MEMORANDUM 15
Submission from the National Oceanography
Centre, Southampton
1. The National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
(NOCS)[14]
welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence. NOCS has a longstanding
international profile through representation, international collaboration
and hosting of international project offices, and an excellent
track record in winning funding, leading and delivering major
international multi-partner projects. NOCS has also contributed
to the response provided by the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) through RCUK. Additionally we draw to the Committee's attention
our response[15]
to their inquiry "Investigating the Oceans", in January
2007. This contained detailed evidence of our international engagement
and the challenges we face.
SUMMARY
2. The marine environment is fundamental
to earth system processes and to developing solutions to pressing
societal needs. Legislation and Policies to protect and manage
the oceans are increasingly internationally based and the research
to inform them is conducted on a global collaborative basis. Effective
international collaboration is thus essential to deliver the UK's
commitments to the international policy agenda. We are heavily
reliant on national and international collaborations and access
to major infrastructure and logistics support (eg ships, internationally
managed satellite programmes) required for operating in or observing
the oceans and earth's geological processes.
3. The EU Framework programme provides an
essential source of "matching funding" and our participation
enables the UK to lever international research programmes. Policy
influence and support from the Research councils/OSI, especially
for the provision of the UKRO service, should be maintained.
4. The UK must recognise that the scale
of investments in major infrastructure required over the coming
decades (eg cabled sea-floor observatories) will require cooperation
particularly at the European Level such as envisaged by the European
Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI). We must engage
collaboratively with initiatives in Europe and internationally
that afford the opportunity to develop and share major research
infrastructures and develop the capacity to fund observing systems
on a sustained basis, bridging the research to operational divide.
This requires coordinated cross-Departmental action.
THE STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES
OF EXISTING
RESEARCH COUNCIL
AND OSI MECHANISMS
AND ACTIVITIES
TO MAINTAIN
AND PROMOTE
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
5. NOCS welcomes the coordination of international
strategies of the Research councils, OSI and other Government
Departments through the Global Science and Innovation Forum. The
GSIF report in October 06 "A strategy for international engagement
in research and development" provided a helpful summary of
measures to maintain and promote international collaboration.
However more could be done to publicize both the existence of
this report and the individual measures available.
6. Effort and funding appears to be focused
on two European aspects: i) EU policy formulation, where OSI and
the Research Councils have a good record of seeking advice directly
from their Centres (as the participants) on both scientific priorities
and practical implementation [participation issues, model contracts
etc] and using it to influence the development of EU programmes;
and ii) Encouraging participation in the EU Framework programmes.
7. This balance of policy effort for EU
vs. wider international research support and influence appears
to be appropriate. The UK ocean and earth science research community
is increasingly reliant on winning EU funding to supplement and
lever our national strategic funding programmes. The effort and
infrastructure needs for ocean and earth research are too large
and expensive for any single nation acting alone and we need this
coordinated international effort to deliver the UK/NERC's strategic
research objectives. Hence the EU programmes need to be aligned
to UK aims and strengths. Whilst much effort is put into the formal
policy making channels through OSI/Research Councils it is also
essential that our key scientists engage in direct dialogue with
the Commission. NOCS places particular importance on this in its
undertaking of major Framework programme projects
8. The promotion of opportunities to engage
with partners in the US is not given much stimulus, and the policy
of the research councils [and most UK universities] to not allow
contracts under US Law (because of insurance and liability implications)
means that we are not able to tap into certain additional sources
of funding, potentially disadvantaging the UK research community.
9. Government and Research Council mechanisms
to facilitate bilateral international engagement outside of Europe
appear primarily to be driven by top down government to government
relationships. With some countries these high level MoU-type arrangements
can provide an "entry point", politically necessary
to stimulate and lever interactions. For others they are of little
added value unless they open up new funding lines or specific
joint opportunities.
10. As a world leading centre NOCS attracts
considerable international interest both in our research activities
and in the way that UK marine science is organized. We have a
number of institution-to institution MoUs and we host many incoming
visitors. However we find it difficult to reciprocate for mutual
benefit. Although it is possible to access modest sources of funding
to explore partnership building there is no dedicated research
funding stream; unlike the increasingly common situation where
Chinese intuitions tell us they have ready access to research
funding especially for international collaborative projects. Additionally
practical issues, such as synchronizing applications to existing
national programmes' timescales and the "double jeopardy"
of two peer review systems can prove a disincentive.
