Executive

THE SEA AND THE COAST II PROGRAMME

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 2001 REPORT

1. PREAMBLE

The NRF compiled this report for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), as part of its programme obligations.

The Sea and the Coast II Programme is jointly sponsored by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the National Research Foundation (NRF). This collaboration is undertaken as a joint venture and the contract for 2001 was formalised in November 2000 when it was signed by Mr Horst Kleinschmidt, Deputy Director General of Marine and Coastal Management of DEAT, and Dr Gerhard von Gruenewaldt, Vice President of the NRF. Both investors see this collaboration in research funding as a cost-effective and efficient means of attaining the convergent goals of the NRF and DEAT.

The NRF encapsulated the second phase of this programme - The Sea and Coast II Programme (2001-2006) into its Conservation and Management of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Focus Area. The following Thrusts were jointly supported in 2001:

· Coastal Processes

· Ocean Dynamics

· Marine Aquaculture

· Biodiversity

· Innovative Technology

· Tourism and Development

· Resources for the Future

2. PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

A. FUNDING

The joint sponsorship of the research programmes in 2001 was R5,059,999for The Sea and the Coast II Programme of which the DEA&T contributed R1,656,000. An additional amount of R199,231 was carried forward from the unspent funds to the 2001 financial year.

B. THRUST ADVISORY PANELS

Thrust Advisory Panels met in 2001 to consider the research plans and the level of support for 2002.

For logistical and financial purposes the NRF amalgamated the seven thrusts of the Sea and Coast II Programme for evaluation by only four Advisory Panels namely:

· Coastal and Oceanic Processes Panel consisting of the Coastal Processes and Ocean Dynamics Thrusts

· Marine Aquaculture Panel

· Ecology, Systematic and Conservation of Marine Life Panel consisting of the Biodiversity Thrust

· Sustainable Marine and Coastal Resources Panel consisting of Innovative Technology, Tourism and Development and Resources for the Future Thrusts

Consideration for the selection on the NRF Advisory Panels included appropriate expertise, scientific standing and representatives in terms of race, gender and regional representatives. The core of the NRF Advisory Panels remained constant with invitations to some other new members to provide opportunities for the wider research community to participate and gain insight into the research evaluation process. The membership of the NRF Advisory Panels was jointly agreed to by the South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research (SANCOR), NRF and Marine and Coastal Management of DEAT.

The evaluation process for the natural sciences was undertaken by applying the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool (Annexure A). Criteria for the MCDM included scoring the projects with regard to scientific excellence, NRF ratings, the team and linkages with other researchers/institutions, feasibility of the research, the promotion of science to the broader community, number of research students attracted to the project and corrective action. The funding amounts granted exponentially increased with an increase in MCDM scores.

The evaluation of social sciences and humanities was undertaken by a postal peer review process according to the following categories

Category 1: Quality of the Research Proposal

• Problem identification

• Approach

• Significance

• Feasibility

• Budget

Category 2: Impact of the proposed research

• Within the research community

• Outside the research community

Category 3: Research track record of applicant

• Quality of recent research-based outputs

• Research standing of applicant

• Relevance of recent research outputs

The applications accompanied by the peer review reports were then graded by an evaluation panel according to thefollowing scale:

A+ Strongly recommended
A- Recommended
B+ Recommended with minor revisions and can resubmit immediately

B- Recommended with major revisions and should resubmit in a subsequentyear
C Not recommended

All the successful applications were funded at the level recommended by the panel.

A. JOINT VENTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A Joint Venture Advisory Committee (JVAC) which was constituted in 1997 to manage the Joint Venture Agreement met on 19 November 2001to consider progress in the Sea and Coast Programme and to recommend on the financial support for 2002. The JVAC comprised of at least one executive level representative of both investors, the chairpersons of the different NRF Advisory Panels and the chairperson of the SANCOR Steering Committee. As per the Joint Venture Agreement an executive member of the NRF chaired this meeting. At this meeting MCM conveyed their appreciation and satisfaction with the management of the Joint Venture Agreement by the NRF as well as the SANCOR community's contribution to the success of this programme.

