SOC SMA Report 26Sept by 2zn5u0

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 80

									                                      In Confidence




           The 2005 Science and Management Audit of the
               Southampton Oceanography Centre




                     Contents                                       Page

Introduction                                                         2
SOC Mission Statement                                                3
Executive Summary                                                    4
Findings against the Terms of Reference                              6
Summary of Recommendations                                           43
Appendix I – Terms of Reference                                      48
Appendix II – membership                                             50
Appendix III – Summary of SOC’s Formal                               53
Contributions to Government Consultations and
Information Requests to Inform Policy 2002 – 2004
Appendix IV – SOC Involvement in EU Projects                         58
Appendix V – NERC Assessment Criteria                                67




                                        Introduction
      1.    The SOC SMA was undertaken from 25 to 29 April with an international team
            under the Chairmanship of Professor Jan de Leeuw. The Terms of Reference are
            attached as Appendix I and the membership as Appendix II.

      2.    The Southampton Oceanography Centre, a joint venture between the Natural
            Environment Research Council (NERC) and the University of Southampton
            (UoS), was established in 1995 with a vision to become the “national focus for all
            aspects of teaching and research in oceanography”. The Centre now comprises


                                      -1-
     the University’s School of Ocean and Earth Science, a National Oceanographic
     Library and the following research divisions:

               Challenger Division for Seafloor Processes (CDSP);
                George Deacon Division for Ocean Processes (GDD);
                James Rennell Division for Ocean Circulation and Climate (JRD);
         and
                Ocean Engineering Division (OED) - which is made up of
         Underwater Systems Laboratory (USL) and UK Ocean Research Services
         (UKORS).

3.   Additionally, the centre hosts a number of facilities, conferences and project
     offices such as:

        The National Marine Equipment Pool (NMEP) (managed by UKORS);
        The British Ocean Sediment Core Research Facility (BOSCORF);
        The Discovery Collections;
        The Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science and Technology (IACMST)
         and the International Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR)
         programme office.

4.   SOC also hosts, within its building, some related organisations. Research Ships
     Unit (RSU) is a NERC division, responsible for providing cruises to the UK and
     international oceanographic community. There are also a number of
     organisations (partners in scientific collaborations) occupying space in the
     building.

5.   The approach of this SMA was to assume that SOC referred to the totality of what
     is at the Waterfront Campus. The SMA had the opportunity to ask questions
     about any aspect of it. The University has been actively working toward a closer
     integration of SOES and the NERC Divisions including Research, Education and
     Enterprise.

6.   However whilst the SMA informed itself about research at SOC as a whole, the
     focus was on NERC core funded research plus collaborative research - involving
     SOES, the wider University and external partners. The Research Ships Unit
     (RSU) was outside the scope of this SMA.


                          Mission Statement
7.   The mission of the Southampton Oceanography Centre is:

               To deliver scientific excellence and understanding of the earth and its
         oceans as a dynamic interdisciplinary system




                               -2-
                            To provide the highest quality teaching and training in ocean and
                earth science within an active research environment

                           To develop and exploit appropriate new technology

                            To provide large scale national facilities for ocean and earth
                science

                           To help deliver the mission of the Natural Environment Research
                Council and of the University of Southampton
                                 Executive Summary
8.           The Southampton Oceanography Centre is unique in having all the equipment,
     people, and funding under one roof for research and education in marine and earth
     sciences, for the development of marine technology and for the provision of large scale
     infrastructure and support for the marine research community. These functions encompass
     physics, chemistry, biology, geology and technology. This means that it has enormous
     potential to become a world leading oceanographic centre and could become a national
     focus for marine science.

     9.     The name change to the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, predicates
            that NOCS has to become more consultative. NOCS does not need to be an
            expert in all aspects of oceanography and the centre should evolve as a
            mechanism for national focus rather than assuming a role as a national expert.
            This could be best achieved by focusing the scientific efforts of NOCS in ways
            that could bring together the expertise in UK research centres and universities
            with NOCS as lead coordinator.

     10.    The ambition of SOC to become a world leading Oceanographic Centre has been
            obstructed by the energy diverted into how the organisation is managed, owned
            and integrated. The Director has too little authority and responsibility and this has
            led to weak central management. The nature of the Director’s role was unclear.


     11.    Relationships between NERC and the University of Southampton need
            clarification and, in some respects, reconsideration. The current MOU does not
            support an integrated and effective relationship between NERC and
            Southampton University. The revised MOU should be unambiguous in reflecting
            the joint commitment of the partners to the NOCS mission, with supporting
            detailed annexes to define clearly the relationship between UoS and NOCS.
            NERC has provided the bulk of the investment in NOCS, including the capital
            investment while the responsibility for managing SOC has effectively been
            delegated to the University of Southampton. The new MOU should recognise
            that effective commitment to partnership operation in NOCS will be essential if it
            is to reach its potential as a national centre of excellence. NERC will also wish to
            ensure that there is both protection and accountability in relation to their own
            interests given the size of the NERC investment both in finance and staff terms.



                                      -3-
      The existing MoU meant that the balance of management influence by NERC
      over SOC did not reflect the balance of investment during this review period.

12.   Despite the management issues, SOC has had a strong science programme with a
      commendable increase in publication output since the last SMA in December
      2000. SOC science is safely in the  and 5categories. This confirmed to the
      SMA Team that NOCS has the scientists to be a world leader in global
      oceanographic science.

13.   The SMA Team were impressed by the science presented but considered that
      there has been no clear science strategy for SOC and the Core Strategic
      Programmes are ill defined. Although the Science is good it would be more
      effective if integrated and strongly focused. The SMA Team commends SOC for
      having Programme Review Groups with external membership and notes that they
      are effective in bringing in a measure of outside scrutiny within the 5-year
      programme.

14.   SOC has performed very strongly in areas of knowledge transfer and exploitation
      that translate into new products and services. SOC could develop their policy on
      data management to fulfil some niche requirements for the storage of international
      data in the UK. However it should not duplicate or develop activities already
      delivered by NERC designated data centre.

15.   Full economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources at SOC is not
      being achieved which may be due to duality of systems combined with the
      inflexibility of financial management. The lack of transparency of the financial
      system meant that the SMA Team could not ascertain the full impact of this.

16.   There are serious human resource issues at NOCS. The hardest to resolve are
      those relating to the existence of two sets of employment terms and conditions.
      The other issues can be resolved with effective and appropriately resourced
      personnel management. Despite these problems the SMA Team found that
      morale was good with high, perhaps too high, expectations of the new Director
      NOCS.

17.   Overall SOC has been beset by difficulties relating to the management of the
      centre and the relationship between NERC and Southampton University. It is
      testament to the Director and the SOC staff that outputs have remained high both
      in quantity and quality.

18.   The SMA Team recommends that NOCS funding should be sought on a five-year
      basis in line with that for the other NERC supported marine labs and that full
      consultation should take place on their new proposals. There were some areas
      that the SMA Team thought would benefit from longer term funding either by
      five year rolling funding or some other mechanism.




                                -4-
                      Findings Against the Terms of Reference

Term of Reference 1


To assess whether SOC provides a national capability and a source of advice to UK
Government.


Issues

         19.   SOC is unique in having all the equipment, people, and funding under one roof
               encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, geology and technology. This means
               that it has enormous potential to become a world leading oceanographic centre
               and could become a national focus for marine science.

         20.   As part of the SMA process the UK marine community was asked to provide
               written inputs as to the nature and quality of relationships they had had with SOC
               during the past four years. A number of UK institutions were negative about SOC
               awareness and collaboration within the UK during the review period (see ToR 5).
               The name change to the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, implies
               that SOC has to become more consultative and ensure it can lead the coordination
               of UK marine science. They cannot be an expert in all aspects of oceanography
               but they can evolve to serve as a mechanism for national focus.

         21.   The future relationship with the University of Southampton, as reflected in the
               new MOU must reflect a suitable structure and approach to achieve these national
               coordination aims. The commitment to effective partnership for national
               collaborative leadership should be reinforced in negotiations and consultations at
               a high level between the CE NERC and the VC Southampton University
               involving Directors of the other NERC RCCs and maybe even representatives of
               key stakeholder universities at an early stage. Thereafter all parties should
               cooperate in the definition of a joint Centre and finally produce a
               MOU/Contract/legal document with a more detailed operational annex. The SMA
               Team recommends that NERC/NOC should strive for an early involvement of all
               stakeholders (marine institutions and universities) in the MOU negotiations and
               move onward to realise its national centre function as early as possible.

         22.   The SMA Team recommends that there should be transparency and openness in
               NERC’s funding of the NOC and the other marine laboratories.


National Facilities



                                         -5-
      23.    The provision of large scale national facilities for ocean and earth sciences is part
             of the SOC mission. Within SOC the main national service has been the
             provision of technical support for the UK marine scientific community by the UK
             Ocean Research Services (UKORS) and the stewardship of the National Marine
             Equipment Pool (NMEP) that is managed by UKORS. These are considered
             further under ToR 8. The NERC Research Ship Unit (RSU) is hosted at SOC,
             but SOC has no formal role in the management or operation of RSU. The RSU
             was outside the scope of this SMA. The SMA Team recommends in ToR 8 that
             the relationship between RSU and UKORS, and whether they should continue to
             be separately managed is reviewed.


National Oceanographic Library




      24.    The National Oceanographic Library (NOL) is a national resource for Marine
             Science offering free services to researchers within RCUK, and the Marine
             Science Community. A commercial Marine Information and Advisory Service
             (MIAS) is also offered on an annual subscription basis to provide for UK Industry
             and individual consultants. It has 37 members. All services are available from
             the Internet. The most important of these is the online database Oceanis that has a
             broad multidisciplinary coverage and includes books, monographs, report records
             and full text as well as journal articles, abstracts, and papers.


      25.    The Head of the NOL is also Head of the NERC Libraries. She represents the UK
             on the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Group of Experts on
             Marine Information Management. The management of the information would be
             improved if resources were provided to digitalize 200,000 cards. The SMA Team
             concluded after a tour and a talk in the library that NERC should reconsider its
             policy towards national libraries. Given the way that modern libraries can digitize
             much of their data the SMA Team recommends that NERC should explore the
             possibility of having one national library with distributed archives.




BOSCORF - The British Ocean Sediment Core Research Facility


      26.    BOSCORF is the UK’s national deep-sea core research facility and provides a
             unique and strategic service to the UK scientific community. It provides
             advanced state-of-the-art non-destructive core logging and analysis facilities, for
             example, ultra-high resolution split core x-radiography, geochemical analysis, and
             physical property measurements, that are unique in the UK. BOSCORF also
             provides specialised long-term core storage facilities, so that oceanic sediment


                                        -6-
              cores collected by NERC ships, and NERC-funded researchers, can be kept under
              optimum conditions to ensure long-term preservation and availability to the
              scientific community.


Provision of Advice to Government.


       27.    SOC actively contributes to NERC Strategy and advice to the UK Government
              through the NERC mechanisms of the NERC Executive Board and also through
              the joint research councils body, RCUK. Their consultations activity from 2000
              to 2004 is attached as Appendix III. See also ToR 5 for UNCLOS and the
              Discovery Collections for examples of national advice as well as working on
              international programmes.


Summary


       28.    This first term of reference raised questions about the nature of the
              NERC/University of Southampton MOU and whether it enables SOC to fulfil its
              potential to provide a national capability. The SMA Team concluded that SOC
              does not have a sense of identity as a single unified organisation with a vision and
              strategy. Renegotiation of the MOU to define its shared purpose will underpin its
              progress towards becoming a national source of science advice and marine
              facilities.


Term of Reference 2


To assess the effectiveness of the scientific and management leadership and process for
cultivating long-term vision/mission and strategy within the developing integration of the
Centre, and the contribution of SOC towards NERC’s Mission and 5-year Strategy.


       29.    Both SOC and the School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES) are separate
              schools or equivalent within the Faculty of Engineering, Science and
              Mathematics. As such both the Director and Head of SOES are members of
              various senior Faculty Management Groups and Senate. During the period under
              review (which covers major reorganisation within the University) the Director
              SOC has been a member of many senior University management committees and
              boards e.g. University Council, Policy and Resources Committee, Senior
              Management Group.




                                        -7-
30.   At the time of the review, the Director formally reports to the Vice Chancellor,
      and through him to the Chief Executive of NERC.


31.   For NERC, the Director is currently a member of the NERC Executive Board, has
      been a member of the NERC SISB in the period, and fulfils various NERC
      representative roles.


32.   There are six Centre Service Groups –Human Resources, IT, External
      Affairs,Finance, Library, and Estates and Facilities. With the exception of
      External affairs which reports to Director SOC and is funded locally at SOC, the
      Centre Service Groups are partof the University Professional Services
      Department, and heads of the CSGs reportto the appropriate University head and
      to the Director of SOC. Each runs withinthe complex duality that exists at SOC.
      Staff have to be aware of, and expert in, both University and NERC policies,
      systems and processes.


33.   The Senior Management Team consisting of Central Services Representatives, the
      NERC Research Division Heads and the Head of SOES, meets every two months
      to review progress in the different groups and activities within SOC and consider
      cross SOC initiatives and necessary activities. In parallel with this formal SMT,
      they have the cross SOC activities of post-graduate education mainly through the
      Graduate School, SOC and the research development committee. General
      accounts of SOC activities and highlights are presented each year in the SOC
      Annual Report.


34.   The SMA Team found that notwithstanding the high quality science the centre has
      produced and continues to produce, the ambition of SOC to become a world
      leading Oceanographic Centre has been obstructed by the energy diverted into
      how the organisation is managed, owned and integrated. The Director has too
      little authority and responsibility and this has led to weak central management.
      The nature of the Director’s role was unclear.


35.   There appears to have been no clear corporate/business planning process for SOC
      (they feed into the University Strategic Plan) and the SMA Team were unable to
      ascertain how it would take into account NERC’s own delivery plan and the
      University’s strategic planning process.


36.   Both partners must actively participate in the direction and management of NOC
      if its objectives are to be achieved. The SMA Team recommends that NERC and
      the University should work with NOCS management to identify and rectify
      problems associated with the two financial and employment systems within



                                -8-
             NOCS. All options should be considered including implementing an integrated
             employment, finance and management system.


      37.    Internal management and communications at all levels similarly appear to have
             been less than satisfactory. The SMA Team recommends that NOC should have
             an executive management body or board meeting regularly with the minutes
             published and available for staff. This board should include individual members
             who have responsibility for Data, HR, Finance and Research – see ToRs 3,6, and
             10.


      38.    The current MOU does not support an integrated and effective relationship
             between NERC and Southampton University. The SMA Team recommends that
             the revised MOU should be unambiguous with supporting detailed annexes to
             define clearly the relationship between UoS and SOC.


      39.    NERC puts in most of the investment (as shown in more detail in ToR 9) and the
             agreement gives most of the control to the University, which also has the primary
             role in staff management. The MOU does not identify a joint process to agree on
             the mission of SOC although paragraph 7 provides for an annual joint meeting
             between NERC and the University to review progress against the strategic
             objectives. In the view of the SMA Team this has contributed to a lack of
             strategic leadership. The SMA Team recommends that NOC should have a
             strong, independent Advisory Board with an independent Chair. The Chair
             should be of sufficient stature to carry the confidence of the national science and
             stakeholder community, for example of a stature comparable with the Chair of the
             Boards of other major Centres (e.g. the British Geological Survey or British
             Antarctic Survey) and with experience of management or governance of large
             organisations. Membership should comprise key stakeholders from the marine
             community. The SMA Team even thought of an appointment by the Royal
             Society.


Contribution to NERC Mission and Strategy


      40.    The NERC funded SOC programmes, and the aligned EC programmes primarily
             address research questions on the earth’s life-support systems and climate change.
             SOC performs strongly in knowledge transfer (see ToR 6), for example, SOC
             technology transfer activities (AUTOSUB). It also provides nationally important
             strategic advice (e.g. UNCLOS). Unlike the wholly owned NERC Research
             Centres, SOC has had a significant role in training and developing skilled people
             at all levels. NOCS provides national and international leadership via a
             considerable number of activities and programmes although the SMA process
             revealed that during the review period their international leadership was the more
             highly regarded.


                                       -9-
Term of Reference 3


To assess the effectiveness of arrangements to set research aims and objectives (including
monitoring, survey, and data management objectives, monitor progress and evaluate output.


       41.    During the period covered by the Review (2000-2005) the four NERC Research
              Divisions were each managed by a Division Head who reports to the Director.
              Each Division Head is responsible for all aspects of local management within
              their divisions. The NERC Divisions host the NERC Core Strategic
              Programmes. The George Deacon and Challenger Divisions host one each and
              the James Rennell division hosts two CSPs. The NERC Core Strategic
              Programmes are Ocean Variability and Climate (OVAC), Biophysical
              Interactions and Controls on Export Flux (BICEP). Sea Floor Processes,
              Platforms and Sensors for Marine Science and Long Term Large Scale Ocean
              Circulation (LSLTOC). The duration of the first 4 was intended to be 2002-2007
              and LSLTOC was 2000-2005. They have now all been rescheduled to align with
              the other NERC Marine Laboratory CSPs.


       42.    The SMA Team did not actively review the School of Ocean and Earth Sciences
              but it was noted that they had had a successful outcome from the 2001 RAE
              exercise being awarded RAE grade 5.


       43.    The SMA Team concluded that there is no clear science strategy for SOC and the
              Core Strategic Programmes have poorly defined parameters and objectives.
              Although the Science is good it would be more effective in bringing together
              expertise and providing national leadership if integrated and strongly focused.
              The SMA Team recommends NOC should develop a flexible strategic plan for
              research, cascading down from a Corporate/Strategic Plan taking into account
              national and international research priorities. To facilitate a coordinated approach
              to the science the SMA Team recommends that this be identified as the
              responsibility of one member of the executive management body recommended
              above.


       44.    There is no process for the allocation of resources to meet the research aims of
              SOC as an entity. Management of these rests within the Divisions that operate as
              separate “businesses”. There has been a mismatch between resource availability
              and resource use in some areas that has hindered progress. The SMA Team
              recommends that the NOC Research Groups should be part of a corporate
              communications, management and financial structure rather than operating
              autonomously. This system will be more flexible and enable SOC to respond to
              changing requirements in the marine community.




                                        - 10 -
        45.     The SMA Team commends SOC for having Programme Review Groups with
                external membership and notes that they are effective in bringing in a measure of
                outside scrutiny within the 5-year programme. The SMA Team recommends that
                this scrutiny should continue in some form in the new structure. The review
                groups need to be fully independent. Biennial rather than annual reviews would
                be appropriate.


