Final Report
St. John's, Newfoundland, 22-24 May 1997
Revised report submitted by following members of NSERC Strategic Advisory Committee
Revision date: November 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Canada is a maritime nation. The oceans play a critical role in generating wealth and fostering the development of the country. Canadian university-based marine scientists and engineers constitute a diverse community with an established international reputation, based on the quality and relevance of their research. Their success, despite modest funding, can be attributed in large part to the expertise and infrastructure established in government laboratories and the access to these resources that has historically been made available to the university community. However, shifting priorities and reduced funding have resulted in deterioration of this infrastructure and in progressive abandonment of the linkage between government laboratories and academic researchers. The health of Canadian marine science is now severely threatened. This report has been produced in response to this crisis and defines a new structure for maintaining and enhancing Canada's leading role in the marine sciences.
The report is the outcome of a meeting of concerned scientists held at Memorial University of Newfoundland in May, 1997. A set of recommendations is offered along with strategies for their implementation. The principal recommendations follow.
Recommendation 1: Maintaining the Profile
In order to meet the rapidly changing national and global needs and challenges in Canadian marine science, a new and fully representative structure be established to inform the public about marine issues and to articulate the concerns, needs, and future directions of the marine science community. This new structure will comprise two bodies: a National Marine Science Council (NMSC) and a Scientific Research Board (SRB). The NMSC should comprise senior representatives from the University sector, NSERC, industry, federal and provincial governments, and appropriate scientific societies. The mandate of the NMSC will be to advocate change in the current system, plan future actions, inform the public, and coordinate both marine sciences in Canada and participation in international programs and committees. The mission of the SRB will be to review scientific priorities, to help initiate, plan and/or promote research programs, to develop infrastructure, to promote education and training, to foster improved funding, to provide input for policy decisions, and to promote the marketing of the "products" of marine scientific research. Implementation of this recommendation is directed towards senior policymakers in all sectors affecting marine sciences research in Canada.
Recommendation 2: Fostering Partnerships
International partnerships and participation in major international programs are cost-effective and essential to the success of Canadian marine science. However, no official mechanism exists for Canadian academic or industry representation in such programs. Thus, it is recommended that NSERC should assume an effective role as the representative of the Canadian science community and should lead an interdepartmental effort to establish mechanisms for Canadian participation in international research programs.
Furthermore, the mutual benefit of successful industrial partnerships is clear, and they should be strongly encouraged. Considering the nature of the commercial marine sector (dominated by many very small companies rather than large corporations), we recommend that NSERC allow a broader definition of "industrial contributions" to research partnerships, and recognize that some essential disciplines do not have a commercial component.
Finally, great benefits have been realized from well-planned and structured collaboration between university researchers and government agencies. The NSERC-government subventions were a successful mechanism for fostering collaborative research at a relatively small cost and it is recommended that they should be reinstated, along with exchange programs that would allow researchers to move between government institutions and universities.
Recommendation 3: Strengthening Direct and Remote Access to the Ocean
Canadian marine scientists study all aspects of the marine environment, from geological processes to biotechnological applications. They need access to ships, buoys and satellites for work in the open ocean and coastal waters, advanced computational systems for state-of-the-art modelling, and land-based laboratories/stations that are necessary to study marine processes. Many of the existing facilities are now being lost due to government cuts; the ripple effect into the university community has been severe. To reverse this trend, it is recommended that a fully operational National Marine Infrastructure System (NMIS) be established and mechanisms developed to expand infrastructure capability for Canadian marine science. The NMIS will have the following responsibilities and structure: The NMIS will provide infrastructure in the form of equipment, facilities, and capability of significant size and/or value, which is not routinely available to individual institutions and will coordinate the maintenance and operation of the infrastructure. The infrastructure will be available on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis to both university and government. The management of NMIS will be the responsibility of the National Marine Science Council.
Recommendation 4: Promoting Marine Science to NSERC
Because marine scientists are divided amongst a number of Grant Selection Committees (GSCs) within NSERC and because GSC Group Chairs are not guaranteed to be informed on marine (or aquatic) issues, it is recommended that a Marine Programs Officer be appointed. This person will have a mandate to advise NSERC on marine science issues. Similar to the university-government exchange program, we believe this would promote better communication and understanding between the community and our funding agency.
