zones" likely will be for maintenance and expansion of the core staff and activities of key subregional and regional technical assistance projects. In addition, UNDP is expected to be involved in necessary interregional field activities and to integrate certain aspects of development at the global level. As mentioned previously, UNDP is supporting aspects of the work of UNESCO/IOC and the UNESCO Division of Marine Sciences involving regional and global projects. In this regard, future support of the TEMA program coordinated by IOC has been suggested for the UNDP.

U.N. Interim Fund for Science and Technology for Development

The 1979 U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development adopted proposals for future international cooperation in science and technology and established an institutional framework within the U.N. 55

system to support this cooperation. It was decided to create an Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology for Development (ICSTD) and an Interim Fund to be administered jointly by UNDP and ICSTD, pending formulation of a long-term financing mechanism. Commitments to the Interim Fund were advanced by countries that participated in a Pledging Conference in March 1980, although far less was obtained than expected. At that time, more than 250 proposals had been received from developing countries for programs to be supported from the Interim Fund, including programs designed to strengthen national competencies in marine science and technology.

United Nations Environment Programme

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) supports various activities related to marine pollution and living marine resources, primarily through its Regional Seas Programme. UNEP has sponsored marine pollution workshops and provided assistance to developing countries to increase their competence in conservation and management of fisheries resources. UNEP's Regional Seas Programme provides a regional approach to the diagnosis of marine environmental problems through plans worked out in concert with member nations. UNEP activities are closely coordinated with other appropriate U.N. bodies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and the World Meteorological Organization.

World Meteorological Organization

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations created to coordinate, standardize, and improve meteorological services throughout the world. Included among the scientific and technical programs of the WMO is the Technical Cooperation Programme, which provides training and expert advisers for projects of UNDP. Through WMO's Voluntary Cooperation Programme, member states offer contributions to aid developing countries in fulfilling their role in WMO's World Weather Watch. The WMO jointly sponsors the Integrated Global Ocean Station System with the IOC.

Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization

The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) is a U.N. specialized agency whose main objectives are to promote cooperation among nations in international shipping and to achieve the highest practicable standards of maritime safety, pollution control, and efficiency of navigation. It also considers any shipping-related matters referred to it by the U.N. The Technical Cooperation Committee of IMCO has established a network of regional advisory services that help to implement the protocol adopted by the 1978 Conference on Training and Certification of Seafarers. Through the Technical 56

Cooperation Committee, IMCO also supports four interregional antipollution consultants.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization

Since its creation in 1967, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) has carried out about fifty projects related to marine industries, including solar production of salt, extraction of nonmetallic minerals, fish processing, algae production, shipbuilding, and marine engineering. UNIDO activities also include assessing conditions for industrial use of ocean resources, establishing or strengthening marine-based industrial infrastructure and research facilities, fostering the transfer of industrial information, and providing technical training. Currently UNIDO is planning a program, including local and regional workshops, on seabed exploitation and expects to carry out programs of technical cooperation at the national and regional levels.

United Nations Ocean Economics and Technology Branch

The Ocean Economics and Technology Branch (OETB) is part of the U.N. Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. The activities of OETB, either directly for member states or indirectly through regional or subregional agencies, promote the ralional use of ocean resources and integrated planning for development cf coastal zones and exclusive economic zones. The OETB organizes technical assistance, including workshops and expert groups, in such areas as development of offshore petroleum, coastal zone management, development of mineral resources, and ocean energy. Emphasis is placed on the transfer of technology to bring about the economic use of mineral resources, and the implications of extended maritime jurisdiction for management of these resources. The OETB prepares technical reports and provides other services for sessions of the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea and disseminates general information and data on marine affairs.

INTERNATIONAL NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) is an autonomous, nonprofit, international research center based in Manila. ICLARM was formed in 1977 through a Rockefeller Foundation initiative to create an international fisheries institute similar to the international agriculture research centers. ICLARM programs cover four broad areas--aquaculture, traditional fisheries, resource development and management, and education and training. In addition to funds from the Rockefeller Foundation, core support for ICLARM is provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 57

the same way it provides support for the agricultural centers. (For a more detailed discussion of ICLARM, see Chapter 4.) Financial and scientific support of individual developing-country scientists for applied research projects in their own countries is provided by the International Foundation for Science (IFS). This nongovernmental organization, with headquarters in Stockholm and an annual budget of slightly more than two million dollars, is sponsored by 60 academies of suience and similar bodies from both developed and developing countries. It is jointly funded by 12 governments, namely, Sweden, Canada, France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Nigeria, Kuwait, Australia, and the United States. Of its more than 500 grantees in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 75 are engaged in research on marine and brackish-water aquaculture, and several others are working on methods of processing and preserving fishery products, particularly fermentation methods.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

There are many regional political organizations concerned with development, including marine science. For example, the Organization of American States (OAS) is currently supporting an Indicative Sectoral Program for Marine Resource Development, designed to provide an interdisciplinary, integrative approach to coastal zone problems of member states while taking into account the geographic differences within the region. A principal straLegy of the OAS program is to avoid duplication of the efforts of other groups and to emphasize development of marine science expertise. Program activities include research and development projects, including pilot projects, concerninq living and nonliving marine resources; policy and planning studies and the necessary related training; information and education services, including scientific and technical publications; and the conservation and preservation of the marine environment. As of December 1980, programs in these areas were undertaken in eight Central and South American countries.

REGIONAL NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI) is an example of a regional nongovernmental fisheries organization. The GCFI is an independent, nonprofit, membership organization serving the Gulf and Caribbean region and administered by the University of Miami, Florida. GCFI provides a forum for discussion of advances in regional fisheries research and policy issues :oncerned with fisheries and the coastal environment. It was formed in 1948 to assist the commercial and recreational fishermen of the region and has continued to offer invaluable assistance in all aspects of fisheries science, administration, and development. The proliferation of exclusive economic zones in the greater Caribbean region creates the need for continued marine technical assistance through information, training, 58

and scientific services. GCFI is an especially effective vehicle for such assistance because of its independent, nongovermental status. Increasingly, GCFI meetings and associated sessions and activities are cosponsored by other organizations and groups with mutual aims and interests.

MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS

World Bank

Lending by the World Bank for fishery-related development projects has concentrated on boat building, port infrastructure, inshore fisheries, and aquaculture. From 1964 to 1980, the World Bank distributed a total of $400 million for 26 major fisheries projects, principally in African and Southeast Asian countries. In addition, there have been small fishery components in other development projects supported by the World Bank. Loans for fishery development frequently include support for training and education. The World Bank's stated policy is to improve the economic and social life of the rural poor, whose livelihood depends on land and water resources. To this end, priority is given to small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture. Future emphasis will be placed on marketing, processing, and distribution, as well as creating an environment for decentralization of development. However, large-scale, capital-intensive fisheries and related industries also will be promoted. In the expanled assistance for fisheries during the next five years, about 70 percent of the total allocation for fisheries will go to small-scale fisheries and aquaculture; the remainder will go to support all other types of fisheries.