11. There is little direct visibility to
the research community of OSI/Research Council broader international
policy interactions. NOCS is regularly asked to provide briefing
through NERC to OSI [for example as briefing for ministerial visits]
but we only rarely get feedback on its usefulness or opportunities
arising as a result. Similarly MPs visits may provide useful opportunities
to follow up.
HOSTING INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMME AND
PROJECT OFFICES
12. The UK hosts a significant number of
International Project Offices (IPO) for major international programmes.
The coordinating function of these Offices is vital for the efficient
conduct of very large programmes, involving many different countries
and organizations, and is something the UK is generally "good
at". At NOCS the most significant of these is the IPO for
the CLIVAR Programme (Climate Variability and Predictability)
which is part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP).
The hosting of IPOs provides the UK with visibility and influence
internationally. Participation in such international projects
has brought clear advantages to UK science by providing wider
opportunities for data and information sharing, shared facilities
and exchanges with other scientists worldwide. They also provide
coordination of large scale international activities which feed
into policy (the worldwide organization of the climate model runs
and associated database providing input to IPCC by WCRP/CLIVAR
is an example).
13. The support provided by the UK Research
councils to the IPOs is much appreciated by the international
community and helps to raise the international profile of the
hosting institutes. The presence of these offices has the advantage
for the UK that it helps to keep us in touch with research elsewhere,
providing direct access to information on the international research
agenda. It also helps to ensure that the international projects
themselves are kept abreast of developments within UK. We believe
such activity should be viewed as integral to the leadership role
that the UK seeks to provide internationally in science and the
environment.
14. Although undertaken on an impartial
basis with access for the whole research community, the hosting
of IPOs usually requires some degree of subsidy by the host nation/institution.
NERC continues to be generally supportive of the hosting of IPOs,
though it does not do so at full economic cost. Hence where international
sources of funding come under pressure, the host institute may
find itself subsidising the operational costs of the Office. The
Councils perspective is that benefits accrue to the host Centre
and therefore hosting is very much a judgment for the host centre
management. However it is important that such decisions are taken
with full understanding of the implications.
PARTICIPATION IN
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES
AND MECHANISMS
FACILITATED THROUGH
THE RESEARCH
COUNCILS
15. On behalf of the UK research community
the Research Councils engage in and or subscribe to a number of
international programmes and initiatives. Those of particular
importance for NOCS include the International Ocean Drilling programme
(IODP), International Cooperation in ridge-crest studies, International
Marine Past Global Change Study (IMAGES) and InterRidge as well
as the European Science Foundation's Marine Board. It is vital
to the UK community that such participation is maintained.
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
THROUGH THE
EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME,
INCLUDING RESOURCES
ENHANCING PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE
RESEARCH COUNCILS
AND EUROPEAN
AGENCIES IN
THE NEW
FRAMEWORK 7 INITIATIVE
AND THE
PROVISION OF
RESOURCES TO
STIMULATE UK PARTICIPATION
IN INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMMES
FP mechanisms
16. NOCS has a strong track record of participation
in the EU Framework programmes, including leadership of major
projects such as HERMES. We maintain an in-house "intelligence"
of FP issues, facilitated by tailoring the intelligence, practical
assistance and training activities provided through the UK Research
Office in Brussels (UKRO). UKRO's activities are welcomed by the
research community, are well utilized and acknowledged as being
of high quality, timely and effective. It should continue to be
fully supported.
17. The support mechanism provided by DTI/OSI
to stimulate non-academic UK engagement in the Framework programmes
is via a series of "National Contact Points" (NCPs).
In the Environment area, confirmation of the NCP was delayed.
As the assessment criteria for projects include the engagement
of industry, particularly SMEs, we are concerned that they may
not be getting the support needed.
18. Once approved, projects are taken forward
and managed by the individuals and institutions concerned, with
little down stream support when projects run into difficulties
(eg contractual, consortium issues, payments from Commission).
A more holistic approach might encourage greater confidence in
the Framework mechanisms.
MARINE SCIENCE
IN FP7
19. We particularly welcome the decision
in the 7th EU Research Framework Programme to give special attention
"...to ensuring there is effective coordination between the
thematic areas and to priority scientific areas which cut across
themes, such as … marine sciences and technologies".
We have yet to see how the Commission will implement this and
it is essential the UK Government maintains pressure to ensure
such coordination is implemented, with the active engagement of
the marine science community.
