Country Representative Organisation Belgium Mr A Pollentier MUMMS, Brussels France Mr J Binot IFREMER, Paris Mr D Girard (Chairman) IFREMER, Paris Mr Y Keranflec'h GENAVIR, Toulon Mr L Laubier FREMER, Paris Mr P Rouzaud IFREMER, Toulon Japan Mr T Chiba Nippon Marine Mr M Kato JAMSTEC Mr H Nakato AMSTEC Netherlands Mr C van Bergen Henegouw SOZ Russia Dr I Sborshchikov P Shirshov Institute USA Ms E Dieter NSF Dr D F Heinrichs NSF UK Dr C W Fay NERC Dr J Ramster MAFF Mr F P Verdon(Secretary) NERC FAO Mr E Jan de Boer Fisheries Division OCEANIC Ms K Bouton U Delaware, Lewes
Mr Girard then welcomed Dr Sborshchikov to ISOM, and expressed particular pleasure that a Russian representative had finally been able to attend. Dr Sborshchikov said he was pleased to attend, and saw co-operation with other countries as a means of alleviating his country's present problems with respect to "hard" currency: he said that Russia had eight big ships, but could only operate three. He added that his Institute would like to work in the Atlantic, and might be able to offer the capabilities of an icebreaker in return for expedition time on another ship.
Thanking Dr Sborshchikov for his remarks, Mr Girard asked the remainder of those attending to introduce themselves for their and Dr Sborshchikov's benefit. This was done.
The meeting accepted that the proposal offered a way forward, and asked Mr Henegouw to press EC DGXII to provide evidence of progress.
In response to a question, Ms Bouton said that future funding looked secure, and OCEANIC were being encouraged to add a graphics capability to their other outputs. Dr Heinrichs noted that, although ISOM had made a commitment to meet some OCEANIC costs over two years, NSF was providing the support as it was cumbersome to collect from the other contributors: he said that NSF might look for a contribution in kind at some stage.
Mr Girard said that IFREMER currently exchanged about 5/6 scientists each year, but in any one cruise there was almost always a foreign scientist. Mr Rouzaud added that co-operation extended to major equipment also, and cited the use of a French SAR on board a Canadian vessel.
Mr Nakato said that Japanese scientists had shared cruises with IFREMER, USA and China.
Mr Henegouw and M. Pollentier both said that bartering was not very practical, since both operated only one ship each.
Mr Ramster noted that for many years the ICES member states had carried on ship bartering and data-pooling arrangements very successfully. Mr de Boer confirmed this and hoped the ICES model could be applied to other Regional Fisheries "umbrella" groups.
Dr Fay asked whether current informal barter arrangements should become slightly more formal by the introduction of a "standard" form, covering such matters as insurance of the ship and major equipment. After some discussion, it was felt that attempting to formalise the current arrangements could be counterproductive, but Dr Fay's question did open up a debate on the matter of equipment lost at sea. The general position appeared to be that all operators represented at the meeting were theoretically "insured" by their parent governmental body, but that in practice this was unlikely to produce funds for instant replacement of a lost capital asset.
This led on to a discussion about the practicality of recovering equipment lost at sea, and it was felt that ISOM had a role to play in this. It was suggested that each representative should note what equipment was lost, and where, and then if another ship was passing over the area it could make an effort to recover the equipment, particularly if a submersible were available. Mr Pollentier reported that he already had an arrangement with the Royal Belgian Navy that they conducted "exercises" in a particular area if he had lost equipment there, and he thought this privilege might be extended to others within the operational area of the Navy.
Mr Girard offered to prepare a draft form for reporting equipment losses, and Ms Bouton said that OCEANIC would like to help be, possibly, setting up a "catastrophe" notice board on which such losses could be displayed. These suggestions were welcomed, and Mr Henegouw was asked to keep the matter active.
