Supplementary memorandum submitted by
British Geological Society
EVIDENCE SESSION—WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER
2003
NOTES BY
THE WITNESS
Q215. Whilst there is a general `bitty' approach
to marine management, it should be emphasized that this is not
true of all organisations. For instance, the BGS has a statutory
remit to map the land and seafloor around the UK and is not driven
by national/devolved responsibilities.
Q217. We would wish to state that the Irish
Sea Pilot project was not JNCC's own initiative, but that the
study was commissioned by DEFRA in response to the Government's
Review of Marine Nature Conservation (RMNC).
Q218. Please note that the Department of Energy-funded
survey used seismic techniques and sampling, not just echo-sounder.
Q223. Please replace `more in secret' with `which
is restricted'. Also, BGS only holds some of the data.
Q231. As indicated in my answer, BGS would have
provided further evidence on the tangible benefits of a new seabed
survey of the UKCS based on multibeam or swath mapping technology,
but could not do so on the day, because my colleague, Mr Gatliff,
was delayed by fog in Edinburgh. Please find the evidence he would
have provided in the annex to this letter.
Q232. The Irish quote £21 million as the
cost of the survey of their territorial seas. Their survey programme
is being undertaken over seven years, at about £3 million
per year. If a survey were to be undertaken of the UK seas (excluding
the `white ribbon'—see Q233) this would cost about £35
million—again about £3 million annually, but over 10
years. More detailed analysis of the budget required could be
provided if needed.
Q233. The `white ribbon' here taken to represent
all areas from 20m water depth in to the coast, covers an area
of approximately 32,500 km2 (18,000km2 for England, 8,500 km2
for Scotland, 4,000 km2 for Wales and 1,000 km2 for Northern Ireland).
The cost of collecting the data increases shorewards, with tidal
restrictions on working. Barring interpretation, national coverage
would cost about £4m annually (over ten years) for 10-20m
water depth, and perhaps two to three times this for 0-10m water
depth. It is not possible to make more accurate estimates without
trials.
Q241. There are only four habitats under Annex
1 in open sea areas; there are others in inshore tidal areas.
Q254. I should make it clear that the oil industry
is not secretive about environmental data at all, and indeed has
been very co-operative about sharing data in the public domain.
The Atlantic margin is an area where much environmental data about
the marine environment and the nature of the seabed stems from
oil industry data, or oil industry sponsored research, through
AFEN (Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network research consortia)
and WFA (Western Frontiers Association, research consortia looking
at geohazards along the margin).
Q256. See comments to Q259 below.
Q258. See comments to Q259 below.
Q259. The British Geological Survey endorses
the work of DTI, and its agents Geotek, to collect new data and
integrate it with existing data to provide the environmental assessment
of areas for future licensing to the oil industry. We also endorse
the moves to broaden the assessments to cover more than one activity
(eg windfarms).
We would, however, like a bit more time to analyse
the data, in the order of weeks rather than months. In particular,
we suggest that there could be more time for individual specialists
to combine and reflect on the different strands of evidence so
that the resulting environmental assessment is truly an integrated
multi-disciplinary analysis of the environment. We believe this
to be a valid, but minor criticism of a very good procedure—introduced
by DTI in advance of the timescale set by European directives.
We would also endorse the extension of a similar
process to the fishing industry and aggregate extraction, where
there is much more impact on the seabed compared with the oil
and gas industry.
Q263. Please replace `haddock' with `plaice,
whiting and hake'. The stocks of haddock are not as much a source
of concern as those of the latter species.
Annex
Tangible Benefits of a New Seabed Survey
of the UKCS based on multibeam or swath mapping technology
INTRODUCTION
1. Managing our seas without a sound knowledge
of the environment makes it difficult to conserve key areas, maintain
biodiversity and develop our marine resources in an efficient
and sustainable way. Lack of knowledge of the processes operating
in the sea and the nature of the seabed has cost implications
for future sustainable developments. In particular:
— The almost complete demise of the
cod fishing industry has resulted from over fishing and a lack
of basic knowledge.