        46.     For the ongoing monitoring of the core strategic programmes the SMA Team
                recommends that a Science Advisory Group be established. This endorses the
                thinking outlined in the NOC Director’s proposals for the management of NOC.


Term of Reference 4


To evaluate the achievements and productivity of the SOC programme for scientific research,
postgraduate education and research training, monitoring, survey and data management
activities and to grade the quality of the programmes informed by previous evaluations and
international benchmarks and based on the same standards as decisions on university grant
applications.

General Remarks about the SOC Science Programme

        47.     SOC has had a strong science programme with a commendable increase in
                publication output (shown below). In common with the other NERC funded
                marine laboratories the SMA Team recommends that all NERC funded staff
                should acknowledge the Core Strategic Funding that applies to the work when
                they publish papers in line with the requirements of public accountability. SOC
                science is safely in the category with a few instances of science.




                                                               Period



                                         1995-1999 (inc.)   2000-2004 (part)   % increase



Total published output (nos.)                      3,096              3,774         21.9

Total refereed output (nos.)                       1,308              1,731         32.3

Total non-refereed output (nos.)                   1,788              2,043         14.3




                                         - 11 -
ISI journals output (nos.)                            740                1,293         74.7

Joint NRD/SOES refereed output (nos.)                   68                135          98.5

Int. Collaboration ISI output (nos.)                  302                 520          77.2




        48.     The SMA Team checked the data presented in the table above for accuracy and
                consistency and have established that the increases are real. These data are even
                more impressive when it is taken into account that 95-99 was a full 5 year period
                whereas 2000-2004 was 4 years.


        49.     Similarly, there are increases across the board in the estimates of outputs per
                active researcher in the three NERC research divisions and SOES. Average
                numbers across 2000-2004 for refereed publications range from 2.71 per staff
                member/year to 4.52 publications per staff member/year: in each case the number
                is the same or higher than that in the previous SMA review period.


        50.     The science was presented to the SMA Team in the divisional structure and was
                graded accordingly. The presentations to the team did not always reflect the
                structure of the science within the divisions as shown in the papers. This created
                more work for the SMA Team when analysing the science quality. The SMA
                Team recommends that guidance for reviewees will in future specifically state
                that if it says the science is structured into themes or projects in the papers, it is
                essential that the presentations mirror the structure. In addition, having provided
                the SMA Team with their proposed timetable for presentations, a number of the
                science presentations overran by a large margin, even when not interrupted by
                questions, contrasting poorly with the disciplined approach the Team had
                witnessed within the other SMA reviews of marine centres. The Team also noted
                that the presentations were interesting and well illustrated, reflecting the
                enthusiasm and involvement of the staff, and they liked the open approach of the
                poster presentations for each research division.


        51.     A general point is that SOC Core Strategic Programmes are very broad rather than
                strategic as noted under ToR 3. For example in GDD the programme includes the
                North Atlantic, Arabian Sea and Southern Ocean. The work undertaken is true to
                the Core Strategic Programmes as originally approved by NERC but it does not
                appear to have a clear strategic focus. The SMA Team recommends that the new
                proposals process has a transparent mechanism for establishing strategic science
                aims. The SMA would like to recommend that NOC should work with the other
                NERC Marine Supported Laboratories, and consult with BAS, BGS, and
                appropriate universities to develop their new science funding proposals. These
                proposals need to focus on areas of science and procedures that are appropriate to



                                           - 12 -
                a National Centre and less easily undertaken by University groups, for example
                large scale moorings programmes or survey work.




The NERC Research Divisions


        52.     The SMA Team used the NERC Assessment Criteria (Appendix V) to award
                overall grades to the divisions. They also graded as much as possible of the sub-
                divisions of the programmes to provide further feedback to NOCS. The level of
                detail in the feedback varies.


        53.     The grades given for the science for each division are shown in the table below:




        Division         George             James           Challenge          Platforms
                         Deacon             Rennell         r                  and Sensors
Grade

Science                  Alpha 4/5          Alpha 4          Alpha 4/5          Alpha 4/5
excellence
Fit to NERC priorities       A                    A              A                  A
Risk/Reward                  4                    4              2                  3
Cost                         IV                   IV                                V
effectiveness                                                    V


        54.     The more detailed considerations of the divisions are below:


George Deacon Division (GDD)


Overview



                                         - 13 -
55.   During the review period considerable progress has been made in understanding
      how biophysical interactions influence phytoplankton production and ecosystem
      dynamics, in quantifying and characterising the magnitude and variability in
      downward export flux and identifying the impact this has on benthic
      communities. This understanding has been gained at the level of individual
      processes and at the level of the ecosystem.


56.   Basin-scale programmes, particularly the AMT, have proved particularly
      instrumental in studying the integrated dynamics of marine systems. The
      significance of the picophytoplankter Prochlorococcus to nitrogen cycling was
      highlighted in oligotrophic gyres with biomass specific uptake rates of amino
      acids being higher than that of heterotrophic bacteria. Moreover new evidence
      indicates that the picophytoplankton are a source of high quantities of climatically
      active gases such as methyl iodide. Export fluxes from the thermocline on AMT
      were estimated using 234Th measurements and related to phytoplankton and
      microbial communities in the mixed layers of the North and South Atlantic
      basins. Export flux at PAP has been measured using the newly developed Pelagra
      traps with encouraging results. Identifying and studying the links with benthic
      dynamics has advanced considerably, with phytogenic carotenoids now shown to
      be a key to the trophic and reproductive success of holothurians at the PAP site.
      Strong links between exported organic matter and benthic communities in the
      Antarctic have also been shown. At vent sites, mussels have been shown to
      reproduce only when they receive phytodetrital inputs, demonstrating once again
      the importance of strong links between pelagic production and exported organic
      matter.


57.   Insight into processes at the ecosystem scale has been gained through ecosystem
      modelling. The modelling group have integrated a simple 6-compartment
      ecosystem model into OCCAM with a 1° resolution for this purpose. For the
      CrozeX cruises planned for late 2004, an HNLC ecosystem model simulated the
      SOIREE data set, thereby defining key variables requiring measurement as part of
      the CrozeX field study. As preparation for CrozeX, an analysis of the WOCE
      nutrient data showed that despite Fe limitation in HNLC regions, silicate is a key
      element to the north of the Polar Front and south of the Antarctic Front. These
      hydrographic studies have been complemented by experimental studies of the
      cycling of Si and other elements within contrasting regimes.


58.   External Research Programmes include EU MARBEF, OASIS, ANIMATE,
      FERRYBOX, IMARQ and BASICS as well as NERC funded AMT Consortium
      Programme and Marine Productivity and Marine & Freshwater Microbial
      Biodiversity Directed Programmes.


59.   The work of the George Deacon Division was reviewed against the 8 deliverables
      presented in their 2003/04 report to the Programme Review Group.


                                - 14 -
Biogeochemical modelling alpha 4


       60.    This is very impressive and it is notable that handover from Fasham to Anderson
              has been going well. The diversity and scale of the modelling is excellent and
              much of it at the cutting edge. The work is appropriate for research/collaborative
              centre support. It is disappointing that the Hadley Centre have taken their
              contract-funded work back in house.


   Physical, Chemical and Biological Interactions alpha alpha 


       61.    The SMA Team were impressed by the large interdisciplinary of the physics,
              chemistry and biology with modelling folded in even to the extent of involving
              the ship campaign. This programme has a very ambitious sea going programme
              involving the wider community. The SMA Team noted the need for links to
              microbial and genetics research. The work would also benefit from interaction
              with radiochemistry, particularly for the 234Th work. In future this facility will be
              needed in the UK. The time spent at sea is very high and potentially could
              jeopardise the capacity of the group to write up and publish, however the SMA
              Team considered that they have managed to do both successfully to date.


Plankton Production alpha3/alpha4


       62.    This project has undergone considerable changes in prime movers and this has
              prompted a major refocusing of the work. On the results to date this work could
              only be graded alpha 3/alpha 4. However, the SMA Team were very impressed by
              the research that is now developing after this unsettled period. It has high, i.e.
              alpha 5, potential and in the Team’s opinion, could become world leading.


Export Fluxes alpha 5


       63.    This is world-leading work advancing the field using technological developments,
              particularly PELAGRA. The SMA Team strongly endorses continuing the PAP
              time series under appropriate funding and noted that this work is ideal for RCCs
              to undertake.


Benthic Ecosystem Studies alpha 4




                                        - 15 -
       64.       This is a large group who have close links to SOES. The SMA Team concluded
                 that they are doing good science; some of it such as the foraminifera work is at the
                 cutting edge. A major advance has been the observation of profound change in
                 the species composition of the abyssal NE Atlantic, The “Amperima Event” and
                 subsequent demonstration of selective feeding of deep-sea deposit feeders. Work
                 has thus moved from a paradigm of long term observations of stability in the deep
                 sea to a more dynamic model with experimental studies for and understanding its
                 links to surface events. The work of this group has been undertaken without the
                 benefit of being able to use the grounded ISIS ROV.


   Chemical and Physical Stress on Benthic Communities. alpha 4


       65.       This is a small group working on vent biology, linked closely to the Challenger
                 Division. The work has led on to Blue Skies grants funding.


Biogas alpha 4


       66.       The SMA Team did not receive a presentation from this group but saw a poster
                 and discussed the work. This suggested that there are some exciting new ideas
                 developing linking biology and atmospheric chemistry. They have responded
                 well to previous recommendations from the Programme Review Group and need
                 to continue their moves to link to outside groups, in particular to those of PML.


Nutrient Sensors and Ship of Opportunity Research alpha4/alpha5


       67.       This was graded under the Strategic Data and Knowledge assessment criteria.
                 This is successfully contributing to a large EU programme and utilising a ship of
                 opportunity, a worldwide trend to achieve cost effective monitoring. The work is
                 revealing important new high quality results that are being taken up by the user
                 community. It needs long term funding in common with other NERC monitoring
                 activities. Partly due to the nature of the work this group has limited
                 publications. They need to ensure continuing uptake by users.


General comments


       68.       In summary the SMA Team was very impressed both by the management and the
                 science in the George Deacon Division. The presentation commenced with an
                 overview of resources and management approach. The SMA Team also met a




                                           - 16 -
                number of younger researchers during the poster presentations and noted their
                enthusiasm.


      69.       Team members felt GDD has worked on a brave and ambitious programme with
                an innovative and multidisciplinary approach. This was the most interdisciplinary
                of the NERC Divisions. There have been impressive collaborations.


      70.       During the presentations the SMA Team noted how they routinely cross-referred
                to the work of other groups and divisions. The SMA Team thought the links to
                the Engineering Department were excellent.


      71.       The Team recommends building further links to the School of Biological
                Sciences (SOBS). The SMA Team regarded the work on Pelagra floating
                sediment trapping, Mesoscale physical-biological interactions off Faeroe
                (FISHES cruise) and the Crozet natural iron enrichment surveys as highlights.


James Rennell Division (JRD)

Overview

      72.       The focus of JRD research is the global circulation of the ocean, for example:

               How the ocean currents and eddies move water, heat, salt, and other properties
                around the ocean basins
               The processes (ranging in scale from millimetres to thousands of kilometres) that
                determine the observed ocean structure
               How the Ocean Circulation varies with time (from season to season and from
                decade to decade)
               The role of the Ocean Circulation in determining the Earth's climate

      73.       Research ships measure the interaction of the air and sea, and the structure of the
                ocean from the surface to the deep. Satellites scan the global oceans from space
                and determine ocean properties - variations in ocean currents, sea surface winds
                and waves, ocean productivity - over vast regions of the ocean rarely visited by
                ships. Theoretical calculations help to understand the observations and make
                predictions - for example how the ocean will interact with our changing climate.
                JRD uses sophisticated computer models to simulate the detailed ocean
                circulation. Using these models they can discover new ocean features or study the
                difference in ocean circulation in the past and in the future.



                                         - 17 -
      74.       The James Rennell Division has two core strategic programmes (CSPs) and
                receives about twice the funding of the other divisions. Each of the two CSPs has
                three themes:

            o   Large-Scale Long-Term Ocean Circulation (LSLTOC; 2000-2005) focussed on
                using a combination of models and observations to study ocean circulation
                      Atlantic Circulation
                      Sub-Polar Gyre
                      Pre-Operational Oceanography
            o   Ocean Variability and Climate (OVAC; 2001-2006) aims to quantify and
                understand oceanic variability and its implications for the atmosphere through a
                combined observational and modelling approach
                      Propagating Systems
                      Surface Fluxes
                      Thermohaline Circulation (focussing on flows in the North Atlantic and
                       through Drake Passage

      75.       The SMA Team found it difficult to assign the science shown in the talks to the
                two separate CSPs. The distinction between the two programmes is artificial in
                some places. The SMA Team suggests that there is no reason to continue
                separating the programmes in the oceans and climate area.


      76.       Overall the science is excellent and the SMA Team felt the mood is vibrant with
                world leading work being carried out. The SMA Team assigned the following
                overall grades:


Hydrography alpha 4


      77.       The hydrography work is not only of importance in its own right, it also leaves a
                legacy for the future, and provides a service to the whole oceanographic
                community, all disciplines and all nations. Repeat sections like Drake Passage are
                important and clearly appropriately funded by CSP. The Argo work is innovative
                and important strategically. The SMA Team commented that JRD are leading the
                UK (and the world) in this research area. The Division might consider
                strengthening links between modelling and shipborne section work. This is a
                challenge for the whole community but JRD and SOC are uniquely placed to do
                so.




                                         - 18 -
Planetary Waves alpha 4


       78.      This is an innovative approach to understanding ocean dynamics. This theme’s
                activities need to be embedded within the strategic objectives of the CSP.



Air-Sea fluxes alpha 4


       79.      This work is very important for the climate community worldwide. It is clearly
                within the CSP funding mode.


Models alpha 4


       80.      This work provides an important resource for the ocean and climate communities
                at SOC, the UK and worldwide. It is clear that the CSP funding mode is
                appropriate for the large scale modelling projects CHIME and OCCAM. The
                SMA Team recommends further consideration of SOC’s strategy regarding large
                scale modelling, and that SOC make appropriate investment to make the most of
                the past/current investment by NERC in CHIME and OCCAM development.
                This group is a world leading capability and SOC needs to continue high
                resolution global ocean modelling. The Team strongly endorses their need for
                more HPC time urgently to complete the OCCAM 1/12 ° run and its analysis.
                Some of this work would be alpha 5 with further resources.


       81.      The SMA Team identified that CHIME and OCCAM needs to have resources and
                realistically, this will have to be through internal re-priorisation of existing
                resources.


Sills alpha 4


       82.      This is an important area of research. The relationship between specific projects
                in this theme and the importance of mixing could be stressed. The research needs
                to be embedded within the overall strategic objectives for the CSP.


Summary




                                         - 19 -
      83.    The SMA Team were impressed by the work of the James Rennell Division. The
             large scale modelling has considerable potential and, if allowed to benefit from an
             internal re-prioritisation of resources, could become world leading; a vital
             resource for the ocean and climate communities.

Challenger Division (CD)

Overview


      84.    The Challenger Division carries out strategic research into the seafloor
             environment, with the goal of advancing our understanding of the sedimentary,
             geochemical, hydrothermal and crustal processes that shape ocean margins and
             basins. CD carries out research within the NERC Core Strategic Research
             Programme ‘Seafloor Processes, Dynamism, Variability and Disturbance’. CD is
             an interdisciplinary research division, composed of three sub-groups:


      85.    The Sedimentary Processes Group aims to understand how sedimentary processes
             operate on continental margins and determine how these processes interact with
             each other to build the ancient geological record. These studies have major
             applications in hydrocarbon exploration.


      86.    Co-funding through EU-funded research (: HERMES, EUROSTRATAFORM,
             COSTA, SEISCANEX and HYDRATECH) provides valuable support to the
             programme.


      87.    Continental Margin Seafloor Environments: Sedimentology, biology and
             geochemistry of the modern seafloor environments and UK-TAPS (Turbidite
             Architecture and Process Studies)


      88.    The Crustal Processes Group works to improve our understanding of the controls
             on the composition, formation and deformation of the oceanic crust. The interplay
             between mantle dynamics and lithosphere recycling impacts on many aspects of
             natural resources and the environment.


      89.    Thematic Research: Ocean Margins Link Project Evaluation of regional along-
             slope and downslope processes of the European continental margin.


      90.    Applied Research: The Law of the Sea and Marine Territory Research (UNCLOS
             and Research with the International Seabed Authority), Seafloor mapping



                                      - 20 -
                 (Bathymetry of the oceans and Data integration and visualisation) and Ocean
                 margins seismic studies (Black Sea Basin and Atlantic Margins Project).


       91.       The Hydrothermal Processes Group seeks to improve our understanding of
                 hydrothermal activity, its interactions with the ocean crust and its impact upon
                 ocean budgets. Seafloor hydrothermal activity is extremely dynamic: it can lead to
                 the generation of valuable economic deposits, contribute to both oceanic and
                 whole-earth geochemical recycling and provide important natural laboratories for
                 ecotoxicology and even origin-of-life investigations.

                       NERC Responsive-Mode Grant Awards: A Deep Submergence ROV for
                        the UK Marine Science Community and Hydrothermal Plume Processes in
                        the Central Indian Ocean
                       Externally-funded research: InterRidge 1st Theoretical Institute, Census of
                        Marine Life Chemosynthetic Ecosystems, US Ridge 2000 Programme Lau
                        Basin Integrated Study Site (ISS) and NASA ASTID Programme

       92.       The SMA Team assessed the four subprojects as laid out in the Challenger
                 Division Annual Report, providing grades and comments on each. The Team
                 assigned an overall science excellence grade alpha 4/alpha 5


Subproject 1: Sedimentary processes on continental margins


       93.       The SMA Team assigned the following grades:


                Science excellence alpha 4


                Fit-to-priorities A


                Low risk, medium reward (giving a matrix value 2)


                Cost-effectiveness V


       94.       The SMA Team commented that the work on ‘What are the controls on slope
                 failure on continental margins; what are the processes of slope failure; how can
                 their spatial and temporal occurrence be predicted?’ is strong on mapping but the




                                          - 21 -
              supporting geotechnical data is missing and the work is not strong on theoretical
              analysis.


       95.    The SMA Team recommends that the Division gives provisional advice to the
              physical oceanographers regarding the location of current meters, away from
              areas of potential slope failure, within the RAPID Programme and the work
              monitoring the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.


