Appendix 1: Government response
Introduction
The Government welcomes the Committee's further report
into marine science. A number of significant changes have taken
place since the Committee's previous report, 'Investigating
the Oceans', in 2007. These include the publication
of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine (Scotland)
Act 2010 and the Northern Ireland Marine Bill 2012, which contain
provisions for the establishment of marine conservation zones,
the introduction of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and
the creation of the Marine Science Co-ordination Committee. These
changes provide important opportunities for strengthening the
marine science undertaken across the UK and, at the same time,
increase the need for greater and more effective co-ordination
of marine science and sharing of data between UK fundersboth
public and private.
The Government recognises the key role of marine
science in informing policies and actions and agrees with the
Committee's observation that we need to be 'more clever about
how we advance our understanding of the marine environment and
improve our capability in marine science'. The Government
accepts many of the Committee's recommendations, including those
relating to the operation and work of the Marine Science Co-ordination
Committee, which should help to reinforce existing procedures
and provide greater clarity and focus on progress to a wider audience.
The Government also welcomes the Committee's interest in the establishment
of Marine Conservation Zones.
This Response replies to each of the Committee's
11 conclusions and recommendations in turn. The Committee's report
has covered some policy areas that are devolved to the administrations
in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and the replies to those
recommendations have been prepared with their co-operation.
The UK Marine Science Strategy
Recommendation 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)
The Government welcomes the support expressed by
the Committee for the UK Marine Science Strategy. The Strategy
is a joint initiative by the Government and the Devolved Administrations.
It is being delivered through the Marine Science Co-ordination
Committee (MSCC) on which the Devolved Administrations and Government
are represented and which is co-chaired by the Scottish Government
and Defra. The responses to this and the other MSCC-related recommendations
within the report have therefore required the agreement of a range
of partiesthe Government cannot unilaterally agree to courses
of action for the MSCC.
The Government shares the Committee's ambition to
maximise the substantive outcomes from the implementation of the
UK Marine Science Strategy. The Marine Science Co-ordination Committee
has, from the start, recognised the need to be outcome focussed
and established a number of Working Groups tasked to deliver specific
aspects of the Strategy. Progress with delivering these activities
has been monitored through regular update reports to the six-monthly
MSCC meetings and reported to the Ministerial Marine Science Group
(Annex B of the Government's written evidence to this inquiry).
The UK Marine Science Strategy is implemented through
a rolling programme of priority activities and operations; this
approach helps to ensure that important emerging issues can be
addressed swiftly. The Government agrees that the development
of a longer-term10 yearimplementation plan,
which identifies expected future priorities and, at the same time,
reflects availability of funding and retains responsive flexibility,
would strengthen existing approaches. It is therefore the intention
that the MSCC will provide a rolling implementation plan composed
of a detailed programme for the first 18 months, which identifies
specific actions, outcomes and appropriate success measures and
which is updated on a rolling basis. From 18-24 months the plan
will identify a direction of travel through the inclusion of outline
objectives and outcomes, with high level milestones identified
for up to 2023. The plan will be reviewed every six months and
updated annually. It will be published on the MSCC website. This
approach should reinforce the MSCC's existing mechanisms in a
way that helps to provide greater accessibility for outside interests.
Marine Science Co-ordination Committee
Recommendation 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)
The Government recognises the value of the evidence
submitted to this inquiry and will consider it as part of the
ongoing MSCC review. The review is due to be completed before
the summer recess and details of its findings, along with an action
plan for its implementation, will be published on the MSCC's website.
An industry representative has already been appointed
to the MSCC and attended his first MSCC meeting in March 2013.
As mentioned in the Government's written evidence, the process
to elect an industry representative to the MSCC, who would also
be the industry co-chair of the MSCC's Marine Industries Liaison
Group, was already in train prior to the announcement of this
inquiry.
NERC support for marine science
Recommendation 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)
Like the other research councils, NERC balances many
demands for funding from a tight budget. NERC has had to appropriately
balance this reduced resource across all the fields of environmental
sciences for which it is responsible including marine and polar
sciences.
NERC has ensured that its centres of marine and polar
national capability have been properly sustained throughout the
present CSR period. NERC funding to the National Oceanography
Centre (NOC) has maintained a proportion of 14% of the NERC resource
budget, while the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has slightly
increased to 15% over the spending review period.
In addition, NERC is committed to the marine and
polar infrastructures of ships, planes and bases, thus sustaining
the UK national capability to mount experimental campaigns of
world-class importance and ambition.
