Appendix 1: Government response
Introduction
The Government welcomes the Committee's report which
is timely and identifies a number of key issues which affect marine
science, including its management and coordination. The report
also highlights some important weaknesses in the current system
and proposes a number of solutions, the central one being the
creation of a new marine agency.
The Government accepts many of the Committee's recommendations.
It does not however accept that a new agency offers the best solution.
This Response proposes adopting an alternative to the agency,
and replies in detail to each of the 59 conclusions and recommendations.
By its nature, the Committee's report has covered some policy
areas that are devolved to the administrations in Wales, Northern
Ireland and Scotland. The reply has been prepared with their co-operation.
Recommendation for a marine agency
The Committee suggests that many of its recommendations
can best be tackled through the creation of a new marine agency.
Because of the prominence given by the Committee to the agency
as a proposed solution the Government wishes to address this issue
first.
The Committee's report calls for the replacement
of IACMST and the creation of a new agency in order to tackle
many of the current weaknesses of marine science management and
co-ordination. Whilst the Committee states that this is its preference
it also leaves open the possibility of other mechanisms being
proposed. For example recommendation 37 asks that the marine agency
"or an equivalent body" should facilitate the
release of data; and recommendation 58 includes earlier reference
to an executive body such as the agency or a successor
body to IACMST with substantially greater powers to develop a
marine science strategy.
The Government has carefully considered the Committee's
recommendation to establish a new marine agency, but has decided
instead to adopt an alternative approach, that of creating a new
committee which will replace IACMST and bring the principal funders
together into an effective group.
The reasons why the Government rejects the Committee's
recommendation to create a marine agency in order to address current
weaknesses are as follows:
i. The creation of a UK marine agency is not
feasible given current developments related to devolution.
ii. The new agency will require additional funding
at a time when budgets are under pressure.
iii. The Government wishes to respond rapidly
to the Committee's recommendations and creating a new agency would,
in the Government's opinion, delay this.
iv. UK marine science ranges from blue sky, basic
research of the type supported by Research Councils, to "applied"
research funded by Departments for the purpose of providing "evidence"
to policy. A "one size fits all" approach to marine
science as suggested by the creation of an agency is not seen
as appropriate.
v. Marine policy is the responsibility of a number
of different departments and funding agencies. Each of these has
specific requirements for marine science, including providing
"evidence" on which to base specific marine policies
and decision making. These departments and agencies are themselves
responsible for ensuring that there is effective communication
with stakeholders, developing collaborative links, ensuring facilities
and vessels are used effectively etc. It would not be appropriate
to pass some of these responsibilities to a new executive agency.
In summary the Government's overall rationale for
preferring an alternative to the agency is that the Departmental
funders of marine science are best placed, and should be responsible
for, the proper management of their science, including effective
collaboration and coordination with others. The Government considers
that creating an agency risks the science being too remote from
those who need it. The "marine" label implies a uniformity
of purpose among agencies which is not in practice the case. Government
agencies address a wide range of different policy issues which,
though they all take place in a marine context and may interact,
are no more closely linked than all terrestrial activities and
are better managed separately. The Government considers that it
is for the funders to tackle weaknesses, either individually or
together as appropriate, rather than creating a new executive
body.
Taking the above into account the Government proposes
instead to create a new committee, the Marine Science Co-ordination
Committee (MSCC), which will bring together the principal public
investors in marine science to tackle cross-Departmental issues
identified in the report.
Proposals for the Marine Science Co-ordination
Committee
The Government accepts that the current cross-Departmental
mechanisms for marine science management and co-ordination, undertaken
by the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science and Technology
(IACMST), has its weaknesses. IACMST has also had some successes
which should not be overlooked. The Government wishes to tackle
the weaknesses and build on the successes. This section of the
Government's response sets out the current thinking on the function,
membership, working arrangements, governance, reporting and timing
of the new Committee.
The time constraints placed on providing the Government
response means that it has not been possible to reach detailed
agreement on all aspects of the new committee, including reporting
lines. However Defra[1],
DIUS, Scottish Government, DARDNI, MOD, EA and BERR, the principal
funders of marine science, have reached broad agreement that a
new committee is a more practical and realistic option to that
of creating a new marine agency.
FUNCTION
The MSCC will provide new leadership in coordinating
and ensuring a strategic approach to marine science in the UK,
working closely with the wide range of bodies involved in this
area to add value to existing programmes and activities. An early
priority will be to lead development of a marine science strategy,
and to address other recommendations from the Committee's report
which cannot best be addressed either through current co-ordination
mechanisms or by individual sponsors on their own.
MEMBERSHIP
MSCC will be composed of the main Government funders
of marine science, including NERC. Meetings will be attended by
senior Departmental/Agency officials, including their scientific
advisers, who have specific responsibilities for the funding and
management of marine science, and are able to make decisions after
the normal consultation process within their departments.
WORKING ARRANGEMENTS
A memorandum of understanding, collaborative agreement,
or other such mechanism, will be developed and signed by all members.
This will set out the agreed way of working for the committee
including what is expected of each member, the level of annual
funding to be provided for the committee's business and the adoption
of a work plan. The committee will be supported by an appropriately
resourced secretariat. The committee will also be supported by
a number of working groups which will be commissioned to undertake
specific pieces of work, resourced by the committee. Involvement
of the wider stakeholders including industry will be through these
groups. Specialists from academia and stakeholders including from
industry will be invited to attend committee meetings as appropriate.
GOVERNANCE AND REPORTING
The MSCC will be chaired by a member of the committee,
probably on a rotating basis. The committee will produce an annual
report which sets out progress made during the year including
any constraints encountered, how these are to be tackled, and
setting out plans for the committee's work over the coming 12
months. MSCC's reporting arrangements have still to be agreed
between the proposed members, and will be developed as part of
detailed planning work for its establishment over the next 4-6
months, to ensure it has the right levers and authority to be
able to deliver. Options include one or more of the following:
- Reporting through a Minister
in a lead Department and in the Devolved Administrations.
- Reporting to the relevant ministers in member
departments and the Devolved Administrations
- Reporting to the Chief Scientific Advisers in
each member department and the Devolved Administrations , or their
equivalent.
- On any interdepartmental issues that need resolving,
reporting to the Sub-Committee on Environment and Energy of the
Ministerial Committee on Economic Development subject to normal
concordat arrangements in the formulation of the UK position.
In addition, the Committee might present a report
annually to the Chief Scientific Advisers' Committee (CSAC), chaired
by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
TIMING
The committee will form and have its first meeting
within four to six months of the date of this response. The committee's
first priority will be to agree on the shape and content of a
UK Marine Science Strategy, and to commission its drafting.
The above sets out the broad plans for the new committee.
Further details are provided in the response to specific recommendations.
Specific responses provided by the Research Councils are indicated
in italics.
Government Response to Committee's Conclusions
and recommendations
Exploitation of the oceans
1. We recommend that greater research effort be
directed by UK public sector funders towards the understanding
and mitigation of the impact of fishing on marine environments,
and the coming Marine Bill must address this issue. (Paragraph
32)
The Marine Bill will introduce new mechanisms for
managing marine activities and protecting marine resources. In
particular a new system of marine planning will enable us to take
a strategic view of the way in which different marine activities,
including fisheries, are interacting in particular areas of the
sea, and the cumulative impact they are having on the environment
and natural resources.
Research provides a valuable source of information
to help ensure that any new planning and management processes
introduced by the Marine Bill work effectively. There are already
extensive research efforts into the impacts of fishing and mitigation
methods and results have significantly advanced our knowledge
in this area. For example research funded by Defra at Cefas has
led to methods for predicting the effects of fishing on the structure
of fish communities and the abundance of rare fish species. This
has supported the development of indicators of the effects of
fishing on marine food webs and rare and vulnerable species, all
of which help to provide information on trends in marine biodiversity.
Research on other aspects of impacts of fishing includes
work on fishery/seabird interactions funded by the Scottish Government,
and research quantifying the effects of different gear types on
the marine ecosystem and the length of time needed for ecosystem
recovery at Plymouth Marine Laboratory.
Research has also helped identify practical measures
that can be taken to reduce fishing impact. Collaborative research
with the fishing industry has led to the re-design of fishing
nets to reduce undesirable bycatches in fisheries where they are
known to occur. An example is the development of a 'benthos release
panel' to reduce the impact of beam trawling on bottom-dwelling
communities and small non-commercial fish.
Defra has also funded significant work with the Sea
Mammal Research Unit of St. Andrews University which has provided
a greatly improved understanding of the nature and scope of the
problem of bycatch of small cetaceans in different fishing gears
and of possible mitigation measures.
