SOUTH AFRICAN NETWORK FOR COASTAL AND OCEANIC RESEARCH

Report of the SEAChange thematic workshops

Environmental Education and Resources Unit, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, 13-16 February 2006

Compiled by Kim Prochazka

This report captures the gist of discussions held during the SEAChange thematic workshops. The report is structured around each of the four programme themes, namely Biotechnology, Ecosystem Functioning, Ecosystems & Change, and Ecosystems & Society, in the order in which the workshops were held. Within each theme is given a record of those present, notes on discussions of a general nature or pertaining to the larger programme, notes on the research scope with the theme, tools methods and approaches mentioned, and the results of the election of Working Group representatives to the Programme Management Committee. The programme for the workshops is provided as Appendix A.

The objectives of the thematic workshops were as follows:

  1. To develop research directions under the four themes of the SEAChange Programme
  2. To co-ordinate research under the four programme themes
  3. To initiate dialogue between natural and social scientists
  4. To explore the ways in which each theme will contribute to the overall objectives of the programme
  5. To establish Working Groups within each of them, and to elect a representative from each Working Group to the Programme Management Committee

The following ‘hard’ outcomes were expected from the four workshops:

  1. Detailed description of research directions within each theme
  2. Statement of how each theme proposes to contribute towards the overall objectives of the programme
  3. Establishment of four Working Groups (one per theme) and the election of a representative of each of these to the Programme Management Committee

These ‘hard’ outcomes will be incorporated in or appended to the SEAChange Programme Document. The following ‘soft’ outcomes were also expected:

  1. Co-ordination of research and collaboration between scientists working in similar fields, on similar study organisms, in similar ecosystems, etc.
  2. Improved dialogue, co-ordination and collaboration between natural and social scientists.

The workshops were open to the entire SANCOR membership, and all SANCOR members were encouraged to attend.

Working group: Biotechnology

Monday 13th February 2006

Present

Munyaradzi Saruchera, Adiel Soeker, Stephanie Plön, Cloverley Lawrence, Pavs Pillay, Lucinda Fairhurst, Ronel Nel, Renee le Roux, Jocelyn Collins, Kim Prochazka, Lisa Maddison (11)

General Discussion

The assembled group did not feel confident that they had sufficient expertise in the field of biotechnology to be able to comprehensively address the research scope of this theme. There was extensive discussion around the definition of biotechnology, but no working definition emerged.

There was general agreement that research within this theme should be driven by societal needs. There was also agreement that early-stage development (i.e. during the fundamental research stage of the technology development) should be encouraged rather than late-stage (i.e. towards market or production stages), as other avenues for funding of late-stage development already exist, in particular the Innovation Fund, accessible through the NRF.

Discussions also explored whether or not the theme of biotechnology should encompass the development of new research tools. Disparate examples which were provided to illustrate this point included further development of genetic techniques, and the development of better harnesses for attaching tracking equipment to marine turtles. The group decided that at least for now the development of research tools could be included in this theme, so long as this was done as a research project itself and resulted in publication(s) on this technology. The other option for the development of new research tools which was put forward was to include the development of these within larger research projects which primarily address research questions within the other programme themes, but which include a component to develop the new technology necessary to carry out the research.

Research Scope

Two possible broad areas were identified within the theme of biotechnology, namely the research into and development of biotechnology itself, and the wider implications of this technology on natural and societal systems.

1. Biotechnology

a. To fulfill the needs of science.

The following list was compiled as examples to illustrate the direction of thought at the workshop:

  • Scientific and research tools and methods (such as genetic techniques)
  • Equipment (such as improved turtle harnesses)
  • Process
  • Prototypes

b. To fulfill the needs of society.