Regional Banks

There are three regional banks--the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)--as well as a number of subregional banks, such as the Caribbean Development Bank and the Central American Development Bank. The IDB involvement in support of fisheries began in 1968. As of January 1981, the IDB had financed 32 fishery-development investment projects and 34 technical assistance programs benefiting 21 countries. Fishery projects currently under way are reported to represent an investment of US$734 million and involve US$300 million in financing. It is estimated that the production of 2.5 million metric tons of fish per year by these projects would represent a 100 percent increase in the fish supply for human consumption in the region. The Inter-American Development Bank identifies priority areas for fisheries development and supports the preparation of investment projects for consideration by other lending institutions. Key policy decisions have been made by the IDB, (a) to promote integrated sectoral projects involving items such as port infrastructure, fishing fleets, 59

processing plants, marketing systems, training centers, and research programs; (b) to create new national development-oriented institutions; (c) to encourage projects with high socioeconomic impacts, such as --artisanal fisheries (normally unattractive to private sector funding); and (d) to develop projects that can easily be expanded, if successful, by adding investment stages and incorporating new groups in the operations. The long-term development goals of the IDB are to provide at least 25 percent of the estimated annual deficit in animal-protein supplies in Latin America through increased supplies of fishery products. The IDB estimates that this would in turn require a 75 percent increase in regional fish production at an estimated investment of $3 billion, which might also create 500,000 jobs, many in the poorest rural sectors. The IDB estimates further that in marine fisheries projects, the ratio of capital investment to jobs created is five to twelve times higher than in aquaculture, where there is less need for infrastructure and new technology. The IDB clearly recognizes the difficulty of long-term projection of food supplies in developing countries, especially when considering such socioeconomic variables as population growth and distribution, increases in individual incomes and purchasing power. and changes in consumer preferences. The IDB also has recognized a lack of institutions dedicated to promoting production of "nonsophisticated" foodstuffs for the poor majority in developing countries. This situation suggested the need for development of low-capital, labor-intensive fishery technologies to make use of local resources, human and natural, that are now unused or underused. The IDB estimated that there is the potential for an additional catch of 7-8 million metric tons of fish in Latin American waters, beyond the 5 million metric tons already implied by the proposed 75 percent increase in fish production. This estimate excludes future aquacultural production, which might be in the private sector or integrated into overall rural-development programs. However, aquaculture development in Latin America is hindered by the lack of trained operational, managerial, and extension personnel, and by problems related to the traditional land tenure systems.

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION IN WEATHER AND CLIMATE RESEARCH AND APPLICATION

Several arrangements exist between international governmental and nongovernmental organizations for joint scientific programs that also may involve technical assistance components. Some of the most innovative and successful programs have been in the fields of climate and weather prediction. For example, the IOC and the WMO have cooperated in the Integrated Global Ocean Station System. The WMO and the International Council of Scientific Unions--a nongovernmental organization--jointly sponsored the World Climate Program and the Global Atmospheric Research Program. Such programs permit scientific 60 cooperation between developed and developing countries in research leading to mutual benefits. Many of the consequences of interannual or interdecadal variations in climate could be avoided or ameliorated if climate could be reliably forecast. Modest success in such forecasting is beginning to occur on the basis of mainly empirical relationships. But improvements in forecasting skill will depend on greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms of climate change, that is, the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere, and possibly the effects of variations in incoming solar radiation. Because of the oceans' transparency to incoming sunlight, enormous heat capacity, and great inertia, variations in ocean conditions may persist for months or years. The problem of climate forecasting then becomes one of understanding the causes of these ocean variations and their effects on the atmosphere. The physical conditions in the oceans are much less well known than those of the atmosphere, mainly because of past difficulties in making adequately detailed and systematic observations of phenomena beneath the sea surface. This situation is rapidly changing, however, with the advent of ocean-scanning satellites, drifting and moored buoys, and expendable instruments that can be used on merchant ships and other vessels. The use of satellites should make it possible to map the topography of the sea surface, and therefore, the major ocean currents as well as the mesoscale eddies. (The latter correspond hydro­ dynamically to the midlatitude cyclonic storms in the atmosphere, but they are smaller and persist for much longer times.) If buoys :nd expendable instruments could be widely deployed, virtua ty continuous records of ocean temperatures, salinities, and motions in the upper water layers should be obtainable throughout th-e world ocean. Much of the operational responsibility foL these new instruments, particularly for the satellites, must be taken by the developed countries. But all coastal nations can help in the desired worldwide effort, especially in observing the "sea truth" needed to calibrate the satellite observations. Installation and operation of tide gauges to measure variations in sea level, and measurements of ocean temperature and salinity in open, nearshore waters will be of special importance, if the data they provide are sufficiently accurate and reliable and can be transmitted to central data-collecting agencies in a timely fashion. The World Climate Program could be the vehicle for many nations to cooperate in this effort. Since the developing world suffers disproportionately from adverse changes in climate, it is essential to enhance the ability of developing nations to contribute to programs of climate research. Technical assistance, including provision of appropriate instruments and training, must be provided if an adequate observational network is to be esta:,lished. This will require scientific assistance in analyzing and interpreting the significance of the data on a local scale. The most striking example of year-to-year variation in ocean climate is the El Ni9Vo phenomenon off northwestern South America. When this phenomenon occurs, warm water moves south over the cold, northward­ flowing Peru Current, bringing unusual rains over coastal lands and 61

devastating consequences to large surface iisheries that depend on cold water. On a smaller scale, any fluctuation in ocean currents and in the vertical components of ocean circulation markedly affects the location and abundance of marine fishes and the harvests of fishermen. Data collection and research on ocean climate may be of direct benefit to fisheries management by coastal developing countries.

SELECTED NATIONAL PROGRAMS

A number of industrialized countries with strong maritime traditions provide significant bilateral and multilateral assistance to developing countries. Among the largest are the United Kingdcm, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Japan. The U.K. and France tend to focus their assistance efforts on former colonies or overseas dominions but offer assistance across a wide spectrum of fields. British and French assistance programs have provided fishing vessels and gear, port construction and other transfer of technology and training, and support for industrial development. Government agencies have participated actively in these programs, and, in the British system, the work of the Tropical Products Institute has been particularly important. Japanese fisheries assistance has until recently been concentrated in Southeast Asia, where it is provided through bilateral arrangements as well as multilateral organizations such as the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC). Located in the Philippines, SEAFDEC is supported almost exclusively through Japanese funding and is an examp3e of an apparert±y successful regional organization managed by the developing countries themselves. The scale of Japanese assistance is substantial, much of it linked to commercial activities, such as joint ventures in fishing or fish processing. In addition, many fisheries educators in Southeast Asia have been trained in Japan, and Japanese experts and equipment have been provided in various Southeast Asiart countries and in South America. The assistance programs of the Scandinavian countries and Germany are smaller than those of Great Britain and France but are administered in a wider selection of recipient countries. Canadian assistance is also widespread and is administered through two complementary assistance agencies. The bilateral assistance programs discussed here devote proportionately much larger shares of their foreign aid than the United States does to marine programs such as fisheries, navigation and safety, and port development. They tend to husband their more limited aid resources through careful selection of recipient countries and projects on the basis of potential for change through the assistance program. They have worked regularly with multilateral agencies in project funding and execution, generally to a much greater degree than the United States has. Both Sweden and Canada have created separate aid institutions whose primary function is scientific and technological assistance to developing countries. Consequently, programs by these countries may be useful examples and comparisons for future U.S. marine programs. 62

Sweden and Norway

The Swedish and the Norwegian foreign assistancc progruhi.: have a high proportion of fisheries projects, reflecting the capabilities and interests of these donor countries. Accordingly, the FAO has been the international agenry most involved operationally with Swedish and Norwegian multilateral and bilateral assistance programs. These programs have stressed general marine science only in direct support of fisheries. In addition to the continuing need for assistance in making use of traditional living resources, most coastal developing countries now exercise jurisdiction over nonliving as well as living resources of their exclusive economic zones. Indeed, the new programs of the Norwegian Agency for International Development reflect this interest in the exploitation of nonliving resources by developing countries. The present need for basic marine science for development (in contrast to applied ocean science), now being expressed by the developing world through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the UNESCO Division of Marine Sciences, has been recognized by both Sweden and Norway. The structure and mechanisms of the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries (SAREC) appear to make it well suited for cooperation in science and higher education. In Norway there is no direct counterpart to SAREC, but the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs supports such programs through international organizations and agencies. The "multi-bi" program, under which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses certain bilateral assistance funds to support projects planned and executed by international organizations, is becoming attractive to other donor nations as well.

Sweden

Swedish assistance programs concentrate on economic and technical development in the poorest nations of the world. Multilateral cooperation with United Nations organizations and agencies is the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while bilateral programs with developing countries are under the Swedish :nternational Development Authority (SIDA). The last decade has seen change from the support of largely uncoordinated projects in individual countries to coordinated activities in priority sectors of the development plans of recipient countries. Currently three bilateral agreements involve fisheries-oriented programs. The Institute of Marine Research, of the Fisheries Board of Sweden, advises SIDA on fisheries issues and provides fisheries personnel and training programs in developing countries. In 1975 the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries (SAREC) was established to advise SIDA on research in development cooperation and to award grants to Swedish researchers studying development problems. Significantly, SAREC in 1979 became an independent government agency with its own budget for funding research 63

while retaining its advisory role to SIDA; to date, there has been no direct support of fisheries science or oceanography.

