SASSCAL Regional Technical Stakeholders Workshop: 12 -15 September 2011, Heja Lodge, Windhoek, Namibia.

Note: these minutes should be read in conjunction with the workshop agenda and chronology doc to provide context.

Chronology (expected outputs and objectives from sessions) Agenda

12 September (Day 1)Session I

Plenary 9:00 – 10:30

Welcome remarks by Gillian Maggs-Kolling on behalf of Abraham Nehemia (Permanent Secretary)

This is the final technical workshop and we need to push ahead so that we can start implementation in early 2012. There are many familiar faces, people that have been involved for a long time already and then also welcome to the new people. During the next 4 days some important aspects to consider are:

Regional integration Regional demand and impact Regional participation

All countries involved in SASSCAL now have National Coordinators, to guide the last phase of the planning process and as a team we can succeed. This workshop is an opportunity for people to address their interests but also, we should use this as a productive opportunity for strategic partnerships with other colleagues from the partner countries.

By a show of hands 50% of the participants are involved in SASSCAL for the first time.

Presentation: Introduction into the process of SASSCAL by Norbert Jürgens

Discussion: Suggestion: Task evaluation criteria should be extended to include the issue of

project sustainability beyond the initial phase and should be integrated pro-actively not as an ‘after-thought’.

Question: relates to the management of the project and dealing with any suggested tasks within the project context, if we are to merge projects where appropriate (including budgets etc.) we need to be cognisant of the fact that, not being the designer(s) of the original project(s) there may be problems with the respective proponents of the original tasks(s). Answer: We have to accept that the process has not been ideal, but we have to deal with what we can do now given the context. We

suggest taking the existing proposals and integrate them into a regional picture. Be aware that Botswana did not put forward any task proposals yet (due to national reasons). We will proceed and Botswana will join the signing, but get an additional 6 months to further develop their proposals.

Bertus mentioned that representing the interests of your country and trying to find consensus is not easy but it’s important to move forward at this stage so even if we are not 100% happy at times maybe we are ‘happy’ enough to accept the decision.

Casper: SASSCAL as regional programme (not project): What is the overall focus of the programme (not only in relation to the tasks in detail). Bertus replied that as is specified in the title SASSCAL, the main focus is to provide adaptation options for climate change and a land use in southern Africa.

Jonathan: The use of different approaches does not mean problems, it allows for diversity, which is useful in an innovative initiative such as SASSCAL, an example is where South Africa didn’t send in detailed tasks proposals prior to the workshop, but only sent in concepts/ideas for potential projects, this was done to allow for regional priorities to be agreed upon without the bias on national projects and then once regional priorities were agreed upon projects could then be developed. So the process was not contradictory to the others, just different.

Need to reconcile National vs. Regional agendas, and understanding how they fit together? The challenge for the group work is to engage with this issue and to identify potential synergies from regional and national agendas. And from this process the Integrated Science Plan will be developed and drafted.

Emma: Reiterated the fact the regional mandate (e.g. SADC) is still missing in most of the tasks, and again reminded the group to look at existing SADC projects and link to them.

Bertus: I agree to lead you through a process to achieve the purpose of the workshop and in return you agree to allow me to do so.

The workshop then broke-up into thematic breakaway groups for the rest of the day.

13 September (Day 2), Plenary after thematic group work

New participants that had arrived were introduced:Felicity Blakeway from Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) South Africa;Jimmy Adegoke: from Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) South Africa, and;Willem de Clercq: From Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Feedback from the working groups on the process: Emma: Climate group, only 4 in the group thus far. Range of proposals from very

specific to quite broad, and some contextualising and discussion is needed to agreement can be reached on what the priorities are.

Peter: Forestry group found the ranking of proposals quite challenging, but after a while and with discussion people became more comfortable. After a slow start the group picked up some momentum. Going well so far but not complete yet.

Jimmy: Liked process so far, discussion has been useful and there is clear evidence of an improved ownership from the African partners which is encouraging. We are certainly several steps ahead of where we were in Lusaka. In the global change programme in South Africa, we went through exactly the same process. They

reduced 50 proposals to 7 themes. Will lead to a set of good, integrated ideas and projects that leverage and bring things together.

Guido: Water group. We decided to disregard instructions and proceeded with a process that would deliver the same outcome but in a different manner.

Luthando: Biodiversity group. Noticed that some of the proposals have been pitched on country level and we made comments that the regionality aspect is important and these proposals need to be amended so as to become more regionally relevant.

Felicity: Realised the notable absence of adaptation within forestry in relation to climate change.

David: Capacity Development. The goal of the group would be difficult to address as the groups participants were not the most appropriate. Note: the group was given the Capacity Development reference that came from the Lusaka meeting and used this as a point of departure, this allowed progress.

Moses: Agriculture: Missing fish research, Marketing changes etc. Sam: Biodiversity: Missing surveillance of wildlife diseases. Good discussions around

the ranking although he has reservations towards the process. Lameck: Capacity Development: Not many concrete proposals so far. Was difficult to

deal with proposed group outcomes, to some degree due to the difficult and different processes in each of the countries.

