Meeting Notes - National Oceanography Centre

NOC Association meeting 26 February 2013
Building on our strengths
Speakers
Professor Peter Liss CBE, FRS, Chair NOC Association Steering Board
Professor Ed Hill OBE, Executive Director, National Oceanography Centre
Mrs Jacky Wood, Head, International and Strategic Partnerships Office, NOC
Ms Jo Frost, Science Programme Officer, UKRO
Introductory comments
Presentations from the meeting are on the NOC Association web pages at:
http://noc.ac.uk/noc-association/noc-association-activities
Peter Liss, chair of the Steering Board for the NOC Association, welcomed participants and gave an
overview of the meeting format. He reminded them of the purpose of the NOC Association as a
conduit between NERC, NOC and the wider marine science community
Overview of developments
NERC Strategy
Ed Hill spoke about the new NERC strategy under development which had first been introduced to
the NERC community at a town meeting in Manchester in November 2012. The strategy has the
working title, “The Business of the Environment”. Themes will include discovery science, natural
resources, hazards and environmental change; so much of the focus is around the growth agenda and
societal issues. It is anticipated that the strategy will be made available for consultation with the
community in March/April 2013 and once agreed, will be followed by a detailed implementation plan.
Impact Agenda
NERC is placing increasing focus on how it can more effectively demonstrate the impact of its science
and needs support from the community to achieve this. NERC’s new Director of Innovation and
Communications, Colin McKinnon, has written to the 20 universities who receive the majority of
NERC funding to improve engagement and is also seeking flow of case study examples to help develop
the NERC case.
Recently NERC centres have been undertaking an evaluation process, similar to a REF and are
developing lists of publication outputs and impact case studies. The community needs to improve the
demonstration of the impact of marine science for the sector as a whole; this can be a challenge that
the NOC Association can assist with.
NERC Funding Model
Overall the NERC budget is contracting in real and cash terms. The costs of large infrastructure, e.g.
ships, aircraft and polar research stations are increasing; the rising price of marine fuel is of particular
concern for the marine NC component.
National Capability (NC) funding supports large research infrastructure and other NC, for example,
long term science, services and facilities and data. Going forward it is felt to be important that the
1

needs of long term science must be tensioned against the rest of the science spend rather than this big
infrastructure provision.
In the NERC Funding Model, the % funding for Responsive Mode and training stays much the same, but
funding for Research Programmes is increasing. For this there is a need to speed up the commissioning
process. NERC is looking at how a ‘gatekeeper mechanism’ might work where panels support
particular areas of research in order to broaden expertise. Knowledge Exchange is increasingly likely
to focus on specific partnerships. Several of the newer strategic programmes have levered in funding
from other Government Departments, this is a trend which is likely to continue.
Infrastructure
Ships
RRS Discovery is at an advanced stage of fit out, due for delivery later this year and should be available
for science in 2014.
Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
ROV Isis was rebuilt by NMF Sea Systems in 2012 using opportunistic capital facilities. NMF Sea
Systems is also working in parallel with ROV operators across Europe.
Robotics and autonomous systems
As part of the Ministerial focus on ‘8 great technologies’ NERC expects to secure capital funding of
£10m over the next two years for research and technology development of marine robotics and
autonomous systems. Work is underway to identify priorities for using the developing AUV
technology advances to deliver science and how NOC can work with industry to enhance capability.
Marine Science Coordination Committee (MSCC)
Ed Hill presented a slide of MSCC activities. He noted that that the activities of the MSCC have
recently been one theme of the current Parliamentary Inquiry into Marine Science.
Discussion
Kevin Horsburgh (NOC) asked when the Select Committee’s findings would be made public. Ed
explained that report is being prepared at the moment. Based on the evidence provided and
questioning of witnesses he speculated that it could make reference to the cost and operation of
infrastructure, the MSCC role and its delivery and operation across the UK. The Committee had taken
evidence from NERC and industry on the potential for autonomous systems in the future. Other areas
could include the evidence base for marine policy and quality of data for marine seabed and habitat
maps. The question had been raised by the Committee regarding whether the UK should have the
equivalent of NOAA and if not, whether existing coordination mechanisms need strengthening.
