Report prepared by
A review of private and public sector marine science
and evidence needs, the capability of the UK’s private
sector marine science and technology sector to meet or
support the meeting of those needs, and opportunities
for growth.
A project commissioned on behalf of the Marine Industries Liaison Group, a
sub-group of the Marine Science Co-ordination Committee
Completed by Marine Planning Consultants, ABPmer and Peter Barham Environmental
March 2013
1
Marine Planning Consultants Limited
Project Manager
Liam McAleese
Project Director
Liam McAleese
Project Team
MPC:
Liam McAleese
ABPmer:
Stephen Hull
Peter Barham Environmental Ltd:
Peter Barham
Contact details
First Floor
67-69 George Street
London
W1U 8LT
[email protected]
www.marineplanning.org.uk
Contract reference
DEFRA ME5423
Version control:
Date
Version
Initials
07/02/13
Draft
LM
06/02/13
Comments
SH and PB
08/02/13
Draft to MILG and MILG discussion
LM
04/03/13
Draft to MSCC and advisory group
LM
20/03/13
Final
LM
Suggested Citation:
McAleese, L, Hull, S and Barham ,P 2013: A review of private and public sector marine science and
evidence needs, the capability of the UK’s private sector marine science and technology sector to
meet or support the meeting of those needs, and opportunities for growth. A report for Defra, BIS
and the Marine Industries Liaison Group.
Report Warranty
Although commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and jointly funded by Defra and the D epartment
for Business, Innovation & Skills, the content of the report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Departments. This report has been
prepared with due care and diligence and with the skill reasonably expected of a reputable contractor experienced in the types of work carried
out under the contract and as such the findings in this report are based on an interpretation of data which is a matter of opinion on which
professionals may differ and unless clearly stated is not a recommendation of any course of action. Marine Planning Consultants Ltd have
prepared this report for the client identified on the front cover in fulfilment of its contractual obligations under the referenced contract and the
only liabilities Marine Planning Consultants Ltd accept are those contained therein. Please be aware that further distributi on of this report, in
whole or part, or the use of the data for a purpose not expressly stated within the contractual work scope is at the client’s sole risk and Marine
Planning Consultants Ltd recommends that this disclaimer be included in any such distribution.
2
Section
Page
Summary
4
Context and aims of the project
12
Definitions and Scope of work.
13
Methodology and project approach
17
Summary Table – Marine Science Priorities
20
Consultation Process.
40
Findings and Discussion
42
Recommendations
63
Annex 1 Advisory Panel
67
Annex 2 Semi-structure interview outline
70
Annex 3 Online Survey
75
Annex 4 Case Study on Commissioning.
88
References
95
Annex 5 Detailed references for Priorities table – see separate file.
Although commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
and jointly funded by Defra and the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, the content
of the report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Departments
3
1. Summary
Executive Summary
The review has revealed a number of encouraging positives. The UK has a strong marine science
and technology sector that is, in tough economic times, growing and exporting. The sector is
optimistic about its future and is contributing at home and abroad to the Government’s efforts
to secure economic growth. It is consequently well placed to contribute to meeting public and
private sector needs and priorities over the short, medium and long term and opportunities can
be created to further this ambition.
The project identified marine science and evidence priorities over a short, medium and long
term. There were no insurmountable gaps in capacity or capability identified, though in common
with the public sector, there are currently shortages in specific skills or expertise. With
appropriate incentives these can be addressed. There are good examples of collaborative
working between the private and public sectors in terms of improving efficiency and increasing
the benefits from public sector research and there is considerable scope for extending these
approaches which would bring multiple benefits.
Marine Sciences play an important role in the UK economy; from enabling the development of
energy resources from the seas to understanding the impacts of climate change. A stronger
industry voice and greater collaboration with the public sector has the potential to raise the
profile of marine sciences and ensure that the marine science community in the UK, both public
and private, are able to punch above its weight in terms of research funding and political
interest.
The private sector has a strong appetite for more collaborative working. It already plays a
significant role in the delivery of the UK’s marine science and has the capability to extend this to
assist the public sector meet its needs and priorities.
In order to improve value for money in the delivery of marine science and realise the potential
benefits to the UK economy, some changes are required at both the strategic and operational
levels of public sector marine science planning and procurement. These are outlined below and
discussed in more detail in the main body of the report.
The project findings are drawn from a combination of a literature review, semi-structured
interviews with customers, users and providers of marine science, and an industry based
workshop. The work was guided by a cross sector advisory panel. The review was undertaken
within a limited time period and limited resources.
4
Main conclusions
1.1
The marine science and technology private sector remains optimistic about the future
and is continuing to win business and support the UK economy.
1.2.
Whilst there are some serious gaps in current understanding of important marine
science issues, there are no insurmountable capacity and capability gaps within the UK
marine science base to meet these needs. A few specific skills gaps were identified.
1.3.
The UK’s marine science strategy and priorities need to be more focussed on applied
scientific evidence needs and economic opportunities that will support growth in the UK
economy. A strategic level ‘horizon scanning and foresight’ programme would help
deliver this. UK marine industries and businesses should be closely involved in the
development of this refocused approach throughout.
1.4.
At an operational level there are a number of programmes where collaboration
between sectors is ensuring that marine science research and investment is making a
tangible contribution to the economy and industry. Further benefits can be realised if
explicit economic and industrial aims and actions are integrated at a strategic level into
the marine science strategy.
1.5.
There are common needs between public and private sector customers of marine
science, such as seabed mapping, data acquisition, and sensors and platforms and an
opportunity for greater coordination at a strategic and operational level. Public and
private sector funders and customers of marine science have common needs for lower
cost monitoring.
1.6.
The published strategies and priorities are not always clear or precise about timescales
or planned investment levels. Few documents contained information about priorities
beyond 5 years. For projects involving substantial capital investment or long term
monitoring this presents a disadvantage.
1.7.
The private sector is able to respond positively to most of the public sector priorities and
needs identified, provided there are the right market conditions and commercial
opportunities. It is important, as in other fields, that service and equipment providers
are engaged at the outset and consideration should be given to market development
where the private sector and other parts of the public sector do not yet have a strong
role.
1.8.
Views on what the private sector and the public sector are respectively good at seem to
be dominated by perception and anecdote, rather than strong evidence either way.
5
1.9.
Commissioning among public bodies in this sector is largely untried and would offer a
means of bridging the private/public sector debate and focussing on shared outcomes.
1.10. There are already good examples of collaboration between the public and private
sectors that have brought benefits to both. These are examined and common points
identified. There is considerable scope for further collaboration, particularly in the EU
and international markets with the aim of benefiting the UK economy and strengthening
the UK competitive base. Other countries, such as the US, are currently viewed as being
better than the UK at securing productive collaboration between the private and public
sectors and adopting a joint strategic approach.
1.11. Developers and suppliers should always be brought in during the early stages of a
programme or project to ensure that there is a shared understanding of the respective
needs of the different players and of the outcomes sought. This is particularly so where
there are potential commercial benefits that could contribute to the UK’s economic
growth.
1.12. There are pockets of good practice public sector procurement of marine science and
evidence and there is an opportunity to extend these more widely.
1.10
There is concern within the marine science and technology commercial sector that
CEFAS and other public bodies are believed to be competing for commercial business on
uneven terms to the private sector. There are also concerns that agencies are not
reflecting their full costs in their pricing.
1.11
Other barriers to growth included generic factors such as the tough economic climate,
access to finance, skill shortages in science graduates, and export controls and
restrictions. More specific to the marine science and technology sector were the
paucity of data about marine environment, such as the seabed habitat, a lack of clarity
among regulators about their management and information needs (e.g. marine
conservation zones) and insufficient attention being given to new scientific and
technological needs.
6
Recommendations
Recommendations are grouped into three areas: Strategic actions, collaboration to support
efficient delivery of marine science and removing barriers for growth.
It is feasible that these recommendations be taken forward over a 6 month time horizon.
However, the project team do not have sight of other Marine Science Coordination Committee
(MSCC) activity. It is assumed that resources will be tight and options, such as cross agency or
government funding and industry resources/expertise be utilized. The project team have
directed many recommendations in general terms to the MSCC and Marine Industries Liaison
Group (MILG). It is up to these organisations whether and how, in partnership, they can be
taken forward and by whom.
Strategic actions
1. That the MSCC and MILG, in association with the Marine Industries Leadership Council,
undertake a horizon scanning programme to match science needs with UK economic
growth and commercial opportunities (such as marine biomass, sustainable deep sea
resource exploitation) and, as part of this, consider future scientific and technical needs,
arising from new marine developments and industries. This should be undertaken as a high
priority to inform the development of the new NERC strategy as well as a number of other
emerging programmes and repeated on an annual basis. It is noted that IMarEST and SUT
have already undertaken similar activities and that a small project or workshop could
rapidly build on this by the Summer 2013.
2. That further development of the UK Marine Science Strategy includes explicated objectives,
to take into account of industry requirements (e.g. developers), economic growth and
commercial opportunities. It is expected that these are identified as part of horizon
scanning activities (recommendation 1) and build on initial areas where there is an
alignment of needs between sectors (e.g. low cost monitoring platforms and sensors) and
where recent activity (such as ORJIP1) is not covering. It is suggested that a revised marine
science strategy ‘refresh’ be taken forward as a high priority and tie in with the Marine
Industries Growth Strategy. The Irish Government has undertaken a similar process and
relevant lessons can be taken from this 2. A strategy refresh and action plan, to coincide with
a Government response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
enquiry into Marine Science, expected by Summer 2013.
1
2
Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme http://77.68.107.10/MREP/Archive/03/Documents/ORJIP/ORJIP.pdf
http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.pdf For example Action 21 on
Research
Knowledge,
Technology
&
Innovation.
See
page
39.
Also
see
http://www.djei.ie/publications/science/2012/research_prioritisation.pdf
7
3. That MILG develop and maintain a schedule that marries marine science priorities with
descriptions of related technical and commercial equipment and services that is meaningful
to industry and commercial operators. Focus should be on areas where the private and
public sector customers of marine science have common needs – such as cost effective
monitoring platforms, monitoring sensors for water quality parameters and acoustic
monitoring. It is noted that the TSB funded a Marine Industries Technology Road map and
this approach could be worthwhile to be expanded to the areas above.
4. That public sector purchasers of marine science should examine the scope for creating and
fostering additional market opportunities open to UK based businesses both within the UK
and overseas. These are likely to include monitoring platforms and sensors and AUVs. The
recent work by the Marine Industries Leadership Council would seem to be an appropriate
mechanism for this to be taken forward for AUVs and also ensures links with all
departments with an interest. MSCC and MILG industry members should actively engage in
this model. Private sector providers of equipment and services would be best placed to
recommend areas and ways where new markets can be fostered.
5. That within the UK Marine Science Strategy there should be explicit proposals to foster and
encourage greater collaboration between the private and public sectors; these should
include priority science needs identified as part of a horizon scan activity (e.g marine
biomass and deep sea resource exploitation) or cross cutting issues such as reducing costs
of monitoring. Funding mechanisms designed to support this should be made available (a
model for such a scheme is outline in 7.58 and TSB led “Catapult Programmes” outlined in
7.57 are relevant). It was noted that Defra intend to convene a workshop looking at
reducing the cost of marine monitoring in September 2013.
6. That MILG work with NERC in the development of the new NERC strategy (being drafted in
Feb/March 2013) to ensure that the applied public and private sector needs are factored
into research programmes and to enable the type of collaboration outlined in para 5.
7. That BIS and the Marine Industries Leadership Council work with the MILG to ensure coordination and exploitation of economic growth and commercial opportunities both within
the UK and overseas for marine science.
8. That MILG work with MSCC looking at how any specific gaps in capacity or capability might
be filled in the context of current and future needs. Examples include, addressing specific
skills gaps which may impact the public and private sector, such as marine taxonomy and/or
artic experience. The recent IMarEST skills survey (looking at non technical skills) might be a
useful place to start and IMarEST are considering extending this to look at technical skills in
the next 12 months.
8
9. That MILG examines in further detail how, by working with the public sector, marine science
industry and businesses could improve opportunities to access EU funds such as the Horizon
2020 programme. A Horizon 2020 business focus group could be formed, via the MILG or
trade associations, to help shape proposals over the next 12 months.
Actions to support efficient delivery of marine science
10. That existing perceptions, among purchasers of marine science services and technology,
about the future role, capacity and capabilities of the private sector should be tested and
explored in more depth. It is evident that they are influencing decisions about where work
should fall and will have a bearing on how the UK based private sector responds to market
demands.
11. That, as part of this, the cost base of public sector marine science should be reviewed to
establish those areas where the private sector is likely to be able to offer more efficient and
cost effective services, and those areas where the public sector is likely to be better placed
to undertake directly, marine science activities and services. Specific areas include
operation of research vessels, and routine monitoring and data acquisition. MSCC groups
and activities looking at these issues should utilise industry expertise and benchmark and
publish performance.
12. That MILG and MSCC develop and apply a commissioning strategy for public sector marine
science. The strategy should look explicitly at how marine monitoring activity and marine
data acquisition is undertaken and a pilot programme brought forward; an outline area for
further consideration is at annex 4. An immediate commissioning feasibility study (desk
based in the first instance) should be undertaken as a follow-up to the MSCC UK Marine
Research Vessels work stream. This would include examination of the scope for further
collaboration between the private and public sector in the delivery of services.
Removing Barriers to Growth.
13. That public sector organisations competing in commercial markets (in particular Cefas)
proactively disseminate information to give stakeholders confidence that they are operating
in accordance with government guidelines and policy. This would be in line with the
recommendations in the recent independent review of CEFAS’s science 3. Clarification from
Defra and BIS on the Government’s policy on commercial activity would also be helpful.
3
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13848-cefas-panel-report.pdf
9
Given the perceptions from industry on this issue, it is recommended this is taken forward
by the Summer 2013.
14. That the MILG invite public sector agencies with commercial operations (e.g. CEFAS and
Met Office) to a meeting to discuss opportunities for joint working and how a stronger
partnership approach with the private sector can be fostered, particularly around
supporting export opportunities. In addition, just as the MOD and UKTI DSO assist the
private sector in respect of overseas government contracts, UKTI should be able to facilitate
this for the Marine Science and Technology sector and this should be discussed further with
the MILG.
15. That MILG commission a short ‘best practice’ procurement paper to draw together and
disseminate good practice public procurement examples in marine sciences. This should
draw on issues including flexibility on limitations of liability and where application of other
good practice (e.g. forward procurement commitments) can both enhance efficiency and
support businesses. This note should be circulated widely within MSCC members to all
those involved in procurement activity.
10
Summary of recommendations.
11
2. Context and aims of the project.
2.1
The UK Marine Science Strategy4 outlines the Government’s aims to support the
development and coordination of marine science across the UK. The Strategy provides a
framework for enabling and coordinating “delivery of world class marine science for the
UK”. A competitive and world class marine science base will provide essential evidence
to help deliver the UK vision of ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse
oceans and seas”, support the sustainable development of the marine economy and
support jobs and growth in the marine science sector.
2.2
The Marine Science Coordination Committee (MSCC) and its sub-committees including
the Marine Industries Liaison Group (MILG) have been set up to support delivery of the
Marine Science Strategy. The strategy includes aims to “develop measures for
promoting the growth of marine industries” and to identify synergies between public
and private sectors in a way that helps to develop the UK’s competitive science base.
This project was to commissioned to inform the work of the MSCC and the MILG in
meeting these aims by:
 Identifying key public and private sector marine science needs and priorities over
the short, medium and long term.
 Assessing the capability of the UK’s private sector marine science and survey
sector to meet these needs and priorities, identify gaps in capabilities and
barriers and opportunities for growth.
 Identifying where synergies between the public and private sectors would
enhance the UK’s competitive science base.
 Exploring (a) whether the needs should be met by the private sector, the public
sector or both and (b) barriers to growth
2.3
In addition, there are a range of other policy developments that are relevant to the
terms of reference.