Hendrik: Lack of social science researchers needs to be taken cognisance of. Process facilitation is needed.

Norbert: process facilitation is part of the Service component group and Capacity Development of the persons in the field of facilitation of knowledge dissemination/sharing etc. is important.

Assignment for the next session of group work: Identify proposals which may need input from which other proposals (from other

themes), where integration is needed and/or would be beneficial. Identify linkages between the proposals within the different layers, e.g. weather

stations (climate) and flux gauges (water) -> should be placed in close proximity to each other.

Identify potential synergies between proposals across the different themes. Upstream – downstream links. Service group needs to come join the work layer services group. Capacity Development will continue separately as it now has the capacity

development draft plan from Lusaka to use as a point of departure for further discussions.

14 September (Day 3) Plenary

Bertus introduced the programme for the day:- Report back and brief discussion from thematic groups;- Each country will then have a working lunch reflect about the progress so far and also

about the country nodes, how should the country node look like, links to other institutions, issues of concern etc.;

- Opportunity for visit of city of Windhoek - 18:30h cultural dance group

New participant to the workshop: Nkobi Molele, Botswana, running biodiversity programme in Okavango delta (GEF funded)

Thematic group report back session, (20 min each) with brief discussion after every presentation.

1) Forestry:

26 different proposals, adopted some from the crosscutting tasks. Priorities are: Forest resource assessment, Monitoring systems, Data dissemination,

Community governance, Value add is important to take note of (opportunities), and Bush encroachment.

Conceptual model (see ppt) to group proposals. After grouping we did the ranking: few with very low, few with very high ranking,

many in between.

Conclusion from group: Mostly projects on first layer (Inventories and Assessments; Monitoring and

Networking Observation Systems). Many of these were ranked high. No proposal on projections (needs to be considered). Some tasks adopted by some other country partners.

Discussion:

• Criteria 6 was difficult to score- so was left out.• How to keep together as a group on forestry issues- need for regional groups- to set

up common systems- how do we institutionally maintain regional integration- come together and share across the region expertise?

• Reflect on regional centre achievements- and are the groups in the current form appropriately represented.

• Is there any expertise missing in the groups, and how to take this process further?• Response Peter: Synergies from different proposals address the concern of regional

integration, and discussion was on proponents from different proposals working together: i.e. ground-truthing groups to engage with remote sensing services and making these available to communities, and allow for feedback i.t.o. effectiveness etc.

• SASSCAL- Should be provision made for resources to ensure that these people get together on a regular basis (should be planned and budgeted for).

• Scoring- what will be used as basis to include the lowest score- because criteria was very subjective? We do not want to drop any projects on the list- but due to prioritisation and budgetary realities some proposals/projects will not be implemented immediately once implementation starts.

• The socio-economics aspect is under represented because the focus was on natural science side, so we need to make sure that this is taken note of and addressed. This probably true for all thematic areas (how can we make it more relevant for livelihoods- and build in a resilience/sustainability component into proposals).

2) Agriculture

Discussed the methodology to use, identified one overall goal. Resulted in 7 objectives on grouping layers. Concepts vs. project descriptions (proposals),

sometimes the latter was missing. Ranking was done according to the objectives. Marketing aspect was missing amongst the proposals.

Discussion:• Rationale: Merit of ranking and comparing concept vs content, thus group decided to look

at overarching concepts and rate them. Then thought strategically and came up with goals and proposals which were then grouped into objectives- some of the higher ranking ones were for e.g. conservation agriculture and social learning systems.

3) Climate

• Relatively easy group, small group, only a few proposals (26).• Ranked according to what is on the table (not according the concepts as has been

done by Agriculture).• 1st group: Observation system: Quite a few proposals for improving observation

network (14 proposals), partly specific to a small area and partly for specific training institutions.

• 2nd group: Climate change projections: small but important group of tasks proposing to improve modelling (4 proposals).

• 3rd group: climate change impact: Climate Change impact (only 2 proposals), e.g. impact of Climate Change on coastal fog.

• Ranking marks (scores) are between 14 – 28 out of a maximum of 30.• Criteria no.6 was more technical, how carefully has the proposal been developed • All 14 tasks on network improvement will be lumped (suggestion) to reach one

regional level. • Group 2 will also be asked to combine their proposals, related to CORDEX Africa

approach.

Discussion:• Not only the proponents but also maybe additional people should be involved

(should be considered).• Juliana: There are gaps, as the key groupings proposed don’t address all the major

adaptation needs, so it may be a good idea to create stronger cross linkages, opening it up to additional group members in addition to the proponents.

• Guido: Planning should go beyond national borders and if MET is not involved the project will be compromised.

• Comment: Climate models are regionally important, and weather stations add to value of the models created, especially for water aspect. Norbert: Regional coverage for weather stations is critically important and is supported by the climate group. An application for the immediate investment for 60 weather stations was done and upon the signing of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) stations can be bought immediately. Models will be focussed on being regionally relevant, not so much at a national level though there will be relevance. The weather station network might be

partly more local (to fill gaps geographically) but encouraged to link to regional scale. National coordinators need to contact the “additional” stakeholders beyond MET.

