Smell the ozone : an overview of
the Sea and Coast Programme I
W Roy Siegfried
There are times when one is called to do things that, on first and best judgement; one should turn away from for a variety of reasons. Not least is controversy. In his autobiography, Charles Darwin remarked: “I rejoice that I have avoided controversies and this I owe to Charles Lyell, who strongly advised me never to get entangled in a controversy, as it rarely did any good and caused a miserable loss of time and temper”. But, life is full of little surprises. Indeed, my temper did not fray, nor did misery prevail, during the time I spent reviewing the results of South Africa’s Sea and Coast Programme I for the period 1995 to 2000.
This is a somewhat circuitous way of saying that I hesitated strongly at first when I was asked by the National Research Foundation (NRF) to provide it with a review and a synthesis of the results of its Sea and Coast Programme I.On the one hand, there are few things more irritating than having some been-around, know-it-all and passed-it-all so-called expert pontificate on current affairs. On the other hand, since I no longer am a player, stake-holder, actor or affected party (the list of appropriate synonyms in the modern vernacular is a long one), but retain an interest in marine matters, I accepted the NRF’s invitation.
The narrative that follows is arranged according to brief commentaries on the structure and funding of the programme, before a more detailed dispensation of its products. A few final remarks are made on developments in the future. On balance, as already intimated, the performance of the programme was satisfactory. In fact, it was good, if not better than good, measured against several criteria. All is not rosy, however, in this metaphorical garden of the sea. There are a few things that smell unpleasantly pungent. Like ozone, they are irritating. Some could be easily deodorised.
P O Box 395
Constantia 7848
Cape Town
1.Structure
The programme embraced a total of 107 research projects, grouped into seven so-called thrusts. It would be tedious, and superfluous here, to account individually for either the thrusts or the projects. It suffices to report that the thrusts included such subjects as living resources (inshore and offshore), marine nature reserves, mariculture, physical and biological oceanography and geomorphology. As might be surmised, a preponderance of the research dealt with matters related to management of fisheries (in the generic sense of the word), particularly in the near-shore area. In this context, I have the feeling (it is nothing more than that) that this programme’s focus on the near-shore area was achieved, in part, at the expense of deep-sea research. At least in comparison to programmes of past periods.
In theory, at least, each thrust appears to be an attempt at structuring a mini-programme replete with aims, opportunities, benefits, priorities, justifications, and so on. A virtual Schreibfest of dubious value. The narratives are riven with new-speak, politically correct, jargon, verbal contortions, obfuscation, tired clichés and platitudes. Ambiguities abound. Many of the intentions are wildly ambitious and, frankly, are not achievable under the realities of South African current conditions.
I hesitate to think about the time and effort, either way, that must have gone into producing this verbiage, when all that was really required was a setting out of an hierarchically arranged series of scientifically framed problems (questions) for research and researchers. This in accord with criteria for judging the relative importance of the questions. It should not be necessary for good scientists, who do know better, to have to demean themselves by playing at petty politics. They are not good at it, generally speaking. This does not mean, however, that scientists are not duty-bound to explain and justify themselves and their work to society.
One of the primary reasons why all aspects of the intentions of some of the thrusts were not fully realised is vested in inadequate contributions from human and social scientists. This is hardly cause for surprise. It could have been, and perhaps was, anticipated, but how much was done about it I cannot say. At least, however, some of the intentions could, and should, have been revisited accordingly. On the positive side, the attempt at bringing on board socio-economists was a first serious effort to get to grips with some of the more pressing problems facing managers of activities in the South African coastal zone. If nothing else, this created a sea-change (sorry!) in a hitherto comfortable and conventional, corporate mindset of a community of natural scientists. More should be done to encourage the development of the initial courtship, but not to seek marriage by way of forced integration.
In any event, I conclude this section by saying that the programme has been successful not because, but in spite, of its structure. This opinion ignores, of course, the more ambitious intentions.
2.Funding
Approximately R20 million was allocated to the programme, through the NRF and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA&T) during the period under review. This sum does not come close to the actual cost of all operations. The salaries, for example, of most of the principal researchers were not paid out of the R20 million. Many other items were covered by supplementary funding from a diverse range of sources. The programme was almost exclusively dependent on public-sector grants.