Taken together, this work provides a good knowledge
base of fishing impact and advice for developing appropriate management
measures. Much of the research referred to above (particularly
work at Cefas and Fisheries Research Services, Aberdeen), has
been at the forefront of science in this area at the European
level and has leveraged additional funding from the European Commission.
While there is further work to be done, in particular
in relation to fisheries indicators of ecosystem health and in
relation to specific impacts on particular habitats, in many cases
it is in the understanding of the range and diversity of marine
habitats and species that there are greater gaps in knowledge
than in understanding the impacts of fishing.
Priorities for marine research
2. The world's oceans are fundamental to the continuing
ability of human beings to survive comfortably on this planet,
and it is vital that efforts to understand them are pursued with
clarity, co-ordination and purpose, but also with an open mind
as to future areas of importance. (Paragraph 43)
The Government shares the Committee's view of the
importance of marine science, including the need to maintain a
proper balance across the wide range of science themes and the
need to support both policy related science and research into
understanding the basics of the marine environment and its processes.
There is growing, but not yet complete, recognition
of the vital role of the oceans in the functioning of the earth's
life-sustaining processes. The oceans and seas offer the key to
finding solutions to pressing human needs, many of which need
further research and evaluation. These include energy, food, water,
health, waste management, transport and quality of life. Understanding
and predicting climateand even medium-range weatherdepends
critically on knowing that the oceans and atmosphere behave as
a completely coupled system.
Improving marine science coordination, strengthening
links between science and policy, and developing more strategic
approaches will be among the tasks to be tackled by MSCC.
Funding and organisation of marine science in
the UK
3. We recommend that funding be identified by
the sponsoring Government department for a regular survey of marine-related
research and development in the UK by the IACMST or any successor
body with responsibility for co-ordination in this area. (Paragraph
46)
A high-level summary of the overall expenditure by
Departments can provide a useful indication of budget size and
distribution. However compiling data for detailed analysis between
years and between funders is complicated by the different funding
models adopted. For example research costs do not always include
full cost of depreciation, capital costs, land and building costs
etc.
The Pugh and Skinner publication referred to provided
a useful snapshot but went wider than marine science, covering
oil and gas production, tourism revenue and shipping. The MSCC
will need to consider whether an annual summary of marine science
spend is appropriate or whether current more targeted compilations
such as that prepared by the Defra, Scottish Government, and DARDNI
composed Fisheries and Marine Science Customer Group, and the
ERFF Research Database is sufficient for specific sectors.
Research Councils: NERC
4. The declining trend in NERC funding for marine
science is a worrying one and we seek an explanation from NERC
as to why marine science has apparently been less of a priority
than other areas within the NERC remit. (Paragraph 62)
Given the Committee's conclusion, NERC has reviewed
its funding contribution further. Full and corrected data regarding
NERC funding for marine science show that there has been an upward
trend in NERC expenditure on marine science over the past eight
years. Marine science will remain a high priority for NERC as
it delivers its new 5-year science strategy, Next Generation Science
for Planet Earth.
NERC has produced a corrected version of the report's
Table 6 (see Table 1 below), which provides information on all
NERC marine science expenditure - with the exception of expenditure
at the British Antarctic Survey, British Geological Survey and
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. This corrected table includes
the responsive-mode funding and the marine funding elements of
interdisciplinary programmes such as SOLAS, MFMB and of the Earth
Observation Centres of Excellence. It also separates out the NERC
expenditure on large exceptional items such as the new POL building,
the RRS James Cook and the replacement of the RRS Discovery's
scientific winch system.
Table 1 shows an upward trend in NERC expenditure
both in cash terms and, using the Government's GDP deflator, also
in NERC expenditure in real terms between 1999/00 and 2006/07
- with expenditure (excluding blue-skies and exceptional items)
increasing in real terms by around £11M over this period.
The corrected table show that "overall expenditure, excluding
response mode grants" in 2006/07 was around £0.5M more
in real terms than in 2003/04.
Total NERC expenditure (inclusive of blue-skies
and exceptional items) was around £15M more in real terms
in 2006/07 than 2001/02.Table
1: NERC Marine Science Expenditure
| £m
| £m
| £m
| £m
| £m
| £m
| £m
| £m
| £m
|
Expenditure heading
| 1999/00
| 2000/01
| 2001/02
| 2002/03
| 2003/04
| 2004/05
| 2005/06
| 2006/07
| Total
|
1. Ship operations expenditure in support of the NERC Cruise Programme
| 7.0 |
4.6 | 7.6
| 8.7 |
10.7 | 9.8
| 11.5 |
13.0 | 72.8
|
2. Marine centres expenditure
| 16.8 |
17.8 | 18.2
| 20.5 |
20.2 | 19.4
| 22.3 |
24.2 | 159.4
|
3. Directed programmes |
6.6 | 7.4
| 8.5 |
9.9 | 12.9
| 11.4 |
11.1 | 10.5
| 78.3 |
Sub-Total (1+2+3)
| 30.4
| 29.8
| 34.3
| 39.1
| 43.7
| 40.5
| 44.9
| 47.8
| 310.5
|
4. Blues skies (responsive mode funding)*
| ** |
** | 5.2
| 5.8 |
5.4 | 6.0
| 7.0 |
7.9 | 37.3
|
5. Exceptional Items (e.g. large facilities capital, building costs, etc)
| | | | 2.8
| 6.6 |
4.1 | 7.2
| 4.4 |
25.0 |
Total (1+2+3+4+5)
| 30.4
| 29.8
| 39.5
| 47.7
| 55.7
| 50.7
| 59.0
| 60.1
| 372.8
|
* Revised expenditure data include cruise costs
** Blue-skies expenditure
data unavailable
5. We accept that NERC acts in good faith to support
the best science in awarding funding under the responsive mode
and that the number of applications is small, but we believe that
the apparent bias against funding for marine science applications
requires investigation and explanation from NERC. (Paragraph 66)
NERC recently carried out a responsive mode funding
review which reported in February 2007 to NERC Council. As a part
of this review the distribution of grants awarded against science
area was investigated. There was no evidence of subject bias,
although as indicated in paragraph 66 of the Committee's report,
where numbers of applications are small it can be difficult to
draw firm conclusions.
Despite not finding evidence of bias, NERC is
planning a review of its Peer Review College which will, amongst
other things, examine whether there is consistent and unbiased
peer review across all areas.
6. We recommend that NERC commit funding to the
full five years of the Oceans 2025 programme in order to enable
proper planning and effective organisation. In doing so, it needs
to ensure that the longer term programmes and facilities are not
packaged together with the short term projects in the same project
cycle, so that each can be assessed against their natural lifespan.
(Paragraph 70)
The Government's Comprehensive Spending Review covers
only a three-year period, and Councils have to take this into
account when committing funding to new research programmes. Councils
are experienced in supporting long-term science investments which
spread across one or more spending review period. Following the
allocations to individual Councils announced in October, NERC
Council will shortly decide the funding of the final three years
of the Oceans 2025 programme.
Through NERC's new funding allocation and budgeting
mechanism, programmes such as Oceans 2025 will have a national
capability component and a research programme component, and the
funding of these components will be considered over the longer
and shorter term, respectively.
7. We recommend that NERC review the use of the
Strategic Ocean Funding Initiative, with a view to increasing
the amount allocated to it within the Oceans 2025 programme and
encouraging participation from universities in Oceans 2025. (Paragraph
71)
The Strategic Ocean Funding Initiative is currently
being implemented, but will be superseded from 2008 by NERC's
new funding arrangements. These new arrangements will enable more
collaborative programmes between universities and Centres in NERC-funded
research programmes, complementing what is already planned through
Oceans 2025.
8. We recommend that NERC review the need for
a director of science for marine and atmospheric science. (Paragraph
74)
NERC had a Director for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
from 1986 until 1994, when the decision was made to replace Directors
of Science by Directors of Centres. The main emphasis in NERC's
science strategy is now on themes (supported by national capability)
which cut across the science areas. NERC has recently recruited
Theme Leaders to provide greater direction and leadership in science
delivery. NERC considers that a return to a sector-based directorate
structure would inhibit development of interdisciplinary research
programmes within the context of a broadly-based thematic strategy.
However, NERC will organise in a sector-based
way the management of its long-term national capability functions
(e.g. large facilities such as ships, sustained observing, data)
which support thematic research programmes and responsive research.
NERC considers that the Director of the National Oceanography
Centre, Southampton (NOCS) would play a particular role in facilitating
strategic oversight of NERC marine national capability within
NERC's wider national capability portfolio.