Question: Good idea that proposals should if appropriate be combined, but what is the need of the ranking then? Answer: Ranking is more a eye opener, the group understands the tasks better and if there are clear proposal standing out (in terms of priority for the region) then those might get funding easier/first. The ranking also allows for groupings to be identified which facilitates next steps in terms of planning.

Luthando: Liked the roadmap approach in the Climate Change group, and encourages that this should be done in the other themes in order to promote regional integration and will promote different proponents to work together as well.

Jimmy: Echo’s Juliane and Luthando’s comments on adaptation and assumes that the broadening of partners will happen in the other themes too and that the adaptation impacts will happen across themes. “I would like to see at the end of this programme a significant improvement in the local scientific work force capacity, particularly in two areas: Network of Observation system, and the more critical issue of expertise around climate science (modelling), beyond mere use of models but developing new people!”

Norbert: Another gap is expertise on adaptation, which is of critical shortage. There is a need to make sure that there is some follow-up action related to the alignment of adaptation approaches in the region, this includes the important link to social sciences.

Augustine: This is not about the winner takes all and it must be understood that the low ranked tasks be given an opportunity to improve their proposals, they don’t get kicked out.

Angola: Climate does not have a border, and there are impacts on processes from outside the region (La Nina, El Nino). Not all countries have the same level of understanding and resources, and thus for example Angola has different needs compared to Germany. Norbert: yes a more strategic approach is needed to address various national/local and regional needs, one where national/local needs can be addressed while still being relevant for the region. In terms of the weather stations for example, for the data to be relevant regionally we need to them distributed at optimal density and distribution both locally and nationally which will contribute to the regionality of data availability. Another example is the relevance of Climate Change adaptation at a purely local level, recent work in Namibia shows that crop production won’t be viable in northern Namibia in 2050, particularly in the marginal areas. Adaptation has always looked at ‘generalities’ but I think we need a step between regional models and local level adaptation, which shows the impact and can identify possible adaptation strategies on local scale.

4) Biodiversity

Discussion: In general the group had good robust discussions, tasks were well presented and

issues were well explained. Worth specifically mentioning the issue of labs, which had a higher ranking and options were discussed but in the end an analysis lab for DNA test would be important for the whole region and this option should be extended to other countries in the region, this allow them the opportunity to improve and increase their capacity in this regard.

We grouped ‘assessment’ and ‘biodiversity monitoring’ together in many cases due to the long-term nature of results. The group did not divide proposals into work layers as some are once off and others are long term.

5) Water

54 tasks & 22 cross-cutting tasks as well. Group had good discussions. We came up with 9 groupings;

We started grouping according to the title but some of the titles were misleading. Had a more detailed look into the proposals;

After further discussion we suggested some groupings; Cross cutting tasks were mainly grouped under Impact on land use-group; Discussed how easily national tasks could be expanded into the region. Developed

new (lumped) regional tasks (i.e. 9 groups) / subtasks; Allocated groups to work-layers. Majority of proposals were in the process and projection layer. Identified gaps: 1) some tasks are dependent on Remote Sensing data, 2) lack of/gap

in of historical data (backwards modelling to fill the gaps), 3) some tasks only look at surface or only ground water, they need to be linked in order to understand the interaction between both (proposal needs to be redesigned in order to integrate the link), and 4) impact of climate change on water resources itself, only in some of the modelling tasks (and mainly focus on land use impact).

Road ahead: Proponents needs to, 1) work together, 2) combine tasks where appropriate, and 3) think about and develop cost estimations.

Discussion Guido: Data flow across all levels and between all themes is very important in order

to develop relevant services and products and to identify appropriate capacity development needs.

Suggestion to coordinators: Learn from other existing processes that have integration as a primary aspect. Try building partnerships to combine teams to address issues together. Make sure that the weakest link gets capacitated. Look at implementation process and see whether we can learn from that to create the kind of integration that we want to create here. Individual countries should not dominate a team or process.

Willem: We first need good reliable baseline data. Is not necessarily the task of the water theme alone but across themes. That might take 2 years, but it’s critical, training needs to be done to train the scientists.

Adopted grouping but did not rank the tasks. Joint projects should be developed and individual proposals should fit into this framework if not they should be set aside and/or revised.

Joseph: Water is part and parcel of the hydrological cycle, thus use MET stations also for water monitoring.

6) Services

Small but strong and united group. We have used the Services component developed in Lusaka as our point of departure

and tried to improve them here.

We relooked at the target groups and altered them due to the fact that we thought that it would be better to look at functional groupings rather than institutional ones.

Came up with 5 new target groups (see excel sheet). The services and products developed should be demand driven, user focussed and

practical.

Discussion: Juliana: Most proposals have little or no content related to end-user driven services,

this is an issue, and needs to be rectified, too much science and not enough applicability (practical outputs to improve people’s livelihoods).

Jonathan: We have to focus on how science is used on the ground. We need to initiate and monitor the ‘practicality’ of the applied science (is it meeting the needs expressed by users, is the service being used? If not it needs to be amended/changed etc.) This is a critical issue.