Adrian New (NOC) expressed concern about cut backs to NC science in the long term. To enhance
our knowledge of how the ocean system works within the Earth system requires research over a long
time frame. Ed replied that the issues are currently being addressed by NERC Council.
Mark Inall (SAMS) asked how much thought has been given to the REF exercise in the development of
NERC strategy. Ed answered that REF is not an explicit driver in the way that research councils agree
2

funding; however, the Councils want to support the best science possible. NERC doesn’t limit it
funding to the highest graded departments.
David Paterson (MASTS) stated that delivering best science and impact is central to the strategic
delivery of science - staff prioritise research. There are already drivers on universities and centres to
deliver impact. There is a need to for support mechanisms to translate the science, and to recognise
and reward that skill set.
David Marshall (Oxford) asked whether KE/KTP will lever money from industry and if NERC is
assuming that industry will provide more funding Ed replied that not all KE is shown in the red section
of the NERC funding model diagram - impact is being delivered through all the funding streams. The
primary objective of KE funding from NERC perspective is not to lever industry funding as such but to
secure engagements to maximise the impact from NERC’s investments. The delivery of impact is
central to the case for continued investment in science by government. There was a discussion
underway on how NERC’s KE activity it could be targeted most effectively. For example NERC is
looking at the practices of other research councils e.g. BBSRC – industry clubs, e.g. for food security –
as a focus for engaging with the wider community.
Marine Autonomous Systems
Professor Hill presented the context of the discussion. His first slide emphasised that the community is
dependent on ships, and has been ever since the HMS Challenger expedition. However costs are rising
and technologies are maturing so that we may be able to do things differently in the future. Satellites
are good but limited largely to surface observations. Ships are good but have limitations as coverage
tends to only reveal a snap-shot. The World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) was a 10 year
one off and unlikely to be repeated. There are technical difficulties in collecting high resolution data,
and some places are difficult to access, e.g. under ice. Where large samples and analytical processing is
needed on site, it will be essential to have high power requirements and large instrument packages e.g.
for seismic and drilling. Human intelligence and intervention is also needed at sea.
The next slide documented the beginnings of autonomy. Autonomous systems were used in the
WOCE and today are used e.g. in the ARGO programme. Moorings and observatory systems depend
upon autonomous systems. There have been technological advances in batteries, biogeochemical
sensors, miniaturisation, increased reliability, CTD, telemetry and positioning subsea. UK-led
autonomous marine vehicle developments have resulted in breakthrough science, for example,
exploring under ice sheets and discovering the world's deepest hydrothermal vents etc. For various
reasons the UK industry had not capitalised on this lead e.g. for glider production where the US
industry dominates, however the UK has been an early adopters of gliders and is working on the
sensors to go on to payloads. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) are emerging technology and there
may be opportunities to develop communication systems with underwater systems, to enhance
mapping capability and rapid deployments. By working with industry, we can generate growth.
There is a need to make autonomous vehicles more available to the marine science community so to
this end, the Marine Autonomous and Robotics Systems (MARS) has been set up at the National
Oceanography Centre. We need to engage with a wider set of users – e.g. marine mapping for MCZs,
Defra funding scoping work on use of AUVs to meet regulatory mapping requirements and to engage
with marine industries – those who can help develop, produce and build. There will also be a service
industry needed to maintain and support vehicles with industry applications e.g. CO 2 usage from CCS
reservoirs. This can help the UK industry sector to grow, utilising a hub to pull through new
solutions. In time, it should be possible to develop more ambitious science usage.
3

The importance of fundamental observation was emphasised in further slides. An ideal scenario would
for example to be able to undertake WOCE all day every day. Although fixed moorings can provide a
continuous time series, they are limited to single point data. Can these moorings become ‘mobile’
We want to be able to monitor marine protected areas autonomously and undertake seafloor and
habitat mapping at high resolution and in areas that may be difficult to access. Applications will include
undertaking multi-trophic level surveys – e.g. fish larvae and continuous under ice monitoring. There is
increasing need to be able to complete subsea site investigation, for example, pipeline surveys, seafloor
fluid monitoring and accident investigation. Our community needs joined up observation networks that
communicate and interact.