Even if one allows for a doubling of expenditure, as something approaching actual spending, remarkably much was done with relatively little. And, that is not taking quality of products into account for the moment. South African scientists certainly have become very good at doing more with less. Not (yet) as good as the Russians, perhaps. But, then, the quality of South African marine science is ahead of that of the Russians.
However commendable this may be, it is not sustainable in the long run. And, the long run is shortening by the day, because South African marine science has never been over-rewarded with funding. Leaving aside a range of clandestine, defence-force activities in the recent past, of course. The nub of the matter is that South African marine science is living increasingly off its capital, and it has been doing so for several years. Intellectual and material capital. The cracks are beginning to show. There are warning lights that are flickering.
The good return on money invested in the programme mitigates, to some extent, a critical view of how priorities for funding were determined, both within and between thrusts, and even within individual projects. This is not to imply that a system and its criteria were not in place for determining priorities for both research directions and funds. A look across the board, however, suggests more than a little of a ‘sprinkler’ effect. This is bound to become less acceptable in the future when the money should follow mainly the better research and researchers, all else being equal.
3.Scientific and quasi-scientific research
A political and, hence, a funding perspective in 1994 could have persuaded the architects of the programme that what was needed was an amalgam of technology improvement, policy formulation, management operations, information transfer and cost-benefit analyses. All to be grafted onto a tree of scientific research. Once again, I was surprised by the amount of good scientific research that grew out of a tree that one might have predicted would suffer considerable dieback. This speaks volumes for the qualities of the persons at the helm.
The point to be made is that there is no guarantee that the kind of hybrid that was the Sea and Coast Programme I in 1995 to 2000 will do the business again. All conventional wisdom says that the best chance of success depends on bringing like together with like. The two commonalties here are the marine environment and scientific research. ‘Scientific’ is used here in a generic sense. In other words, as long as there is adherence to the scientific method researchers of all disciplines qualify. By all means encourage discourse between researchers and managers, communicators, technologists and policy developers, but do this outside the framework of a programme that should be focused on problem-driven research.
In this context, I do not distinguish between so-called applied and basic research. Good research is good research, and it is either appropriate in a specific set of circumstances or not. My problem, rather, is the judging, let alone accepting, of some of the programme’s products as the results of research. This is not to gainsay the importance of these products.
4.Products
The results of the programme are of several kinds. They are tangible and intangible. Conventionally, and at first, such items as publications and students come to mind. But, the programme’s products are more manifold than that. Moreover, a high yield of products does not necessarily equate with a high yield of benefits. Hence, it is not easy to answer the question: did the programme deliver value for money? I report on the easy things first.
On average, 75 postgraduate students, most at the masters degree level, participated in the programme each year. This is a relatively high number, given the number of projects (107) in the programme. Similarly, credit is due to the programme for its achievements in the field of corrective action; there being a significant increase in the number of black students entering into marine science. Unfortunately, however, many leave prematurely, presumably because of the lure of better earnings elsewhere. A further concern is rooted in a relatively low number of post-doctoral students supported by the programme.
To date, some 700 publications have resulted from the programme. Once again, a relatively high level of production. Most of these products, however, appeared in South African, but also internationally rated, journals. Relatively few reports were published in high-impact journals produced elsewhere in the world. It appears that not enough consideration was given to planning projects for maximising the impacts of their findings. Small differences in such planning can often result in large differences in the quality and recognition of the products. In any event, assuming a R40 million expenditure overall, the average cost of a published report is some R60-thousand. This is a very good return on investment, given the high cost of operating at sea and other relatively high costs involved in doing marine science.
Transfer of information was an important aim of the programme. Technical information was produced for, and communicated to, a wide range of users. Most of this information was biological in nature, concerning commercially and recreationally exploited living resources. Biology also predominated in efforts aimed at enhancing the public’s (including politicians) awareness of the importance of marine science in the socio-economic development of South Africa. In this context, little, if anything, was done to dispel the popular perception that the business of marine science is marine biology that is geared towards ‘saving' ’creatures of the sea from extinction. It is one of the factors contributing to shortages of non-biological natural scientists, engineers, economists and sociologists in marine science.