Applied knowledge category (1) is very low. Outreach is relatively high (Category 3). Networking (2) is relatively high. (See services layer ppt).

What’s needed is a sharing platform (meetings, conference once a year with people from SASSCAL HQ & Nodes, implementers and partners).

We have to acknowledge existing bias towards hard science outputs but need to bring in the services and products more realistically.

Hendrik: Integration on technical level is difficult, but platform (get together either physically or via internet), sharing platform is better idea.

Category 1’s score could be higher, but the task descriptions are not detailed enough to show this.

Jonathan: you have to have a balance between applied and cutting edge research. It needs to have tangible impact on the ground. Both are important as is balancing the two.

Jimmy: The problem is not unexpected. We are mainly scientists not implementers here, so we must be cognisant as scientists that we need to have impact with our science. Also, I received a request from outside Africa to look into the land grabbing issue. There is a lot of money coming in for land grabbing. No assessment on the impact of this. Should that be a topic for SASSCAL?

Land grabbing: Not completely in the current ambit of SASSCAL but could be considered for the next phase?

Mbiji: We tried to assess the proposals based on their science not applicability. David: End user needs maybe not been taken into account enough? Casper: We must make an effort to include end-users are part of the process right

from the beginning. To get their ‘buy-in’ later will be difficult. Anna: The process is not starting now but more effort is needed to include end users.

We have had national Workshops where gaps were identified. If we refer to Lusaka plan, we refer to a summary of the National Workshops.

Chris: How to marry the two processes discussed here? We should think dynamic. We have to have the institutional mechanisms to keep it dynamic. Let’s get something up and running and implement mechanisms to ensure economic and social viability.

Felicity: Issue of uptake and risk of imposing products of science on a target group can’t be under estimated.

David: Agriculture group identified an activity that they scored high: “Learning from farmers”, which shows the importance of including users, we need to learn from them as much as the science can assist them too.

Lameck: We have to acknowledge that we already come from a number of processes to get to where we are in SASSCAL. We have to draw a line of what we can do and what not. We need to create an impact with SASSCAL and we must not try do too much but be realistic. If we try to fragment everything we lose impact. After having consolidated our projects we should not take up all project ideas that might come up in the scope of SASSCAL.

If we can strengthen the observation network, that is already a big step for the region.

Mbiji: There is a bias towards hard science in comparison to what SASSCAL wants to achieve. Maybe this is opportunity for SASSCAL to find its niche.

7) Inventories/Observation layer group:

• Wetlands were included in the discussion to standardise the methodology.• Synergies were at different levels and the depth and type of synergies {efficiency of

the synergy (ies)} might be disrupted if some tasks are removed should be taken cognisance of.

• Natural resource values, including financial and the socio-economic values need to be integrated in approaches.

• Assessment of land degradation and adaptation strategies needs to be explored.• Terminology: Boreholes, monitoring groundwater, should be replaced (this was used

simply to indicate measurements) by the term hydro-geology.• Disease surveillance, specifically in relation to wildlife is missing (should be included).

8) Layer Work Group: “Process understanding, modelling and projections”

Models that are developed in the SASSCAL context will need input from modelling processes from within and outside Africa as well, cannot be a closed system of development, there are on-going modelling processes and linking up with the appropriate one’s will be crucial.

Produced a diagram: up-stream and down-stream data flow (included ‘outside’ models).

Discussion: Hendrik: Study sites have not been included in the proposals, maybe it’s a discussion

for later but how study sites are selected will be crucial. Jimmy: Modelling framework; what we in principle agree on is that proposals have a

modelling focus; we should however not end up with a high number of models that do not communicate with each other. Those that do modelling should have discussion on how to move forward in a real integrated Earth Systems model. This is an opportunity to scale up and integrate into a Southern African Earth Systems Model, is also an opportunity to train new people in the field of model development and integration.

David: Going back to the process of the workshop, is it clear whether the development of proposals is more in the frame of the layers or silos? We should

assume that whatever model(s) get developed that it would be influenced by layers and synergies.

Norbert: I am sure that what we proposed here is based on the elements of proposals that are already on the table. The discussion is how we can best combine/integrate and agree on joint research sites and scales.

Willem: Where is the Open Access Service Centre located? Norbert: We see that more on the service end. However we would need the OADC to

have access to the data and the model(s). Also a need to specify the adaptation specific elements in the proposals (where appropriate).

Carmen: General comment: From the first year of SASSCAL there should be some data sharing between the different thematic areas. And from there we will be able to generate the models and projections. And at the same time to interconnect the different scenarios. The first slide that Norbert showed can give access to that. This way, the suggestion by Jimmy can also be realised.

9) Capacity Development

Discussion: Non-academic capacity development- 50% is supposed to be non-academic- why not

presented: it is but is included under short courses Non-academic side is to assist politicians, users etc. practical implementation of

services and products (farmers, extension officers, NGO’s, land & water users, etc.). The non-academic courses are not formal training courses.

Training courses- also consider technician level training- basic manual equipment training needed as well.