The NRF informed MCM that from 2003 onwards the NRF will adopt new funding philosophies and principles. In summary, the basic fundamental principles of this system were:

· Quality assessment which would be the driving factor of research capacity development

· Proposal based assessments

· Funding fewer proposals but to fund these more comprehensively

· Open access which would be achieved by introducing three entry point levels

Access Point I

Researchers applying to the Research Capacity Development (RCD) programmes would not be required to have a NRF-rating. They were eligible to apply for NRF funding for two years at a time up to a maximum period of six years, after which they must obtain a NRF-rating for further funding support.

Access Point II

Researchers applying to the Focus Areas Programme would not be required to have a NRF-rating. They were eligible to apply for NRF funding for two years at a time up to a maximum period of six years, after which they must obtain a NRF-rating for further funding support. These researchers would compete with NRF-rated researchers for the same pool of funds.

Access Point III

NRF-rated researchers applying to the Focus Areas Programme would be eligible for NRF funding up to maximum of five years at a time.

MCM agreed, in principle, that the day to day management of the Sea and Coast II Programme would remain the function of the Conservation and Management of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Focus Area of the NRF and that this programme would be managed within the guidelines of NRF policies and procedures, and the Joint Venture Agreement.

1. RESEARCH OUTPUTS FOR 2001

A. GRANT-HOLDERS

Forty-nine grant-holders were supported in the Sea and Coast II Programme for 2001 of which 41 were rated by the NRF as follows: A-rating 2; B-rating 18; C-rating 25 and Y-rating 1.

Three non-rated scientists (including principal grant-holders and funded team members) were supported in The Sea and the Coast II Programme with special dispensation by the NRF, as set out in the Joint Venture Agreement, and with the approval of the Marine and Coastal Management of the DEAT.

Of the 49 grant-holders, five (3%) female researchers and three (2%) black researchers were supported. One scientist was supported on sabbatical in 2001 and a total amount of R20 000 was allocated for this purpose.

The mean grant size has increased from 1996 to 2000, partly due to a decrease in the number of grant-holders (Figure 1). However there was a slight decline in the mean grant size in 2001 mainly as a result of unallocated grant-holder bursary funds reverting back to the NRF. This is reflected in Figure 2 where there was a decline in the number of bursaries allocated per grant holder from 2000 to 2001.

A. GRANT-HOLDER BURSARIES

A total of 105 NRF grant-holder linked bursaries was awarded in the Sea and Coast II Programme in 2001. This marks a great improvement (since 1996) of the number of students trained per grant-holder (Figure 2.)

Of these 105 students receiving bursaries, 57 were female, and 54 black (Figure. 3). The Sea and Coast Programme has thus reached its 1:1 target of black to white students, and for female to male students, a credit to the scientists involved in marine science in terms of equity, redress and capacity building objectives.

Figure 3. Proportion of black and female students

However, the majority (circa 90%) of grant-holders was still white and male. Although many post-graduate students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds were trained in the field of marine and coastal science very few of these students were actually retained within marine and coastal science after completing their degrees. Some factors attributing to the loss of young marine and coastal scientists include: unavailability of employment positions at universities/research institutions, perceived poor career prospects as scientists and more lucrative career opportunities in industry.

The marine and coastal science research community agreed (at workshops in April/May 2002) that SANCOR should initiate long-term plans for corrective action and collaboration to retain young researchers in marine and coastal science.

A. PUBLICATIONS

A total of 514 publications was produced in 2001 which constitutes 32% (N=1600) of the total number of publications produced since 1997. This appears to be a good return on investment (R10 000 per publication in 2001).Although Siegfried (unpublished) claimed in an overview of the Sea and Coast Programme in 2001 that that a high yield of products does not necessarily equate with a high yield of benefits, Figure 4 shows that, indeed, the majority of publications from 1997-2001 (circa 35%) was produced in international journals andcirca 17% in local journals which included internationally recognised journals such as the S.A. J. Mar. Sci.and the S.A.J. Sci.