Other Research Councils
9. We recommend that RCUK monitor applications
and inquiries to ascertain whether there has been improvement
in funding interdisciplinary work in marine science areas as a
result of recent changes. (Paragraph 82)
The Government agrees that it is important to ensure
that there are no inherent barriers to multidisciplinary research.
The Government and RCUK view this as an important issue across
all fields of research, not as one specific to marine science.
Research Councils already report on multidisciplinary input metrics
to DIUS as part of their Performance Management System.
Multidisciplinary research is, by its nature, very
difficult to label; it is therefore difficult to classify individual
multidisciplinary research projects for monitoring and comparison
on a disciplinary basis. The RCUK Performance Evaluation Group
is, however, currently investigating ways of extending the monitoring
of Research Council support for multidisciplinary research.
10. We recommend that scientists working in marine
research in the UK be eligible to apply for funding to any of
the Research Councils, regardless of their place of employment.
(Paragraph 83)
The Government recognises the Committee's concern
that researchers should have access to appropriate funding. All
UK Higher Education Institutions and Research Institutes (with
which Research Councils have established a long-term involvement
as major funders), as well as a number of Research-Council-recognised
Independent Research Organisations (IROs) are eligible to apply
for various types of Research Council funding.
The set of criteria for eligibility of IROs was agreed
by Research Councils and DIUS, and is implemented collectively
to ensure consistency; organisations which meet the published
eligibility criteria and wish to become Research-Council recognised
may contact any Council to begin a review of their status. Other
individuals and organisations can act as subcontractors on Research-Council-funded
programmes through collaborative association with an eligible
institution and organisations.
NERC's eligibility criteria allow most UK marine
scientists to apply for funding from NERC, providing that their
main source of research funding is not a government department
or other public sector body (unless that body is co-funding the
research programme) or a business[2].
Some independent research organisations[3]
are eligible only for managed-mode funding.
Government departments
11. We recommend a review be commissioned by Defra
and NERC jointly on mechanisms for improving the relationship
between the marine centres and the fisheries laboratories and
for encouraging collaboration and co-ordination of research effort.
(Paragraph 90)
There are already a number of good examples of collaboration
between marine centres and fisheries laboratories. For example
this year NERC, Defra, FRS and AFBI jointly funded a successful
£2.4 million "Sustainable Marine Bioresources"
programme which was designed to meet joint strategic aims. In
addition, several of NERC's Research and Collaborative Centres
have been or are involved in other projects with the fisheries
laboratories, and these interactions are fairly numerous - though
generally more ad hoc and less strategic in nature.
More however can be done on collaboration and co-ordination
and Defra and NERC will commission a review. Other fisheries departments
will be invited to participate in this exercise.
12. We recommend that the role of the UKHO as
a marine research establishment be explicitly considered as part
of the MoD review of the future of the Office. (Paragraph 96)
The MOD structural and ownership options review has
considered the role of UKHO in the formation of marine policy
and the support that UKHO bathymetric data and cartographic products
provide to the UK's wider interests including marine research.
This consideration was relevant to the report conclusions and
recommendation that UKHO continue to operate as an executive agency,
financed through a Trading Fund. This status should ensure the
wider benefits to the UK from the expertise of the Hydrographic
Office are sustained.
We accept the Committee's view that UKHO "analyses
data from its own and external sources and also creates products
from those data, both of which are research-driven activities".
However, the UKHO does not carry out research; rather its activities
take the outcomes of research conducted elsewhere and apply these
to the development of products and services for its customers.
We agree that the UKHO's "core task of managing
such large quantities of data gives the UKHO a central role in
working on data standards so that the data can be easily accessed
and interpreted by scientists and policy-makers in the marine
sector." For example, the UKHO participates in the Open Geospatial
Consortium, developing geospatial standards; and in the International
Hydrographic Organization's development of its S100 standard for
electronic charting. However, we do not consider that this activity
constitutes research.
The UKHO Marine Environment Information Centre works
only in support of UK Defence. In doing so, from time to time,
it does identify gaps in research knowledge which can inform the
Defence research programmes commissioned and carried out elsewhere.
However the MEIC does not engage in or commission research.
Government will look to correct the listing of UKHO
as a Public Sector Research Establishment (PSRE).
Overall funding
13. A full review of future needs for increases
in funding marine science, along the lines of the work undertaken
already on marine monitoring requirements, is urgently needed.
Nevertheless, it is clear, even without such a detailed review,
that a substantial increase in funding is necessary if marine
science is to meet the challenges before it. (Paragraph 102)
The future requirements for marine science funding
have to be set against other priorities for science and to meet
other pressures. The prioritisation and funding process is formalised
through Departments' business plans that are submitted to Treasury.
Improving co-ordination and collaboration within the UK, with
other Member States and internationally is a practical way of
reducing pressures on budgets, and promoting better co-ordination
will be a core activity for MSCC. The development of a Marine
Science Strategy will help identify science priorities and the
need for improved co-ordination and collaboration.
Inter-Agency Committee for Marine Science and
Technology (IACMST)
14. It is unacceptable for a Government-funded
body chaired by a Chief Scientific Adviser to be ignorant of its
formal reporting responsibilities. We recommend that reporting
lines for the IACMST be clarified without delay. Defra and DIUS,
including the Government Office for Science, need to discuss lines
of responsibility and what reporting procedures are required and
communicate the results clearly to the IACMST. (Paragraph 109)
As set out at the start of this response, It is proposed
that MSCC will replace IACMST, and MSCC will adopt new and more
effective reporting lines. These will be developed as part of
detailed planning work for its establishment over the next 4-6
months, to ensure it has the right levers and authority to be
able to deliver. Options include one or more of the following:
- Reporting through a minister
in a lead Department and in the Devolved administrations.
- Reporting to the relevant ministers in member
departments and the Devolved Administrations.
- Reporting to the Chief Scientific Advisers in
each member department and the Devolved Administrations , or their
equivalent.
- On any interdepartmental issues that need resolving,
reporting to the Sub-Committee on Environment and Energy of the
Ministerial Committee on Economic Development subject to normal
concordat arrangements in the formulation of the UK position.
In addition, the committee might present a report
annually to the Chief Scientific Advisers' Committee (CSAC), chaired
by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
15. We recommend that DIUS play a more active
part in the successor body to the IACMST which we recommend later
in this Report. (Paragraph 110)
The membership of the proposed Marine Science Coordination
Committee will need to be determined as detailed plans for its
establishment are developed over the next few months. It will
be important for the membership to match the specific role and
functions set for the committee.
16. We do not believe that the IACMST as currently
constituted is capable of fulfilling the role required of it by
the challenges facing marine science. It is fundamentally flawed
in its constitution, and minor amendments to its budget or resources
will not transform the organisation of marine science in the UK.
(Paragraph 114)
The Government accepts that for several reasons IACMST
needs to be replaced by a strengthened body. As set out at the
start of this response, it is proposed that MSCC will take over,
build on and expand the responsibilities and function of IACMST.
Improving co-ordination of marine science and
technology in the UK
17. We recommend that a new co-ordinating body
for marine science, reporting to Defra, be established. This body
should bring together all public-sector funders of marine research,
together with stakeholders such as the universities and end-users
of marine science, and should be properly resourced to fulfil
its functions. Because of the range of activities for which greater
co-ordination is required at an executive level, our preference
would be for this co-ordinating function to be placed with a new
marine agency, which should be given executive powers and a budget
to oversee operational observations. (Paragraph 132)
The Government agrees that for the reasons highlighted
in the Committee's report an alternative to IACMST is required.
The preferred option, as set out in this response, is for a new
committee to be formed which will address the current weaknesses.
To answer the specific points made in this recommendation:
- The reporting arrangements
for the new committee will be developed as part of detailed planning
work for its establishment over the next 4-6 months, to ensure
it has the right levers and authority to be able to deliver.
- MSCC will bring together all the major public
sector funders of marine science. Other stakeholders, such as
universities and end users, of marine science will not sit on
the committee. However the working groups that are commissioned
to undertake specific tasks will provide good opportunities for
stakeholder involvement.
- The MSCC will be reasonably resourced, taking
into account current budgetary constraints.
18. We believe that the transfer of functions
to the new marine agency should provide an opportunity to reduce
the number of co-ordinating bodies operating in this area and
we recommend that the Government review the organisations, committees
and other bodies co-ordinating marine-related activities with
this aim in mind. (Paragraph 133)
The marine science sector is very complex, as illustrated
in the report's own Figure 1. The "marine" label implies
a uniformity of purpose amongst agencies and associated science
which is not in practice the case. As in the terrestrial sector
there is a need for effective co-ordination at a number of levels
and on a wide range of topic areas.