Norway

Norway, in particular, has stressed social aspects of development in its assistance programs. In principle, Norwegian aid contributions are allocated equally between bilateral and multilateral assistance programs. The multilateral assistance effort of Norway is in support of United Nations organizations and agencies. Bilateral assistance programs between Norway and individual developing countries are the responsibility of the Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD). Bilateral programs concentrate on a few countries selected on the basis of need and development policies that stress equitable benefits and social justice. A unique facet of Norwegian assistance is that approximately 10 percent of funds for bilateral assistance (separate from support of multilateral assistance agencies) are channeled through international organizations as planning and executing agencies. This "multi-bi" program is administered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is also responsible for multilateral assistance. Another innovative element of Norwegian bilateral assistance consisted of placing the fisheries research vessel Dr. Fridtjof Nansen at the disposal of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in 1974 to undertake fisheries resources surveys and exploratory fishing. Through an agreement with FAO, Norway provides 60 percent of the operating cost of the vessel. Because of financial difficulties at FAO, however, the ship was used only on Norwegian bilateral projects from 1977 to early 1979. The Institute of Marine Research (IMR), Bergen, is responsible for operation of the vessel, and the scientific work is jointly planned, executed, and reported by IMR and the relevant fisheries organizations in the developing countries where the vessel is used. Most Norwegian assistance programs are oriented toward fisheries; there is none in general marine science. Recently, however, there has been an increasing emphasis on marine geology and geophysics related to oil exploration.

Canada

The Canadian Ministry of External Affairs administers multilateral financial contributions channeled through the international agencies. The two principal mechanisms for bilateral assistance are the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The stipulation on assistance from CIDA is that a developing country must initiate the request for assistance in a field in which Canada has research and development expertise ("fisheries" and "environment" are two such fields). CIDA places greatest emphasis on assistance to the rural poor; fishery-related assistance focuses on 64 artisanal and small-scale fisheries, particularly in regard to overall integrated rural development programs. The IDRC was established in 1970 as a public corporation funded by the federal government. The IDRC's unique status guarantees a considerable degree of autonomy and flexibility in operation as well as fast response to requests for scientific assistance. The ten-member IDRC Board of Governors includes six representatives from developing countries. The role adopted by IDRC has been to support research for, by, and in developing countries. This innovative response to the needs of the developing world for indigenous scientific capability and infrastructure has been highly successful. However, it has limited use of the considerable dcmestic Canadian expertise that might be applied to development problems or engaged in joint collaborative research with developing countries. Nevertheless, the IDRC has probably used Canadian university research in its international fishery development projects to a greater extent than CIDA has. Use of provincial government or private industry capabilities has been minimal by both organizations. Canada is a coastal state with enormous natural resources and the scientific and technical background to provide assistance related to fisheries and the oceans. Like the Scandinavian countries, Canada has seen the need for assistance to the developing world for rational management of ocean resources. But with some conspicuous and successful exceptions, Canada has conducted few aid programs devoted exclusively to fisheries and virtually none in oceanography or marine science as such. Canada has identified clearly some of the problems associated with assistance programs in general: food production, including fisheries, is given high priority in assistance programs but the natural sciences, including marine science, are not. This disparity exists despite Canada's oceanographic expertise and Third World nations' own increasing recognition of the need to increase basic marine science activities. Other problems relate to the lack of flexibility and planning in Canadian development assistance. Canada has indicated some possible new directions for marine technical assistance. These include increased support of marine science through groups like the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Canada has recently announced its intention to bring its domestic R&D expertise to bear on the problems of the develcping world through the IDRC. This makes the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans directly available for assistance programs in fisheries and marine science.

CONCLUSIONS

This summary review illustrates that international and regional organizations as well as certain industrial nations have operated numerous programs in marine technical assistance. Given the changing nature of the many problems related to understanding and use of the ocean, especially the implications of extended jurisdiction, it seems necessary that marine technical assistance derive from several 65 sources. This would make available multiple sources of expertise and a variety of assistance approaches, permitting more specific responses to the individual needs of developing countries. Moreover, each type of assistance program has advantages and disadvantages. Political constraints on international and regional governmental organizations probably impair their efficiency in delivering assistance. Nongovernmental groups appear more successful because of the absence of governmental control, but for that same reason, they are fewer in number and have less stable financial support. Bilateral agreements appear the simplest to operate but often have been hampered by inadequate formulation of program objectives and by operational problems involving personnel and administration. The "multi-bi" program of Norway and the Canadian approach through the establishment of the International Development Research Centre are major innovations in attempts to overcome such problems. (A similar approach in the United States was the proposed establishment of an Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation in 1979.) This chapter is not meant to imply that multilateral international programs are better or worse than bilateral programs or that the assistance programs of other nations are better or worse than those of the United States. In some cases, bilateral aid is preferred both by the United States and the recipient country; in other cases multilateral approaches at the regional or subregional level are preferred. Each request for assistance must be assessed on economic, societal, political, scientific, and technical grounds. Even if a coordinated U.S. marine technical assistance policy should be forthcoming, the United States should recognize that bilateral as well as multilateral modes of assistance will continue to be necessary to meet the needs of recipient countries. Thus, the United States should continue to support marine technical assistance through existing international and regional organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental systems, as well as through its own bilateral programs. In continuing these current modes of assistance, however, the United States should recognize the needs for more timely response to the changing problems of the developing world and for better coordination of marine technical assistance efforts both domestically and internationally. CHAPTER 6

TRENDS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION

THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ENVIRONMENT

The large-scale assistance efforts of the 1950s and early 1960s were accompanied by high expectations of immediate economic growth in recipient countries. When dramatic gains were not attained by most recipient countries, U.N. agencies and the World Bank conducted searching reevaluations of aid strategies, and this process led to redoubled efforts and somewhat differing directions during the Second U.N. Development Decade during the 1970s (Jackson 1969; Pearson Commission 1969). These new orientations were eventually adopted by the bilateral agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, through the "new directions" policy mandates enacted by Congress in 1973 (see Chapter 2). In the fisheries aid sector, large-scale efforts were mounted by AID in India and South Korea during the late 1950s and early 1960s. For reasons discussed in detail in MTAG's evaluation of AID's fisheries assistance (NRC 1982), these similarly conceived programs yielded quite different results. These early aid efforts demonstrated that economic development requires more than large capital infusions and the creation of physical infrastructure. Economic development was recognized as a long-term process, and assistance agencies in the late 1960s began to focus more on the immediate needs of rapidly growing populations in developing countries. New emphases in development assistance included the basic human needs of the rural poor, equitable distribution of benefits from development, the role of women in development, and recipient initiative in designing and administering aid programs. In addition, greater capabilities in science and technology have been generally recognized as critical ingredients for economic development. Technical capabilities enhance tle ability to choose among imported technologies, to adapt foreign innovations, or to create indigenous technologies designed for local conditions. Apart from the emphasis on basic human services, U.S. marine technical assistance programs are affected by several other trends in development assistance. First, technical assistance and cooperation programs have been eroded by economic preisures. Development assistance funding by the major donor nations of North America and Western Europe began to level off during the 1970s and may decrease in

