Namibian Technical Workshop Proceedings

Regional Science Service Centre (RSSC) -start-up phase Namibian Technical Workshop Proceedings 22-23 July 2010 Safari Hotel, Windhoek Drafted by Ulrica Abrahams (ulrica.abrahams@gtz.de)

Table of Contents ACRONYMS... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 SESSION 1: OPENING... 6 WELCOMING... 6 OPENING REMARKS... 6 OFFICIAL OPENING... 7 RSSC OVERVIEW... 7 REFLECTING ON AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF RSSC... 8 SESSION 2: NEEDS IDENTIFICATION... 9 ROLES OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS/PARTNERS... 9 STRATEGIC ORIENTATION PREPARATION FOR WORKING GROUPS... 9 STRATEGIC ORIENTATION... 11 PLENARY REPORT BACK FROM WORKING GROUP SESSIONS... 11 SESSION 3: GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURE... 15 PRESENTATION ON GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURE... 15 SESSION 4: CLOSING... 17 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROCESS... 17 THE WAY FORWARD... 18 OFFICIAL CLOSING... 19 ANNEXURES:... 20 ANNEX 1: ATTENDANCE REGISTER... 21 ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME... 25 ANNEX 3: OPENING REMARKS... 27 ANNEX 4: OFFICIAL OPENING SPEECH... 30 ANNEX 5: RSSC OVERVIEW... 34 ANNEX 6: WORKING GROUP MATRIX DESIGN AND PRESENTATIONS... 50 ANNEX 7: GOVERNANCE... 86 ANNEX 8: WAY FORWARD... 93 ANNEX 9: CLOSING... 95 2

Acronyms AGO BGR BMBF CBRNM CoW CPP CSC DLR DRFN DWD FSU Gobabeb GTZ HOORC IPPR ISOE KfW MAWF ME ME/DRST Meatboard MESCT MET MET DSS Met Services MFA MINADERP MLR NAB NACSO NARC NAU NBRI NEPRU NGO NISD NISIR NMS NNF NNFU NPC NRSC PoN PT-DLR RSSC Attorney General's Office- Namibia The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung) Namibian Association of Community-Based Natural Resource Management City of Windhoek Country Pilot Partnership Project Climate Service Centre-Germany German Aerospace Centre Desert Research Foundation of Namibia German Meteorological Service Friedrich-Schiller University-Germany Gobabeb Research and Training Centre German Technical Cooperation Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre- Botswana Institute for Public Policy Research-Namibia Institute for Socio-Ecological Research-Germany Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry-Namibia Ministry of Education-Namibia Ministry of Education- Directorate of Science and Technology-Namibia Meat Board of Namibia Decano da Faculdade de Ciência Agrária- Angola Ministry of Environment and Tourism-Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism- Directorate of Scientific Sciences- Namibia Meteorological Services- Namibia Ministry of Foreign Affairs- Namibia Ministério da Agricultura- Angola Ministry of Lands and Resettlement-Namibia Namibia Agronomic Board Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations Namibia Agricultural Research Centre Namibia Agricultural Union Namibian Botanical Research Institute Namibia Economic Policy Research Unit Non-Governmental Organisation Namibian Institute for Sustainable Development National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research-Zambia Namibia Meteorological Services Namibia Nature Foundation Namibia National Farmers' Union National Planning Commission-Namibia National Republican Senatorial Committee- Zambia Polytechnic of Namibia German Aerospace Centre Regional Science Service Centre 3

SADC SADC-ELMS SAIEA UHH UNAM UNDP UNESCO Southern African Development Community Southern African Development Community-Environment and Land Management Sector Southern Africa Institute for Environmental Assessment-Namibia University of Hamburg-Germany University of Namibia United Nations Development Programme United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation 4

