a review of private and public sector marine science · mcaleese, l, hull, s and barham ,p 2013: a...

1

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

2

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.

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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 this2. 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 Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme http://77.68.107.10/MREP/Archive/03/Documents/ORJIP/ORJIP.pdf 2http://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

http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.pdf

http://www.djei.ie/publications/science/2012/research_prioritisation.pdf

8

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 co-ordination 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.

9

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 science3. 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

10

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.

11

Summary of recommendations.

12

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.

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

4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/04/08/pb13347-uk-marine-science-strategy/ 5 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/04/08/pb13347-uk-marine-science-strategy/

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf

13

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 Council6, 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.

2.4 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 Defining Marine Science.

6 http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/aerospace-marine-and-defence/marine-overview

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/aerospace-marine-and-defence/marine-overview

14

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 fisheries7.

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)

15

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

16

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.

17

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.

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.

1

•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

2

•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

3

•Discussion at the MILG and circulation of draft report.

•Circulation to MSCC members

•Project Recomendations

18

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 drivers 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.

19

5. Summary Table – Marine Science Priorities

Priorities Information

on Potential

Costs (where

available)

Services/Capabilities to meet priorities

Key Driver 3 years 7 years 15 years

Policy/Regulatory

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 non-

native species covered

by WFD and MSFD?

Ongoing

monitoring of

compliance with

Conventions.

Ongoing monitoring of

compliance with

Conventions.

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).

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 Strategy Development of Continuation of Continuation of Indicative Full range of biological (including for

20

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; socio-

economic analysis;

extension of monitoring

programmes: seals,

seabirds and

waterbirds, seabed

habitats, zooplankton,

phytoplankton, non-

indigenous species,

hydrographic

conditions, commercial

fish stocks, litter and

mapping of underwater

sound.

Development and

introduction of new

monitoring systems to

plug data gaps and

continuation of existing

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 and Offshore

instrumentation

Environmental consultancy

Data and information management and

analysis

Remote sensing and reporting

Chemical analysis

Project management

Environmental monitoring

Vessel suppliers and operators

Marine research

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

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/index_en.htm

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/msfd-descriptors.pdf

21

monitoring

programmes.

Improved scientific

understanding of

underwater noise, EMF,

litter and ecosystem

function

Water Framework

Directive

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 of

assessment and

monitoring

programmes.

Surveys of chemical contaminants in water

and/or sediment/biota; surveys of benthic

invertebrates, algae, phytoplankton,

angiosperms and fish, plus invasive non-

native species where appropriate, data

processing and sample analysis



analysis

Project management



Marine research

22

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 of

monitoring

programmes.

Surveys of microbiological contaminants,

water quality parameters, data processing

and sample analysis



analysis

Project management



Marine research

Shellfish Hygiene

Regulation

Monitoring of shellfish

contamination.

Investigation of

failures; improved

understanding of

impact of discharges on

shellfish hygiene.

Continuation of

monitoring

programmes.

Continuation of

monitoring

programmes.

Surveys of microbiological and chemical

contamination of shellfish, data processing

and sample analysis



analysis

Project management



23

Marine research

Strategic Environmental

Assessment Directive

Baseline surveys to

inform plan

development and

assessment; post-

implementation

monitoring.

Baseline surveys

to inform plan

development

and assessment;

post-

implementation

monitoring.

Baseline surveys to

inform plan

development and

assessment; post-

implementation

monitoring.

DECC

Energy SEA

expenditur

e

approximat

ely £2.5-4m

over 4

years.

Full range of environmental, hydrographic,

geophysical and oceanographic surveys


instrumentation



analysis


Biological (benthic and pelagic) analysis

Chemical analysis

Project management



Marine research

Marine and Coastal

Access Act – Marine

Planning

Proposed Marine

Spatial Planning

Directive

Habitat and species

mapping to inform

spatial policies;

information on socio-

economic uses;

cumulative effects/co-

location 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



analysis

24

commercial fishing

activities; establishing

baseline data and

monitoring of impact of

plan policies.

million12. Project management



Marine research

Marine and Coastal

Access Act/ Petroleum

Act – Marine Licensing

Developer baseline

surveys to inform EIA;

developer post-consent

monitoring.

