641 
zone management, marine pollution, mapping, and charting the 
oceans, and vessels. 
The GAO study found that ICMSE has had a limited success. It 
has provided a sounding board for member departments to exchange 
information and focus attention on problems in the areas of marine 
science activities and ocean affairs, but ICMSE is very limited in 
its ability to insure that Federal resources are used effectively and 
efficiently. The prime task of the participating agencies is to be 
responsive to their own missions, which does not always guarantee 
that resources are used in the most efficient and effective way. 
Moreover, the Interagency Committee does not have the authority 
to determine which programs should be undertaken, what priorities 
should be established, which agencies should be involved, and what 
the amount of resources should be allocated.*® 
The results have been less than satisfactory. Studies coming out 
of ICMSE either did not have any specific recommendations to the 
agencies, or had only recommendations of a general nature calling 
for either continuous monitoring of the areas by ICMSE or for con- 
sideration or action by the Federal Council for Science and Tech- 
nology or the Office of Management and Budget.*° 
In its Second Annual Report to the President and Congress, 
NACOA basically said the same about ICMSE’s limited function as 
an information exchange committee, not capable of doing much more. 
NACOA maintained that this is not sufficient, and will in the end 
lead to protection of agency interests within the overall program: 
Coordination usually means exchange of information. Rarely 
does it involve table-pounding establishment of priorities, 
guidelines, and new policies to meet new problems. Especially 
when budgets get tight, coordination is not by itself tough enough 
to protect multiagency programs. What happens is not so much 
that things get left out, though that happens, but that programs 
get distorted. Program cutbacks in one agency have side effects 
on others which change the overall program balance and priority 
without anyone really being responsible for what happened.*? 
In reality, there are practical limits on Presidential ability to foster 
coordination, and the congressional role is even narrower. On a 
day-to-day operational level the program managers, middle manage- 
ment, and division chiefs determine the course of ocean policy in 
a more pervasive manner than coordinating committees or blue ribbon 
advisory councils. The bureaucratic reward structure tends to be inter- 
nal: little credit is given for advancement as a result of attaining 
common goals outside the immediate organization. 
In summary, ICMSE is not capable of providing direction to the 
fragmented Federal marine activities; even its coordinative capabilities 
are thin. ICMSE is but the tip of the iceberg of interagency coordina- 
tion. NOAA alone is a member or sponsoring member of over 29 
39 Ibid., p. 24. 
4 Ibid., p. 24. 
41 NACOA, A Report to the President and the Congress, Second Annual Report, Washington, June 
29, 1973, p. 8. 