Figure 4. Publication types produced in the Sea and Coast Programme for the period 1997-2001 (N=1600)

1. SEA AND COAST II PROGRAMME: THRUST WORKSHOPS

The NRF as the administrators of the Sea and Coast II Programme organised a series of workshops in April and May 2002. The reason for holding these workshops was that that there was a general lack of research co-ordination and cohesiveness within and between thrusts of this programme. As a solution, the Joint Venture Advisory Committee agreed and supported the concept of hosting thrust workshops within the Sea and Coast II Programme to achieve the following objectives:

· To strengthen the THRUSTS by consolidating projects and co-ordinating research

· To guide and prompt researchers to align their research according to the scope of the THRUSTS

· To encourage inter and intra-institutional co-operation and collaboration within the THRUSTS

· To strengthen the participation of previously disadvantaged groups and institutions

· To promote multidisciplinary research which includes the natural sciences, social sciences and engineering

Full copies of these workshop reports are appended herein as Document A.

5. CONCLUSION

This document marks the second year of the Sea and Coast II programme. As per this report, substantial progress is been made in the Sea and the Coast II Programme. It is apparent that the knowledge base that is being developed allows the informed and appropriate management of South Africa's marine and coastal resources, and that the appropriately-skilled human resources that are being developed will provide for South Africa's research and management needs for the future.

This success is in large part due to the dedication of SANCOR through its structures and members and to the two major marine and coastal science investors - the DEAT and the NRF - collaborating financially and intellectually in the Joint Venture Agreement. The marine and coastal science community of South Africa continues to be a national strength and the way marine and coastal science is managed through the Joint Venture Agreement allows for a significant cost saving and ultimately in the optimal use of available resources, both human and capital.

PREAMBLE

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SEA AND COAST II PROGRAMME

The Sea and Coast II Programme ispartnered by the South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research (SANCOR), the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA&T). The Vision for this programme is to:

Provide information, advice and training in support of optimal and sustainable

use and development of our sea, coasts and estuaries.

This programme encompasses applied and fundamental research and can be characterized by a problem-solving approach. Hence it is inherently multi-disciplinary in nature, promoting partnerships between marine and coastal researchers, economists and social scientists. The programme would also assist in redistributing scientific endeavour to the regions of South Africa which historically and traditionally have not received adequate coverage. It seeks to encourage the submission of projects that will either make conceptual and analytical advances at a high level or contribute to the management of local resources. The programme also offers opportunities to retain and to forge new international links and hence to ensure that internationally recognized standards and perspectives are maintained and obligations honoured. This would enhance our leadership role in an African context, and specifically through our SADC responsibilities and contacts.

Four major national needs were identified that include:

DEVELOPMENTof the country’s resources, which were identified as both human and natural resources.

CARINGfor the natural resources and their environment to ensure sustainability of development. Included would be: conserving biodiversity and protecting the environment to improve quality of life.

USING AND MANAGINGour environment in a sustainable way. This requires wise and informed decision-making support and policy to enhance food production but at the same time to reverse/reduce overexploitation of the natural environment.

UNDERSTANDINGthe environment through conducting research in natural science, social science and economics. Fundamental to development, care, use and managingis sound understanding and the foci of this understanding include: “processes that influence the abundance and health of resources”, “biological, physicaland chemical parameters that drive these processes”, “social needs and expectations”, “the economics of use”, and “indigenous knowledge”.

These four national needs were amalgamated into seven potential thrusts namely:

· Biodiversity

· Coastal Processes

· Ocean Dynamics

· Resources for the Future

· Tourism and Development

· Innovative Technologies

· Marine Aquaculture

It was acknowledged that, while individual thrusts may not address all needs simultaneously, the combination of the thrusts ensured a cohesive approach and also a good balance between the goals of promoting resource development and human advancement. The latter would specifically focus on corrective action.

This programme would also provide support for developing specialized skills and to provide for needs that are generic in nature that include:

· Statistical and numerate skills

· Communication and awareness

· Education

· Assessment and development of policy

· Student integration

· Scientific and management liaison

2. RATIONALE OF WORKSHOPS

Taking into account the rationale and aims of the Sea and Coast II Programme, representatives from the NRF Thrust Advisory Panels indicated at a Joint Venture Advisory Committee meeting in November 2001 that there was a general lack of research co-ordination and cohesiveness within and between thrusts of this programme. As a solution, the Joint Venture Advisory Committee agreed and supported the concept of SANCOR hosting thrust workshops within the Sea and Coast II Programme to achieve the following objectives:

· To strengthen the THRUSTS by consolidating projects and co-ordinating research

· To guide and prompt researchers to align their research according to the scope of the THRUSTS