4
5
The joint HMT and BIS Growth Review, which requires “every Government
Department to present Action Plans for sustainable growth across sectors of the
economy and for all sizes of business, focusing on areas where there are clear
opportunities to improve the UK’s performance, and where the Government can
make a difference”.5
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/04/08/pb13347-uk-marine-science-strategy/
http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf
12
2.4

The Natural Environment White Paper announcements on “growing a green
economy” and the establishment of a business-led Ecosystem Markets Task
Force “to review the opportunities for UK business from expanding the trade in
green goods and the market for sustainable natural services”.

The joint BIS/ Marine Industries Leadership Council 6, which aims to produce 4%
Compound Annual Growth Rate for the marine and maritime sector that will lead
to a Gross Value Added of around £25 billion by 2020.

The work of the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group, which is leading
programmes on more effective public procurement, commissioning and public
service reform.
Where possible, the project has made recommendations on the following:
 How private sector marine science and technology capability can deliver
Government objectives on growth, a green economy and expanding trade in
green goods and services;
 Where and how the private sector can help to deliver the Government’s marine
objectives, including addressing identified capability gaps;
 Where and how the private sector can work with other sectors to improve
efficiency and increase value for money from publicly-funded marine science
activities;
 How the private sector can express their needs and seek input from public sector
research; and
 How to remove barriers to growth and identify opportunities for the private
sector marine science and survey sector that will help to develop the UK’s
competitive science base.
3. Definitions and Scope of work.
The key terms in the project; “marine science” and “marine science and technology
sector” are both very broad. The project was undertaken with very limited resources
and very broad terms of reference. The project team took the following approach to
defining terms.
3.1
6
Defining Marine Science.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/aerospace-marine-and-defence/marine-overview
13
The term “marine science” covers a broad and unwieldy range of topics. These can
range from fundamental/blue skies research of the sort funded by research councils and
generally undertaken by academic institutions to very specific and applied operational
requirements for offshore infrastructure. In the case of the former, research councils
often consider Marine Sciences in the context of broader ‘earth systems’, or in the
context of climate change research. The advisory panel agreed that the project team
take a thematic approach to identifying marine science and evidence priorities.
3.2
Defining the “Marine Science and Technology Sector”
The project undertook a high-level literature review, to ascertain whether there are any
existing definitions or catagorisations of this sector that are relevant. The consensus
view from the available literature is that the ‘sector’ is challenging to define and scope
because it:
 Is dominated by Small and Medium Size Enterprises;
 Covers a range of scientific disciplines and activities from niche equipment and
systems manufacturers and suppliers, to large survey companies and consultancy
providers;
 Works for a range of different ‘end users’ at various points in the supply chain
from marine developers such as oil and gas, defence companies, Governments
agencies etc.;
 Contains public sector and academic organizations that operate as private sector
entities in some markets; and
 Contains a range of companies with international ownership and operations.
Previous studies have focused on the economic value associated with the use of UK
seas, which includes a range of sectors from oil and gas, to fisheries 7.
3.3
In terms of further defining and segmenting the marine science and technology sector
the project team considered a number of approaches:
 Division by scientific discipline (e.g physical oceanography, marine biology) or
categorisation by market served (e.g. those supplying oil and gas, aggregates).
This was rejected on the basis that many firms operating in the marine science
and technology sector are multidisciplinary and sell products and services to
multiple sectors.
7
(e.g Defra 2010, TCE 2008,Pugh & Skinner 2002)
14
 Standard Industry Classification (SIC) 8 codes were considered. Many activities
undertaken by the marine science and technology sector are covered by codes.
Although codes are a useful tool in undertaking analysis of the economic
characteristics of the sector, they cannot be utilised in a way that will enable the
project to match capability against need.
 We considered utilising the categories/segmentation used by trade associations
(e.g. a division between equipment and professional services, with further tiers;
such as instruments, sampling equipment). This was helpful, but many
companies operate across multiple categories.
 We considered a breakdown of “End User” (which could be a private sector
developer or public sector customer), “Intermediary Service Providers” (which
include Consultants and survey companies who acquire data and provide added
value through interpretation and analysis) and Providers (equipment and
instrumentation). It is recognised that these three catagories each have different
drivers and models of operating. In addition there is a strong interdependence
between Intermediary Service Providers and Providers in some markets.
3.4
It is also important to note that a number of marine science providers are associated
with Universities, which offer some applied research and consultancy services on a
commercial basis. It is often challenging to separate these activities as the commercial
arm can access a range of services based on the capabilities of the associated institution.
This is clearly an important aspect of UK private sector capability, however, within the
resources available to the project team it has not been possible to include the significant
number of academic institutions with marine science and technology capability in this
study. Instead, the project team has engaged a selection of such bodies where they are
engaged in commercial type activities and operate in competition with other public and
private sector bodies.
3.5
There are also some firms outside what is generally considered to be the marine science
and technology sector that offer capabilities relevant to meeting marine science needs.
This is includes socio-economic research organisations, where there are relatively few
marine-specific specialist providers. Similarly some providers in the wider maritime
industry sector (for example defence contractors) often develop equipment that is
relevant to meeting marine science needs.
3.6
The advisory panel noted that some definitions of the marine science and technology
sector include broader maritime industries and skills and knowledge, such as marine
environmental/maritime law. It was agreed that, in order to manage scope that ‘marine
8
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-classifications/standard-industrial-classification/index.html
15
science and technology’ is limited to those providing services directly related to the
agreed science priorities.
3.7
The advisory panel agreed that the segmentation and scope of the marine science and
technology sector is based on a thematic approach. This takes marine science priorities
and needs (e.g. sector based such as oil and gas or policy/regulator such as the marine
strategy framework directive) and matches against the associated operational
requirements (e.g. remote sensing and reporting, instrumentation, modeling etc). The
sector, for the purposes of this project, has been defined by the aggregate of these
priorities and grouped activities and the contributing providers.
16
4. Methodology and project approach.
The project followed a three stage process, outlined below, overseen by a cross-sector advisory
panel (see annex 1). The panel had two meetings (at inception and a progress report) and were
invited to comment in writing. A draft report version of the report was discussed by the MILG
and MSCC and written comments were invited from both groups.
1
2
3
•Agreement of scope with project advisory panel
•Desk based literature review to establish information on UKmarine science priorties and
development of a summary priority table/matrix
•21 Semi-Structured interviews with customers, users and providers of marine science.
Industry discussion/workshop.
•Invitation for comments from the advisory panel and MSCC members
•Short online survey to invite comments from the marine science and technology sector
•Discussion at the MILG and circulation of draft report.
•Circulation to MSCC members
•Project Recomendations
Marine Science Priorities.
4.1
The project team developed a matrix of marine science priorities (see page 13)
identified through a review of relevant literature and interrogation of relevant websites
(see References). Where feasible priorities were identified for the following time
periods: Up to 3 years; 4 – 7 years; and 8-15 years.
17
Priorities were identified in relation to specific drivers9 under the following categories:




Policy and Regulation;
Socio-economics
Environmental
Technological
Where information on the anticipated costs associated with delivering marine science
priorities was identified, this information was also captured.
There are a large number of relatively minor drivers for which marine science
requirements are small and unlikely to change in the future10. These have been excluded
from the review.
4.2
A number of limitations were encountered in undertaking the review:
 Many of the documents reviewed lacked detail concerning specific requirements
and did not include cost information;
 Where priorities were identified, they often lacked information on the time
scales for delivering those priorities and few documents identified longer-term
priorities (> 5 years);
 For some identified drivers, no marine science priorities could be identified. This
suggests that the drivers may be relatively unimportant in relation to overall UK
marine science needs;
The table was sent to MSCC members and the advisory panel to comment. In addition,
the table was shared as part of some semi-structured interviews. Comments received
have been incorporated.
9
Many of the public marine science research priorities identified relate to a number of key policy and regulatory driver s and were therefore not
assigned to a specific driver.
10
For example, there are a wide range of EC Directives that have relevance to the marine environment (Nitrates Directive, Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive, Eel Regulation, Freshwater Fish Directive) but are not major drivers of marine science requirements.
18
5. Summary Table – Marine Science Priorities
Priorities
Key Driver
Information
on Potential
Costs (where
available)
3 years
7 years
15 years
IMO
Conventions
(MARPOL, Anti-fouling
Substances,
Ballast
Water
Convention,
SOLAS)
Requirements
uncertain.
Requirements
to
monitor AFS in water,
sediment or
biota
covered by WFD and
MSFD.
Possible
requirements
to
monitor invasive nonnative species covered
by WFD and MSFD?
Ongoing
monitoring
of
compliance with
Conventions.
Ongoing monitoring of
compliance
with
Conventions.
OSPAR Convention
Development
of
management
approaches at the level
of
Regional
Seas.
Monitoring
requirements
largely
delivered through other
programmes
(e.g.
MSFD, WFD).
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Marine
Development
Continuation of
Continuation
Services/Capabilities to meet priorities
Policy/Regulatory
Strategy
of
of
No specific requirements over and above
existing legal provisions in other legislation
(WFD, MSFD, Ballast Water Convention).
Regulatory requirement will however drive
increase vessel efficiency and approaches
e.g Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
and Ship Energy Efficiency Management
Plan (SEEMP).
Indicative
Full range of biological (including for
19
Framework Directive
indicators and targets
as well as addressing
some key gaps in
evidence
and
understanding. There
are
11
“Good
Environmental Status
Descriptors”11 Priorities
will include; socioeconomic
analysis;
extension of monitoring
programmes:
seals,
seabirds
and
waterbirds,
seabed
habitats, zooplankton,
phytoplankton,
nonindigenous
species,
hydrographic
conditions, commercial
fish stocks, litter and
mapping of underwater
sound.
monitoring
programmes and
implementation
of measures to
achieve
good
environmental
status.
monitoring
programmes.
costs
of
£27.8m to
£51.3m
over
10
years
for
additional
monitoring.
invasive non-native species), hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys;
A range of modelling approaches and
parameters
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Development
and
introduction of new
monitoring systems to
plug data gaps and
continuation of existing
11
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/index_en.htm , http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/msfd-descriptors.pdf
20
monitoring
programmes.
Improved
scientific
understanding
of
underwater noise, EMF,
litter and ecosystem
function
Water
Directive
Framework
Targeted management
and operational and
surveillance monitoring
of relevant parameters
within transitional and
coastal water bodies;
investigative
monitoring
where
required. Development
(e.g.
ports)
and
dredging activities in
the inshore area to be
assessed
and
monitored to ensure
compliance.
Further
development
and
intercalibration
of
methods and scientific
understanding
of
linkages
between
hydromorphology and
ecology;
improved
understanding of fate,
Continuation of
assessment and
monitoring
programmes.
Continuation
assessment
monitoring
programmes.
of
and
Surveys of chemical contaminants in water
and/or sediment/biota; surveys of benthic
invertebrates,
algae,
phytoplankton,
angiosperms and fish, plus invasive nonnative species where appropriate, data
processing and sample analysis
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
21
behaviour
and
ecotoxicity
of
increasing range of
Priority Substances
Revised Bathing Waters
Directive
Monitoring of specified
parameters
at
identified
bathing
waters during bathing
season. Investigation of
failures.
Improved
characterisation
of
bathing waters, linked
to warning systems
Continuation of
monitoring
programmes.
Continuation
monitoring
programmes.
of
Surveys of microbiological contaminants,
water quality parameters, data processing
and sample analysis
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Shellfish
Regulation
Hygiene
Monitoring of shellfish
contamination.
Investigation
of
failures;
improved
understanding
of
impact of discharges on
shellfish hygiene.
Continuation of
monitoring
programmes.
Continuation
monitoring
programmes.
of
Surveys of microbiological and chemical
contamination of shellfish, data processing
and sample analysis
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
22
Marine research
Strategic Environmental
Assessment Directive
Baseline surveys to
inform
plan
development
and
assessment;
postimplementation
monitoring.
Baseline surveys
to inform plan
development
and assessment;
postimplementation
monitoring.
Baseline surveys to
inform
plan
development
and
assessment;
postimplementation
monitoring.
DECC
Energy SEA
expenditur
e
approximat
ely £2.5-4m
over
4
years.
Full range of environmental, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Biological (benthic and pelagic) analysis
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Marine and Coastal
Access Act – Marine
Planning
Proposed
Spatial
Directive
Marine
Planning
Habitat and species
mapping to inform
spatial
policies;
information on socioeconomic
uses;
cumulative effects/colocation
research;
recreational activities;
distribution
of
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
A complete
multibeam
assessment
of the UKCS
would take
7years and
approximat
ely
£210
Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,
data processing and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
23
12
commercial
fishing
activities; establishing
baseline data
and
monitoring of impact of
plan policies.
million .
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Marine and Coastal
Access Act/ Petroleum
Act – Marine Licensing
Developer
baseline
surveys to inform EIA;
developer post-consent
monitoring.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Full range of environmental, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
Environmental
and
socio-economic
assessments
for
byelaws where existing
licensing mechanisms
insufficient, e.g
in
respect of recreational
activities.
and
Offshore
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Biological (benthic, pelagic) analysis
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Marine
12
and
Coastal
Site verification surveys
More
detailed
Condition
monitoring
Site
Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,
http://www.oceandtm.com/ME5408_Marine_Survey_Needs_Final_Report.pdf
24
Access Act – Marine
Protected Areas (helps
to deliver OSPAR MPA
commitment)
for MCZs and socioeconomic assessment.
site
baseline
surveys for MCZs
and continuing
monitoring
of
socio-economic
and
environmental
impacts.
for
MCZs,
with
possibility of fresh
verification
and
baseline surveys for
additional
or
alternative MCZs.
verification
Surveys:
Offshore
rMCZs/RAs:
£0.61millio
n; inshore
(within
12nm):
£3.57millio
n.
Baseline
Setting
Surveys:
Offshore
rMCZs/RAs:
£8.49millio
n; inshore
(within
12nm):
£35.63milli
on.
data processing and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Condition
Monitoring
Surveys:
Offshore
rMCZs/RAs:
£19.83milli
on; inshore
(within
12nm):
£66.15milli
25
on.
A complete
multibeam
assessment
of the UKCS
would take
7 years and
approximat
ely
cost
£210
million.
Habitats Directive
Distribution of features
within Natura 2000
sites;
scientific
understanding
of
human pressures and
impacts
(e.g.
cumulative
impacts,
mobile features); status
of habitats and species;
appropriate
assessments for fishing
activities, requirements
for and effectiveness of
management
measures.
Ongoing
monitoring
of
stats
and
effectiveness of
measures, and
where necessary
research
and
assessments for
adaptive
management.
Ongoing monitoring of
stats and effectiveness
of measures and where
necessary research and
assessments
for
adaptive management.
Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,
fish, and marine mammal, data processing
and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Birds Directive
Further identification of
marine SPAs; status of
habitats and species;
requirements for and
Ongoing
monitoring
of
stats
and
effectiveness of
Ongoing monitoring of
stats and effectiveness
of measures and where
necessary research and
Sea bird surveys, benthic biological and
geophysical surveys, data processing and
sample analysis
26
effectiveness
management
measures.
of
measures
and
where necessary
research
and
assessments for
adaptive
management.
assessments
for
adaptive management.
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Wildlife & Countryside
Act 1981
Monitoring of
condition
effectiveness
management
measures.
site
and
of
Ongoing
monitoring
of
state
and
effectiveness of
measures.
Ongoing monitoring of
state and effectiveness
of measures.
Broadly as for other MPAs (minor driver).
UNESCO Sites: World
Heritage
Sites,
Biosphere Reserves
Monitoring of
condition
effectiveness
management
measures.
site
and
of
Ongoing
monitoring
of
state
and
effectiveness of
measures.
Ongoing monitoring of
state and effectiveness
of measures.
As above.
UK Biodiversity Action
Plans
Information on the
distribution
and
condition
of
BAP
habitats and species.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,
fish and marine mammal surveys, data
processing and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
27
analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
GB Invasive Non-Native
Species
Framework
Strategy
(various
drivers)
Encourages monitoring
of invasive non-native
species
(INS)
and
establish action plans
where
appropriate.
Relies on statutory
provisions in other
legislation
to
implementation.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
No specific requirements over and above
existing legal provisions in other legislation
(WFD, MSFD, Ballast Water Convention).
Common
Fisheries
Policy Reform
Stock
assessments;
distribution
and
condition of seabed
habitats;
improved
models for fisheries
management,
vessel
monitoring
and
surveillance,
assessment
of
displacement effects on
commercial
stocks,
other
species
and
habitats.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Surveys of fish stocks, larval fish surveys,
benthic biological and geophysical surveys,
data processing and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Vessel monitoring systems
Project management
Environmental monitoring
28
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Fisheries 2027
Economic and social
use
of
marine
environment, including
fish
stocks;
understanding
of
pressures and impacts
and
ecosystem
function; identification
of
effective
management measures
compatible with the 9
vision
statements;
science in accordance
with the “ethical code
for scientists”.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
As above.
English
Plan
Optimisation
of
aquaculture, control of
disease/parasites,
environmental impacts.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Environmental
research
Aquaculture
consultancy,
marine
Seabed investigations
WQ monitoring systems
Natural
Environment
White Paper
Understanding
of
marine
ecosystem
services (ES) and their
value; response of ES
provision to human
pressures.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
NEA
and
NEA
2;
NERC BESS
programme
(£13m
funding
2011-2017,
Environmental
research.
consultancy,
marine
29
part
marine);
LWEC (part
marine).
National
Heritage
Protection Plan
Distribution of heritage
features; sensitivity and
vulnerability to human
pressures;
management
measures.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Geophysical survey, data processing and
analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine research
Policy-related research
(multiple drivers)
Economic and social
research;
human
pressures and impacts;
state
of
the
environment; science
for integrated marine
management.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Potentially
all
identified above.
services/capabilities
Blue
Growth
and
Marine knowledge 2020
“a seamless multiresolution
digital
seabed
map
of
European waters by
2020…. of the highest
resolution
possible,
On going.
On going.
Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,
data processing and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
30
covering topography,
geology, habitats and
ecosystems” for the
benefit of all sectors
Data and information management and
analysis
Project management
Vessel suppliers and operators
Socio-economic
Aquaculture
Oil
and
development
gas
Development of costeffective
production
methods for increased
range of species;
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Research.
Ongoing surveys and
monitoring to inform
future
development,
existing operations and
decommissioning
(largely met through
SEA
and
EIA
requirements).
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Metocean forecasting
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
A range of modelling approaches and
parameters
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
31
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine aggregates
Ongoing surveys and
monitoring to inform
future
development
and
operational
impacts (largely met
through REA and EIA
requirements).
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
A range of modelling approaches and
parameters
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Coastal Power Stations
(Nuclear)
Safe geological storage
Marine biomass
Development of costeffective
production
Climate and geological research
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Research
32
methods.
Offshore
development
Wave
and
development
wind
tidal
Improved baseline data
(regional/
national
scale) and scientific
understanding
of
effects on seabirds and
marine
mammals;
interactions with other
users,
cumulative
effects;
ongoing
monitoring to inform
future
development
and
operational
impacts (largely met
through SEA and EIA
requirements
or
through
research
programme such as
ORJIP which aim to
develop evidence to
underpin and inform
decisions and SEA and
EIAs).
Ongoing.
Improved baseline data
(deployment
areas,
regional and national
scale) and scientific
understanding
of
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Metocean forecasting
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Ongoing.
Full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Metocean forecasting
33
effects on benthic
habitats, fish, seabirds
and marine mammals;
interactions with other
users,
cumulative
effects;
Ongoing
modelling
and
monitoring to inform
future
development
and
operational
impacts (largely met
through SEA and EIA
requirements).
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Carbon capture and
storage development
R& D on technology
development, surveys
and
baseline
information to inform
the technology to be
employed,
site
selection, and EIA
requirements.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Technological research; full range of
biological, hydrographic, geophysical and
oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
34
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Ports and harbours
Scientific understanding
of potential impacts on
fish, habitats and water
birds; ongoing surveys
and monitoring to
inform
future
development
and
operational
impacts
(largely met through
EIA requirements).
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
A range of modelling approaches and
parameters
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Health and Safety
requirements and fuel
costs
also
driving
adoption of remote
monitoring equipment
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Shipping
Scientific understanding
of role in INS; ballast
water
treatment
systems; impact of
shipping noise; clean
ship concept; efficiency
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Potential global requirement for 70,000
vessels to fit ballast water treatment
systems. Operational need to meet SEEMP
and EEDI requirements.
35
of
water
transport.
Tourism and recreation
borne
Identify management
measures to ensure
adherence to marine
planning
policies,
minimise
adverse
environmental impacts,
and prepare EIAs where
there are developments
such as marinas
Ongoing.
Understanding
of
climate change impacts
and
adaptation
strategies; maintenance
of
long-term
monitoring (sea level,
global
ocean
monitoring);
development
and
application of remote
sensing technologies.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Monitoring of implementation and
effectiveness of management measures,
Marine research
Environmental
Climate change
From Bryden
(2012):
et
al
(i)
sustained
observations of the
varying and evolving
ocean circulation, (ii)
Ongoing.
Full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Metocean forecasting
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
Environmental monitoring
36
careful analysis and
interpretation of the
observed
climate
changes for comparison
with climate model
projections, and (iii) the
design and execution of
focused
field
experiments
to
understand
ocean
processes that are not
resolved in coupled
climate models so as to
be able to embed these
processes realistically in
the models.
Ocean acidification
Understanding effects
of ocean acidification
on marine life and
marine processes; longterm measurement of
ocean acidification;
Greater baseline
evidence base.
Vessel suppliers and operators
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Research into ocean acidification impacts;
full range of biological, hydrographic,
geophysical and oceanographic surveys
Oceanographic, Subsea
instrumentation
and
Offshore
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Chemical analysis
Project management
37
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Marine risk
hazards
- geo/bio
Understanding
of
geohazard risks, early
warning
systems;
monitoring
of
biohazards
(e.g.
harmful algal blooms)
and
understanding
causes and influence of
human pressures.
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Biological and geophysical survey, data
processing and sample analysis
Subsea and Offshore instrumentation
Environmental consultancy
Data and information management and
analysis
Remote sensing and reporting
Project management
Environmental monitoring
Vessel suppliers and operators
Cost efficiencies in data
collection
Development
of
improved
sensors
(better
limits
of
resolution, wider range
of parameters, better
platforms (e.g.AUVs));
better
use
of
satellite/aerial
data
collection; clearer data
standards
(ensuring
data collection fit for
purpose and not gold
plated).
Technology research.
38
Remote Sensing and
Marine
Autonomous
Systems seen as key
driver
to reduce
research
vessel
dependency.
Cross-Cutting
Technology
&
Marine Foresight
Strategic identification
of future opportunities
and threats.
Deep ocean opportunities
As technology becomes
available to exploit deep
ocean opportunities, this
will act as a driver for
increased
exploitation.
However, it is difficult to
project the pace and scale
of
such
technology
development
Operational Meteorology
and
Operational
It should be noted that a
very large driver for
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Some
elements of
Foresight
occur
within
programme
s such as
LWEC, but
not
systematic.
Multidisciplinary activity.
39
Oceanography
marine data acquisition,
particularly
remote
monitoring is to inform
operational meteorology.
Remote monitoring
Remote
monitoring,
include
satellite
monitoring, will continue
to increase, as technology
becomes available. The
availability
of
the
technology will act as a
driver
for
increased
remote
monitoring.
However, it is difficult to
project the pace and scale
of
such
technology
development. There are a
range
of
associated
opportunities such as data
transmission and anti
biofouling measures.
40
6. Consultation Process
Semi-Structured Interviews:
6.1
The advisory group agreed a list of stakeholders (or organisations ) for the project team
to contact. It was considered essential to secure good representation on the ‘demand
side’, i.e. funders, customers and users of marine science. A clear steer was provided
that this project should not be about what the marine science and technology sector
could provide, rather it should match need and capability wherever possible (i.e.
needs/demand led). Stakeholders were catagorised into 3 groups:
 The users/customers of marine science (i.e. the demand side)
 Providers of marine science (representatives of the marine science and
technology sector); and
 Trade associations and professional institutions.
There are some interdependencies between these groups with some organisations, such
as professional institutions and trade associations that contain both users, customers
and providers of marine science. Interviews were undertaken with the stakeholders
listed below in table 2.
Table 2. Interviewed stakeholders
Name
Organisation
Name
Organisation
1. Jon Upton
Shell
2. Phil Durrant
Gardline
3. Annie Linley
NERC
4. Jane Smallman
HR Wallingford
5. Douglas Watson
Scottish
Renewables
7. Mark Russell
BMAPA
9. Patricia
Villela
Power 6. Richard Burt
Almada MMO
AMSI/Chelsea
Technology
8. Steven Hall
NOC
10. Stuart Rogers
Cefas
11. Mike Cowling
The Crown Estate
12. Bev MacKenzie
IMarEST
13. David Whitehead
British Ports Association
14. Paul Reynolds
Renewable UK
15. Peter Jamieson
Virgin Media
16. Mick Borwell
Oil and Gas UK
17. Steven De Mora
PML
18. Peter Joyce
BIS
19. Caron Montgomery
Defra
20. Peter Liss
NOC/UEA
21. Ralph Rayner
BMT
41
6.2
The project team undertook a semi-structure interview approach. Details of the
approach and lines of questioning are in annex 2. Interviewees were advised that their
comments would be summarised and reported back in a non-attributable way.
6.3
It should be noted that although the resources available to the project did not allow
more extensive engagement with academic institutions, private sector users and
developers, those stakeholders interviewed were able to draw on a wide range of
experience (e.g. trade associations).
Industry Workshop
6.4
The project team was grateful to AMSI for inviting them to a networking session, where
a number of AMSI members were invited to offer comments on the scope and terms of
the review. These comments have been reported back in a non-attributable way.
Industry Survey
6.5
The aim of the industry survey was to give companies in the marine science and
technology sector the opportunity to offer views on the issues covered by the project.
This was in the form of a free text response. We also sought to test some of the
emerging messages from the interview through quick tick box response questions. The
results of the survey are illustrative and are not intended to offer a robust sample.
6.6
The survey went out to UK members of IMarEST, AMSI and the SUT (in excess of 1000
individuals). Please note that there is likely to be duplication in membership between
the three organisations. A total of 88 people filled in all or part of the survey. The survey
was anonymous unless the respondent chose to identify themselves.
6.7
The 88 respondents comprised: 87.5% from the private sector, 5.7% from the public
sector, 8% from academic institutions and 2.3% from NGOs. They represented a range of
sectors with the technology, equipment and instrumentation sector and survey sector
featuring prominently. The majority of respondents saw their principal customers in the
energy sector, with a good range of other sectors (e.g. ports, shipping and defense) also