To start the discussion several questions were posed: Where might autonomous systems transform
our science Should systems come off our ships Is this the best way forward If so, how do we
migrate off ships and use new systems NERC is about to invest capital for observing systems. Our
community should provide input into the design of experiments that can utilise these investments. Can
investment in autonomous systems alleviate the dependence on ships in the longer term If so the
community needs to produce a roadmap.
Geraint West (NOC) advised that there is a paper in production as a business case for autonomous
vehicles and NOC wants to widen out discussion, make existing facilities more robust, with two year
funding as a precursor to the 10 year strategy. Autonomous vehicles are moving to autonomous
systems – this is big science for more than one discipline.
Discussion
Bernie McConnell, SMRU explained that satellite technology is used to monitor marine mammals. This
technology could be used in conjunction with marine mammals as active sensors to measure e.g. fish
stocks.
Tim Jickells (East Anglia) noted that the community cannot second guess what we may want to
measure so will need to use lot of sensors packaged in different ways on different platforms. Gliders
are rather inflexible to future development as they are currently made so we will need to think
differently. Autosub is a big vehicle that can carry development instruments. We need to think about
the overall package – both the payload and adaptability.
Geraint added that a key element is power consumption, power budgeting and management that
contributes to its longevity - the issues are not just about miniaturisation. The batteries used by
Autosub can last between 60 and 70 hours, maybe even up to a week. Autosub Long Range
technology fills a niche between Autosub6000 and gliders. A large vehicle that can take a significant
payload, the Long Range will optimise the approach between a glider and an AUV.
The motor industry does a lot of development work on batteries and NOC is looking to collaborate
with a UK company to enhance battery power, for example, on lithium chloride batteries for
rechargeable cars. We're probably around five years away in terms of getting the power we are
ultimately hoping to achieve.
Henry Ruhl (NOC) advised about the ability to park the Long-Range AUVs on seafloor enhancing its
power efficiency.
David Marshall commented that physical oceanography will always need ships because ARGO is
confined to the upper 2 km. This is an international issue; the roadmap should be scoped in
4

international context. Ed agreed to this point, particularly in relation to gliders. There is a need to get
international engagement and bring in key players, especially from the US.
Patricia Almado-Villela (MMO) asked about building up the community. For example, involving Defra,
DECC, Marine Scotland in enhancing partnerships with developers to help deal with issues. A funding
partnership could look at how to bring together seabed habitat mapping, existing industry
infrastructure and vessels that serve the platforms. MILG is looking at possibilities.
Steve de Mora (PML) expressed concerns on replacing mooring sites; users such as the Met Office
depend on the fixed point nature of the sites. Ed commented that this is not a panacea and sometimes
we do need fixed point measurements, however, it may be possible to interrogate data from
moorings differently; currently we are dependent on surface buoys to transmit data but perhaps we
could replace these with subsea moorings and use wave gliders to interrogate them. Alternatively,
could we replace moorings altogether Perhaps it might be possible to try these systems in parallel
with autonomous systems, for example, repeat hydrography on the extended Ellett line. At the
moment, we cover this area by ship every three years – a glider might be able to do this every day.
The PAP long term deep-sea observatory is part of international EuroSites network - could all of this
be replaced with autonomous systems We need to ensure that the roadmap matches our needs. It
can involve radical thinking on a 10 year timescale.
Mark Inall said that it would be important to monitor where observations will have most impact – at
the moment, fixed moorings can’t achieve this. We need to have a system that will make the best
improvement in modelling and forecasting.
Stuart Rogers (Cefas) raised the issue of implementation of European Directives and the problems to
be addressed in European or regional seas. Which of the 11 MSFD descriptors can be done
autonomously Russell Wynn (NOC) advised that for the new FP7 programme DEVOTES project,
there is a suite of technologies that might be used for MSFD. There is an MSCC/UK-IMON workshop
in September on this issue: Dates are 10-12 September 2013 at NOC in Southampton.
A question was raised about the role of instruments in biology and chemistry applications – the ongoing
need to collect water samples. Colin Brownlee (MBA) explained that there are many biological
and optical probes for biological processes. There needs to be a synthesis of what they can do – flow
cytometry, micro sensors, acoustic sensors – these are all possible.