I view inter-personal and inter-institutional co-operation and collaboration as a primary product. In this business, if you want to take, you must have something to give. Based on the high level of especially international collaboration achieved by the programme, South African marine science must have things that much of the rest of the world’s peer programmes esteem. And, this goes considerably beyond the fascinating geographical environment in which most of South Africa’s marine science is carried out. South African marine science has always prided itself on its international connections, even during the decades of political boycotts. It is particularly pleasing now to see how the new dispensation has promoted growth of international exchanges.
Internally, so to speak, too, the degree of collaboration has continued to grow, particularly between academic institutions and management organs. It is fair to say that this has come about by way of a unique (I know of no similar model elsewhere in the world) arrangement involving all stake-holders from the start to the finish of the programme. More particularly, managers and researchers have worked together from planning through to critical review of the product. The South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research (SANCOR) deserves special recognition for its role in facilitating this achievement.
5.Findings
The main, let alone all, findings of the research programme under review are contained in several hundred pages of final reports. I have dutifully waded through all of this material. The findings cannot be synthesised here, without doing an injustice to many researchers who participated in the programme. Some generalised commentary is, nevertheless, possible.
Most of the findings are essentially descriptive, albeit quantitative, accounts of natural systems and biological communities and organisms. These accounts provide much information that is immediately useful to management practitioners. Some of this is based on innovative approaches and use of special techniques, thus paralleling some of the most modern work being done elsewhere in the world. Conspicuous by its virtual absence, however, is novel scientific breakthrough, in the form of new hypotheses, theory or paradigms. A programme of this size should be able to deliver more ‘cutting-edge’ stuff. Perhaps, this could come in time, if some of the leading researchers could be put into positions in which they could devote more time to synthesising the results of their work carried out over many years.
In the final analysis, the findings reflect a division in the programme between really good science, most of it useful to management, too, and fair to mediocre science. Most of the latter is also useful to management. There is, however, not enough conceptually good science, and there is too much mediocre science. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. Something must have gone wrong with the system of evaluation at the start of the programme. The overall quality of the programme could possibly have benefited if some 20% of the projects had been rejected at the start, and the savings used to bolster some of the better proposals.
6.Future
The guiding principles for a research programme are vested in the quality of its intended products and the fitness (appropriateness) of the problems it researches. There should be no compromises over this. The quality should be as good as the best in the world. This prescription cannot be faulted in the developed world. The case is different in developing nations.
South Africa is a developing nation in which are embedded aspects of developed nations. Components of South Africa’s developed-nation science base are at risk. More particularly, for marine science, the older, internationally recognised researchers are retired, or are about to do so. Their leadership and mentoring roles should be taken over by the next generation. This is the normal condition in normal countries, but South Africa is not normal. The ‘normal’ next generation has been impaired by the emigration of some of its brightest and best researchers. This could have a ‘knock-down’ effect in that the youngest generation is likely to be less well trained than its forerunners. The result of adding this to South Africa’s special need for corrective action creates a problem of no little complexity and magnitude for the designers of research programmes.
This is not the place for discussing the matter further. I submit, however, that it is possible to have the proverbial cake and to eat it, too, provided that one is prepared to bake a smaller cake. In other words, do less, possibly with more, but do it better than in the past. Do not water down the high-quality potential that remains in order to attempt to build up that which is of lesser quality. The latter has to be improved by special means, with the assistance, but outside the mainstream, of excellence.
We all know that, that which people at the seashore smell, and call, ozone is not really ozone. Real ozone is not pure and refreshing air. The public, and the palatines and parvenus, can rest assured that, on balance, the products of the Sea and Coast Programme I are refreshing and pure. They constitute very good value for money. The leaders of the programme should be congratulated and cherished.
Annette Schnetler and Johan Pauw assisted in various ways. George Branch criticised the draft, and was generous in his advice. I thank them all.