66 67

the emerging climate of budgetary restraint and reduced public support for foreign aid. Inflation also has taken a toll in technical assistance, particularly in the cost of marine research equipment and ship time. Moreover, the dramatic upsurge in aid funding that occurred in the mid-1970s derived from two unique factors that are unlikely to be repeated: the entry of new aid donors (OPEC, Scandinavian nations, Japan, and nongovernmental organizations), and efforts to mitigate the impacts of spiraling petroleum prices on developing countries. These new aid agencies Pnd commitments roughly balanced the leveled funding from the principal donor nations. The Scandinavian nations provide proportionately large amounts of marine technical assistance, but in absolute terms their programs are rather small. The OPEC nations now donate a significant portion of global financial assistance, but their contributions are relatively concentrated in the Arab world and are apparently leveling out. The capacity of international financial institutions to support development programs in the face of staggering price increases for fuel and manufactured goods already has been overtaxed. Consequently, the spectacular growth in development assistance during the past decade will probably stabilize or be reversed during the 1980s. Increases in the cost of aid will begin to outpace the resources available to support technical assistance and cooperation. Second, the "new directions" policy imposed by Congress on U.S. foreign assistance attaches a higher priority to direct services for the impoverished masses than to basic science or research. Fisheries are an important means to enhance protein supplies, but this food production orientation emphasizes harvesting and processing rather than fisheries research. Scientific assistance, which was to be the primary function of the proposed Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation, was somewhat downplayed during the 1970s, especially in the area of basic research. Third, a policy known as Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries has been stressed within the U.N. system as a complement to its regional approach to the use of its limited funds for assistance. This strategy implies that scientific aid be funneled mainly through the larger, scientifically more advanced developing countries, relying on these nations to provide locally relevant expertise to their neighbors. However, evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of this strategy iL primarily anecdotal anu inconclusive. The strategy is clearly dependent on the willingness of the scientific "haves" of the developing world to devote their limited scientific and financial resources to the service of less-advantaged neighbors. Political disputes and local competition over resources and prestige may inhibit this transfer, as they have sometimes hindered creation of regional scientific institutions. External funds generally must be provided for travel by scientists within the region and for cooperative projects by countries within the region. In the marine field, a few nations with emerging marine establishments, such as Brazil, India, or Mexico, could become the focal points for cooperative regional programs. 68

Fourth, for countries with small research establishments, it is recognized that there is no quick or easy solution. Developing a technical infrastructure is a long-term proposition. These countries may have to rely indefinitely on jutside assistance to provide basic technical services, as enormous expenditures would be required to establish local technical capabilities in the immediate future. Together, these trends have directed technical assistance toward applied, resource-relate(! fields. Basic science and research capabilities have been supported primarily in the more scientifically advanced developing states or through regional organizations. However, these recipients are intended to be transmitters of expertise to other countries in their regions.

THE LAW OF THE SEA NEGOTIATIONS

Marine technical assistance and cooperation have received a special impetus from the Law of the Sea negotiations. The drastically enlarged membership of the United Nations during the 1960s was soon followed by proposals to reserve the deep seabeds as "the common heritage of mankind." Debate over the legal regime governing the oceans began in 1967 and has continued since 1973 within the framework of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). The UNCLOS negotiations have profoundly affected most developing countries' perceptions of marine technical assistance. During the prolonged negotiations, diplomatic officers from developing countries have examined the effects of various proposed legal regimes on their management and use of the oceans, both present and future. The UNCLOS negotiations also nave required diplomats to consult with marine experts, in some cases enhancing the visibility and prestige of existing marine institutions and scientists in developing countries. Similarly, new marine science institutions have been established by some developing nations to permit rational exploitation of resources in the exclusive economic zone proposed in the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea (and adopted unilaterally by many nations). The rapidly increasing number of marine scientists and institutions in developing countries during the past decade attests to the new importance attached to marine resources by these countries (Krause 1981). Fisheries development remains the most pressing need for most coastal. developing countries, both to provide foreign exchange from exports and to increase supplies of animal protein for local consumption. Stock assessment, environmental appraisal, and fisheries management skills are becoming critical needs for developing countries that are more intensively exploiting local stocks through the intro­ duction of more efficient vessels and gear. Likewise, new methods will be necessary for assessment of previously unexploited stocks and for management of poorly understood tropical fisheries, which differ markedly from their temperate-zone counterparts. New technologies, such as mariculture, fish attractants, and methods for reducing postharvest losses, may also benefit developing countries. 69

As fertile agricultural land has become scarcer and land use morR constrained in many countries, there is greater stimulus to make more extensive and intensive use of the oceans to meet various needs-­ minerals, food, energy, transportation, habitation, and recreation. Technologies now being perfected in the industrial nations may assist the economic progress of developing countries--for example, ocean platforms, underwater technologies, ocean thermal energy conversion, waste disposal, and energy-efficient transportation. Consequently, many coastal developing states will actively seek the skills to understand their marine ecosystems and manage multiple use of their adjacent waters. Technical expertise also will be necessary to help gauge the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of marine resource exploitation. Technical assistance and technology transfer have been consistent themes of the Group of 77 throughout the UNCLOS negotiations. As a result, marine technical assistance and cooperation will likely be central elements in future negotiations between developing and industrialized nations over marine resource exploitation. By claiming jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone, developing countries have acquired a unique leverage to request technical cooperation from the developed countries. Expanded coastal state jurisdiction will likely become accepted customary international law, irrespective of a treaty. Nations engaged in marine research off the coasts of developing nations therefore must begin to respond to new conditions. Moreover, some developing countries now have acquired sufficient marine expertise to formulate long-range assistance plans addressing their particular needs and resources, and to initiate detailed requests to outside agencies for that assistance. U.S. marine science and industry will of course be directly affected by this emphasis on marine science cooperation. Although not in the forefront of all marine scientific and technological develop­ ments, U.S. marine science and industry do possess expertise in nearly all marine fields. Moreover, U.S. delegations to UNCLOS and other international conferences repeatedly have pledged U.S. commitment to marine technical assistance and cooperation. In the coming decades, U.S. science and industry will continue to acquire and refine capabilities that will be of increasing utility to, and in increasing demand by, developing countries. The United States will be one of the few sources of knowledge, skills, and hardware in such emerging areas as maritime building techniques and materials, surface and semisubmerged platforms, energy production from the ocean, ocean drilling and mining, satellite navigation and remote sensing, underwater communications and sensors, weather forecasting, fisheries management, combination vessels for fishing multiple species, fish processing and handling, basic marine research techniques, and socioeconomic impact assessment. This list is illustrative rather than inclusive; other areas of marine scientific and technological progress could be cited. U.S. marine expertise, however, is widely diffused among various organizations (universities, governmental agencies, and private industry), many of which have not previously been involved in 70

assistance programs or operations in developing countries. Con­ sequently, not all U.S. expertise has been used or is accessible for use in development assistance projects. Technical cooperation will require the mobilization of expertise from widely scattered sources and the coordination of numerous agencies and organizations. In sum, the UNCLOS negotiations for more than a decade have focused attention on the potential resources of the oceans. Many developing countries previously unaware of these resources now perceive marine exploitation and management capabilities as essential to their economic growth. These perceptions are reflected in proposals to assistance agencies for marine-related programs, in requests for technical assistance and cooperation as a quid pro quo for research in coastal waters, and in support for domestic and regional marine science institutions. It can be expected that many of the requests for technical assistance will be directed to the United States.

DIRECTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL COOPERATION

Technical cooperation has become a priority on the agendas of many international organizations. During the 1970s, the number of governmental and nongovernmental agencies providing development assistance grew considerably. Likewise, new models and mechanisms for technical assistance or cooperation programs have become available. This derives both from the entry of new governmental and nongovernmental aid donors (especially the Scandinavian and OPEC aid agencies) and from the cumulation of learning from past assistance programs. Numerous innovative models for assistance have been pioneered by international agencies (for example, voluntary assistance programs and various types of multidonor projects). Other new approaches in foreign assistance have derived from domestic legislation or agency initiatives, such as the U.S. Sea Grant International Program and the university­ strengthening grants under the Title XII amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. U.S. organizations and individuals also have participated in nongovernmental programs with significant aid components, such as the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (see Chapter 4) and the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (see Chapter 5). The recognition of scientific and technological capabilities as essential components of a modern industrial economy has stimulated growing convergence between science and development assistance. Aid agencies increasingly strive to provide the technical foundations for seif-sustaining development in such areas as health, energy, and agriculture. These agencies frequently use scientific organizations to execute projects or provide expert advisers. Moreover, many developing countries have established counterpart research institutions and technical agencies, including marine science and fisheries organizations, to address local problems. Development assistance agencies in recent years have undertaken experiments in alternative means to enhance technical capabilities in developing countries. Some of the most promising mechanisms involve 71 the cooperation of multiple donors in long-term, phased projects in which various component parts are supplied by the donor best equipped for that function. A similar approach has long been used in multinational oceanographic research expeditions. In addition, donors have sought to tailor technical assistance programs to conditions in developing countries by exploring intermediate and labor-intensive technologies. For long-term scientific development programs, institution-to-institution ties have proved particularly effective. A special impetus for marine technical cooperation has been fostered through the diplomatic attention focused on UNCLOS. The World Bank and specialized agencies within the U.N. system have responded by devoting increasing attention to marine-related programs. Activities such as the IOC regional programs, the IOC Working Group on Training, Education, and Mutual Assistance (TEMA), and the FAO Department of Fisheries have been described in Chapter 5 of this report. Bilateral marine science agreements growing out of the UNCLOS negotiations are being designed to assist developing countries in creating the technical and managerial skills necessary to underwrite marine resource exploitation within the EEZ. The growing disparity in technical capabilities among developing countries underscores the need for continued assistance to the poorest countries and for innovative new models for cooperation with the more scientifically advanced nations. Some key coastal countries have "graduated" from the ranks of U.S. foreign assistance recipients because of rapid industrialization or increases in their national income. For those countries, assistance may be necessary in certain specialized areas, but cooperation (shared program responsibility and expenses) will be the dominant mode of any future U.S. technical involvement. New funding and coordination mechanisms will be necessary for marine science cooperation in graduate countries such as Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, and Nigeria. Alternatively, some of these countries may opt to purchase technical services from U.S. firms or institutions. This will require new cooperative mechanisms, particularly if the projects involve a mixture of concessional and contract services. Purchase of technical services by the oil-exporting nations may ultimately prove beneficial to their neighbors if these projects are directed toward building self-sustaining local technical capabilities. Success of this strategy depends principally on the willingness of the more affluent developing countries to share their growing capabilities. However, sharing may be enhanced by U.S. cooperative scientific projects designed to involve other countries of the region. For other recipient countries, there will be a continuing need for outside assistance to provide even the most basic technical services. Accordingly, most development assistance agencies have supported a regional approach to providing technical services and research facilities, especially for the smaller or insular nations. Although regional scientific organizations often have foundered for political reasons, such organizations may be the best option for providing necessary technical services to developing countries unable to afford large scientific programs. Certain areas of emerging U.S. marine 72 expertise, such as remote sensing from satellites, may be particularly adaptable to regional approaches because of their broad coverage and shared capital costs. Regional organizations that perform contractual services in marine technical fields, such as instrument calibration or industrial research, also could enhance regional self-reliance and could be strengthened through ties to similar institutions in developed nations.

SUMMARY

Progress in marine science and technology has been coupled with growing recognition of the importance of marine technical capabilities for economic development of coastal states. However, despite rapid progress by some developing countries in creating marine science establishments, technical assistance remains necessary in most others. Even for the scientifically advanced developing countries, multilateral scientific cooperation will remain highly desirable in ocean research. The incentives for donor nations to deliver, and the leverage for recipient nations to request, technical assistance and cooperation have expanded greatly in recent years. The differing needs and resources of developing countries will require a broad range of mechanisms for administering marine aid or cooperative programs. Such flexibility will be necessary to match future aid to the increasingly differentiated needs and capabilities of developing countries. The challenge of the 1980s will be to integrate marine science and technology into the aid delivery process. Economic pressures may constrain marine technical cooperation, but there will be more agencies through which joint aid projects combining marine science with development assistance could be funded and administered. Many of the novel. marine technologies and skills being introduced in the United States could ultimately make important contributions to the quality of life and the stability of develoing countries. The decline of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery and the subsequent effect on supplies of animal feed worldwide demonstrated the need for orderly and scientifically based development of global marine resources. The requests of coastal developing nations for technical assistance and cooperation will require greater U.S. attention to mechaniuts for mobilizing and applying U.S. marine expertise in the developing world.

REFERENCES

Jackson, Sir Robert (1969) A Study of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System. Geneva: United Nations. Krause, D.C. (1981) International cooperation in marine science development. In International Cooperation in Marine Technology, Science, and Fisheries: The Future U.S. Role in Development. Proceedings of a workshop, La Jolla, California, January 18-22, 1981, Ocean Policy Committee, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 73

National Research Council (1982) An Evaluation of Fishery and Aquaculture Programs of the Agency for International Development. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committee; Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. Wahington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Pearson Commission (1969) Partners in Development. New York: Praeger. CHAPTER 7

U.S. ROLE IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

POLICY ISSUES

Marine technical assistance may be viewed in relation to a number of U.S. national objectives: to provide humanitarian aid to developing countries, to strengthen their economies, to enhance U.S. trade interests through joint ventures and new markets in developing countries, to gain access for marine scientific research and other activities in other nations' exclusive economic zones (EEZs), to increase international stability, to support U.S. national security interests, and to enhance U.S. scientific interests by improving the ability of developing countries to participate in ocean science. Each of these objectives is, in a sense, a policy base for marine technical assistance. The following discussion presents recommendations for U.S. marine technical assistance and cooperation in light of these national objectives. It should be the policy of the United States to offer technical assistance and cooperation in marine science and technology under circumstances that are beneficial (or at least not damaging) to U.S. interests. In many cases, foreign policy objectives will be the driving force behind particular assistance initiatives, which are intended both to further development in recipient countries and to further U.S. objectives. Future U.S. marine assistance programs must recognize the clear intention of many coastal developing countries to exploit their EEZs for maximum benefit and must consider the effect of such actions on U.S. interests. Although fisheries are an obvious area of potential conflict, many developing-country fisheries could be exploited without presenting a question of competition in the U.S. market. Increasing international emphasis on fish as a source of food might even ultimately serve to develop U.S. export markets for currently underutilized fish species. In some situations, assistance might appear to be disadvantageous to U.S. commerce or national security. Unfortunately, these situations are not always clear cut. For example, assistance to develop a country's shrimp industry with a view to exporting shrimp to the United States might be seen as damaging to the U.S. domestic shrimp fishing industry. But much of the shrimp consumed in the United States is in

74 75

fact imported. Addition to the supply therefore could result in a price, reduction for consumers ana increased income for brokers and retailers. A different situation would arise if assistance in this hypothetical case were part of a joint venture agreement in which the U.S. partner imports the raw shrimp to the United States for processing. Each case must be judged separately. The only alternative to case-by-case judgment would seem to be a prohibition on the use of U.S. government funds for assistance in developing export industries that compete with U.S. industries, and this would be contrary to a free-market policy aiming to bring developing countries into the world market economy as full participants. Other areas of likely development include production of gas and oil from the ocean, marine mining, coastal zone management, and marine trai. .portation. Like fisheries development, some of these areas might have both positive and negative effects on U.S. interests. Management of inshore marine areas could also encompass various other marine activities, such as waste disposal and marine research, which will require external technical assistance. It should be U.S. policy to promote assistance or cooperative programs that build marine scientific and technical self-sufficiency within developing countries. The rational management and exploitation of marine resources require informed managers as well as marine scientists and technologists. Moreover, as marine and other aquatic industries and commerce develop, there is an increasing need for marine technicians. Effective resource management requires understanding of the ecosystem of which the resource is a part. A case in point is the Peruvian fish meal industry, the survival of which has been threatened fiist by inadequate management and then by management based on incomplete understanding of the anchoveta and its environment (that is, a traditional single-species population model was used as a basis for regulation). In essence, MTAG recommends that all marine technical assistance (in the broad sense used in this report) include training and education. Ideally, this would arise as part of a broad-based plan of technical development formulated in each country receiving assistance. it is essential that, from the earliest stages, marine technical assistance and cooperation he a joint effort involving participants from the United States and developing countries. This means not simply the inclusion of a fcw local people in each work team but a process by which decisions on asbistance proqrams are made jointly. This may be difficult in countries that have little scientific capability, but it is essential to ensure the acceptability and the continuation of programs and to ieet the legitimate demands of all countries to manage their own affairs. A major concern of marine scientists is that marine technical assistance may be required for access to waters in the exclusive economic zones of developing countries. This is in fact implicit in the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea and in statements made by U.S. representatives to the 1979 U.N. Confcre1;.e on Science and Technoloqy for uevelopment. Technical dbsistance may he a currency for 76 buying entry to the EEZ, but the issue of access should not be the primary determinant of whether assistance is offered. Assistance works best when it merges into cooperation and friendship. There muy also be overriding humanitarian considerations or broad policy reasons for offering assistance even whea a nation balks at providing access for scientific study. Indeed, by improving a nation's scientific copability, an effective assistance program might well reduce that nation's opposition to granting access for marine research. If the United States elects to use marine technical assistance as a bargaining chip in the access controversy, it is essential that the United States be able to follow through on its promises. Much cf the expertise necessary to carry out marine technical assistance lies in the U.S. academic community, which is not under direct governmental control and may have to be persuaded that assistance work is in its interest. In the last decade, U.S. foreign assistance policy has emphasized assistance to the poorest people in the recipient countries. Recipients of marine-related assistance from the Agency for International Development often are chosen on tha basis of national per capita income rather than capacity to use such assistance. Yet it is evident that marine resource development can be achieved most rapidly by nations that have a history of maritime commerce and are developing a modern infrastructure in marine science and technology. Such nations are usually the upper- and middle-income developing countries. They frequently do not meet the requirement that aid be concentrated on the "poorest of the poor," or they are "graduate countries" under AID's congressionally mandated funding criteria. These congressional policy directives create difficulties in scientific and technical assistance programs; restrictions on who may receive AID assistance can deter programs that are potentially the most effective. (Scientific assistance was to have been the province of the now-defunct Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation.) MTAG acknowledges tnat U.S. funds for marine technical assistance should not be directed to nations that are able to purchase scienti!fic services. Yet, augmenting scientific capabilities in the develo).ng world requires a flexible approach, especially in ocean-related programs where knowledge vital to U.S. science, industry, and security can be most efficiently gathered through assistance to upper- aid middle-tier developing countries. The statutory constraints on AID operations do not apply to assistance delivered by other federal agencies, however, or to most AID programs targeted at regional organizations. U.S. marine technical a.sistance to upper- and middle-tier countries could be designed to involve or provide services to other, less-advantaged countries in a region. This lateral transfer of technology could also be achieved by using existing institutions in developing countries as executing agencies for U.S.-funded programs. Marine technical assistance and cooperation require a flexible apE_-ach both to the selection of recipients and to the types and levels of assistance. Not only a nation's nied for marine-related assistance but also its ability to use such assistance effectively should be assessed. 77

U.S. agencies should recognize the importance of the oceans for development of coastal nations and should allocate a larger share of their assistance budgets to ocean resources development. The nature and dimension of problems in marine development are well stated in the proceedings of the 1981 MTAG workshop in La Jolla, both from the point of view of developing countries and from that of U.S. scientists and administzators who are experienced in development activity (NRC 1981). Evidence is presented in that volume that a disproportionate emphasis has been placed on agriculture and land-based projects in recent U.S. assistance, particularly in island nations, where ocean resources are vital for future development. Investment in marine technical development is likely to influence directly both the well-being of impoverished small-scale fishermen and also the total supply of food and other raw materials in developing countries. Moreover, many coastal countries now increasingly emphasize marine resources in development planning, so that an increase in U.S. marine technical assistance could be favorably perceived as evidence of growing sensitivity to the needs of developing countries. The U.S. assistance program should take into account the nature of the oceans and the technical expertise and facilities required to carry out ocean programs. Marine activities require special skills and equipment unlike those associated with the land and are carried out i. an often-hostile environment. Thus, marine technical assistance and development programs carried out by traditional assistance agencies require specialized ocean personnel in-house and the assistance of ocean-oriented universities and agencies. Those universities and agencies also could carry out direct marine technical assistance and development programs asan adjunct to their domestic missions. Many ocean programs could simultaneously provide technical assistance and help meet domestic needs. Moreover, the costs of marine operations could be ameliorated through such multipurpose programs. The Global 2000 Study concluded that "if present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now" (CEQ 1980). The demands of an expanding world population on the global resource base can be met in part by ocean resources of food, minerals, and energy. Adverse environmental effects may be mitigated through increased knowledge of the ocean's capacity to assimilate waste and to influence world climate. To realize the ocean's potential requires increased capabilities on the part of both developed and developing countries, international cooperation, and a recognition of the unique characteristics of the ocean. Many ocean activities provide opportunities to further the interests of both developed and developing countries. A large part of the ocean is a commons, even with the advent of 200-mile zones of jurisdiction over resources. Ocean resources often occur ir areas under the jurisdiction of more than one state, or partly inside and partly outside national jurisdiction, and sometimes in the jurisdiction of no state. The ocean is so vast and complex that ocean exploration and exploitation must be shared tasks among nations. As hunters, fishermen use a method of production that has disappeared from 78 all developed and most developing agricultural societies. Equipment and tools used on the ocean must withstand corrosion, strong currents, and violent storms without shelter. The knowledge of engineers, biologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, and managers must be continuously combined in unique and changing ways to study the sea and exploit its resources. Because of the many differences between the ocean and the land, ocean problems are seldom soluble by land-oriented skills and techniques.

Policy Recommendations:

1. It should be U.S. policy to offer marine technical and scientific assistance to coastal nations seeking to develop the resources within their exclusive economic zones where this would help achieve U.S. national objectives, including trade, national defense, research, and humanitarian aid.

2. Assistance should be focused on creating in the recipient country a high degree of technical self-sufficiency and capability in marine science as quickly as possible by the development of in-country training systems and institutions and by moving rapidly toward a cooperative mode of operation.

3. Although marine technical assistance may be offered in exchange for access to restricted waters for scientific research, such use should not be accepted as a necessary concomitant in every case nor should assistance necessarily be denied where scientific access is refused.

4. Assistance should be targeted where it will be most effective and not be directed automatically to the most impoverished recipients.

5. The United States should recognize the growing importance of marine development for coastal countries. An increased proportion of U.S. foreign assistance appropriations should be allocated to marine technical and scientific assistance, and greater attention should be given to delivery mechanisms and program coordination.

ADJUSTMENTS IN THE SYSTEM

At present, marine technvzal assistance programs are scattered throughout various U.S. gover~imental agencies and a number of universities and private research groups throughout the country. This is a result of a haphazard funding system that responds to program proposals from both within and outside federal agencies. Unfortunately, this process has not led to a coherent and focused program because there has been no guiding statement of U.S. policy and objectives. It has not fully or effectively involved the expertise of the U.S. marine science community because of poor communication of the importance of 79

technical assistance for the conduct of future marine research. U.S. government-sponsored assistance requires some centralized coordination in order to avoid duplication and wasted expenditures, as well as to enable the United States to act effectively in negotiations witI recipient countries. _# The United States should develop a coherent policy for the conduct of marine technical assistance and cooperation. This policy should apply overall U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance objectives within the unique context of the oceans. Marine programs naturally should reflect and further these objectives. U.S. marine assistance policy should include allocation of responsibility among federal agencies and appropriate changes in agency mission statements to accommodate assistance activities by marine-related agencies. U.S. funding for marine technical assistance should reflect the growing U.S. interest i% access to coastal waters for various purposes, including military passage and marine research. Program mechanisms for marine assistance should be selected for their effectiveness in addressing the unique problems of developing ocean capabilities. This has not always been the case in past programs. 8 In some cases, cooperative scientific programs must be directed toward developing countries that have the existing scientific capability to participate. It is important, however, that other nations' needs for assistance not be neglected; certain program mechanisms must be tailored to those nations that currently lack marine scientific or technological capabilities. Mechanisms should be devised for matching the best people or groups of experts with the problems to be solved. Foreign assistance aciivity involves somewhat different skills from those used in scientific research and has immediate societal implications that may not always be apparent to the researcher. Thus, executing agencies should be chosen on the basis of their suitability for undertaking technical assistance work as well as for their scientific capability. It is equally important that technical assistance be consistent with the recipient nation's overall objectives for marine development in order to avoid conflict between competing marine-development activities, for example, between the mining of sand and gravel and the operation of artisanal fisheries in the same area. It is also important to try to make development activities within the same area compatible with each other. Among commonly cited problems, for example, is the coexistence of tourist hotels, coral mining, and fisheries in a single marine area. It should be the policy of the United States to make full use of its scientific and technical resources in carrying out marine technical assistance programs. This will require a better system for coordination and information dissemination among U.S. agencies than now exists. A coherent U.S. effort in marine technical assistance and cooperation would require the leadership of one or more central institutions. Such an agency or agencies could perform the following