Environmental and

socio-economic

assessments for

byelaws where existing

licensing mechanisms

insufficient, e.g in

respect of recreational

activities.

Ongoing. Ongoing. Full range of environmental, hydrographic,



instrumentation



analysis


Biological (benthic, pelagic) analysis

Chemical analysis

Project management



Marine research

Marine and Coastal Site verification surveys More detailed Condition monitoring Site Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,

12 http://www.oceandtm.com/ME5408_Marine_Survey_Needs_Final_Report.pdf

25

Access Act – Marine

Protected Areas (helps

to deliver OSPAR MPA

commitment)

for MCZs and socio-

economic 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.

Condition

Monitoring

Surveys:

Offshore

rMCZs/RAs:

£19.83milli

on; inshore

(within

12nm):

£66.15milli





analysis

Project management



26

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.


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




analysis

Project management



Marine research

Birds Directive Further identification of

marine SPAs; status of

habitats and species;

requirements for and

Ongoing

monitoring of

stats and

effectiveness of


stats and effectiveness

of measures and where

necessary research and

Sea bird surveys, benthic biological and

geophysical surveys, data processing and

sample analysis

27

effectiveness of

management

measures.

measures and

where necessary

research and

assessments for

adaptive

management.

assessments for

adaptive management.




analysis

Project management



Marine research

Wildlife & Countryside

Act 1981

Monitoring of site

condition and

effectiveness of

management

measures.

Ongoing

monitoring of

state and

effectiveness of

measures.


state and effectiveness

of measures.

Broadly as for other MPAs (minor driver).

UNESCO Sites: World

Heritage Sites,

Biosphere Reserves

Monitoring of site

condition and

effectiveness of

management

measures.

Ongoing

monitoring of

state and

effectiveness of

measures.


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





28

analysis

Project management



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,





analysis

Vessel monitoring systems

Project management


29


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 Aquaculture

Plan

Optimisation of

aquaculture, control of

disease/parasites,

environmental impacts.

Ongoing. Ongoing. Environmental consultancy, marine

research

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 consultancy, marine

research.

30

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




analysis

Project management


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 services/capabilities

identified above.

Blue Growth and

Marine knowledge 2020

“a seamless multi-

resolution digital

seabed map of

European waters by

2020…. of the highest

resolution possible,

On going. On going. Benthic biological and geophysical surveys,




31

covering topography,

geology, habitats and

ecosystems” for the

benefit of all sectors


analysis

Project management


Socio-economic

Aquaculture Development of cost-

effective production

methods for increased

range of species;

Ongoing. Ongoing. Research.

Oil and gas

development

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,


Metocean forecasting


instrumentation


parameters



analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management

32



Marine aggregates Ongoing surveys and


future development

and operational

impacts (largely met

through REA and EIA

requirements).




instrumentation


parameters



analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management



Coastal Power Stations

(Nuclear)

Safe geological storage Climate and geological research

Marine biomass Development of cost-

effective production

Ongoing. Ongoing. Research

33

methods.

Offshore wind

development

Improved baseline data

(regional/ national

scale) and scientific

understanding of

effects on seabirds and

marine mammals;

interactions with other

users, cumulative

effects; ongoing


future development

and operational


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).




instrumentation




analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management



Wave and tidal

development

Improved baseline data

(deployment areas,

regional and national

scale) and scientific

understanding of




34

effects on benthic

habitats, fish, seabirds

and marine mammals;

interactions with other

users, cumulative

effects; Ongoing

modelling and


future development

and operational


through SEA and EIA

requirements).


instrumentation



analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management



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


instrumentation



analysis


Chemical analysis

35

Project management



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).

Health and Safety

requirements and fuel

costs also driving

adoption of remote

monitoring equipment




instrumentation


parameters



analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management



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.

36

of water borne

transport.

Tourism and recreation 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. Ongoing. Monitoring of implementation and

effectiveness of management measures,

Marine research

Environmental

Climate change 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.