cited. 33% of respondents indicated that their customers included Government
Departments and Agencies, and 31% indicated that academic organisations were also
customers. A summary of the survey results is at annex 5.
6.8
The advisory panel discussed emerging findings on 31st January and the MILG also
discussed on 13 February. All MSCC members were invited to submit views and
comments on the report.
42
7. Findings and Discussion
7.1
The project has been undertaken at a time of growth for the marine science and
technology sector. Despite the general economic climate the sector seems to be
thriving, with increasing employee numbers, turnover and export activity. It is a growing
UK success story.
7.2
The most recent analysis under taken by the Association of Marine Scientific
Industries13 shows a growing and dynamic sector, with an estimated turnover for
commercial Marine Science and Technology (MST), in 2012, of £1.35billion. Market
confidence is high with 81% of companies in the 2012 AMSI survey forecasting growth in
the market and 78% of companies expecting increased turnover for 2012/13. In terms
of export, 77% of companies export some of their products and services with a total
market value in excess of £500m. More generally, the marine economy, from oil and
gas to offshore energy continues to grow.
7.3
Key drivers for the market include the development of offshore renewable energy,
nuclear new build, and continued growth in the oil and gas sector. Within the UK, new
legislation, such as the Marine and Coastal Access Act and Marine Scotland Act, are
leading to new opportunities. Of particular note, growth in the sector is mainly outside
Europe with both the Asia Pacific region and parts of South America being seen as a
source of growth.
7.4
The fact that the project has been commissioned, with a broad terms of reference to
look at opportunities for the sector, was widely welcomed and seen as a positive step
from the MILG and MSCC. For example 83% of survey respondents agreed with the
statement “there is scope for greater partnership between the public and private sector
in delivering marine science” (3% disagreed). Similarly, 88% of survey respondents
agreed with the statement “effective collaboration between the public and private
sector on the delivery of marine science can help support business opportunities for UK
companies”.
7.5
A number of promising activities and initiatives are underway, ranging from joint
Government, Industry and Academic partnerships on renewable energy to pockets of
good practice on partnership working and engagement. There was an encouraging
amount of consensus from interviews and responses from marine science end
users/customers and providers that there are opportunities for more collaborative
working which can reduce costs, support economic opportunities and improve the
overall strength of the UK marine science base.
13
http://www.maritimeindustries.org/AMSI-Survey
43
7.6
It should be noted that the online survey was intended as an opportunity to submit
examples and views. It is not a statistically robust sample or response.
Marine Science Priorities
7.7
The project team invited comments from a number of stakeholders including all MSCC
members and those interviewed. Where possible, comments were reflected in the
revised table on page 13.
7.8
One respondent asked that we note that “science” and “evidence” are not synonymous.
They felt that it was important to distinguish between the two. Science provides one
strand of evidence to support policy or business decisions, but is not the exclusive
factor. A number of activities (e.g. as listed in the Marine Science Priorities Table) such
as monitoring, data processing, survey, mapping, analysis are tools or techniques. They
should not be seen as simply synonymous with science – these are techniques, many of
which need scientific or technical expertise. It is the motivation for mapping or
monitoring that is key – the motivation may be fundamentally scientific (e.g. to discover
new phenomena) or to serve other purposes (e.g to test compliance against some
environmental target parameter).
Pulling together priorities in the one place was seen as a useful exercise.
7.9
It was noted that many businesses (as a general point) struggle to plan beyond a three
year horizon, although many end users, such as Government Departments and
developers with long-term assets, plan over longer term cycles. In the online survey over
58% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their organisation has a strong
understanding of marine science priorities in the short term (3 years) with only 15%
disagreeing. Understanding of marine priorities reduced over a 5 year horizon (40%
agreement) and a 10 year horizon (25%) agreement).
7.10
A challenge for the project team was to summarise marine science priorities in such a
way that was meaningful to businesses in the marine science and technology sector. The
table prepared examines the relationship between priorities and market activities at a
relatively high level. Within the scope of the project it was not possible to break down
broad, and in some cases, cross cutting priorities for marine science, into detailed
requirements or estimates of the market size. Nonetheless, a number of respondents
found the table useful to identify where future markets might emerge.
7.11
The project also uncovered opportunities for the MSCC and MILG to build on efforts to
engage both private sector users/customers and providers of marine science in the
44
development and dissemination of any updates or revisions to the UK Marine Science
Strategy. For example, 25% of respondents to the online survey agreed with the
statement “There is a clear strategy for marine science in the UK” with 36% disagreeing.
The MSCC communication strategy might usefully be reviewed to identify opportunities
for communicating with industry (for example presence/events at key trade shows,
utilization of the Marine Industries Leadership Council communication channels and
working through organisations such as AMSI and IMarEST)
7.12
Translating high level marine science needs, such as those articulated in the project
table, into plain English, market needs and opportunities, is an area where all sectors
might benefit and where the MILG can play an important role. It was noted that both
public and private sector customers of marine science have shared needs including data
acquisition and monitoring to meet policy objectives and to meet regulatory
requirements. This is particularly the case where collaboration on areas such as
platforms and sensors – can enable public and private sector customers of marine
science to reduce costs.
7.13
In relation to the above point, there were examples offered where the public and
private sector are perceived to be unknowingly developing systems to meet similar
needs. Two specific examples offered are the development of new ambient noise
sensors ‘in-house’ by the public sector, when the private sector and military have similar
systems and the development of sensors to monitor water quality parameters for
multiple European Directives.
Taking a longer term view can benefit all sectors.
7.14
Publically funded research programmes, such as long term monitoring and longitudinal
studies, require long term commitment and a reasonable degree of certainty. Similarly,
greater and clearer long-term commitment by government bodies can assist businesses
to make investment decisions, improve competiveness and risk management. It can also
reduce costs for the public purse. Such commitment would attract private sector
investment in long term projects. This is particularly the case for relatively niche and low
volume sensors and platforms, where short term demands do not make commercial
production viable, but a long-term (5+ year) requirement becomes a commercial
proposition (e.g. some monitoring platforms). An example of a missed opportunity is
the Argo programme, where floats are supplied by one overseas supplier. Efforts were
made to engage UK manufacturers and had there been the ability for a longer term
forward procurement commitment 14 then this may have led to direct UK opportunities.
14
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32446/11-1054-forwardcommitment-procurement-buying-innovative-solutions.pdf
45
7.15
Some of those who commented suggested that the marine science priorities do not
seem to be “joined up”. Research needs are identified too narrowly in terms of specific
“bases” or “disciplines”. It was commented that more should be done to look at issues
that span the marine environment as a whole, for example ecosystem services. This
would offer scope for efficiencies, bring other benefits of a more integrated approach
and enable the UK to meet new requirements such as the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive.
There is an opportunity to align priorities with economic needs.
7.16
A common message was that marine science priorities should be more focused on
applied needs and economic opportunities and this should be an explicit part of the UK
marine science strategy. At the very least, it was considered that there needed to be
closer alignment with the aims set out in the Marine Policy Statement 15. For example,
23% of respondents on the online survey agreed with the statement “the approach to
delivering marine science in the UK support business opportunities for UK companies”
whilst 44% disagreed. It was noted that at EC level, there was a strong focus on “Blue
Growth16” with a strategic framework in place to deliver this. Other countries, such as
the US and notably Ireland have more integrated approaches and strategies for meeting
this aim. The Irish example, Harnessing our Ocean Wealth17, includes specific objectives
to support growth in the marine science and technology sector.
7.17
Respondents did not question the important role of fundamental and blue skies science,
nor the strength of the UK in this area, but suggested that there should be a greater
economic focus for UK marine science priorities –i.e. what marine science needs are
associated with new and emerging sectors where there is an opportunity for the UK to
gain an economic advantages, and how can marine science be delivered in such a way as
to support industry. In addition, the closed nature of some funding streams (such as
research council funding) did not promote partnership working between academia and
industry. It was also noted that priorities are dominated by policy and regulatory
requirements (a key driver for both Government and developers seeking to meet
environmental standards). “Operational requirements”, such as meteorology, were also
identified as important drivers.
7.18
A number of respondents quoted offshore wind energy as an example of a missed
opportunity. They commented that had NERC, and other public sector funded science
institutes, given more attention to the scientific and evidence challenges surrounding
15
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/03/18/marine-policy-statement/
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth/index_en.htm
17
http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.p
16
46
offshore wind farms 10 years ago, at a time where the scale of demand and some of the
challenges could have been reasonably anticipated, then the UK would likely be in a
stronger competitive position than it is now. Respondents from private sector
developers and providers suggested that they were aware of these issues, but there was
no public funding from research councils to address them. A respondent from the
academic sector noted that the incentives for academics to explore these issues were
not there as at the time research into these issues was unlikely to attract citations. The
question is, therefore, how can the marine science community both avoid this
happening again and anticipate and prepare for the future?
7.19
Respondents from both the public and private sector stated that that there is a need for
greater marine “foresight” or horizon scanning, which looks at emerging economic,
industrial and commercial opportunities and the related science and evidence needs.
Specific examples include:
 Seafloor mining (technology and environmental impact)
 Wave and Tidal energy.
 Aquaculture (e.g. integrated multi-tropic units, deep-water fish farming)
 Carbon Capture and Storage
 Long-term investment in remote sensing (particularly acoustic monitoring)
7.20
A horizon scanning process (either a ‘light touch’ workshop or a more in-depth study)
should be undertaken, with industry, to identify key areas and sectors (including those
above) where early action can both help secure economic benefits but also enable the
UK marine science community to plan for the future. This should be an early action for
MILG within the next 6 months with priority sectors and actions being integrated into
the marine science strategy. IMarEST and the SUT have recently undertaken similar
activities, the results of which should be utilized.
Marine Science is international.
7.21
It was noted by some respondents that the list of science priorities was confined to the
UK waters (reflecting the scope of the project), but that many of the drivers and impacts
are, of course, international. These include deep sea exploitation, climate change and
ocean acidification. The market for the related marine science, monitoring and evidence
gathering is global. The UK based marine science and technology sector operates
globally, which suggests that the UK’s marine priorities should be widened to
encompass this.
47
Capacity and Capability.
7.22
The project team sought views and information on the capacity and capability of the UK
marine science base to meet the needs identified in the long-term marine strategy, and
the extent to which there are gaps in the public or private sector capacity and capability
to deliver these.
There were no systemic or insurmountable capacity and capability gaps identified.
7.23
The consensus message was that whilst there are some serious gaps in our current
understanding of important marine science issues (for example underwater noise
impacts, population dynamics of marine birds and mammals) and that marine sciences
struggled to compete for funding, there are no insurmountable capacity and capability
gaps within the UK marine science base to meet these needs.
7.24
Although there were not any strategic or systemic weaknesses in capacity and capability
there were some specific examples of either skills shortages (including: benthic
taxonomists, coastal geologists and ecosystem modelers) or gaps in both capacity and
capability (e.g. applying socio-economics to the marine environment, ecosystem
modelers in the public sector and “Arctic understanding” where there may be future
economic opportunities).
Capacity and capability gaps are to be considered in different ways.
7.25
Some industry stakeholders viewed capability gaps in terms of missed opportunities for
UK based businesses; where UK companies are not meeting a UK customer’s need and
the UK customer is “shopping abroad”, or where UK purchasers (public and private
sector) were buying direct from foreign competition, rather than fostering and working
with UK companies. One example given was gliders/AUVs.
7.26
Equally, capacity issues are also dependent on the extent to which marine research is
seen as a priority by the public sector (in this respect, a stronger industry and economy
‘story’ might help leverage extra resource) Where gaps in capacity and capability do
emerge, both sectors have a shared interest in ensuring that there is investment in
training, development is available and there are attractive career prospects for people
coming into the field.
The private sector are already playing a role in delivering marine science
7.27
Many respondents pointed out that the private sector is already providing a large
number of services related to the delivery of marine science in the UK. This ranged from
providing applied research to government departments and regulators to monitoring
48
and survey work to developers. Most of the work commissioned by developers is
delivered by the private sector, with some work being delivered by public sector bodies
operating in a commercial capacity.
There are lots of perceptions on the respective strengths and role of the public and private
sector.
7.28
The majority of respondents felt that, in principle, there are very few priorities and
needs that could not be delivered by the private sector. If there is a clear market and a
commercial opportunity, the private sector would generally respond. Some online
respondents (57%) suggested that the private sector has gaps in capability and capacity
to meet marine science needs, but these were not specific. Feedback from interviews
suggest this is more to do with whether the needs represented a commercially viable
proposition at the current time.There were striking differences in perception as to what
type of work is best delivered by the public sector and by the private sector. Views
included:
a. The public sector is better at delivering long-term strategic needs – e.g.
understanding of climate change and marine ecosystem. 29% of online respondents
agreed with this, 39% disagreed.
a. Blue sky research is best done by the public sector
b. The private sector is better at short term and applied projects – e.g. answering
specific questions (59% of online respondents agreed with this).
c. The private sector is very good at identifying and filling the capability gaps of the
public sector (e.g. socio-economics and in supplying technology)
d. The private sector has a role in undertaking surveys and monitoring where it is
cheaper and more cost effective to do so.
e. The private sector is better at carrying out research which focuses on the application
and development of new technology
f. The private sector should be more involved in supplementing the capacity of the
public sector
g. The online survey response to the statement “There are marine science
requirements that cannot be delivered by the private sector agree – Agree 33%,
Disagree 35%”
7.29
There were mixed views on the extent to which long-term monitoring and statutory
functions could be undertaken by the private sector. Some saw this as almost entirely
the province of the public sector, whilst others believed that if there was long term
commitment to funding and work was commercially viable, there was no reason why
the private sector could not deliver on this.
49
7.30
The fact that these responses are dominated by perception rather than evidence
demonstrates the need for a more structured and informed debate as to how sectors
can work together. A commissioning approach (see below) might help facilitate this as
this explicitly involves market testing to understand potential delivery options.
Where and how the private sector can work with other sectors to improve efficiency and
increase value for money from publicly-funded marine science activities
7.31
There was an overall perception that the private sector can deliver many services
efficiently. Most of the comments seem to relate to the operation of assets and
equipment, e.g. data acquisition, monitoring, sampling and some aspects of analysis and
interpretation. 69% of online respondents agreed with the statement that “some marine
science requirements can be delivered more efficiency by the private sector”, whilst 3 %
disagreed. At the same time one respondent from a public sector agency suggested that
there are missed opportunities for market testing as a result of “protectionism” by
employees, who feel that work should be kept in-house. Examples were provided of
private and public sector bodies delivering in partnership; for example CEFAS working
with the private sector on taxonomy, surveys and sampling.
Opportunities were identified for the private sector to play a greater role in monitoring
programmes.
7.32
A number of stakeholders cited opportunities to consolidate monitoring programmes
and equipment. There were multiple benefits of doing so, including; to improve
interoperability, to deliver efficiencies for public and private sector customers of marine
science and to foster a UK supply chain. The opportunities in monitoring include (a) the
platform or vehicle, (b) sensors and instrumentation, particularly remote monitoring and
data transmission systems (c) value added services, such as data analysis. A barrier to
this happening was seen as the funding often coming from different pots of money and
there being no apparent mechanism for bringing everything together. Nevertheless, a
positive example of where this has happened is the Environment Agency’s Coastal
Observatory Programme, where funding and activity from multiple local authorities and
agencies was pooled into a coherent programme.
7.33
A number of respondents suggested that routine monitoring activity could be
undertaken by the private sector with subsequent efficiency savings being reinvested to
other marine science priorities. Respondents suggested, by way of an example, that the
private sector could play a role in some monitoring undertaken by CEFAS and the Met
Office (e.g remote sensing).
50
7.34
A parallel was drawn with the water industry where functions that are critical to public
health, such as water quality testing, were undertaken almost entirely by the private
sector. This is regulated by a small and focused Government Agency – the Drinking
Water Inspectorate. Similarly, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl)
and undertake some sensitive areas of defence research however advertise that they
“start from the assumption that the work should be conducted by external suppliers
(industry, universities and other research organisations) unless there is a clear reason for
it to be done or led by Dstl”.
7.35
Greater coordination of existing monitoring effort is being undertaken under the MSCC
(the UKMASS grouping), but the extent to which industry has been engaged in this is not
clear. Of particular note is the potential for new monitoring requirements under the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which will impact on the public sector and is also
likely to require developers to measure or assess a wider range of parameters. It was
suggested that there may be opportunities for developers and public sector customers
of marine science to work with the marine science and technology sector to identify and
bring to market cost effective sensors and services to deliver monitoring, work on
common problems, such as bio-fouling, acoustic monitoring and issues such as datatransmission (e.g development of acoustic modems).
7.36
One respondent contrasted the UK approach with that of the US in relation to
supporting and fostering a domestic manufacturing base. NOAA18 identify broad scale
needs for key observation technologies, support the development of these through the
innovation chain from research funding to deployment and commercial export. Part of
this ‘innovation push’ is explicitly to meet industrial policy outcomes set by NOAA’s
sponsor department (Department for Commerce). There is no comparable policy
objective or strategy to do this in UK marine sciences.
Additional opportunities were identified in relation to the provision and operation of
Research Assets
7.37
18
Respondents suggested that the private sector could play a greater role in the provision
of research assets. One example offered was the ‘Ships of Opportunity’ programme
where commercial shipping is utilised to acquire data. Other opportunities, such as
collaboration with developers, where data acquired from offshore platforms is either
shared with other developers and/or required to be shared with the Met Office. It was
also noted that the private sector can play a greater role in undertaking research cruises,
http://www.noaa.gov/
51
including through the provision and operation of research and survey vessels. The MSCC
have been examining the operation of public sector research vessels and should develop
a commissioning feasibility study to look at how greater efficiencies can be achieved.
7.38
Opportunities were also identified in relation to the setting of standards and subsequent
calibration of sensors and equipment. One respondent highlighted an example of
partnership between academics and technology and service providers, where standards
of salinity measurement were adapted to meet new parameters, and that close working
with industry ensured that the technology was ready to meet these new requirements.
More generally, the private sector provides some calibration services to the public
sector and this was considered to be an area where the private sector can play a greater
role.
7.39
Other opportunities included:

Innovative approaches to observation and measurement including cost reduction
approaches

Development on new platforms such as AUVs

Development of new sensors and technologies to meet evolving measurement
parameters such as those associated with the marine strategy framework directive.

Development of sensors and technologies for deep sea operation.

Greater emphasis on shipping industry needs such as anti-fouling (cross industry) and
Ballast Water treatment

One respondent submitted a
Equipment/Technology trials ship.
case
for
a
UK
owned/operated
Marine
Commissioning of services was raised as an opportunity to deliver efficiency savings.
7.40
The issue of commissioning was raised at the industry workshop. It was recognised that
commissioning is broader than traditional procurement, which is centered on
purchasing inputs (commodities or services) that support a particular government
function. By contrast, commissioning starts with the planned outcomes and outputs;
the impact of government policies and services. It is about finding the most cost
effective and beneficial means of delivering those services. Commissioning often
involves partnership working across sectors and across different government
departments and agencies. It can also involve developing markets and helping to build
external capacity to deliver, if that creates the opportunity to choose from a diverse
range of providers.
7.41
It was considered that this approach could usefully be applied to the delivery of the
Government’s marine science objectives, by enabling more cost effective use of existing
52
resources and assisting economic growth. One respondent noted that aspects of a
commissioning approach have been adopted by NOAA, where around 60% of activity is
delivered by either the private sector or other organizations. This included the operation
of national observatories, networks of data buoys and support vessels. It was cautioned
that in some cases the outcomes have been mixed (in areas where NOAA has reduced
in-house expertise to act as an ‘intelligent customer’), which highlights the importance
of retaining a core public sector expertise in some areas.
A Commissioning of services approached should be considered in marine sciences.
7.42
The commissioning approach, which focuses on outcomes and does not start with a
predetermined view of how or who should deliver servicers, could be beneficially
applied to certain areas of marine science, such as monitoring and data acquisition. It
would enable innovative and cost effective ways of delivery and may facilitate new
partnerships between the public sector, private sector and academic institutions. The
advisory panel asked for more information on this point and the project team has
developed a case study and further explanation of how commissioning might work and
the difference between procurement and commissioning (annex 4).
7.43
The Government recently launched a new Commissioning Academy to encourage
commissioning to be applied more widely across the public sector. This is in accordance
with the Government’s stated intention that in the services amenable to commissioning,
default will switch from one where the state provides the service itself, to one where
the state commissions the service19.
How the private sector can express their needs and seek input from public sector research
7.44
Earlier comments about input to marine science priorities are relevant. In oil, gas and
offshore wind development it was suggested that the links between private sector R&D
programmes and public sector research were fragmented. A number of those contacted
commented, by way of example, that had NERC been more closely aware of industry
needs 10 or even 5 years ago some of the challenges facing the offshore wind sector
would have been resolved earlier. Costs would have been lower and there would also
have been wider benefits for the UK economy and marine science base.
Early Engagement is best.
19
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-commissioning-academy-framework-document
53
7.45
Both developers and providers of private sector marine science highlighted the need to
engage the private sector at the beginning of a programme or project. This is particularly
so at the scoping stage and in terms of ensuring agreement on what the research needs
to deliver. From some public sector respondents there was a view that it can be
challenging to engage the private sector in developing research strategy and research
ideas. One of the factors of concern is about IP leakage and the associated commercial
risks. Safeguards would be needed.
7.46
There was comment on the significant need and opportunity to increase focus on
innovation from publicly funded marine research. Respondents noted that academics
and research institutions had, in some cases, been successful in developing new marine
technologies, such as sensors and platforms. The real opportunity is to involve the
private sector in development from the outset; e.g. at the statement of need stage.
7.47
A number of US examples of successful joint ventures were cited (e.g. SRI and the
University of Florida) where relationships have been established between sectors at the
scoping phase of research. One respondent cited the Canadian approach of fostering
marine clusters on the West Coast, which have enabled successful partnering and
suggested that more in-depth work be undertaken to share experience with UK clusters.
European funding has its place, but is difficult for smaller companies to access.
7.48
Among other comments received, the view was expressed that Framework Program
(FP7) and INTERREG funding should be more flexible and accessible to private sector
organisations. A number of companies in the marine science and technology sector have
been successful in accessing FP7 funding, but attention was drawn by a respondent to
the difficulties and prohibitive costs for smaller companies. Issues include the length of
time involved in the application process, assessment and programme. It can typically
take at least 6 months to a year to understand whether or not a project has been
accepted for funding with a project developing over a 3 year period. The management
time involved in working across multiple partners and countries is also challenging for
smaller companies.
7.49
Looking forward, some respondents welcomed the fact that NOC have been proactive in
seeking industry views on the development of Horizon 2020 and noting that the UK has
the opportunity to shape priorities and approaches. One respondent noted that
approaches currently employed by the public sector (e.g the National Centre of Ocean
Forecasting, which provides a consortium of modelers - Met Office, NERC, Cefas) to
target R&D money from Europe. Such approaches could also include the private sector.
54
Opportunities were identified in the area of applied research.
7.50
The private sector inevitably has a strong understanding of market requirements and
can, therefore, make a strong contribution to the delivery of applied research. For
example, the private sector made the major contribution to the Marine Aggregate Levy
Sustainability Fund Research Programme, which also included strong public sectorprivate sector collaboration on many of the individual studies within the programme.
However, some funding streams, particularly NERC research programmes, can be
difficult for the private sector to access and this hampers the opportunity for successful
public-private sector partnership.
There are a number of UK examples of good practice collaboration related to marine
science.
7.51
The Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programmes, the Marine Renewable Energy
Knowledge Exchange Programme, the Population Consequences of Acoustic
Disturbance/ Population Consequences of Disturbance (PCAD/PCOD) framework, the
Knowledge Exchange Programme for Wave and Tidal Energy and the National Centre for
Ocean Forecasting, were all given as examples of where there had recently been
worthwhile collaboration. More recently, the TSB and NERC have launched a
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs) in the field of offshore renewable energy
looking at issues such as cost effective monitoring and data management.
7.52
A number of respondents referred to the Marine Aggregates Levy Sustainability Scheme
as an example of good practice collaboration between industry, government and the
private sector. The aspect of good practice was not the fact that there was direct
revenue to invest in science, welcome though that was, nor was there any expectation
that such a funding mechanism will be re-introduced. However, what was seen as
particularly effective was the model of operation. This involved:
 Industry and Government working together to identify research needs.
 Specific and applied research questions with a direct end need and with
researchers understanding how the information was to be used.
 A range of research providers from the public and private sectors undertaking
research.
 Shared access to data and information.
7.53
It was noted that there is a significant amount of private sector led collaboration within
and between sectors. For example the oil and gas industry are developing a joint
55
research programme through Oil and Gas UK. Similarly there was some collaboration
between offshore sectors – such as oil and gas and offshore wind farms to disseminate
good practice and share experience operational issues. This was considered worthwhile
and could be something that can be facilitated by the MILG around common needs (e.g.
increasing value from monitoring).
There is relevant experience from other sectors and countries.
7.54
A review of International and non-marine examples were out of scope of the project.
However, the project team invited examples from stakeholders to see if lessons could be
drawn from elsewhere. Some relevant examples are outlined below.
7.55
The Ministry of Defence sponsored Centre for Defence Enterprise was cited as a good
example. They fund “research into novel high-risk, high-potential-benefit innovations
sourced from the broadest possible range of science and technology providers, including
academia and small companies”. They have an open call for innovation against a
statement of problems and need. Initially there is one page for potential providers to fill
in, which is assessed within 14 days. If they like the proposition, they will invite a short
proposal. There is a quick decision process and 100% funding is available. The
streamlined approach and very quick turnaround makes the whole thing attractive to
SMEs and encourages innovative proposals. There is nothing similar in the marine
science and technology sector outside defence applications.
7.56
The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) 20 was also cited as a useful model. It is jointly
funded by the private sector and government, with a strategic long term view of
priorities (up to 2050) and 3 year funding plans. It has an active marine programme
(including carbon capture and storage, wave and tidal), which encourages competitive
bids from companies and institutions to pull through new technologies.
7.57
The advisory panel noted that BIS, delivering through the Technology Strategy Board,
have developed a network of “Catapult” centers 21 looking at supporting the rapid
commercialisation of research in key areas of growth. This includes an offshore energy
catapult, as well as others which cut across marine science such as satellite applications
and sensor systems. It would be worthwhile exploring how to raise awareness of the
Catapult programme within the Marine Science and Technology Sector and TSB
20
21
http://www.eti.co.uk/technology_programmes/marine/
http://www.innovateuk.org/_assets/0511/Catapultupdate_final.pdf
56
representatives meeting with the MILG to explore how the capabilities of the MST
sector might be relevant to the objects of the catapult programme.
7.58
In the USA, the National Oceanographic Partnership Programme 22 (NOPP) was cited as
an example. NOPP includes explicit goals to advance economic development and form
partnerships between federal agencies, academia and industry. NOPP research is
thematic and includes oceanographic research and exploration, and technology
development and it has supported topics such as sensors for Marine Ecosystems. NOPP
focuses on objectives which are too large for single agencies to undertake, but satisfy
“multiple agency missions” and would benefit from partnerships between government,
private industry and academia.
What lessons can be drawn from the examples of good practice?
7.59
Looking at the above examples of good practice there are common characteristics
where successful research collaboration has been undertaken:
 A clear need and set of outcomes that need to be met, jointly identified by the
public sector and private sector customers and providers, with a clear link to UK
strategic priorities.
 An explicit objective for work to support economic or industrial outcomes.
 Early and joint working between industry and academic institutions and other
public sector bodies.
 A funding mechanism that enables quick decision making and access by SMEs
 Shared understanding of desired outputs and outcomes and how these need to
be applied.
 Shorter-term outputs over a 6 - 12 month period rather than a typical three year
PhD period.
7.60
22
It would be possible for the MILG and MSCC to identify priority areas or themes which
related to the delivery of multiple marine science priorities. This could be done as part
of a horizon scanning activity. As discussed above these could include broad areas such
as low cost platforms or the development of new sensors to meet emerging
requirements under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. A pooled fund could be
devised, including NERC, Government and industry funding, and draw on both the UK
Centre for Defence Enterprise Model and the US NOPP model.
http://www.nopp.org/about-nopp/program-overview/
57
There is an immediate opportunity to influence.
7.61
As covered elsewhere, the real need is to improve collaboration at a strategic level. The
recent move to co-opt industry representation onto the MSCC was welcomed. It was
noted that NERC are currently undergoing a strategy review. Views were expressed that
the MILG and industry more generally had an opportunity to work with NERC to help set
the course. A couple of those that commented observed that both the public and
private sectors need a mechanism to prioritise and articulate research needs so that
these can be taken into account by the Research Councils. Funding arrangements also
need to facilitate the participation of the private sector in applied research to foster
stronger public-private partnership. One respondent suggested that Defra and BIS
should also play a more proactive role in shaping NERC priorities.
7.62
Although there is an understandable focus on NERC, MILG members highlighted that
there are other research councils and funding agencies with an interest in marine
sciences such as the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 23.
Networking and contacts between the sectors could be enhanced.
7.63
One respondent suggested that there should be more opportunities for low key and
informal gatherings between public and private sector players, of the kind that NOC had
introduced. The NOC’s Marine Manufacturers Breakfasts were seen as a welcome and
effective mechanism and is developing the online groups, through social media such as
‘LinkedIn’. This could help establish and strengthen productive networks, especially
since the marine science community in the UK is dispersed and institutional
relationships between sectors were noted by some responded to be “ad hoc”.
Barriers to growth and opportunities for the private sector that will help to develop the
UK’s competitive science base.
7.64
23
There was a general optimism about the prospects and opportunities for businesses
operating in the marine science and technology sector. The sector is growing, despite
the tough economic climate, with much of its current revenue and growth coming from
export activity. In general terms the following areas were suggested as opportunities
where closer collaboration can reduce costs and support commercial opportunities
across a number of the marine science priorities identified in the marine science
priorities table:
EPSRC funds, for example, the SuperGen programme looking at resolving issues around marine energy.
58

Innovative approaches and cost reduction of ocean observation and
measurement.

Development of new sensors and technologies (particularly for deep sea
operation and for indicators under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

Development of new technologies for emerging sectors and markets, such as
carbon capture and storage.
7.65
Nevertheless, there were a number of barriers to growth identified. Some are generic to
the wider economy, such as the general economic climate, access to finance, skill
shortages in science graduates, and export controls and restrictions. Others reflect the
specific circumstances of the marine science and technology sector.
7.66
Respondents from the online survey responded as follows regarding the main barriers
impacting the growth of their organisation. Access to skills (69% agree; 17% disagree),
access to finance (47% agree; 20% disagree), unpredictable demand (64% agree. 11%
disagree), lack of certainty to make investment decisions (58% agree; 8% disagree),
public sector procurement (55% agree; 10% disagree).
7.67
In relation to availability of skills, it should be noted that IMarEST are currently
undertaking a project to look into this issue in more detail. Specific gaps (such as
taxonomists are noted elsewhere). No specific examples relating to access to finance,
although one respondent noted that some niche low volume equipment and services
were difficult to ‘sell’ to the banks as financeable propositions. It is possible that if public
sector bodies were involved in the product development that this might reduce
financing barriers, although no specific evidence was offered to support this.
7.68
The barriers identified in the survey that relate to long-term certainty and unpredictable
demand resonate with points made about horizon scanning and greater industry
involvement at a strategic level. Similarly, concerns about procurement approaches
chime with responses in some interviews and example of good practice are identified
elsewhere.
7.69
A barrier identified by several respondents (particularly developers) was the general lack
of knowledge about the marine environment and about the potential individual and
cumulative impacts of new developments and industries. There were two aspects to
this:

Regulators lacked confidence and relied heavily on a precautionary approach.
There was a failure to consider future regulatory and management requirements
at an early stage and consequently regulators were not clear about their future
59
information needs. This resulted in uncertainty and cost for developers. Marine
conservation zones were given as an example.

The focus tended to be on existing technologies and needs,; insufficient
consideration was given to new scientific and technical demands that might arise
from emerging industries, such as carbon capture and storage, sea bed mining,
wave and tidal energy, etc.
7.70
A number of respondents commented on the paucity of data currently available for
marine management in UK waters. Although steps were being taken through various
avenues to encourage data sharing it was considered that further progress needed to be
made.
7.71
An example given of where the private sector is sharing data and technology with public
bodies for general benefit is the Serpent Project hosted by the DEEPSEAS group. The
area of data sharing is seen as one where the private and public sectors should continue
to work together to secure mutual benefits and improve value for money from marine
science activities. Other examples were offered, for example between the Oil and Gas
sector and offshore renewable sectors and a “crowd sourcing” approach to collating
hydrographic data.
7.72
The need for better data is a common need for developers and the public sector. It is
possible that a ‘commissioning approach’ as outlined earlier and in the case study at
annex four could help address this issues. At the very least respondents noted more
needed to be done to utilise existing data. An example raised at the MILG was that the
aggregates industry invested in excess of £25m in last 15 years on benthic monitoring,
yet the value of this data and the mining potential had yet to be realised.
There are pockets of good practice procurement in marine science which should be
extended more widely
7.73
Some respondents highlighted the MMO’s recent framework contract as an example of
good practice procurement. A clear evidence strategy has been developed by the MMO,
setting out their evidence needs. A framework contract covering a range of disciplines
has been let, with multiple providers from the public and private sector able to offer
services to the MMO. The benefits for the MMO is that they are able to draw on a range
of sources of scientific advice and skills ensuring that there is capacity and capability to
deliver their needs at best value.
7.74
Another example of good practice was the willingness of some public sector
procurement exercises to be flexible on limitations of liability. It is standard practice for
60
many Government contracts to expect contractors to be subject to unlimited liability,
which was cited as an issue for a number of respondents and raised as a major barrier as
part of the break-out session at the MILG discussion of this project. Examples were
offered where Defra and the MMO have taken a risk based approach to capping liability
for lower risk projects and this should become a standard approach.
7.75
The marine science and technology sector is dominated by small and often niche
providers. Good practice public sector procurement needs to enable participation by
SMEs. Some respondents offered examples of where procurement activities or
framework contracts let in the last two years have specified minimum turnover or
company size requirements denying opportunities to new or small businesses. Similarly,
some tenders by public sector bodies have required companies to offer a broad range of
services which automatically limits the market to a few large consultancies and reduces
the scope for innovation and competitive pricing.
7.76
There were a couple of examples raised where the MMO and Natural England had
initiated procurement exercises, invited bids which companies invested time in writing
and then cancelled the procurement exercise. This was matched by examples of good
practice where procurement exercises have involved early pre-procurement
engagement with suppliers, high quality and realistic specifications and budgets,
sufficient time to bid and develop proposals and sufficient time to deliver the project.
Competition between public sector agencies and the private sector was questioned.
7.77
A number of respondents expressed concern that public sector organisations, the Met
Office and CEFAS in particular, were “undercutting” their activity and not competing on
“a level playing field”. This seemed to be a long held and wide spread perception in
industry and was expressed strongly at the industry workshop and was also a comment
in the MILG discussion. The online survey was more mixed with 32% of respondents
suggesting that this was a key barrier to their business. Some questioned the
fundamental Government ‘wider markets policy’ - that agencies should be allowed to
compete with the private sector - and questioned whether this was in the best interests
of ‘UK PLC’ (it was noted that this is illegal in the USA). This was seen as a growing
problem as agencies have increased “external revenue” targets of up to 25%. Other
respondents were concerned that agencies are not reflecting their full costs in their
pricing and unable to price a level of risk commensurate with their competition in the
private sector.
7.78
Conversely, one public sector respondent suggested that there are missed opportunities
for market testing as a result of “protectionism” by employees who feel that work
61
should be kept in-house. Another noted that many Universities with expertise and value
to offer are sometimes constrained by overhead and cost-recovery levels.
7.79
One respondent suggested that agencies such as the Met Office and Cefas should focus
on a limited number of core functions and act as a commissioning body for areas such as
routine monitoring and data acquisition.
Public sector agencies can support the UK sector working abroad.
7.80
At the same time, it was recognised that public sector agencies such as CEFAS had a
potential “flag carrying” role in overseas markets, working in partnership with
companies in the UK marine science and technology sector. This could particularly be
the case for European funded projects, where, for example, Cefas have extensive
experience, or international projects, where funders have a preference for working with
public sector bodies. It was considered that collaborative effort with the cooperation of
the relevant public bodies could contribute to growth in the UK economy. An example of
this could be for agencies to act as a lead or umbrella organization for UK companies
seeking opportunities in emerging markets.
7.81
There were a number of comments about better sharing of data. Many developers
already share data (e.g. oil and gas and offshore renewables, share certain type of
metocean data). In other countries (e.g Norway, the Netherlands and now parts of the
USA) require data sharing as part of a license to operate (in the case of the USA this is
real time data). One developer noted that there had been a step change in attitudes
from developers in this respect. It was noted that greater sharing of data would assist
the UK marine science base as a whole, potentially reduce costs for developer and
enable the development of value added data analysis services.
There is valuable collaboration ‘on the ground’ but limited evidence of this at a strategic
level.
7.82
The project identified a number of examples of good practice ranging from NERC
competitions to joint industry and government programmes such as ORJIP. These
initiatives will continue to be valuable and support better outcome for both customers
and providers of marine science. At a strategic level, it was felt that there is an
opportunity to align strategies and delivery of marine science with industrial policy,
which would deliver value for money savings and assist economic growth.
7.83
Some who commented called for a marine science industrial strategy. This was with a
view to (a) ensuring that research councils and public sector marine science
organisations focused more on investing in science that would bring direct benefits to
the economy (e.g. reducing the costs of marine renewable technology); (b) ensure that
the UK is investing in science in areas of emerging economic opportunities, as well as
62
regulatory interest (e.g. marine biomass, anti-fouling testing, ballast water
management, the commercial opportunities presented by the economic development of
a summer ice-free Arctic, mitigation strategies to enable industries to meet
environmental targets) and doing so, support UK businesses operating in the marine
science and technology sector.
7.84
Parallels were drawn with Ireland, where a new strategic marine research agenda is
being developed “focused on industry, policy and discovery research through crossagency collaboration on joint initiatives. The new plan will identify and develop funding
instruments that facilitate, increased industry R&D activity and industry academia
collaborations; addressing barriers to marine innovation and theprogression of research
into applied products and services (commercialising research): integrated targeted
planning of R&I in key areas”24
7.85
Examples of other international competitors, such as the USA are also noteworthy.
NOAA has an explicit aim to support and foster the growth of the US sector. This is both
through a “buy USA” approach, but also early and cross-sector engagement to pull
through technologies and services. The example of gliders was given where the market
is currently dominated by 3 US companies, all of whom are university spin-outs. One
respondent suggested this proactive approach reflected the fact that NOAA is part of
the Department for Commerce.
7.86
Related to the above point, it was noted that (a) BIS has an important role both as
sponsor of NERC, the TSB and other research council and as the Government
Department with lead responsibility for facilitating alignment between investment in
science and the Government’s growth agenda; (b) BIS (and UKTI) are seeking to develop
their engagement with the marine science and technology sector, as well as supporting
(sponsoring) the maritime sector. Respondents in the MILG discussion suggested that
marine science fell between the gaps of departments and research councils.
7.87
The Marine Industries Leadership Council, a cross government and industry partnership,
was considered to be a useful model. It was noted that links were being fostered
between the work of the Leadership Council and the marine science and technology
sector and it is welcomed that their programme of work is not encompassing the sector.
There is scope to considering how marine science and the work of the MSCC can align
with this. A particularly successful component of this model is a Ministerial and Industry
co-Chair who can help drive delivery.
24
http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.p
df page 40
63
Recommendations
Recommendations are grouped into three areas: Strategic actions, collaboration to support
efficient delivery of marine science and removing barriers for growth.
It is feasible that these recommendations be taken forward over a 6 month time horizon.
However, the project team do not have sight of other MSCC activity. It is assumed that
resources will be tight and options, such as cross agency or government funding and industry
resources/expertise be utilized. The project team have directed many recommendations in
general terms to the MSCC and MILG. It is up to these organisations whether and how, in
partnership, they can be taken forward and by whom.
Strategic actions
16. That the MSCC and MILG, in association with the Marine Industries Leadership Coucil,
undertake a horizon scanning programme to match science needs with UK economic
growth and commercial opportunities (such as marine biomass, sustainable deep sea
resource exploitation) and, as part of this, consider future scientific and technical needs,
arising from new marine developments and industries. This should be undertaken as a high
priority to inform the development of the new NERC strategy as well as a number of other
emerging programmes and repeated on an annual basis. It is noted that IMarEST and SUT
have already undertaken similar activities and that a small project or workshop could
rapidly build on this by the Summer 2013.
17. That further development of the UK Marine Science Strategy includes explicated objectives,
to take into account of industry requirements (e.g. developers), economic growth and
commercial opportunities. It is expected that these are identified as part of horizon
scanning activities (recommendation 1) and build on initial areas where there is an
alignment of needs between sectors (e.g. low cost monitoring platforms and sensors) and
where recent activity (such as ORJIP 25) is not covering. It is suggested that a revised marine
science strategy ‘refresh’ be taken forward as a high priority and tie in with the Marine
Industries Growth Strategy. The Irish Government has undertaken a similar process and
relevant lessons can be taken from this 26. A strategy refresh and action plan, to coincide
with a Government response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
enquiry into Marine Science, expected by Summer 2013.
25
26
Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme http://77.68.107.10/MREP/Archive/03/Documents/ORJIP/ORJIP.pdf
http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.pdf For example Action 21 on
Research
Knowledge,
Technology
&
Innovation.
See
page
39.
Also
see
http://www.djei.ie/publications/science/2012/research_prioritisation.pdf
64
18. That MILG develop and maintain a schedule that marries marine science priorities with
descriptions of related technical and commercial equipment and services that is meaningful
to industry and commercial operators. Focus should be on areas where the private and
public sector customers of marine science have common needs – such as cost effective
monitoring platforms, monitoring sensors for water quality parameters and acoustic
monitoring. It is noted that the TSB funded a Marine Industries Technology Road map and
this approach could be worthwhile to be expanded to the areas above.
19. That public sector purchasers of marine science should examine the scope for creating and
fostering additional market opportunities open to UK based businesses both within the UK
and overseas. These are likely to include monitoring platforms and sensors and AUVs. The
recent work by the Marine Industries Leadership Council would seem to be an appropriate
mechanism for this to be taken forward for AUVs and also ensures links with all
departments with an interest. MSCC and MILG industry members should actively engage in
this model. Private sector providers of equipment and services would be best placed to
recommend areas and ways where new markets can be fostered.
20. That within the UK Marine Science Strategy there should be explicit proposals to foster and
encourage greater collaboration between the private and public sectors; these should
include priority science needs identified as part of a horizon scan activity (e.g marine
biomass and deep sea resource exploitation) or cross cutting issues such as reducing costs
of monitoring. Funding mechanisms designed to support this should be made available (a
model for such a scheme is outline in 7.58 and TSB led “Catapult Programmes” outlined in
7.57 are relevant). It was noted that Defra intend to convene a workshop looking at
reducing the cost of marine monitoring in September 2013.
21. That MILG work with NERC in the development of the new NERC strategy (being drafted in
Feb/March 2013) to ensure that the applied public and private sector needs are factored
into research programmes and to enable the type of collaboration outlined in para 5.
22. That BIS and the Marine Industries Leadership Council work with the MILG to ensure coordination and exploitation of economic growth and commercial opportunities both within
the UK and overseas for marine science.
23. That MILG work with MSCC looking at how any specific gaps in capacity or capability might
be filled in the context of current and future needs. Examples include, addressing specific
skills gaps which may impact the public and private sector, such as marine taxonomy and/or
artic experience. The recent IMarEST skills survey (looking at non technical skills) might be a
useful place to start and IMarEST are considering extending this to look at technical skills in
the next 12 months.
65
24. That MILG examines in further detail how, by working with the public sector, marine science
industry and businesses could improve opportunities to access EU funds such as the Horizon
2020 programme. A Horizon 2020 business focus group could be formed, via the MILG or
trade associations, to help shape proposals over the next 12 months.
Actions to support efficient delivery of marine science
25. That existing perceptions, among purchasers of marine science services and technology,
about the future role, capacity and capabilities of the private sector should be tested and
explored in more depth. It is evident that they are influencing decisions about where work
should fall and will have a bearing on how the UK based private sector responds to market
demands.
26. That, as part of this, the cost base of public sector marine science should be reviewed to
establish those areas where the private sector is likely to be able to offer more efficient and
cost effective services, and those areas where the public sector is likely to be better placed
to undertake directly, marine science activities and services. Specific areas include
operation of research vessels, and routine monitoring and data acquisition. MSCC groups
and activities looking at these issues should utilise industry expertise and benchmark and
publish performance.
27. That MILG and MSCC develop and apply a commissioning strategy for public sector marine
science. The strategy should look explicitly at how marine monitoring activity and marine
data acquisition is undertaken and a pilot programme brought forward; an outline area for
further consideration is at annex 4. An immediate commissioning feasibility study (desk
based in the first instance) should be undertaken as a follow-up to the MSCC UK Marine
Research Vessels work stream. This would include examination of the scope for further
collaboration between the private and public sector in the delivery of services.
Removing Barriers to Growth.
28. That public sector organisations competing in commercial markets (in particular Cefas)
proactively disseminate information to give stakeholders confidence that they are operating
in accordance with government guidelines and policy. This would be in line with the
recommendations in the recent independent review of CEFAS’s science27. Clarification from
Defra and BIS on the Government’s policy on commercial activity would also be helpful.
27
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13848-cefas-panel-report.pdf
66
Given the perceptions from industry on this issue, it is recommended this is taken forward
by the Summer 2013.
29. That the MILG invite public sector agencies with commercial operations (e.g. CEFAS and
Met Office) to a meeting to discuss opportunities for joint working and how a stronger
partnership approach with the private sector can be fostered, particularly around
supporting export opportunities. In addition, just as the MOD and UKTI DSO assist the
private sector in respect of overseas government contracts, UKTI should be able to facilitate
this for the Marine Science and Technology sector and this should be discussed further with
the MILG.
30. That MILG commission a short ‘best practice’ procurement paper to draw together and
disseminate good practice public procurement examples in marine sciences. This should
draw on issues including flexibility on limitations of liability and where application of other
good practice (e.g. forward procurement commitments) can both enhance efficiency and
support businesses. This note should be circulated widely within MSCC members to all
those involved in procurement activity.
67
ANNEX 1: Marine Industries Liaison Group – Advisory Panel
Aims and Terms of Reference
Overall Remit
The advisory panel will support the delivery of the ‘review of the UK’s private and public sector
marine science capabilities, needs and opportunities’ by providing expert knowledge and advice
on industry and scientific matters to inform the process.
Specifically the advisory panel will:

Provide advice to Defra on the tender process and the associated documentation.

