Examination of Witnesses (Questions 368
- 379)
WEDNESDAY 4 JULY 2007
DR SHARON
THOMPSON, DR
MALCOLM VINCENT,
PROFESSOR IAN
BOYD AND
DR TOM
TEW
Q368 Chairman: Good morning and I
first of all apologise to our witnesses for a slightly late start
this morning; we have been somewhat flexed by the changes in the
Government's structure and we needed to have a discussion about
that. This is not quite the last of our oral evidence sessions
on investigating the oceans because we have the Minister and NERC
to come but it has been a fascinating subject. We welcome four
very distinguished scientists to start with on the first panel:
Dr Sharon Thompson, the Senior Marine Policy Officer for the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, Dr Malcolm Vincent, the Director
of Science at the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Professor
Ian Boyd from the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of
St Andrews and last but by no means least Dr Tom Tew, the Chief
Scientist for Natural England. Dr Tew, I ask that you chair your
panel and you can deflect questions if you cannot answer them.
Dr Tew: I can certainly try.
Q369 Chairman: I will begin with
you, Dr Tew, and ask you, why do we know so little about the biodiversity
of the oceans?
Dr Tew: Clearly, there are significant
challenges to do with the difficulty of getting information but
I do not think that those challenges are insurmountable and, for
me, the issue is largely around the way research has been structured,
funded and integrated, or rather the lack of structure, function
and integration. As end users, we are finding all kinds of instances
where we simply have a paucity of data to do what we need to do
to protect the environment.
Q370 Chairman: Whose fault is it
then?
Professor Boyd: May I answer as
a practising scientist and one who has to deliver the data. I
think that there are some very specific challenges within the
marine environment. It takes a lot to get to first base there,
a bit like working in the polar regions. A large investment is
required; it is a very complex dynamic system. As a result of
that, our knowledge base in the marine environment is much, much
poorer than it is for the terrestrial environment.
Q371 Chairman: Where are the huge
gaps?
Professor Boyd: I think that some
of the biggest gaps are just, what is there and where is it? We
only know that for very specific coastal regions. The deep oceans
are largely a mystery to us, for example, and the microbiology
in the oceans is something that is only just being unfolded.
Q372 Chairman: During this inquiry,
witness after witness has told us that the deep oceans are absolutely
crucial to the future of the earth and the planet.
Professor Boyd: It is a matter
of having the logistics to get to the deep oceans. They are a
very, very difficult and complex part of the planet to reach.
Q373 Chairman: So, it is logistics
rather than a failure of science to appreciate the significance
of the deep oceans?
Professor Boyd: I would say so.
I think science has always said that the deep oceans are very
important; certainly in the recent past it has said that the deep
oceans are very important. It is also key skills as well. If we
are not practising in those areas, we are not bringing on key
skills as well. That is fundamental too.
Dr Tew: However, those logistics
do not apply to the inshore and near shore and, even there, we
have a great paucity of information on where biodiversity is,
what value it represents to us as the human species and what the
effects of human impacts are. Data are missing on all of these
issues. I think the driver is that the marine environment is largely
hidden from public view. The glories of the marine environment
and the plight of the marine environment are largely hidden and,
for instance, we are sleepwalking towards a situation where we
might not even get a Marine Bill and, if we get a Marine Bill,
we might not have proper duties and proper mechanisms. I believe
that the drivers there are lack of public engagement.
Q374 Chairman: Dr Vincent, why does
it matter? Why is it important?
Dr Vincent: At the moment, in
terms of biological data, we have about 10 to 15% of what we actually
require to take any practical action to regulate human activities
in relation to the UK continental shelf waters. So, while we have
fairly good data in relation to the geophysical side, particularly
the substrate, the topography bathymetry, knowledge of the seabed
biology is quite meagre. When we are actually trying to manage
major human impacts such as fishing, such as energy, such as aggregate
extraction, we are actually more able to determine whether these
are likely to have a severe impact or not1[1].
We do not know what is there and we do not know what the effect
of human activity is having on it as a generalisation and that
is why it is important. In answer to your previous question, I
think that there has been a major shortfall in the systematic
survey of even UK continental shelf waters down to, say, 500 metres,
let alone the continental shelf or the deep oceans, and I think
that is a major problem for us in the UK.
Dr Thompson: From our point of
view, we would agree. If we could use a comparison with terrestrial
survey work at least from the point of view of birds, we feel
that for a long period of time the Government have had the advantage
of organisations such as ourselves who have used volunteers to
go out and collect that information for free and that is something
that we want to do; we want to help that process along saying
where we think sites need to be protected, but we are not in the
same situation offshore to be able to do that. It is very expensive
to go offshore and, as a charity, we cannot do that. We think,
agreeing with Dr Vincent, that we need to have systematic surveys
offshore including inshore as well as the deep oceans.