— The absence of detailed data on the
seabed makes inshore fishing and shell fishing (for example scallops)
a "blind" operation and considerable effort goes into
fishing areas with unsuitable seabed conditions, resulting in
extra time at sea, unnecessary damage to the seabed ecosystems
in areas unsuitable for fishing. It is extremely hard to come
up with sustainable quotas without the seabed data.
— The lack of knowledge of the seabed
in nearshore areas has cost and environmental implications for
the increasing amount and variability of coastal developments,
including wind farms, wave and tide power schemes, aggregate extraction,
maintenance of navigation channels for shipping, coastal erosion,
tourism and preservation of the submarine heritage.
— The location of pipelines and submarine
cables requires detailed studies to assess risk, hazard and environmental
impacts. Currently these are based on detailed studies along proposed
routes, but these detailed studies cannot be put into a regional
context without detailed regional data.
— The assessment of risk of submarine
landslides and other hazards required detailed bathymetric and
seabed sediment data.
— The requirement to define SACs is
based on the need to recognise and map special areas of significance.
At present there is a trend towards defining potential SACS based
on limited known knowledge. Detailed surveys are required for
each SAC, but without the regional coverage it is impossible to
define whether the proposed SACs are the best, relatively unique,
or just something relatively normal.
2. Recent developments in submarine landscape
mapping techniques provide new technology, which is now proved
and with more global widespread use, has now reduced in cost and
improved in quality. This can be clearly illustrated by data from
the Geological Survey of Canada (Figure 1[13])
from the Halifax Harbour area. Analysis of the bathymetry, backscatter
and other features of the data allow detailed interpretation of
the sea bed geology, and resource and environmental pressures
(Figure 2[14]).
EXAMPLES WITH
TANGIBLE BENEFITS
3-1 The Canadian scallop industry
Multibeam mapping, along with analysis of the
backscatter information on Brown Bank, eastern Canada resulted
in a detailed seabed map of the area which was favoured for scallop
fishing (Figure 3[15]).
The improved understanding resulted in a major savings in time,
equipment and fuel and resulted in an increased confidence in
the sustainable quotas available to the fishermen (see Table 1).
This project was undertaken as a collaboration between the Canadian
Geological Survey and the fishing industry, who were seen as key
stakeholders and provided the ships for the surveying and now
use the data to manage their fishing operations.
Table 1
CANADIAN SCALLOP FISHING
| 1998 before multibeam
| 1999 after multibeam |
| Scallop quota | 13,680 kg |
13,680 kg |
| Time on bottom | 162 hours |
43 hours |
| Distance towed | 1176 km |
311 km |
| Hours lost | 15 | 0
|
| Lost gear | $10,000 | 0
|
| Fuel use | 27,697 litres |
17,545 litres |
| Equipment | Heavy | Light
|
| |
|
3-2 Australia's oceans policy
Ecosystem-based management via regional marine planning is
the central policy principle of Australia's Oceans Policy operated
by the National Oceans Office. Maps of geomorphic features within
Australia's EEZ are used in conjunction with biological information
to generate a framework for ocean management. In the south-east
region of Australia, the identification and selection of possible
candidates for marine protected areas is guided to a large degree
by seabed geological mapping as this is one of the few datasets
which can provide extensive coverage.
POSITION IN
THE UK
4. The EU Habitats directive and the implementation of the
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive in 2004, have increased
the awareness of the variability of seabed conditions and the
interaction between physical, chemical and biological processes.
Initial studies have also demonstrated that the quantity and quality
of data is variable, depending on the presence or absence of commercial
activities on or beneath the sea, or the results of a variety
of localised research projects. The most comprehensive data that
provides the basis for habitat characterisation, the sustainable
use of marine resources and an analysis of submarine geohazards
is provided by the British Geological Survey data and 1:250,000
seabed sediments maps (Figure 4[16]).
This forms the basis of the habitat mapping undertaken for the
JNCC in pilot projects such as the Irish Sea study. Figure 5 demonstrates
the similarity between the JNCC regional seas report and the BGS
seabed geology maps.