M.Sc. on ICT should be considered specifically by but not excluding other institutions (Agostinho University and Jose Eduardo University), could also include private Universities in curriculum development, important that other universities be considered as well (there were already institutions identified).

Where are the South African and German Institutions? Jimmy: The reason that specific South African institutions were not identified is due

to the fact that ACCESS is a partnership in South Africa of about 18 Universities and Science councils. Through that partnership we will bring on board all Universities from SA that can play a role as partners of ACCESS. Secondly: We are only little bit ahead of this process to initiate a MSc Programme for Earth System Observation. Very similar to what’s been discussed, and we should put effort into learning from each other. In South Africa the programme will have a core module that will be common in the programme. Universities can contribute to this development and hosting, with the degree being issued by the respective University. There will be rotating lecturers and electives on offer at different Universities to complete the degree. Access will facilitate this process and assist in identifying the students. All students will be fully funded by Scholarships. ACCESS can be a resource to facilitate the implementation.

Lameck: Capacity Development has two major challenges. a) A lack of submissions from Universities (We cannot appoint institutions that did not agree to the process from the outset, thus only names of institutions that already agreed to do it are included), and b) the of Capacity Development practicalities related who (in terms of Technicians and government Staff) will attend and how to get them to attend and

who will offer the courses? (Infrastructure, resources and capacity to offer these courses).

Norbert: Lack of Capacity Development institutions remains an issue. SA institutions(for example) do not seem to be interested to implement graduate schools etc. within the SASSCAL context as they have many existing programmes, how to deal with this (within African partner countries). Has there (will there be)be a strategy developed by the group how to deal with this? Germans have been told not to push too strongly; they should follow the demands by the African partners.

Maria: The programmes for PhD and MSc were well developed even though there is no indication whether there are institutions who will host it. Also I do not know how many candidates the course will cater for and what is the source of funds for this. Another issue is the informal (non-academic) training (short courses): they are very important. Good data is required, good research is needed etc. to realise the non-academic as well.

15 September (Day 4) Plenary

8:30h Feedback of the Countries. Focus of the day will be wrapping up. Integrated Science Plan (ISP) will not be presented here. This is not possible at present, it will be redrafted with the inclusion of the proposals and discussions from this workshop. Instead we will have the feedback from the Countries.

The country groups should try answering the following questions: What has been achieved? What are the challenges? What do you propose as solution to these challenges? How should the country nodes look like (function, structure)?

Zambia:

Questions / Challenges: Team needs to know which tasks have been prioritized and what will happen to the

tasks that have been ranked low but are of importance for the individual countries. How is the task clustering been executed and by whom by when?

Answer (Bertus): The proponents will be informed and asked to come up with a joint proposal.

There need to be balanced leadership of tasks (according to country contribution). Even countries that do not have capacity should give the opportunity to lead a task,

so that capacity is improved. Tasks that are of importance for the country but is of importance (e.g. expansion of

tasks to the region) should still be allowed to be submitted. How will the ranking been revisited after the workshop? Particularly, if there are new

tasks still to be submitted. Answer Norbert: The country coordinators have the mandate to make decisions. As a team we need to find a way. We won’t have the opportunity for workshops. Jonathan: We have to differentiate between new tasks and those that are just expanded or more detailed. They should be part of the process that happened here. Questions: What to do with the tasks from Botswana?

Answer Norbert: In discussion with the political lead it has been said that for the first 4 years it should be accepted that the large themes have been defined during the country workshops + technical working group meeting. The proposal is that Botswana does not develop completely new tasks but comes up with tasks that are amended versions of existing tasks on the table.

Participants have to give feedback at their institutions about the institutional task proposals. So they have to know how things are ranked and what will happen to it.Answer Norbert: We will evaluate the consequences of this workshop next week. Some of the proposals have been expanded, which will impact on budget. At the moment we are not able to calculate how big the additional financial burden would be. The total amount has not been defined yet, African contributions are not defined yet. We can only construct a meaningful programme as best we can and then put it forward for funding. Finally it is a political decision. Therefore we asked you which will be the tasks to be funded first and which to be funded later.

Country Node: Should be a completely new centre. Question: What are the services that will come from this SASSCAL Facility? Answer: It will be the Services and Products that have been developed during this

workshop. It will be a sharing process, not only a one-way flow. Juliana: it is important to flag that we are looking at a strong knowledge sharing

component. It is less science oriented (this also has consequences for the staffing / human resources that one needs at the country nodes and SASSCAL HQ).

Julian: You need feedback loop from the clients/users back to the services and products so that they can be appropriately amended/changed in accordance with needs expressed.

South Africa:

Discussion: Comment from South Africa’s side in relation to capacity development: Need to be

cautious with regard to developing new academic programmes vs. existing programmes. Countries should consider liaising with and/or collaborating with existing programmes as the time, resources and effort to development and run new programmes is extensive.

Answer: The Capacity Development group decided that there are existing programmes that can be used but also that there are new needs that have been identified in order to create/improve capacity in the region.