Taking this into account, one of the tasks for the
MSCC could be to examine whether there are opportunities to reduce
the number of co-ordinating bodies. This task will need to be
linked to the ERFF's plans to commission a review of co-ordinating
bodies. ERFF aims to examine their roles, responsibilities and
reporting lines, and to identify a rational arrangement that would
reduce duplication of effort, for example in cross-cutting areas
such as monitoring, science to policy activity and the skills
base. MSCC will need to wait for the output from ERFF work before
deciding whether this is a priority area.
Research vessels
19. We believe that there is scope for better
integrated management of the coastal fleet although this may well
be limited in view of the demands upon it. A new marine body could
act as a clearing house to co-ordinate research cruises and spare
capacity on marine science vessels. (Paragraph 143)
Research vessels are an integral part of marine science.
They are also a major cost item of marine science programme budgets.
Research vessel cruises are tasked to undertake a wide range of
activities, for example assessing fish stocks, monitoring the
state of the marine environment and undertaking discrete research
projects. In practice it is frequently not possible to multi-programme
individual cruises since each programme of research requires different
gear, different scientific teams and covers different regional
areas.
As part of routine good management practice the operators
of research vessels already co-ordinate their activities on a
number of fronts. For example CEFAS, FRS and AFBI cruise programmes
are exchanged at the planning stage and collaboration does take
place. There is also a very extensive co-ordination of fish stock
surveys at the European level, overseen by ICES. For NERC the
ocean-going nature of much of its ship-based research means that
international ship barter arrangements are the most appropriate
way of managing its fleet . A similar regional barter arrangement
could probably be established by the owners of UK coastal vessels,
although relying on the readiness of ship owners to participate,
and the overall availability of vessels.
It is concluded that the co-ordination of research
vessel activity is being reasonably well managed and co-ordinated
at present, and it is best left to the vessel operators and science
managers to identify where improvements might be made. The Committee's
concerns are however noted and this aspect of co-ordination may
need to be addressed by MSCC at some stage in the future.
20. We welcome the world-wide extension of the
Continuous Plankton Recorder concept as an excellent initiative
and we urge the UK Government to take the lead in promoting it
to fellow Governments at the next GEO Ministerial. (Paragraph
146)
NERC and Defra, as major funders of the Continuous
Plankton Recorder Survey, welcome the world-wide extension of
the CPR concept. SAHFOS, which runs the CPR Survey, participated
in the GEOIV Ministerial Exhibition in Cape Town as an opportunity
to demonstrate UK leadership for cost-effective monitoring of
the biological health of the ocean. Based on the outcome of the
Ministerial, the UK will discuss options for global CPR extension
with the GEO Secretariat as part of the future GEO Work Plan.
21. We recommend that NERC investigate the costs
and benefits of a scheme for the widespread use of commercial
vessels to take ocean measurements, with a view to providing UK
leadership on this project. (Paragraph 148)
NERC's Research and Collaborative Centres already
make considerable use of commercial vessels. For example the Proudman
Oceanographic Laboratory uses the Norfolk Line (part of Maersk),
the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton uses the Pride of
Bilbao and the Indo Trans Celebes for FerryBox work[4]
and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory has mounted data-gathering
equipment on vessels crossing the Channel and the Atlantic.
NERC would be prepared to consider, with its marine
research community, how more use could be made of commercial vessels,
but it is clear that commercial vessels do not generally offer
the bespoke facilities, specialist crew or flexibility afforded
by dedicated research vessels, and expectations should be realistic.
Commercial vessels are not suitable for some Research Centres'
operations because of their specialist requirements, or because
they are too expensive to charter or obtain time or facilities
on. It must also be noted that no matter how cost-effective a
proposed science programme on a commercial ship is, the proposed
programme will need to be tested against the standards of excellence
required for success in the competition for NERC funds.
22. We conclude that there is greater demand for
ship-time than the current arrangements are capable of delivering
and that vessel capacity is a limiting factor in marine research.
(Paragraph 151)
The evidence gathered for this response indicates
that it is budgets rather than ship-time that is the limiting
factor. If future science budgets are to grow without additional
vessel capacity then ship-time will indeed become a limiting factor,
but that is not currently the case. NERC's own ships are well
utilised for ocean going science, its international barter arrangements
are very effective, and time can be booked on the RV Prince Madog
for coastal science when necessary. NERC recognises, however,
the interplay between science demand and platform availability
and will review whether there is a case for a shelf sea research
vessel capacity beyond what is already available including through
charter or barter.
23. We recommend that an independent review be
conducted of the cost-effectiveness of NERC's operation of its
research vessels and management of alternative arrangements for
access to vessels. (Paragraph 154)
The cost-effectiveness of NERC's ship operations
was recently reviewed as part of the Office of Government Commerce's
Gateway Review Process and the decision was made that NERC should
continue to own and operate its new ship, the RRS James Cook.
Another review will be conducted shortly as part of the procurement
process for the new ship to replace RRS Discovery. The NERC Marine
Facilities Review Group meets twice a year and provides independent
advice on all aspects of the ship management and cruise planning
(incl. bartering and cooperation) that enable the cost-effective
delivery of NERC's sea-going science programmes. These existing
reviews address the issues referred to in this recommendation.
24. We fully support the development of the new
vessel planned for 2011 and recommend that the Government and
NERC commit to ensuring that this vessel is delivered on time
and to specification. (Paragraph 155)
NERC welcomes the Committee's support for the
development of the new vessel and we confirm that every effort
will be made to ensure that a proper business case for the project
is developed and submitted to the prioritisation process for the
commitment of earmarked Large Facility Capital Funds and if successful,
that the vessel is delivered on time and to specification.
25. We recommend that NERC develop a case for
a new coastal vessel for submission to the large facilities roadmap
and that DIUS look sympathetically upon such a bid. (Paragraph
155)
The NERC facility, the RV Prince Madog, supports
NERC science programmes in UK coastal waters and it has capacity
to take on more work year-on-year if more coastal science programmes
are funded in the future. In addition, the Plymouth Marine Laboratory
and the Scottish Association for Marine Science operate three
inshore vessels in support of their science and these can also
support NERC- funded science programmes.
NERC keeps under review its provision of major
facilities in the light of evolving science demand and is prepared
to review the evidence as to whether there is a case for a shelf
sea research vessel capacity beyond what is already available
including through existing vessels, charter or barter.
Other facilities
26. We recommend that the provision of facilities
be regularly reviewed as part of the mandate of the proposed new
co-ordinating body which would be the best available independent
body to obtain objective information from potential users and
providers, especially from those outside the NERC community. (Paragraph
156)
The report notes that the current arrangements are
working effectively. It can be added, for example, that NERC's
marine facilities are already subject to regular review using
community wide user groups to provide year on year review, and
Defra is undertaking a capacity review.
It is therefore concluded that the individual funders
and their science institutes are fulfilling their responsibilities
for ensuring that facilities are adequate, and this is not therefore
a role for MSCC.
27. We encourage the development of partnership
arrangements within Europe for the provision of highly advanced
underwater technologies and infrastructure. (Paragraph 157)
The Government welcomes this conclusion and NERC
will continue to actively develop its partnerships and wider arrangements
within Europe through its involvement with the Ocean Facilities
Exchange Group. These activities currently include the development
of a bi-lateral arrangement with CSIC (Higher Council for Scientific
Research) in Spain to utilise geo-physics equipment that will
be deployed by a trans-national team.
28. We recommend that NERC keep the use of Isis
under review and ensure that its potential is not undermined by
factors such as the availability of crews or platforms. We further
recommend that NERC investigate whether there would be more demand
for use of Isis, if more time were offered. (Paragraph 158)
NERC's utilisation of its marine facilities is
regularly reviewed through the NERC Marine Facilities Review Group.
It should be recognised that ISIS delivers only a part of the
scientific needs of the Marine Facilities Programme and its use
is balanced against the support of other requirements. NERC investment
in sea-going programmes is science driven and should there be
a requirement for increased support to ISIS the current support
arrangements will be reconsidered.
Information technologies for marine science
29. We recommend that NERC keep under review the
computing resources needed in the environmental sciences, particularly
with regard to NERC's new theme of environmental change. (Paragraph
160)
NERC has recently increased capacity of both local
clusters and national high performance computing (HPC) for its
marine community. NERC is contracted for 10% of HPCx, the RCUK
national service due to end in December 2008, and 22% of the new
service, HECToR, which started operation in October 2007 and is
scheduled to operate for 6 years. In addition to this increased
capacity on the national HPC service, Oceans 2025 includes funding
for local computer clusters at three marine centres, NOC, PML
and POL. Computing provision will be continually reviewed by NERC's
National Capability Advisory Group.