This document is based on discussions at an NSERC sponsored workshop entitled "Future Directions for Marine Sciences in Canada" which was held at Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, on 22-24 May 1997. Eighty-six delegates attended. They were primarily from the university sector but included representatives from several government departments and agencies. Five foreign marine scientists were also invited to participate. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the academic community in Canada an opportunity to express their views about the state of marine sciences research in all sectors (university, government, industry). This report is addressed to all those who have an interest in the development of policy and practice of marine science research in Canada (federal and provincial governments, industry, universities). The original report was written by all members of the NSERC Strategic Advisory Committee (see Appendix I). A substantially revised version of the document was prepared in early November 1998 by a subset of the Committee, as appears on the cover page.
For the purposes of this document, marine sciences includes the fields of oceanography, ocean engineering, estuarine science and studies of large inland waters. "Marine sciences" is adopted as the descriptive, inclusive term to be used by all of our community, and is considered to embrace the zone from the shore (or coastline) outward. The marine constituency is broad, and it includes the public, industry and government, as well as the university community. Marine scientists believe that because their field is so broad and their activities so dispersed, senior levels of government have been unable to exploit or manage marine research effectively.
The Canadian Context
Canada borders on three oceans and has the world's largest continental shelf area, with the offshore representing more than 30% of its territory. A sizeable fraction of the economy of the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories derives from marine biological and geological resources, and Canada's dependence on these resources, and others not yet tapped, continues to grow. For example, the economic activity generated annually off Canada's west coast alone exceeds $3 billion and has the potential to double within a decade (Science Council of BC, 1993). Those industries and endeavours that benefit tangibly from university-based research and training include:
The oceans have clearly played a critical role in the development of Canada, but will they continue to play an important role in the future? This is a difficult question to answer, for the Canadian marine science community is facing some acute problems. In most developed nations doing significant ocean science, the majority of such research is done at academic institutions. In Canada, however, the majority of marine science is conducted in government laboratories, often under the direction of several different departments. Our government laboratories have a number of very talented marine scientists, but unlike their academic counterparts, the government scientists work for departments with specific and evolving objectives. Recently there has been a growing trend for the work in down-sized government laboratories to become focused on strategic initiatives or short-term cost recovery. Given the current distribution of marine researchers in Canada, this process is creating a serious imbalance with only a small number of relatively poorly funded and equipped university researchers with the mandate to take the long-term outlook necessary to address basic scientific questions, global research issues and sustainable resource development.
This problem has been exacerbated by at least three factors. First, most of our research vessels and major ocean-related facilities are under the responsibility of government laboratories. Almost all of the ships available to the Canadian oceanographic community were, until recently, run by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) which, through a steady stream of budget cuts, has retired a number of vessels, leaving few available to the university marine research community. The remaining fleet is now operated by the Canadian Coast Guard. Second, existing land-based laboratories that are operated by universities are relatively modest in size and have limited capabilities. Canada has no equivalents to the Woods Hole and Scripps Oceanographic Institutions in the USA. Canadian land-based facilities are not capable, under the present funding situation, of replacing DFO-funded operations. Third, Canada's theoretical marine scientists are without any formal means of acquiring access to advanced supercomputer systems, thus limiting the contributions they can make to pressing environmental problems.
The State of Canadian Marine Sciences
The marine scientific community in Canada enjoys strong international recognition, which has been built over several decades by the efforts of both university and government researchers. Support for this assertion has recently been compiled by Peters et al. (1996, Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 53: 670-680) in terms of number of scientific papers produced and citations, as shown below.
Table 1. Comparison of the 10 most productive nations in terms of their number of publications in all sciences and in the aquatic (including marine) sciences for the period 1982-1992.
| Country | All Sciences | Country | Aquatic Sciences |
| USA | 3,502,286 | USA | 26,741 |
| UK | 813,698 | Canada | 7,254 |
| Germany | 548,333 | UK | 7,093 |
| Japan | 535,935 | Japan | 5,679 |
| USSR | 464,253 | Australia | 3,444 |
| France | 424,995 | USSR | 3,114 |
| Canada | 397,949 | France | 3,069 |
| Italy | 212,203 | Germany | 2,850 |
| Australia | 188,851 | Netherlands | 1,690 |
| India | 180,196 | Norway | 1,426 |
Table 2. A comparison of the 10 most cited nations in terms of their publications in all sciences and in the aquatic (including marine) sciences for the period 1982-1992.
