SUMMARY

  1.  NERC's current strategy clearly states the need for international cooperation and it has supplied funds specifically to support this.

  2.  NERC administers the ESA Earth Observation Explorer Programme funding and affects the content of the programme mainly by the quality of the ideas its scientists produce, but also through pressure within the ESA EO Programme Board.

  3.  NERC correctly expects Centres and Programmes to consider the international dimension as a routine part of their planning, and should take this into account when judging their success.

  4.  NERC could be more proactive in its approach to supporting major international treaties, such as the UN Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol, that have huge implications for the environment. This needs a long-term vision, developed with DEFRA, and mobilisation of the NERC community.

WHO I AM

  I am the Director of the NERC Centre for Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics (CTCD), one of six Centres of Excellence in Earth Observation (EO) set up by NERC in the last five years. Previously I directed the Sheffield Centre for Earth Observation Science, and prior to that I ran the Remote Sensing Applications Group at Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow. Currently I am a member of ESA's Earth Science Advisory Committee and NERC's Earth Observation Expert Group (and its replacement, the EO Directors Advisory Board). I'm also an invited member of the Terrestrial Observations Panel on Climate and the Japanese Space Agency Kyoto and Carbon Advisory Group. From 2001-03, I was a member of the BNSC Earth Observation Programme Board.

  This evidence is written from my limited perspective in which I deal exclusively with NERC and with CTCD's interactions with NERC as regards international policies and activities.

FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS

  1.  NERC's current strategy "Science for a sustainable future" is very clear on the need to work closely with other national and international funders and users of environmental science, and they have been prepared to support this aspiration. For example, in 2005, NERC announced a new temporary scheme whose objective was to deliver high impact, international actions & activities aligned to NERC's Research and Collaborative Centre and Directed Programmes. The call for this scheme noted that "all NERC Programmes should have well defined international dimensions incorporated as part of routine programme planning. However Council has recognised these activities may need boosting and has allocated a temporary fund: the NERC Programmes International Opportunities Fund is a funding opportunity intended to stimulate and enhance international collaboration & co-operation within NERC Programmes". Total funding was £2.4 million over four years, and CTCD benefited greatly by being selected to lead an International Collaboration on Data Assimilation in Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Science; this is continuing, and allows staff interchange, workshops and organizational support for collaborative projects. The UK has also benefited from NERC financial support for involvement in the European Science Foundation "Role of Soils in the Terrestrial Carbon Balance" programme, at CTCD's request.

  2.  Interestingly, the current draft NERC strategy (attached) is much weaker on international context and international cooperation (for example, its section on climate makes no reference to the definitive international reports on the Global Climate Observing System and its implementation) though this may reflect the process of producing such a draft, and it is likely to change after consultation with the community (closing date 16 April 2007).

  3.  NERC has responsibility for handling the UK's contribution to the ESA Earth Observation Explorer Programme (EOEP), which is a major area of international cooperation. NERC's influence on the use of this funding is exerted through the ESA EO Programme Board, and this has been used to good effect over recent years, possibly because of alignment between many of the recommendations of the 2005 EOEP Science Review (in which I was a Panel member) and UK aspirations. NERC (as with other countries) has only an indirect influence on the science carried out under the EOEP, since missions are selected from internationally peer-reviewed responses to Announcements of Opportunity. However, the UK does well though this route: it provides the lead scientist on the Cryosat mission (Duncan Wingham), and, in the six missions currently being reviewed for the next Core mission, the UK provides lead proposers on two (BIOMASS and PREMIER, respectively rated as numbers 1 and 3 in the initial assessment).

  4.  NERC provides good information flow as regards EU FP7 opportunities though regular e-mail communications and events.

  5.  As part of their criteria for success, NERC stipulates that its Centres show international competitiveness. One of the ways Steering Committees tend to judge this, included in their reports to NERC, is by their impact on international programmes. This indirect way to promote international cooperation is probably appropriate, as long as it is factored into assessments of the success of Centres and Institutes.

  6.  I've progressively come to feel that NERC could and should be more proactive in its approach to supporting major international treaties, such as the UN Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol, that have huge implications for the environment. Real concern for the environment would seem to oblige NERC to be actively supporting science targeted at the developing needs of these treaties. My perception is NERC pursues a more passive approach (at least in the areas I know about), perhaps because this is seen as in the policy arena and hence more the concern of DEFRA. There is some wisdom in that. However, clearly, long-term research programmes, tempered by the foresight of DEFRA but very much within the remit of NERC, could greatly help in developing the necessary evidence base and the community involved in providing it. NERC has a lot of resource through committed people to offer in this regard, but it needs to be mobilised. It should be noted that the NERC QUEST programme has adopted such a proactive, directed approach in its recent Biosphere Management call.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1.  The success of the NERC Programmes International Opportunities Fund should be evaluated and the need for a further call should be considered against strategic criteria (which should emerge from the new NERC strategy).

  2.  NERC should be encouraged, with DEFRA, to articulate its position and approach as regards support for major international environmental treaties, and how this will be translated into NERC science programmes, if at all.

April 2007