       96.    The SMA Team acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to map gas hydrates
              and acknowledged that the work on ‘What controls the distribution and nature of
              gas hydrates, and what is their role in generating sediment instability?’ needs to
              be done. The work is done effectively but is predominantly carried out by
              university staff. The SMA Team would like to see the work extended to the deep
              ocean.


       97.    The work on fluid flow in passive margin sediments is outstanding. With regard
              to the study of the dominant processes that deposit sand on continental margins,
              the SMA Team felt that this is again largely a mapping approach that is not
              particularly novel, however, is necessary. The SMA Team acknowledged that the
              work gets support from industry and there is significant value for money due to
              the involvement of many students. On the links between acoustic character,
              lithology and geotechnical properties of sediments, the SMA Team acknowledged
              that if the proposed initiative of a new rock physics building on the dockside is
              successful then advances will be made in this area and hopefully, the current lack
              of work in geotechnics will be addressed.


       98.    And finally within subproject 1, the SMA Team note and applaud the Division’s
              success in securing HERMES, which will hopefully yield excellent science work
              in linking biology and geology. The SMA Team endorses that it should be
              supported and believes that it is an important and valid use of core project funds.
              The Team also believes it will help to facilitate integration.


       99.    BOSCORF continues to provide an essential service to the national community,
              and equipping it with the state-of-the-art ITRAX core scanner is commendable.


Subproject 2: Hydrothermal activity/fluid flow from sea floor


       100.   The SMA Team assigned the following grades:




                                        - 22 -
             Science excellence alpha*4/5 (there is some 5 work, for example the work on
              fluid flow)


             Fit to priorities A


             Medium risk, high reward (giving a matrix value 4)


             Cost-effectiveness V


       101.   The major point coming out of the assessment of this subproject relates to the
              geochemist issue. The Division has lost 2 key geochemists so it is important that
              they either appoint in this area (and this could include either or both aqueous and
              radio geochemistry) OR review the work they are trying to do and re-evaluate the
              focus of their efforts.


Subproject 3: Oceanic Crust


       102.   The SMA Team didn’t feel there was sufficient information provided (either in
              the paperwork or the presentation) to grade this subproject.


Subproject 4: Law of the Sea


                 Strategic data and knowledge alpha 4


                 Fit to NERC priorities A


                 High reward and low risk (giving a matrix value 5)


                 Cost-effectiveness V


       103.   The SMA Team look forward to seeing publications coming from this work in the
              future, and the Team recommends the use of small amounts of core funding to
              develop the scientific benefit from the law of the sea surveying.



                                         - 23 -
General Comments


      104.   The SMA Team commented that the Challenger Division produces first-rate
             oceanographic geological science. Perhaps it does not focus on the most exciting,
             novel and varied research, however, it is in line with commercially relevant
             science. The Team acknowledged that papers yielded from Challenger Division
             research are published in high-calibre journals. The work on slope-processes is
             excellent.


      105.   The SMA Team’s impression is that the expertise is spread extremely thinly over
             a wide-range of topics and concluded that there is a risk that they are over-
             stretching themselves. The SMA Team recommends this be addressed.


Underwater Systems Laboratory - Ocean Engineering Division


            Science Quality: Alpha 4/alpha 5


            Fit to NERC Priorities: A


            Risk Reward: High Risk and High Reward 3


            Cost Effectiveness: generated significant commercial income - V


      106.   The USL group gave a clear and comprehensive presentation about the role of its
             group, which included its structure, staff and financial breakdown, aims and
             objectives, and outputs and achievements. The main highlights were on the work
             on Autosub, the plans for Autosub 6000, and Sensor Development. The
             presentations were followed by an excellent poster sessions, where the SMA
             Team was able to discuss the work with a good cross section of the group.


      107.   Underwater Systems Laboratory has a staff of 26, 14 employed by NERC and 12
             by the University of Southampton. The majority of staff (20) are
             engineering/technical grades. The laboratory also has 2 modern apprentices and 3
             admin staff.




                                      - 24 -
       108.   The group receives the most of its funding through the NERC Core Science
              Budget. Table 1 below shows the budget over the last 4 years.


                                       2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
                                       Actual Actual Actual Forecast
                                        £'000   £'000   £'000   £'000
NERC SB Core                                315     843     645     644
Other NERC                                  718     160     293     265
Other External                              899     685    1080     537

Total Income (A)                           1932      1688     2018      1446

Table 1


       109.   Twenty of the Laboratories 24 staff are engineering/technical grades and the main
              purpose of the group is to work with the marine science community to develop
              and support novel platform and sensor technologies. Within the Core
              Programme, it’s activities include developing technologies that extend the
              operating envelope of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), especially
              depth, navigation, energy efficiency and utility, applying control-network and
              sensor expertise to towed, tethered and autonomous platforms, and developing a
              centre of excellence at SOC for novel biogeochemical sensors.


Autosub Under Ice (AUI)


       110.   Nick Millard presented an overview of Autosub operations from May 2000 –
              April 2005. The USL team provides the technical support for Autosub. Its major
              technical targets include providing upgrades such as improved navigation, the
              development of a homing system, and the fitting of a long-range acoustic beacon
              for emergency relocation, the building of a second vehicle.


       111.   The team supported work on the Autosub Science Programme which involved 2
              campaigns, one in Antarctica ‘Under Sea-Ice and Pelagic Surveys’, February
              2001, the other in the region of the Scilly Isles off the South West Coast of
              England ‘Subsurface Single Cell and Particle Analysis’, May 2001. And in
              August 2004 supported the Autosub Under Ice mission, which had a 5-year
              programme to explore the marine environment beneath floating ice shelves using
              an AUV and investigating the role of sub-ice shelf processes in the climate
              system, using Autosub 2. Unfortunately AUI became stuck under ice in February
              2005. Autosub 3 will under go trials in July 2005 and begin its science mission in
              September.




                                       - 25 -
Autosub6000 Technology Development


      112.   Dr Stephen McPhail gave a presentation on the Autosub6000 Technology
             Development. This programme of work aims to ‘radically extend the depth
             capability; range and ease of use of Autosub’. His presentation included
             information on how user requirements were being addressed and the progress
             made on design issues.


      113.   Autosub6000 will benefit from the experience gained by the USL team gained
             over the past 9 years. The main changes include an improved energy system, the
             overall size and shape – Autosub6000 will fit into a standard 20 foot shipping
             container, an improved propulsion system, and further development of the control
             and navigation systems.


Sensors


      114.   Dr Ralph Prien gave an interesting presentation on the work on Sensors. The
             group was working on the development of a number of chemical sensors in
             collaboration with OED and other SOC Divisions, the University of Southampton
             Chemistry Department and the Nanoscale Systems Integration Group. The group
             also showed good examples of international links and co-supervision of students.


SMA Team Discussion


      115.   The SMA Team was impressed with the USL presentations. The Autosub work
             has developed a unique long rang AUV capability. It is high risk/high reward
             technology development that helps promote NERC as funder of innovative/risky
             science. It has also resulted in significant commercial rewards and technical
             knowledge transfer. The work on sensors is innovative and developing well. The
             SMA Team welcomed the efforts made to increase collaboration with the
             University of Southampton, and noted that the group was aware that it had taken
             on board comments about OED being rather insular and the plans it had in place
             to address this within the wider community. The USL group was also aware that
             the School of Ocean and Engineering Science MGG was not well represented on
             biogeochemical work and was exploring was to improve this.


The Graduate School


      116.   The Graduate school has been a catalyst for research interaction within SOC.
             Together with the 45 academic staff in SOES, 54 researchers from the NRD are


                                     - 26 -
              recognized as independent research student supervisors by the Faculty of
              Engineering Science, and Mathematics. Jointly funded and supervised
              studentships have accelerated research collaboration and output across the SOC.
              This is demonstrated by the fact that SOES and NRD staff have jointly supervised
              101 Ph.D. students for the period from 2000 to 2004. PhD student exchange
              programmes with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the World
              University Network (WUN) provide an added international dimension. There are
              currently 117 research students in full time registration, 19 in part-time
              registration, and 152 PhD degrees have been successfully completed during the
              calendar years 2000-2004.


       117.   The SMA Team concluded that the Graduate School is effectively managed. The
              average completion time of PhD is 3.86 years. The Graduate School at SOC has
              been, and continues to be, a success. The SMA Team agreed with the Director
              SOC that it provides stimulus to both students and supervisors alike. The students
              bring new ideas, energy and vitality and the NERC Divisions can offer experience
              of working on applied, large scale and long term projects.


       118.   NERC staff are also involved in providing MSc courses and supervising MSc
              projects and have a growing involvement in undergraduate teaching. The SMA
              Team did not specifically review these. Whilst recognising the important benefits
              of teaching for NERC Research Division staff, the SMA Team recommends that
              teaching time for NERC staff should be monitored to prevent adverse impact on
              the core programme.


       119.   The SMA Team observed that OED has been good at bringing on PhD
              engineering students, a key requirement both in the marine community and in the
              wider UK economy. The SMA Team commends them for this.


Term of Reference 5


To review the extent and productivity of national and international scientific links, including
the focus SOC provides for international cooperation; for technology expensive projects; or
coordinating distributed major programmes solving complex scientific problems; and for
fostering a co-operative multidisciplinary approach across different types of research
organization.


       120.   The SMA Team saw summaries of the SOC membership of national,
              international, NERC, University and Editorial Boards and Committees. SOC
              membership has increased since the previous SMA and SOC is currently
              represented on 194 International Committees and 159 National Committees. The



                                        - 27 -
              comparable total figures for the previous SMA period were 118 international
              committees and 104 National Committees.


National Relationships.


Relationship with other NERC funded organisations.


       121.   Unusually for an SMA process, other NERC funded RCCs were critical of aspects
              of their relationships with SOC although all put forward constructive
              recommendations.


Relationship between SOC and BAS and BGS


       122.   Comments from BGS and BAS, who both run sizeable marine programmes,
              reflected the view that there is potential for closer working.


       123.   BAS was disappointed that SOC, who have considerable expertise in the Southern
              Ocean, did not contribute significantly to the consultation process carried out by
              BAS when constructing their new quinquennial programme. Some areas that
              have not been developed as a result include modelling and co-ordinated
              observations.


       124.   On a more positive note BAS and SOC jointly organised the very successful
              Discovery Symposium in June 2004 on a “Century of Antarctic Science”. The
              symposium was jointly funded and will result in a special issue of the Journal
              Archives of Natural History in 2005. The interaction was judged to be effective,
              efficient and successful. The collaborative science projects on AUTOSUB and
              biological acoustics, and the shared cruises in the DRAKE Passage also provide
              excellent examples of complementary and multidisciplinary co-operation.


       125.   BGS stated that links between BGS and SOC in the last decade have been
              relatively minor. In the case of coastal geoscience, relations between the two
              organisations have tended more towards competition rather than collaboration (it
              should be noted SOC has no Core Strategic Programme in coastal geosciences),
              though individuals from both organisations have used data produced by the other,
              have sat on panels together or worked as components of larger teams on
              commercial projects. The reasons for this relate to lack of alignment of
              programmes, and somewhat contrasting scientific and commercial strategies.
              There are also some blurred boundaries in the remit of both organizations.



                                       - 28 -
       126.   As with BAS there are examples of collaboration between BGS and SOC. SOC is
              directly involved in the initial UK responses to the recent tsunami, working with
              BGS to lead the initial geological site survey of the earthquake zone from HMS
              Scott; and the Director SOC is involved in national and international liaison
              activities.


Relationships with other NERC funded marine labs.


       127.   SOC is already working with the other NERC funded marine RCCs to write their
              next five-year proposals for funding. The Marine Directors have maintained close
              professional relationships although those between the ex-CCMS members are
              probably the strongest.


The SOC & the Tyndall Centre


       128.   Staff from the SOC & several other Southampton University departments were
              among the lead proposers of the successful bid in 2000 to NERC and other
              Research Councils to form the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
              Since 2001 the SOC has hosted the southern office of the Tyndall Centre.
              Southampton is one of the “big three” partners in the Tyndall consortium (with
              UEA and UMIST) and SOC staff have consequently also been active in the
              management and planning of Tyndall activities through its Council and Research
              Management committees.


UK Universities


       129.   A sample of 19 UK and 23 international Higher Education Institutions were asked
              to provide a short written submission to the SOC SMA Team about their
              interactions with SOC. They were asked particularly to comment on their
              relationship with SOC and give examples of any collaborative work in which they
              had been involved. A total of 16 UK and 11 international HEIs submitted
              comments.


       130.   The majority of comments from the international HEIs were positive; however
              some of the national HEIs felt that SOC could do more to represent the UK
              community and that SOC had yet to fully reach its international potential.

European Collaboration.




                                       - 29 -
        131.   This is primarily through the EU. It is an important part of the SOC portfolio as
               shown in Appendix IV and over the review period SOC has led a number of
               projects. SOC is leading HERMES, one of the new integrated projects and SOC
               perceive their success in the proposal as recognition of their successful leadership
               of earlier programmes such as EUROSTRATIFORM. As seen by the table under
               ToR 4, SOC international publications have increased during this review period.

Examples of Global Collaboration
RAPID

        132.   The science coordination is carried out from SOC. The programme currently has
               32 funded science projects, and another 4 to 6 projects that are in the process of
               being funded jointly by NERC, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
               Research (€1.5M), and Research Council of Norway (€1M). Of the 32 UK
               projects 3 are part of a major observing system for the N. Atlantic circulation
               (£5M) that were jointly evaluated by NERC and the US National Science
               Foundation, who funded complementary US work ($7M). The US National
               Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is also contributing to these
               observations in kind (shiptime, hydrographic and current measurements).
               Important elements of RAPID coordination are these international links, and also
               the national links, particularly to “users” (e.g. Hadley Centre, Tyndall Centre,
               DEFRA).


        133.   In addition to the science, the coordination of 3 Small Business Research
               Initiative projects, data management, publicity, science meetings and workshops,
               webpage, links to other NERC programmes (e.g. COAPEC, QUEST) and all
               other aspects of RAPID is carried out by staff at SOC.


        134.   The SMA Team thought that it is appropriate that SOC has a central role in
               RAPID as it fits well with its future national identity. Generally the SOC Role in
               RAPID is very good. The SMA Team noted that the RAPID team used purely
               physical oceanography into account when placing moorings and earlier in this
               report it suggests that the Challenger Division could provide useful geological
               information to assist in ensuring the best placing of moorings.


CLIVAR


        135.   For almost 20 years, the UK has, initially through the Institute of Oceanographic
               Science Wormley (IOS), and latterly at SOC, been host to the International
               Project Offices (IPOs) of two projects of the World Climate Research Programme
               (WCRP). These projects were, first, the World Ocean Circulation Experiment
               (WOCE) and more recently WCRP’s study on Climate Variability and


                                         - 30 -
             Predictability (CLIVAR). The SMA Team could not see clear benefits to the UK
             from hosting this project but if SOC is going to be host the Team considered
             whether NERC would better deploy its funds for the CLIVAR office by
             supporting part of it including overheads, rather than leaving the overheads as a
             hidden contribution by others. This could encourage other parties to fund a staff
             post and its associated overheads for example.


   The Discovery Collections


      136.   The Discovery Collections consist of deep-sea benthic (seabed) and pelagic
             samples from many parts of the World’s oceans. New samples are added every
             year from national and international research programmes. The Discovery
             Collections are now split into 2 parts. . The early parts of the collection of
             Antarctic and Atlantic samples are now housed in the Natural History Museum,
             London. The more recent collection, consisting largely of both benthic and
             pelagic samples taken off the continental shelf of the UK remains at the
             Southampton Oceanography Centre (SOC). The Discovery Collections are
             provide key baseline data for ocean life and are used by scientists from many UK
             and overseas institutions. They are an integral part of the Census of Marine Life,
             an international project (2003 to 2010) that aims to determine the diversity in the
             oceans at the global scale. The SOC Discovery Collections Midwater Database
             has been incorporated into the International Ocean Biogeographic Information
             System (IOBIS) for global studies on ocean biodiversity. With future funding it is
             hoped that the remaining benthic collections will also be added.


ChEss: Biogeography of Deep-Water Chemosynthetic Ecosystems


      137.   ChEss is one of the ten pilot projects within the Census of Marine Life initiative.
             The aim of ChEss is to determine the biogeography of deep-water
             chemotrophically-driven ecosystems and to understand the processes driving
             them. The main objectives are to assess and explain the global diversity,
             distribution and abundance of species from ecosystems such as hydrothermal
             vents, cold seeps, whale skeletons, sunken wood and oxygen minimum zones
             where they intersect the deep seafloor along certain ocean margins and
             seamounts. ChEss is directed from SOC.


      138.   The SMA Team were highly impressed by this ten-year programme and consider
             it to be a top example of what the new NOC should be doing in that it coordinates
             work in the UK and around the world, with minimal NERC funding. The CHEss
             team presented evidence of significant careful consideration and planning when
             deciding which are the best places to go.




                                       - 31 -
POGO


       139.   POGO is an independent consortium of many of the major marine institutions
              around the world with 28 members representing 21 countries. POGO implements
              and endorses in situ ocean observing systems, coordinates activities in these areas,
              advocates national and international support for such activities, provides scientific
              leadership and expertise, and contributes to the development of data practises and
              observing standards and protocols. SOC has been a member of the POGO
              Executive Committee since its foundation in 1999. Howard Roe was Chairman of
              POGO from 2002-2004 and remains on the executive committee for another two
              years.


UNCLOS


       140.   Two Challenger Division staff work full time, and several others contribute as
              necessary to the SOC applied research programme dealing with governance of the
              world’s oceans. The focus of effort is in three areas:


             Providing technical advice to the UK government on the determination of the
              outer limit of the continental shelf according to Article 76, and their negotiations
              with neighbouring coastal states in these areas (Part Vl, UNCLOS);


             Providing services and technical support to coastal states worldwide on issues of
              maritime boundaries, territory and non-living marine resources (Parts l to Vl.
              UNCLOS);


             Providing the UK contribution to the International Seabed Authority’s Legal and
              Technical Commission (Parts Xl and Xll, UNCLOS) and the Intergovernmental
              Oceanographic Commission’s Advisory Board of Experts on the Law of the Sea
              (Parts Xlll and XlV).


Conclusion


       141.   SOC has the scientists to be a world leader in global oceanographic science. That
              leadership role would be best achieved by focusing the scientific efforts of SOC
              in ways that could bring together the expertise in UK research centres and
              universities.