· To encourage inter and intra-institutional co-operation and collaboration within the THRUSTS

· To strengthen the participation of previously disadvantaged groups and institutions

· To promote multidisciplinary research which includes the natural sciences, social sciences and engineering

3. Target audience

Open invitations were extended to:

· All existing NRF grant-holders and/or team members in the Sea and Coast II Programme

· Any other interested stakeholder

· Prospective new applicants

· SANCOR investor representatives (i.e. NRF and DEA&T)

4. WORKSHOP FORMAT

Background documents were distributed to participants in advance of the workshop. These documents included:

· The description of the Sea and Coast II Programme

· A summary of projects supported in the Sea and Coast II Programme for 2001 and 2002

· An assessment of "To what extent are the current projects addressing the Sea and Coast II Programme's objectives"

In general, each workshop (one-day) was divided into three sessions (format may have deviated slightly for the different workshops). These sessions comprised of:

An Introduction

In this session the workshop chairperson gave an overview of the Sea and Coast II Programme and highlighted the specific objectives of the workshops.

The Current Status: Where are we-at present?

In this session a presentation by the NRF highlighted the current status of Sea and Coast II Programme's thrusts in terms of projects supported, funding, student support and corrective action.

The Way Forward: Where to from here?

Presentations on the “NRF’s Evaluation Process for 2003”and the “Potential implications for the Sea and Coast II Programme”were given by NRF staff (For more information on the NRF Evaluation Process see the NRF Funding Guide for 2003 on the NRF website–(http://www.nrf.ac.za/funding/guide/index.stm). After which, discussions around the following issues were held:

Does the shoe fit?

· Is there a need to co-ordinate research and to align projects to the objectives of the Biodiversity Thrust?

· Do any research gaps and overlaps exist?

· If yes, how do we practically address these issues?

Opening the club

· How should we further promote inter -and intra-institutional collaboration?

· How should we bring on board historically disadvantaged institutions and individuals?

Catching it all

· Is there scope to promote multidisciplinary research?

· If yes, how do we go about promoting multidisciplinary research?

In closing, the chairpersons briefly summarized some concluding resolutions on the way forward.

PREAMBLE

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SEA AND COAST II PROGRAMME

The Sea and Coast II Programme is partnered by the South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research (SANCOR), the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA&T). The Vision for this programme is to:

Provide information, advice and training in support of optimal and sustainable

use and development of our sea, coasts and estuaries.

Four major national needs were identified that include:

DEVELOPMENT of the country’s resources, which were identified as both human and natural resources.

UNDERSTANDINGthe environment through conducting research in natural science, social science and economics. Fundamental to development, care, use and managing is sound understanding and the foci of this understanding include: “processes that influence the abundance and health of resources”, “biological, physical and chemical parameters that drive these processes”, “social needs and expectations”, “the economics of use”, and “indigenous knowledge”.

These four national needs were amalgamated into seven potential thrusts namely:

· Biodiversity

· Coastal Processes

· Ocean Dynamics

· Resources for the Future

· Tourism and Development

· Innovative Technologies

· Marine Aquaculture

This programme would also provide support for developing specialized skills and to provide for needs that are generic in nature that include:

· Statistical and numerate skills

· Communication and awareness

· Education

· Assessment and development of policy

· Student integration

· Scientific and management liaison

2. RATIONALE OF WORKSHOPS

· To strengthen the THRUSTS by consolidating projects and co-ordinating research

· To guide and prompt researchers to align their research according to the scope of the THRUSTS

· To encourage inter and intra-institutional co-operation and collaboration within the THRUSTS

· To strengthen the participation of previously disadvantaged groups and institutions

· To promote multidisciplinary research which includes the natural sciences, social sciences and engineering

3. Target audience

Open invitations were extended to:

· All existing NRF grant-holders and/or team members in the Sea and Coast II Programme

· Any other interested stakeholder

· Prospective new applicants

· SANCOR investor representatives (i.e. NRF and DEA&T)

4. WORKSHOP FORMAT

Background documents were distributed to participants in advance of the workshop. These documents included:

· The description of the Sea and Coast II Programme

· A summary of projects supported in the Sea and Coast II Programme for 2001 and 2002

· An assessment of "To what extent are the current projects addressing the Sea and Coast II Programme's objectives"

In general, each workshop (one-day) was divided into three sessions (format may have deviated slightly for the different workshops). These sessions comprised of:

An Introduction

In this session the workshop chairperson gave an overview of the Sea and Coast II Programme and highlighted the specific objectives of the workshops.

