Memorandum submitted by the National Centre
for Atmospheric Science (SAGE 31)
I contributed substantial input to the part
of the submission by Research Councils UK regarding the response
to the Icelandic volcanic ash emergency and so this submission
covers only additional points not in the RCUK submission. My role
is that of Director of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science
(NCAS), which is the research centre of the Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) responsible for atmospheric science. The
Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements (FAAM) is a joint
facility between NERC and the Met Office. Within NERC it is managed
by NCAS and so is my responsibility. The FAAM BAe-146 aircraft
played a central role in the response to the volcanic ash hazard.
1. What are the potential hazards and risks
and how were they identified? How prepared is/was the Government
for the emergency?
My views on this point are fully covered by
the RCUK submission.
2. How does/did the Government use scientific
advice and evidence to identify, prepare for and react to an emergency?
The Government Chief Scientific Advisor convened
the Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE) quickly. This
was effective in gathering expert advice and making it available
to Government departments. It was effective in developing a coordinated
understanding of the risks from volcanic ash, in providing sufficiently
well articulated assessments of the possible development of the
risk through time, and in translating the perceived risk into
a draft for inclusion in the national risk register. The Government
Office for Science was highly effective in supporting SAGE and
the individual scientists contributing to SAGE.
3. What are the obstacles to obtaining reliable,
timely scientific advice and evidence to inform policy decisions
in emergencies? Has the Government sufficient powers and resources
to overcome the obstacles? For case studies (i) and (ii) was there
sufficient and timely scientific evidence to inform policy decisions?
There were significant shortcomings in the ability
of Government to gain assured access to the research aircraft
response which it required:
— there was failure of Cabinet Office and
the Department for Transport to recognise that the Met Office
only had access to the research aircraft via a contract with the
Natural Environment Research Council, and hence an appropriate
response required cooperation of parties other than the Met Office;
— there was failure to properly engage
with the owners (BAe Systems), operators (Directflight Ltd) and
service providers (Natural Environment Research Council) concerning
the cost of emergency operations; and
— there was a refusal on occasions of the
Department for Transport to take account of scientific advice,
but instead to mandate research flight operations which were ultimately
of little value and caused some opportunities to gather more genuinely
useful scientific data to be missed. Political imperatives were
cited as the reason for this.
4. How effective is the strategic coordination
between Government departments, public bodies, private bodies,
sources of scientific advice and the research base in preparing
for and reacting to emergencies?
The satisfactory outcome to the scientific response
was the result of good will on the part of the Natural Environment
Research Council, Met Office, BAe Systems and Directflight, who
were prepared to make their assets available with far from satisfactory
guarantees that Government would meet the costs (subsequently,
vague promises that costs would be covered have proved worthless).
Government was therefore exposed to the possibility that had the
good will been withdrawn, access to research aircraft data would
have been impossible. This could also have an impact on willingness
of the parties to cooperate in future emergencies. From the outside,
it appeared that there was a absence of clear responsibility and
authority to make the required decisions to commit resources.
5. How important is international coordination
and how could it be strengthened?
My views on this point are fully covered by
the RCUK response.
Professor Stephen Mobbs
Director, National Centre for Atmospheric Science
14 September 2010
| 