| Country | All Sciences | Country | Aquatic Sciences |
| USA | 24,318,667 | USA | 180,872 |
| UK | 4,708,302 | Canada | 53,186 |
| Germany | 3,013,615 | UK | 38,079 |
| Japan | 2,681,535 | Australia | 20,870 |
| France | 2,189,726 | Germany | 15,771 |
| Canada | 2,154,827 | Japan | 15,692 |
| Netherlands | 1,028,042 | France | 12,097 |
| Australia | 1,015,396 | Netherlands | 10,352 |
| Sweden | 1,011,604 | Norway | 8,805 |
| Switzerland | 958,034 | Sweden | 8,074 |
In terms of the total number of publications in the aquatic sciences (including marine), Canada ranks second in the world, which is far better than the overall seventh ranking for all areas of science. The result is identical when numbers of citations are considered. A large number of marine scientists are classified as earth scientists and not aquatic scientists in the Peters et al. analysis. Similar data for the earth sciences shows that this group ranks 4th and 3rd in the world on the basis of number of publications and citations, respectively, which are also impressive showings. Another measure of international stature in the marine field is the number of SCOR working groups (WGs) on which Canadians serve. At least one Canadian has served on 8 of the past 12 WGs (i.e 75%), which is a strong measure of the esteem for Canadian science held by the ocean research community.
Our researchers are well known for their expertise in multidisciplinary approaches to marine science. While our marine science community is small in size, this has also allowed it to become more dynamic and flexible. These strengths have allowed Canadian marine scientists to achieve a reputation for their initiative and high quality collaborations at a global scale.
Current Areas of Canadian Research Activity
As our understanding of the earth system evolves, it is becoming increasingly clear that, of the earth's subsystems, the oceans play the pivotal role in the evolution of the biosphere, atmosphere, and much of the geosphere. Despite this, study of marine systems has lagged behind many other components of the earth systems science because of the special challenges presented by the oceans (Barnes et al., 1996).
The remote and opaque nature of the oceans has made marine science a field that is dependent on technology. In many instances advances in technology have led and even driven advances in understanding. Marine-related problems typically involve vast (global) spatial scales and temporal scales ranging from fractions of seconds (e.g. turbulence and gas exchange) to millions of years (e.g. tectonic changes). Marine studies thus often require expensive research platforms and facilities, need global access, and require a long-term commitment. These factors, coupled with the growing international awareness of the need for an interdisciplinary approach to marine-science problems, have led to the evolution of a number of large-scale, often international, programs aimed at exploring the ocean environment and the adjoining coastal areas. Unfortunately, marine scientists in Canada have been hampered by the lack of a formal mechanism for becoming partners in major international collaborative projects such as WOCE, JGOFS, LOICZ, ODP, InterRidge, GLOBEC, etc.
Many of these large-scale, interdisciplinary programs are forming the foundation of our future research efforts. Such programs can bring together specialists from often disparate disciplines and forge new alliances and lines of communications that would have been unimaginable ten years ago. This process of cross-fertilization can, with little extra effort, give rise to the critically needed system integration and lay the groundwork for the training of future scientists with this way of thinking. The output and impact of these large-scale, interdisciplinary programs may very well be greater than the sum of their individual contributions.
Canada should aspire to a balance between research activities in large-scale international programs and those of national and regional interest. Individuals and small teams of researchers have made and continue to make important contributions to the knowledge and wealth of marine sciences.
Canadian researchers are well known for their active participation in multidisciplinary marine science programs. These historical strengths have allowed Canadian marine scientists to achieve an excellent reputation, both as individuals and for their initiative and high quality collaborations at a global scale. As laudable as our international reputation might be, this position has been increasingly difficult to sustain as a result of fiscal shortfalls, a breakdown of the established allocation of infrastructure responsibilities between government labs and the universities, and the lack of a structure for the community to analyze these major problems and articulate a strategic plan for their solution. Specifically, who speaks for Canadian marine science at the national and international level? Where are the resources needed to fund representation by our most effective researchers both within Canada and abroad? At present, different parts of the Canadian marine science community are represented by a range of organizations (CMOS, CGC, CFBS, SCOR, etc.; see Appendix II). These groups have not been effective historically and are too specialized to represent the entire community.
A consensus of the Marine Sciences Workshop was that existing and historical representation for marine research in Canada has not been effective and is inappropriate to address the new global challenges. Many factors have contributed to this fragmentation and consequent dispersion and dissipation of effort. To effect a balanced, multi-sectoral national advocacy, we propose the establishment of a unified national voice to communicate, influence, create a political presence and delineate priorities both at the national and international levels:
Recommendation 1: Maintaining the Profile
In order to meet the rapidly changing national and global needs and challenges in Canadian marine science, a new and fully representative structure be established to inform the public about marine issues and to articulate the concerns, needs, and future directions of the marine science community. This new structure will comprise two bodies: a National Marine Science Council (NMSC) and a Scientific Research Board (SRB).
