WEDNESDAY 4 JULY 2007

DR SHARON THOMPSON, DR MALCOLM VINCENT, PROFESSOR IAN BOYD AND DR TOM TEW

  Q420  Chris Mole: Which economic sectors do you think are most likely to cause environmental harm to the oceans and marine life?

  Dr Thompson: The last OSPAR Quality Statement Report (I am trying to remember what QSR stands for) in 2000 did acknowledge that fishing was the most damaging activity in the North East Atlantic, but I think that is probably in many ways relating to the fact that it covers most of the marine environment. Until, I suppose, relatively recently there were very few other activities taking place there, but it is probably the most pervasive.

  Dr Tew: There is no doubt that fishing has been the most damaging. In terms of offshore renewables, a couple of points: one, offshore renewables are going ahead. There are wind farms out there being built and they are going through the proper process. Number two, the major conservation bodies do have a very keen eye on the integration of a longer-term view of climate change and the need to provide renewables with short-term damage, and the processes that are in place at the moment are to do with adaptive management. So build your offshore wind farms in phases, monitor what is going on and then make informed decisions about how they may or may not be expanded. You might find that the effects on birds, for instance, are a lot less than you feared. Thirdly, there is a big need for innovative research into mitigation; for instance, turbines that collapse at certain times of the year when they see geese coming towards them, because there is a radar on top. There are all sorts of innovative ways to reduce the impact that industry can have on the environment.

  Q421  Chris Mole: Are there any circumstances in which interests such as the oil and gas industry can actually aid science and conservation?

  Professor Boyd: There are some examples of the oil and gas industry, in particular, taking their responsibilities in that respect very seriously. They have just set up what they call a joint industry programme with 15 partners in it—these are international oil and gas companies—to study the problems of the noise that they generate on marine life. I believe they have allocated something like $13 or $14 million to that over the next three years for research, and that is fundamental, peer-reviewed research that will produce outputs in the scientific literature. So there is evidence that they are taking that very seriously. I suspect that other users of the marine environment are beginning to do that as well.

  Dr Thompson: I would add that, coming back to the view of needing a systematic survey and research process offshore, we have certain sympathy with industries that they are having to go out and find the information. They are finding the important congregations of species or important habitats and then we are saying: "Those need to be protected". That is why we are saying we want to frontload that process, and this is where the Marine Bill will, hopefully, come into its own by having marine planning and site protection measures. Once we know where the important sites are it reduces the pressures on industry and helps us make sure that the marine environment is managed properly as well.

  Q422  Chris Mole: What about leaving things behind. We did have some scientists suggest to us that when you take an oil rig away you should leave what is below the surface there because, actually, you get some ecological hotspots that have developed new features of the oceans.

  Dr Thompson: From my point of view I would caution about that being the thin end of the wedge of using the sea as a dumping ground—suddenly everything is an artificial reef. There are stories of places like Japan where, basically, old buses, trains, tyres—everything—are chucked off a cliff and: "Oh, it's an artificial reef now". So I would caution against that.

  Q423  Chris Mole: But if it contributes to biodiversity?

  Dr Tew: There are often very natural, properly functioning, properly, naturally, deporporate (?) eco-systems on the base of the seabed and just dumping an oil rig because you get some more—although technically it increases biodiversity it is not a proper approach to managing the seabed. A couple of points I would make about the oil and gas industry—

  Q424  Chris Mole: Can you expand on what your concerns are about that? If it does increase biodiversity.

  Dr Thompson: It is a different biodiversity from the one that was there. There is a certain perception that just mud or just sand is not very interesting and what you want is lots of anemones on hard surfaces. All it is a different eco-system providing different services. So we need to be, I suppose, cautious about what biodiversity it is that you are trying to get—just increasing the different—

  Q425  Chris Mole: What exactly is the danger in that? What is the problem?

  Dr Vincent: I think it is very hard to answer your question as a generality.

  Q426  Chris Mole: We were quite surprised to hear scientists working on a European hotspots project saying this to us.

  Dr Vincent: It is foreseeable. For example, if you wanted to have a series of MPAs for reef organisms across a part of the coast that is normally sediment, there would be a gap in terms of their transport, colonisation, so that in fact you would actually welcome the establishment of an artificial reef as a stepping stone in terms of colonisation routes, but you would have to look at the whole issue of disposal in the round, as to where the balance of advantage is. So it is quite difficult to respond to your question as a generality.

  Dr Tew: Can I make a couple of positive comments about the oil and gas industry? One is that the quality of the seabed seismic research they do is fantastic, and that is allowing the nation to map the seabed. The second is I think there is great potential in terms of carbon sequestration and carbon storage out under the seabed, and the oil and gas industry has a huge role to play in that, and could be very positive.

  Q427  Chris Mole: What about the biotechnology exploitation of marine life? What do you think we are going to see coming out of that in the near future?

  Professor Boyd: This is not my specific area of expertise, but what I see of it is that there is huge potential sitting there to develop new chemicals that have a wide variety of applications from food technology right the way through to medicine. I think we are only just beginning to open that box. There are a lot of small, spin-out companies now bioprospecting, essentially, and some of them will not succeed but some certainly will find some very, very interesting molecules that will be very useful to us.

  Dr Thompson: However, again, I suppose I would caution: on the one hand, over-exploitation could mean that we are losing these important properties before we have even discovered them, but biotechnology in itself will be a further form of exploitation and we must ensure that we have proper management and control mechanisms in place before we open up the frontiers and go forth, so that we can still continue to meet our conservation objectives and ensure that we halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010—another objective that we have to meet. So we would say regulation.

  Chairman: At that point, I really have to call a halt. Can I just say you have been an absolutely splendid panel this morning. It has been an absolute joy to listen to you; you have given us some very frank answers. It has been absolutely superb. So can I thank Dr Sharon Thompson, Dr Malcolm Vincent, Professor Ian Boyd and Dr Tom Tew.