Within this area, the group reverted to using the distinctions drawn by the SEAChange Regional Workshop held in Cape Town on 31 August 2005, at which representatives of the biotechnology fraternity were present:

  • Biochemistry
  • Mariculture
  • Use of natural products
  • Genetics (biology, tools, GMOs)

2. Implications

It was recognized that the development of new technology and research into biotechnology may have far-reaching implications which also require research. Examples included:

  • Ethical, e.g. around GMOs, organism-level ethics, cloning, etc.
  • Economic, e.g. health & safety issues, coastal economies, fisheries economics, etc.
  • Social, e.g. health & safety implications, impacts on coastal communities, indigenous knowledge systems, etc.
  • Governance, e.g. rights, coastal communities, bio-piracy, benefit sharing, ownership rights, indigenous knowledge and related rights, liability, policy development, etc.
  • Environmental, e.g. impacts of GMOs, escapees from mariculture, pollution, etc.
  • Protocols, e.g. authentication, testing, verification, standards development, etc.

Those present at the workshop were not confident that the research scope outlined above would necessarily be appropriate to the theme of biotechnology, and suggested that this should be elaborated on at a later date by a group of people more qualified, and involved in, biotechnology research.

Election of Working Group representative to Project Management Committee

The assembled group did not feel comfortable that they were the correct forum from which to elect someone to represent the Biotechnology theme on the Programme Management Committee. It was agreed that this process could be adequately completed by e-mail in consultation with the wider SANCOR membership. It was also recommended that an additional workshop be held for this theme at a time convenient to those who work in the biotechnology field.

WORKING GROUP: ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING

Tuesday 14th February 2006

Present

Ane Oosthuizen, Renee le Roux, Johan Lutjeharms, Steven Weerts, Mike Roberts, George Branch, Cloverley Lawrence, Pavs Pillay, Toufiek Samaai, Kerry Sink, Coleen Moloney, Christopher McQuaid, Rob Anderson, Dawid Ghebrehiwet, Sakhile Tsotsobe, Peter Best, Lucinda Fairhurst, Nadine Strydom,

Gavin Maneveldt, Doug Butterworth, Johan Pauw, Stephanie Plön, Ronel Nel, Sean Fennessy, Fiona Mackay, Sophie van der Heyden, Warrick Sauer, Jocelyn Collins, Kim Prochazka, Lisa Maddison (30)

General Discussion

The group defined the scale of the ecosystem as ranging from very wide (LME-scale) to very small (habitat-level, such as rocky shore, sandy beach, continental shelf, etc).

There was extensive discussion around how best to achieve co-ordination of research within the programme. Three possible options were put forward for discussion:

Option 1 – Pre-determination of logical combinations.

In this option, research gaps are identified, and projects addressing these gaps will receive a small weighting in their favour.

Option 2 – Revision and re-alignment of proposals.

This option involves the pre-submission of letters of intent or concept papers to the Working Groups which will review these and suggest areas for co-ordination and improvements to the projects. This would be an internal SANCOR process, independent of the NRF. Participation would be on a voluntary basis, as the NRF would still consider proposals that had not been through this process.

Option 3 - Individual proposals with ongoing annual integration.

This option uses the annual Working Group meetings (budgeted for within grants) to compare and integrate the research, share information, and agree on a way forward. The end goal would be to produce high-level syntheses of the research done within the programme in the form of reviews in international publications.

This working group asked that these options be discussed by the Working Groups for the remainder of the week.

This group also requested that it be made clear in the SEAChange Programme Document that the Working Group representatives elected to the Programme Management Committee serve a term of office of one year, although a representative may be re-elected for concurrent years.

Research Scope

Two major areas of research into ecosystem functioning were identified – that which is descriptive of the ecosystem and that which examines ecosystem processes.

1. Ecosystem description

a. Definition and delimitation of the physical environment

  • Recruitment patterns and processes
  • Defining bioregions, ocean provinces, regional and geographic definition
  • Seabed mapping
  • Near-shore oceanography (physical and biological oceanography)
  • Chemical oceanography
  • Mapping biotopes (e.g. reefs, seamounts, etc.)

b. Composition

  • Biodiversity
  • Taxonomy & systematics
  • Species delimitation and genetic boundaries
  • Assemblage structure
  • Ecological interactions
  • Offshore and deep-sea biota (from 30m depth)
  • Taxonomic gaps (particularly small, deep-sea, microbial)
  • Taxonomy of larval stages
  • Fish taxonomy (in light of fish taxonomists retiring and leaving the system)
  • Microbial ecology

c. Organization

  • Trophic composition
  • Species diversity
  • Microbial ecology
  • Energy and material flows