Establishment and Description of the Proposed National Marine Science Council (NMSC)
The NMSC must be highly visible, credible, and proactive. It must go beyond the simple establishment of a consortium of existing societies and agencies. Therefore, recognizing the need for effectiveness, the NMSC must consist of a group of carefully selected, committed representatives of the community at large. This would include senior members from NSERC, the university sector, industry, federal and provincial governments (DFO, Environment Canada, NRCan, DND,...) and the Scientific Societies (CMOS, CGC, CGU, SCOR...). The Council should be chaired by a representative of the academic sector. The Council must be funded and staffed at an appropriate level in order to ensure its effectiveness and representative nature. It would be established jointly by NSERC, universities, government departments and industry.
The NMSC will have the following responsibilities and obligations:
1 - To increase the public and political awareness of marine science and scientific research in Canada and to provide the public and the policy makers with reliable information about marine issues. To represent the marine sciences community in public debate.
2 - To develop a strategic plan, an industrial strategy, a management plan, and human resource strategy to increase the effectiveness of marine sciences in Canada.
3 - To act as a focal point and advocacy body for Canadian marine science at a high political level. Having senior representatives of the key federal ministries, industry, universities, NSERC, and societies on the Council is a fundamental requirement to conduct this function;
4 - To effect fair and balanced representation of Canadian scientists and engineers and our scientific policies on international committees and councils.
Establishment and Description of the Proposed Scientific Research Board (SRB)
The National Marine Science Council should establish, either as a committee reporting to the Council itself or as a separately appointed or elected body, a Scientific Research Board (SRB) whose mandate will be to review scientific priorities, to help initiate, plan and/or promote research programs, to develop infrastructure, to promote education and training, to foster improved funding, to provide input for policy decisions, and to promote the marketing of the "products" of marine scientific research.
There are strengths in Canadian marine science, and many partnerships have been successful. Better integration, however, will enhance partnerships between individual scientists, universities, and industry, thus augmenting the Canadian contribution to the public good and the Canadian presence and activity in international science.
At present, the Canadian marine science community perceives problems with the coordination, communication, and division of responsibilities and obligations within and among programs and agencies. Another shortcoming, as discussed above, is the lack of formal mechanism for participation in major international projects. Concerns also exist about uncertainty in the mandate, capabilities, and funding of the federal government marine science effort. The community expressed a desire for reinstatement of NSERC/government agency research agreements (e.g. subventions) and a commitment of federal departments to partnership programs. Mechanisms to promote linkage with other sciences and technologies (e.g. medical) need to be encouraged.
During the last decade, human and financial resources allocated to marine sciences in Canada have been reduced to a level where neither Universities nor Government Agencies can fulfill their respective mandates. The mandate of Universities includes training of the next generation of marine scientists and long-term and curiosity-driven research. The Government mandate includes stewardship of the marine environmental research for the public good. So far, the reaction to resource shortage has often been to abandon parts of these mandates.
Within marine science, the expertise and mandate of Universities and Government Agencies are and have always been complementary. For example, government laboratories may have excellent facilities, but a shrinking workforce, whereas, universities have scientists with limited access to equipment. This complementarity has led to numerous collaborations at the individual, regional and, more recently, national and international levels. The individual and regional collaborations are often ad hoc and conducted without full institutional knowledge and approval. National initiatives are sometimes seen as poorly integrated into institutional mandates. Canadian participation in international programs often meets with structural impediments that result from poorly defined jurisdictions of scientific organizations in Canada.
Collaborations between Universities and the Private Sector are numerous in the marine sciences. However, in some research areas, the Private Sector often cannot provide direct financial support. Many potential contributions of "in-kind" support are presently not eligible for full consideration in NSERC University-Industry programs.
Given this background, the following set of nested recommendations and strategies for their implementation are offered:
Recommendation 2: Fostering Partnerships
International partnerships and participation in major international programs are cost-effective and essential to the success of Canadian marine science. However, no official mechanism exists for Canadian academic or industry representation in such programs. Thus, it is recommended that NSERC should assume an effective role as the representative of the Canadian science community and should lead an interdepartmental effort to establish mechanisms for Canadian participation in international research programs.