                                        - 32 -
       142.   As stated above, inputs to the SMA process suggest that the NOC needs to work
              at altering perceptions in many organisations around the UK. However many
              university groups and overseas organisations have remarked on “long and
              enjoyable collaboration”, and stated that “performance has been exemplary”,
              indicating a solid platform for future development. The SMA Team recommends
              that the NERC/University partnership provide the NOCS with firm
              encouragement to better build up the national links by making it part of the NOCS
              mission.


       143.   The SMA Team also recommends that NOCS in their capacity as a national
              centre should actively be seeking links elsewhere to supervise CASE studentships
              as well as supervising students registered with the University of Southampton.


       144.   The SMA Team endorsed comments made by BAS that SOC could also focus on
              analysing and modelling the global ocean system, which would complement the
              work of the Hadley Centre. SOC could then be the lead in bringing together
              expertise from research centres, for example in coastal science from POL, PML,
              SAMS, Marine Biogeochemistry from PML and SAMS, Southern Ocean science
              from BAS, and Northern Seas science from SAMS using marine geoscience
              information from BGS. This would allow integrated and collaborative
              institutional efforts to address key questions rather than fragmented duplication on
              a competitive basis.


Term of Reference 6


To assess SOC’s knowledge transfer of outputs, and take up by users, from research, survey,
monitoring programmes into new products and services including data, information and
advice.


       145.   Under the provision of the Core Strategic Programme contracts NERC and the
              University jointly own the IP derived from the NERC Core Programmes. The
              identification of IP with potential for exploitation and its progression is the
              responsibility of the University. Each NERC Division has a business manager.


       146.   The NERC Marine Exploitation Scout, based at SOC, has the remit to identify
              and help progress opportunities arising from the Core strategic programmes
              funded at SOC, and in doing so can draw on wider NERC support and specific
              funding initiatives. The scout’s role involves collating ideas developed by
              individuals within the SOC Research Divisions, integrating these into the NERC
              IP database and evaluating each idea’s exploitation potential. Since 2001 the
              NERC exploitation scout has collated over 20 suggestions for potential



                                        - 33 -
          commercial ideas and SOC has drawn down £18k from NERC’s innovation fund
          for proof of concept, consultancy and market study work.


   147.   SOC contributes its ideas and expertise to the development of wider NERC and
          UoS policy and approaches to commercialisation activity. SOC has been
          represented on the NERC NEB Commercialisation sub-group (2003-2004) as well
          as the University’s Enterprise and Innovation Strategy Committee.


   148.   The SMA Team noted that SOC has a strong and professional knowledge transfer
          and outreach team. The paperwork provided to the team was excellent and their
          presentations were comprehensive and kept to time. Technology Transfer and the
          enterprise agenda have been identified as one of the key tenets of the University
          strategy. The Centre for Enterprise and Innovation (CEI) is the focus of
          entrepreneurial activity within the University of Southampton. Formed just
          before the last SOC SMA, in September 2000, the office employs around 20
          people, focusing on business management, IP Protection and Management,
          Commercial, Legal advice, contract confidentiality and funding advice and
          business and consultancy contacts. The team based in the NERC Divisions work
          very closely with the SOES team and seek advice when necessary with the staff at
          CEI. The effectiveness of the working relationships within SOC has been such
          that the SMA Team recommends that NOCS should combine the NERC and
          SOES teams for knowledge transfer and external funding work.


Ownership of the income arising from exploitation.


   149.   The SMA Team were impressed that SOC holds the University of Southampton’s
          record for both the biggest license - Autosub to Halliburton (now Subsea 7) in
          2001 which brought in substantial licensing funding (£0.4m), and continues to
          generate income and rewards to its inventors, and the highest valued spin-out to
          date. OHM Ltd was spun out in 2002 by the University and its subsequent
          floatation on AIM in 2004 with initial market capitalization of £49 million, has
          brought substantial income to UoS, SOES and to its creators.


   150.   In the future when NOC is coordinating programmes across the Marine Sector the
          arrangement whereby profits go to the University of Southampton may cease to
          be appropriate. The new Director NOCS is aware of this.


   151.   The NOCS knowledge transfer team have so far been unable to achieve ISO 9001
          because of the complexity of the organisation. This can be a barrier to them being
          awarded contracts from such organizations as the MOD for example, who specify
          this as a requirement for their contractors. The SMA Team recommends that
          SOC should try to obtain appropriate quality standards such as the ISO 9001.


                                   - 34 -
              Within this standard is the requirement to have PRINCE 2 project management
              (which is the NERC standard) or similar.


       152.   The SMA Team noted that OED were penalised for their success in licensing
              Autosub when their science budget allocation from the former NERC Science and
              Technology Board (STB, forerunner of SISB) was reduced on the basis of future
              earnings. This has severely demotivated the team.


Data


       153.   SOC appears to have weak links with BODC. The SOC Data manager has been
              to BODC but has not met either of the two SOC liaison officers and they, in turn,
              have not visited SOC. SOC are establishing a limited data storage facility,
              designed to partially hold and process the data prior to transmission to BODC.
              The SMA Team took the view that this is unnecessarily duplicating work that
              BODC could be doing. In data management NOC needs to look outwards to
              providing facilities for the whole of the UK, but not duplicate or overlap with
              BODC. The SMA Team recommends that they could seize the initiative by
              offering to provide a national data banking facility for international swath
              bathymetry sidescan sonar or 3.5 kHz acoustic profiler data. There is currently no
              NERC facility to bank these data.


       154.   Overall there was, as in other areas of activity at NOCS, no strategic overview of
              data management. The SMA Team recommends that one member of the
              Executive Senior Management Team should be a nominated data champion. The
              SMA Team recommends that NOCS should develop defined data management
              processes to be put in place for all projects with specified interactions with NERC
              designated data centres.


       155.   Examples of advice provided by SOC are given in Appendix III.


Summary


       156.   SOC has performed very strongly in areas of knowledge transfer and exploitation
              that translate into new products and services. The feedback on their national
              facilities is also good. SOC needs to develop their policy on data management
              and implement it. SOC provision of advice to government is valued and timely.




                                       - 35 -
Term of Reference 7


To assess whether efficient, effective and economical use is being made of resources
(including manpower, facilities, data and equipment) in order to successfully manage SOC
and examine the value for money of SOC’s activities, including science, in comparison with
other providers, where this would be practical.


Issues


         157.   The SMA Team heard evidence throughout the week that the need to have both
                NERC and University finance, personnel and management systems increased cost
                during the review period. This makes value for money very difficult to achieve at
                SOC.


         158.   In addition the SMA Team found that finances are opaque with inconsistent views
                given to the SMA team by the University and NERC. This was particularly
                evident when discussing the 2M reserves for SOC currently being held by the
                University. The Director SOC perceives that it will take about two years to
                access these whereas the University considers that application to withdraw funds
                from these could be more readily processed. They are part of the general
                University reserves and are not held specifically for SOC use although it is
                recognized that SOC can call upon these funds at some stage. Financial
                management of the SOES is entirely separate.


         159.   The SMA Team recommends that SOC needs its own transparent system for
                financial management to be agreed by NERC and the University and to comply
                with the accountability requirements for both partners. Clear transparent process
                for bidding for reserves should be incorporated into the new MOU – regardless of
                which partner (NERC or the University) looks after the reserves in the future.
                Funds from reserves should be available in a timely manner, not requiring a lead
                time yielding funds in the next financial year. NERC also needs to become more
                involved at the operational level of the financial systems.


SRAM


         160.   NERC payments into SRAM were not considered by many in SOC to be
                appropriate for the services they receive back from the University. NERC has
                increased its payments to the University in recent years. The SMA Team were
                told by SOC staff that SRAM is devised more to fit the requirements of
                University Departments. For example OED are “taxed” on their storage space
                with little return. The SMA Team recommends that NOCS should negotiate for


                                         - 36 -
              its special needs to be taken into account by SRAM. The system is still evolving
              and there is an opportunity for NOCS requirements to be built in.


   Uplift payment


       161.   The SMA Team learned that the Core Strategic Programmes at SOC have not
              received their annual 2% cost of living uplift since their inception. The SMA
              Team did not see it as their role to make specific funding recommendations to
              NERC. They noted that it is in the payment priorities put before the NERC
              Executive Board for this current financial year.


   FEC


       162.   Evidence from the NERC and University Finance Officers suggest that the impact
              of FEC on the NOC has not been fully determined. The SMA Team
              recommends that NERC and the University should establish what impact the
              introduction of FEC will have on SOC.


Building Space


       163.   The SOC has been in existence for ten years and during that time the occupation
              and utility of the building has evolved. Evidence from the Staff Survey suggests
              that it is now appropriate to review the allocation of space within the building, to
              re-establish a fair and consistent way of allocating space to staff. The SMA Team
              recommends that this be done.


Customs Warehouse


       164.   OED need a Customs Warehouse to facilitate the avoidance of paying import
              taxation. The SMA Team were told that this is now going ahead. Clearly this
              will increase efficiency in the use of resources.


Health and Safety


       165.   The University safety policy applies but NERC retains responsibility for the
              safety of its staff as their employer and will, through the Council's Safety Adviser,



                                        - 37 -
                  ensure that the University policy provides adequate protection for Council and it's
                  staff.


       166.       Formal H&S reporting and oversight goes via the Faculty Health and Safety
                  Advisor, Dr Stuart Heron - who is also a member of the NERC Safety
                  Management Group, and attends the meetings of the NERC local safety advisors
                  when he can. Dr Heron visits SOC frequently, at least once or twice a week on
                  average. Additionally he meets the NERC Safety Adviser, Dr Stuart Dobson at
                  the quarterly meetings of the NERC SMG, and Dr Dobson visits SOC at least
                  once a year to review health and safety in the NERC divisions and in SOC
                  generally. SOC has a Health and Safety Committee, which meets every three
                  months to review any issues. The Chair of the committee is Prof Phil
                  Weaver who is also a member of the SOC Senior Management Team. The SOC
                  Senior Management Team has a regular standing item on H&S at its bimonthly
                  meetings.


       167.       The SMA Team did not have any issues to raise on Health and Safety and
                  concluded that Health and Safety procedures and policy appeared satisfactory.


Summary


       168.       Overall the duality of systems combined with the inflexibility of financial
                  management means that full economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of
                  resources at SOC is not being achieved. Some elements of SRAM may appear
                  inappropriate for some parts of SOC. The lack of transparency of the financial
                  system meant that the SMA Team could not ascertain the full impact of this.


Term of Reference 8


To assess whether SOC invests in the development and support of major capital equipment,
facilities, services and support staff.


       169.       Capital funding has been or is provided to SOC/NOCS through a number of
                  channels:

                   NERC core capital allocations – Funding for capital allocated as part of
                    NERC’s capital baseline. For example, UKORS capital funding from 2005/06
                    (NERC financial year) onwards. There is an open question as to whether some
                    of the NERC infrastructure & science allocation includes an element of capital
                    funding, as is the case in other centres;


                                           - 38 -
            Research Councils’ Infrastructure Fund (RCIF) – A medium term initiative of
             the Office of Science and Technology (OST) ending in 2004/05. Much of
             UKORS capital expenditure (e.g. TOBI upgrade) is funded through this route;

            Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) – A longer-term OST/Wellcome Trust initiative
             used to fund large capital items (e.g. ROV – Remotely Operated Vehicle); (JIF
             initiative now ended)

            Directed Programmes – Many directed programmes include capital elements;

            Other NERC grants – Blue Skies research grants may be awarded with capital;

            Greening NERC – as part of the initiative to reduce the environmental impact
             of NERC’s operations there is a small budget reserved for projects to make
             NERC “greener”;

            Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF) – This is a joint initiative between
             OST and the Department for Education and Skills. Awarded through HEFCE,
             these capital awards are designed to support investment in research
             infrastructure in HEIs

            Joint Research Equipment Initiative (JREI) – This was a joint initiative between
             the Research Councils and HEFCE to run annual competitions to fund
             infrastructure through “matching awards” (this scheme is now closed); and

            Academic Strategic Development Fund (ASDF) – This is a centrally collected
             and distributed fund within the University, used to fund projects. These awards
             act as loans, with Schools repaying during the years following the award.

170.       As described above most of the capital funding for SOC has come from NERC
           either from formal announcements or via the opportunities open to NERC wholly
           owned Centres, which have always been extended to include SOC. The
           University has funded successful SRIF bids from SOC during the period, and
           SOC can bid for capital funding to the University via the annual strategic
           planning round. The University route has not contributed major capital, but has
           provided relatively small amounts of money to provide for Professorial set up
           costs and seed corn for University-wide initiatives as well as ongoing support for
           ROV technicians as well as Strategic Development funds to develop greater
           integration. SOC can lose out because SOC agendas are not particularly
           compelling across the broad spectrum of the University.


171.       NERC are currently considering cancelling the eligibility of SOC to apply for
           capital funding for its wholly owned centres except for UKORS and the NMEP
           who are major recipients of capital at SOC from NERC. The SMA Team
           recommends a transparent basis for determining ultimate responsibility for the
           capital investment by each of the partners (NERC and the University).




                                    - 39 -
  OED


     172.   The SMA Team would like to strongly commend the Ocean Engineering Division
            (OED) for their work during the review period. OED is already moving towards
            developing instrumentation for the whole UK marine community and the SMA
            Team viewed them as a national resource. The Team thought it would be
            beneficial to strengthen this perhaps by introducing a system whereby any
            national scientist can enter into discussion with OED experts about a new idea or
            new technology. This way OED would gain a new pool of scientists for the
            exchange of ideas and it increases the probability of ideas being implemented,
            perhaps leading to spin outs.


     173.   OED has also strengthened links between NERC and the University in the way
            that it works with a range of groups and are a major force for integration.


UKORS


     174.   UKORS is part of the Ocean Engineering Division at SOC – and as such falls
            within the overall management of the Director, SOC, and hence the University.
            However, to ensure that UKORS is seen to operate effectively and on behalf of
            NERC, the activities of UKORS, including the stewardship of the NMEP, is
            overseen by the NERC Marine Facilities Review Group (MFRG), which reports
            annually to the NERC Director of the NERC Science Programme Directorate.
            UKORS gave a separate presentation to the SMA Team. They provided clear and
            succinct presentations with precise facts and figures to assist the SMA Team in
            their analysis. The SMA Team concluded that it is a well-managed, highly skilled
            and proactive group. The Team liked the users committees established by
            UKORS and endorse their approach of allowing the marine community to suggest
            instruments for development to the UKORS team.


     175.   There are issues surrounding UKORS and the NMEP between the University and
            NERC that require resolution. These are the positioning of UKORS in the future
            NOC, the ownership and management of the NMEP and the provision of a
            customs warehouse (see ToR 7). There were also concerns about whether the
            University can offer appropriate terms and conditions of employment and career
            development to the UKORS staff. The SMA Team noted that the Head of
            UKORS has a conflict of interest servicing both SOC as part of SOC and being a
            national facility. This conflict arises because Geraint West services SOC as head
            of OED and the wider community as head of UKORS.


  Relationship between UKORS, OED and RSU.



                                     - 40 -
       176.   The SMA Team was unable to establish what the relationship of OED and
              UKORS should be to RSU because RSU was outside the remit of this SMA.
              They observed that there have been benefits in UKORS being within the OED.
              The Team initially discussed and mostly favoured UKORS being taken back into
              NERC ownership and management with the staff employed by NERC on NERC
              terms and conditions. The Team were also aware that the new NOCS Director’s
              intended future structure for NOCS encompassed the management of RSU. This
              was viewed by the SMA Team as high risk both from the perception of users who
              are aware of the management challenges at SOC and high risk due to the lack of
              financial transparency at SOC/NOCS. The SMA Team intended to recommend
              that a separate review of UKORS, USL and RSU should take place before their
              future management arrangements were decided. Given the decision has already
              been made it is recommended that they are reviewed soon after the new
              management arrangements have been established.


       177.   During the SMA process UKORS received both strongly positive and some
              negative comments about how they worked with RSU and the BAS Ships.
              UKORS was already aware of some of the difficulties and has instigated regular
              meetings with RSU and the BAS Ships Management.


       178.   UKORS has an instrument renewal rate of 5% to 10% per annum and has to
              juggle old and new equipment in their support costs. The SMA Team
              recommends that they develop a strategy for the acquisition and disposal of
              equipment.


       179.   UKORS activity has expanded markedly with the increase in ship availability
              during the last 4/5 years. UKORS will be overstretched once the RRS James
              Cook comes into service. To prepare they will need to start recruiting and
              training staff now. There have been recent uplifts in NERC funding for both
              infrastructure and capital. If UKORS remains within SOC then a strategic view
              will have to be taken within SOC and monies vired across to meet UKORS
              requirements.


ISIS


       180.   The University of Southampton (SOES) was awarded a major JIF grant to buy a
              £4.5mm ROV (ISIS) from Woods Hole. The ROV arrived almost two years ago
              and has remained idle on the quayside.


       181.   Many of the groups presenting to the SMA Team groups mentioned this issue, as
              did a number of HEIs and customers. The problem is complex including
              cancellation of an NSF cruise, and due to non funded research proposals to use


                                       - 41 -
             the ROV by a number of world class internationally recognised scientists within
             the wider University research community. The SMA Team recognised these
             difficulties and the effort that had been made to secure funding by University
             researchers and the efforts by the NERC Research Divisions to secure an
             appropriate ship to undertake ROV work with the NERC strategic research
             programmes. The SMA Team were aware that this problem seemed to be the
             result of systemic weaknesses in the alignment of funding for capital
             infrastructure, science projects and platform (ship) availability. However it has
             had a very damaging impact on the reputation of SOC. Given that the SMA Team
             could only superficially cover this complex issue in the time available, the SMA
             Team recommends that NERC undertakes a thorough enquiry to establish the
             facts and lessons to be learned for the future.


      182.   In terms of support staff SOC and the UK marine community are short of staff to
             work on CTDs and instrument moorings. This has a negative impact on the type
             of large scale programmes that should be run by an organisation such as NOC and
             will also have an importance to programmes such as RAPID, now being funded
             for a second phase.


      183.   Despite increases in the use of ships recently, the SMA Team heard how overall
             the Marine Community still considers itself to be short of ship time. The Division
             Heads at SOC also considered that they had insufficient funds to go to sea
             although the SMA Team thought that this could have been addressed through
             internal reprioritisation of resources.


   Summary


      184.   NERC has assumed the primary role is providing the capital investment for SOC
             over this review period. SOC did not appear to embrace capital
             management/exploitation in its strategic resource allocation.


      185.   The SMA Team was unable to determine the most effective way that the national
             facilities at NOCS will be able to operate. NERC should undertake a review of
             the National Marine Facilities Division when established.