From 2010, NERC has made a gradual transfer of resources
between allocated (National Capability[1])
funding to its Centres and openly competed, but directed "Research
Programmes", whilst at the same time maintaining the opportunity
for Centres to compete for undirected, "Responsive Mode"
funding. Research Programmes ensure that research of wide, societal
importance is performed by the most excellent science drawn from
across the UK research base. Research programmes also recognise
the need for partnerships in delivering research of societal importance:
£236 M of NERC funding commitments have been matched by £153
M of other Research Council or Government Department funding,
opening a broader range of funding opportunities to all the NERC
scientific community.
The increased emphasis on Research Programmes has
not affected NERC funding of major programs in polar and marine
sciences of long-term, global importance. The £45 M 'RAPID'
programme that measures the over-turning circulation of the Atlantic
Ocean is now in its second decade and depended on a sustained
collaboration with US national marine laboratories. The NERC 'Arctic'
£15 M programme, which recognises the national importance
of understanding the implications of Arctic climate change was
initiated in 2011. The £7.5 M NERC 'ISTAR' programme, that
seeks to understand the widespread mass losses from the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet also commenced in 2012. All these programs depend upon
and are supported by the marine and polar infrastructure maintained
by NERC, NOC and BAS.
At present, ships are essential platforms for marine
science measurements. Nonetheless their energy costs have continued
to rise over the past decade. New technology is now giving us
more energy efficient methods with which to survey the oceans.
Autonomous systems, such as sea-gliders, autonomous underwater
and surface vehicles equipped with suitable sensors, offer a route
for transforming approaches to marine observation. NERC funded
£2.8 M capital in 2012/13, and is currently investing (2013/14
and 2014/15) £10 M capital, in marine autonomous systems
(funded from the "Eight Great Technologies" capital
initiative), with a view to maintaining a world class position
in this field.
Use of scientific evidence
Recommendation 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)
The Government welcomes the Committee's support for
the principle that Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) should be
based on sound scientific evidence. The Government has stated
from the outset that it wants well managed marine conservation
zones to contribute to the network of marine protected areas and
not just a series of lines on maps. It has also been clear that
it wants to move to managing sites soon after designation. To
do this effectively adequate evidence is vital. Without it, there
will be no prospect of securing agreement from other Member States
to regulate the activities of their fishermen where this is required
in waters beyond our six mile limits.
The analysis carried out by the Marine Protected
Area Science Advisory Panel as part of providing its final advice
to Government on the Regional MCZ Project recommendations indicated
that there were issues with the evidence base supporting the recommendations
and recommended that an in depth review was carried out. It also
noted that even after this, some sites would have very little
evidence[2]. In November
2011, Defra Ministers announced that because of evidence issues,
designation of MCZs would be made in tranches and additional seabed
and habitat surveys would be carried out along with an in depth
review. Reports of completed surveys including analysis of data
collected, updated habitat maps[3]
and the in depth review[4]
are available on Defra's pages on the Government website.
The Government agrees that best available evidence
should be used but considers that there are instances when this
is not sufficient to proceed with designation. The Committee notes
the poor state of marine seabed mapping which led to the Regional
MCZ Projects relying on modelled information about presence and/or
extent of habitats and species leading to significant uncertainties
around this information. Results from some of the seabed surveys
have confirmed these uncertainties.
The Government is also concerned that the best available
data might be anecdotal reports of presence of a habitat or a
sighting of a particular species. Given these uncertainties the
Government considers that an adequate evidence base is necessary
to support decisions that may have socio-economic impacts and
effects on people's livelihoods and result in enforcement and
monitoring costs that fall on the tax payer. For the designation
of MCZs adequate evidence is high or moderate confidence in presence
and extent of features based on the advice provided by Natural
England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) except
in specific circumstances for features at higher risk, where a
lower certainty of data is accepted in accordance with the Precautionary
Principle.
Management measures
Recommendation 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)
The Government accepts this recommendation. An indication
of the timetable for introducing management measures will be published
with the Government response to the consultation on MCZs. The
lead regulatory authorities, the Marine Management Organisation
(MMO) and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities are
developing plans and processes for putting in place management
measures. This work includes the prioritising of MCZs on the basis
of potential management need and a simple timetable for next steps
for each site at the time of designation. At the heart of any
action they take will be engagement with interested parties.