Felicity: Ownership of the countries. How to deal with the other nodes/exchange between nodes and headquarter? How to not lose sight of the use the regional emphasis? The data sharing between all countries is a bit asset, big advantage, if successful.

Bertus: Desert Margin project originally also had this idea of sharing data between countries. It was a big challenge and there were difficulties, cognisance needs to be taken of the realities involved in making this happen.

Norbert: Where in the SA node will be the Service component (beyond the communication person to be based)?

Jonathan: We have to sit down with NRF & ACCESS and clarify where the service component (outreach/communication) will be housed, but it will most likely be within the SA node office (based at NRF or ACCESS).

Felicity: wherever it is, NRF and/or ACCESS have to understand that this is an important entity not an add-on. It should be linked with existing institutes rather than being a standalone initiative.

Casper: New programmes: We are aware that this takes time. But still it is possible to establish new programmes within SASSCAL and if that’s what’s needed we should go ahead.

Jonathan: Other country offices should be hubs to HQ and not just one way flow of support from HQ to country nodes but also from the country nodes to the HQ.

Lameck: We identified topics that are required for SASSCAL in terms of Capacity Development to support the science. This was initially done in Lusaka, so what’s on the table now is based on the identified gaps. But yes, we have to learn from the others that already went through that. We have to differentiate between extension of existing programmes and developing new programmes.

Namibia:

Cloud of uncertainty, but this workshop, for the first time has given a clearer picture on what the initiative is about. It’s now easier to be more positive about the implementation of the programme.

Discussion: Prioritizing the task was biggest challenge. We understand that it is necessary to

prioritize, some tasks contribute to the focus on SASSCAL and others do not. Champions will take the process further (technical working group). They will revisit the tasks and check whether the tasks really address the national and regional priorities.

Bilateral negotiations might jeopardise regionality: Recommendation is to have one Executive Agency (which will do the negotiation on behalf of the future SASSCAL Secretariat) on behalf of all countries. In order to keep up the regionality. Less fragmented.

Process needs to be driven by the region (not externally). This is very important and will impact on the ownership and sustainability.

Node: Avoid duplication, networking and coordination are important, facilitative role, service and data dissemination is very important & should be needs based, Interpretation of research results and share with partners, strengthen links to user needs that can contribute to livelihood improvements, design socio-economic needs assessment, keep the programme dynamic (what can be done in future).

Structure: Lean structure, linked to partners, National steering committee. Operations: Independent Agency (independence in terms of structure and function),

discretionary budget (flexibility to address gaps as needed), long-term orientation, rolling-planning approach (proactive and ‘aggressive’).

Infrastructure: buy existing building vs. building a new building? Renting in the long-term is not an option (not viable: Gobabeb as example).

Discussion: There might be a merit to the bilateral approach too as it will allow individual

countries to negotiate independently of each other and given the differences between countries politically this may work better, will see).

One implementation agency does not necessarily create regionality. Could cause delays in payment and/or individual countries being ‘more’ in control than others.

Can or should SASSCAL decided on the political process? Norbert: In the past various options have been discussed about the money flow from

Germany to the various countries. The only way in the past was through the German Universities. That was not always appreciated by the African partners.

For the African country partners BMBF wanted to establish a bilateral process between BMBF and countries via KfW.

Jürgen: This idea is not confirmed yet. He is here as an observer and will make recommendations to BMBF.

Lameck: We need to understand the SASSCAL context and realise that the funding from BMBF is essentially seed funding and that we as the African partners will need to take over the running costs in time, so the structure of the nodes and HQ need to take this into consideration, there are more than enough examples of programmes that weren’t sustainable and we need to learn from those.

Chris Brown: Look for processes and mechanisms that help us to get it going. If we have different funding mechanisms for each of the countries we will not have a joint initiative. Important is to have a joint coordinating centre in Southern Africa. Otherwise we will have different speeds of implementation. See for instance KAZA initiative. If there are different speeds between countries it will provide real obstacles for a regional approach. Have a joint team that coordinates the regional team. Concern is the two tier system (North starts first and South later).

What if one country does not sign, what happens to the rest? Therefore support for the bilateral approach.

Indie: we are talking about different levels. Originally it was planned that all countries submit one proposal. Now there are bilateral negotiations. Differentiate between funding flows and joint or bilateral proposals. And more importantly it should be more about finding collective approach in terms of content.

Lameck: There is a lag that this team cannot really tackle. If the ministries decide on process X then we have to follow their procedures but, to avoid the loss of funding, direct funding flows would be better.

Casper: We should consolidate the different models of the national nodes, if not in structure then in terms of organisation, to improve the idea of a joint initiative related to implementation.

Jurgen: This discussion is a waste of time. This is out of our control. KfW would prefer Chris recommendation but the BMBF is against it.

Germany:

Discussion: Most important: how will the demand from the region be formulated, what are the

criteria, how will they be measured, how will the necessary congruency with the national workshops and outcomes be ensured?

How do their (German proposals) fit into the regional demands?

What are the needs for Germans in relation to the Capacity Development components (e.g. technical training)? Germans provided quite a few suggestions how to get involved in Capacity Development, but it’s unclear whether the Capacity Development suggested in the tasks is sufficient.