Q375 Chairman: With the huge emphasis
we have seen in climate change certainly over the past five years—since
I have been in Parliament the emphasis has gone up massively—has
that had a positive or negative effect in terms of what is happening
with the seas and the oceans?
Dr Thompson: As far as protecting
it, I think it has been a bit of both. What it has brought up
on the agenda is the fact that climate change impacts are not
only happening on land, they are happening in the marine environment
and that we need to look after our environment and climate change
has certainly brought that to the fore. On the flipside, what
has tended to happen is, with such a direct focus on climate change
and reducing the impacts of that, we have forgotten that we also
need to protect biodiversity as well and remembering that a lot
of this biodiversity and the functions of the marine environment
actually help us mitigate against climate change impacts. So,
it is trying to get that balance between renewable energy, for
example, but not damaging those systems that actually help us
already.
Q376 Dr Turner: Dr Vincent, I have
listened to your comments about the clear lack of knowledge for
our marine ecosystems on the continental shelf and I am particularly
interested in offshore renewable energy and am quite appalled
by the inordinate delays that occur in the consenting process
for offshore development of either offshore wind farms or even
the first commercial trans(?) turbine. It has taken an enormous
amount of time and it has clearly been impeded by the lack of
knowledge for the ecosystems and indeed almost the cynical feeling
that it was a wonderful excuse to get companies to take over research
to fill the gaps in somebody's knowledge. Do you think it is essential
that we actually have a concerted effort to get to grips with
these ecosystems in order that we can rationalise this whole process?
Dr Vincent: I think the instances
which you gave, the renewable energy and the wind turbines, are
instances where innovative technology took the scientific community,
in biodiversity sense, a little by surprise, so there was not
enough lead-in time to prepare to gather the information we needed
to answer the environmental questions that were posed. In relation
to the turbine in Strangford Lough, for example, we really do
not have a great deal to go on in order to evaluate the likely
damage of that turbine, ditto the wind turbines in the inshore
and offshore zone. There is only a certain amount of evidence
available to us to determine whether or not that is going to be
a bad thing. There will inevitably be some circumstances whereby
innovative technology will simply take us by surprise. However,
our lack of basic understanding about what is there, as has been
said before, and about how ecological processes work in the environment
will always need to be resolved. Fishing will continue in some
form and other human activities will continue in some form, so
there is a basic systematic need for knowledge as to what is there
and how it is going to be impacted by different activities.
Q377 Dr Turner: Let us go back to
the Strangford Lough example because it is a good one. It nearly
did not happen because of fear of what turbines would do to the
seals which I am fairly convinced was totally unfounded because
seals are far too smart. It is totally ironic because the local
horse mussel population had been rendered extinct by totally unregulated
fishing and most of the marine damage on our offshore waters has
been done by fishing, not by renewable energy installations which
are by and large a method which is benign and, as to the concern
about seals in Strangford Lough, what is most affecting the seal
population there is climate change because habitats and species
are moving north. Are marine biologists in this sort of context
keeping a proper sense of proportion?
Dr Tew: We have a seal expert
here.
Dr Vincent: I would like to respond
on the horse mussels. I think that the damage was entirely predictable
in Strangford Lough; it would inevitably have had that result
and should have been more strictly controlled.
Professor Boyd: I am not sure
if I should admit to this but I am advising the company that is
putting the turbines into Strangford Lough and Environmental Heritage
Services in Northern Ireland.
Q378 Dr Turner: We can have a talk
afterwards.
Professor Boyd: I think that there
were some misconceptions in what you say about, for example, climate
change and changes in the seal populations. We do not know that.
Seal populations are changing in that area and they are changing
in Northern Britain in general. That may be a natural dynamic
process. When Marine Current Turbines turned up in my office to
ask what the effect was going to be on seals, my honest answer
as a scientist was that I could not say because, as Dr Vincent
said, this is a new technology and we have no previous experience
of it. My advice was that we have to go ahead with this anyway
but let us take a step-by-step approach and let us come to some
sort of conclusion about what the impacts might be and let us
try to mitigate along the way. I think that was a sensible measured
approach to it and that is what is happening.
Q379 Chairman: I did not really follow
that but I am sure that you and Dr Turner can have a chat with
a cup of tea afterwards. All of you have mentioned the issue of
collecting data and making sure that we have good, reliable datasets
and in fact one international census, the Census of Marine Life,
is in an attempt to try to catalogue much of what is happening.
What part does the UK play in that and how effective is it? Can
anyone pick that up?
Professor Boyd: In the next session,
you will have Professor Graham Shimmield talking to you and he
is Chairman of the European Census of Marine Life, so it would
be much better if he answered that question.
1 1 Note from the witness: "if we have
good data". Back
| 
