Antarctica: Centenary of Scott Expedition

Lord Oxburgh Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oxburgh]

My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for providing this opportunity to reflect on the profound changes that are mooted for British Antarctic science.

I should declare my interests. For five years I chaired the international review panel for British Antarctic Survey research and on two occasions visited the BAS base on the Antarctic Peninsula. I have also worked at sea with the National Institute of Oceanography, a predecessor of the present National Oceanographic Centre, with which the Natural Environment Research Council proposes to merge BAS. I also worked for five years in the MoD and was briefly the director of the Scott Polar Research Institute.

NERC has indicated that during the present spending period the merged BAS footprint will not be reduced. But what does that mean? If NOC and BAS were merged, it would be almost impossible to determine what had happened to the BAS budget.

First, I shall say a word about polar science. Our poles are very different: the North Pole lies in an ocean surrounded by continents; the South Pole lies in a continent surrounded by oceans. In the Arctic, for the international community, it is largely a matter of ocean-going ships, because the surrounding nations jealously protect their shelf seas. In the Antarctic, BAS studies both continent and surrounding oceans together.

Doing that work safely in a very hostile environment is one of the unique BAS skills that supports both its own research and that of British universities—research ranging from studies of the ionosphere to “life on the edge”; studies of how organisms, fish, birds, plants and other animals cope with the extreme Antarctic climate; and studies of the behaviour of continental ice sheets, as well as understanding past climates by drilling deep ice-cores. Working in the Antarctic is much more expensive than elsewhere. However, as with particle physics or space exploration, if the observations cannot be made any other way, we have to pay what it costs.

Not only is BAS science diverse but it is good. Looking back at some of the reports of my review committee, the international members were astonished by the interdisciplinary collaboration that BAS achieved and the distinction of much of its output. A 2007 Indian survey showed BAS to be the most productive institution in the world for Antarctic science.

On the diplomatic front, at meetings of the Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, more working papers have been prepared by the UK—that is, the FCO and BAS together—than any other country. Under successive directors, BAS has achieved an enviable international reputation.

I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the work of both NOC and BAS, and I see little scope for savings or synergies beyond their current close collaboration in the southern oceans—a conclusion, incidentally, confirmed by a number of reviews, most recently in 2012.

Finally, we should remember the dire consequences of a seemingly trivial decision to reduce our South Atlantic naval presence some years ago. In the shadows between UK diplomacy and local South American politics, where every trivial action is minutely scrutinised, analysed and reanalysed, are we in danger yet again of inadvertently sending the wrong signals? The UK’s presence in the Antarctic, the Falklands and South Georgia is supported by a strong science-backed position at negotiations surrounding the Antarctic Treaty. Maintaining a footprint—whatever that means—without a clear and demonstrable commitment to Antarctic science is simply not credible. Are we seeing a decision again made at the wrong level by officials who do not see the whole picture—a decision not only threatening the science but endangering our position in the South Atlantic?

The question is: what now? The apparently engineered loss of senior staff at BAS has weakened the organisation, severely damaged morale and made it vulnerable. It is hard to see how the proposed merger will either protect the science or send the right diplomatic signals. Antarctic science is expensive but, by comparison with the cost of maintaining a garrison in the Falklands, let alone the cost of mounting even a small military operation, the cost of the science is almost imperceptible.

National interests, both diplomatic and scientific, appear to be at risk. I suggest that Ministers from the FCO, BIS and the MoD urgently set up an independent working group to propose a way forward before Christmas. I hope that Ministers will listen.