|
By SCOTT C. TRUVER
Dr. Scott C.
Truver is executive director of the center for security strategies and
operations in the Techmatics Division of Anteon Corporation.
It is only one
element of yet another complex multifaceted challenge confronting the
United States at the dawn of the 21st century. With practically all
agencies of government and industry, at home and abroad, worried about the
"Y2K Millennium Bug," the U.S. Coast Guard announced in mid-June
that it would not close American ports on 1 January 2000, reducing
the likelihood that merchant shipping--the lifeblood of the U.S.
economy--would be disrupted by the Year 2000 computer problem.
"We never
wanted to put arbitrary limits on ships," Rear Adm. George N. Naccara,
the Coast Guard's chief information officer, remarked about a suggestion
to close ports around the New Year in response to concerns that foreign
trade, generally, and oil imports, specifically, might be interrupted by
the Y2K "bug." The Coast Guard already had concluded that
computer "glitches" could affect critical
electronic-navigation and engine-control systems, possibly causing
mariners to lose track of their positions--and, possibly, control of their
ships. The result--unless manual back-up systems could be brought on line
quickly--could be a series of maritime disasters along U.S. coasts and in
ports from Seattle, Wash., to Portland, Maine. The specter of another Exxon
Valdez or New Carrissa grounding heightens the already
well-known need for strong preventive measures and increased readiness.
Instead of
closing ports, however, the Coast Guard will require all U.S.- and
foreign-flag ships entering U.S. territorial seas and ports to prove that
they are "Y2K-prepared" and ready to meet virtually any
contingency. The Coast Guard's Captains of the Port are empowered to deny
entry to any ship that fails the test.
"Action
... Now"
The Y2K challenge
also hints at the vulnerability of America's Marine Transportation System
(MTS)--which connects the U.S. heartland to the global economy--to
disruption from computer "bugs," natural and man-made disasters,
and terrorist attacks. "The physical distribution infrastructure is
critical to the national security, economic well-being, global
competitiveness, and quality of life in the United States," the
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure noted in its October
1997 Critical Foundations report. That infrastructure, the report
continues, "includes 1,900 seaports and 1,700 inland river terminals
on 11,000 miles of inland waterways carrying grain, chemicals, petroleum
products, and import and export goods. ... Tomorrow--perhaps next year,
perhaps in ten years--critical transportation systems could be vulnerable
to such attacks and crippled unless action is taken now."
There are
other--perhaps less dire, but no less important--concerns about the
current state and future direction of the nation's MTS. Today, America's
aging and fragmented MTS infrastructure is stressed, and that stress
continues to increase steadily, as Adm. James M. Loy, the Coast Guard
commandant, and Clyde J. Hart Jr., the administrator of the U.S. Maritime
Administration (MARAD), emphasized during a 13 May 1999 hearing on near-
and far-term future MTS needs. In testimony prepared for the Subcommittee
on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Loy and Hart noted that "the
challenge is clear. Ports must be prepared to respond to the mounting
pressures of growing trade, more noncommercial waterways users, the
development of new means to harvest and preserve marine resources, and
increasingly aggressive efforts by criminals and adversaries intent on
doing societal harm.
"At the
federal level," the two officials asserted, "we must include
eliminating the gaps, overlaps, and stovepipes among government agencies.
Government and the private sector must continue to work together if we
want the very best MTS possible for the future."
The
MTS Defined
The U.S. MTS
"is much more than the waterways and ports through which nearly all
of America's foreign and domestic trade moves every day," Jeffrey P. High, the Coast Guard's director of waterways management, ex-plained
in early June. "It is also the intermodal links to rail, truck, and
pipeline services that support U.S. economic and military security. In
particular," High said, "the marine infrastructure facilitates
our global outreach into overseas markets and our engagement in world
affairs, including protection of U.S. national security interests."
The MTS also
includes the national and international regulatory framework that governs
U.S. trade and commerce. In short, it is the intricate and in some
instances delicate--albeit highly fragmented--web of relationships and
systems that link the farmer in Iowa to customers in Russia, China, and
other U.S. trading partners throughout the world.
There are over
330 seaports and more than 3,700 marine terminals in the United States.
They are linked by some 25,000 miles of federal and privately maintained
navigation channels, and serve the tens of thousands of miles of rail,
highways, and pipelines that criss-cross the nation. More than 90 percent
of the U.S. population is served in one way or another by domestic
shipping, which moves approximately one-quarter of the nation's freight
(as measured by ton-mile) for less than two percent of the total freight
bill.