      186.   If NOCS is to assume its national role, and if it retains responsibility for these
             facilities, NOCS needs to adopt a strategic approach to financial management and
             ensure that it has appropriate pay and reward structures for the highly skilled and
             sought after staff in OED and UKORS.


Term of Reference 9


                                      - 42 -
To assess the extent that SOC Science Programmes and Core Mission are supported and
enhanced by external funding as an indication of the need by the user community for the
research, monitoring, survey and data management functions. To form a view as to the risks
inherent in the balance of funding within SOC and the advantages and disadvantages of the
income portfolio.


       187.   The new MOU needs to recognise that the NOC has to be managed in partnership
              to ensure it can reach its potential and also to protect the NERC interest given the
              size of the NERC investment, shown in the table below. The SMA team
              recommends that the new MOU should address the balance between NERC and
              the University control over the investments with more emphasis on NERC.




                           Funding Arrangements for SOC


                                                 £m

                     NERC               University of             External
                                        Southampton               Funding
                      13.27                      6.06                9.8




                                             SOC


               The University via SRAM provides £4.59m worth of corporate
               support services and infrastructure costs.




                                        - 43 -
     188.   SOC is currently running a 60:40 internal to external funding model.


     189.   The quantity and success of proposals from other UK Government departments
            has varied considerably year on year. Previously a major source of funding,
            research directly sponsored by the MoD has declined since 2001 due to the
            decline of Blue Skies Research Funding as MoD changes its focus to more
            ‘operational’ matters and the difficulty in accessing funds within the Joint Grant
            Scheme, in which SOC had early success but which is now heavily
            oversubscribed. SOC is a subcontractor in some commercially lead projects with
            MoD funding.


     190.   Opportunities to seek DTI funding have also declined since 2001 where there was
            a requirement for offshore strategic environmental assessments, though the new
            opportunities in 2004/5 presented by the Technology innovation schemes are
            being investigated. The FCO has become a significant player in recent years in
            relation to UNCLOS work.


     191.   Successful proposals to overseas funders are sporadic; in 2001 they formed a key
            element of the successful proposals with a large investment from oil companies
            into DASI (Deep Active Source Instrument) Surveys, which in 2002 led to the
            spin out of OHM Ltd. There have been fewer bids to overseas funding following
            in subsequent years, though international interest in UNCLOS related work for a
            range of international Government and Agencies remains strong.


     192.   The acquisition of EU programme funding (e.g. HERMES) carries a requirement
            of additional NERC input to cover the overhead shortfall. There is also inherent
            risk in the EU trend to larger integrated projects. This puts pressure on NOC to
            be involved in a smaller number of large multidisciplinary projects or proposals
            with much reliance on individual ‘large projects’ such as HERMES. The lead
            times from proposal submission to contract are increasing both for NERC and EU
            proposals. The longer period of uncertainty when proposals are ‘pending’ impacts
            on the ability of NOC to predict future income year on year.


Summary


     193.   External funding supports the SOC Core Programmes but there have been some
            suggestions that the programmes are too loosely defined. SOC has always
            balanced its books and maintained sufficient external income to support its
            science programmes.




                                     - 44 -
       194.   There are risks in the lack of NERC involvement in managing its significant
              investment and the new MOU should be designed to safeguard the interests of
              both partners. There are also dangers for NERC if NOCS takes on too much
              large-scale EU project work. In conclusion the balance of management influence
              over SOC did not reflect the balance of investment during this review period.



Term of Reference 10


To assess whether SOC has internal processes of change and rejuvenation ensuring that
programmes of work are brought to an end when needed and ensuring a good flow of new
ideas and people and that they offer career paths and opportunities commensurate with both
NERC and University procedures.


Programmes of Work


       195.   In ToR 3 this report outlines how the Team did not consider that SOC had taken a
              strategic view of its science and as a result could not necessarily demonstrate that
              they are able to bring programmes of work to an end when needed.


       196.   SOC staff are on two sets of terms and conditions of employment with differing
              career processes. All new staff to the NERC Divisions have been employed on
              University Terms and conditions since 2 years before SOC opened i.e. for 11
              years. In practice this has resulted in a pattern of senior staff at SOC being
              employed by NERC with line management responsibility for SOC staff who are
              University employees.


       197.   The SMA Team was concerned to learn that the NERC staff had routinely been
              missed off University communications because they were not on the University
              salaries list (NERC salaries are netted off by NERC at source before payments are
              made to SOC). The SMA Team were told that it has taken five years to get
              NERC staff on a mailing list. Even now communications are delivered by hand.
              This seems something that could quickly be remedied given the will to resolve it
              and the SMA Team considered it reflected a lack of effective management.


       198.   An example of the impact of this is that in the SOC submission to the SMA Team
              it describes the most significant development in HR management within the
              University has been the adoption of a new system of Job Families that has much
              simplified University procedures and grading structures. It also offers much
              greater clarity on opportunities for University employees within the NERC
              Divisions. The SMA Team viewed this as a very positive development. However


                                        - 45 -
       some staff told the SMA Team that they only learnt about the Job Families 12
       months after the information had been issued due to the communication
       difficulties outlined above.


199.   More generally the existence of two sets of employment terms and conditions
       within the one organisation imposes a significant management overhead. The
       SMA Team recommends that line managers must be trained and aware of the
       dual University/NERC career development systems. NERC and the UoS should
       acknowledge that the existence of differing employment within the Centre is a
       significant issue that will impede moves towards integration. The SMA Team
       acknowledges that moving all NOCS staff onto one set of terms and conditions is
       not a realistic or necessarily a desirable option.


200.   There is evidence that the Human Resources function at SOC is overstretched and
       inappropriately staffed. They appeared to have fewer staff than other
       organizations of a comparable size. The SMA Team recommends that a high
       level HR person be recruited to put policies and procedures in place and possibly
       to recruit more HR staff at a junior level. This individual should ensure that
       communication is improved. SOC does have an intranet where HR information
       can be disseminated backed by more active communication.


201.   The Team considered that the new Director of NOCS would stimulate change and
       rejuvenation. The morale of SOC staff has been good and they appeared very
       committed. The Team did note that the staff had very high expectations of the
       new Director and these expectations will have to be realistically managed.


202.   The SMA Team heard from the Trade Union Representatives that staff
       representation mechanisms have not been clear at SOC because the University
       does not recognize the Whitley system. The SMA Team recommends that the
       University senior management need to attend and fully engage with the NOC
       Whitley Committee, acting on its recommendations where appropriate. There
       should be a clear line of communication between the Unions and the Director
       NOC.


203.   Generally the SMA Team gained the impression that NERC had not ensured that
       adequate arrangements were in place for its employees at SOC during the review
       period, particularly for the “softer” personnel issues such as training,
       development, and information. The SMA Team suggests that NERC strongly
       supports the new Director in his efforts to improve these areas.


204.   A variety of sources of evidence informed the SMA Team that contract staff are
       poorly managed at SOC with regard to the notice given for termination or renewal


                                - 46 -
             of contracts or conversion to open ended appointments. With the forthcoming
             European legislation in 2006 NOC needs to take action as a priority to improve
             this. The SMA Team recommends that staff on contracts should be reviewed
             annually to ensure that they are not repeatedly being employed on contracts and
             are being given fair notice. An initial review of contract staff should take place as
             soon as this SMA Report is agreed.


      205.   The SMA Team noted during the science presentations from the research
             divisions that some science groups are dependent on a rather small number of
             Prime Movers: the ratio of PMs to support staff is not robust and makes some
             groups vulnerable to losses. The SMA Team did not go into this issue in depth
             but questioned whether a number of people had been appointed on the basis that
             they would turn out to be Prime Movers but have not or whether potential prime
             movers had left the organisation. The SMA Team wondered if it reflected a
             weakness in the system of appointment and/or career development. Did the
             current prime movers develop before the establishment of SOC and is there
             succession planning to ensure continuity?


      206.   The SMA Team also observed that women were under represented at senior
             levels. Evidence from SOC staff suggested that this is due to wider issues
             affecting female scientific career progression than those purely within the control
             of SOC management.


   Summary


      207.   There are serious human resource issues at NOCS. The hardest to resolve are
             those relating to the existence of two sets of employment. The other issues; poor
             communication, poor management of contract staff, the need for succession
             planning to provide prime movers and the recognition of the Whitley process, can
             be resolved with effective and appropriately resourced personnel management.
             Despite this morale was good with high, perhaps too high, expectations of the
             new Director NOCS.




Term of Reference 11




                                       - 47 -
To consider the appriateness of the duration of funding for all areas of activity in SOC and the
frequency with which funds should be sought from NERC


       208.    The SMA Team recommends that NOC funding should be sought on a five-year
               basis in line with that for the other NERC supported marine laboratories. There
               were some areas that the SMA Team thought would benefit from longer term
               funding either by five year rolling funding or some other mechanism.


              The commitment to the ANIMATE moorings, long term monitoring at the
               Porcupine Abyssal Plain sites and other NE Atlantic sites. This overlaps with
               moves at EU level for development of infrastructure such as the EMSO in
               framework 7 (European Multidisciplinary Sea Floor Observatory, = successor to
               ESONET) in which NOC would be expected to play a key role.


              Atlantic Overturning circulation as monitored by the RAPID array. NOCS might
               need to be encouraged to continue this in some form after RAPID funding has
               expired and maintaining the annual occupations of the hydrographic section
               across Drake Passage (possibly jointly with other UK institutions). This may
               already have been resolved with the extension of the RAPID programme.


              Maintaining NOCS's capability to run high resolution global ocean models (such
               as OCCAM) where lessons might be learnt from the way in which CGAM is run
               with a clear long-term intention.


              Continuation of the consortium grant of AMT. NOCS is a player and NERC will
               have to decide whether and how to continue this.


              The Ferrybox and PAP programmes.


              Development of complex instrumentation


Acknowledgements


       209.    The SMA Team would like to thank the staff at SOC for their hard work and
               hospitality during this review.




                                       - 48 -
                        Summary of Recommendations

No                         Recommendation                              Paragraph

     Term of Reference 1

1    The SMA Team recommends that NERC/NOC should strive                  21
     for an early involvement of all stakeholders (marine
     institutions and universities) in the MOU negotiations and
     move onward to realise its national centre function as early as
     possible.
2    The SMA Team recommends that there should be                         22
     transparency and openness in NERC’s funding of the NOC
     and the other marine laboratories.
3    The SMA Team recommends that NERC should explore the
     possibility of having one national library with distributed          25
     archives.

     Term of Reference 2

4    The SMA Team recommends that NERC and the University                 36
     should work with NOCS management to identify and rectify
     problems associated with the two financial and employment
     systems within NOCS. All options should be considered
     including implementing an integrated employment, finance
     and management system.
5    The SMA Team recommends that NOC should have an                      37
     executive management body or board meeting regularly with
     the minutes published and available for staff.
6    The SMA Team recommends that the revised MOU should be               38
     unambiguous with supporting detailed annexes to define
     clearly the relationship between UoS and SOC.
7    The SMA Team recommends that NOC should have a strong,               39
     independent Advisory Board with an independent Chair.

     Term of Reference 3

8    The SMA Team recommends NOC should develop a flexible                43
     strategic plan for research, cascading down from a
     Corporate/Strategic Plan taking into account national and
     international research priorities.




                                     - 49 -
9    To facilitate a coordinated approach to the science the SMA         43
     Team recommends that the strategic plan be identified as the
     responsibility of one member of the executive management
     body.
10   The SMA Team recommends that the NOC Research Groups                44
     should be part of a corporate communications, management
     and financial structure rather than operating autonomously.
11   The SMA Team recommends that the scrutiny offered by the            45
     Programme Review Groups should continue in some form in
     the new structure. The review groups need to be fully
     independent. Biennial rather than annual reviews would be
     appropriate.
12   For the ongoing monitoring of the core strategic programmes         46
     the SMA Team recommends that a Science Advisory Group
     be established.

     Term of Reference 4

13   The SMA Team recommends that all NERC funded staff                  47
     should acknowledge the Core Strategic Funding that applies to
     the work when they publish papers in line with the
     requirements of public accountability.
14   The SMA Team recommends that Guidance for reviewees                 50
     will in future specifically state that if it says the science is
     structured into themes or projects in the papers, it is essential
     that the presentations mirror the structure.
15   The SMA Team recommends that the new proposals process              51
     has a transparent mechanism for establishing strategic science
     aims. These proposals need to focus on areas of science and
     procedures that are appropriate to a National Centre and less
     easily undertaken by University groups, for example large
     scale moorings programmes or survey work.
16   The SMA would like to recommend that NOC should work                51
     with the other NERC Marine Supported Laboratories, and
     consult with BAS, BGS, and appropriate universities to
     develop their new science funding proposals.
17   The Team recommends the formation of stronger links                 71
     between GDD and the School of Biological Sciences
18   The SMA Team recommends further consideration of SOC’s              80
     strategy regarding large scale modelling, and that SOC make
     appropriate investment to make the most of the past/current
     investment by NERC in CHIME and OCCAM development.
19   The SMA Team recommends that the Challenger Division                95
     gives provisional advice to the physical oceanographers
     regarding the location of current meters, away from areas of
     potential slope failure, within the RAPID Programme and the
     work monitoring the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
     Circulation.


                                      - 50 -
20   The SMA Team recommends the use of small amounts of                103
     core funding to develop the scientific benefit from the law of
     the sea surveying.
21   The SMA Team’s impression is that the expertise of the             105
     Challenger Division is spread extremely thinly over a wide-
     range of topics and concluded that there is a risk that they are
     over-stretching themselves. The SMA Team recommends this
     be addressed.
22   However the SMA Team recommends that teaching time for             118
     NERC staff should be monitored to prevent adverse impact on
     the core programme.

     Term of Reference 5

23   The SMA Team recommends that the NERC/University                   142
     partnership provide the NOC with firm encouragement to
     better build up the national links by making it part of the
     NOCS mission.
24   The SMA Team also recommends that NOC in their capacity            143
     as a national centre should actively be seeking links elsewhere
     to supervise CASE studentships as well as supervising students
     registered with the University of Southampton.

     Term of Reference 6

25   The effectiveness of the working relationships within SOC has      148
     been such that the SMA Team recommends that NOCS
     should combine the NERC and SOES teams for knowledge
     transfer and external funding work.
26   The SMA Team recommends that SOC should try to obtain              151
     appropriate quality standards such as the ISO 9001. Within
     this standard is the requirement to have PRINCE 2 project
     management or similar.
27   The SMA Team recommends that SOC Data Management                   153
     Team could seize the initiative by offering to provide a
     national data banking facility for swath bathymetry sidescan
     sonar or 3.5 kHz acoustic profiler data. There is currently no
     NERC facility to bank this data.
28   Overall there was, as in other areas of activity at NOC, no        154
     strategic overview of data management. The SMA Team
     recommends that one member of the Executive Senior
     Management Team should be a nominated data champion.
29   The SMA Team recommends that NOCs should develop                   154
     defined data management processes to be put in place for all
     projects with specified interactions with NERC designated
     data centres.




                                     - 51 -
     Term of Reference 7

30   The SMA Team recommends that SOC needs its own                      159
     transparent system for financial management to be agreed by
     NERC and the University.
31   The SMA Team recommends that NOCS should negotiate for              160
     its special needs to be taken into account by SRAM.
32   The SMA Team recommends that NERC and the University                162
     should establish what impact the introduction of FEC will have
     on SOC.
33   Evidence from the Staff Survey suggests that it is now              163
     appropriate to review the allocation of space within the
     building, to re-establish a fair and consistent way of allocating
     space to staff. The SMA Team recommends that this be done.

     Term of Reference 8

34   The SMA Team recommends a transparent basis for                     171
     determining ultimate responsibility for the capital investment
     by each of the partners (NERC and the University).
35   The SMA Team intended to recommend that a separate review           176
     of UKORS, USL and RSU should take place before their
     future management arrangements were decided. Given the
     decision has already been made it is recommended that they
     are reviewed soon after the new management arrangements
     have been established.
36   The SMA Team recommends that they develop a strategy for            178
     the acquisition and disposal of equipment.
37   The SMA Team recommends that NERC undertakes a
     thorough enquiry to establish the facts and lessons to be
     learned for the future from the failure to promptly launch and
     exploit the ISIS ROV.

     Term of Reference 9

38   The SMA team recommends that the new MOU should                     187
     address the balance between NERC and the University control
     over the investments with more emphasis on NERC.

     Term of Reference 10

39   The SMA Team recommends that line managers must be                  199
     trained and aware of the dual University/NERC career
     development systems.
40   The SMA Team recommends that a high level HR person be              200
     recruited to put policies and procedures in place and possibly
     to recruit more HR staff at a junior level.


                                     - 52 -
 41   The SMA Team recommends that the University senior                    202
      management need to attend and fully engage with the NOC
      Whitley Committee, acting on its recommendations where
      appropriate. There should be a clear line of communication
      between the Unions and the Director NOC.
 42   The SMA Team recommends that staff on contracts should be             204
      reviewed annually to ensure that they are not repeatedly being
      employed on contracts and are being given fair notice. An
      initial review of contract staff should take place as soon as this
      SMA Report is agreed.

      Term of Reference 11

 43   The SMA Team recommends that NOC funding shoul d be                   208
      sought on a five-year basis in line with that for the other
      NERC supported marine laboratories. There are some areas
      that the Team thought would benefit from longer term funding.

Appendix I Terms of Reference for the 2005 Science and Management Audit
of Southampton Oceanography Centre

  1. To assess whether SOC provides a national capability and source of advice to UK
     Government


  2. To assess the effectiveness of the scientific and management leadership and process for
     cultivating long-term vision/mission and strategy within the developing integration at the
     Centre, and the contribution of SOC towards NERC’s Mission and 5-year Strategy.


  3. To assess the effectiveness of arrangements to set research aims and objectives,
     (including monitoring, survey and data management objectives), monitor progress and
     evaluate output.

  4. To evaluate the achievements and productivity of the SOC programme for scientific
     research, postgraduate education and research training, monitoring, survey and data
     management activities and to grade the quality of the programme/s informed by previous
     evaluations and international benchmarks and based on the same standards as decisions
     on university grant applications.

  5. To review the extent and productivity of national and international scientific links,
     including the focus SOC provides for international cooperation; for technology expensive
     projects; for coordinating distributed major programmes solving complex scientific
     problems; and for fostering a co-operative multidisciplinary approach across different
     types of research organisation.




                                       - 53 -
           6. To assess SOC’s knowledge transfer of outputs, and take up by users, from research,
              survey, monitoring programmes into new products and services, including data,
              information and advice.


