Dear colleagues,
three weeks filled with reflections and discussions on various aspects of the future development of BIOTA have passed since the Statusseminar in Wuerzburg. With this letter I would like to give a first feedback on the road ahead, more specifically, on possible future structures. Besides various comments from workshop participants I now also received the recommendations from the BIOLOG review panel, which I attach to this mail. Later in this text, you will find a list of criteria for the internal review process, which had been developed by the present chairs from Namibia, South Africa and Germany, two weeks ago, and some instructions for the design of the draft proposal.
I Recommendations from the review panel
In the following I briefly translate and interpret the most important topics. (The emphasis is on “interpretation”)
************************************************************************
Start of recommendations from review panel
************************************************************************
The main résumé of the review panel is that BIOTA Southern Africa made a good impression. Therefore, we are invited/encouraged to submit a detailed proposal for a third phase by 30th of June 2006.
Due to a new law practice, we will have to work out a new structure for fluxes of finances. A continuation of the former praxis of sub-contracts (with the University of Hamburg) would in future result in financial losses (Hamburg would have to pay taxes). Therefore, DLR/PT will develop new structures. These, and their consequences, are still to be discussed. The overall budget for phase III of the BIOLOG programme will remain the same financial volume as the budget of phase II.
1. Recommendations of the review panel for BIOTA AFRICA:
During phase III concrete results for practical application and the provision of user-friendly, concrete products are requested (“printed products”, “models”, “structures”, “management plans”, “benchmarks”, “competence” are mentioned here as examples). Goals for phase III need to be clearly achievable within phase III, i.e. until 2009! Cooperation with stakeholders, NGOs and GOs should be intensified. Here, we are asked to prove in all detail who/which institution wishes to use our results/products and who in Africa will carry our work further into the future! These points shall be developed by us in a participatory approach!
Therefore, our work plans should be structured along problems, which need to be solved. For each single discipline we have to show why and how the discipline is an essential element to solve a problem.
The continental vision must be strongly followed up by all BIOTA AFRICA groups. The data management requires a far higher attention. The creation of a BIOTA wide information centre is recommended.
Similar activities / goals, followed up within BIOTA West, East and South have to be aligned more strongly and have to use standardized methods. This aspect should cover all sorts of activities as e.g. the initiation of medicinal botanical gardens, the monitoring activities at observatories and the data management.
2. Recommendations from the review panel for BIOTA SOUTHERN AFRICA:
The BIOTA South team gave a convincing presentation, in spite of the fact, that towards the end (economic component) the description of problem clusters was very broad, while the user and implementation perspective remained very narrow and was not sufficiently focused. Here, a convincing strategy for the implementation is requested. Gender aspects should be covered, if possible already during the remaining part of phase II.
The review panel noted that conservancies, although presenting an important element of biological resource management, have not been covered by the project. We are asked to explore the possibility to do this step for phase III.
The structure of the proposal (see attachment A, below, mainly a repetition of the five integrative main themes) is accepted as a structure for phase III. For the conceptualisation it is important to focus on goals, which have an applied value for users and which could later be continued based on local resources.
The integration of a specialist on information techniques is supported. Here, a joint activity with BIOTA West and East is requested.
It is recommended to integrate parts of the microbiological activities, earlier carried out in BIOLOG Europe.
The next application must be harmonized with GTZ and KfW activities supporting the land reform in Namibia. In the application we should also explain the role and expected results of the DS&T projects.
************************************************************************
End of recommendations from review panel
************************************************************************
II Suggestions for further procedure
I had a thorough look at all the subprojects, pre-proposals, clusters and work-packages of the project and tried to evaluate our current state of planning. My most important observation is that it is essential to create a more coherent and complete overall structure.
The phase III application should have a different format as compared with the phase II application: At the change from Phase I to Phase II a number of new project elements/ideas proposed by the (new) African participants were accepted by the review panel, since they only got the chance to start during phase II of the project. However, now, we need to be far more integrated and focused to solutions. Therefore, I see the necessity to make much clearer proposals, how to proceed. My suggestions do not refer to individual pre-proposals or clusters this will be the job of the internal review panel. I rather would like to recommend a new structure and a new level of integrative planning.
Suggestion 1
We need to show convincingly that each activity in the application contributes an essential structural element to the overall architecture (no “shopping list”). This can be reached by using the same terminology, by structuring the project after the well-known headings (i.e., integrative main themes) and by creating a coherent structure.
Suggestion 2
The formulation of all planned activities should reflect, as far as possible, either the problem, which needs to be solved or the solution we want to achieve. For example, at the level of the main integrative themes we should no longer talk of main integrate themes but rather formulate them (as far as possible) as problem areas which need a scientific approach for their solution. The following formulations are not necessarily a huge improvement, however, somewhat more appropriate than the very neutral “theme”.
Problem Area I:
Monitoring and understanding the change of biodiversity at several scales
à Activities (on different spatial scales):
· Measuring changes at observatories
· Measuring changes within landscapes along gradients
· Measuring changes at larger scale (biogeographical approaches)
à Products:
· Trend analysis
· Driver identification
· Forecasting
· Threshold identification
· Information service (web, media, printed media, policy transformation)
Problem Area II
Understanding natural Processes of change
à Activities: …
à Products: …
Problem Area III
Understanding human use, value and impact in space and time
à Activities:
à Products:
Problem Area IV
Developing and testing interventions (strategies, tools, techniques) for sustainable use of biodiversity and biodiversity management
à Activities:
à Products:
Problem Area V
Developing and testing ways of transformation of research results towards application by stakeholders on local, national and international level
à Activities:
à Products:
Suggestion 3
We should create appropriate structures for the different spatial scales, scientific goals, and methods. At each scale all existing elements should be adequately displayed and formulated.