What are the possible next steps in defining these needs? Yoeseph: Needs guidance from Coordination Team, on how to deal with the different

speeds (German vs. others) of development? Maybe next week the coordination team will come up with some suggestions.

Willem: We were wondering yesterday, whether the Germans can just indicate whether a student from Germany would be funded through which budget?

Casper: We are still busy with the Capacity Development component but so far it is clear that the German’s will play a role. In the interim they suggest using existing German institutions.

Yoseph: in the German draft proposals, are these mainly/only German students or would there also be African students envisaged for these posts?

Tobi: Depends on the tasks, but ideally it would cover both (German and African students.

Botswana:

Generally the process was fine. Struggled first with the process but then found their way.

Big question is how to get Botswana at the same level as the other countries? Norbert: Expressed his appreciation for Botswana’s continued commitment in spite

of challenging political context with regards to SASSCAL (change of Ministries). We will keep you fully in the business plan. We will keep your Money slot open. For the integrating science plan: You can learn from the experience of the others as you catch up. The only restriction is that the contribution(s) should be in the line with what has been discussed and agreed upon during this workshop.

Angola:

Angola has been primarily focussed on research (academic approach), and we have regions each with different faculties and colleges (institutions). Now the priority moves more to utilising the research, building capacity etc. and this is where SASSCAL can play a vital role. In 7 of the academic regions we’ll now focus on integration.

Yoseph: The SASSCAL focal point (coordinator) should first consult with the other colleagues (institutions) in the country. It will be good to have a feel of how they are organised at the moment.

Who will manage the coordination of data flow and cooperation between the countries and their projects (integration)?. We have to meet in order to plan these things further. It is premature to advance the organogram further right now as we need to consult further ‘at home’. We will do that quickly and get back to you through our coordinator.

Guido: Will the national node be in Luanda? Paulo: It will be located in Huambo, the area for construction has been identified.

Norbert: We need to realise that Angola have expressed a need that the country node will be more than just a coordination office, but will also include labs (we need to take cognisance of the financial implications of this need).

Business PLAN Discussion

Comments from Jürgen Janovsky: Very impressed with the positive attitude of participants. 3 main parts to a successful process like SASSCAL, 1) process efficiency, 2) Social cohesion, and 3) quality of manpower (what he has seen at the workshop is evidence of outstanding human capital involved).

Concerns: Output called for further conceptual consolidation, still too much concerned about wish list of tasks (advice is to start with a lean programme that can expand later), postpone some of the les important issues till later.

Thanks to technical team (Bertchen; Coordination Team). Had telephone conference with BMBF/KfW and there was positive feedback related

to SASSCAL. Want to create a proposal (new Business Plan) for sustainability, not a research

orientated programme with a wish list, the financial implications of the programme need to come through much clearer in the new Business Plan (very important).

Business Plan is a marketing tool, the Integrated Science Plan (ISP) is a next step (concept note) for further planning related to implementation.

Several funding mechanisms are options for SASSCAL and it would be possible to transfer such funds to SASSCAL via a reliable institution (KfW potentially).

There will be a lean structure at the SASSCAL HQ (15 to 20 people).

Discussion: Primary outcome from new Business Plan will indicate a clear financial projection

(budgets) to BMBF. Programme vs Initiative (Institution) includes 5 nodes SASSCAL should have started with a clear vision (programme), thematic component

visions (aligned with SASSCAL vision), we should not try to fit too many things in the vision.

Over the last few days, we have been bombarded with lots of documents, this due to the need for a change of process, if this information was made available and clarified earlier, maybe some confusion could have been avoided.

Business Plan is a point of orientation to reflect current situation (marketing argument); different to ISP which serves as a guide for the allocation of funds.

Funding, to a large degree depends on how we design the initiative, we should see the first phase as seed funding not as initial funding for 4 years. This period should be used to develop an appropriate institutional framework. We don’t want the initiative to be dependent on German funding.

Casper: We should also look at existing initiatives to avoid duplication. Abraham: Are there any other initiatives in the region that provide a useful (suitable)

example of integration and cooperation. We need to ensure that SASSCAL is not an orphan after 4 years, thus we need to proactively make sure we get the necessary buy-in and financial resources (this will be prerequisite, we need to see impacts on the ground so that after 4 years SASSCAL speaks for itself).

Jonathan: We need to be cognisant of sustainability from outset, so we need to embed it from beginning and not during a exit strategy with 6 months to go in the programme. It should be integrated into the planning and development of projects before implementation commences.

Will the MoU still be signed this year? Norbert: BMBF have said that an MoU is the precondition before anything else can happen, this was reiterated during the application for the prolongation of start-up phase. Hope solution will be found, the signing of a general MoU might be enough as well, but should happen this year, if not it will hamper implementation starting in March 2012.

The coordination team needs to facilitate this happening in conjunction with Jürgen Janovsky. SADC are organising Climate Change Response Strategy under the UNFCCC which demands establishment of Regional and/or National Climate Change institutions and policies. National Coordinators need to keep informed about national processes.