The Current Status: Where are we-at present?

In this session a presentation by the NRF highlighted the current status of Sea and Coast II Programme's thrusts in terms of projects supported, funding, student support and corrective action.

The Way Forward: Where to from here?

Does the shoe fit?

· Is there a need to co-ordinate research and to align projects to the objectives of the Biodiversity Thrust?

· Do any research gaps and overlaps exist?

· If yes, how do we practically address these issues?

Opening the club

· How should we further promote inter -and intra-institutional collaboration?

· How should we bring on board historically disadvantaged institutions and individuals?

Catching it all

· Is there scope to promote multidisciplinary research?

· If yes, how do we go about promoting multidisciplinary research?

In closing, the chairpersons briefly summarized some concluding resolutions on the way forward.

BIODIVERSITY THRUST WORKSHOP

DATE: 19 April 2002

VENUE: Durban

PARTICIPANTS: see Appendix A for attendance list

1. INTRODUCTION

South Africa is located in a unique position globally, being influenced by waters of the Indian, Atlantic and Southern Oceans. The sheer range of physico-chemical conditions, the habitat diversity and the range of exposure along our coastline create a richness in marine biodiversity unequalled elsewhere in the world. This rich biodiversity is of enormous economic importance, not only for direct harvesting of resources but also for its tourism potential (e.g. whale watching, seabird viewing, diving, fishing) and for the extraction of chemical products and the use of medicinal products by indigenous coastal people. This unique heritage is under threat by a wide range of activities, including the introduction of alien species, pollution, over-harvesting, coastal development, fishing and mining activities.

Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, South Africa is obliged to provide adequate protection for its flora and fauna. To do this, we need to understand the factors that influence biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and to develop ways of minimizing adverse human impacts. The emphasis of this thrust will be on studies that will increase the understanding or underpin the management of ecosystems.

The broad scope includes:

· Identifying the factors that affect biodiversity and ecosystem

· Identifying developmental and research opportunities presented by biodiversity

· Minimising deleterious effects of human activities e.g. alien introduction, mining, pollution and fishing

· Developing indices of ecosystem health

· Ensuring the development of an adequate network of marine protected areas (MPAs)

· Assessing the function and effectiveness of MPAs

· Providing the taxonomic, systematic and evolutionary studies necessary to document our fauna and flora and their phylogenetic relationships

· Developing skills and providing training to generate the expertise necessary to manage our biodiversity

The outcomes include:

· An inventory of those groups of South Africa’s marine flora and fauna necessary for the understanding and management of marine ecosystems

· Clarification of the systematics and evolutionary biology of neglected groups of fauna and flora

· An analysis of spatial distribution of biodiversity at various scales to allow rational planning of conservation areas, resource allocation and development

· Identification of species used as medicines or for their biologically active properties

· Identification of stocks that are genetically separated and require independent management

· Provision of advice to ensure a network of protected areas sufficient to ensure conservation of biodiversity and support for fisheries management

· Contributions to the development of economic opportunities and job creation by way of ecotourism

· Promotion and development of environmental education and educational resources, such as signage and guide books

· Production of identification guides and spatial analyses of distribution patterns

· Identification of human impacts adversely affecting biodiversity and means of reducing these impacts

· Production of skilled personnel and well trained students and managers

2. CURRENT STATUS: WHERE ARE WE – AT PRESENT?

Projects supported

A summary of the projects supported in the Biodiversity Thrust for 2001 and 2002 is shown in Appendix B.

Funding status

The total funding allocated to, the total number of projects supported and the average grant size in the Biodiversity Thrust and the Sea and Coast II Programme for 2001 and 2002 are illustrated in Table 2.1. In both 2001 and 2002, 30% of the Sea and Coast II Programme’s total funding was allocated to the Biodiversity Thrust.