Defra's current consultation
Recommendation 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)
The Government welcomes the Committee's support for
including consideration of socio-economic concerns when designating
MCZs and recognising the challenges of balancing these with environmental
concerns. The consultation was the opportunity for stakeholders
to comment on the proposals being made including whether they
thought the right balance had been reached between socio-economic
and environmental concerns and on the treatment of high risk sites.
Responses are currently being analysed and a summary of comments
made on this aspect of the proposals will be included in the Government
response to the MCZs consultation.
The Written Ministerial Statement in November 2011
explained the issues with the evidence base for the MCZs recommendations
made by the four Regional MCZ Projects and announced that designations
would be made in tranches with the best-evidenced sites designated
first and further evidence gathering would be undertaken for other
sites.
The MCZs consultation document (section 4.1) explained
how sites had been selected and explained the more precautionary
approach taken for features and sites which JNCC and Natural England
had identified as being at high risk. Annex A1-6 to the consultation
document provided a detailed narrative for each site summarising
the decision-making process explaining why it had been selected
or not. A description of the decision making process was published
on Defra's website in March 2012[5].
Next steps
Recommendation 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)
The Marine and Coastal Access Act and the MCZs consultation
document clearly set out the purpose of MCZs which is to complement
other types of marine protected areas to contribute to an ecologically
coherent network of MPAs which will in turn contribute to achieving
our vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biodiverse
seas and oceans. The MPA network will also contribute to meeting
our obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
and international commitments under the Oslo and Paris Convention
(Ospar) and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Government will look for opportunities to articulate
further its vision for the marine environment.
Recommendation 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)
Work is proceeding as a priority on analysing the
40,000 responses to the recent consultation on new MCZs. This
work has to be seen alongside the significant number of MPAs that
already exist including 42 Special Areas of Conservation and 37
Special Protection Areas for birds with marine components. Natural
England advise that there are also 377 coastal Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (of which 113 have been assessed as having
features which would contribute to an ecologically coherent network)
in English waters. 23% of English inshore waters are already included
in MPAs and the Government has committed to 25% of inshore waters
being within a well-managed MPA network by 2016[6].
The Government will say more about future designation
of MCZs when announcing its response to the recent consultation.
Commercial operations
Recommendation 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)
The Government welcomes the recognition by the Committee
of the valuable work that has been undertaken by the Marine Management
Organisation in making available industry data, in the form of
published environmental statements. A number of other initiatives,
including activities led by The Crown Estate,[7]
Marine Scotland[8] and
the other Devolved Administrations, are also making significant
contributions, as part of a shared endeavour, to providing wider
access to industry marine data. For example, the Department of
Environment (Northern Ireland) Marine Division has taken the lead
in working with other parts of the Government in Northern Ireland
to provide a geo-referenced data platform so that all government
data, industry-gathered, and data from other organisations can
be made available to the public through a web-based application.
It is clear that opportunities exist for sharing
more marine data. The Government is seeking to source as much
relevant data as possible from industry while, at the same time,
avoiding placing an undue burden on them. The inclusion of a requirement
to provide data gathered as a licensing condition is already being
used for some types of data, while other approaches for sharing
data, such as by the agreement of the industry, have also been
productive. The MMO, for instance, publishes a register of industry
activities and is working to enhance access to data submitted
via its marine licensing process. There is also related work being
taken forward by the Marine Environmental Data and Information
Network (MEDIN) to ensure that data collected from marine organisations
are consistently managed through the use of common standards and
can be discovered through a single point of accessthe MEDIN
web portal.[9]
The Government recognises the benefits to all of
sharing marine data more widely. The Marine Management Organisation
will therefore continue to work closely with the Devolved Administrations,
The Crown Estate and other bodies to increase the amount of data
collected at sea that is made available for wider use. Progress
with this activity will be reported regularly to the Marine Science
Co-ordination Committee.
Long term monitoring
Recommendation 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 longterm 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)
The Government recognises the importance of long-term
marine observations for a range of purposes. Building on discussions
between Sir John Beddington and public sector funders around the
issues of funding for environmental observations, Sir Mark Walport
will take forward a thematic review of scientific observations
needed to meet the UK's requirements for environmental data to
inform and support research, operational needs, and policy-making.
The aim of this review would be to set out a vision for environmental
observations for the coming decade; to identify current and future
challenges; and the data and monitoring activities needed for
decision-making with respect to these challenges. Recognising
that observational datasets can have multiple uses, and that there
are a number of sources of funding for many observation programmes,
such a review would necessarily consider issues related to future
funding. The review will be scoped more fully and taken forward
in the coming months. The Marine Science Co-ordination Committee's
input to this review will be very valuable.