Role of SASSCAL and sustainability, in agreement with Jonathan that sustainability is included from the beginning, but this needs people to market and get people interested. Interest will come automatically if there is an assertive marketing strategy and it there is a respected institution to receive funds then it’s possible. We need to come up with outreach strategy (based on the local context) and create some SASSCAL visibility, no use to use data from United Nations (UN), we need to produce our locally relevant data, the development of our own (SASSCAL) products creates identity.

Just for information there is another similar initiative in Africa, it’s called WASSCAL, what is the status of WASSCAL, and what is the difference between the two?

Tobias: There are differences vs commonalities (Climate Change), SASSCAL should retain the lean and mean structure for service delivery and be more focussed. Thematic context is different too, water is not important in the WASSCAL context but land issues, socio-ecological processes and long term dynamics and history are more important, this is defined by the landscape, therefore regional priorities are different. WASSCAL is structured in graduate schools, with each country partner getting a graduate school programme, but in the SASSCAL context the political and institutional collaboration and partnerships are important.

Sustainability within WASSCAL will be tougher to ensure because the process that was used in its creation was more top down and less collaborative.

In the shift from Programme to institution, will the current staff in the programme be able to handle this shift? Norbert: We have always talked about an institution so no shift necessary as the context and process was discussed and agreed to in Lusaka.

Abraham: Political imperative that we push things forward so that we have the institution established, its potential benefit to future generations cannot be underestimated. Important that we leave Heja having rounded up meeting with clear outcomes of the meeting and can take positive messages back home.

WAY FOREWARDACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE SUPPORTED BY BY WHEN COMMENTSWorkshop proceeding CT end of Oct Finalise BP Norbert CT, JJ 28 SeptGive feedback at country level

National Coordinator

CT 30 Sept

Approval from BMBF Norbert JJ End of Oct - will approval be

(feedback) exclusive of african partner comments

Approval from National governments (feedback)

NC IC End of Oct

Revision of BP 15 NovemberNC urge their IC members o agree on a date for signing

NC NJ 23 November Ultimate deadline

ICT Coordination Team

NC End of October

Submit detailed proposal (German part of application)

End of November

Develop procedure and process manual for KfW

CT JJ End of October

Is the signing of the MoU dependant on the acceptance of the Business Plan? From BMBF’s side the business plan is the most important issue at present.

Indie: Technical team has no control over MoU signing (political process), the document is awaiting signature but at present there is no one driving the process of mobilising the rest of the IC members to sign it. IC members are urged to agree on a date and venue for signing.

Norbert: We have sent an email to Imraan Patel in the Department of Science & Technology asking if SA can drive this process and he responded that he will organise it.

Jonathan: BMBF is pushing the African countries to sign the MoU but what if they are then not available to sign, after the Africans are ready, then what?

Norbert: The German consortium will submit a detailed proposal of 500 pages, describing what they will do within the four years, milestones, including detailed calculations of costs, how much is required for travels, personnel etc. Normally for other programmes this will also include the African partners, but since this SASSCAL will be an institution, this process will go through KfW.

We need clarity on how the flow of funds to the countries will happen, will it be the same mechanism or will it be bilaterally negotiated between KfW and the African partners.

At this stage it is not clear when the money will be available, or how much it will be, this depends on KfW negotiations with countries and decisions taken by BMBF.

Jonathan: The KfW negotiations is about the flow of funds, the ISP is about partner countries and the projects which also need to engage with negotiations related is their proposals and when does this happen?

The Coordination Team needs to assist countries in developing ideas on how the process should proceed. BMBF has not given guidance on this, and the IC did not ask BMBF as yet, so there is no plan. Thus, the African countries should take up the initiative and come up with a suggestion(s).

Peter: Should the CT start discussions with KfW to get clarification on process and develop plans related to negotiations et al?

German component is clear in terms of process but for the African components, what is still needed? What kind of detail is expected from the Africans partners in terms of their proposals and by when does this need to happen by? And related to the

bilateral negotiations with KfW do we start 5 separate bilateral processes, the danger of fragmentation.

Proposal is to draft financial procedure for the participation of African partners this framework needs to be in place as soon as possible (policy and procedures manual), how, and who should do it? Coordination Team should approach KfW pro-actively regarding the development of such a manual and it should be an annexure of the ISP. Jurgen would be able to facilitate this process, he will follow up with KfW.

Jonathan: ISP is getting the project proposals into the plan, can anyone tell me what level of detail is needed for the ISP and by when and by whom?

Norbert: Germans cannot start alone, so integration and success on the African partner process is a priority, but what about the implications if the African partners don’t succeed in time?

Lameck: Let’s focus on things that we can achieve as this group, i.e. the Business Plan and ISP, and let’s prioritise getting these finalised.

Final thoughts: Most successful SASSCAL workshop to date, the spirit of cooperation was excellent,

and though there are many open questions and the political process is not controlled by us, but we have moved forward as a collective and that is very important. I am more convinced than ever that SASSCAL will happen, thank you all for your valued participation.

Participants list: