Introduction 



Marine affairs embrace a multitude of interrelated activities and interests which defy simple 

 categorization or analysis. The term embraces several broad areas of program interest— the coastal zone, 

 development of marine resources, exploration and understanding of the total global air-sea envelope, and 

 provision of services— which became the major categories used by the Commission in organizing its 

 report. However, attention was also necessary to the many activities contributing to the achievement of 

 each of these programs: to basic science, fundamental and applied technology, manpower development, 

 and observation and prediction systems. Appraising and planning the national effort also required 

 consideration of the purposes to be served by each activity and program and of the institutional 

 arrangements for action, including both national and international law and organization; private 

 industry; academic institutions; capital markets; and Federal, State, and local governments. 



The assigrmients of the Conmiission's panels represent a necessarily arbitrary division of the 

 Commission's total field of interest. To assure that as many perspectives as possible were brought to bear 

 on each problem, the assignments were intended to be somewhat open-ended, and it was not uncommon 

 for several panels to approach similar matters from their several viewpoints. Thus an interest in the 

 economic payoffs from marine activity appears in all the panel materials. The status of marine industries 

 is reviewed in the Report of the Panel on Industry and Private Investment; opportunities for improved 

 returns through application of new technology are considered by the Panel on Marine Engineering and 

 Technology; industrial efficiency in meeting resource needs is considered by the Panel on Marine 

 Resources; and so forth. 



Another matter of common interest was consideration of the most appropriate Federal 

 organization to carry forward an expanded marine program. Recognizing that its organization plan must 

 necessarily meet a variety of needs, the Conmiission did not establish a separate panel to investigate this 

 subject but reserved it for consideration by the Commission as a whole. However, the Commission 

 encouraged all panels to identify organizational imphcations of their proposals. This commentary is 

 included in their reports. 



The field work of the panels was concentrated largely during the period September 1967 through 

 March 1968. Report preparation continued during the spring and summer, with the cutoff date ranging 

 from October to December for panel materials. 



Because preparation of panel reports preceded the Commission's final statement, findings and 

 recommendations of the panels differ in some cases from those advanced in the Commission report 

 rendered Jan. 9, 1969, to the President and the Congress. For example, the Panel on Marine Engineering 

 and Technology suggests 15 National Projects. In reviewing the Panel's proposals, the Commission 

 selected five projects for immediate implementation and recommended five for more detailed feasibility 

 studies. Further, the Commission redefined the concept of "National Project" to embrace an additional 

 project— construction of test facilities, which had not been so defined by the panel— and recast five panel 

 National Projects as recommendations for applied technology programs to satisfy related needs 

 identified by other panels. Such shifts in emphasis and terminology were a natural result of the 

 Commission's distElation of the great variety of panel recommendations. 



Although the Commission did not adopt all elements of its panel reports, the studies provided 

 valuable background material for its report, "Our Nation and the Sea," and will be valuable to all who 

 wish to examine further the many aspects of our nation and the sea. 