Furthermore, the mutual benefit of successful industrial partnerships is clear, and they should be strongly encouraged. Considering the nature of the commercial marine sector (dominated by many very small companies rather than large corporations), we recommend that NSERC allow a broader definition of "industrial contributions" to research partnerships, and recognize that some essential disciplines do not have a commercial component.
Finally, great benefits have been realized from well-planned and structured collaboration between university researchers and government agencies. The NSERC-government subventions were a successful mechanism for fostering collaborative research at a relatively small cost and it is recommended that they should be reinstated, along with exchange programs that would allow researchers to move between government institutions and universities.
Putting the Recommendations Into Practice:
One approach to transform the present lose-lose condition into a win-win situation is through University-Government partnerships, with openings to the Private and International Sectors. Because of the complementarity in expertise and resources of University and Government marine scientists, such partnerships are a cost-effective means of fulfilling the mandates of the two partners. We suggest the following strategies to strengthen partnerships:-
1 - Partnerships must be formally recognized by Universities and Government Agencies as an acceptable mode of operation in marine sciences.
2 - Partnerships at individual, regional, national and international levels must be developed through a joint process in which all partners are involved from the beginning.
3 - Opportunities to initiate and develop University-Government partnerships in the marine sciences should be open to any interested party.
4 - Government-NSERC subvention programs in marine sciences should be re-instated as one means to develop partnerships, especially at the small scale.
5 - Universities and Government Agencies should implement bi-lateral programs for the exchange of resident scientists.
6 - NMSC and/or SRB should be charged with the responsibility to arrange university representation for marine scientific programs at the international level, to ensure the full participation of top researchers.
7 - NSERC should hold or share signing authority for Canadian Marine Science at the international level, so as to eliminate the structural impediments often encountered by international research collaborations.
8 - Partnerships with the Private Sector should be encouraged when the mutual benefits are obvious.
9 - The definition of eligible Private Sector contributions should be broadened in the University-Industry NSERC program.
10 - Training of students should take advantage of partnerships.
The marine environment is both unique and demanding. In order to maintain Canada's international status in marine science, Canadian scientists require access to specialized high technology infrastructure. The requirements reflect the diverse needs of many disciplines, for example:
A feature common to all these examples is that they are expensive, have high maintenance costs and are becoming increasingly difficult, impossible in some cases, for individuals to acquire, maintain and operate on an individual basis. In recent decades, Canada has invested a considerable sum in marine science infrastructure, which has yielded a large body of internationally recognized, high quality research. However, this infrastructure is aging, dispersed and increasingly difficult to maintain and operate. In many cases, the shift to more expensive, but vastly more efficient, modern technologies will replace labor-intensive equipment that is difficult to maintain.
The availability of research vessels has decreased dramatically. Furthermore, no clear commitment for the replacement of Canada's fleet of ocean-going vessels exists. Short-term solutions presently being contemplated may not serve the needs of the broader marine community. Longer term planning for shiptime allocation is absent. Other current problems related to infrastructure include: diminishing personnel to operate and maintain facilities; restricted ability to collaborate because of national policies; a diminishing polar research capability; and degrading land-based marine science facilities.
In the short to medium-term, infrastructure access would be facilitated and made more effective by greater involvement of the broader marine science community in dealing with fleet renewal; improvement in scheduling arrangements with existing managers of ship time; and by undertaking an inventory of existing equipment, facilities, capabilities and needs.
For the long term health of marine sciences research in Canada, infrastructure commensurate with the needs of the community must be re-established. To respond to this urgent need, we make the following recommendation:
Recommendation 3: Strengthening Direct and Remote Access to the Ocean
It is recommended that a fully operational National Marine Infrastructure System (NMIS) be established and mechanisms developed to expand infrastructure capability for Canadian marine science.
Responsibilities and Structure of the NMIS:
1 - The NMIS will provide infrastructure in the form of equipment, facilities, and capability of significant size and/or value, which is not routinely available to individual institutions.
2 - The NMIS will provide infrastructure that is equally accessible to university and government. Industry should be invited to participate in this plan.
3 - The NMIS will develop technical and other expertise necessary for maintenance and operation of the infrastructure.
4. - The NMIS will grant access to its facilities on a competitive basis following peer review.
5. - Management of NMIS will be the responsibility of the National Marine Science Council.
The aims of the university-based marine science community are the production of high-quality, cutting-edge, internationally-relevant research and the training, as part of that research, of high-calibre students with the skills and knowledge needed by industry, government and academia. Accomplishing these goals requires resources.
