547 



Aquaculture presents different sorts of problems 

 from hunter-gathering, and may be the dominant pro- 

 vider of the future. Aquaculture is a major concern of 

 the US Sea Grant Program (Abel, 1968). Ryther & 

 Bardach (1968) and Bardach & Ryther (1968) review 

 aquaculture and make the point that it will be carried 

 out largely along coasts— exactly the areas currently 

 most stressed at the hand of Man. To reconstitute 

 coastal environments, or to fertilize them artifically, 

 is difficult or impossible. The key to aquaculture is 

 clearly the maintenance of natural productivity. 



Minerals and Mining. Reading in this field often 

 leaves one impressed with the viewpoint that somehow 

 we are slaves to 'economic growth'. Close (1968) 

 speaks of 'the care and feeding of a gigantic industrial 

 complex'. One hopes that only a segment of industry 

 would speak so carelessly, but it does appear true that 

 an awareness of ecology and a wilhngness to exploit 

 the non-living resources at little or no expense to the 

 living are indeed rare. If mineral exploitation continues 

 by sea as it has by land, the predictable results are 

 frightening to contemplate. Strip mining is one parallel 

 example. 



Mero (1966, 1968), Luce (1968), and Young (1968), 

 review the diversity of mineral resources in the sea. 

 Inshore mineral exploitation is already heavy, but a 

 consensus exists that only a few minerals, such 

 as oil and gas, are currently feasible of exploitation. 

 This is evidently based upon the lack of a favour- 

 able legal and economic climate, not upon the lack of 

 technological capabihty. Further, it is not true that 

 exploitation will progress from shallower to deeper 

 water, any such progress being a function of the re- 

 source sought (Wilkey, 1969). 



Off-shore mineral production in 1968 was 6 per cent 

 of the world total and of it oil and gas accounted for 

 84 per cent (Economic Associates, 1968). In 1965, 16 

 per cent of the free world's oil was produced off-shore, 

 the result of the work of 325 rigs which have drilled 

 many thousands of wells (Dozier, 1966); oil has been 

 produced from wells in as much as 104 m of water 

 (Wilkey, 1969), and exploratory drilling was carried 

 out in 1968 in the Gulf of Mexico in over 3600 m. At 

 any one time, about 30,000,000 tons of oil are at sea 

 in tankers. From US off-shore wells alone the produc- 

 tion of oil has so far been 2 x 10' barrels,* and of gas 

 5-5 X 10^^ ft^,* at an investment of US $6 thousand 

 million, and with the ultimate potential of 15-35 

 thousand million barrels of oil and 90-170 x 10^^ ft^ 

 of gas (Nelson & Burk, 1966). The massive pollution 

 potential of the oil industry has been previewed by the 

 tragic Torrey Canyon and Santa Barbara disasters. We 



* 1 barrel = ca 200 litres ; 1 cubic metre = ca 30 cubic feet. 



can be certain that these episodes are not the last of 

 their kind, and probably there will be far bigger ones. 



Military Interests. Military activities in the oceans 

 are shrouded in secrecy. It would, for instance, be 

 interesting to know what the degree of radio-nuclide 

 pollution is from Soviet and US nuclear-powered 

 submarines. Both Hariow (1966) and Hearn (1968) 

 give as the US Navy's viewpoint the contention that 

 maximum freedom to use all dimensions of the sea 

 must be maintained in order to exploit naval strength 

 to the fullest in the best national interest. I think it 

 fair to state that such a position is shared by the 

 military of other major powers. The effect is to raise a 

 serious obstacle to internationalization, to expanded 

 territorial jurisdiction, and to peaceful use of the sea- 

 floor. 



It is difficult for me to understand why putting the 

 sea-bed under a 'peaceful purposes only' treaty, as has 

 already been done for outer space and Antarctica, is 

 not in the 'best national interest'. Evidently, military 

 influence was a major factor in preventing that prin- 

 ciple from being accepted at the 1967 United Nations 

 debate on the subject (Eichelberger, 1968). As yet the 

 sea-bed is not much utilized mihtarily, though the 

 waters over the floor of the sea certainly are. Thus, it 

 is particulariy disturbing to read that 'military 

 strategists . . . have been looking for better ways to 

 put the sea to use for the purposes of national defense' 

 (New York Times, 1969). 



It must be pointed out that military interests are not 

 necessarily contrary to fishing or mineral exploitation. 

 In any case, international progress on these last 

 should not be held up by conflicts with the military 

 authorities. 



Science and Technology. The United States, among 

 other nations, is heavily committed to marine explora- 

 tion, science, development, and conservation. Reports 

 on the highest level are numerous, including: Inter- 

 agency Committee on Oceanography (1963, 1967); 

 National Academy of Sciences (1964, 1967, 1969); 

 Panel on Oceanography, President's Science Advisory 

 Committee (1966); National Council on Marine 

 Resources and Engineering Development (1967, 1968a, 

 19686); and the Commission on Marine Science, 

 Engineering and Resources (1969). 



The last-mentioned, the so-called Stratton Commis- 

 sion Report, departs courageously from — while also 

 building upon — the baseline established by its pre- 

 decessors and is no doubt the most significant of them 

 all. It is broadly ecological and international in nature, 

 and recommends a US National Oceanographic and 

 Atmospheric Agency for centralization of US research, 

 exploration, data collection, and education. Further, 

 it proposes an International Registry Authority for 