Provide advice on the selection of the successful tender/contractor.

Provide expert advice to the successful contractor on marine industry and scientific
matters and address any specific questions raised by the contractor and the funders
through the course of the review.

Help to ensure that the study achieves its objectives by providing appropriate input,
where needed, and help to advise on next steps.

Provide progress updates to the Marine Industry Liaison Group (MILG) and Government
Departments.

Adhere to the Government’s processes and standards.
Advisory panel membership
The panel will consist of representatives from the Marine Industry Liaison Group (MILG), the
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) and the
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra):

John Murray - Society of Maritime Industries (SMI)

Mark Calverley – Fugro GEOS Ltd

Bev MacKenzie - The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST)

Jon Upton – Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd

Peter Joyce - Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS)

Stephen Hart – Technology Strategy Board (TSB)

Terence Ilott – Defra

Rebecca Cowburn – Marine Science Co-ordination Committee (MSCC) Secretariat

Caithriona Porter – Defra Research Manager & MSCC Secretariat.
68
Operation of the panel
The chair and members of the panel must at all times:

observe the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to the
advice and information they provide; and

operate in accordance with Government policy on openness and comply fully with the
code of practice on Access to Government Information.
Standards in public life
The chair and all panel members must:

follow the Seven Principles of Public Life set out by the Committee on Standards in
Public Life (Annex I);

not misuse information gained in the course of their public service for personal gain or
political purpose, nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote their
private interests or those connected persons, firms, businesses or other organisations;
and

not hold any paid or high profile unpaid posts in a political party, and not engage in
specific political activities on matters directly affecting the work of the Marine Industries
Liaison Group Advisory Panel. When engaging in other political activities, members
should be conscious of their public role and exercise proper discretion.
Period of appointment
The advisory panel’s operation will be time limited. Its work commences with the preparation
for the tender process in July 2012 and is expected to conclude following submission of the final
report by the successful bidders in January 2013.
69
The Seven Principles of Public Life
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so
in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to
outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of
their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or
recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make
choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must
submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that
they take. They should give
reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly
demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public
duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public
interest.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and
example.
70
ANNEX 2 Defra Marine Science Project – semi-structured interviews.
For customers/users of marine science (e.g public sector, developers)
General Introduction:
This interview is being undertaken to inform a high level review commissioned by a joint
industry and government group. Further details about the study are available here [link]

The study aims to:
o Identify key public and private sector marine science needs and priorities over the
short, medium and long term based on existing publishes sources
o Assess the capability of the UK’s private sector marine science and technology
sector to meet these needs and priorities, identify gaps in capabilities and
barriers and opportunities for growth.
o Identifying where synergies between the public and private sectors would
enhance the UK’s competitive science base.
o The project will look at (a) whether the needs should be met by the private
sector, the public sector or both and (b) barriers to growth

The project is being co-funded by Defra, BIS and Industry.
Use of your feedback.



Your views and answers will be summarised but will not be attributed to you. Please
specify any issues that you do not want to be included
Views will be used to inform a report and recommendation to the Marine Industries
Liaison Group
We are grateful to you for taking the time to contribute to this review.
1. [The table in the attached file outlines key marine science priorities identified by
customers and users of marine science. ]
Based on your own operations and your knowledge of the industry does the table
reflect your understanding of demands for marine science?
2. Are there any missing?
3. Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding these long-term priorities?
Do you have a view on the relative priority of these?
4. [in interviews where it is not appropriate to use the table I have outlined the process to
identify priorities – i.e. desk based reviews of existing documents, policy and regulatory
71
drivers, industry drivers (essentially regulatory compliance) and environmental drivers
(e.g. climate change, ecosystems etc)
5. Are there any capacity or capability gaps in meeting Marine Science Priorities? Either in
the public or private sector? To what extent, if at all, do you think that the private sector
have a role in delivering this?
6. What is your experience of working with private sector marine science and technology
providers? (prompts should include comments on capability, capacity, quality, price,
delivery)
7. Are there services or needs that you do not think can be met by the private sector, or
are best met by the public sector? Why?
8. The review team are seeking specific examples of where the private sector can work
with other sectors (such as Government departments, Regulators, Statutory Nature
Conservation Bodies, Research Councils such as NERC) to improve value for money and
or support the UK’s competitive science base. Are you aware of any examples where
this is already happening? Are there opportunities that you are aware of?
9. Are there ‘missed opportunities’ for more effective collaboration between private
sector providers and customers of marine science and the public sector? For example
research programmes or activities that with small changes or greater private sector
involvement can lead to more commercial uses or example where great private sector
involvement can support efficiency and the competiveness of the UK science base more
widely?
10. Are you aware of specific examples of good practice of collaboration between public
and private sector that can support the development of the UK’s competitive science
base? This can also include non UK examples or example of activities in other sectors
that you consider transferable to marine science and technology?
a. What worked well – who was involved, what was the outcome etc.
11. Are there any other comments you wish to offer relating to the subjects covered by the
review.
72
Defra Marine Science Project – semi-structured interviews.
For providers of marine science
General Introduction:
This interview is being undertaken to inform a high level review commissioned by a joint
industry and government group. Further details about the study are available here [link]

The study aims to:
o Identify key public and private sector marine science needs and priorities over the
short, medium and long term based on existing publishes sources
o Assess the capability of the UK’s private sector marine science and technology
sector to meet these needs and priorities, identify gaps in capabilities and
barriers and opportunities for growth.
o Identifying where synergies between the public and private sectors would
enhance the UK’s competitive science base.
o The project will look at (a) whether the needs should be met by the private
sector, the public sector or both and (b) barriers to growth

The project is being co-funded by Defra, BIS and Industry.
Use of your feedback.