Table 2.1 Funding Status (in rands) of the Biodiversity Thrust in 2001 and 2002

	Total funding: Sea and Coast II	Average grant size	Total funding: Biodiversity	Average grant size	Biodiversity Thrust as % of total funding
2001	5,112,999	81,200 (n= 63)	1,521,549	69,200 (n=22)	30
2002	6,438,344	111,000 (n=58)	1,955,024	97,800 (n=20)	30

Capacity building status

A total of 25 and 30 grant-holder linked bursaries were allocated in the Biodiversity Thrust in 2001 and 2002 respectively (Fig 2.1.). Of these bursaries, approximately 40% were allocated to “black” students and 50% were allocated to female students. Hence this thrust is doing quite well in terms of student transformation, however very little transformation has occurred with current grant-holders and team members. Figure 2.2. shows that approximately 90% (n=17) of the grant-holders and more than 70% (n=24) of the team members were still white male. White females, and black males and females remain underrepresented. Likewise, more than 80% of the current grant-holders and team members were based at historically white institutions resulting in researchers from technikons and/or historically black institutions being marginalized. It is acknowledged that there are many “reasons” for this scenario, which are discussed later in this report.

Figure 2.1 The Proportion of black and females students (grant-holder linked bursaries) in the Biodiversity thrust in 2001 and 2002

Figure 2.2 The Percentage of grant-holders (G/H) and team members (TM) by race and gender in the Biodiversity Thrust in 2002

1. WAY FORWARD: WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Does the shoe fit?

Is there a need to co-ordinate research and to align projects to the scope of the Biodiversity Thrust?

An assessment undertaken by the NRF Advisory Panels provided an indication of how well the scope of the Biodiversity Thrust was being addressed by the total number of projects supported in 2002 (Appendix C). This assessment showed that the currently funded projects in the Biodiversity Thrust were indeed fitting the scope fairly well. Workshop participants felt that individual researchers should ensure that their proposals were “fitting the shoe” however this“fit” should not limit academic freedom as the NRF’s mandate included both basic and applied research.

In addition, it was indicated that the above approach to assess the status of marine and coastal biodiversity research in South Africa was very parochial because the NRF only funded a portion of biodiversity research programmes. South African scientists needed to look at biodiversity research in an all-encompassing manner which included research at species level to research at community and higher levels. The outcome of this co-ordination should be a “meta – science”approach for biodiversity research.

Do any research gaps and overlaps exist?

Although the projects fitted the overall scope of the Biodiversity thrust, some of the anticipated outcomes were not being fulfilled by this suite of projects. These were:

a. The identification of species used as medicines or for their biologically active properties

Research activities were being undertaken in other thrusts of the Sea and Coast II Programme (e.g. Resources for the future) which were indirectly related to the Biodiversity Thrust. For example, the outcome of species identification and taxonomy would be used by researchers who were testing for biologically-active compounds. Researchers engaged in these activities and who were funded in the Sea and Coast II Programme included Prof Davies-Coleman of Rhodes University and Prof Mulholland of Natal University. Many other similar projects (outside of the Sea and Coast II Programme) were being undertaken by the pharmaceutical and medical departments at the University of Cape Town, Rhodes University, University of the Western Cape and the University of Witwatersrand. There, however, remained a need to co-ordinate and manage these research activities to ensure (among others) that the identification of organisms was properly catalogued, referenced and archived. Concern was also raised that the new Biodiversity Act and its legal stipulations may impede future research on the identification of organisms for medicinal purposes.

b. An analysis of spatial distribution of biodiversity at various scales to allow rational planning of conservation areas, resource allocation and development

At present the projects within the Biodiversity Thrust were looking at biodiversity at the species level and very little research was focused at a community or landscape level. This issue was considered to be important and researchers were asked to flag this when initiating future research programmes.