There are many strengths in the current Canadian system. First, the flexibility, stability and diversity of the current NSERC funding system. Significant research results have arisen from all our various modes of scientific and engineering enquiry, i.e. small, large, individual, collaborative, regional, and international. Some types of research are better suited to one specific mode (e.g. global problems usually require global efforts), and the current variety of NSERC grant programs has allowed for the funding of all these types of research. The government should look at the current situation as a very cost-effective strategy toward financing science and engineering. Another strength is the security of the salary system. Hard-money salaries lead to security and consequent productivity and cost-effectiveness. Canadian researchers have more time for research, and this contributes to the better relative placement of Canadian marine scientists in comparisons of worldwide productivity (i.e. see Tables 1 and 2). Another positive factor is that much of Canadian marine science expertise is marketable. The world is faced with numerous marine environmental problems, ranging from crises in fisheries management to pollution to global change. Marine scientists are largely involved in research that is directly applicable to these problems.
There are a number of problems that need to be addressed. At this time, the level of support does not reflect the magnitude of the tasks at hand (e.g. NSERC $1 million p.a. for vessel support) given the size of Canada and the magnitude of global research issues. Resources available to marine researchers in/from government, universities and the private sector are dispersed, unpredictable and no national inventory exists. Canadian industry generally has not supplied resources in support of marine science, although there are some exceptions. There are also too many structural impediments to Government-University and Private Sector-University cooperation (e.g. restricted definitions of contributions and objectives). Similarly, mechanisms by which money is transferred between NSERC, clients, governments and industry are too complex and discourage collaboration. Onerous requirements exist for industrial leveraging of new monies (e.g. CFI). Many marine science areas do not have a well-defined industrial user community. In regard to NSERC, it is felt that because marine scientists are divided amongst a number of Grant Selection Committees (GSCs), GSC Group Chairs are often not informed on marine issues.
The declining base of stable research funding threatens the continuity of staff. Research staff are often paid from grants. They have essential skills and are critical for the operation of research instrumentation. In times of declining budgets, expensive staff are often the first to lose their jobs, to the detriment of the science.
Given this background, the following recommendation is made:
Recommendation 4: Promoting Marine Science to NSERC
Because marine scientists are divided amongst a number of Grant Selection Committees (GSCs) within NSERC and because GSC Group Chairs are not guaranteed to be informed on marine (or aquatic) issues, it is recommended that a Marine Programs Officer be appointed. This person will have a mandate to advise NSERC on marine science issues. Similar to the university-government exchange program, we believe this would promote better communication and understanding between the community and our funding agency.
Putting the Recommendation Into Practice:
This position of Marine Programs Officer will be advisory and not linked directly to grant selection. It should rotate amongst GSCs and be filled by a senior marine academic scientist for a period of 2-3 years.
This report describes the current crisis in marine sciences research affecting the Canadian academic community. Successful research work relies on effective allocation of resources, the availability of infrastructure and strong partnerships, both within Canada and abroad. All of these need strengthening. It is hoped that the issues addressed in this brief report will be considered by senior policymakers in all sectors affecting marine sciences research in Canada. There is an immediate need for central government agencies, universities and industry to arrange appropriate dialogue for the implementation of the recommendations. We believe that the important first step is the development of an effective and balanced partnership between the different sectors that represent marine sciences in Canada. Without this first step, the other recommendations and strategies are likely to have little impact.
REFERENCES
Barnes, C.R. et al.(1996). Geoscience Canada, 22, p. 25-28.
APPENDIX II - List of acronyms
| CFBS | Canadian Fisheries Biology Society |
| CFI | Canadian Foundation for Innovation |
| CGC | Canadian Geoscience Society |
| CGU | Canadian Geophysical Union |
| CMOS | Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographical Society |
| DFO | Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada |
| DND | Department of National Defence |
| EEZ | Exclusive Economic Zone |
| GLOBEC | Global Ocean Ecosystem Study |
| GSC | Grants Selection Committee |
| InterRidge | International Mid-ocean Ridge studies |
| JGOFS | Joint Global Ocean Flux Study |
| LOICZ | Land Ocean Interaction in the Coastal Zone Program |
| NMIS | National Marine Infrastructure System |
| NMSC | National Marine Science Council |
| NRCan | Natural Resources Canada |
| NSERC | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council |
| NSF | National Science Foundation (USA) |
| ODP | Ocean Drilling Program |
| SCOR | Scientific Committee for Ocean Research |
| SRB | Scientific Research Board |
| WOCE | World Ocean Circulation Experiment |