Executive Summary The Regional Science Service Centre (RSSC) hosted a two-day workshop held 22-23 July 2010 at the Hotel Safari in Windhoek, Namibia. The objectives of the workshop were to: Improve common understanding of the RSSC concept Guide priorities for the scientific programme of RSSC Guide overall (national and regional) institutional framework for RSSC The workshop aimed at soliciting inputs from identified stakeholders to ensure achievement of the workshop objectives. A total of 96 participants registered (Annex 1) with 7 participants from the four partner countries (Angola, South Africa, Botswana and Zambia) and 18 members of interested representatives from the German scientific consortium. The participants were selected on their expertise. According to the workshop programme (Annex 2), the first day started with an overview presentation to address three major questions namely, why the need for a RSSC; what the RSSC could address; and how the RSSC could operate. The first day essentially addressed the first two questions, while the second day dealt with the latter question. The workshop was designed into thematic working group (table 1) sessions led by resource persons to address the priority research needs and cost implications ("hardware - physical equipment/infrastructure and software"-human resources). Crosscutting issues such as capacity building and information management and dissemination emerged very strongly as key issues to be addressed by the RSSC from all working group discussions. A plenary discussion recognised the need for a good governance system that was identified as an essential precondition for sustainable development. The most probable governance model proposed was the headquarters and country-nodes option. This institutional arrangement was proposed to be composed of a very lean "coordinator"/headquarters, with strong country nodes (in each participating country to feature the country identities/dynamics and to ensure ownership) while the headquarters plays a coordination role. The research/implementation component of the headquarters was not clear from the discussions and needs further elaboration. However it was agreed that the institutional framework depends on the mandate, acceptance of mandate and funding. At the design stage it is important to explore the possibilities for moving beyond the funding timeframe of four years and develop a framework for sustainability beyond 2014. In this regard, post workshop working groups were identified to elaborate on the projects identified in the working groups; the proposed governance model; sustainability of RSSC; and preparation for political process. In addition, further ideas and inputs were urged from the participants on a suitable name and logo elements for the centre, in preparation for the political round table scheduled for 7 September 2010 in Luanda. 5

Day 1, 22 July 2010 Session 1: Opening Welcoming Mr. Nehemia, Under-secretary of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, in his capacity as the master of ceremonies, welcomed the participants on behalf of Ms. Shiweda, the Deputy-Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. He extended a special word of welcome to His Excellency Mr. Kochanke (Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany) and His Honorable Mr. Iilonga, Deputy- Minister of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. Mr. Nehemia also highlighted the likely outputs of the workshop, especially the Namibian perspective of RSSC within the SADC aspect. Opening Remarks The opening remarks (see Annex 3 for detailed speech) were made by His Excellency Mr. Egon Kochanke, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany. He reflected on the two round table discussions in September 2009 and March 2010 which paved the way towards the establishment of the RSSC in Southern Africa. The RSSC focuses on climate change which is now widely recognised as a major environmental problem facing the globe as well as economic development. In this regard, sustainable management of land and natural resources is crucial for the livelihoods of many people. It is recognised that the continent, especially Africa and its people, are vulnerable to the detrimental effects of changing climate. He further indicated that the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research is supporting the establishment of the RSSC by contributing 5.1 Million in the next two years to the centres in Southern and Western Africa. The initiative is complementary to the already existing projects within the German-Namibian development cooperation. The cooperation includes the sustainable management of natural resources as one of its priority areas. The establishment of the RSSC will mark a new milestone in the cooperation between the five participating Southern African countries and Germany. The Ambassador closed by indicating that Namibia is one of the key partners and that the Federal Republic of Germany is proud to support this initiative. 6

Official Opening Official Opening (see Annex 4 for detailed speech) of the workshop was made by the Honorable Deputy Minister of Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) Mr. Peter Ilonga. Honorable Iilonga shared that his viewpoint of the workshop aim is to improve the participants general understanding of the RSSC concept, but also to provide guidance on the four themes under the RSSC framework. He stressed that realization of innovation, technology advancement and development of science in Namibia is crucial. The RSSC is expected to provide resources and expertise to expand scientific research capacity to promote industrial development and growth. However, the implementation of the RSSC initiative must be driven by African scientists, with the help of international support, to ensure research findings reach beneficiaries of all levels. He advocated for stronger partnership with donor agents and the private sector to strengthen Namibia s resources to achieve vision 2030. He articulated that Namibia is ready to integrate global knowledge. In conclusion he informed the audience that during the Cabinet session on 20 July 2010, RSSC was on the agenda and he can positively report that the government in principle accepted the centre concept and that it has the political leadership and support for the technical process to continue successfully. The workshop was officially declared open. RSSC Overview Prof. Juergens shared with the participants (Annex 5) that workshops of this nature will take place in the other four partner countries, Namibia was the first country to kick-off and therefore a need was felt to invite some of the participants of the partner countries although the workshop is designed to address the needs and issues of RSSC in Namibia. The aim of the presentation was to update the participants on the current developments at RSSC and addressed the following questions: Why RSSC? What then? And how? 7

The presentation is briefly summarized below: Comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth s climate system is changing rapidly. Global changes result in other changes such as economic and social changes. The reality of global warming and its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts are more severe in Southern Africa, as a result making it the warmest place for human beings to live, with lesser rainfall predicted. Global warming further impacts the productiveness of ecosystems. The effects of projected unmitigated climate change in Africa and elsewhere will be profound and thus climate change is a major threat to sustainable growth and development in Africa. He articulated the importance of strengthening regional capacity to mitigate the effects of climate change on water resources, land use and biodiversity. Natural resources management has no national boundaries, it is a cross-boundary concern, and therefore, regional integration of the five partner countries is vital. Cooperation with other partners and stakeholders will create a win-win situation. RSSC s mode of operation is not to compete with other institutions, but to bring them all together through networking. RSSC advocates science for development. The vision of RSSC is to establish regional scientific research and services addressing the future trends of global change, the vulnerability (or resilience) of societies and ecosystems and the potential for better management of natural ressources and services The science plan of the RSSC is centred around enhancing knowledge-based decision making for efficient and sustainable resource management for societal and economic stability, poverty alleviation, disaster reduction, and robust and sustainable development. However for the purpose of the workshop, the questions of the Namibian research agenda and how they will be addressed is crucial. The regional value addition could also be discussed, but will strongly emerge after the planned regional workshops. Reflecting on aims and objectives of RSSC Mr. Kruger in his capacity as the workshop facilitator pointed out that the what of RSSC is spelled out in its vision. He opened the floor for discussions on the what aspect of RSSC. Participants responded by sharing the following concern/issues: The scope of four years and thereafter? How global is RSSC? Strong initiatives already exist- are we re-inventing activities? The topics are very broad and long, a suggestion was to narrow them down in order of priority The link between science and the end users? Who will be using the outputs of the Centre? Knowledge management level? The linkage of research data and the educational system, what are the outputs and products of the centre? 8

Why is the RSSC initiative spearheaded by Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry? This initiative falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Education. Where will the centre be established? The Namibian participants to attend the other partner countries workshops? The s for service in the name calls for further deliberations on the name of this animal. What services will be provided? Session 2: Needs Identification Roles of all stakeholders/partners This presentation was cancelled since the issue of stakeholder cooperation was already discussed at length and the roles of stakeholders were clear: Government: Policy/legislative framework guidance, political leadership on political processes. Academic institutions: support in basic and applied scientific research and capacity building Non-governmental institutions/organisations: research and translation of basic and applied research to end-users, capacity building Private sector/consultants and external expertise (eg. German scientific consortium): support basic and applied scientific research where needed. It was made very clear that the German scientists indicated their interest to participate in this initiative guided by the Namibian (regional) needs. Donors: Resource support and project guidance. For example, KfW s role was explained by Dr Sandhaas; the BMBF mandated the KfW to assist in implementation and development of the research centres during the preparatory stages. KfW assistance towards the research centres are advisory services and technical assistance and also to develop a study on long-term funding of these centres and to develop a sustainable concept for financing. He noted that all funds provided to the centres come from different sources and that KfW manages the funds on behalf of the German Development Bank. Strategic Orientation Preparation for working groups Mr. Kruger explained that participants were distributed in four parallel break-out working groups according to their expertise on the different themes (table 1), lead by resource persons, as deduced from the Vision 2030. Crosscutting issues, namely capacity building, information management and dissemination, and long-term climate change impacts, were also discussed under each theme. 9

Table 1: Themes were as follows (See Annex 3 for detailed working group outputs): Theme Resource Person(s) Water and Associated Resources Matros-Goreses, Dr Anna Seely, Dr Mary Biodiversity Zeidler, Dr Juliane Land and Agricultural Production and Mendelsohn, Dr John Forestry Wildlife and Tourism Shikongo, Mr Sem Erb, Mr Peter The groups were tasked to deliberate and complete the table template as indicated in table 2. Table 2: Needs Identification Template No. Need/T opic What is done so far? What else is needed? Hardware Capacity needs Software Products/O utputs Use of Products Possible partners Prio rity The needs identification component formed the basis of the workshop, and thus the working groups worked until the end of the day on the matrix to allow more detailed deliberations. The idea was to form a strong foundation upon which the RSSC team/partners can take issues further after the workshop. 10

Day 2, 23 July 2010 Strategic Orientation Mr. Kruger gave an overview of the previous day's deliberations which addressed improving the understanding of the purpose of the RSSC and developing priority research areas of the RSSC. Day two was thus geared towards discussing the governance/institutional framework and infrastructure for the RSSC. Furthermore, the participants were asked for suggestions/ideas for a possible name change of RSSC and to propose logo elements to facilitate the realisation of this concept. Plenary report back from working group sessions The purpose of the working group formation was to assist the RSSC to come up with priority areas within the various disciplines. Presentations and comments recorded in each group have been collated into the matrix (table 2) and discussed during plenary (Annex 6). Some of the research areas identified by the working groups are summarized below: Working group one: Tourism and Wildlife, Rapporteur Mr. Peter Erb A need for more basic research on tourism, environmental and socio-economic impacts CBRNM scope to improve cross-cutting land issues support Improved wildlife management practices and options Better consumptive understanding effects on social systems Improved wildlife research Improved use of technology (e.g. cellphone information sharing, video conferencing, etc) Integration of cross-cutting issues such as climate change Working group two: Biodiversity, Rapporteur- Ms. Coleen Mannheimer Science and Knowledge Unavailability of records of species Value of biodiversity Capacity building improve high-level environmental awareness Easy accessibility of user-friendly information dissemination in Namibia Services data and knowledge management Protected vs Public Areas Working group three Land, Agriculture and Forestry, Rapporteur- Dr. John Mendelsohn Need for continuation in research, monitoring and assessment Adaptation to climate change, short and long term Economic values of natural resources and land use 11

Technical aspects of databases Land tenure policy Capacity building as widespread raising public awareness Climate variability vs climate change Need for marketing research - better linkages of producers to markets Improved soil fertility linked to climate change Better understanding of land reform models Working group four Water resources, Rapporteurs- Mr. Andre Mostert, Ms Pauline Mufeti and Mr Guido van Langenhove Improved Monitoring - need for upgraded systems to better monitor water levels etc Improved catchment modelling Remote sensing Early Warning Systems -Incorporation of climate change River basin information system to be able to store data and make it available to users Decision Information Systems- Ability to produce different information for different users Trans-boundary River Management Integrated Water demand prognosis focused on urban prognosis Risk Assessment of climate change impacts Environmental flow requirements Methodology for Namibia River-ground water interaction for better understanding and to be able to quantify it Sanitation focused on Namibia s conditions Capacity building Water quality monitoring and assessment General discussion points after working group presentations included: Is the centre going to focus on developmental issues or only when they are linked to climate change? the role of the RSSC is still not clear- whether it is only going to do "assessment, monitoring, inventories" or will it also engage in original (innovative) research and not just take already on-going initiatives further. The information system development and capacity building aspects came out very strongly in the discussions, however a caution was made that a distinction should be made between information management (eg web-sites etc) vs knowledge management (coordination/ quality of sectoral scientific research) Formal capacity building at academic level should result in various masters/phd research valid for application of some of the research projects identified. Recognition of informal short courses (certificates) and informal education should also be considered. Some of these courses should be organised virtually, due to limited capacity, since institutions cannot lose staff to permanent study arrangements. 12