Cameras used on Autosub can produce high resolution images of the seabed which can be assembled
into mosaics of images of the deep ocean and shelf. Autosub can collect data comparable with that
taken from ships, for example, photos of habitat that are repeatable. As part of Dr Wynn’s role as
Chief Scientist of MARS he intends to produce a brochure of the capabilities and capacity of vehicles
and include case studies where we are pushing the boundaries in using this technology.
Steve Hall (NOC) noted that although development of technology is fast, it is important to always
address the related policy and legal issues, insurance, flag of registration etc, going into other EEZs etc.
John Bull (Southampton) noted that EPSRC is doing a lot of work on autonomy and robotics. Are
NERC and EPSRC linked up in regard to this Ed responded yes there have been discussions; the
funding anticipated for new autonomous vehicles is within an ESPRC coordinated bid. Geraint West
added that Herriot Watt is coordinating a special interest group and there is a new initiative with the
Marine Industries Leadership Council.
5

There was uncertainty as to whether EPSRC is leading on training engineers. Adequate training
provision will also be a concern going forward.
Ed commented that whilst capital budgets have been cut NOC has been supplementing to some extent
by optimising on ad-hoc capital opportunities. We must maximize this opportunity to build the base to
attract more capital engagement for the longer term; having the baseline needs and a strategic plan
would facilitate this.
Geraint explained that, in collaboration with the Technology Strategy Board and others, there has
been a competition for funding for a long endurance surface vehicle, from existing monies. There
have been six concept studies of about £50k each and TSB are expecting to take forward development
of two. The vehicle requirements include maintaining slow speed for up to three months, and
covering a 100nm transit there and back. Once on station, it should be able to can operate a winch or
other equipment.
Mark Inall referred to the international context and the FP7 GROOM glider network for operators
integrated approach; there is a need for a science driven programme to operate alongside the
programme. Was there a need to influence how science driven projects might come forward
There has been an idea to attempt to repeat the HMS Challenger expedition using gliders - Rutgers is
leading. The RAPID array is mooring and ship dependent - we have started to use gliders here
although MAS technology might be used instead. Ed noted that South Africa has an impressive glider
facility developed because of restrictions on the availability of ships; a demonstration that communities
can do leading edge work already around real science questions. A transect may be completed from
South Africa to Australia shortly and it is likely to be open to UK participation.
Ed raised the question about the type of science we are currently doing that we might, in the future,
do using MAS technology, albeit with possible overlaps. There are long term science and observing
programmes, for example, the extended Ellett line and the RAPID array at 26˚N which are ship
dependent. The AMT programme used ships of opportunity initially but now uses dedicated research
cruises. It might be possible, by using biogeochemical sensors to complement the AMT, as a
demonstrator activity Ultimately, it may even be possible to replace the PAP mooring.
Henry explained that there will be breakthroughs in next couple of years, for example, adding
carbonate system sensing for pH and CO 2 simultaneously which negates, in some cases, the need for
water samples. There will be advances in holographic imaging which can be relayed to shore and it will
be possible to capture images of zooplankton and phytoplankton.
Kevin Horsburgh (NOC) referred to surface flux analysis and parameters for climate modelling, noting
that AUVs can be programmed to fly under the satellite tracks; facilitating ground truthing.
David Marshall added that the WOCE and CLIVAR committees know the science drivers and we need
to look also to the atmospheric community and must not forget the modelling capacity. The UK has
strong capacity via the National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (NCOF).
Peter Liss mentioned high data flow noting that we can learn from the Met Office community. There
needs to be efficient storage and access and development of data products derived from autonomous
measurements – this also needs resource. We need advances in data manipulation, data products and
handling. There is a concern that NERC resource for data etc is decreasing. Ed commented that these
concerns are why we need partnerships – there must be a collective effort, especially if working on an
international scale.
6

Bernie asked about data processing, how much data should be processed on board and what we need
to collect. There can be a tendency to do processing on board and then just pass on the products.
Patricia noted that there are issues about not using or sharing existing data and also how well we deal
with the issue of metadata.
John Shears (BAS) commented on the potential big opportunities to use AUVs under sea ice. The
NERC Arctic research programme community need to know about MARS. There are big technical
challenges ahead, for us and industry, for example, the blow-out of oil spill under ice – this is a case
where we could use AUVs to monitor situations. We need the capability for rapid response and even
to deploy from the air.