Government support
30. We regret the lack of attention paid by Government,
in particular the OSI/DIUS, to marine science since the disbandment
of the Marine Foresight Panel. We also regret that there has been
no systematic attempt to track implementation of the recommendations
made by the Marine Foresight Panel. We believe that greater effort
is needed in horizon-scanning within the marine science and technology
sector, and we recommend that this be included in the remit of
the new marine body. (Paragraph 164)
In 2002 the Foresight Programme moved away from its
earlier structure of standing panels to a more flexible project
based approach, focusing resources more clearly where these would
add greatest value. The approach was designed to allow new issues
to be targeted and picked up quickly, via a fluid, rolling programme
of projects. A key feature of the new approach is that leading
participants are required to agree an Action Plan to take forward
the findings of the project once Foresight involvement ceases,
specifically to address the tendency for reports to sit on the
shelf and for recommendations not to be taken on board.
Once Foresight moved in this new direction OSI (as
was) did not have the resources to maintain a parallel strand
of activity to follow up the large number of earlier reports and
areas of activity, including in relation to the Marine Panel.
Moreover, it is unlikely that such an activity would have been
productive, with diminishing returns over time as the context
for the earlier work evolved.
The Government Office for Science, within which the
Foresight team is based, would be happy to consider a further
project relating to the oceans and the marine environment provided
it fulfilled the relevant criteria, which includes the necessary
cross-government support. It is also relevant to highlight the
Flooding and Coastal Defence Foresight project, completed in April
2004, including aspects of marine science.
The Government agrees that the proposed MSCC should
include horizon scanning within its remit.
Gaps in data
31. We recommend that social system indicators
be part of future research and monitoring priorities for UK marine
science. (Paragraph 172)
The Government and RCUK recognise the importance
of social and economic factors in marine issues, and their relevance
to marine policy and management. For example, NERC and the Economic
and Social Research Council are currently co-funding an inter-disciplinary
seminar series on marine ecosystem management, and the new Living
With Environmental Change programme is expected to provide opportunities
for inter-disciplinary research in this area.
The need for the further development and use of social
system indicators has also been recognised within the UK Marine
Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS). The Productive Seas
Evidence Collection Group (PSEG) has been tasked with the further
development of socio-economic indicators to support the monitoring
and assessment of the marine environment. This task is on-going
with a strong lead currently being demonstrated by The Crown Estate.
Funding and co-ordination
32A. We recommend that the new marine agency,
proposed in this Report, be made responsible for marine monitoring.
It should also be responsible for setting priorities for monitoring
and should have a central budget for operational monitoring and
long-term international projects such as Argo. (Paragraph 180)
The Government believes that the responsibilities
for marine monitoring should remain under the UK's Marine Monitoring
and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) umbrella, with budgets for marine
monitoring remaining with the relevant departments who are required
to undertake monitoring as part of UK and EU-related statutory
duties. The UKMMAS Marine Assessment Policy Committee (MAPC),
which is chaired by Defra and the Scottish Government, includes
all the Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations
with responsibilities and policy requirements for obtaining evidence
of the state of the marine environment. MAPC has a remit to identify
new funding or, where necessary, to re-align existing funding
in order to meet current and emerging monitoring requirements.
Although the UKMMAS does not have a central budget,
funding is made available by those Departments and/or Agencies
which have a direct interest in obtaining the evidence. The UKMMAS
are working hard to ensure there is a trusted forum within which
priorities and monitoring commitments can be discussed and shared
amongst those able to provide funding.
However, the Government agrees that the policy relevance
of operational monitoring programmes, and long-term monitoring
programmes like Argo, need to be recognised, and that they have
a clearly defined sponsor and/or policy customer. We believe that
the UKMMAS provides the best framework to achieve this.
In addition, the Environmental Observation Framework
led by ERFF will be looking at financing mechanisms that will
enable the UK to support sustained observations and monitoring
in all natural environment disciplines. Observations in our oceans
and seas will be regarded with equal weight to those on land or
in the atmosphere. The priorities and the case for funding will
need to be driven by the MAPC.
32B. We also recommend that the £22m funding
gap identified by UKMMAS be met from central Government funds.
(Paragraph 180)
The £22m funding gap identified for monitoring
and assessment of the marine environment was calculated through
initial coarse estimates supplied by members of the UKMMAS. The
estimates have never been subjected to challenge or agreed with
funding organisations, and this figure has always been considered
as a first estimate. Further work is planned shortly to strengthen
the evidence and process by which this initial figure was derived.
Once this figure has been refined, further consideration will
be given to the need to address any gaps by Government Departments
and Devolved Administrations in light of all other commitments
and requirements.
33. We support the use of cost-benefit assessment
to establish the value of maintaining or stopping long-term monitoring
programmes and recommend that it be adopted by the new marine
body to ensure the efficiency of the UK monitoring programme and
secure individual projects against threat of closure merely because
they drop out of fashion. (Paragraph 181)
The UKMMAS is designed to ensure monitoring is 'owned'
and, as such, provides a mechanism by which the importance and
relevance of specific programmes of monitoring can be judged.
Discussions and recommendations pertaining to the value of maintaining
or stopping long-term monitoring programmes are held at all levels
of the UKMMAS, with strong emphasis on the consideration of costs
and benefits in light of current and emerging priorities.
The UKMMAS process has already achieved a number
of efficiency savings within marine monitoring programmes and
will continue to do so as the process evolves. New partnerships
between Agencies are being forged all the time and this will only
serve to strengthen support for current programmes of monitoring
and the ability use existing resources in a more efficient manner.
International ocean monitoring systems
34. We recommend that the UK Government renew
its commitment to GOOS and ensure that the network of observatories
is completed according to the timetable. (Paragraph 184)
Good progress is being made to clarify the needs
of GOOS in order to ensure they are adequately embedded and reflected
within the UKMMAS process. The GOOS requirements, including the
planned timetable for observatories, are being looked at in order
to ascertain how they fit into current priorities.
35. We recommend that funding be guaranteed for
the Argo programme from centralised funds. (Paragraph 185)
The UKMMAS process is establishing a mechanism for
identifying and progressing the need for new and continued programmes
of monitoring. All requirements for the continuation of existing
monitoring programmes, including the Argo programme, and for new
monitoring will be progressed through the Marine Assessment Reporting
Group (MARG). Where new funding or a re-alignment of existing
funding is required the Marine Assessment Policy Committee (MAPC)
will make an informed decision based on the best available evidence,
including current and future priorities and recommendations from
MARG, and within the constraints of available resources.
Satellites
36. We recommend that the new marine agency, proposed
in this Report, become a partner of the British National Space
Centre in order that the needs of the marine science community
be fully represented when discussing and determining space issues.
(Paragraph 189)
The government welcomes strong end-user engagement
within the BNSC partnership. There already exist formal and informal
mechanisms by which the marine science community is or could be
better represented. The Earth Observation Programme Board, a key
BNSC advisory group, has had regular representation from senior
marine scientists. Regular discussions occur on an informal basis.
For instance, senior BNSC officials recently held bilateral discussions
with representatives of the marine community on the issue of the
European Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES)
programme. Defra membership of BNSC provides for a more policy-focused
perspective on marine issues of relevance to the space community
and has recently completed a study of marine observation requirements
that will support this role. Future links with the marine science
community can always be strengthened via one of these routes or
by any new routes that emerge as a result of the current review
of UK space policy.
Sharing data
37. We recommend that the principle of "collect
once, use many times" be applied to marine data across Government,
including the Royal Navy. We further recommend that the new marine
agency which we have recommended, or an equivalent body, be charged
with finding mechanisms to facilitate the release of data and
interaction between producers, suppliers and users of data to
maximise its value to the community at large. (Paragraph 198)
'Collect once, use many times' is widely acknowledged
across Government as a fundamental principle in the management
of marine data and is a cornerstone of the UKMMAS. Government
is acutely aware of the need to maximise the value of data in
order to meet a number of its key priorities such as the EU INSPIRE
Directive, the Marine Bill, and Marine Planning. Government Departments
and the Devolved Administrations have committed to the principle
of 'Collect once, use many times' through the continued support
of several key initiatives including the Marine Data and Information
Partnership (MDIP), the Marine Environmental Data Action Group
(MEDAG), and the UK Directory of Marine Observing Systems (UKDMOS).
It is through these initiatives and the on-going work within the
UKMMAS that issues pertaining to the release of data will be addressed
and interactions between producers, suppliers and users of data
strengthened. MDIP and MEDAG currently report to their respective
sponsor boards and through to IACMST. In future both will report
to a new sponsor board. MSCC will continue to maintain an overview
of marine monitoring and will establish links with the new board.