In addition, there was a need to pro-actively integrate research outputs for policy making and management. For example, the scientific information and outputs on marine and coastal biodiversity should be converted into a format that can be used for conservation planning, environmental and resource management, and sustainable development. There was also a need to undertake long-term ecological research for monitoring as well as for comparative studies.

c. An inventory of those groups of South Africa’s marine flora and fauna necessary for the understanding and management of marine ecosystems

The current research projects in the Biodiversity Thrust appeared to incorporate a wide range of marine organisms in South Africa. The broad groupings (species number in brackets) included:

· Mixed reef communities

· Algae (ca 840)

· Porifera (289)

· Cnidaria (842)

· Nematoda (338)

· Annelida (766)

· Mollusca (3062)

· Crustacea (2333)

· Chelicerata (115)

· Bryozoa (280)

· Echinodermata (410)

· Urochordata (220)

· Pisces (2000)

· Aves (222)

· Mammalia (43)

This list was, however, underrepresented - considering the extent of organisms that remained to be researched. Researchers were asked to take cognisance of studies on the different life stages of an organism when compiling biodiversity inventories.

How do we practically address these research gaps and overlaps?

To understand how much biodiversity research was currently being conducted in South Africa, who was funding it and what were the end products, it would be necessary to obtain an overall inventory of all biodiversity research initiatives in South Africa. As a number of marine and coastal biodiversity research initiatives in South Africa were not funded under the Sea and Coast II Programme it was difficult to ascertain “real”research gaps and overlaps. Hence, there was an urgent need to compile this inventory by asking the marine and coastal science research community (especially current grant-holders within the Biodiversity Thrust) to inform SANCOR of other biodiversity initiatives they were involved in. This request would be posted in the SANCOR Newsletter and the inventory would eventually be posted onto the SANCOR website.

OCEAN DYNAMICS THRUST WORKSHOP

DATE: 29 April 2002

VENUE: Cape Town

PARTICIPANTS: see Appendix D for attendance list

1. INTRODUCTION

South Africa has an enormous marine region within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), larger than the land area. Moreover, major oceans that play a crucial role in global and regional climate variability surround it on three sides. Interactions between these ocean forces are the focus of international attention. Many of the major driving forces governing the oceanography of the shelf are large-scale, oceanic features, which need to be investigated. Sea states, currents and waves affect marine transport, naval operations and fisheries operations, as well as productivity of the living resources.

Marine populations respond over decadal time scales to changes induced by climate variability. Both productivity and behavioural changes occur, manifested as regime shifts, distributional changes and alteration in dynamic processes such as recruitment success and growth rates. This variability has important repercussions for management and utilization of these resources. South Africa has a proud reputation for inter-institutional and multidisciplinary research in coastal and oceanic waters and that tradition should be maintained. Generation of data to detect changes in dynamic processes and long term trends are essential to facilitate adaptive management of resources in coastal and shelf waters.

This thrust will continue to involve physical, chemical and biological oceanographers and fisheries scientists, using new technology such as satellite imagery, acoustics, numerical modelling and new oceanographic survey techniques and the scope includes

· Basic studies of productive mechanisms coupled with fisheries investigations and surveys on the continental shelf to examine the dynamics of regional fisheries, including previously neglected areas such as the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal continental shelves

· International research cruises with South African scientists providing information on the large-scale oceanic processes

· Investigations of the oceanography of seamounts and continental slopes as part of the development of new deepwater resources (e.g. Prince Edward Islands)

· Weather, climate change and ocean processes

The outcomes include

· Information for operational shipping, naval, fishing and mining activities

· Possible causes of short-term variability of living resources from the nearshore to the oceanic region

· Basic data for the detection of long-term changes in the environment and resources

· Information for the improvement of weather and climate predictions

· Enhancing South Africa’s capacity to participate in international initiatives taking place in regional waters

· Development of high tech methods of real-time ocean monitoring and prediction

2. CURRENT STATUS: WHERE ARE WE – AT PRESENT?

Projects supported

A summary of the projects supported in the Ocean Dynamics Thrust for 2001 and 2002 is shown in Appendix E.

Funding status

The total funding allocated to, the total number of projects supported and the average grant size in the Ocean Dynamics Thrust and the Sea and Coast II Programme for 2001 and 2002 are illustrated in Table 3.1. In 2001 and 2002, 18% and 16% of the Sea and Coast II Programme’s total funding was allocated to the Ocean Dynamics Thrust respectively. The average grant size in this thrust was substantially higher than the average grant size of the overall Sea and Coast II Programme mainly because ofthe high cost of operating at sea and other relatively high costs involved in doing oceanographic research.

