Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

Overview

Preservation and Restoration

Executive Order 13547, titled "Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes," was established by President Barack Obama on July 19, 2010. This directive aimed to protect and restore the health of American marine ecosystems by adopting the recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. With the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fresh in public memory, this order underscored the vulnerabilities of marine environments, highlighting their importance for jobs, food, energy, and ecological services. The order's critical goal was to integrate sustainability and environmental resilience within ocean and coastal management policies.

National Policy and Objectives

The EO laid out a comprehensive national policy framework to safeguard oceanic, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. It established objectives such as enhancing the sustainability of ocean-related economies, preserving maritime heritage, and supporting adaptive management against climate change. The directive proposed the development of coastal and marine spatial plans, intended to enhance regional decision-making processes across federal, state, tribal, and local authorities. By doing so, the order sought to foster a balanced and integrated approach to marine resource management, emphasizing the need for ecosystem-based, proactive planning.

Administrative Structure

A key aspect of the order was the establishment of the National Ocean Council, which was tasked with guiding and coordinating the implementation of these policies. The Council was composed of high-ranking officials from various federal departments and agencies, reinforcing interdepartmental collaboration. This structure aimed to provide a cohesive and unified framework for ocean stewardship, ensuring that executive decisions were informed by scientific data and aligned with national security and international diplomatic considerations.

Revocation and Amendments

EO 13547 revoked a previous directive by President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13366, which had established a Committee on Ocean Policy. This revocation marked a shift from a decentralized coordination structure to a more integrated and cohesive approach under the new National Ocean Council. This structural change highlighted the Obama administration's intent to enhance cooperation and align policy implementation efforts more effectively across federal entities.

Commitment to Scientific Understanding

The order emphasized the importance of science-based decision-making, calling for increased scientific understanding of marine ecosystems and their global connections. By investing in research and education, the EO aimed to enhance public awareness and understanding of maritime issues, thereby building a foundation for improved stewardship and sustainable use of marine resources over the long term.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Changes

Executive Order 13547 did not introduce new legislation but significantly influenced the execution of existing laws related to ocean management. It leveraged the President's constitutional powers and existing statutory frameworks to prioritize environmental sustainability in federal ocean policy. This strategic alignment with existing laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, strengthened environmental protections within legal boundaries without necessitating legislative intervention.

Policy Coordination and Implementation

The EO facilitated a paradigm shift towards ecosystem-based management, promoting a more integrated approach to policy implementation at federal, state, and local levels. By establishing the National Ocean Council, the order enhanced coordination across government entities, fostering consistency in the application of policies affecting marine environments. This coordination was designed to streamline federal actions, capitalize on existing resources, and prevent policy overlaps or redundancy, thus ensuring a more efficient implementation process.

International Implications

On the international stage, EO 13547 called for U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), reflecting a commitment to align domestic policies with global maritime laws. This strategic endorsement highlighted the United States' intention to strengthen its position in international maritime governance, respect navigational freedoms, and engage actively in multilateral environmental efforts. However, achieving this policy goal would require Congressional action, presenting a potential bottleneck in its execution.

Operational Changes Within Agencies

The directive necessitated operational changes within federal agencies involved in marine affairs, as they were required to incorporate the EO's objectives into their standard practices. This included aligning agency actions with the Council-certified coastal and marine spatial plans and contributing to the development of a common information management system for marine data. Such changes were anticipated to improve transparency, data accessibility, and cross-agency communication, thus enhancing the overall effectiveness of marine policy execution.

Compliance and Reporting Requirements

To ensure accountability and transparency, the EO mandated annual reporting by federal agencies on their progress in implementing ocean policy objectives. These reports were to include public feedback and agencies' responses, encouraging public engagement and fostering government accountability. This mechanism enhanced the accountability framework for federal agencies and offered a valuable feedback loop for continuous policy improvement.

Who Benefits

Environmental Interest Groups

Environmental organizations and advocates stood to benefit significantly from EO 13547, as the order aligned with broader environmental protection goals. By prioritizing the health and resilience of marine ecosystems, the directive supported initiatives aimed at reducing pollution, conserving biodiversity, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. These actions resonated with environmental groups' objectives and provided them with a stronger platform for advocacy and collaboration with governmental entities.

Coastal Communities

Coastal and Great Lakes communities, particularly those reliant on fishing, tourism, and recreation, were expected beneficiaries. The order's emphasis on sustainable economic activities and ecosystem resilience was intended to stabilize and enhance local economies dependent on marine resources. By ensuring long-term access to healthy marine environments, the EO sought to secure livelihoods and economic opportunities for these communities.

Renewable Energy Industry

The renewable energy sector, particularly offshore wind and wave energy developers, benefited from the EO's encouragement of sustainable resource use. The spatial planning processes facilitated by the directive aimed to identify suitable areas for renewable energy projects, thereby reducing site selection conflicts and streamlining regulatory approval processes. This support signaled a federal commitment to expanding clean energy infrastructure.