FP INFRASTRUCTURE
ISSUES
20. The policy focus of the Infrastructure
programme in FP5 was to enable access to existing large-scale
infrastructure, (large equipment, ships etc). However in FP6 it
was changed to an emphasis on development of "new, smaller"
infrastructure such as databases. This has disadvantaged the Community
by making it more difficult to access and more difficult to afford
to continue provision of large scale facilities, particularly
an issue for ocean and earth scientists.
21. Future Marine Science will depend heavily
on major infrastructure for sustained observational networks (eg
cabled sea-floor observatories) which the UK science base will
not be able to support in isolation. It is essential, therefore,
that the UK rapidly engages with initiatives in Europe that afford
the opportunity to work collaboratively to share the costs of
such infrastructure. For this reason NOCS is keen that the UK
engages in the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures
(ESFRI). Nine of the Roadmap projects map directly onto NERC science.
Of the 35 projects currently on the ESFRI roadmap we are particularly
interested in EURO-ARGO (European contribution to the global profiling
float programme) and EMSO (European Multidisciplinary Seafloor
Observatory).
22. The UK Research community needs the
proactive support of OSI/Research Councils if the UK is to get
the best possible return from the FP7 call for bids for preparatory
phase studies for science infrastructure projects on the ESFRI
Roadmap. The view here is extremely strong that this is something
the UK simply cannot afford to be left out of because this is
such a big part of the future direction of Marine Science—and
the infrastructure requirements are massive. The UK is very well
placed to play a significant role and provide much intellectual
leadership but we are in danger of slipping behind. Consequently
we believe OSI/NERC needs to do more than keep a watching brief
and become more proactive.
CAPACITY BUILDING
23. It is unclear where or whether an international
capacity building role is recognised in the strategic priorities
of the Research councils. Many research challenges eg those related
to climate change, require us to work to develop observing programmes
in developing Countries, In these circumstances the need for local
capacity building becomes apparent to institutions work at this
"sharp end". However this seems less apparent in Research
Council priorities which focus on scientific excellence.
24. We see an increasing role in the development
of training materials such as those produced by NOCS under the
UNESCO Bilko Project. http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/bilko/about.php
to facilitate "hands-on" training in coastal and marine
remote sensing for those traditionally excluded by the:
— high cost of commercial image-processing
software,
— need for expensive computer equipment
to run that software,
— difficulty of acquiring remotely
sensed images for teaching purposes,
— long learning-curves required to
master complex commercial software,
— and need to teach large numbers of
students at the same time.
25. The continued worldwide success of the
Bilko project (which has distributed software and training materials
to over 600 marine science laboratories and educational establishments
and more than 3000 individual users in nearly 100 countries) bears
witness to the widespread demand for the training in countries
both with limited and advanced remote sensing capabilities.
26. The inclusion of developing countries
as equal partners in FP7 consortia where appropriate should be
welcomed from a capacity building point of view. This should make
it easier to build true, 2-way collaboration, which is more than
mere technology transfer. There are opportunities for Research
Councils/OSI to bid into the "Capacities" part of FP7—to
set up INCONETS with different regions of the developing world.
This would provide a golden opportunity for UK to influence future
FP7 plans for capacity building through future FP7 calls.
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF COLLABORATION
BETWEEN THE
RESEARCH COUNCILS
AND THE
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
INVOLVED IN
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING
THE OSI, DEFRA, THE
FOREIGN AND
COMMONWEALTH OFFICE'S
SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION NETWORK
AND THE
DEPARTMENT FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
27. NOCS fully endorses the longstanding
commitment to coordinate across departments on issues related
to marine science, through the mechanism of the InterAgency Committee
on Marine Science and Technology (IACMST) chaired by Professor
Howard Dalton. NERC provides the Secretariat, which is hosted
at NOCS.
28. Internationally the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC/UNESCO) is the recognized
body within the UN system for science of the oceans. NERC is the
designated lead for the UK; the IOC Office is hosted by NOCS,
the same personnel also run IACMST so helps to promote greater
cohesion with national activities in marine science. Current or
recent IOC activities involving active NERC participation include:
the intergovernmental committee for developing the Global Ocean
Observing System (GOOS) (A NOCS scientist leads the UK delegation
and also represents NERC in the European component of GOOS), the
International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange committee
(member of BODC is present chair), an advisory group on Law of
the Sea issues grappling with some fundamental issues as to how
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea applies to operational
oceanography (NOCS scientist heads UK delegation), intergovernmental
coordination groups on tsunamis within multi-hazard framework
(one on NE Atlantic and Mediterranean where NOCS leads UK delegation,
the other on global aspects, where NOCS represents UK). With the
recent-establishment of the UK National Commission to UNESCO,
encouraged by the Secretary of State, a Natural Sciences Committee
has been formed. The head of the UK IOC Office at NOCS is a member
of this committee.