Table 3.1 Funding Status (in rands) of the ocean dynamics Thrust in 2001 and 2002

	Total funding: Sea and Coast II	Average grant size	Total funding: Ocean Dynamics Thrust	Average grant size	Ocean Dynamics Thrust as % of total funding
2001	5,112,999	81,200 (n= 63)	935,000	311,667 (n=3)	18
2002	6,438,344	111,000 (n=58)	1,047,500	349,167 (n=3)	16

Capacity building status

A total of 17 and 10 grant-holder linked bursaries were allocated in the Ocean Dynamics Thrust in 2001 and 2002 respectively (Fig 3.1.). Of these bursaries, more than 50% were allocated to “black” students and more than 40% were allocated to female students. Hence this thrust is doing quite well in terms of student transformation, however very little transformation has occurred with current grant-holders and team members. Figure 3.2. shows that 100% (n=3) of the grant-holders and 60% (n=27) of the team members were still white male. White females, and black males and females remain underrepresented. Likewise, 100% of the current grant-holders and 90% of the team members were based at historically white institutions resulting in researchers from technikons and/or historically black institutions being marginalized. It is acknowledged that there are many “reasons” for this scenario, which are discussed later in this report.

Figure 3.1The Proportion of black and females students (grant-holderlinked bursaries) in the ocean dynamics Thrust in 2001 and 2002

Figure 3.2The Percentage of grant-holders (G/H) and team members (TM) by race and gender in the ocean dynamics Thrust in 2002

1. WAY FORWARD: WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Does the shoe fit?

Is there a need to co-ordinate research and to align projects to the objectives of the Ocean Dynamics Thrust?

An assessment undertaken by the NRF Advisory Panels provided an indication of how well the scope of the Ocean Dynamics Thrust was being addressed by the total number of projects supported in 2002 (Appendix F). This assessment showed that the currently funded projects in the Ocean Dynamics Thrust were indeed fitting the scope fairly well. Grant holders in this thrust were located in the Western Cape and there were already extensive collaborative and co-ordination efforts.

Do any research gaps and overlaps exist?

None of the current projects addressed the scope “To investigate the oceanography of seamounts and continental slopes as part of the development of new deepwater resources”. Marine and Coastal Management indicated that past research has been undertaken on the seamounts and continental slopes off the east coast of South Africa to investigate new deepwater resources. However, there remained a need to undertake basic studies of the productive mechanisms coupled with fisheries investigations and surveys on the continental shelf to examine the dynamics of regional fisheries of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal continental shelves.

Other research areas that were identified as gaps include:

· Integrating atmospheric studies with physical oceanography

· Seamount biodiversity research

· Studies on “Large Marine Ecosystems” to understand the marine environment on the East Coast of South Africa.

How do we practically address these issues?

Many of the identified research gaps overlap with other thrusts within the Sea and Coast II Programme, and the workshop delegates felt that there was a need to hold an inter-thrust national workshop with all the NRF grant-holders where cross-cutting issues and projects can be discussed. This would hopefully lead to an ecosystem approach to marine and coastal science and it was suggested that the research community should have a session at SAMSS 2002 to identify the “real”gaps and overlaps in research.

opening the club

How should we further promote inter -and intra-institutional collaboration?

Virtually none (or else “Very little”) little oceanographic research was being undertaken in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.

Some reasons, among others, for the lack of oceanographic research along the east coast of South Africa include:

· Lack of research facilities especially the availability of research vessels to undertake oceanographic work and surveys

· Limited research expertise

Ø The oceanography departments at UPE and UN have closed

Ø ORI staff were focused on applied fisheries research with limited focus on fundamental research

Potential solutions

a. To build on current research initiatives in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal for example

Ø The South West Indian Oceanography research collaboration with the Dutch. This large-scale oceanography programme falls within the International Programme CLIVAR which is a successor to WOCE

Ø The Acoustic Thermometry Network in the Indian Ocean (Apparently Durban has been identified as a receiving node).

Ø The Indian Ocean- Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) which is a collaborative initiative between South Africa, Australia and India.

THE SEA AND THE COAST II PROGRAMME_Executive // <![CDATA[ _spBodyOnLoadFunctionNames.push("setupPageDescriptionCallout"); // ]]>

Executive

The broad scope includes:

The outcomes include

THE SEA AND THE COAST II PROGRAMME_Executive