           7. To assess whether efficient, effective and economical use is being made of resources
              (including manpower, facilities, data and equipment) in order to successfully manage
              SOC and examine the value for money of SOC’s activities, including science, in
              comparison with other providers, where this would be practical.


           8. To assess whether SOC invests in the development and support of major capital
              equipment, facilities, services and support staff.


           9. To assess the extent to which the Science Programmes of SOC and core mission are
              supported and enhanced by external funding as an indication of the need by the user
              community for the research, monitoring, survey and data management functions. To
              form a view as to the risks inherent in the balance of funding within SOC and the
              advantages and disadvantages of the income portfolio


           10.To assess whether SOC has internal processes of change and rejuvenation ensuring that
              programmes of work are brought to an end when needed and ensuring a good flow of
              new ideas and people and that they offer career paths and opportunities commensurate
              with both NERC and University procedures.

        11.To consider the appropriateness of the duration of funding for all areas of activity in SOC and
        the frequency with which funds should be sought from NERC.
Appendix II
The Natural Environment Research Council
Science and Management Audit of the Southampton Oceanography Centre –
25 – 29 April 2005


        Membership List


Name
                    Reason           Address                                     Other Marine
                                                                                 SMA Activity

Chair




                                                - 54 -
Professor Dr       Academic      Senior Scientist                          Chair
Jan W de           Former Head   Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea       SMRU
Leeuw              of Analogue   Research (NIOZ)                           POL
                   Chair of                                                Member
                   SMRU, POL                                               PML
                   SMAs                                                    MBA
                                                                           AMT Directed
                                                                           Programmes Team
International Members
Professor Dr    Head of          Faculty of Earth Sciences
Dick Kroon      Department       Amsterdam University

Dr. Peter Verity                 Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
                                 Fax: 912 598-2310
                                 Email: peter@skio.peachnet.edu

UK Members                                                                 Other SMAS
Dr Andrew                        Centre for Research into Ecological and   Member of Autosub
Brierley                         Environmental Modelling                   Directed
                                                                           Programmes
                                                                           Review
Professor Mike     SAMS Board    Glasgow Marine Technology Centre          POL
Cowling            Member        James Watt Building                       SAMS
                                 University of Glasgow

Miss Jane          Stakeholder   Wildlife and Habitats Division            SMRU
Dalgleish          Lawyer        Mailpoint 14A                             POL
Scottish                                                                   SAMS
Executive
Mr Robert          NERC BGS      Head of Marine, Coastal and
Gatliff                          Hydrocarbons Programme
                                 British Geological Survey
                                 Edinburgh

Dr Chris           SOC           The Hadley Centre                         POL
Gordon             Programme     Met Office
                   Review
                   Group
Mr Peter Hazell    Member of     Email: pfhazell@yahoo.com
                   NERC
                   Council and
                   Chair of
                   NERC Audit
                   Committee
Dr Karen J.        Academic      School of Environmental Sciences
Heywood                          University of East Anglia




                                            - 55 -
Professor Ian   Ex-Council     Gatty Marine Laboratories          Chair
Johnston        Member         School of Biology                  MBA
                               University of St Andrews           PML
                                                                  SAMS

Professor (I)   Academic       Department of Earth Sciences       POL
Nick McCave     (Chair, SCOR   University of Cambridge
                Working
                Group)
Professor       Academic       Oceanlab Director
Monty Priede                   University of Aberdeen
                               Oceanlab

Commodore      Stakeholder     Email:                             SAMS
Charles        CAROS           burrell.stevenson@btinternet.com   SMRU
Stevenson, CBE

NERC Science and Innovation Board Member
Professor Tim  New member School of Environmental Sciences
Jickells       on SISB        University of East Anglia

Secretariat
Ms Lynne                       Evaluation Team                    SAMS
Porter                         NERC

Mrs Deborah                    Evaluation Team                    POL
Cosgrove                       NERC                               SMRU

Miss Kirsty                    Science Programme Officer
Styles                         NERC

Dr Helen                       Science Programmes Officer
Beadman                        NERC




                                         - 56 -
Appendix III                                      Produced by SOC External Affairs
Summary of SOC's formal contributions to Government consultations and
information requests to inform policy - 2002-2004

Note: this list represents formal requests, routed through NERC to which SOC felt it could
contribute to the discussion.


       Type             Organisation                            Title                        Date NERC sent
Parliamentary         HoC                 The Role of DEFRA                                        31-May-02
Committee Inquiry     Environment,
                      Food and Rural
                      Affairs Committee
Parliamentary         HoC S & T           Towards a non-carbon fuel economy: research,             30-Sep-02
Committee Inquiry     Committee           development and demonstration
Non-Consolidated      DEFRA               EU Marine Thematic Strategy: Commission                  17-Oct-02
Consultation                              Communication
Consultation          NERC                SWOT analysis of UK environmental Science                01-Dec-02
Consultation          DEFRA               Safeguarding our Seas report                             01-Dec-02
Consultation          OST                 Gov response to Greenfield report                       04/12/2002
Consultation          DEFRA               Seas of Change                                           10-Dec-02
Information Request   NERC                NERC investments in energy research                       01-Jan-03
Consultation          EA                  Corporate service level agreements                      01/01/2003
Parliamentary         HoC S&T             UK Science and Europe: value for money?                 17/01/2003
Committee Inquiry     Committee
Consultation          DEFRA               Environmental regulations for the future                 21-Jan-03
Consultation          DEFRA               Marine science strategy                                 31/01/2003
Information Request   NERC                Concordat with Environment Agency                       23/03/2003
Information Request   NERC/DTI            Protocol additions to the UK/Euratom/IAEA               06/04/2003
                                          Safeguards agreement
Consultation          DEFRA               Science and Innovation Strategy                          15-Apr-03

                                                                                                                57
Information Request OST                  Possible meeting between President NERC          28-Apr-03
                                         Canada and CSA
Information Request   NERC               J Lawton's visit to Japan - briefing             01/05/2003
Ministerial           MP's office        NERC RRS Charles Darwin Replacement              21-May-03
Correspondence
PQ                    OST                Mobile Telecommunication Masts on Land            11-Jul-03
Parliamentary         HoL S & T          The Practicalities of Developing Renewable       28/07/2003
Committee Inquiry     Committee          Energy
Parliamentary         EFRA               Committee enquiry into the marine environment    28/07/2003
Committee Inquiry
Parliamentary         EFRA               Committee enquiry on Cetacean by catches         28/07/2003
Committee Inquiry
Parliamentary         HoC Committee      Committee Enquiry on UK Science and Europe       28/07/2003
Committee Inquiry
Parliamentary         HoL S & T          Committee enquiry into Science and               28/07/2003
Committee Inquiry     Committee          International Agreements
Consultation          Sustainable        UK SD Research: A Guide to Research Centres      01-Aug-03
                      Development        and Evidence Providers
                      Research Network
                      (SDRN)
Consultation          NERC               NERC response to S&T committee scrutiny          01/08/2003
                                         report
Parliamentary         HoC S&T            'The work of NERC'                               01/08/2003
Committee Inquiry     Committee
Consultation          DEFRA              Marine Environment                               01/09/2003
Consultation          OST                OST's response to BA report on science and       01/09/2003
                                         society
Consultation          OST                PSRE enquiry                                     01/09/2003
Information Request   NERC               NERC links with RDAs                             08/09/2003
Consultation          DfID               Use of Science in UK                             10/09/2003
Parliamentary         EFRA               Marine Environment                                12-Sep-03
Committee Inquiry
Consultation          Royal Society      Communicating Scientific Results to the Public    25-Sep-03
Information Request   NERC               RC counter terrorism info                        01/10/2003

                                                                                                       58
Parliamentary         HoL S & T         Science and International Agreements              06-Oct-03
Committee Inquiry     Committee
Information Request   NERC              NEB report FP6 successes                          01/11/2003
Information Request   OST               UK/Russia Joint commission call for briefing      01/11/2003
Consultation          DEFRA             Seas of Change                                    01/11/2003
Consultation          DEFRA             European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC: Darwin     03/11/2003
                                        Mounds Candidate Special Area of Conservation
Consultation          OST               Foresight Flood and Coastal defence               03/11/2003
Non-Consolidated      DEFRA             Removal of Statutory Bars                         04-Nov-03
Consultation
Consultation          DEFRA             Marine Fisheries 10 year forward look             05/11/2003
Parliamentary         HoC S & T         The Use of Science in UK International            14-Nov-03
Committee Inquiry     Committee         Development Policy
Information Request   OST               Research Councils and Counter Terrorism           17-Nov-03
                                        Research - top level information into projects
Consultation          DEFRA             European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC: Darwin     05-Dec-03
                                        Mounds Candidate Special Area of Conservation
Consultation        NERC                Earth observation strategy                        01/01/2004
Information Request NERC                Meeting with Department of Transport              10/02/2004
Information Request Treasury via        Chancellors vision of UK science in 10 years      19/02/2004
                    OST/NERC
Consultation        DEFRA              Consultation on Review of non-native species       01/03/2004
                                       policy
Consultation        DEFRA              Review of non-native species Policy                12-Mar-04
Consultation        OST                10 year investment in science and innovation       31/03/2004
Parliamentary       Environmental      Enquiry into Government's Sustainable              22/04/2004
Committee Inquiry audit committee      Development Strategy
Consultation        RCUK/NERC          Response to Gov. 10 year investment framework      27/04/2004
Consultation        DoT                Evidence and Research Strategy                     29/04/2004
Consultation        DTI, Treasury,     Science and Innovation: Working towards a ten-      30-Apr-04
                    DfES               year investment framework
Consultation        Scottish Executive Developing a strategic framework for Scotland's'   14/05/2004
                                       marine environment
Consultation        DfID               Research funding consultation                      20/05/2004
Information Request NERC/DTI           New Research Ship - briefing for Sainsbury         01/06/2004
                                                                                                       59
Consultation            OST                  EU FP7                                             03/06/2004
Information Request     NERC                 UKAP Euratom IAEA activities                       17/06/2004
Consultation            Scottish Executive   Review of non-native species Policy                 30-Jun-04
Parliamentary           Council for          Interdisciplinary                                  13/07/2004
Committee Inquiry       Science and
                        Technology
Consultation            DEFRA                Sustainable development strategy                   22/07/2004
Consultation            OST                  7th EU Framework Programme                          26-Jul-04
Consultation            Prime Ministers      EFRACOM Future of UK fishing                       26/07/2004
                        Strategy Unit
Consultation            Scottish Executive   Strategic Framework for Scotland's Marine          02-Aug-04
                                             Environment
Consultation        NERC                     NERC future science priorities web consultation    04/08/2004
Information Request OST                      Tsunami research and monitoring of the Canary      23-Aug-04
                                             Islands
Consultation        Council for              Investigation into Interdisciplinary Research      27-Aug-04
                    Science and
                    Technology
Consultation        EA                       EnV Agency Science Strategy                        01/09/2004
Information Request NERC                     John Lawton's draft vision for Council             02/09/2004
Consultation        English Nature           Our Coasts and Seas: A 21st Century Agenda for      16-Sep-04
                                             their recovery, conservation and sustainable use
Consultation            DEFRA                Science Forward Look                                29-Oct-04
Consultation            DEFRA                DEFRA Science forward Look                         29/10/2004


Not all consultations
are routed through
NERC

Other means of contributing to policy development include:
Various town meetings
NEB and NERC committees
Other international visit briefs to NERC
Numerous contributions to OST regarding FP6 model contract etc
                                                                                                             60
Visits of Ministers, MEPs, MPs etc to SOC
Informal briefings/direct contacts
Representation on Government committees (see separate SMA paper)
Formal publications, reports and other literature
Scientific publications
Media coverage (TV, Radio, written) of SOC work




                                                                   61
Appendix IV – SOC involvement in EU Projects

European Framework Projects 2000 – 2005
NERC RESERCH DIVISION PROJECT LIST

This paper comprises a list of projects, funded by the EC’s Framework V and VI programmes that were active
during the period of this SMA. The list includes Fellowship and Infrastructure projects as well as major
research and technological development projects. The list is organised by year of award.

2000

Project Title                European Access to Seafloor Survey Systems - III
EC Programme                 Acronym                   SOC Role               EC Funding
FP5 - RI                     EASS III                  Co-coordinator         1,050,000 EUROS
Start Date: 01/03/2000                                 End Date: 30/11/2003
Description
Project funded under the EC’s Research Infrastructure programme offering access for European
researchers to instruments for seafloor survey: TOBI, BRIDGET and SHRIMP. The project also
offered scientific training in survey design and data interpretation.
SOC Researchers: Dr Douglas Masson (SOC PI), Ian Rouse, Colin Jacobs, Veit Hühnerbach
(researcher funded by EASS III)

Project Title             Marie Curie Fellowship – DNA Damage and Repair in Coastal and Deep-
                          Sea Hydrothermal Vent Mussels
EC Programme              Acronym                  SOC Role               EC Funding
FP5 – QoL - MC            None                     Host                   114,072 EUROS
Start Date: 10/07/2000                             End Date: 30/06/2002
Description
A 2-year Marie Curie Fellowship awarded under the Quality of Life programme to Dr Audrey Pruski.
The project aimed to study DNA damage and repair in coastal and deep-sea hydrothermal vent mussels
in order to assess the effects of environmental pollutants (heavy metals) on human health and marine
resources.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Dixon (SOC PI)

Project Title              Deep-sea Hydrothermal Vents: a Natural Pollution Laboratory
EC Programme               Acronym                     SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5 – EESD - RTD           VENTOX                      Co-coordinator            224,100 EUROS
Start Date: 01/03/2000                                 End Date: 28/02/2003
Description
The aim of the project was to carry out research into the specialised adaptations and processes found in
mid-Atlantic deep-sea hydrothermal vent fauna and its associated microbial populations. Studies
focused on the ability of deep-sea vent organisms to survive under extreme physical and chemical
conditions.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Dixon (SOC PI), Mrs Linda Dixon, Dr Justin Gwynn (researcher funded
by VENTOX) and Dr James Wilson (researcher funded by VENTOX)

Project Title             Continental Slope Stability
EC Programme              Acronym                    SOC Role                   EC Funding
FP5 – EESD - RTD          COSTA                      Contractor                 210,300
Start Date: 16/03/00                                 End Date: 15/03/2003




Page 62 of 80
Description
A study of the variability and impact of continental slope stability. Quantification of the frequency and
magnitude of slope failures, their effect on marine ecosystems, man-made structures and continental
coastlines, shelves and slopes. Included the study of potential triggers such as gas hydrates, slip planes
and sediment flow dynamics on glaciated-dominated (N Atlantic) as well as river-dominated (W
Mediterranean) margins.
SOC Researchers: Dr Douglas Masson (SOC PI), Dr Angus Best, Veit Hühnerbach, Dr Russell Wynn

Project Title              Environmental Controls on Mound Formation along the European Margin
EC Programme               Acronym                   SOC Role                     EC Funding
FP5 – EESD - RTD           ECOMOUND                  Contractor                   119,444 EUROS
Start Date: 08/03/2000                               End Date: 07/03/2003
Description
The project aimed to define the environmental controls and processes involved in the development and
distribution of carbonate mounds on the NW European continental margin. The investigation led to a
better understanding of environmental forcing factors and their variability, differentiated between
carbonate mounds and mud mounds and sought to determine whether they were indicators for
hydrocarbon resources.
SOC Researchers: Dr Brian Bett (SOC PI), Dr David Billett, Prof Andy Gooday

Project Title              Atlantic Coral Ecosystem Study
EC Programme               Acronym                    SOC Role               EC Funding
FP5 – EESD - RTD           ACES                       Contractor             165,593 EUROS
Start Date: 01/03/2000                                End Date: 28/02/2003
Description
The project carried out a margin-wide environmental baseline assessment of Europe’s deep-water coral
margin and made recommendations for essential monitoring and methodology requirements for future
sustainable development. The project adopted a whole ecosystem approach using a multi-disciplinary
team of geologists, sedimentologists, physical oceanographers and biogeochemists. ACES formed part
of a cluster of marine FP5 (OMARC) projects that included another FP5 project ECOMOUND. SOC
was instrumental in setting up the project and included both GDD and SOES as partners, maximising
collaboration and income for SOC from this project. A major contribution was the organisation of the
RRS Discovery cruise 248 for the European partnership, which discovered the widescale destruction of
the Darwin Mounds (UK’s most important, known deep-water coral communities) by bottom trawling.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Billett (SOC PI), Dr Brian Bett (SOC PI)

2001

Project Title              Techniques for the quantification of methane hydrate in European
                           continental margins
EC Programme               Acronym                   SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5 – EESD - RTD           HYDRATECH                 Contractor                146,357 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2001                               End Date: 30/06/2004
Description
The project developed a technique that could identify and quantify the amount of methane hydrate in
the sediments beneath continental margins. The technique uses seismic p waves and s waves recorded
on the seabed to measure characteristic seismic properties of sediment containing hydrate and their
distribution through the sediment column. The University of Southampton’s School of Civil
Engineering and the Environment were also involved in HYDRATECH and had a budget of €289,354.
SOC Researchers: Dr Angus Best (SOC PI)


Project Title              Development of a real time in situ observing system in the North Atlantic
                           ocean, by an array of lagrangian profiling floats




Page 63 of 80
EC Programme                 Acronym                   SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5 – EESD - RTD             GYROSCOPE                 Contractor                141,241 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2001                                 End Date: 31/12/2003
Description
The project aimed to develop a European component of a global ocean observing system that provided,
for the first time, basin-wide in-situ ocean observations with a sampling appropriate to resolve seasonal
and inter-annual variability. The system was based on autonomous, feely drifting profiling floats,
which measured vertical profiles of temperature and conductivity at regular intervals. The data were
transmitted by satellite to a receiving station.
SOC Researchers: Dr Brian King (SOC PI), Dr Luca Centurioni, Louise Duncan, Hannah Longworth

Project Title              Satellite-based ocean forecasting (SOFT)
EC Programme               Acronym                    SOC Role                   EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD               SOFT                       Contractor                 116,873 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2001                                End Date: 30/06/2003
Description
The objectives of the project were (1) to develop and validate a new methodology to obtain an accurate
and manageable ocean forecast system using satellite data and (2) the application of satellite based
oceanic forecasts to improve the performance of existing oceanic forecasts based on numerical ocean
models. The system was expected to impact the planning of offshore activities of fisheries and marine
commerce and the activities related to environmental control and sustainability.
SOC Researchers: Mr Peter Challenor (SOC PI), Dr Paolo Cipollini, Dr Helen Snaith, Dr Lisa
Redbourn-Marsh