There are however some barriers to using data many
times including issues relating to ownership and confidentiality.
These are complex issues which will be tackled across government
at the highest level as part of the Earth Observation Forum, and
are being considered also by MAPC.
38. We recommend that the Government reconsider
its opposition to discussions on a European Marine Observation
and Data Network. (Paragraph 199)
This European Marine Observation and Data Network
(EMODN) was mentioned in the EU Green paper on the Maritime Environment
in early 2007. The Government still reserves judgement on how
this will relate to the numerous existing Europe-wide initiatives
to share data, what additional burdens it will place on the UK,
and whether it will be fruitful or not. The Government remains
of the opinion that this initiative could not be supported until
further details are available and particularly on how the initiative
will provide any added value over SEIS, INSPIRE, GMES, WISE -
Marine, GEOSS, ICES and data bases planned for OSPAR (see response
37 for UK Governments support of the 'collect once use many times'
principle).
In addition the UK is committed to the EU Marine
Strategy which places the burdens on member stares to share data
and make joint assessments of the state of the seas. This should
be developed first and the EC encouraged to look at all the data
systems and systems of systems they are proposing.
The importance of studying the polar oceans
39. We welcome NERC's commitment to the International
Polar Year but consider that the additional funding dedicated
to the UK contribution is less than generous. NERC must confirm
that it will provide sustained funding to IPY projects after the
end of the programme. (Paragraph 204)
NERC makes an annual commitment of approximately
£40m to Antarctic science and infrastructure every year through
BAS, and spends an additional £3-4M on polar research every
year through responsive-mode grants. This level of investment
compares well with other European nations. The Arctic IPY programme,
which started in 2006 and funded four consortia programmes, will
run until 2010, beyond the end of IPY.
The UK's role in polar science
40. The UK effort in the Southern Ocean conducted
through BAS is truly impressive and gives the UK a genuinely world-leading
position in this area of expertise. We support the continuation
of this research focus and the resources dedicated to it. (Paragraph
210)
The Government welcomes this conclusion on the UK
effort in the Southern Ocean and notes that this world-leading
position has been established through the efforts of BAS and a
range of other institutions including the National Oceanography
Centre Southampton, the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, and
UK universities.
41. We recommend that BAS be brought fully within
the scope of NERC's marine policy as it affects the research centres.
(Paragraph 210)
The transition to new strategy delivery mechanisms,
with revised funding arrangements, will allow for improved co-ordination
of the marine science national capability and research programmes
in all of NERC's Research and Collaborative Centres, including
BAS and BGS, and with HEIs..
42. We recommend that NERC identify funding for
an expansion of Arctic research in collaboration with other nations
which already have substantial presence there. (Paragraph 217)
In February 2007 NERC Council requested a working
group be set up to look at the priority areas of research in the
polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) in the context of the new
NERC strategy. The group's report is currently being finalised
and will inform the development of Theme ActionPplans by NERC's
new theme leaders. Also, separately, NERC is examining the opportunities
for collaboration with other nations, including consideration
of access and infrastructure needs. In 2008 NERC Council will
be drawing these analyses together to develop plans for its polar
science portfolio.
Conservation of marine areas
43. We urge the Government to establish a number
of full-scale MPA pilot sites immediately, ahead of the Marine
Bill, in order to gather the evidence necessary to develop the
science needed to underpin MPAs and to enable the UK to become
a leader in conservation science. (Paragraph 223)
The Government is committed to establishing an ecologically
coherent network of well managed marine protected areas (MPAs).
The UK already has a number of protected areas around our coastal
waters (around 180) and has a programme of data collection and
survey to identify further sites both inshore and offshore. These
sites are designated in order to meet our European obligations,
and will help to form the building block of a UK network of MPAs.
We therefore already have a fairly good scientific understanding
in relation to the current network of sites, and we intend to
build on this to inform the development of our overall MPA network.
The proposed Marine Bill will provide the necessary
mechanisms to complete our network of MPAs, by allowing Marine
Conservation Zones (MCZs) to be designated for features of national
importance, including rare, threatened and representative species
and habitats. Our nature conservation agencies are developing
a scientific rationale for selecting sites and the design principles
for a network of MCZs. We are keen to complete the network of
MPAs (consisting of both European sites and MCZs) as soon as possible
and have received commitment from Natural England to enable a
designated network of sites by 2012.
Pilot projects are not considered to be either feasible
or advantageous, given the network of existing European sites
which provide good case studies, and the need to carry out survey
work and data collection before designating further sites (to
complete our MPA network). There would also be insufficient time
to adequately analyse the results of the pilot sites if the UK
is to meet its goal of substantially having a network in place
by 2012.
Designation of MPAs in Scotland is a matter for the
Scottish Government.
The Marine Bill
44A. We recommend that the draft Marine Bill be
brought forward without further delay, despite concerns about
Defra's ability to deliver a network of MPAs. We require an assurance
from the department as to the speedy presentation of the draft
bill and the subsequent bill itself, and a commitment to ensuring
that the bill is enacted by the end of the next parliamentary
session. We recommend that Defra publish a clear timetable for
the bill to complete its passage through Parliament within this
timeframe. (Paragraph 233)
The Government intends to meet its 2005 manifesto
commitment to introduce a Marine Bill in this Parliament. We recognise
that there is widespread support for a Marine Bill to be introduced
as soon as possible to address the wide range of issues, including
enhancement of the framework for marine nature conservation, set
out in the Marine Bill White Paper published earlier this year.
We are committed to publishing a draft Marine Bill
as part of the legislative programme in this 2007/08 session of
Parliament. We expect this will be in Spring 2008.
Introduction of a Marine Bill to Parliament will
be subject to the outcome of public scrutiny of the draft Bill
and consideration of the Government's ongoing legislative programme.
The Government is not at this point able to give a concluded view
on what will form the full legislative programme in the coming
session, and Parliament cannot give timetables for the passage
of Bills in future sessions.
The Government is looking towards early consultation
with the public next year on its draft legislative programme giving
both Parliament and the public advance sight of what the Government
is planning to bring forward in the forthcoming session. This
will be accompanied by a publication outlining the Bills proposed
as they stand at that point.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government has committed
to consult stakeholders, including the fishing industry, on Scottish
legislation for the marine area. Discussions to agree the interaction
between the Marine Bill and a Scottish Marine Bill are not yet
completed.
44B. We recommend that Defra conduct and publish
an assessment of what is needed to enable it to designate and
monitor chosen sites. However, this assessment should not be used
as an excuse to delay proceedings on the bill: if the department
waits until it has all the necessary data, it will never proceed.
(Paragraph 233)
The proposed Marine Bill will provide a mechanism
for the designation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). The provisions
will allow for the selection and designation of sites that contain
species, communities of species or other natural characteristics
that best represent the range of biodiversity of UK waters.
The Government will select sites on the basis of
the best available evidence and the statutory nature conservation
agencies are currently considering the approach to site selection
and the level of evidence that would be needed for site proposals.
Further details will be made public as this work progresses.
We will carry out monitoring of sites through the
UKMMAS. This will ensure the co-ordination and streamlining of
marine monitoring and help to establish the current and future
condition of our marine ecosystems.
Technology transfer to the commercial sector
45. We commend projects such as EPSRC's efforts
to stimulate work in sensor systems where Research Councils have
identified a potential gap in the market and moved to address
it. We believe that there is greater scope for such activity than
has previously been explored and recommend that the Research Councils
pursue an active approach to identify areas for technology development
in the marine sector. (Paragraph 251)
EPSRC will continue to identify and support broad
themes for multidisciplinary research that fill gaps in the research
landscape, such as the "Sensors in Extreme Environments"
theme, through its normal priority-setting procedures. Marine
technology research is covered as part of EPSRC's responsibility
to manage its research portfolio and through its interactions
with users of such research, in particular through EPSRC's Aerospace
and Defence and Power sector activities.
NERC agrees that the development of marine technology
is an important factor, and this is recognised in the new NERC
strategy where Technologies is one of the seven strategic science
themes. NERC supports the efforts of its Research and Collaborative
Centres to engage industry in the development of marine technologies,
and Technology Development is specifically addressed in the Oceans
2025 programme.
Technology and policy formulation
46. We believe that there is an important role
for a marine agency to promote knowledge transfer from scientists
to policy formulation. This could include publishing data in an
appropriate format and promoting stakeholder engagement. (Paragraph
254)
Promoting the transfer of knowledge generated and
held by the Research Base to enhance economic growth is entirely
in line with the Government's objective to make the most of the
UK investment in science, engineering and technology.