Your views and answers will be summarised but will not be attributed to you. Please
specify any issues that you do not want to be included
Views will be used to inform a report and recommendation to the Marine Industries
Liaison Group and the Marine Science Coordination Committee.
We are grateful to you for taking the time to contribute to this review.
1. [The table in the attached file outlines key marine science priorities identified by
customers and users of marine science. ]
Based on your own operations and your knowledge of the industry does the table
reflect your understanding of demands for marine science?
2. Are there any missing?
3. Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding these long-term priorities?
4. [in interviews where I have not used the table I have outlined the process to identify
priorities – i.e. desk based reviews of existing documents, policy and regulatory drivers,
73
industry drivers (essentially regulatory compliance) and environmental drivers (e.g.
climate change, ecosystems etc)
5. Are there any capacity or capability gaps in meeting these priorities? Either in the public
or private sector? To what extent, if at all, do you think that the private sector have a
role in delivering this?
6. Are there services or needs that you do not think can be met by the private sector, or
are best met by the public sector? Why?
o What do you consider to be the barriers for your organisation in delivering these
priorities or barriers to growth more generally. For example:
o Access to funding opportunities.
o Skills
o Procurement barriers
o Access to finance
o Lack of long-term certainty on
o High barriers to entry (e.g. levels of specialisation, up-front capital investment)
o General economic environment.
7. Are there any other barriers that are not included above, or issues that may impact the
growth and success of your business?
8. What is your/ your sector’s experience in dealing/working with public
9. The review team are seeking specific examples of where the private sector can work
with other sectors (such as Government departments, Regulators, Statutory Nature
Conservation Bodies, Research Councils such as NERC) to improve value for money and
or support the UK’s competitive science base. Are you aware of any examples where
this is already happening?
10. Do you work in collaboration with publically funded research – for example with
academic institutions, NERC etc. What is your experience with this? What works well?
11. Are there ‘missed opportunities’ for more effective collaboration between private
sector providers and customers of marine science and the public sector? For example
research programmes or activities that with small changes or greater private sector
involvement can lead to more commercial uses or example where great private sector
involvement can support efficiency and the competiveness of the UK science base more
widely?
12. Are you aware of specific examples of good practice of collaboration between public
and private sector that can support the development of the UK’s competitive science
base? This can also include non UK examples or example of activities in other sectors
that you consider transferable to marine science and technology?
74
a. What worked well – who was involved, what was the outcome etc.
13. Are there any other comments you wish to offer relating to the subjects covered by the
review?
75
ANNEX 3
Survey Responses
Qu. 1. How would you describe your organisation?
Percentage of respondents response to classification
Qu. 2. How would you describe the main activities of your company?
Percentage of activities according to respondents answers.
76
Qu. 3. How would describe your many services?
Percentage breakdown of services provided by respondents
77
Qu. 4. How would you describe your customers?
Percentage of respondents answers according to pre-defined customer categories.
78
Qu. 5. Please indicate your views on the following statements relating to UK marine science priorities.
79
Qu. 6. Marine Science requirements are currently delivered by a range of organisations from the public sector, private sector
and NGOs. Please indicate your views on the following statements.
80
Qu. 7. Do you have any other comments on capability or capacity gaps or issues in UK marine sciences - this could be in either
the public or private sector.
Respondents highlighted the following issues
1.
Greater acceptance of private sector capability and competence by the public sector, which is not to ignored in the
future. Readdress the balance of public expenditure costs with return from spends.
2.
Underwater acoustics was highlighted as a key field where the UK private sector has extensive expertise, capability
and experience, as a result of private energy sector companies. This expertise could be utilised for the UK government
marine science programme, as the degree of expertise in underwater acoustics is unlikely to be matched by in-house
public sector work, as a result of the low amount of funding of public sector acoustic projects in the past. More cost
effective for the tax payer if this is outsourced to private sector providers.
3.
Should not automatically assume that the private sector is better at delivering short-term projects with fixed start and
end dates, and the public sector is better at delivering long-term objectives. It is, therefore, important that proper
engagement between the two sectors, where the overriding objective should be the delivery of suitable scientific
data at the most cost effective rate for UK plc.
4.
Hydrographic survey coverage of UK coastal waters was acknowledged as a significant knowledge/data gap. The
UKHO reports to the IHO that only 49% of its coastal waters are adequately surveyed, yet the MCA only surveys 1% of
our coastal waters each year. Budget and resource constraints are often cited by private sector survey contractors.
81
Therefore, an opportunity exists for the use of crowd sourcing to economically acquire data in many areas where the
exceptionally high accuracy of a multi-beam standard is not necessary, using services such as TeamSurv.
5.
The perception that the private sector can not deliver stems from the 1960s and 1970s. However, since then
capability and expedience has grown substantially on the back of oil, gas and renewables developments,
environmental study needs and overseas activities based in the UK. There is far greater science undertaken by the
private sector, economically and 365 days a year.
Qu. 8. Which areas of UK marine sciences do you think there is greatest scope for the private sector to work with the public
sector in delivering?
82
Qu. 9. What are do you see as the main barriers impacting the growth of your organisation.
Respondents answered according to relevance of each category; percentages of answers to each category are given.
Qu. 10. Do you consider there to be opportunities for the UK marine science and technology sector in any of the following
areas?
83
Qu. 11. Can you suggest any specific examples of areas where you feel that closer collaboration between the public and private
sector which may support opportunities for UK companies. Examples could include working with researchers and policy makers
to identify technology and approaches to meet new marine monitoring requirements under the marine strategy framework
directive.
1.
CEFAS identified as a public body who could collaborate much more with private sector and increase output and cost
savings.
2.
The acquisition of data could be achieved with more collaboration between researchers, policy makers and the
private sector, as well better promulgation of long term government strategy in all fields.
3.
MSFD - Acoustic monitoring of the UK coastal areas is an important developing strand of Defra driven marine policy.
This requirement could and should be delivered by UK private sector companies who have a wealth of experience in
the delivery of this type of programme in several parts of the world. It is more efficient and cost-effective to
outsource this requirement than attempt to build that capacity within the public sector, where there is little
experience in the conduct and design of these programmes or large-scale data processing capacity; unless there are
additional considerations such as national security or sensitivity. This approach has already been accepted in the
outsourcing of most defence related scientific research to the private sector with only sensitive research fields being
retained within a government agency (DSTL).
4.
Improved coordination could help deliver a better assessment of water quality, for example. The private sector has
advanced capabilities in this area and could be used to good effect for on-going monitoring against the Water
Framework Directive. It was pointed out that it would be wise to utilise the ~9 million seagoing vessels worldwide for
data acquisition.
84
5.
A competitive tender model could be adopted for future data acquisition needs. Integrating vessel operations, e.g
NERC, BAS and CEFAS with existing operations, vessels can undertake more days at sea and the staff will be able to be
used for other tasks when, for example, the vessel concerned is in dry dock, increasing efficiency and reducing costs.
6.
An improved structure and plan of work carried out in support of DEFRA rMCZ investigations would have benefited
commercial organisations, as well as DEFRA themselves.
7.
Making available environmental data in the deepwater, (100 m+) areas of UK offshore.
8.
Understanding where relevant investment is being made, and how companies can bid for such work.
9.
Use of Dive Support Vessels to conduct work while completing tasks for oil and gas companies when they are on
down time or standby or when on transit.
10. Development of operational standards for the offshore renewables marine construction sector. The utilisation of such
standards has been established by the private sector as the Oil and Gas sector has matured.
11. The development of ‘Reliability Engineering’ has a way to go in Oil and Gas. The focus to date has been on developing
methodologies to combat the consequences of catastrophic failures in the field, which would affect marine life.
12. Research into new technologies and techniques for offshore renewables is happening too slowly and will be to late
coming to market.
85
Qu. 12. The following actions would help support collaboration between sectors and opportunities for the UK marine
science and technology sector.
Qu. 13. The review team are seeking specific examples of where the private sector can work with other sectors (such as
Government departments, Regulators, Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, NERC) to improve value for money and/or
support the UK’s competitive marine science base. Are you aware of any specific examples where this is already happening?
1.
The most cost effective acquisition of marine observation data for the Met Office was when the operation was placed
with the private sector with considerable cost savings. FRS Scotland was until recent operated by the Marr group in
Hull, again with considerable savings.
2.
The Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability funded used private sector generated income to support public and private
sector research in to a variety of marine environment related issues. Many of the projects were delivered by consortia
of public and private sector companies working together to deliver meaningful outputs.
3.
The use of marine crowd sourcing platform, developed within the private sector, could be used for bathymetric data
collection for the UKHO, and also for the proposed extension to cover measurement of water quality data.
4.
BGS assisting Forewind in the development of the Geological models.
5.
Onshore geotechnics and construction.
6.
NATO submarine rescue system (Rolls Royce) with MOD.
86
Qu. 14. Can you offer any examples of ‘missed opportunities’ for more effective collaboration between private sector providers
and customers of marine science and the public sector? For example research programmes or activities that with small changes
or greater private sector involvement could lead to greater commercial uses or example where great private sector
involvement can support efficiency and the competiveness of the UK science base more widely?
1.
A new approach should be adopted where Government lays down a directive to the effect that major Government
spend on all marine activities must include public and private collaboration, competiveness and spend (value for
money) laudable aims will not be achieved.
2.
A very large volume of data is collected in private sector acoustic monitoring programmes, which is not released for
public sector use. Greater collaboration between private sector service providers, their clients and government may
enable greater volumes of data to be shared for the common good and reduce the costs associated with duplication
of effort. Some cost-sharing between private companies and government may be required but it would result in more
data per pound spent than under the existing approach. There are often competing priorities, however, for the use of
this data and these issues would need to be addressed carefully if a more collaborative approach to marine science is
possible.
3.
In terms of research the missed opportunity comes from not making the private sector aware of possible research
projects. It is our understanding that these sometimes fail to secure public funding because they are too applied, but
the private sector may well prefer applied research and be willing to contribute. The private sector could assist in the
running of the research fleet helping to drive through further efficiencies and potentially covering gaps in that fleet
with private sector assets which may be able to develop marine science and research objectives more cost effectively.
4.
Making available public sector assets for Private sector use on a hire basis.
5.
Use of the vast amounts of data being collected for the various offshore renewable projects by academics
independent of mile stones and deadlines required for consenting.
Qu. 15. Are you aware of specific examples of good practice of collaboration between public and private sector that can
support the development of the UK’s competitive science base? This can also include non UK examples or example of activities
in other sectors that you consider transferable to marine science and technology?
1.
The largest ocean survey ever conducted was by the USA Geological Survey of the US EEZ in late 1980/early 1990s.
This was undertaken by a collaboration between IoS (NERC) J Marr Hull (ship operation) and USGS over a period of 7
years, which was considered an outstanding success in every sense.
2.
Ship Routeing Services (UK Met Office supplies data to private companies offering Routeing Services to ships/
Shipping Companies.
3.
Other projects highlighted include: Cefas BEEMS programme; Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (now
discontinued); www.amssa.net; Regional Coastal Monitoring Frameworks (funded by Environment Agency); BGS work
with Forewind on the Dogger Bank Windfarm; nuclear industry - where private sector firms such as BAE Systems,
Sellafield, Rolls-Royce etc are indirectly funded by the government, and are able to manage and distribute funding to
build technical skills and science related activities for other firms; Veterinarian medicine.
Qu. 16. Are there any other comments you wish to offer relating to the subjects covered by the review (summarised on the first
page of this survey)?
1.
We must address the 'gap' between public and private operation in all aspects of marine science and operation.
87
ANNEX 4 COMPARING COMMISSIONING AND TRADITIONAL PROCUREMENT
CASE STUDY – SEABED MAPPING
ANNEX 4
Commissioning
Identify and
outcomes
define
objectives
and Starts with the outcomes sought.
Commissioning would involve looking at
and agreeing the strategic goals of a
national or regional seabed mapping
programme. Answering the questions:
what is the purpose of obtaining the
information and how would it be used?
Among the likely outcomes would be
obtaining sufficient knowledge of the
seabed habitat: (a) to enable marine
planning and licensing systems to control
and manage spatial use of the marine
environment effectively; (b) to provide a
fuller understanding of the effects of
displacement arising from marine licensing
or fisheries management decisions; (c) to
identify the features and areas that most
need protection; (d) to help equip the UK
to meet the requirements of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive; (e) to
reduce
the
risk
if
unintended
Procurement
Carried out on individual programme or
project basis within pre-determined
parameters specific to each programme or
project and based on existing services or
functions. In the case of sea bed mapping
there are numerous projects carried out
for a variety of different purposes to
different timescales for different clients,
e.g. strategic and environmental impact
assessments being carried out when
marine plans or developments are
proposed, studies carried out on specific
sites by statutory nature conservation
bodies, commercial studies by industry,
modelling
for
marine
planning,
appropriate assessments for European
marine protected areas, inshore exercises
by IFCAs and voluntary groups, etc.
Although there are existing mechanisms
for co-ordinating marine monitoring and
data gathering they tend to operate within
88
consequences and late regulatory the constraints of the diverse objectives of
surprises for marine developers and other the contributing bodies, programmes and
users; and to increase the competitiveness projects.
of UK marine businesses by reducing
survey costs and making the information
available to all users.
Determine priorities
Priorities are determined according the The priorities are determined within each
regional or national needs assessed programme.
Each
Government
against the planned outcomes.
Department and Agency will individually
decide its priorities for seabed mapping
reflecting the relative importance of
seabed
mapping
to
individual
programmes. Coordination is largely a
matter of bringing together a set of
existing services and functions in order to
optimise value from decisions previously
made. Although this is worthwhile, the
outcome is unlikely to correspond with
overall national or regional needs and
there will be little room for innovation.
Review scope for collaboration and The needs and outcomes determine
identify commissioning partners
potential commissioning partners. In the
case of seabed mapping the needs are
cross-sectoral and the outcomes are of
national, regional and local benefit. By
looking through the prism of outcomes
The predetermined programmes and
projects will determine potential partners.
It is largely a matter of seeking
opportunity for data sharing cooperation
from within a collection of separate
programmes.
The result is likely to
89
and needs it might be possible to establish patchwork rather than strategic data
new partnerships that reflected the cross- assembly.
sectoral interests. A Seabed mapping
programme could involve co-design by
partner commissioners – indeed this
would be sensible. Partnerships could be
established at different levels within a
strategic framework.
Assess needs and capacity of providers
There would be formal market
assessment. This would require market
expertise in the field. One of the key
principles of commissioning is the need to
fully understand the shape and nature of
the existing market and the market needs.
If there are market gaps or the market is
undeveloped
in
any
respect,
commissioning should include exploring
ways in which the market could be
developed or grown. Traditional barriers
between public and private sector
provision should be challenged. Having
defined the planned outcomes from
seabed mapping it would be a question of
looking at the existing and potential
market within which those outcomes
could be secured.
Procurement tends to operate within a
fixed framework. A decision is made from
the outset whether to undertake the work
in-house or to procure services from
contractors. If Defra proposed to fund a
seabed mapping exercise it might consider
a number of options. These could involve
deciding, for example, whether CEFAS
should be offered the work as part of the
High Level Agreement, or whether
another Defra sponsored agency should
undertake the project, or whether the
work should be contracted out. If kept in
house, CEFAS in turn would decide
whether to undertake all or some of the
work itself or to sub-contract. These types
of exercise would rarely involve any
formal market assessment and would be
based on existing knowledge and contacts
90
among the officials at each stage.
Although permitted under procurement
rules, preliminary discussions with
potential service providers are rare.
Market assessment in procurement is
more usually based on a tendering process
– put the proposal out and see what
comes in.
Determine resources available
Direct
funding
from
government
departments would be one option under
commissioning for meeting the costs of
seabed mapping.
The commissioning
exercise would also explore other means
of resourcing the work, such as fiscal and
regulatory incentives, grants, joint
public/private
sector
funding
and
partnerships,
working
with
social
enterprises and clusters, etc.
Other
possibilities include seeking ways in which
resources, for example vessels, might be
put to multi-use that cuts across
established
service
or
contract
boundaries.
Commission services
The Seabed mapping programme would Dependent upon decision taken about
be defined in terms of the outcomes how to procure the work there may or
sought. Within agreed parameters (that may not be any formal procurement
The resourcing will be set through existing
funding mechanisms, which will be mostly
reliant upon direct funding. Government
departments and agencies will decide
upon the share of resources to be
allocated out of their annual budgets.
Traditional procurement would not
include seeking new ways of resourcing
seabed mapping; it would seek to convert
the best value from the money allocated
though defined processes.
91
would be consistent with the outcomes
and would not input driven) the means
would be left to service providers to
devise and propose. Commissioning is
about finding the best way in which to
deliver the outcome through the
organisation best placed to supply it. It is
not about prescribing whether a service is
provided by the public or private sector.
An in-house team, for example CEFAS,
would be in a position to submit a tender
proposal for delivering seabed mapping
alongside proposals from other possible
suppliers. Other public sector bodies,
such as universities, other government
agencies and the IFCAs might want and be
able to offer viable proposals, possibly in
partnership with private sector companies
as a consortium. Private companies might
choose to bid individually or as a
consortium. Bids might arrive from cluster
organisations or social enterprises,
particularly if devolved commissioning was
involved. Whatever the case, the tender
specification would probably have
considerable less content on inputs than
traditional
marine
science
tender
documentation. If the project is carried
out in-house, it could be expected that
there would be a specification. This would
probably not contain the same level of
detail as a formal tender specification
under the existing procurement rules.
Externally contracted tenders are highly
process driven and usually very specific
about inputs as well as outputs. A
drawback with this approach can be that it
stifles innovation and might disbar bids
from organisations well placed to deliver
good outcomes.
92
documents and the focus would be
strongly on outputs and outcomes.
93
Procurement can be regarded as a subset of commissioning, though the skills and expertise of
commissioners need to be broader and different in a number of respects from traditional
procurement expertise. It is recognised that commissioning demands a different mind-set and
culture than traditional procurement. The Government has very recently announced it is
setting up a Commissioning Academy, jointly sponsored by the Cabinet Office, the Local
Government Association, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Ministry
of Justice and the National Offender Management Service, the Department for Education, the
Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Home Office. Many
local authorities and the sponsor Departments have for some years been developing and
implementing commissioning strategies. The Academy has been set up to build on this
experience and expertise and it is open to all parts of the public sector. The aim is to foster
new and innovative forms of delivery, better outcomes for citizens and better value for money
across the public sector.
Commissioning does not have one model or approach because it is geared to outcomes and
needs and includes seeking new and innovative solutions By contrast, procurement is more
process orientated and is engaged only after other key decisions have been taken about the
service delivery. Hence the comparison between the two at figure 1 can only be illustrative.
Further information about commissioning is widely available and details of the new
Commissioning Academy can be found on the Cabinet Office website. If it was decided to
pursue a commissioning in marine science this would imply adopting a different approach than
currently employed and would be a significant project in its own right.
94
References
BMAPA, 2011. Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for the UK marine aggregate industry: a
summary.
CCRA, 2012. Summary of key findings from the UK climate change risk assessment 2012.
Cefas, 2012. Annual Plan 2012/13. March 2012.
Cefas and ABPmer, 2010. ME5408: Marine Survey Needs to underpin Defra policy. July 2010.
Defra, 2009. Evidence Investment Strategy: 2010-2013 and beyond.
Defra, 2009. Defra's marine research programme.
Defra, 2012. Planning for sustainable growth in the English Aquaculture Industry. Produced by
the England Aquaculture Plan Consultation group. January 2012.
English Heritage, 2011. National Heritage Protection Plan.
Finding sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain and Balanced Seas, 2012. Impact
Assessment materials in support of the Regional Marine Conservation Zone Project's
Recommendations. Annex J2 Costs of Marine Conservation Zone verification, baseline setting
and monitoring surveys
HM Government, Scottish Givernment, Northern Ireland Executive, Welsh Assembly
Government, 2010. UK Marine Science Strategy
HM Government, 2011. Natural Environment White Paper
HM Government, 2012. Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation: UK Initial
Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status. March 2012.
HM Government 2012. Marine Policy Statement
Mair, J. 2007. National Subsea Research Institute - R&D objectives and status
Marine Scotland, 2009. A Fresh Start: The renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish
Aquaculture
Marine Scotland, 2012. Scottish Marine Science Strategy. Topic Sheet No. 109V1.
MCCIP (2012). Marine Climate Change Impacts Knowledge Gaps (Eds. Buckley PJ, Dye SD,
Frost M and Wallace, CJ), Summary Paper, MCCIP, Lowestoft, 8pp.
MMO, 2011. Marine licensing guidance 8 Environmental impact assessment
MMO, 2012 Strategic Evidence Plan.
95
MRE and ORELG 2012. Draft Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) and Offshore renewable
Energy Licensing Group (ORELG) Knowledge Needs Inventory.
National Oceanography Centre Association, 2011. Setting Course: a community vision and
priorities for marine research.
Oil Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Group (OSPRAG), 2011. Strengthening UK
Prevention and Response. Final report.
The Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF) Horizon Scan #30, May 2012.
The Scottish Government, 2011. Scottish Marine Science Strategy 2010-2015.
UK Environmental Observation Framework, 2010. Towards a Statement of Need. February
2010.
UK EOF Statement of Need: Marine Observation requirements. January 2010.
Oceans 2025. Overview of the NERC Marine Centre's Proposed Strategic research Programme
2007-2012.
Defra 2007. Fisheries 2027: a long-term vision for sustainable fisheries
Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF), 2012. Trustees Report and Accounts.
Websites













BMAPA
Cefas
Environment Agency http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/planning/33264.aspx
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/107017.aspx
Fisheries Science Partnership
Food Standards Agency
http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/monitoring/shellfish/
ICES No relevant information found
Marine Aggregate Sustainability Levy Fund (MALSF)
NERC Ocean acidification
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/oceanacidification/index.asp?cookie
Consent=A
Oil and Gas UK
SARF
Scottish Government - ministerial working group on aquaculture
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/mingroup
UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme
http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/
96
Report Warranty
This report has been prepared with due care and diligence and with the skill reasonably expected of a reputable contractor ex perienced in the
types of work carried out under the contract and as such the findings in this report are based on an interpretation of data which is a matter of
opinion on which professionals may differ and unless clearly stated is not a recommendation of any course of action. Marine Planning
Consultants Ltd have prepared this report for the client identified on the front cover in fulfilment of its contractual obligations under the
referenced contract and the only liabilities Marine Planning Consultants Ltd accept are those contained therein. Please be aware that further
distribution of this report, in whole or part, or the use of the data for a purpose not expressly stated within the contractual work scope is at the
client’s sole risk and Marine Planning Consultants Ltd recommends that this disclaimer be included in any such distribution.
97