Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-69)
MR MAF
SMITH, MR
MICHAEL HAY
AND DR
JOE JARRAH
28 JUNE 2006
Q60 Dr Turner: How would you suggest
we improve this?
Mr Hay: This is another one of
our concerns. As I said before, the fact that there is this huge
knowledge gap, as you call it, regarding the UK waters. There
are huge gaps in the data that we would like to have. At the same
time, however, it costs money to gather that data. Any decision
to create something like a Marine Management Organisation or a
Marine Spatial Plan based on the data that is available, and the
data gaps, will involve funding. Obviously, at present it is offshore
renewables that is gathering more information on the offshore
environment than any other industry or any other body around the
UK. It is putting more money into gathering this information than
any other body or any other industry. For that reason, if you
are looking at developing an MMO it would have to have the backing
of Treasury; it would have to have a full, upfront support purse
within its hands, in order to be able to facilitate the gathering
of information and the highlighting of information gaps. That
is a concern of ours at the moment—absolutely. However,
that said, the fact that there are these data gaps is not stopping
development at present. We can still go out and build offshore
developments, but it is seriously hindering them.
Q61 Dr Turner: But it adds up to
two years to your development timeline, adds very significantly
to costs; you are borderline in investment terms anyway. So it
can actually make or break whether a large wind farm, for instance,
happens.
Mr Hay: Absolutely. One concern,
though, is that we do not want to have to wait until all these
information gaps are filled before we go out and build. If the
Marine Bill comes out and says, "We will be creating this
Marine Spatial Plan but we need to wait until all the information
and data have been gathered", we will not hit the renewables
targets. The renewables industry will go elsewhere—particularly
wave and tidal. We need to ensure that development can still take
place and strategic environment assessments can still take place,
on the basis of information that is available now and, if there
is to be a Marine Spatial Plan to go on top of this or to co-ordinate
this in some way, that it does not hinder or halt that sort of
development.
Q62 Dr Turner: Do you see this as
a potential major stumbling block for the proper development and
exploitation of our enormous natural reserves?
Mr Hay: The lack of data?
Q63 Dr Turner: The lack of data and
the urgent need for marine surveys to fill these gaps.
Mr Smith: Perhaps I could add
something on that. The Scottish Executive is currently conducting
a strategic environmental assessment of waters in Scotland, to
look at marine energy and to try to highlight those issues. That
has been very much welcomed by the industry because, prior to
an up-scaling of development interest, they are trying to gather
data, or at least highlight where there are gaps in the knowledge
by bringing together all the different datasets that exist. That
co-ordination is important, therefore. I would emphasise what
Michael has said. If projects are coming forward in the meantime,
they need to be able to continue. We do not want to be told, "Sorry,
there are gaps and so you now have to wait until studies upon
studies have been done". In some senses we need to be pragmatic
and accept that there will be imperfect data, and sometimes there
will be schemes coming forward in a particular location which
will help give the detail that allows proper decisions to be made.
However, the best way to overcome that and not create additional
risk is, as Michael has said, by resourcing that process so that
it can happen quickly, and that the information you get will be
sufficiently detailed to be useful. It needs to be of sufficient
depth and quality that developers do not need to go off and do
it all again themselves in a few years' time.
Q64 Dr Turner: What specific proposals
do both your associations have in mind to deal with problems like,
for instance, the duplication of effort between different sites—where
there are common problems but where the work at the moment tends
to be duplicated—and the lack of a system of, for instance,
type approval for consenting purposes of specific pieces of equipment?
Those are examples which I can see could well be involved. Do
you have any further proposals? What do you think is a reasonable
timeframe that we ought to aim for, for a proper, informed consent
process—for a reasonably major development?
Mr Smith: In terms of dealing
with the lack of data, one issue relates to some work which is
already going on, which needs to continue and should be encouraged.
For example, on Orkney is the European Marine Energy Centre, funded
by the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and other bodies.
It acts as a test site, but it is also aimed at looking at standards
and certification. There is much work analysis that can be done
there. As prototypes come forward for testing, we could be learning
more about how the different types of devices work. It applies
obviously to wave and tidal; in offshore wind there is much greater
knowledge. Resourcing of those standards and certification will
therefore be important, so that, for example, we develop industry
standards on installation of sites; industry standards on management
and maintenance of sites; standards on data collection and monitoring.
Those things are important. Individual developers cannot do that
by themselves, because then you will get individual ways of working.