For Departments, science is commissioned for a specific
purpose, that of providing evidence on which to base policy development.
Communication is an important aspect of the science/policy interface.
It is a two-way process; policy needs to be clear as to what the
"evidence" needs are and scientists need to deliver
the answers in a clear and understandable way.
There are several initiatives that are looking at
the science/policy interface. For example, as part of a Commission
funded project, Defra has initiated a study aimed at developing
good practice in the communication between scientists and fishery
managers. NERC and its centres are already engaged in many knowledge
transfer activities and ERFF recently published a report on using
research to inform policy.
It is concluded that the funders of marine science
should take the lead for ensuring that there is effective communication
of their science. A potential role for MSCC is encouraging the
sharing of good practice between members.
Industry and strategy
47. We believe that the development of marine
technology should be an important component of the work of new
marine body which should ensure that it engages with industry
in developing its strategy and plan of work. (Paragraph 255)
MSCC will ensure that wider stakeholders, including
industry, are consulted during the process of developing the marine
science strategy.
Skills
48. We believe that one of the key tasks of the
new marine body should be to review the training needs required
to support marine science and technology in the UK and to propose
a strategy for tackling identified shortages. (Paragraph 264)
The Government agrees that skills and training are
an important aspect in helping to secure proper development of
the UK's marine science and technology capability. The MSCC will
need to consider this aspect carefully before adopting an appropriate
plan of action. Key stakeholders in this area, including the Research
Councils, the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and
Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA) and relevant industry bodies
will need to be consulted as appropriate.
Education and outreach
49. We recommend that the Department for Children,
Families and Schools investigate the US programme and other ways
of integrating marine science into schools and adopt a strategic
programme to encourage the study of marine science-related subjects
in UK schools. (Paragraph 268)
The DCSF will look at the work undertaken by the
National Science Foundation in the US and other programmes
The national curriculum statutory programmes of study
at key stages 3 and 4 are now less prescriptive, having been slimmed
down by expressing the content in more general terms without losing
breadth, depth and challenge. This provides greater flexibility
for teachers, allowing them to adapt their curriculum for
the needs and circumstances of their pupils, and allowing the integration
of subject areas such as marine science. The new curriculum
opportunities section of the key stage 3 programme of study also
indicates that the curriculum should provide opportunities for
pupils to experience science outside the school environment, to
study science in local, national and global contexts, and to recognise
the importance of sustainability. Marine science is one of many
areas of science that could address these.
The Government's ambitious programme of work to create
an education and training environment that delivers the best in
science teaching and learning at every stage will provide opportunities
for both teachers and pupils to find out more about specific topics
such as marine science through:
- Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) opportunities - the Science Learning Centre South east has
access to the unique facilities of the National Oceanography Centre.
This enables the centre to provide courses that introduce teachers
to ocean and earth science concepts suitable for use in the classroom.
These can be accessed by teachers from across the nation.
- Learning outside the classroom - through The
Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto the Government wants
to enable every young person to experience the world beyond the
classroom as an essential part of their learning and personal
development.
- Encouraging marine related organisations to link
with Science and Engineering Ambassadors programme (a number of
marine related organisations are already involved), after school
science and engineering clubs, and the STEM careers campaign that
will begin in early 2008.
It will be a matter for the Scottish Government to
consider education policy in Scotland.
50. We recommend that DIUS and Defra jointly examine
the US Sea Grant programme with a view to whether the new marine
body could usefully expend funds of its own to encourage marine
research in the HEI sector. (Paragraph 268)
The MSCC will not have its own budget for research
and will not therefore be in a position to expend funds to encourage
research in the HEI sector. Departments commission research at
a wide range of research institutes, including universities. To
encourage the involvement of university teams in fisheries research
NERC, Defra, DARDNI and the Scottish Government this year launched
a jointly funded programme, 'Sustainable Marine Bioresources',
which required universities to take the lead in preparing bids.
Eighteen proposals were received, involving some 30 university
teams. Six proposals have been selected for funding with a total
budget of £2.4m. MSCC will consider whether other schemes,
including the US Sea Grant programme, are an appropriate way of
encouraging marine science in the HEI sector. It will be a matter
for the Scottish Government to consider education policy in Scotland.
51. We believe that the learned societies have
a role to play in outreach work and encouraging greater knowledge
of ocean-related issues among the general public and in promoting
careers in marine science. We recommend that the new marine body,
proposed in this Report, develop links with the learned societies
for this purpose. (Paragraph 270)
MSCC will commission working groups to undertake
specific studies. Learned societies will need to be included in
these working groups as appropriate, building on the links already
established by Departments. Learned Societies will be among the
many stakeholders that will be consulted in the course of developing
the marine science strategy.
Increasing public awareness
52. The new marine body should be charged with
raising public awareness of marine issues, including better use
of facilities such as science centres and public aquaria. A focus
on extreme environments (space and oceans) would entice young
people into science. There should also be a duty placed on the
new body to raise awareness of marine sustainability issues so
that the general public is accurately informed about the importance
of the oceans in their lives. (Paragraph 271)
Departments and their institutes already have a number
of initiatives aimed at raising public awareness. For example
NERC's Research and Collaborative Centres, including the marine
centres, already engage in an extensive range of outreach activities
and programmes including "classroom@sea" and the current
BAS exhibition about Antarctic life and research hosted by the
Science Museum. Defra produces a quarterly publication Fishing
Focus which includes a regular section reporting on results from
its research programme.
The Government concludes therefore that raising awareness
on matters such as marine sustainability is best accomplished
by the individual Departments, or Devolved Administrations, rather
than a central body such as MSCC.
International organisations
53. We recommend that a co-ordinating committee,
within the new agency, be established to bring together UK representatives
on all relevant international bodies in order to establish agreed
common policy goals and to make optimal use of UK expertise and
technology. (Paragraph 274)
Current arrangements are that IACMST's International
Sub-Committee maintains an overview of UK Government Policy relevant
to the UK's interface with various intergovernmental marine-related
agencies. The Committee does not formulate policy but it does
provide a mechanism for the exchange of information, allowing
policy to be developed. A similar provision will be needed for
the future, and MSCC will need to ensure that the sub-committee
continues, possibly as one of the working groups that will be
commissioned to undertake specific work.
International projects
54. We recommend that NERC examine alternative
mechanisms for funding long-term international projects in marine
science. It may be that there is also a role for the new marine
body here in helping with co-ordination across funders. We also
recommend that more funding be made available by NERC or other
funders of programmes to enable scientists to exploit the results
of international projects. (Paragraph 278)
Facilitating involvement in long-term international
projects is important to NERC and the issue will be addressed
in the development of NERC's International Strategy in 2008 as
well as in NERC's Theme Action Plans. NERC regards the exploitation
of results from all relevant programmes, whether national or international,
as a high priority, as demonstrated by its support for data-utilisation
in the Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme, for example. Both
ERFF and the successor committee to the IACMST, as well as the
new RCUK offices in China, India and the US, should be able to
contribute to the co-ordination of international projects and
the facilitation of UK involvement.
55. We conclude that NERC should continue to fund
IPOs wherever possible and should provide direct support and assistance
in the early stages of bidding for such offices, as well as during
the period of operation. (Paragraph 281)
Continued funding of IPOs will be dependent on
budgetary planning decisions to be made in 2008. NERC will continue
to assess the appropriateness of its involvement in IPOs against
its strategic priorities, and where possible become involved at
an early stage with offices whose programmes are a good fit.
EU marine research
56. We believe that the UK should participate
fully in the development of marine science and technology under
the European maritime Green Paper process and show leadership
to maximise the influence of UK scientists. We are concerned that
this may not be easy with the Department for Transport in charge
of Government policy in this area and we urge full consultation
between that Department and those with greater knowledge of marine
science and technology. (Paragraph 284)
These recommendations are founded on a misconception.
The DfT is not "in charge of Government policy" on the
European Maritime Green Paper. With the agreement of all the Government
Departments, Devolved Administrations and Agencies concerned,
the DfT was responsible for co-ordinating the UK Government response
on the European Commission's Maritime Green Paper. The response
was developed following a UK-wide public consultation and full
discussions between UK Government Departments and the Devolved
Administrations. It was also subject to scrutiny by the UK Parliament,
before being submitted to the European Commission.
Following the consultation on the European Maritime
Green Paper, on 10 October 2007, the European Commission published
the wide ranging Integrated Maritime Policy for the EU ("the
Blue Book"), for further discussion by Member States (available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs). The development of individual
elements of the new European Maritime Policy will be taken forward
by the Government Departments, Devolved Administrations and Agencies
with relevant policy responsibility. However, for the sake of
coherence, it is likely that a central co-ordination point will
still be required and the appropriate location of this within
Government is currently under discussion.
