Conclusions and recommendations
The UK Marine Science Strategy
1. We
welcome the establishment of the UK Marine Science Strategy. However,
if the Strategy is to help the Government achieve its vision of
"clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse
oceans and seas", further work is needed to translate its
high level goals into substantive outcomes. We recommend that
the Government set out an implementation plan for the UK Marine
Science Strategy, with a timetable that articulates expected outcomes
at intervals over the next ten years, and how success will be
measured. This should be updated on an annual basis. (Paragraph
7)
Marine Science Coordination Committee
2. We
recommend that Defra includes the evidence submitted to this inquiry
regarding the work of the MSCC when considering areas for improvement,
such as its membership, resources, and focus on outcomes. The
Government should set out a clear timetable for the current review
and publish its results on the MSCC website alongside an action
plan to address its findings. We note that the Minister has identified
the absence of permanent industry representation as a weakness
in the MSCC's operations and we recommend that a seat for an industry
representative on the MSCC be identified within three months.
(Paragraph 12)
NERC support for marine science
3. We
understand the difficulties that NERC faces in prioritising its
resources at a time of limited funding. However, we are concerned
about the potential for current reprioritisation measures to undermine
the UK's long-term capability in marine and polar science. Marine
and polar science should not suffer from structural changes to
funding mechanisms. These sciences are particularly dependent
on the maintenance of extensive or large scale facilities, sometimes
operating over long periods of time. NERC should therefore ensure
there is adequate provision for research centres that depend on
its national capability resources within its funding portfolio.
(Paragraph 16)
Use of scientific evidence
4. The
Government appears to have moved the goalposts during the Marine
Conservation Zone designation process, to require robust evidence
showing the presence or extent of marine features rather than
the best available evidence reflecting our current understanding
of the marine environment. We support the principle that Marine
Conservation Zones should be based on sound scientific evidence.
We consider that the Government should adhere to its standard
of best available evidence, as set out in its initial Marine Conservation
Zone guidance, that "network design should be based on the
best information currently available" and "lack of full
scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing proportionate
decisions on site selection". (Paragraph 23)
Management measures
5. We
are not convinced that the issues of what to conserve and how
to conserve it can be separated as easily as the Minister suggests,
particularly in a stakeholder-driven process with negotiations
happening at a local level to decide which sites should be chosen
to be protected on the basis of their biological importance and
socio-economic impact. People need to understand what Marine Conservation
Zones mean for their lifestyles and livelihoods. The absence of
a substantive discussion on likely management measures perpetuates
uncertainty, undermines local support for Marine Conservation
Zones and creates room for scare-mongering. We recommend that
the Government produce a clear statement on how management measures
will be decided and tailored to specific Marine Conservation Zones,
alongside a clear timetable showing when these will be discussed.
(Paragraph 28)
Defra's current consultation
6. There
is a lack of clarity regarding why the proposed 31 Marine Conservation
Zones were selected for designation first, despite the JNCC and
Natural England's advice that 59 sites, 51 of which are not included
in the first tranche, are currently at high risk of further damage.
The Government should set out the reasons for not putting these
sites forward for consultation and outline action being taken
to prevent further damage to these areas as the Marine Conservation
Zone process continues. We agree with the principle that socio-economic
concerns should be taken into account when designating Marine
Conservation Zones. We recognise that it is difficult to balance
socio-economic and scientific concerns. However, at present it
is not clear why certain sites are being progressed and others
not. Given that the weight given to socio-economic concerns compared
to scientific evidence is a political judgement, we recommend
that the Government should publish the criteria being used by
Defra to select sites for conservation. (Paragraph 32)
Next steps
7. We
are concerned that a clear vision for Marine Conservation Zones
has not been articulated by the Government. We recommend that
it does so in the response to this report. (Paragraph 33)
8. We were pleased
to hear that the Minister is keen to move the Marine Conservation
Zone process forward, but we have not seen this intention translated
into action. The Minister should not let his priorities be set
by fear of judicial review. Further delay to the process perpetuates
the uncertainty that has already been damaging to the Marine Conservation
Zone project. We recommend that Government set out a clear timetable
for designation of this tranche and future tranches of Marine
Conservation Zones, with a clear commitment to an end date by
which the ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas,
as the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 requires, will be established.
(Paragraph 34)
Commercial operations
9. We
support the Marine Management Organisation in their efforts to
encourage data sharing from industry. We agree with Professor
Boyd's assessment that "we have to be a lot cleverer"
about using the data that is out there already to improve our
understanding of our marine environment. Whilst we recognise there
is work underway to address this issue, we consider that this
could go further. We recommend that the Government works with
the Marine Management Organisation to bring forward proposals
that would make sharing of more data collected at sea, particularly
seabed and habitat maps, as well as wind data, a licensing condition
on commercial activity in UK waters. We recognise that this may
have to contain caveats relating to genuinely commercially sensitive
information. (Paragraph 40)
Long term monitoring
10. We
welcome Sir John Beddington's work on the issue of long-term monitoring
programmes, which are of particular importance to understanding
long-term environmental change in the marine environment. We encourage
Sir Mark Walport to continue to be involved in these efforts.
We consider that there are shortcomings in both the Government's
and NERC's support for long-term monitoring and we are concerned
that the UK's capability in this field appears to be being cut
back. The Marine Science Coordination Committee should meet with
Sir Mark Walport within his first six months in office as
Government Chief Scientific Adviser to discuss long-term monitoring.
We recommend that the Committee produce an action plan to address
this issue and answer the strategic questions posed by Professor
Boyd about how we measure the right parameters in a technologically
developed manner. (Paragraph 43)
Autonomous underwater vehicles
11. We
agree with Professor Boyd that priority should be given to harnessing
the potential of autonomous underwater vehicle technologies. We
were particularly interested in this issue in light of our recent
work on the commercialisation of research. This area of innovation
should be a focus of attention within the Technology Strategy
Board. It could also be used to provide a forum for the Marine
Science Coordination Committee to begin to improve its engagement
with industry. We recommend that the Marine Science Coordination
Committee engages with the Technology Strategy Board on the issue
of developing autonomous underwater vehicles. (Paragraph 46)
|