Scientific Research Community

The scientific community, especially oceanographers and marine biologists, gained from the order's focus on scientific research and data collection. Increased federal support for research initiatives, coupled with a commitment to basing policy decisions on scientific evidence, provided researchers with expanded opportunities for funding and collaboration. These activities contributed to a broader understanding of marine ecosystems and their global interactions.

Tribal Nations

Indigenous tribes with historical ties to coastal and Great Lakes regions were acknowledged as key stakeholders and beneficiaries through increased involvement in marine spatial planning processes. The EO recognized tribal sovereignty and encouraged traditional ecological knowledge integration into federal policy frameworks, fostering collaborative partnerships that respected tribal cultural and resource management practices.

Who Suffers

Industries with Environmental Compliance Costs

Industries such as offshore oil and gas, which faced stringent environmental compliance requirements, perceived the EO as imposing additional operational burdens. Enhanced regulatory scrutiny and the emphasis on ecosystem health necessitated infrastructural adjustments and increased investment in environmentally friendly practices, potentially impacting their profit margins.

Commercial Fishing Sector

Certain segments of the commercial fishing industry viewed the order as a limitation on resource access, particularly if conservation measures restricted fishing areas. This sector expressed concerns over the balance between environmental protections and economic viability, fearing diminished yield quotas and increased regulatory oversight could threaten livelihoods.

Development and Real Estate Interests

Real estate developers and coastal infrastructure projects might have faced challenges due to the EO's emphasis on environmental preservation and spatial planning. Restrictions on development activities in ecologically sensitive areas could hinder new project approvals, affecting growth prospects and financial investments in coastal regions.

Short-term Economic Interests

Stakeholders prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability might have found the order's objectives misaligned with their interests. The EO's emphasis on sustainable practices often required upfront investments and strategic shifts that might not yield immediate financial benefits, creating tension with those focused on quick returns.

State and Local Governments with Divergent Policies

State and local governments with policies or agendas that conflicted with the federal direction may have encountered challenges aligning their strategies with EO 13547's objectives. The requirement for intergovernmental collaboration and compliance with federal plans might have been perceived as encroaching on state governance, particularly in regions with distinct policy priorities.

Historical Context

The Obama Administration's Environmental Stance

Executive Order 13547 aligned with the Obama administration's broader emphasis on environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation. The administration consistently prioritized integrating ecological considerations into federal policy and sought to counteract environmental degradation, positioning itself as a leader in domestic and international environmental governance.

Post-Deepwater Horizon Era

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, there was heightened public awareness and concern over the potential environmental impacts of offshore drilling. EO 13547's emphasis on environmental resilience and accountability was reflective of demands for stronger federal oversight and preventative measures to avert similar ecological disasters.

Shift Towards Integrated Resource Management

The EO marked a significant shift in U.S. maritime policy, moving from isolated decision-making to integrated ecosystem-based management. This change mirrored international trends towards holistic resource management, resonating with global moves towards comprehensive frameworks that balance environmental, economic, and social objectives.

Preceding Executive Orders

By revoking EO 13366, which had established the Committee on Ocean Policy, EO 13547 highlighted a departure from the previously decentralized structure to a more unified and coordinated federal approach. This evolution reflected the administration's intent to streamline and enhance the effectiveness of ocean governance practices across federal entities.

Global Environmental Policy Trends

Globally, the early 2010s were marked by increased attention to climate change and marine resource conservation. EO 13547's provisions mirrored international dialogues and commitments concerning marine protection, illustrating the United States' engagement with broader global environmental policy trends and initiatives during this period.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Industry Pushback

Given the oil, gas, and certain commercial fishing industries' reliance on marine resources, there was considerable potential for pushback against the EO’s environmental provisions. These industries might have viewed the measures as encroaching on their operational freedoms and faced increased lobbying to amend restrictive policies perceived to threaten economic activity.

Congressional Resistance

While the order aligned with the executive branch's priorities, achieving full compliance required cooperation from Congress, particularly in ratifying international agreements like UNCLOS. Legislative resistance could arise from representatives concerned with sovereignty implications or those prioritizing economic advancements over environmental benchmarks.

Enforcement and Coordination Challenges

The necessity of cross-agency collaboration posed implementation challenges, given varied agency mandates and operational cultures. Ensuring harmonious policy execution required ongoing coordination, which could encounter barriers such as bureaucratic resistance or resource allocation issues, delaying the fulfillment of the EO's objectives.

Judicial Scrutiny

Potential legal challenges could emerge from parties disputing the EO's interpretation or claiming overreach beyond the President's constitutional powers. Any disputes arising from policy implementation might find their way into judicial proceedings, questioning the order's scope and compliance with statutory and international laws.

Public Perception and Political Dynamics

The order's reception was susceptible to shifts in political dynamics and public opinion, particularly in the context of economic downturns where environmental regulations might be targeted as constraints on growth. This changing landscape could influence administrative priorities and lead to future modifications or rescindments depending on evolving political agendas.