57. We recommend that the UK continue to work
closely with EU to exploit FP7 to the full in the area of marine
science. (Paragraph 288)
The Government agrees that there is much to be gained
in working closely with the EU to maximise the opportunities available
in FP7. We will continue to influence the FP7 work programmes
through the relevant programme committees and through communication
in other fora with the European Commission and other EU member
states. Information and support will be provided to UK applicants
through the FP7UK website, the national contact point services
provided by departments, and through the Research Councils sponsored
UK Research Office (UKRO) based in Brussels.
Government departments and the Research Councils
will continue to participate in European collaborative mechanisms
funded by the Framework Programme, including the ERA-NETs in marine
research, marine pollution and ocean drilling research, to ensure
better coordination of national research programmes across Europe.
A UK marine action plan
58A. We recommend that the UK Government develop
a strategy for marine science, setting out priorities for fulfilment
in the next ten years and identifying how these will be met. This
strategy should be developed in full and open consultation with
the science community, the private sector and all those with an
interest in the health and exploitation of the oceans, including
those involved in education.
Individual departments and the Devolved Administrations
have responsibilities for developing their own science strategies.
For example Defra published its Science and Innovation strategy
in 2005, and earlier this year developed a long-term vision for
sustainability in the fishing sector which helps identify the
future challenges for fisheries science. NERC has recently published
its strategy for 2007-2012, "Next Generation Science for
Planet Earth", covering its strategy and science priorities
and clarifying its approach to funding national capability, including
in marine science.
However the Government accepts that there is merit
in developing a high-level marine science strategy. This strategy
should not duplicate the strategies of individual departments
but will focus on the cross-departmental science issues, especially
the need for joined-up programmes, and the need for considering
our 'national capability' to support marine science. Agreeing
the content and scope of the strategy will be one of the first
tasks of MSCC. It will be important to agree the extent to which
the strategy will include technology, whether to include UK science
undertaken in international waters, and how to cover science that
crosses the land, air, sea sectors. Once the strategy has been
scoped MSCC will commission the work possibly through one of the
proposed working groups. Wide consultation will be part of the
process. Scottish Government is currently considering its science
strategy for 2011-2016, including marine science.
58B. We further recommend that the marine science
strategy be part of a larger holistic strategy or plan for maritime
affairs, covering the range of uses of the sea, current and future.
The priorities and objectives in this strategy should be underpinned
by scientific data and evidence. (Paragraph 304)
This recommendation, which refers to the need to
develop a larger holistic plan for maritime affairs, is noted
by the Government. However this is more a matter of UK marine
policy and is considered to fall somewhat outside the strict terms
of reference of the Inquiry which has as its focus marine science.
Developing further clarity on the Government's marine
objectives is an important line of work linked to the Marine Bill.
Work is underway to develop a suite of high level marine objectives
for the UK Government as a whole. These will clarify the UK Government's
current vision of clean, safe, healthy, productive and biologically
diverse oceans and seas.
The high level objectives will provide a framework
to enable consistency and alignment between marine policy and
science strategy and will cascade to more detailed and technical
contributory objectives and indicators in the UK's Marine Monitoring
and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) to ensure coherence of our policy
with all of our science and monitoring activities.
The objectives will also underpin the development
of a marine policy statement which will provide a more detailed
framework to deliver sustainable marine development through a
new system of marine planning that will create a set of marine
plans for areas of sea (including the coast). This is a fundamental
part of the forthcoming Marine Bill and the system's implementation
will be underpinned by data and evidence. The plans themselves
will take all marine resources and activities within the area
into account, as well as outside influences, to develop scenarios
of current and future development of that area and the activities
within.
Accurate and reflective scientific data and evidence
gathered during planning will provide the necessary understanding
of the amount, nature and complexity of marine activity in an
area, as well as ecological considerations and physical features,
to help us ensure we can properly protect areas, for example marine
conservation zones, that we need to. During the planning process,
the planning body Marine Management Organisation (MMO) will liaise
and consult with bodies and organisations with specific expertise
or marine related responsibilities, including scientific advisors
to ensure that the developing plans accurately reflect their policies,
priorities and objectives, as set out in the UK marine policy
statement. The Scottish Government is currently taking forward
policy development for marine spatial planning and a marine management
organisation for Scottish waters.
The Government concludes therefore that while a marine
science strategy is necessary and will be developed by the MSCC,
a larger holistic strategy or plan for maritime affairs is already
being substantially addressed by departments through the Marine
Bill process. As with all evidence-based policy making, the development
of marine objectives is underpinned by science.
58C. We recommend that the strategies be the day
to day responsibility of a new marine agency, an executive body
with powers to require the co-operation of Government departments.
(Paragraph 304)
As indicated in our response to Recommendation 58A
and 58B the Government accepts that there is merit in developing
a high-level marine science strategy, and this will be a priority
for the MSCC. Our response to Recommendation 58B concludes however
that a larger holistic strategy for maritime affairs is already
being substantially addressed. Consideration therefore only needs
to be given to one strategy, that covering science, and this will
be developed by the MSCC.
The MSCC will not be in a position to 'require the
co-operation of government departments' nor does the Government
consider this an appropriate way of achieving successful collaboration
between departments and/or Devolved Administrations. As set out
at the start of this response members of the committee will agree
how they will work together through a memorandum of understanding
or other form of agreement. This will include joint ownership
of the strategy.
58D. At the top of this new structure, we recommend
the designation of a Minister for Marine Science within Defra,
who should act as the Government champion for the whole maritime
strategy. (Paragraph 304)
The Government recognises the case for improving
co-ordination and developing a more strategic focus. The reporting
arrangements for the new committee will be developed as part of
detailed planning work for its establishment over the next 4-6
months, to ensure it has the right levers and authority to be
able to deliver.
Key factors that will need to be taken into account
include:
- There is no lead Minister for
marine policy. Marine policy is the responsibility of a number
of different departments, Devolved Administrations and funding
agencies. Each of these has specific requirements for marine science,
including providing "evidence" on which to base specific
marine policies and decision making.
- These departments, administrations and agencies
are themselves responsible for ensuring that there is effective
communication with stakeholders, developing collaborative links,
ensuring facilities and vessels are used effectively etc.
- The funders of marine science are best placed,
and should be responsible for, the proper management of their
science, including effective collaboration and coordination with
others.
- The "marine" label implies a uniformity
of purpose among agencies which is not in practice the case. Government
agencies address a wide range of different policy issues, which,
though they all take place in a marine context and may interact,
are no more closely linked than all terrestrial activities and
are better managed separately.
- The need to ensure robust arrangements and clarity
of responsibilities for coordinating and ensuring coherence in
the UK's overall approach, and to address cross-cutting issues.
To secure the improvement in co-ordination and to
strengthen opportunities for increasing efficiency the Government
considers that the proposed new Marine Science Co-ordination Committee
(MSCC) will be the key vehicle to fulfil this role. Members of
the committee will be able to escalate issues through the normal
channels to their own ministers. Where there are interdepartmental
issues that need to be resolved these can be reported to the relevant
Cabinet sub-committee or dealt with under established arrangements
for any matter of devolved policy. The mechanism for this and
the detailed reporting arrangements for MSCC will be developed
as part of planning work for its establishment over the next 4-6
months, to ensure it has the right levers and authority to be
able to deliver.
The MSCC might also present an annual report to the
Chief Scientific Advisers' Committee, chaired by the Government's
Chief Scientific Adviser.
59. Under this new arrangement, it would be illogical
to leave the Department for Transport in charge of Government
policy on the European maritime Green Paper. We recommend that
this responsibility be passed to the new marine agency. (Paragraph
305)
The proposals for a new Integrated Maritime Policy
for the European Union are set out in the so-called "Blue
Book", published by the European Commission in October 2007,
following a year-long consultation on the Maritime Green Paper.
The proposals are very wide-ranging and cover a number of different
policy areas. These include maritime security and surveillance;
labour law; careers and employment; maritime transport; maritime
clusters; regional policy; tourism; migration; and international
relations, as well as marine science and technology, fisheries,
climate change and spatial planning. Although the Department for
Transport is currently acting as the UK Government focal point
for co-ordinating work on the new European maritime policy, responsibility
for negotiating and developing individual policy areas continues
to rest with the Government Departments, Devolved Administrations
and Agencies concerned.
1 Defra's science programme takes into account research
needs in Wales. Back
2
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/documents/eligibilitystatement.pdf Back
3
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/eligibility.htm Back
4
http://www.ferrybox.org/ Back
|