29. The Joint IOC/WMO Commission on Oceanography
and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) coordinates, regulates and manages
a fully integrated marine observing, data management and services
system. One of its roles is implementing the open-ocean part of
GOOS. NERC and the Met Office have developed a close working relationship
to represent the oceanographic and marine meteorological communities
in this Commission. The UK is represented on all the subsidiary
groups of JCOMM including several NERC scientists. The full meeting
of JCOMM is held every 4 years with the lead alternating between
the Met Office and NOCS. The Director of NOCS has recently been
appointed to join the Steering Committee of GCOS, the Global Climate
Observing System of the World Meteorological Organisation.
30. Because NERC is an NDPB and not a Government
department we are concerned that it may not be automatically included
in departmental briefing meetings on intergovernmental issues,
though some ad hoc arrangements are in place. Drawing on our experiences
in respect of IOC/UNESCO the UK IOC Office (based at NOCS) is
currently assisting FCO to develop plans for improving overarching
aspects of coordination of UK inputs to international bodies.
31. It is important that science funders
(eg NERC) and operational agencies (eg Met Office) and policy
makers (DEFRA/DTI/MOD) work more closely together on global ocean
observing systems. The present UK funding system is not well-suited
to funding cross-departmental contributions to observing programmes.
Also, the criteria for monitoring national needs are different
from those used in the evaluation of research proposals where
observations are needed to meet specific, short-term research
objectives. Hence there is currently a gulf between operational
funding for observational infrastructure and that for science.
However, as science moves to sustained observation as a key tool
in addressing decadal-scale change, the observing infrastructures
will increasingly need to be developed with dual science and operational
use in mind. Many parts of the global ocean observing system (eg
Argo) continue to be supported by research funding which is unsustainable
long term.
32. IACMST has provided the methodology
for conducting a cost-benefit assessment to establish the value
of maintaining or stopping long-term monitoring programmes. The
seriousness of this issue has been recognised by the Marine Assessment
Policy Committee, the Environmental Research Funders' Forum and
the Global Environmental Change Committee. The problem is common
to many countries but there is an opportunity for the UK to take
a lead in finding a solution to this problem which is a significant
barrier to developing a sustained ocean observing system.
33. Although there are encouraging signs
[viz new cross-Departmental programme in NERC's draft strategy
"Living with environmental change"] the research community
still perceives a lack of engagement by DfiD. The Ecosystem and
Poverty Alleviation programme http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/espa/
administered by NERC on behalf of NERC, ESRC and DfID only has
a 1m budget for its first call for 4 situation analyses, with
further support dependent on DfID ministerial approval and the
2007 spending review. DfID also let the Canadians administer 24m
of UK funds for research into climate change adaptation in Africa—http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/pressreleases/africa-climate.asp
and http://www.idrc.ca/ccaa/ev-94429-201-1-DO_ TOPIC.html . Although
the Canadian contribution to the fund was a third of that from
DFID, it appears from the website to be primarily a Canadian programme—see
http://www.idrc.ca/ccaa/. The IDRC no doubt does an admirable
job, but we could do with greater support for UK researchers wishing
to build partnerships with colleagues in Africa and other parts
of the developing world and improved recognition of the DfiD interests.
THE IMPACT
OF THE
RESEARCH COUNCILS'
POLICIES ON
THE INTERNATIONAL
MOBILITY OF
SCIENTISTS AND
ENGINEERS
34. The UK, which needs to attract the best
researchers to come here, struggles to compete eg with Germany,
whose more generous pension and other benefit arrangements tend
to lock researchers into their system.[16]
April 2007
14 The National Oceanography Centre, Southampton is
a collaborative Centre owned by the Natural Environment Research
Council (NERC) and the University of Southampton. NOCS is home
to some 520 research scientists, lecturing support and seagoing
staff as well over 700 undergraduate and postgraduate students. Back
15
Not yet published, awaiting Parliamentary due process. Back
16
See NOCS submission to the Investigating the Oceans Inquiry. Back
| 