For the following discussion of these scales please refer to the attached powerpoint graph [“Biota Phase III Structures.ppt”].
Suggestion 3a
We should explain our cooperation at Level A (international scientific environment) or B (African scientific environment). [compare III B-15]
Suggestion 3b
At Level C we should strongly present the continental scale of BIOTA AFRICA, i.e. integrating beyond the boundaries of BIOTA West, East and South [compare III B-15].This will obviously be feasible with regard to the topics “Monitoring and understanding the change of biodiversity (at observatories = within ecosystems)”, (in cooperation with other networks) and with regard to the activities of the “BioMaps project (biogeographical approach)”. Similarly, certain topics like the ecosystem role of termites and ants have already been established at the continental level. Probably there are more parallel topics, which need to be identified.
For their identification and development, I would request that
(a) each participant (using her/his specialists viewpoint) analyses the respective activities in all three regional BIOTA groups and sends recommendations for further collaboration, once parallel topics are identified and discussed with the relevant colleagues.
(b) we plan a joint evaluation of such parallels between BIOTA West/East/South during end of January, early February.
Suggestion 3c
At Level D and E we need to show still stronger cooperation and integration. Here, I would like to remind you of the presentations of BIOTA East and West at the status seminar, which partly were based on the spatial concentration to only one joint research area (Kakamaga and Penjari). Compared to such a rounded-up shape, quite a number of our new pre-proposals are directed cross-country away from the observatories and the transect. I do not say that this is not meaningful, however, we should define the balance, newly. Therefore please consider the following three steps as part of your draft proposal:
(a) We should integrate all activities within one of the 5 major biomes by incorporating a new Level E into our application (in the attached ppt I included the Nama Karoo under Savannah s.l.). These biomes are sufficiently similar with regard to their ecology, land use and environmental problems to allow overall statements, which integrate data from various projects or observatories within the biome. Furthermore, the presentation of this new element within the application will avoid the impression that we abandon the transect approach and now embark on a strong savannah focus, solely. The Level E within our application will explain how the different activities within a specific biome address important and specific problems of this biome, which are different from the important topics within other biomes. We should identify responsible persons for each biome within each country. These persons should help to create strong cooperation within the specific biome. [compare III B-13]
(b) Each workpackage should point out which activities will be carried out by which person, by when at which observatory (or which part of the transect), resulting in which data quality, available when in which format for use by other groups or at the website. The applied standardised methodology with its scales and data formats should also be named. I will shortly provide again all necessary information for the botanical aspects. I would like to invite all zoological groups within the project to join their forces and develop a plan how they will be able to generate at least one standardised adequately-complete inventory of important taxa (aves, lepidoptera, tenebrionid beetles, ants, termites, …….???) for all observatories. I would also like to invite the socioeconomic groups to come up with a set of relevant economic, social, demographic, agricultural, … data for the landscape around the observatories. All these data shall be transferred to the website in a timely way. [compare III B-8 and 12]
(c) Other projects which do not contribute to the knowledge of inventories, processes, experiments, rehabilitation, … at observatories should please explain why their research is not or only partly linked to the observatories/transects. [III B-8]
(d) We need to show a strong integration of the DS&T projects. Please refer to these and explain their role [under III B-12].
III The production of “Draft proposals” till end of January
Based on all these reflections, during the next weeks we will have to formulate draft proposals which should be sufficiently well elaborated to allow two steps:
Step 1: internal review procedure resulting in full support, limited support or rejection of single proposals
Step 2: integration of all accepted proposals (or elements of these) into a new convincing overall proposal
For step 1 we have developed a list of criteria which will support the integration of three different aspects:
(a) the continuation of the already developed identity of the BIOTA AFRICA project,
(b) the adequate development of exciting new research goals and
(c) the paradigms of the funding institution (in this case: BMBF).
Please make sure that you give the relevant information in consideration of these criteria, even if not all aspects are explicitly requested in the guidelines for the draft proposals under “B” (below). Simply turn the following questions into answers and supply the relevant information.
III A List of criteria for internal review:
I Scientific criteria
1. Are the proposed methods and approaches adequate and appropriate?
2. Does the team [workpackage] have the required expertise to answer/research the questions?
3. Has this team [workpackage] delivered adequately in earlier phases within BIOTA project (if appropriate) or demonstrated a track record of delivery in this field?
a. Publications (peer-reviewed journals)?
b. Development of tools?
c. Contributions to monitoring at observatories?
d. Added adequately to capacity development in the past (if applicable)?
4. Will the research result in products that enhance sustainable management of biodiversity?
5. Will the workpackage [team] [proposals] contribute to maintaining the long-term monitoring goal at BIOTA Observatories?
II Output criteria re: application
6. Are the deliverables clearly specified?
7. Are the deliverables achievable?
8. Are the end-users of the product defined?
9. Is the project relevant for the host country?
10. Is the pathway to solutions realistic?
a. Are stakeholders appropriately consulted and integrated?
b. Is this workpackage [proposal] adequately integrated within the overall project/the biome clusters?
11. Does the workpackage [proposal] develop capacity?
a. Within communities?
b. Universities?
c. Regional to national structures?
12. Does the workpackage contribute to a stronger integration between BIOTA West, East and South?
13. Do products of the workpackage qualify for innovative presentation at the BIOTA website?
III Logistic criteria