The seabed sediment maps are based primarily on seabed samples
collected as part of the British Geological Survey mapping programme
undertaken with Department of Energy / Department of Trade and
Industry funding from 1975 to 1982. Although this data formed
the basis of the first comprehensive set of seabed sediments maps
in the World, the data are now old and integration with multibeam
backscatter data greatly improves the resolution.
The original maps were fit-for-purpose when prepared to support
oil and gas exploration. The availability of multibeam techniques
provides the opportunity to generate a new generation of fit-for-purpose
maps, which will form the basis of landscape mapping required
for the sustainable development of a comprehensive range of resources
in the marine environment in the future.
The British Geological Survey has a project to update the current
seabed maps with new data where available. This includes some
multibeam data acquired as part of the SEAs (DTI-funded) work,
and a range of data from other sources, including Government,
industry and academic sources.
COMMENTS ON
DTI STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENTS
5. The British Geological Survey endorses the approach taken
by DTI to collect new data and integrate this with existing data
to provide the environmental assessment of areas proposed for
future licensing to the oil industry. The move towards making
future Strategic Environmental Assessments cover several industries
(eg oil and gas developments, new sites for offshore windfarms)
is also welcomed.
In detail, current practise has resulted in a series of reports
provided by each of the specialists working on the project. These
are presented in an expert assessment workshop. The results from
this workshop are then assessed by the steering group and a report
is made on the likely impact of developments on the environment.
We believe that the initial workshop is not sufficient, and a
second phase of analysis, where seabed consultants may challenge
each other on the meaning of their results, especially how the
results can be tied together to come up with a cross-disciplinary
opinion. This is an important gap as it is the cross-disciplinary
forensic enquiry that will reinforce or challenge the process
leading to a well founded decision on the effects of development.
A PROPOSAL FOR
THE FUTURE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
MARINE RESOURCES
OF THE
UKCS
6. The British Geological Survey is proposing to develop a
national marine survey programme based on multibeam and backscatter
data along the lines of the Canadian survey, which will provide
the key data required for long-term development of the offshore.
Initial responses to the ideas are encouraging and a core group
of partners is discussing a joint submission (including Scottish
Association for Marine Science; Scottish National Heritage; Scottish
Fishermen's Federation). The Scottish fishing industries are those
suffering to the greatest extent at present but the proposal is
valid for the entire UKCS.
By utilising the funds reserved for transitional aid and decommissioning
of the UK fishing fleet, we propose to complete surveying and
interpretation of the UKCS utilising data collected by the redundant
and under-utilised fishing fleet. This will have key benefits
of:
— Maintaining the marine skills of the fishing community.
— Integrating the various stakeholders in the marine
community.
— Providing the key data required for the long-term
future development of the UKCS in a sustainable manner.
Our proposals are based on a programme of consultation with the
science community (planned for January 2004) and a stakeholder
consultation (fishing industry, UKOOA, offshore alternative energy
sector, local, regional and national governments etc) shortly
afterwards. A 10-year programme is estimated to complete the survey
for the entire UKCS designated area at a cost of around £35
million. This is less than the funds made available to support
the fishing fleet. The productive use of these funds will go considerably
to provide the basic data fundamental to the future prosperity
of the UK marine community.
Preparatory work is underway with trial projects studying the
methodology of landscape and habitat mapping (EU-funded project
to begin in 2004, lead by the JNCC). Furthermore, the British
Geological Survey believes that long-term sustainable management
of the marine environment can only be achieved within the context
of European collaboration. BGS are currently co-ordinating a proposal
to the European Commission's ERA-NET scheme (Strengthening the
Foundations of the European Research Area) to promote collaboration
between the maritime geological surveys of Europe. A principal
objective of this proposal is to ensure that national strategies
include programmes of marine landscape mapping that are co-ordinated
and standardised at a European level
January 2004
13
Not printed. Back
14
Not printed. Back
15
Not printed. Back
16
Not printed. Back
| 