In peacetime,
more than 95 percent of America's trade tonnage is carried in ships,
including the nine million barrels of oil per day that fuel the American
economy--more than half of the nation's daily consumption. In time of
war--as was most recently demonstrated during the Gulf War--approximately
95 percent of all of the supplies, equipment, weapons, ammunition, and
other consumables carried to and from the combat theater is moved by
ships. At the height of the unprecedented 12,000-mile shipping effort
required for Operation Desert Shield, a "Steel Bridge" of ships
linked U.S. ports with in-theater facilities in an almost continuous
movement of the "beans, bullets, and black oil" needed to defeat
Saddam Hussein's forces.
Billions
and Trillions
Projections for
1999 indicate that as much as three billion metric tons of export and
import cargo, valued at more than one trillion dollars, will transit U.S.
waters and pass through U.S. ports. In addition, some 78 million
recreational users, 140 million passengers, and 110,000 fishing vessels
will compete for access to relatively limited U.S. water space. Looking
forward to the next 20 years, the Coast Guard's 1998 strategic vision
publication, Coast Guard 2020, identified the most likely
challenges facing America's MTS in the next two decades. Specifically
focusing on "economic globalization," CG2020 forecast
that:
America will
become more dependent upon international trade ... [almost all] of which
will be transported on the water. U.S. maritime trade will double, if not
triple, by 2020. Trade with Asian-Pacific and Latin American countries
will increase more than with other regions. Efficient maritime
transportation will become more critical to America's economy and
competitiveness. Global seaborne trade will bring larger numbers of
ultralarge, deep-draft, and minimally crewed ships. America's inland and
coastal commerce will experience increased barge and tow traffic. Higher
volumes of oil, hazardous materials, and bulk commodities are likely.
Just-in-time delivery of raw materials and finished goods will become the
norm, magnifying the consequences of disruptions and emphasizing the
importance of the marine transportation system's reliability. Furthermore,
growing numbers of people will have the resources and leisure time to
spend on cruises and recreational boating. Collectively, this congestion
on America's waterways will create a greater need for a well-integrated
intermodal transportation system with close links among the sea, land, and
air components.
"We have
been told to expect a threefold increase in cargo volumes--to nine billion
tons annually--[as well as] 10 percent annual growth in passenger ferry
service, millions more recreational users vying for use of the waterways
with 'megaships' carrying 6,000-plus containers or over 5,000
passengers," High wrote in an MTS "Problems and Trends"
white paper. "We are at a critical juncture with respect to
our MTS future," he commented in June. "We know that there will
be increasing demand on our ports and waterways. We know that there is no
coordinated public and private-sector plan in place to address the
challenge.
"National
leadership is needed now," he said, "to ensure our waterways
keep pace with the shoreside infrastructure."
Other officials
agree that a failure to plan now for the challenges of the future will significantly
reduce U.S. competitiveness and increase risks to safety, security, and
the marine environment.
The same points
were emphasized by Loy and Hart in their May testimony before Congress.
"These challenges will continue to require both public- and
private-sector efforts," the two marine transportation leaders said.
Those same
"challenges" are exacerbated by competing interests and demands,
which often have pitted one element of the MTS against another, and by the
fragmented responsibility for management, oversight, and promotion of the
overall system--if, indeed, "system" is not an oxymoron in this
context. High acknowledges that "varied jurisdictions, overlapping
responsibilities, and a lack of overall leadership for the development of
a national maritime transportation system vision, plan, or policy
characterize the situation today."
But there is hope
for the future, he was quick to point out, if a series of regional
"listening sessions" that culminated last fall in the convening
of a National MTS Conference bear fruit. "For the first time,"
he said, "we got every element of the MTS community together, talked
with them, [and] allowed all participants to air concerns and identify
possible solutions."
In
Search of a Vision
The seven
"listening sessions" that MARAD and the Coast Guard conducted at
various coastal and inland ports during the spring and summer of 1998,
High continued, resulted in the identification of "several key issues
and imperatives. These include: the need to develop consensus on a vision
for the Marine Transportation System of 2020; interagency coordination at
the national, regional, and local levels; and recommendations to improve
safety, security, global competitiveness, infrastructure, and
environmental protection of the marine transportation system."
Those issues and
imperatives were the focus of the 1719 November 1998 National MTS
Conference, during which 144 representatives from all sectors of the
national MTS community participated. "Two overriding concerns were
cited time and again," Loy and Hart acknowledged during their
testimony: "the lack of a shared national vision for the MTS, and the
lack of leadership and coordination among government agencies."