Mr Nakato (Japan) showed a video of the Shinkai 6500, which was now operational. He said that it had carried out some 60 dives during her maiden voyage of 1990 fiscal year. The submersible, supported by its mother ship, the Yokosuka, could be launched and recovered in seas as high as sea state 4. It could spend 3-4 hours on the bottom, but this was because operating policy dictated that it only dive between sunup and sunset.
M. Rouzaud (France) presented a brochure about the Atalante, which had been handed over to IFREMER about a year ago. He said that all those who had used the vessel were very pleased with it, but that her capabilities had not yet been fully stretched.
Mr Henegouw (NL) reported that NIOZ had recently taken delivery of a new 60m ship for operations in the North Sea. The vessel had been named the Pelagia.
Ms. Dieter (USA) presented a brochure about the new AGOR23, named the Thomas W Thompson, which had been handed over to the University of Washington in July 1991. The design of the vessel showed considerable similarities to that of the "new" RRS Discovery, prompting comments that maybe there should be a "standard" oceanographic vessel! Ms Dieter also reported that the conversion of RV Knorr had been completed, and the ship was returning to Wood's Hole. Work was now proceeding well on the second conversion, RV Melville, and this ship was expected to return to Scripps Institute of Oceanography in February 1992. She was pleased to say that both vessels were expected to play a full part in the US WOCE programme in 1992. Finally, Ms Dieter said that a new icebreaker, the Nathaniel B Palmer was under construction in Louisiana, and was due to be handed over to NSF's Division of Polar Programmes in March 1992 on a 10 year lease. Dr Heinrichs said that, in the longer term, the Office of Naval Research had agreed to build Agor 24, which would replace the RV Thomas Washington at Scripps in about 1995, and Agor 25, which would replace the Atlantis II at Wood's Hole in about 1997. At that time, RV Knorr would be adapted to serve as support ship for the submersible Alvin. An outline specification had also been issued for an Arctic ship, with the University of Alaska taking the lead in the design process.
Dr Heinrichs said that the current priority assignment for submersibles in USA was NSF/ONR/NOAA science - other science - commercial users. After 1992, a proposal was being considered to drop the national priority, and suggest that international science should have some priority. He said that NSF could not provide support for international programmes, but would consider barter for programmes that might otherwise have to be paid for. He hoped that other nations with submersibles - i.e. IFREMER, JAMSTEC, USSR - would be equally responsive, and that ISOM would help in this process.
Dr Heinrichs noted that IFREMER had recently had to withdraw from a cruise that was an integral part of a two-year, two ship exercise. NSF had managed to recover some of the "lost" cruise time, but he sought the endorsement of ISOM to the principle that two-ship programmes ought not to be changed without international agreement. This view was agreed.
Mr Girard advised the meeting that IFREMER and NERC were jointly organising a symposium in late 1993 on trends and needs in marine research equipment. He suggested that the symposium could be associated with OCEANS93 in either Brest or Nice, and he would be contacting members of ISOM about representation.
Mr Ramster said that he had received a new UN form for notification of clearance to work in EEZ waters, and he said that he would send a copy for circulation with the minutes of the meeting. Mr Henegouw said that he saw little difference from the old form, but M. Rouzaud said that he had asked for more information about the new form.
Dr Fay asked whether ISOM should continue to meet on a regular basis, and whether additional representation should be invited. Mr Girard said that it was useful to ask these questions, and they should be a standing item on future agenda. He added that when doubt was expressed about continuance of the meetings, they should stop.
Dr Fay asked how many people would be likely to attend the meeting in Tokyo; he said that NERC would probably have a single representative. Mr Girard said that IFREMER would also probably have a single representative. Dr Heinrichs said that NSF would probably be represented by Ms Dieter and Mrs Rom, who had recently rejoined Ocean Sciences Division. Mr de Boer said that he would try to combine ISOM with other travelling that he had to do. Dr Sborshchikov and Mr Henegouw both indicated that they would have at most a single representative.
Mr Girard suggested that ISOM93 could be held in France again, in association with OCEANS93 and the equipment symposium.
1st draft by Frank Verdon, 15 October 1991
revised version Cok van Bergen Henegouw, 15 May 1992