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:
a. To develop research directions under the four themes of the SEAChange
Programme
b. To co-ordinate research under the four programme themes
c. To initiate dialogue between natural and social scientists
d. To explore the ways in which each theme will contribute to the overall
objectives of the programme
e. 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:
a. Detailed description of research directions within each theme
b. Statement of how each theme proposes to contribute towards the overall
objectives of the programme
c. 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:
d. Co-ordination of research and collaboration between scientists working in
similar fields, on similar study organisms, in similar ecosystems, etc.
1
e. 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.
2
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
3
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 (LMEscale) 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.
4
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
5





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
a. systematics and taxonomy
b. modeling
c. comparative studies
d. genetics
e. long-term research
f. retrospective data analysis
g. manipulative experiments
h. remote sensing
i. Tools – modeling, systematics and taxonomy, long-term research
Election of Working Group representative to Project Management
Committee
6
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 coordination 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
7
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 presubmission of letters of intent to the Working Groups for discussion around coordination 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
8
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
9



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)
Perspectives from MCM
Theressa Akkers provided some perspectives from MCM, indicating that what
MCM requires new knowledge, and particularly with regard to interactions
between ecosystems and society, and further capacity development. Theressa
highlighted that some of the most important challenges faced by MCM are in
meeting the WSSD goals of application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries by
2010, rebuilding of fish stocks (2015), and having 18% of the marine environment
protected within Marine Protected Areas by 2010. She stressed that society is a
key element within all of these, and has strong interactions with them. MCM’s
focus has traditionally been on natural science, and it is realized that this has
been biased and that society plays an integral part in the management of marine
and coastal systems and resources. MCM is currently focused on the allocation
of long-term rights, and would like to address questions such as “What impacts
do the long-term rights have on society?” However, MCM currently lacks
capacity for such research, and is pleased to see that the SEAChange
Programme can assist in doing this type of research.
General Discussion
A strong desire for integrative science was expressed by the Ecosystems &
Society Working Group, and questioned attempts to create ‘structure’ within the
10
programme by defining research directions. The group was reminded that this
process is not intended as packaging of the research, but rather as organization
of the thinking and description of the programme.
It was recognized that the submission of pre-proposals could be useful for this
group in getting the social scientists and natural scientists talking to one other.
Concern was, however, expressed over this being at the Working Group level
since this is open for abuse and to colleagues ‘stealing’ each other’s ideas. The
KZNMRG and ECRAM (both SANCOR Co-ordinating Groups) were brought up
as examples of similar successful systems. This group felt that this could be
done in a more informal way through the working groups where project concepts
were not put down on paper, but were rather discussed.
Regarding end-of-programme products, this group agreed that it would indeed be
useful to have syntheses of the programme’s work published.
Research Scope
There was general agreement that this programme theme should consider
Interactions in both directions, i.e. societal influences on marine and coastal
environments, and influences of these environments and happenings therein on
society. It was stressed that research within this theme must have a direct link
with the ocean or coastal environment.
After much discussion of how to structure the description of the research scope
of this theme, it was decided to utilize the structure below:
1. Documenting the interactions
 People dynamics affecting ecosystems/ Impact of people on ecosystems
 land-based sources of marine pollution, especially storm water
 impacts of improved technology
 Coastal developments – monopolization of the coastline, inappropriate
engineering, pollution
 Infrastructure development (increased shipping, inappropriate engineering,
etc.)
 Marine natural hazards, extreme natural events
 Tourism interactions with the ecosystem and society – positive and negative
2. Understanding the interactions
 Impact of lack of natural resources, lack of access, etc. on society
 Values placed on ecosystems and resources, in economic and other terms
 Disentangling direct anthropogenic change from larger-scale change
 Poverty, coastal livelihoods, population health
 Common-property resources
3. Managing the interactions
11
 Impact of environmental policies and political decisions on ecosystems and
on society
 Role of education and awareness programmes in promoting responsible
interactions with the environment
 Co-management systems, community involvement in management
 Allocation of rights
 Tenure regimes
 Disentangling direct anthropogenic change from larger-scale change
 Compliance – fisheries and other
 Risk management (including from pollution, marine natural hazards, etc.),
contingency planning
 Sustainability research
 Common-property resources
 Transfer of knowledge generated
Tools/methods
 Indigenous, local and stakeholder knowledge
 Historical approach
 International experiences
 Policy-relevant research (more of a philosophy or a methodology)
Election of Working Group representative to Project Management
Committee
Di Scott was elected as the representative of the Ecosystems and Society
Working Group to the Programme Management Committee.
Isayvani Naicker was also nominated during this process, and is available to be
considered for co-option to the Programme Management Committee.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations were derived from the
discussions held during the four thematic workshops:
 The research scope within each of the four themes should follow a similar
structure, with headings along the lines of:
a. Description/ documentation
b. Processes/ drivers/ understanding
c. Effects/ managing
 To provide clarity the preamble to the description of the programme themes
and the research scope within these should be worded so as to convey that:
a. The structure provided in the document is intended as a way of
organizing the thinking behind the programme and as a description
of the programme, not as a method of ‘packaging’ the research
b. The structure provided is based on examples in order to provide
guidance, and is not considered comprehensive in terms of
12




research scope or directions. This in no way precludes research
directions not specifically mentioned in the document from being
considered within the programme
c. The theme or themes which a project proposal will address will be
dependent on the question(s) being asked and the scientific
emphasis of the project
d. Projects will not necessarily be expected to fit within only one
programme theme, but may also span two or more themes
Working Groups should meet annually to discuss research directions, to
facilitate co-ordination of research proposals submitted to the programme,
and to provide a forum for the sharing of ideas and encourage collaboration
both within and across disciplines
Researchers should include provision for travel to annual Working Group
meetings in their project budgets
Working Group representatives to the Programme Management Committee
should be elected annually
The programme should aim to produce end-of-programme products which
synthesize the research done within the programme. The exact form of
which, and the details of how to arrange this, require further examination
13
Appendix A.
SOUTH AFRICAN NETWORK FOR COASTAL AND OCEANIC RESEARCH
Programme for the SEAChange Working Groups,
Environmental Education Resources Unit (EERU), University of the Western
Cape, 13-16 February 2006
Schedule for thematic Working Groups:
Monday 13 February
Biotechnology
Tuesday 14 February
Ecosystem Functioning
Wednesday 15 February
Ecosystems & Change
Thursday 16 February
Ecosystems & Society
A special workshop on oceanography in South Africa is being held on Thursday
16 February.
Thematic Working Groups will follow the timetable below:
09:30 - 10:00
Arrival and tea
10:00 – 10:20
10:20 – 10:40
10:40 – 11:00
11:00 – 12:30
Welcome & introduction (Kim Prochazka)
Perspectives from the NRF (Renee le Roux)
Perspectives from MCM (???)
Discussion – Research directions (Lisa Maddison)
12:30 – 13:15
Lunch
13:15 – 15:30
15:30 – 16:00
Discussion – Research directions (Lisa Maddison)
Election of Working Group representatives to Programme
Management Committee (Lisa Maddison)
Closure (Kim Prochazka)
16:00
14