Project Title               Biotechnologies from the deep
EC Programme                Acronym                   SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD                BIODEEP                   Contractor                147,960 EUROS
Start Date: 01/04/2001                                End Date: 31/03/2004
Description
The project proposed the exploration of unique habitats, namely the deep-sea hypersaline anoxic basins
(DHABs) of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the isolation and culture of marine micro-organisms,
thereby offering new opportunities for discovery of novel chemicals with different potential
applications. One of the aims of the project, based on the collaboration between scientific and industrial
partners, was to transfer results and develop new products for the European industry.
SOC Researchers: Dr John Thomson (SOC PI), Darryl Green, Dr Doug Connelly

Project Title              Atlantic Network of Interdisciplinary Moorings and Time Series for Europe
EC Programme               Acronym                     SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD               ANIMATE                     Contractor                405,328 EUROS
Start Date: 01/12/2001                                 End Date: 30/12/2004
Description
The project aimed to improve the scattered and uncoordinated european ocean observing infrastructure
for repeat/timeseries measurements by providing an initial network of sustained moored stations for
ocean CO2 and carbon cycle measurements in the eastern North Atlantic. The improved infrastructure
provided access to strategic data for climate research and mitigation to researchers and policy makers.
SOC Researchers: Dr Richard Lampitt (SOC PI), Jon Campbell, Maureen Edwards, Corinne Pebody,
Sue Hartman

Project Title              European Directory of the Initial Ocean Observing System
EC Programme               Acronym                   SOC Role                 EC Funding
FP5-EESD-CA                EDIOS                     Contractor               64,478 EUROS
Start Date: 01/12/2001                               End Date: 30/11/2004




Page 64 of 80
Description
The project was an initiative of EuroGOOS and aimed to provide a searchable marine directory of the
ocean observing, measuring and monitoring systems operating in Europe.
SOC Researchers: Dr N C Flemming (Consultant)

Project Title              Developing a European Facility to re-use seismic data
EC Programme               Acronym                    SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD               SEISCANEX                  Co-coordinator            186,427 EUROS
Start Date: 01/12/2001                                End Date: 30/11/2004
Description
The project continued the work of SEISCAN – a marine seismic record rescue facility. The project
scanned ‘at risk’ archive marine seismic records as they became available using a newly created
economic way to convert images into digital files. The project also provided training in image
archiving, image processing, database management, digital conversion and seismic processing.
SOC Researchers: Dr Peter Miles (SOC PI)

Project Title             Marie Curie Fellowship – Optimal sampling strategy design: synopticity
                          assessment and correction methods
EC Programme              Acronym                   SOC Role                 EC Funding
FP5-EESD-MC               None                      Host                     106,772 EUROS
Start Date: 07/01/2001                              End Date: 06/01/2003
Description
A 2-year Fellowship awarded to Dr Michel Rixen to explore premise that exploitation of in-situ data is
often hindered by inherent lack of synopticity. First order correction methods were tested in order to
improve the estimation of climate relevant parameters and the design of sampling strategies.
SOC Researchers: Dr Raymond Pollard (SOC PI)

2002

Project Title              Global Altimeter Measurements by leading Europeans
EC Programme               Acronym                  SOC Role                   EC Funding
FP5-EESD-THN               GAMBLE                   Member                     48,489 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2002                              End Date: 01/10/2003
Description
A thematic network of research and operational user communities who benefit from satellite altimetry.
The project aimed to investigate the synergy between European satellite altimeter missions before
launch, primarily for ocean applications.
SOC Researchers: Peter Challenor (SOC PI), Dr David Woolf, Dr Christine Gommenginger

Project Title             Information System for Marine Aquatic Resource Quality
EC Programme              Acronym                 SOC Role                 EC Funding
FP5-IST-RTD               i-MARQ                  Administrative Co-       87413
                                                  coordinator
Start Date: 01/05/2002                            End Date: 30/04/2005
Description
The aim of the project was to develop and validate a prototype Geographic Information System (GIS)
based system, which can exploit diverse data resources in order to deliver ‘best estimate’ information
on the environmental quality of coastal waters.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Hydes (SOC PI)

Project Title             European Deep Ocean Margins: a new training through research frontier
EC Programme              Acronym               SOC Role                   EC Funding
FP5-MC-RTN                EURODOM               Member                     169,980 EUROS




Page 65 of 80
Start Date: 01/09/2002                               End Date: 31/08/2006
Description
EURODOM is a Research Training Network (RTN) linked to the Ocean Margins Deep Sea Research
Consortium (OMARC) cluster of FP5 projects (COSTA, ACES, ECOMOUND, GEOMOUND,
HYDRATECH, EUROSTRATAFORM, PROMESS and STRATAGEM). The objective is to provide
training and educational opportunities to young researchers.
SOC Researchers D.G. Masson (SOC PI), P.P.E. Weaver, R.B. Wynn, V.A.I. Huvenne (post-doc
funded by Eurodom), M. Frenz (post-doc funded by Eurodom).

Project Title                European Margin Strata Formation
EC Programme                 Acronym                   SOC Role                    EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD                 EUROSTRATAFORM Co-coordinator                         487,664 EUROS
Start Date: 01/11/2002                                 End Date: 31/10/2005
Description
The project will study marine sediment dispersal from source to sink (river output to depositional on
the shelf, slope or basin floor) on contrasted European margins, with the aim of understanding how
geological strata are generated. This project will greatly improve our ability to forecast and hindcast the
response of the marine system to natural and anthropogenic perturbations. This research is fundamental
to understand matter and energy cycling, and to ensure the safe management of marine resources.
SOC Researchers: Professor Phil Weaver, Dr Douglas Masson, Dr Christian Berndt, Dr Rusell Wynn,
Dr Veit Hühnerbach, Dr Vikki Gunn

Project Title              European Sea Level Service Research Infrastructure
EC Programme               Acronym                   SOC Role                   EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RI                ESEAS                     Contractor                 58,816 EUROS
Start Date: 01/11/2002                               End Date: 31/10/2005
Description
The project supports the ESEAS research infrastructure in its work on all aspects of sea-level including
climate change research, natural hazards and marine research. The project facilitates transnational co-
ordination, upgrading the network of observing sites and standardisation of the network, operational
routines, databases and quality control.
SOC Researchers: Dr Mikis Tsimplis, Dr Andrew Shaw

Project Title               Oceanic Seamounts: an Integrated Study
EC Programme                Acronym                   SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD                OASIS                     Contractor                263,379 EUROS
Start Date: 01/12/2002                                End Date: 30/11/2005
Description
The project adopts a holistic approach to the investigation of seamount ecosystems integrating
hydrographic, biogeochemical and biological information. The results are being applied to design an
outline a model management plan as well as site-specific management plans for the seamounts
investigated. The knowledge gained is being made available to policy makers and stakeholders to
facilitate measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of seamount ecosystems.
SOC Researchers: Dr Brian Bett (SOC PI), Dr David Billett, Prof Andrew Gooday, Dr Tammy
Horton

Project Title              FerryBox – From On-line Oceanographic Measurements to Environmental
                           Information
EC Programme               Acronym                 SOC Role               EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD               FERRYBOX                Contractor             132,225 EUROS
Start Date: 01/12/2002                             End Date: 30/11/2005




Page 66 of 80
Description
The project uses ships of opportunity such as ferries to make automatic near surface measurements of a
suite of water quality measurements. The measurements made show that ship-borne instrumentation
can cost effectively deliver scientific information and form the basis for the interpretation of
environmental quality and its development in coastal and shelf seas.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Hydes, Dr Boris Kelly-Gerreyn

Project Title               Biodiversity of deep-sea Mollusca on the European Atlantic margin
EC Programme                Acronym                   SOC Role                 EC Funding
FP5-EESD-MC                 None                      Host                     114,272 EUROS
Start Date: 01/03/2002                                End Date: 28/02/2004
Description
The aim of the two-year Fellowship awarded to Dr Celia Olabarria was to determine the abundance and
biodiversity of mollusc species from the European Atlantic continental slope. Spatial and depth related
changes of mollusc species related to the environmental variables were examined. In addition, the
reproductive strategies of key species were studied.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Billett (SOC PI)

Project Title               Ocean Margin Research Consortium
EC Programme                Acronym                  SOC Role                    EC Funding
FP5-EESD-AM                 OMARC                    Contractor                  11,939 EUROS
Start Date: 01/02/2003                               End Date: 31/01/2006
Description
OMARC comprises ten European margin projects that provide a critical mass of European resources
with links to European industry. The SOC projects involved are ACES, COSTA, ECOMOUND,
EUROSTRATAFORM, and HYDRATECH. The project aims to achieve synenergies in research
fields such as fluid flow and biosphere/geosphere coupling, seismic imaging methods, ocean drilling
and long-term observatories that concern several of the participating projects. These goals shall be
achieved by a major conference accompanied by workshops during the conference that promote inter-
disciplinary ocean margin research.
SOC Researchers: Prof Phil Weaver (SOC PI)

Project Title              Bacterial single-cell approaches to the relationship between diversity and
                           function in the sea
EC Programme               Acronym                    SOC Role                    EC Funding
FP5-EESD-RTD               BASICS                     Contractor                  87,249 EUROS
Start Date: 01/11/2002                                End Date: 31/10/2005
Description
The project aimed to identify the microorganisms responsible for the biogeochemical cycling of carbon
and sulphur in the sea and to study bacterial diversity in the coastal seas of Europe. The study included
the comparison of the seasonal evolution of bacteria in the most important European marine basins.
The research was carried out using a variety of techniques ranging from gene sequencing to flow
cytometry.
SOC Researchers: Prof Peter Burkill (SOC PI), Dr Mikhail Zubkov

2004

Project Title              Marine Environment and security for the European Area
EC Programme               Acronym                 SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP6-A&S-IP                 MERSEA                  Contractor                307,654 EUROS
Start Date: 01/04/2004                             End Date: 31/03/2008




Page 67 of 80
Description
This Integrated Project aims to develop a single European system for global operational monitoring and
forecasting of the ocean and a co-ordinated network of regional systems for European waters. The
systems will merge and assimilate diverse data from space-borne sensors and in-situ measurement
networks in order to monitor the ocean physics, bio-geochemistry and ecosystems and to provide
forecasts on prediction time scales ranging from days to months. This integrated system will form the
ocean component of the future GMES system.
SOC Researchers: Dr Richard Lampitt (SOC PI), Maureen Edwards

Project Title             Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning
EC Programme              Acronym                     SOC Role                   EC Funding
FP6-GC-NoE                MARBEF                      Contractor                 101,444 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2004                                End Date: 01/01/2009
Description
This Network of Excellence aims at integrating the research efforts of marine scientists and institutes
through the co-ordination of research, training, exchange and outreach activities in several fields
including marine ecology, biogeochemistry, fisheries biology, taxonomy and socio-economic sciences.
The network also seeks to improve links with industries dependent on the sustainable use and
exploitation of marine biodiversity.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Billett (SOC PI), Dr Brian Bett

Project Title             Implementation of high-throughput genomic approaches to investigate the
                          functioning of marine ecosystems and the biology of marine organisms
EC Programme              Acronym                   SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP6-GC-NoE                MARINE GENOMICS Contractor (via BAS)                18,600 EUROS (via BAS)
Start Date: 01/03/2004                              End Date: 28/02/2008
Description
The Network aims to promote, develop and spread throughout Europe a broad range of genomic
approaches, to investigate a wide range of questions related to the functioning of marine ecosystems
and the biology of marine organisms. The project groups experts in genomics, proteomics and
bioinformatics have been grouped with marine biologists who can make use of high-throughput
genomics data. SOC’s PI is involved as a member of the steering committee.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Dixon (SOC PI), Dr Linda Dixon

Project Title             Monitoring deep seafloor hydrothermal environments on the Mid-Atlantic
                          Ridge
EC Programme              Acronym                   SOC Role                EC Funding
FP6-MC-RTN                MOMARNET                  Contractor              346,166 EUROS
Start Date: 01/09/2004                              End Date: 31/08/2008
Description
This research training network intends to make significant advances towards setting up a multi-
disciplinary sea-floor observatory for monitoring hydrothermal vent environments close to the Azores
archipelago. The programme will train a group of young researchers in the disciplines that are needed
to carry out deep seafloor environmental observatory work.
SOC Researchers: Prof Chris German (SOC PI), Prof Paul Tyler (SOES), Prof Martin Sinha (SOES)

Project Title             European Network of Excellence for Ocean Ecosystems Analysis
EC Programme              Acronym                SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP6-EESD-NoE              EUROCEANS              Contractor                120,000 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2005                           End Date: 31/12/2008




Page 68 of 80
Description
The Network is aiming to achieve the integration of European research organisations in the field of
global change and pelagic marine ecosystems. Also, to develop models for assessing and forecasting
the impacts of climate and anthropogenic forcing on food-web dynamics of pelagic ecosystems in the
open ocean. The work will be carried out through research and networking activities.
SOC Researchers: Dr Richard Lampitt (SOC PI), Dr John Allen, Prof Peter Burkill, Dr Raymond
Pollard

Project Title              Marine carbon sources and sinks assessment
EC Programme               Acronym                     SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP6-GC-IP                  CARBOOCEANS                 Contractor                236,600 EUROS
Start Date: 01/01/2005                                 End Date: 31/12/2008
Description
This Integrated Project aims at an accurate scientific assessment of the marine carbon sources and sinks
within space and time. It focuses on the Atlantic and Southern Oceans and a time period of -200 to
+200 years from now. The project will determine the ocean’s quantitative role for uptake of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, creating scientific knowledge essential to the quantitative risk/uncertainty
judgement on the consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
SOC Researchers: Dr Richard Lampitt (SOC PI), Dr David Hydes, Sue Hartman, Ian Waddington,
Maureen Edwards, Charlene Bargeron

Project Title               Hotspot Ecosystem Research on the Margins of European Seas
EC Programme                Acronym                   SOC Role                     EC Funding
FP6-GC-IP                   HERMES                    Co-coordinator               1,869,239 EUROS
                                                      (Awaiting contract)          (excl. Consortium
                                                                                   Audit costs)
Start Date: 01/04/2005 (to be confirmed)              End Date: 31/03/2009 (to be confirmed)
Description
This Integrated Project is designed to gain new insights into the biodiversity, structure and function and
dynamics of ecosystems along Europe’s deep-ocean margin. It represents the first major attempt to
understand European deep-water ecosystems and their environment in an integrated way by bringing
together expertise in biodiversity, geology, sedimentology, physical oceanography, microbiology and
biogeochemistry, so that the generic relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning can
be understood. Study sites will extend from the Arctic to the Black Sea. The results will underpin the
development of a comprehensive European Ocean and Seas Integrated Governance Policy enabling risk
assessment, management, conservation and rehabilitation options for margin ecosystems.
SOC Researchers: Prof Phil Weaver (SOC PI), Dr Douglas Masson, Dr Angus Best, Dr Christian
Berndt, Dr Russell Wynn, Dr Vikki Gunn, Dr David Billett, Dr Brian Bett, Dr Andy Gooday

Project Title              The Sedimentary Environment of Deepwater Corals: characterisation of a
                           fragile marine habitat in need of conservation.
EC Programme               Acronym                     SOC Role                EC Funding
FP6-MC-IEF                 SEDCoral                    Host (awaiting          158,479 EUROS
                                                       contract)
Start Date: to be agreed                               End Date:
Description
This 2-year Fellowship awarded to Dr Veerle Huvenne aims to provide a detailed characterisation of
the sedimentary environment of deepwater corals. The study will consist of the detailed documentation
of the Darwin mounds and a second province of small coral mounds in the area, chosen for comparison.
The information will be integrated in a GIS database and the results communicated to scientific and
non-scientific end-users. The project is closely linked to the IP HERMES.
SOC Researchers: Dr Douglas Masson (SOC PI)




Page 69 of 80
Project Title               Trophic Resource Dynamics in Bathayal Demersal Communities
EC Programme                Acronym                   SOC Role                  EC Funding
FP6-MC-IEF                  TROBAT                    Host (awaiting            159,613 EUROS
                                                      contract)
Start Date: to be agreed                              End Date:
Description
This 2 year Fellowship awarded to Dr Teresa Madurell aims to understand the structure and function of
biological communities on the deep (200-2000m) European ocean margin. The study will cover
population structure and production of benthic/benthopelagic communities and their trophic
interactions in order to evaluate what food sources are exploited by deep-sea demersal fish and
crustaceans of commercial value and how ecosystems might change in response to human impacts.
This project is closely linked to the IP HERMES.
SOC Researchers: Dr David Billett (SOC PI)




                                             Appendix V

           NERC Assessment Criteria for Science Programmes

                                     Guidance for Reviewers

The elements of the SOC SMA report that relate to science are presented to the NERC
Science and Innovation Strategy Board and can influence they way in which future bids for
NERC Science Budget funding for SOC are considered. Essentially they are interested in
learning the views of the SMA team in whether SOC has a track record of being a sound
place to invest. Their conclusions are drawn largely from the SMA team consideration of the
current SOC Science Programmes.

The SMA team will see the work of the SOC Science programmes. There may be areas when
the team will not feel it appropriate to give gradings as shown in the tables that follow. In
these cases your comments will be recorded for the SMA report. Where you can indicate
gradings, this will be helpful.

The review criteria match those of the NERC Funding Framework. The SOC programmes
have been mapped against the categories to show where the bulk of investments in any
programme lies – Annex 3 table 1 refers.

When assessing programmes the appropriate category of activity (‘research’, ‘strategic data
and knowledge’ or ‘shared services and facilities’) must be used. For example if 90% of the




Page 70 of 80
investment for a programme falls within Strategic Data and Knowledge it is appropriate to
evaluate the programme in that context.

The Review Criteria are:

                   Excellence. This criterion is used to judge the excellence of the
            programme. Importantly, this criterion is applied in context and the grading table
            (Annex 1-A) reflects the different emphasis for each activity. For example, the
            excellence of a long-term monitoring programme must be judged in the context of
            international and national standards for monitoring programmes rather than by
            comparison with “blue skies” research benchmarks.

                    Fit to NERC Priorities. NERC’s strategic priorities for science funding
            are set out in its 5-year Strategy ‘Science for a Sustainable Future’. SOC’s sets it
            priorities on the basis of both the NERC and University of Southampton
            strategies. An extract of NERC’s strategy is included as loose document L1 of the
            SMA papers and the University of Southampton’s in paper referenceT2 06. The
            assessment and grading of Fit to NERC Priorities is made against the grading table
            Annex 1-B.