Ed agreed that there is interest in these areas, also in the use of AUV for undertaking krill surveys –
e.g. in Norwegian fields initially. Ice fields can prove difficult for ships to access, are vast areas and
currently, there is a paucity of data. The way forward will be through continuous engagement with
the community.
Development of European Initiatives
Jo Frost UKRO the UK Research Office in Brussels
Jo Frost gave a presentation about the Horizon 2020 proposal, the EU’s new programme for research
and innovation and explained the different funding mechanisms (see detailed slides).
Jacky Wood (International and Strategic Partnerships Office, NOC)
Jacky Wood gave a presentation on the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI Oceans), a coordinating and
integrating platform for marine and maritime research (see slides). Work is under way to develop a
Strategic Research and innovation agenda by the end of 2014. There needs to be an identification of
pilot actions to test the process.
For both activities the focus of advocacy so far has been in raising the profile and context of research
areas of interest to the marine science community and ensuring that within the areas of societal
challenge the potential contributions of marine science are understood. The next stage is to inform
the development of the more detailed work programmes and texts for calls for proposals: We need to
hear from the community what their priorities are in more detail.
Discussion
Jon Bull asked Jo about success rates, especially for the European Research Council. Jo replied that
success rates are around 12 - 15% for PIs from the UK, ERC Synergy grants have only a low success
rate because they are open to any research area.
Patricia asked whether the social aspects of projects will be considered as well as management
activities. Ecosystem services are a key area - the MMO is an end user of science.
David Paterson queried whether there will be advice available on the involvement of SMEs. Rates of
overhead recovery will also be an issue going forwards.
7

Regarding reimbursement rates, the Commission has proposed a fixed rate model for overheads.
Despite UK protests this is likely to be the model decided; though UKORO understand there is some
discussion still around rates for infrastructure initiatives. Jo Frost added that VAT should be reclaimable
in Horizon 2020. If management costs are no longer reimbursed at 100% rate, UK
organisations may be less keen to lead.
NOC Association activities
Jacky Wood gave a short overview of activities (see slides) The NOC Association has produced
monthly newsletters and is populating the website with copies of meeting papers and Association
activities. A draft ‘Grand Challenges’ leaflet was issued to delegates and initial comments invited so that
a final version could be produced. Briefing documents on key societal areas and the contribution of
marine science are also in production and additional impact case studies are invited.
Work to develop the ‘compendium’ would start shortly; this was now of increasing importance in the
context of MSCC. It would scoping the UK marine science community – research areas, core skills,
courses etc. – leading to ‘compendium of capability’. A question was raised whether the analysis of
capability could be broadened to include relevant social sciences.
The Association would also be involved in developing the roadmap of ‘technology for 21 st century
marine science’. NOC ISPO staff were facilitating the first meeting of the new Marine Facilities
Advisory Panel later that day.
Jacky Wood also presented a preliminary analysis of the response to the fieldwork survey; this was
based on returns submitted in a very short timescale; a fuller analysis and report will be completed and
announced via the Association’s website.
In response to an invitation from the Chair to give an update on the situation at the field station at
Millport David Paterson said that HEFCE funding has now been withdrawn and it seemed likely that
Millport would have to close in December 2013. The site’s infrastructure was in need of
modernisation. The Scottish Funding Council is currently looking at options. MASTS is also looking at
the provision of marine training in Scotland if Millport closes.
A question was asked as to whether the value of fieldwork on the NERC ships has been quantified. Ed
replied that it hasn’t and that it would be difficult to quantity although the importance of research
cruises as a way to train and sustain the marine science community should be recognised.
More generally in the suite of national and international activities the focus for the Association was to
improving influence and visibility (Europe, Government Departments though MSCC, NERC and other
Research Councils and to growing the Network for the NERC funded marine science community and
interface to ‘stakeholders’
Peter Liss asked if there is anything else the Association should be doing. In answer to a question
about how today’s discussion would be disseminated, Jacky Wood answered that the meeting note
would be published on the web site and its availability announced via the NOC Association newsletter.
Peter Liss acknowledged the role of the ISPO team in enabling the meeting and thanked delegates for
attending.
International and Strategic Partnerships Office
March 2013
8