The role of NGOs within this initiative is very strong in translating scientific information for decision makers (at all levels, eg. from farmers to politicians), to ensure the benefits from the research are practical and can be used by all. The role of the RSSC should be to influence behaviour- which is a concept that will make it unique compared to other existing centres. It should be able to link pure/applied science with practice. Are socio-economic research and urban-rural interactions to be entirely excluded? They are important topics for Namibia. In addition to working group results, the following discussion took place to ensure major gaps are identified: Education: Prof. Juergens noted that a proposal was made that the water topics could be strengthened by bringing the University of Namibia (UNAM) on board and incorporating some aspects into their curricula. In this regard, it was commented that the University does have such programmes in place, especially in the Biology department, although hampered by funds (scholarships) for students, and this aspect could be strengthened through this initiative and making use of German scientific consortium expertise. Collaboration between the RSSC and UNAM can favourably add value. Similarly, the Polytechnic of Namibia (PoN) indicated that they are engaged in water related training programmes on regional level, and future collaboration with the RSSC will depend on the institutional structure and services that can be offered by the RSSC. A representative from the Meteorology Institute in Namibia echoed his concerns with regard to the lack of formal meteorology training programmes available in Namibia and calls for the RSSC to include this as one of their priority areas. Another discussion point was focused on capability of institutional manpower in training of proposal writing and budgeting. In this regard, the DRFN and PoN are involved in such training activities and could take this further under the auspices of the RSSC. Data Centres: Prof. Juergens raised the question: what is Namibia s need and viewpoint on data centres? This issue was strongly discussed in all working groups. In this regard, the need for a common knowledge base that seeks an integrated approach to provide comprehensive access and facilitate the use of science information, regardless of where it resides, was highlighted. The participants shared a vision of a point of convergence for ensuring the awareness, access and development of information, to facilitate information assimilation. The participants concur that if innovative knowledge dissemination strategies are not implemented, negative consequences could arise. Accelerating the diffusion of knowledge will facilitate the advancement of science, thus the function of the open access data centre is not only needed but imperative for the RSSC. Scientists and researchers need timesaving, effective interfaces for accessing the totality of scientific knowledge. To support the advancement of science a robust information system must manage and provide linkages to other relevant information. It is also imperative that unnecessary barriers (costs, confidentiality) to sharing results of research should be removed. The participants support and encourage the principle that 13

research should be more accessible. At the core of the RSSC, existing data centres need to be supported and to avoid duplication of data centres, RSSC should compliment existing data centres. Long-term sustainability: Prof. Juergens informed the participants that the RSSC has secured funding over a 4-year period. He envisages a need for a long-term funding perspective for the centre. In support of the above-mentioned question, the participants agreed that national government must be approached to strengthen ownership on national level. Those at the helm of the centre have a shared responsibility to strengthen the centre to make it attractive for other funding agencies through value addition of its products and services. Dr. Mendelsohn used the platform to promote consideration of urban issues. Urban-rural migrations and industrialization have brought an ever-deepening concern over the environment. He strongly feels that research is needed in this area. What approaches are likely to help us strike a balance between our desperate need of economic development and need to protect our environment? The centre could also play a role in researching rural livelihood options and integrating urbanisation (planning) impacts into some of the themes discussed during the workshop. Stakeholder involvement in identified themes The participants were also invited to indicate which themes they are actively involved. Figure 1 below reflects the results of this exercise. Most of the participants are involved in water; biodiversity and land related activities, while wildlife and tourism activities are limited. This analysis will also be considered while drafting detailed priority needs areas for the country. 14

Session 3: Governance and Structure Presentation on Governance and Structure Dr. Tarr led the discussion on governance options for RSSC. His presentation (Annex 7) was two-fold; the first part reflected on proposed good governance principles for RSSC, followed by proposed options for an institutional structure. In the first part of his presentation, Dr. Tarr concurs that good governance is pivotal to the development process. A good governance system must achieve: Political legitimacy Acceptance at regional and even SADC level. Good governance requires good institutions, set of rules governing the actions of all involved Professional legitimacy sound understanding of local conditions and genuine ownership within the partner country is crucial Social legitimacy is the recognition and appreciation of the value of RSSC to society. Social legitimacy is reflected through the outside support received by RSSC Legal accountability transparency of RSSC regarding their activities and funding sources. Accountability to those they represent or those they work with. In conclusion, good governance is participatory, transparent and accountable. Good governance is an essential precondition for sustainable development. In this regard, Dr. Tarr introduced three organisational structure options: Option 1: Head office Model [formal, conventional structure with full time staff serving other participating countries] Option 2: Head office and Country node Model [lean head office, with satellite offices in other countries] Option 3: Virtual Institution Model [no central institution with agreements among existing institutions] Dr. Tarr expressed his preferred model is option 2, the head office and country node model, with a very strong and dedicated "coordinator" to pull everything together from all various country nodes, while serving the needs of the target audience. Plenary discussion on governance session: The majority of the participants seemed to be content with option 2, while a few felt the better option was the Virtual institution model (however issues such as "who does the donor sign the agreement with" have to be considered when considering this model). Another suggestion was that a board could be established with whom the donors could sign the agreements. 15

A very good discussion emanating on the preferred option 2 noted: Namibia Agricultural Research Centre (NARC) is a coordinating body as outlined in its constitution. What could be the link between this body and RSSC? It could also be the country node in Namibia. It was concluded that a meeting is needed between NARC and RSSC to pave the way forward (though the NARC could be too sectoral in the sense that it only focus on agriculture and thus could lose the other themes) with regard to future cooperation and areas of responsibility. Coordination, collaboration and communication problems could be foreseen with this model. Mandate of the centre is unclear coordination/implementation/facilitation? The mandate, products and purpose should be very clear, especially a strong balance should be kept between independence, state and donor involvement (relationship should be well defined!) A missing link is the need for build-up of a critical mass of scientists to make a difference The role of SADC within this model needs to be considered and maybe the "coordinator" in the model could be based with the SADC office since they have this mandate already- especially if all SADC countries will be involved eventually. The model promotes social-networking instead of a business model (such as Coca-cola) which would ensure the RSSC actually does make an impact instead of spending time on attending meetings all the time. Sustainability- financial, institutional, and functional- should be build into the governance framework and this is still not clear. It might be necessary to consider different levels of governance for different needs, e.g. service level would need a different structure. The risk of the country nodes living a life of their own needs to be consideredlessons learnt from the Food, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Policy and Analysis Network could be useful to explore- since they are operating on a similar model and there are various concerns such a communication between head quarters and country nodes (also linked to sourcing of funding). The Model could maybe replace country nodes with thematic nodes (however this might raise the concerns of losing the integration aspect and it would mean country nodes will still operate in silos) Clarity of the mandate, acceptance of mandate and funding- determine success of model chosen option It is not clear what country nodes are supposed to do? How will they do research? Focus of the country should be carefully placed and therefore the coordinating function of the RSSC is very crucial. Reflect on governance principals- political legitimacy- thus consider an adaptive model such as SADC-ELMS and consider how RSSC could slot into existing initiatives especially government activities. (The concerns here were raised about 16

the SADC reputation currently and its capacity challenges and thus it was strongly urged that the RSSC work closely with them, but not form the governance structure around them). The governance model should also take into consideration different country commitments and make sure benefits are matched accordingly. Country requirements will also determine if country nodes can work in each of the participating countries. We should not just have country nodes for the sake of making countries feel involved- it should be linked to activities and incentives. The available funds should be treated conservatively if we want to go a long way. Consider a structure such as WaterNet, which facilitated funds for capacity building- however quality assurance of projects (and country contributions) should be strongly looked at. Another discussion or platform is necessary to flesh out all these concerns and ideas- without being influenced by the money involved- and just focus on what we want out of the deal and how best to address it- to make an impact on national and regional level. Dr. Tarr responded that the coordination role calls for fostering of good networking relationships and facilitation of the process. He said that the principle of collaboration and sharing is driving the centre, regardless of the institutional structure. The outputs depend on the mandate, acceptance of mandate and funding. The model depends on the region s needs. A fundamental element is the dynamics in each country, therefore the structure should be adapted, should be country-driven. It was agreed that there was common ground within the workshop that option 2 is more viable, the challenge now is to adapt it to the region s needs. Session 4: Closing Mr. Kruger introduced the session, indicating that there will not be a formal workshop evaluation, however a brief assessment of the process by partner countries participants would suffice. This would be followed by highlighting the way forward before formally closing the workshop. Assessment of the process An open-discussion approach was used to evaluate the workshop. Mr. Kruger led the discussion and solicited the partner countries (Angola, Botswana, South Africa and Zambia) participants point of view on the workshop. The following presents an evaluation of the workshop as viewed by them: Overall, the content and organization of the workshop were very highly rated 17