There needs to be co-ordination there. Trade bodies can do that;
but government, by funding some of that or helping to co-fund
that, can help. In terms of the wider data-gathering to create
SEAs or more clarity of information, that does come down to resourcing
and identifying the appropriate bodies to conduct it. The DTI
has done some of that itself, obviously, with its own strategic
environmental assessments.
Mr Hay: Within the DTI there is
also the Research Advisory Group, which co-ordinates a number
of programmes around offshore wind and, more recently, wave and
tidal energy. It is intended to co-ordinate and fill the information
gaps that exist at present, and co-ordinate the dissemination
of that information within the industry and therefore also to
the consenting departments themselves. It is quite slow-moving,
though.
Q65 Dr Turner: You were also worried
that there could be a conflict between conservation interests
and the sustainable development of renewable energy. How do you
see that tension being resolved?
Dr Jarrah: Perhaps I may answer
that question partly by going back to the earlier discussion on
data. I think that we need to recognise that there are lots of
sources of data that at the moment are, if you like, grey literature.
The offshore industry generates a significant amount of data,
due to site-specific surveys; so does the oil and gas industry.
The nature conservation agencies themselves generate data while
they are doing their research on justifying designations for certain
marine sites. I suspect that an MMO, if there were to be one,
would have a significant and very useful role, to co-ordinate
and make available that greater body of grey data, which is much
greater than the sum of its parts. I suspect that, as we understand
more about the marine environment—both the surface in terms
of things like seabirds, and the seabed in terms of critical habitats
such as biogenic reefs—we will have a better understanding
of the spatial extent of sensitivities and be more easily able
to resolve potential spatial conflicts. So there does not need
to be a conflict in terms of sustainable development issues with
nature conservation and the offshore industry—either the
oil and gas industry or the renewables industry. What there does
need to be is enough data that the priority areas can be correctly
assigned for each to use.
Q66 Dr Turner: Would you agree that
it is difficult to do what you have just described without taking
into account the activities of fisher folk, who are responsible
for most of the marine damage that actually happens? There could
even be a case for saying that fish stocks and the marine environment
could be enhanced by the deployment of renewable energy, because
it would create no-go areas for fishing vessels, in which you
would get breeding, and so on. Have you thought about that?
Dr Jarrah: In short, yes. I think
that those points are cogent. There are potential benefits to
be had from structures in the sea. I think that has been well
demonstrated. The fishing industry is of its nature an extractive
industry. It does have an environmental impact of its own. It
has environmental impacts on the receptors that it does not target
as well. Going back to comments made earlier about a coherent
plan for the marine environment that covers all legitimate uses,
I think that it would be very sensible to make sure that fishing
is integral in that, with other industries.
Q67 Dr Turner: You have commented
about the need for more joined-up thinking across government departments
in this area, which is something which we look for everywhere—and
we still look. Does the consultation paper give you any confidence
that there is likely to be more such joined-up thinking in the
future?
Mr Smith: If you look at experience
to date on proposals which have come forward, both onshore and
offshore on renewables, there is a lack of co-ordination, and
developers do struggle with having to deal with different agencies
who have different roles, competing priorities, which can sometimes
be at loggerheads. We know of examples where you have statutory
consultees asking for things which do not match, and the developer
having to be able to prove one thing to one agency and the opposite
to another. The aspiration in the Marine Bill to ensure co-ordination
and, if you will, conflict resolution amongst that, is very welcome
and that would be a big help—particularly where we are dealing
with an area where there is and will be a lack of data. We therefore
need to proceed pragmatically but also be able to move quickly.
Q68 Dr Turner: As a logical consequence,
do you think that rationalisation of different agencies into one
body would be a helpful start?
Mr Hay: In our recommendation
on consenting that is exactly what we see. We see a duplication
of the consenting process. At present, as an offshore developer
you have to go offshore and gain several consents: a section 36
electricity consent, CPA consent, and various other consents,
all the way in to the shore, based on the various aspects of your
development. We would like—at the end of your electricity
wire—for there to be only one consent for development. We
would like that to be the electricity consent, section 36, both
in Scotland and the DTI, and not to replicate, as we have to do
at the moment as an industry, going continually between Defra
and the DTI on what is essentially the same proposal.
Q69 Joan Walley: I am very conscious
that the division bell has rung before we had hoped to finish.
We did have questions which Mr Vaizey and Mark Pritchard wanted
to ask. What I would suggest is that the clerk speaks to you,
and perhaps we could have some more clarification from you on
the Marine Management Organisation and funding. Perhaps you would
be kind enough to do that, because we need to finish this session
now. Thank you very much indeed for coming.
The Committee suspended from 3.19 pm to 3.38
pm for a division in the House.
|
