Memorandum 78
Submission from Professor Shaun Quegan,
University of Sheffield
SUMMARY
1. The investment by NERC in Earth Observation
Centres of Excellence has allowed the UK to produce world-leading
science inside a flexible framework that allows NERC to respond
to changed priorities.
2. ESA provides the route by which most
UK scientists are best able to define and execute space missions
meeting their goals.
3. The NERC Earth Observation programme
has been well-supported and allowed good ideas from researchers
with drive to be translated into very effective research programmes.
4. The links between academia and government
agencies as regards use of space data are generally not well developed,
largely through the failure to identify mutually attractive aims.
A similar comment applies to inter-agency links on use of space.
WHO I AM
I am the Director of the NERC Centre for Terrestrial
Carbon Dynamics (CTCD), one of six Centres of Excellence in Earth
Observation (EO) set up by NERC in the last five years. Previously
I directed the Sheffield Centre for Earth Observation Science,
and prior to that I ran the Remote Sensing Applications Group
at Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow. Currently I am a member
of ESA's Earth Science Advisory Committee and NERC's Earth Observation
Expert Group (and its replacement, the EO Directors Advisory Board).
I'm also an invited member of the Terrestrial Observations Panel
on Climate and the Japanese Space Agency Kyoto and Carbon Advisory
Group. From 2001-03, I was a member of the BNSC Earth Observation
Programme Board.
FACTS AND
OBSERVATIONS
1. The investment by NERC in Earth Observation
Centres of Excellence has allowed the UK to produce world-leading
science (as evidenced by the 2005 Science Management Audit of
the EO sector conducted by an international review body) inside
a flexible framework that allows NERC to respond to changed priorities.
The funding of Centres on renewable five-year contracts (though
with an expectation of renewal) allows such a response. It also
means that Centre staff have to stay hungry if the funding is
to continue, as any weak parts of the Centre programme should
be terminated. A further attractive feature of the Centre approach
is that it offers the possibility of extended research funding
for the brightest Research Assistants and PhDs. Finally, the Centres
produce a continual stream of well-trained, skilled researchers
across a wide range of disciplines (the latter because the Centres
are typically multi-disciplinary). In my experience, most of these
people remain within the scientific sector (though not necessarily
space-related).
2. ESA provides the route by which most
UK scientists are best able to define and execute space missions
meeting their goals. The UK provides the lead scientist on the
Cryosat mission (Duncan Wingham); in the six missions currently
being reviewed for the next Core mission, the UK provides lead
proposers on two (BIOMASS and PREMIER, respectively rated as numbers
1 and 3 in the initial assessment). However, the success of Surrey
Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL) indicates that there are other
ways for the UK to provide leadership in the exploitation of space.
3. Knowledge transfer is part of the mission
of the Centres. The existing Centres are not involved in hardware
but in modelling and data exploitation, so that the knowledge
being transferred is normally in terms of software (for example,
CTCD has made generally available an innovative tool to allow
very efficient analysis of the behaviour of complex environmental
models, with supporting courses and good take-up). The need for
new instruments to meet the science needs of the NERC EO programme
is, however, a driver for new technology. A current issue is whether
the UK is well-placed to translate these science needs into instruments
accepted by the space agencies, in the face of international competition.
4. Although University research using space
can deliver information of societal benefit, such as indicators
of environmental health, the link of this work into the missions
of agencies such as DEFRA or the EA is generally poorly developed.
In my opinion, most of all this reflects a failure to define common
aims that meet the agendas of both types of organisation, rather
than the lack of any means of delivering on such aims. This further
reflects a number of factors: cultural differences between the
agencies and academia, generality vs the specific regional concerns
of the UK, and the difficulty of translating academic research
into the operational mode often needed by the agencies. The last
of these points is perhaps the most telling.
5. The NERC Earth Observation programme
has been well-supported and allowed good ideas from researchers
with drive to be translated into very effective research programmes.
Many of these help to deliver public benefit through access to
environmental information of various kinds. The take-up by Government
departments is patchy, for reasons set out in point 4.
6. Currently NERC is reorganising its EO
sector. It is expected that there will be significant emphasis
on defining areas of common interest between the remit of NERC
and those of the various Government agencies, and to specify joint
aims for he EO programme. The delivery mechanism to meet these
aims will need to be defined.
7. The ability to make best use of space
data is hindered by the difficulty or expense of access to other
datasets, some of it gathered with taxpayers' money. An example
is access to soil data for the UK; this absorbed large amounts
of time and frustration in CTCD before we arrived at a workable
solution.
8. My perception of the workings of the
EO Programme Board of the BNSC (on which I served from 2001-03)
was that it provided little deep analysis of how to maximise the
return from space, as vested interests hindered hard discussion
of weaknesses.
9. The agencies themselves hold significant
stocks of (typically airborne) data that would be of great value
in helping to develop and evaluate the use of space data. This
resource appears to be scattered across organisations and projects,
and the UK would benefit from a more coherent treatment of these
data. In general, the UK would benefit from better communication
between the agencies and clearer definition of common aims or
aspirations for space data that could be translated into relevant
research programmes or needs for knowledge transfer from the university
sector.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Centre-based approach used by NERC
to develop the exploitation of space data in environmental science
provides a focused, cost-effective and very successful approach
that should be continued, and could perhaps be extended to other
sectors.
2. ESA is likely to remain the main organisation
through which the space data needs of the UK can be translated
into missions. Influence on what these missions are arises primarily
from cogent, coherent ideas about what is needed translated into
good proposals. The UK needs to ensure that its science base is
strong enough to continue generate such ideas. We also need a
coherent assessment of the current and future needs of government
agencies, married to the science and delivery approaches, so that
clear UK messages can be delivered to ESA (and increasingly to
the EU if we are to have any influence on the GMES programme).
3. Methods to identify commonalities in
agency information needs and aspirations, and those of academia,
that can be translated into mutually beneficial aims and knowledge
transfer activities should be developed. This is likely to require
a range of approaches.
November 2006
|