From Bryden et al

(2012):

(i) sustained

observations of the

varying and evolving

ocean circulation, (ii)




instrumentation




analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management


37

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; long-term measurement of ocean acidification; Greater baseline evidence base.

Ongoing. Ongoing. Research into ocean acidification impacts;

full range of biological, hydrographic,



instrumentation



analysis


Chemical analysis

Project management

38



Marine risk - geo/bio

hazards

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





analysis


Project management



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.

39

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.

Ongoing. Ongoing. Some

elements of

Foresight

occur

within

programme

s such as

LWEC, but

not

systematic.

Multidisciplinary activity.

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

40

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.

41

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 Power Renewables

6. Richard Burt AMSI/Chelsea Technology

7. Mark Russell BMAPA 8. Steven Hall NOC

9. Patricia Almada Villela

MMO 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

42

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.

43

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

44

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

45

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 commitment14 then this may have led to direct UK opportunities.

14 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32446/11-1054-forward-commitment-procurement-buying-innovative-solutions.pdf

46

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 Statement15. 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/ 16 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth/index_en.htm 17 http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.p

47

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.

48

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

49

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.

50

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).

51

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 data-transmission (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 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,

18 http://www.noaa.gov/

52

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 case for a UK owned/operated Marine Equipment/Technology trials ship.

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

53

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-commissioning-academy-framework-document

54

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.

55

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 sector-private 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

56

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” centers21 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 http://www.eti.co.uk/technology_programmes/marine/ 21 http://www.innovateuk.org/_assets/0511/Catapultupdate_final.pdf

57

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 Programme22 (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 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.

22 http://www.nopp.org/about-nopp/program-overview/

58

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 Council23.

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 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:

23 EPSRC funds, for example, the SuperGen programme looking at resolving issues around marine energy.

59

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

60

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

61

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

62

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

63

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 cross-agency 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.

24http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/Harnessing%20Our%20Ocean%20Wealth%20Report.pdf page 40



64

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 ORJIP25) 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 this26. 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 Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme http://77.68.107.10/MREP/Archive/03/Documents/ORJIP/ORJIP.pdf 26

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


http://www.djei.ie/publications/science/2012/research_prioritisation.pdf

65

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 co-ordination 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.

66

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

67

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.

68

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.

69

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.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dca.gov.uk/foi/ogcode981.htm

http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

70

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.

71

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

72

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.

73

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,

74

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?

75

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?

76

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.

77

Qu. 3. How would describe your many services?

Percentage breakdown of services provided by respondents

78

Qu. 4. How would you describe your customers?

Percentage of respondents answers according to pre-defined customer categories.

79

Qu. 5. Please indicate your views on the following statements relating to UK marine science priorities.

80

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.

81

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.

82

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?

83

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?

84

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.

85

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.

86

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.

87

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.

http://www.amssa.net/

88

ANNEX 4 COMPARING COMMISSIONING AND TRADITIONAL PROCUREMENT

CASE STUDY – SEABED MAPPING

ANNEX 4

Commissioning Procurement

Identify and define objectives and

outcomes

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

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

89

consequences and late regulatory

surprises for marine developers and other

users; and to increase the competitiveness

of UK marine businesses by reducing

survey costs and making the information

available to all users.

the constraints of the diverse objectives of

the contributing bodies, programmes and

projects.

Determine priorities Priorities are determined according the

regional or national needs assessed

against the planned outcomes.

The priorities are determined within each

programme. Each Government

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

identify commissioning partners

The needs and outcomes determine

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

90

and needs it might be possible to establish

new partnerships that reflected the cross-

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.

patchwork rather than strategic data

assembly.

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

91

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.

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.

Commission services The Seabed mapping programme would

be defined in terms of the outcomes

sought. Within agreed parameters (that

Dependent upon decision taken about

how to procure the work there may or

may not be any formal procurement

92

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.

93

documents and the focus would be

strongly on outputs and outcomes.

94

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.

95

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.

96

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.environment-

agency.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/

97

Report Warranty

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

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.