Work is already underway by the MSCC to assess the
potential for new technologies to be used for undertaking monitoring
activities, with a UK Integrated Marine Observing Network (UK-IMON)
workshop in September 2013 focussed on this issue. The conclusions
from the workshop will be made available.
Autonomous underwater vehicles
Recommendation 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)
Marine Autonomous Systems (MAS) present important
potential for improved measurements in the marine environment.
They offer opportunities for improved sampling (e.g. where large
numbers of low cost platforms could be used); to access environments
not accessible by other means (e.g. under ice), and to reduce
costs (e.g. by reducing dependency on ships for some types of
measurements). Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, ships
will remain a crucial element of marine observing that cannot
as yet be undertaken autonomouslysuch as where large teams
are needed at sea or where large instrument pay-loads or power
are needed for more than a few days at a time.
The challenge is to develop a roadmap for transforming
marine measurements (for scientific, regulatory and industry applications)
through use of autonomous systems. The recent announcement of
£10 M capital allocation to the Natural Environment Research
Council (NERC) from BIS in 2013/14 to 2014/15 for marine autonomous
systems technologies as part of the "Eight Great Technologies"
initiative is an important stimulus.
There are a number of initiatives already underway
involving Government, Research Councils, the Technology Strategy
Board and industry including:
- The UK Marine Industries Leadership
Council (MILC) recently launched an initiative to investigate
the potential for overcoming the most significant technical challenges
to the expanded use of MAS through joint investment by industry,
Government and academia. This initiative is set in the context
of the UK's Marine Industries Growth Strategy, 2011. The NERC
National Oceanography Centre is therefore working closely with
the MILC and co-chaired an industry workshop at Ocean Business
(Europe's largest marine technology showcase) in Southampton in
April 2013 to develop this strategy.
- The NERC National Oceanography Centre, the Technology
Strategy Board (TSB) and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
(DSTL) are currently running a Small Business Research Initiative
(SBRI) competition to stimulate innovations in Long Endurance
Marine Unmanned Surface Vehicles technologies. NERC also participating
in developing the TSB's Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS)
road map.
- NERC and NOC are engaged with the TSB's Robotic
and Autonomous Systems (RAS) Special Interest Group to roadmap
these technologies in a wider context than just marine. In parallel,
NOC are also working with Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute,
which comprises a number of major industry partners to harness
autonomous technologies that cross-cut a range of user sectors.
- In Scotland, SAMS (the Scottish Association for
Marine Science) has established the North Atlantic Glider Base
in close collaboration with NOC, which deploys gliders operationally
and provides UK-wide testing facilities. This will also provide
a contribution to the emergent EU Atlantic and Arctic Strategies.
- NERC and Defra have been working together through
the National Oceanography Centre to scope the potential for application
of autonomous vehicles in a variety of applications for monitoring
and seafloor mapping. NOC are also working with Met Office to
develop MAS as a replacement and/or augmentation for the ODAS
buoy observing network.
NERC, with support from Defra, will continue to engage
closely with MILC and the TSB on this; NERC will also provide
a link through to wider MSCC interests and, to do so, will convene
a group of interested MSCC members.
1 NERC funding for "National Capability" (NC)
supports large research infrastructure (such as ships, aircraft
and polar bases), scientific facilities, and data assets. It also
funds science and technology developments that require a long-term
focus such as those involving sustained programmes of environmental
observing to measure decadal-scale change and variability and
development of environmental measurement technologies (e.g. autonomous
vehicles), and developing and supporting community modelling systems
(e.g. ocean and shelf sea components of climate and earth-system
models). NERC also funds, through processes of open competition,
both issue-led "Research Programmes" (RP) and investigator-led
("Responsive Mode", RM) science on shorter time-scales
(typically 3-5 years).
Back
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/science-advisory-panel-assessment-of-the-marine-conservation-zone-regional-project-final-recommendations Back
3 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18221&FromSearch=Y&Status=3&Publisher=1&SearchText=cefas&GridPage=30&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Back
4 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18125&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=MB0116&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Back
5 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/steps-for-assessing-marine-conservation-zone-proposals Back
6 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-2020-a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services
Back
7
http://www.marinedataexchange.co.uk Back
8
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/MSInteractive and http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine Back
9
http://portal.oceannet.org/search/full Back
|