2. Ecosystem processes

a. Physical

  • Waves
  • Wind
  • Tides
  • Currents
  • Rivers
  • Temperature
  • Turbidity
  • Upwelling
  • Near-shore oceanography (physical and biological oceanography)
  • Land-sea interactions, e.g. freshwater requirements of marine environments, etc.

b. Geological

  • Sedimentary composition
  • Sediment transport
  • Rock type
  • Geological history

c. Chemical

  • Accumulations in sediments
  • Nutrients and nutrient fluxes
  • Iron limitation
  • Salinity

d. Biological

  • Dispersal and recruitment
  • Migration and movement patterns
  • Seasonal cycles
  • Productivity
  • Eco-physiology
  • Larval-adult linkages/ relationships
  • Species interactions (predation, competition, etc.)
  • Evolutionary responses and studies
  • Processes driving biogeographic and genetic patterns
  • Eco-physiology
  • Evolutionary responses and studies

Methods & approaches

  1. systematics and taxonomy
  2. modeling
  3. comparative studies
  4. genetics
  5. long-term research
  6. retrospective data analysis
  7. manipulative experiments
  8. remote sensing
  9. Tools – modeling, systematics and taxonomy, long-term research

Election of Working Group representative to Project Management Committee

Charlie Griffiths was elected as the Ecosystem Functioning Working Group representative to the Programme Management Committee.

Working group: Ecosystems & Change

Wednesday 15th February 2006

Present

Vicky Ndzipha, Rudi Seebach, Neville Sweijd, Sophie van der Heyden, Phoebe Barnard, Les Underhill, Lucinda Fairhurst, Dawit Ghebrehiwet, Renee le Roux, Stephanie Plön, Nadine Strydom, Coleen Moloney, Lara van Niekerk, Gavin Maneveldt, Cloverley Lawrence, Ronel Nel, Sean Fennessy, Fiona Mackay, Peter Best, Sakhile Tsotsobe, Toufiek Samaai, George Branch, Ane Oosthuizen, Steven Weerts, Richard Hasler, Johan Pauw, Astrid Jarre, Pavs Pillay, Jocelyn Collins, Kim Prochazka, Lisa Maddison (31)

General Discussion

The group recognized that we are just at the beginning of documenting change in the South African marine environment, and have hardly yet made a start on explaining this change.

There was much discussion around the definition of change, and what scale of change should be encompassed by this theme. There was general agreement that the ‘fit’ of research within this theme should be driven by the scale of the question(s) being asked, i.e. if the question is long-term and/or large-scale, then it is encompassed within this theme, but if is short-term and on a small scale, then it is not. Long-term was defined as being of multi-annual to decadal scales. The general view was that both natural and anthropogenic changes are encompassed within this theme.

Extensive discussions were held on the proposals made the previous day by the Working Group on Ecosystem Functioning regarding ways of providing co-ordination of research within the programme.

Regarding the first proposal to give additional weighting to project which fill current research gaps, there was much debate on whether the whole theme of Ecosystems and Change represents a gap or not, given that we are currently at an early stage of research into change. The group was divided as to whether a system which gives additional weight to identified research gaps was desirable or not. It was acknowledged that the primary advantage of such a system would be to encourage the filling of perceived research gaps. The primary disadvantages, however, were that this could result in research leaning towards gap-filling with other research being ignored, and that this would be steering research within the programme in pre-specified directions. Renee le Roux resolved this debate by informing the Working Group that project proposals should clearly explain if and how the project fills a gap, and this information will be taken into account in the adjudication of the scientific merit of the proposal through the peer review mechanism.

No consensus was reached regarding the second proposal for the pre-submission of letters of intent to the Working Groups for discussion around co-ordination and the ‘fit’ of the project to the programme and its themes. It was acknowledged that such a system could result in strengthening proposals, although there was a concern that, given that this would be a non-compulsory activity, most researchers would not take advantage of this facility (because of time constraints, the additional work generated by preparation of a pre-proposal and a full proposal, and the risk of having ideas presented at the pre-proposal stage poached by colleagues). Johan Pauw indicated that when this had been done previously, approximately 70% of researchers had taken advantage of this facility, and this had resulted in substantial improvements to approximately 40% of the proposals. The group remained undecided as to whether this option should be pursued or not.