                    Met Objectives. The review team should evaluate programmes against
            their original objectives. NERC needs to know whether the programme has met
            its objectives and if not, for what reasons. The team should judge whether the
            programme has evolved to compensate for any missed objectives. Your findings
            for this will be reflected by recording your comments and then a grading can be
            given for the Risk Reward categories below.

                   Risk-Reward. It is NERC’s policy to fund the most rewarding science
            whilst minimising risk wherever possible. Most importantly, NERC believes that
            risk-taking is very often necessary in order to answer the challenging questions in
            environmental science. The risk-reward criteria seek to prioritise those
            programmes that offer the highest reward with the minimum risk exposure. As
            such, priority would be given to a programme representing a lower risk if the
            rewards were deemed equal to other more risky programmes. Equally, lower risk
            programmes will not be given priority if their perceived reward is also lower. Risk
            and Reward are defined as follows for the purposes of this assessment and
            grading;

        Risk. Risk is defined as the likelihood that the stated scientific and implementation
        objectives of the programme will not be met. As such risk should implicitly include
        such factors as the appropriateness of the methods proposed to achieve the objectives,
        the ability of the scientific team proposed to achieve the objectives (this would
        include relevant track record as a risk minimisation factor), and the recognition of risk
        and proposals for mitigating action.




Page 71 of 80
        Reward. Reward is defined as the outcomes achieved (including scientific
        advancement where appropriate) if the stated objectives of the programme are met.


        Risk and Reward are assessed separately and combined in a matrix (Annex 1-C) to
        provide a Risk-Reward grading.


                    Cost Effectiveness. As a public funding organisation, NERC must ensure
             that funding is allocated on a basis that ensures best value for money. The Cost
             Effectiveness assessment and grading (Annex I-D) should be based on an
             assessment of the financial resources requested against the outputs and outcomes
             achieved. The assessment should implicitly consider factors such as leverage of
             investment already made in existing infrastructure/facilities, and benefits arising
             from co-funding e.g. jointly funded programmes, in-kind contributions, attraction
             of third party funding.




The Grading Matrices in Annex 2 are to be used as a tool to guide the Team on the criteria
weightings under each Funding Mode. ANNEX 1 NERC ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA


A. Excellence


Grade                    Research                          Strategic Data     Shared Services           Knowledge
            “Blue Skies”               Directed            and Knowledge       and Facilities            Transfer
                                     Programmes
  α5    Outstanding:             Outstanding:             Outstanding:        Outstanding:          Outstanding:
        exceptional scientific   exceptional scientific   benchmarks          essential & unique    Likely to have a
        merit and originality;   merit and originality;   amongst world’s     national service or   major impact on
        expected to have         expected to have         best; top 5% of     facility; highest     some aspect of
        major scientific         major scientific         surveys, etc;       quality &             improving UK
        impact; top 5%           impact; top 5%           exceptional         scientific            economic
                                                          delivery, service   standards             competitiveness or
                                                                                                    effectiveness of
                                                                                                    public services and
                                                                                                    policy; top 5%




Page 72 of 80
  α4    Excellent: at the      Excellent: at the      Excellent:            Excellent:             Excellent:
        forefront of field;    forefront of field;    comparable to         essential and cost     Likely to have a
        will advance           will advance           world leaders in      effective national     considerable impact
        understanding; top     understanding; top     the field; top 25%;   service or facility;   on some aspect of
        25%                    25%                    excellent delivery,   high quality &         improving UK
                                                      service               scientific             economic
                                                                            standards              competitiveness or
                                                                                                   effectiveness of
                                                                                                   public services and
                                                                                                   policy; top 25%
  α3    Very good: generally Very good: generally Very good: well           Very good:             Very Good:
        competitive science; competitive science; thought of in the         important national     Likely to have a
        top 60%              top 60%              field; top 60%;           service or facility;   reasonable impact on
                                                  very good delivery,       competitive            some aspect of
                                                  service                   quality                improving UK
                                                                                                   economic
                                                                                                   competitiveness or
                                                                                                   effectiveness of
                                                                                                   public services and
                                                                                                   policy; top 60%
  α2    Good: quality          Good: quality          Good: not leading Good: useful               Good:
        science, but not       science, but not       edge; adequate    national service or        Likely to have a
        leading edge           leading edge           delivery, service facility;                  modest impact on
                                                                        appropriate                some aspect of
                                                                        quality                    improving UK
                                                                                                   economic
                                                                                                   competitiveness or
                                                                                                   effectiveness of
                                                                                                   public services and
                                                                                                   policy
  α1    Of merit: modest       Of merit: modest       Of merit:             Of merit:              Of Merit:
        advance in the field   advance in the field   satisfactory          sometime useful        Likely to have a
                                                      performance;          service or facility;   minor impact on
                                                      adequate delivery     adequate quality       some aspect of
                                                      & service                                    improving UK
                                                                                                   economic
                                                                                                   competitiveness or
                                                                                                   effectiveness of
                                                                                                   public services and
                                                                                                   policy
   β    Probably not           Probably not           N/A                   N/A                    Probably not
        advancing the field;   advancing the field;                                                advancing the field.
        new, useful            new, useful
        knowledge              knowledge




Page 73 of 80
B. Fit to NERC Priorities



Grade                    Research                         Strategic Data      Shared Services   Knowledge
            “Blue Skies”              Directed            and Knowledge        and Facilities    Transfer
                                    Programmes

        Completely aligned       Completely aligned               Essential national Completely aligned
                                                         Critical survey,
        with NERC’s highest      with NERC’s                      service or facility with NERC’s highest
                                                         monitoring and/or
        science priorities, as   highest science                  required to
                                                         information                  priorities, as
   A    identified in Science    priorities, as                   underpin
                                                         management                   identified in Science
        for a Sustainable        identified in Science            programmes
                                                         programmes,                  for a Sustainable
        Future.                  for a Sustainable                aligned to
                                                         under-pinning                Future.
                                 Future.                          NERC’s highest
                                                         NERC’s highest
                                                                  priorities
                                                         priorities
   B    Well aligned with   Well aligned with                     Key national
                                                         Very important               Well aligned with
        NERC’s high science NERC’s high                           service or facility NERC’s high
                                                         survey, monitoring
        priorities          science priorities                    required to
                                                         and/or information           priorities
                                                                  support
                                                         management
                                                         programmeprogramme
                                                         supporting NERC’s
                                                                  aligned to
                                                                  NERC’s high
                                                         high priorities
                                                                  priorities
   C    Aligned with        Aligned with        Important survey, Important national Aligned with
        NERC’s science      NERC’s science      monitoring and/or service or facility NERC’s priorities
        priorities          priorities          information       required to
                                                management        support
                                                programmes        programmes
                                                supporting NERC’s aligned to
                                                priorities        NERC’s priorities
   D    Some alignment with Some alignment with Relevant survey,  Useful national     Some alignment with
        lower NERC science lower NERC science monitoring and/or service or facility lower NERC
        priorities          priorities          information       offering support priorities
                                                management        to programmes
                                                programmes        aligned to lower
                                                supporting lower NERC priorities
                                                NERC priorities
   E    Not aligned with    Not aligned with    Not aligned with  Not aligned with Not aligned with
        NERC’s priorities   NERC’s priorities   NERC’s priorities NERC’s priorities NERC’s priorities



C. Risk Reward




Page 74 of 80
Risk-reward will be graded on a matrix as follows;


                                          Reward

                                          Low                     Medium              High
                     Low                             1                     2                     5
       Risk          Medium                          1                     2                     4
                     High                            1                     1                     3


The criteria for Reward and Risk are as follows:



Reward Criteria


Grade                     Research                       Strategic Data and    Shared Services        Knowledge
           “Blue Skies”    Directed Programmes               Knowledge          and Facilities         Transfer


 High Certain long         Certain long term,                        National service or
                                                     Certain medium term,                        Certain medium
      term, broad          broad impact on                           facility directly
                                                     broad impact on UK                          term, broad impact
      impact on            knowledge, UK             economic        underpinning                on UK economic
      knowledge            economic                  competitiveness,programmes that             competitiveness,
      within the           competitiveness,          effectiveness ofare certain to have         effectiveness of
      environmental        effectiveness of public                   broad impact
                                                     public services and                         public services and
      sciences.            services and policy, or                   across NERC’s
                                                     policy, or quality of                       policy, or quality of
                           quality of life           life            Mission                     life
  Med Probable long-       Probable long term        Probable medium National service or         Probable medium
      term impact on       impact on knowledge,                      facility directly
                                                     term, broad impact on                       term, broad impact
      knowledge            competitiveness, public   competitiveness,underpinning                on competitiveness,
      within the           services and policy, or                   programmes that
                                                     public services and                         public services and
      environmental        quality of life                           have probable
                                                     policy, or quality of                       policy, or quality of
      sciences.                                      life            broad impact                life
                                                                     across NERC’s
                                                                     Mission
  Low Little probable Little probable long     Limited likely        National service or         Limited likely
      long term impact term impact on          medium term impact facility                       medium term impact
      on knowledge     knowledge,              on competitiveness, underpinning                  on competitiveness,
      within the       competitiveness, public public services,      programmes that             public services,
      environmental    services, policy, or    policy, or quality of have limited                policy, or quality of
      sciences.        quality of life         life                  impact across               life
                                                                     NERC’s Mission

Risk Criteria




Page 75 of 80
Grade Research                                      Strategic Data and        Shared Services           Knowledge
          “Blue Skies”             Directed             Knowledge              and Facilities            Transfer
                                 Programmes
 Low No discernible        No discernible          No discernible            No discernible No discernible risk
     operational risk.     operational risk.       operational risk.                        either operational or
                                                                             operational risk.
     Certain that the      Certain that the        Certain that the                         from the external
                                                                             Certainty that the
     proponents can        proponents can carry    institution can deliver                  environment (market
                                                                             service/ facility
     carry out the         out the research.       as stated.                               / policy sector).
                                                                             can be delivered as
     research.                                                               stated.        Certainty that the
                                                                                            activity can be
                                                                                            delivered as stated.
 Med Some discernible Some discernible         Some discernible         Some discernible Some discernible
      operational risk. operational risk.      operational risk.        operational risk.   risk either
      Probable that the Probable that the      Probable that the        Probable that the operational or from
      proponents can      proponents can carry institution can deliver service/ facility    the external
      carry out the       out the research.    as stated.               can be delivered as environment (market
      research.                                                         stated.             / policy sector).
                                                                                            Probable that the
                                                                                            activity can be
                                                                                            delivered as stated.
 High Likely operational Likely operational    Likely operational       Likely operational Likely risk either
      risk. Risk that the risk. Risk that the  risk. Risk that the      risk. Risk that the operational or from
      proponents cannot proponents cannot      institution cannot carry service/facility    the external
      carry out the       carry out the        out the research.        cannot deliver as environment (market
      research.           research.                                     stated.             / policy sector). Risk
                                                                                            that the activity
                                                                                            cannot deliver as
                                                                                            stated.

D. Cost Effectiveness Criteria

Grade                   Research
           “Blue Skies”           Directed           Strategic Data and    Shared Services              Knowledge
                                Programmes               Knowledge           and Facilities              Transfer
   V    Excellent value    Excellent value for     Excellent value for    Excellent value for      Excellent value for
        for money.         money.                  money.                 money.                   money.
                           Possibly some of the    Possibly some external Possibly service or      Possibly some
                           full cost of the        financial, or in-kind  facility gains           external financial, or
                           research borne          input, or income from  significant some         in-kind input, or
                           elsewhere in external   commercialisation      income from              income from
                           finances, or in-kind    potential.             commissions or           commercialisation
                           input                                          commercialisation.       potential.
  IV    Very good value Very good value for        Very good value for    Very good value          Very good value for
        for money.         money.                  money,                 for money.               money,
                           Possibly some of the    Possibly some external Possibly service or      Possibly some
                           full cost of the        financial, or in-kind  facility gains some      external financial, or
                           research borne          input, or income from external income           in-kind input, or
                           elsewhere through       commercialisation      from commissions         income from
                           external finances, or   potential.             or                       commercialisation
                           in-kind input                                  commercialisation.       potential.




Page 76 of 80
  III   Good value for     Good value for            Good value for money    Good value for        Good value for
        money.             money.                    Possibly with some      money.                money
                           Possibly with some        external financial, or  Possibly service or   Possibly with some
                           of the full cost of the   in-kind input, or       facility gains some   external financial, or
                           research borne            income from             external income       in-kind input, or
                           elsewhere through         commercialisation       from commissions      income from
                           external finances, or     potential.              or                    commercialisation
                           in-kind input                                     commercialisation.    potential.
   II   Satisfactory value Satisfactory value for   Satisfactory value for Satisfactory value      Satisfactory value
        for money.         money.                   money.                   for money.            for money.
                           Possibly limited cost    Possibly with limited Possibly service or      Possibly with limited
                           of the research borne    external financial, or facility gains          external financial, or
                           elsewhere. Little        in-kind input, or        limited external      in-kind input, or
                           external financial, or   income from              income from           income from
                           in-kind input            commercialisation        commissions or        commercialisation
                                                    potential.               commercialisation.    potential.
   I    Poor value for      Poor value for          Poor value for money. Poor value for           Poor value for
        money.              money.                  Possibly little external money.                money.
                            Possibly little cost of financial, or in-kind    Possibly service or   Possibly little
                            the research borne      input, or income from facility gains little    external financial, or
                            elsewhere. No           commercialisation        external income       in-kind input, or
                            external financial, or potential.                from commissions      income from
                            in-kind input                                    or                    commercialisation
                                                                             commercialisation.    potential.


ANNEX 2 – GRADING MATRIX
The following Grading Matrices are to be used as a tool to guide MPs on the criteria
weightings under each Funding Mode.
Funding Mode: Strategic Data and Knowledge
                                                                Grading
Assessment Criteria

Scientific Excellence               α1/β             α2            α3            α4                α5
Priority                             E               D              C             B                A
Risk-reward                          1                2             3             4                5
Cost Effectiveness                   I               II            III           IV                V

Funding Mode: Shared Services and Facilities
Assessment Criteria                                             Grading
Scientific Excellence           α1/β                 α2           α3             α4                α5
Priority                          E                  D             C              B                A
Risk-reward                       1                   2            3              4                5
Cost Effectiveness                I                  II           III            IV                V

Funding Mode: Research – Blue Skies
Assessment Criteria                                             Grading
Scientific Excellence           α1/β                 α2           α3             α4                α5
Priority                          E                  D            C              B                 A
Risk-reward                       1                   2            3              4                5




Page 77 of 80
Cost Effectiveness                   I             II           III           IV            V

Funding Mode: Research – Directed Programmes
Assessment Criteria                                          Grading
Scientific Excellence           α1/β              α2           α3             α4            α5
Priority                          E               D             C              B            A
Risk-reward                       1                2            3              4            5
Cost Effectiveness                I               II           III            IV            V

Funding Mode: Knowledge Transfer
Assessment Criteria                                          Grading
Scientific Excellence          α1/β               α2           α3             α4            α5
Priority                         E                D             C              B            A
Risk-reward                      1                 2            3              4            5
Cost Effectiveness               I                II           III            IV            V

       Red Zone. The programme would be assumed to be substantially flawed on this criterion such that
        funding was inappropriate with the proposal in its current form.

       Amber Zone. The programme would be assumed to be acceptable for this criterion and subject to
        discussion as necessary during the Moderating Panel prioritisation.


Green Zone. The programme would be judged as excellent on this criterion. There is a presumption that
a proposal in the green zone for all criteria would be funded subject to availability of funds.   ANNEX
3




Breakdown of SOC Programmes Against the NERC Funding
Framework

In order to make the intended purpose clear to everyone, NERC allocates all its funding
in ten major categories which span the entire range of its mission, reflecting the full
diversity of what must be done in order to sustain a healthy environmental science base.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of SOC Core St. Programmes mapped against the
NERC Funding Framework.


Paper T4 02b provides a summary of Table 1 for the NERC Financial Years 2004 - 2007




Page 78 of 80
Table 1
Enduring              Funding    Title of                                                                                                                    SOC
                                                  Purpose
activities NERC       Category   Category                                                                                                                   Funding
supports                                                                                                                                                      %
    Long-term                    Strategic Data   To support a proportion up to 100% of full direct costs (including core staff) of survey, mapping,           17.8 %
underpinning base        1             and        long-term observation, data management and closely interdependent R&D upon which scientific
      for the                     Knowledge       research programmes will draw.
  environmental
     sciences                      Shared         To support a proportion up to 100% of full direct costs (including core staff) of shared services            5.54 %
                         2       Services and     and facilities accessible to the whole NERC user community.
                                  Facilities
                                  Research        To support a proportion of core scientific staff costs in NERC Research Centres (HEI dual                   43.26 %
                         3          Centre        support analogue), together with enabling funds, plus specific funds to support other key aspects
  Skilled people                  Capability      of “national capability” in these Research Centres.
                         4         Training       To support Studentships and Fellows (excludes normal staff development programmes for NERC                   1.04 %
                                                  staff)
     Research            5         Research       To support direct marginal costs of Research Programmes (“blue skies” and directed) on the same             26.78 %
 Programmes and                                   cost basis across all NERC delivery mechanisms. Subject to open competition, apart from
exploitation of new                               defined circumstances.
    knowledge
                         6        Knowledge       To promote translation of outputs from research programmes (new knowledge, technology,                       2.16 %
                                   Transfer       methods) into new products and services in the economy (innovation).
                                                  To support, where necessary, routine indirect costs of support for activity funded under                     0.36 %
                         7       Infrastructure   Categories 1-6.

  Basic support
                                   Specialist     To support major infrastructure that would otherwise distort normal running costs; major “ring               0.00 %
                         8           Major        fenced activity” undertaken in line with Government policy (e.g. Antarctic Infrastructure; Earth
                                 Infrastructure   Observation Subscriptions).
                         9       Major Capital    For new capital investment in support of Categories 1 - 8 above (e.g. new buildings, research                0.00 %
                                   Projects       vessels).




                                                                                                                                               Lynne Porter Page 79 27/07/2012
Science and Society         10           Science and   To support the communication of NERC’s work to society in general.                                       3.06 %
                                           Society
External co-funding is permitted against each of the                   To add value to NERC Science Budget investment in each of the categories
funding categories above. External funding should                       above.
                                                                                                                                                               Total
be attributed/as co-funding for a given category in                    To ensure that NERC Science is both excellent and relevant to stakeholders.
line with the purpose of that category.

                                                                                                                                                                100 %




                                                                                                                                                Lynne Porter Page 80 27/07/2012

								
To top