HThis problem is explored more fully for AID fisheries programs in MTAG's evaluation of AID programs in fisheries and aquaculture (NRC 1982). 80 functions: setting overall policy guidelines for U.S. marine assistance programs, coordinating assistance programs by governmental agencies and private organizations, funding projects, managing bilateral programs, serving as a contact point for inquiries from abroad, and transferring inquiries and information among the various institutions providing technical assistance or cooperation. Some of these functions would necessarily be performed by a governmental agency. For example, bilateral programs negotiated as official intergovernmental agreements between the United States and developing countries have in the past been administered by AID or by NOAA. Funding of official U.S. government assistance is the statutory responsibility of AID. Marine scientific research has been supported by NSF or ONR (although some marine technical cooperation programs have been funded by private foundations such as the Rockefeller, Tinker, and Donnei Foundations). '.licy directions might be best formulated by an interagency group, whereas coordination of agency programs might be performed by a single lead agency. The Department of State might be the appropriate site for the coordinating function because of its mandate for oversight of foreign activities. AID also might be the logical lead agency, since it is by law the primary U.S. agency funding overseas assistance. However, from a technical standpoint, NOAA might be the better location if it were explicitly authorized to undertake a broader foreign assistance mission. Under current circumstances, MTAG concludes that the best location for a governmental coordinating office is in NOAA, because this agency probably has the widest contact with individuals involved in marine activities and has direct access to scientific and technical experts. Close contact with the AID Bureau of Science and Technology would be necessary. Nongovernmental organizations (universities, research institutes, private development assistance agencies) are major actors in marine technical assistance, and some mechanism must be devised to encourage their active participation. For example, the functions of contact point for inquiries and of clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information might be assigned to a single organization outside the federal government. This organization would field inquiries and forward them to appropriate agencies or research institutions either within or outside the government. The contact point and clearinghouse functions could be operated as a separate entity with NSF funding, similar to the University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), that is, an association of academic institutions, which is funded in part by NSF. This clearinghouse organization would refer requests for funding to AID or to private foundations. Requests for cooperative research would be forwarded to appropriate research institutions or government agencies. Information dissemination would involve information on current and planned cooperative programs by U.S. agencies and private organizations, as well as by international or other bilateral agencies. The information clearinghouse could provide models for cooperative programs, an ongoing catalog of requests from developing countries, and notices of opportunities for joint programs with other donor agencies. 81

It would transfer to developing countries information about U.S. institutions and programs and to U.S. institutions information about opportunities and models for cooperation. Other organizational options could be considered, such as a single administrative office within NOAA, staffed with personnel on loan from other agencies, and advised by a joint academic/agency committee. No single alternative for carrying out these functions appears optimal here. However, all of the functions mentioned above appear necessary for effective marine assistance and some are now conspicuous by their absence. There is also a need to change goal statements for U.S. agencies to enhance the visibility of development assistance efforts in marine science and technology. For example, AID's goale statement should be amended to include specific reference to development of marine resources, as has already been done in Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act. Development of ocean resources should be a stated concern of the AID science advisor's office. NOAA and other federal agencies involved in marine technical and scientific activities are hindered by the absence of an explicit mission statement supporting development assistance as a significant agency objective. A broader authority for agencies to become involved in such work would enhance the ability of the United States to respond quickly and effectively to requests for assistance. The capability of AID to conduct technical assistance and cooperation for development in the marine area should be greatly strengthened. This has been discussed separately in MTAG's evaluation of past AID programs in fisheries. That report discusses at length the problems arising from lack of technical competence and inadequate professional input in fisheries at the policymaking level of AID. To be effective in marine development, AID requires senior-level staffing by one or more professionals qualified in fisheries and marine sciences, a fisheries and marine development unit within the Science and Technology Bureau (formerly Development Support Bureau), and an increase in the marine technical and scientific capability of field offices and regional bureaus. If these steps ace not taken, the initiative in this important area of development may be taken by ndtions that better appreciate the significance of ongoing events in marine resource development. It is neither economically feasible nor desirable that U.S. agencies seek to deal w...h all aspects of marine development. As hn other areas of overseas assistance, there will be continued reli L'x -n the universities and private sector resources. However, the usc o_ university personnel and other resources of the private sector i - very efficient at present. Resources are drawn from too narrow a base. The involvement of university personnel depends largely on word of mouth for identification and selection of individuals. Wider faculty involvement could be assured by including academic leaders in the planning of certain marine technical assistance projects. A nongovernmental advisory committee attached to the coordinating office proposed earlier or working directly with the Office of the Administrator of AID would be helpful here. 82

Recommendations for Adjustments to the System

6. Greater efforts should be made to select the proper combination of people to provide the necessary technical expertise, including social and economic impact assessment, for marine development projects.

7. Mechanisms should be established to coordinate and channel U.S. marine technical assistance and to provide for the dissemination and exchange of information about assistance programs.

8. NOAA and other technical agencies should be given explicit executive and statutory authorization to engage in appropriate marine technical assistance activities in conjunction with the Department of State and AID.

9. AID should quickly reestablish its capability to manage marine programs by appointment of marine and fisheries experts at the policymaking level and by the creation of a Marine Resources Office independent of the Office of Agriculture.

10. Larger numbers of marine specialists should be assigned to AID country missions and field offices (as well as the regional bureaus in Washington), especially in regions, such as Southeast Asia and Africa, where marine resources are of major importance.

11. The U.S. government agencies should make more effective use of the scientific and technological expertise of universities and other private sector institutions, including industry, by involving them in both the planning and the execution of overseas marine technical assistance.

MEETING THE NEEDS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The needs and desires of developing countries for marine technical assistance have changed in recent years as a result of both the increasing technical sophistication and the new economic and legal situation resulting from the almost universal declaration of exclusive economic zones. These two factors force a change in the way the United States approaches marine technical assistance. The situation is no longer one of simply increasing fish landings and helping distribute the catch but now usually will involve the broader questions of proper management and exploitation of marine resources. Moreover, the growing technical sophistication of developing countries makes essential an early and much more substantial involvement of people from developing countries in the planning of cooperative programs. This requires that U.S. scientists and administrators also be involved from the earliest stages. Individuals able to assess the socioeconomic consequences of assistance activity should be included. All assistance agencies, but 83