According to some
conference participants, the development of a unifying vision for the 2020
MTS proved somewhat more difficult than had been expected, but a general
consensus eventually was crafted that reconciles most differences and
balances most if not all competing interests. At the outset of the
conference, Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater emphasized the
need for a clear and focused final statement--which, he said, "will
enable us to move forward to create a marine transportation system for the
21st century--one that continues to be safe, secure, and environmentally
sound."
The final result,
High asserted, is what he de-scribed as an "excellent" vision
statement: "The U.S. Marine Transportation System will be the world's
most technologically advanced, safe, secure, efficient, effective,
accessible, globally competitive, dynamic, and environmentally responsible
system for moving goods and people."
Several steps to
meet that ambitious goal have already been taken, but it will not be an
easy, or low-cost, proposition. Hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps
much more, will be needed to build a truly world-class MTS. Simply by
raising the visibility of the MTS, however, especially within the
administration and on Capitol Hill, increases the prospects for
cooperation and the sharing of information among all MTS players.
Progress
and Controversy
MARAD and the
Coast Guard started the long-term effort by creating an MTS Task Force of
46 representatives from industry and 20 leaders from within government to
prepare a report assessing the current state and future direction of the
U.S. MTS. Two related proposals--to establish a National Council on
Maritime Transportation that would be responsible for supporting and
coordinating the development of a national MTS strategy and policy; and to
create local and regional committees, to build grass-roots support for the
MTS, and to address maritime issues and recommend improvements--are being
addressed actively within the Coast Guard and MARAD.
An Assessment
of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, mandated by the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1998, the final draft report of these efforts,
achieved a wide consensus on numerous complex issues, but also has
generated a certain amount of controversy as well. Two participants at the
MTS summit, Joseph Cox, president of the Chamber of Shipping of America,
and George Ryan, president of the Lake Carriers' Association, were
reported to have been "caught off guard" at a 21 May MTS Task
Force meeting when a White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget)
official said that the report had to receive the OMB seal of approval
before it could be submitted to Congress. Several members of the Task
Force felt that this requirement amounts to an OMB veto, and would result
in the submission of a report that does not accurately reflect the
majority view of the Task Force. Cox, quoted in The Journal of Commerce,
said that his group was disappointed to learn that any view inconsistent
with the administration's would be deleted. "The report should not
simply become an administration position paper," he commented.
"We are
trying to craft the best, most consensus-based report that we can,"
High said--but he conceded that there "are bound to be some issues
where we do not agree entirely."
A
Responsibility to Lead
The Coast Guard
and the Maritime Administration, the most obvious key players in the
current and future structure of the U.S. MTS, have bound together to help
craft a vision for the system that they hope will generate widespread
political and public support, much as President Dwight D. Eisenhower's
vision of the interstate highway system was instrumental in galvanizing
the nation into action. Working closely with all components of America's
MTS, the Coast Guard-MARAD team continues to seek a strategy, plan, and
cost-effective series of programs that will integrate America's waterways,
ports, and intermodal connections into a truly national system. Slater
also has made the creation of an integrated national MTS a matter of
personal high priority. What remains now is for other administration
leaders to work together with the Congress to turn the MTS vision into
reality.
The Coast Guard's
military, multimission, and maritime character will enable it to manage
and provide the disciplined partnering framework needed for an extremely
complex and interconnected system that adds great economic value to the
national infrastructure. The service's unique humanitarian and civilian
law-enforcement mandates also will enhance safety on the water by reducing
the potential for and occurrences of marine incidents, and by mitigating
the consequences of those that do occur.
The trends
outlined by the Coast Guard in CG2020 portend an even more central
and expansive role for the service in the next century. In U.S. ports and
coastal waterways, and in America's territorial seas and exclusive
economic zones, the Coast Guard--working in close partnership with the
Maritime Administration and other federal, state, and local agencies, as
well as various commercial entities and international organizations--will
help to ensure that a national MTS agenda is developed, pursued, and
achieved. "We do not have all the answers, and are not the primary
user of the MTS," a senior Coast Guard official admitted--"but
we do have the responsibility to lead, coordinate, facilitate, adjudicate,
and, frankly, stay out of the way when it is in America's best interest,
to help reach these national goals."
But when it comes
down to the key question--which agency to call when there is a major
emergency in any of America's waterways--odds are that the answer will
continue to be, as it has been for the past two centuries, "the
United States Coast Guard." |