This Working Group did not discuss the issue of possible syntheses and programme end-products.

Research Scope

Three major areas of change research were identified, including research which detects, identifies and documents change, and that which investigates the drivers and the effects of change.

1. Documenting change

There is a recognized need to develop the capacity to document change. Monitoring has not been included here as it is envisaged that much of this function will be filled by the SAEON Coastal/Inshore and Offshore Nodes. The following are examples of the types of research which would document change:

  • Biology and effects of invasions
  • Ecosystem health (this was regarded as a cross-cutting theme)
  • Changes in ecosystem states
  • Ecosystem variability
  • Changes in species distribution, range extensions
  • Past changes – long-term geological
  • Harmful Algal Blooms
  • Uncertainty and risk
  • Baseline studies
  • Low Oxygen events
  • Physical processes - Sea level, shoreline change, etc.
  • Observation science, including amalgamation, assimilation and analysis of long-term data, and new methodologies for the analysis of long-term data
  • Changes in UV radiation and its effects on organisms and ecosystems

2. Drivers

Three major drivers of change were recognized. These include natural change, climate change, change as a result of direct human intervention (such as resource extraction, invasions, pollution, coastal engineering, etc.). The following are envisaged as examples of such research:

  • Seeking correlates and causes of biological and physical change
  • Relationships between physical and biological change
  • Uncertainty and risk
  • Linkages between marine and terrestrial systems
  • Linkages with hydrology and change, and hydrogeographical links
  • Human dimensions of ocean and coastal change (as driver, context, recipient)
  • Changes in UV radiation and its effects on organisms and ecosystems
  • Marine-coastal interface, including the estuarine interface

3. Effects

Some examples of research related to the effects of change include:

  • Ecosystem resistance, stability, resilience, and thresholds to these
  • Change management (also forms a component within the Ecosystems & Society theme)
  • Implications for, and feedbacks to, international agreements
  • Ecosystem health
  • Changes in ecosystem states
  • Ecosystem effects of fishing
  • Predictive capability and modeling (physical processes, biological processes, linkages with human systems, etc.)
  • Harmful Algal Blooms
  • Linkages between marine and terrestrial systems
  • Marine-coastal interface, including the estuarine interface
  • Linkages with hydrology and change, and hydrogeographical links
  • Ocean-atmosphere-land interactions and linkages
  • Human dimensions of ocean and coastal change (as driver, context, recipient)
  • Ecotoxicology & marine pollution studies
  • Changes in UV radiation and its effects on organisms and ecosystems
  • Prediction around compounded effects of drivers of change, e.g. of climate change on invasions

Tools/methods/indicators

The following were highlighted as examples of possible useful tools/ methods/ indicators in change research:

  • Retrospective data analysis
  • Climate change modeling
  • Predictive modeling of physical processes, biological processes and societal impacts, economic systems, etc. (cross-links with the Ecosystems & Society theme)
  • Comparative studies
  • Long-term monitoring (it is expected that this will be at least somewhat addressed by SAEON)

Election of Working Group representative to Project Management Committee

Coleen Moloney was elected as the representative of the Ecosystems and Change Working Group to the Programme Management Committee.

Ronel Nel was also nominated during this process, and is available to be considered for co-option to the Programme Management Committee.

WORKING GROUP: ECOSYSTEMS & SOCIETY

Thursday 16th February 2006

Present

Theressa Akkers, Lucinda Fairhurst, Dawit Ghebrehiwet, Sakhile Tsotsobe, Astrid Jarre, Johan Pauw, Mafa Hara, Rudi Seebach, Lisa Maddison, Di Scott, Pavs Pillay, Cloverley Lawrence, Judy Mann, Isayvani Naicker, Toufiek Samaai, Ane Oosthuizen, Richard Hasler, Ronel Nel, Nadine Strydom, Vicky Ndzipha, Renee le Roux, Kim Prochazka (22)