especially AID, should therefore possess in-house capability to meet this primary need. The new situation also requires consideration of the targets for development assistance. U.S. assistance is formally a response to requests from developing countries, but such requests must be assessed in terms of the efficient use and likely impact of the U.S. assistance effort. Requests for assistance to develop marine resources must be justified by the existence of a resource base that will facilitate long-range economically and socially beneficial activities. Various national and international agencies have examined aspects of the marine resources off the coasts of developing countries (FAO 1981). Informa­ tion is most complete for fisheries, but is scattered in numerous reports from FAO exploratory fishing expeditions, regional fisheries commissions, and national fisheries agencies. For nonliving resources, the information is more fragmentary and less completely cataloged. In many cases, exploitable marine resources are abundant but highly localized. MTAG therefore recommends that AID commission a compre­ hensive inventory of marine resources within the jurisdiction of potential recipient countries. This could be compiled rather quickly and inexpensively from existing sources. Using this information, project requests could be assessed against their potential long-term contributions to development and complementarity with other economic uses of the marine environment. An effective means to relieve hunger and establish self-sustaining food production may be tc provide assistance to poor countries through upper- and middle-tier developing countries, since the poorest countries may lack the skills and other means to benefit from U.S. technical assistance. Another approach to marine technical assistance is the combining of the financial aid available from the new donor nations (e.g., OPEC states) with the technical ocean expertise available in the United States. Regional organizations provide another mechanism for promoting marine development. These organizations will often encompass countries at different sta7es of industrial development, some of which may be quite sophisticated in their capabilities. Obviously there are dangers in using regional systems whose developmental role may be constrained by local political conflicts, and the United States must try to ensure in advance of the assistance project that it will benefit the targeted groups. Nevertheless, the overlapping and interactive nature of marine resources and the complexities of working in the marine environment make the regional approach very attractive in some instances, and it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. One approach that can reduce political problems is the establishment of relationships among marine institutions in developed and developing countries. It is important to recognize, however, that institutional linkages are not a universal solution; the technical and scientific personnel involved on both sides must share common viewpoints and expectations about the arrangement. Although such arrangements usually involve universities, other institutions that could participate effectively include private laboratories, government agencies, scientific societies, and other professional associations 84 that have an active interest in marine science and technology. Usually such groups will be interested in training and education as well as the solution of common technical problems, and this encourages acceptance of technical assistance. Another mechanism that might be linked to the establishing of institutional relationships is U.S. funding for research and technical investigations by marine scientists from developing countre . This would help to stimulate research related to local resource management and enhancement of the local expertise needed for technical development. Joint ventures can directly involve the private sector in marine technical assistance while helping to build a commercial capability within a developing country. Joint venture agreements are viewed by some developing countries as devices by which outside corporations penetrate and ultimately dominate their domestic markets or control their resources, but this need not be so. Joint ventures operating within fair agreements can facilitate rapid development of domestic capability to exploit marine resources and to build both internal and export markets. To be of lasting benefit, joint ventures must include a training complement; it is here that U.S. government support would be mobt useful. Assistance agencies should set up a system to facilitate joint ventures and provide direct support for related training programs. U.S. universities possess marine scientific and technological capabilities of great scope and value. Except for Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, however, U.S. policy decisions to augment domestic marine capabilities have riot been matched by initiatives to assist developing countries to develop similar capabilities. Therefore it should be U.S. policy to make this expertise more widely available to developing countries. Various mechanisms have been used in the past to tap these resources: institutional strengthening grants, fellow­ ships, contract research and development projects, and short-term training courses. No single mechanism is without problems, and none is applicable to all technical assistance situations. Thus, it is necessary to support a variety of mechanisms and to experiment with new mechanisms for marine technical assistance. MTAG stresses two mechanisms that have proved effective in the past and appear to offer the best prospects for augmenting the capabilities of research and education institutions in developing countries. First, an expansion of fellowship and training programs in U.S. universities is still a most effective means of upgrading a developing country's technical capabilities. Students from developing countries should be given access to the unique marine educational resources in U.S. universities but should be encouraged to apply their expertise to problems of their homeland. Second, institutional ties between sister institutions have proved particularly effective in the marine sciences. Such ties permit long-range programs and serve as nuclei for further cooperative programs. 85

Recommendations for Meeting Needs of Developing Countries

12. Marine assistance programs should involve close association between U.S. experts and developing country participants in joint planning and execution of programs, using a cooperative mode wherever possible.

13. AID should commission a qualitative inventory of the marine resources within the jurisdiction of potential recipient countries in cooperation with local personnel. This inventory could be used as a basis for evaluating requests for marine technical assistance.

14. Third country assistance through upper- or middle-tier developing nations should be considered where a large technological gap exists between the United States and the ultimate recipient or where political differences make direct assistance difficult.

15. Consideration should be given to mounting regional programs, possibly using U.N. agencies through the "designated funds" approach to deal with marine resource developments in the exclusive economic zones of smaller developing countries within a defined region, such as the Caribbean or the Gulf of Guinea.

16. Bilateral arrangements between universities or other institutions in the United States and existing or new institutions in developing countries should be encouraged as a cost-effective mechanism for rapidly building up an indigenous training and research capability.

17. Mechanisms should be established to enhance the technical assistance aspects of joint venture enterprises between U.S. companies and developing country counterparts, perhaps by subsidizing training programs.

18. Various mechanisms should be explored to make the marine expertise and facilities of U.S. universities more widely available for development assistance and cooperation, particularly institutional linkages and fellowships for education and training.

DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

In a world of expanding populations, shrinking supplies of conventional resources, and rising expectations, there can be little doubt that the resources of the oceans will be more and more extensively exploited. Most of the known marine resources lie within the 200-mile exclusive economic zones of coastal nations. Their management and exploitation require varying degrees of technical competence largely unavailable in developing countries, including the so-called upper- and middle-tier developing countries. This is a potentially dangerous situation that could lead to serious damage to the ocean system by ill-conceived exploitation procedures and 86 uninformed management. Because the oceans constitute an interconnected system, damage could be far-reaching. As a nation with extensive worldwide as well as domestic ocean interests, the United States is vulnerable to the effects of such potential damage. One objective of U.S. technical and scientific assistance should be to ameliorate this situation by providing short-term expertise where needed and by improving the capability of coastal developing nations to manage their ocean resources. This could be achieved through education and training programs and, where needed, by providing necessary equipment and instrumentation. Such assistance is most desirable as part of programs to build a self-sustaining commerce within the developing countries. Assuming that assistance programs are successful, the relationship between the U.S. scientists and their counterparts in developing countries will become increasingly cooperative. Clients will also be converted to competitors and this may cause difficulties with some U.S. commercial interests. On the other hand, successful development should create new markets for U.S. products and perhap. a more receptive attitude by some countries toward U.S. ocean use--such as scientific research--that does not imperil their resources. It is of course unlikely that most developing countries could ever hope to match the United States in technical and scientific capability in the oceans. U.S. assistance agencies should be careful to avoid giving the impression that they could. However, the United States and other industrialized nations could eventually become suppliers of the most sophisticated or large-scale technology necessary for commercial exploitation of ocean resources. What should U.S. priorities for the future in marine technical assistance be? In much of the world it is clear that the pressing need for food, particularly animal protein, must direct the highest priority to fisheries development, including aquaculture. This will typically involve a concentration on increased production, preservation, and distribution of the marine harvest. However, it should be recognized that maintaining the resource base also deserves very high priority. Biological management of the resource must always be a component of such development activities. Developing nations should be encouraged to explore their contiguous EEZs and identify the environmental conditions and resources within them in order to promote rational use of resources. This requires a broader base for assistance over the entire field of marine science and technology. U.S. assistance agencies should strive to provide a balance in their programs so that specialists in this range of disciplines are available. A corollary concern should be incorporation of the scientists and institutions in the developing countries into worldwide ocean activities connected with climate forecasting, tsunami watch, and so forth. Year-to-year variations in climate ard their effects on agriculture are profoundly important to many developing countries. Once technical capability is established, true exchange agreements can be fostered and perhaps joint ventures of a more sophisticated type can be promoted to utilize marine resources difficult to recover (e.g., certain minerals). 87

Of course, these prescriptions are based on an optimistic and perhaps even idealistic view of the progress of marine development. Events will likely not move as smoothly as has been assumed. Nations will act unilaterally and some will begin projects for which they are not technologically prepared. From another point of view, developments in science and technology may change U.S. capabilities in the ocean and this in turn may alter resource recovery methods. For this reason, it is important that U.S. assistance agencies be constantly aware of developments in marine science, particularly as they relate to developing countries. A team of experts could be convened at regular intervals to advise U.S. agencies but should include scientists from developing countries. This might foster a balance in program planning and in evaluation of the state of marine science and technology in developing countries. Long-range prospects include the extension of agriculture into brackish or salt waters and controlled fish ranching or other means of increasing marine fish production. These developments are likely to occur along coastlines of developing countries where there are fewer competing uses of the ocean than in more developed countries. Technical assistance planning in the United States should take such long-range developments into account and ensure that U.S. science and scientists are involved.

Recommendations for the Future

19. Where appropriate, the United States should seek to be involved as a sponsor or as a partner in future intensive exploitation of marine resources in the exclusive economic zones of developing countrius; t-o issist in providing the necessary manacement expertise. 20. The United States should monitor new developments in ocean resource exploitation and ensure that U.S. science and scientists are active in those developments and ready to assist when asked.

21. The United States should establish an advisory group including scientists from the United States and developing countries to advise on the planning and evaluation of marine technical assistance prcgrams.

REFERENCES

Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State (1980) The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-first Century, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1981) Review of the State of World Fishery Resources. FAO Fish Circular 710, Revision 2. Fisheries Department. Rome: FAO. 88

in Marine National Research Council (1981) International Cooperation in Technology, Science, and Fisheries: The Future U.S. Role Development. Proceedings of a workshop, La Jolla, California, Ocean January 18-22, 1981. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Policy Cc-imnittee; Commission on International Relations. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. and National Research Council (1982) An Evaluation of Fishery Aquaculture Programs of the Agency for International Development. Marine Technical Assistance Group, Ocean Policy Committeel Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.