Diversity of expertise of stakeholders is crucial to achieve the workshop objectives Information sharing forms a good foundation for understanding the purpose of RSSC Workshop was very informative and well executed Working group sessions led by knowledgeable subject persons create more impact Government and institutional support is very crucial in achieving meaningful impact on a workshop of this nature. It was also noted that getting institutional support for initiatives of this nature will require pre-national consultative meetings prior to the workshop Dr Miriam Akhtar-Schuster from the Project Management Division from the Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) of the Republic of Germany commented on a job well done by Namibia. They were keen to see how this approach will go in the first region and are impressed with both the inputs from participants and excellent facilitation. The Way Forward The final session of the workshop examined the way forward and made recommendations. Dr. Matros-Goreses during her presentation (Annex 8) highlighted that the Namibian workshop was the first of the regional workshops and the rest will take place as follows: Angola- Luanda- 27-29 July 2010 Zambia- Livingstone 3-5 August 2010 Botswana- Maun 11-13 August 2010 South Africa- Pretoria- 17-19 August 2010 A synthesis of all these regional workshops will be presented at the political round table, scheduled for 7 September 2010 in Luanda, Angola. This political process is very crucial for paving the way forward for the regional agenda of the RSSC including determining the national commitments towards this initiative. In light of the expertise shared, the deliberations and insights gained during the workshop, a recommendation of having post-workshop working groups was made in terms of the Namibian preparation process towards the anticipated political round table on the following issues: Political preparation (in terms of national expectations for the roundtable) Themes (Water, Land, Biodiversity, Wildlife and Tourism) Governance (national model) Sustainability (financial, institutional, functional) The Namibian participants were invited to participate in these working groups based on their expertise on the points listed. The following participants keenly indicated their interest to participate in the follow-up working groups: Biodiversity : Ben Strohbach; Coleen Mannheimer; Joh Henschel Land: Peter Lenhardt; Bertus Kruger; Mogos Teweldemedhty 18

Water: Guido van Langenhove; Mary Seely; Jurgen Menge (also nominated Piet du Pisani and Ferdi Brinkman) Urban: Mary Seely; John Mendelsohn Governance and sustainability: Joh Henschel The outputs of the round table decisions will be the compilation of the final RSSC science and business plan. Expected implementation is mid 2011. Votes of thanks were extended to all the support staff, facilitating team and others who helped in the remarkable smooth running of the workshop and provided unfailing support to the participants before and during the workshop. The active participation of all present was acknowledged to have contributed to the success of this workshop! Matters for further reflections identified were: RSSC name change and logo o Suggested names: Kinako (means it is time )- Regional Science Support Center o SASSI- Southern Africa Science Service Institute - suggested by Dr Joh Henschel- Director of Gobabeb Training and Research Centre o DRISS: Drylands Regional Institute for Science and its Servicessuggested by Dr Joh Henschel- Director of Gobabeb Training and Research Centre Official Closing Concluding this fruitful exchange of ideas, Dr. Tjivikua, Rector of the Polytechnic of Namibia/ University of Science and Technology addressed the participants and alluded that there is a need to put an institutional mechanism in place to coordinate innovative science and research in Namibia, the enhancement of capacity building and for future funding support. In his presentation (Annex 9), he highlighted that knowledge driven initiatives can enrich current statistics to change the African and more so the southern African deficiency of scientific and research capacity. He asserts the notion of innovation for sustainability and knowledge systems to drive this RSSC initiative. In conclusion he re-affirmed the commitment of his institution as a partner in this initiative. 19

Annexures: 20

Annex 1: Attendance Register No. Participant from Regional Science Service Centre Stakeholder Workshop, 22 & 23 July 2010 Surname Title. First Name Organization Contact Details E-mail 1 Angola Pereira Mr Goncalves MESCT 9 254191616 gjgpereira@gmail.com 2 Angola Lucano Mr Domingos MINADERP 9 14334152 domingoslucano@hotmail.com 3 Botswana Batisani Dr Nnyaladzi Botswana College 267 3650123 nnyaladzi.batisani@gmail.com 4 Botswana Madome Mr Joe HOORC 267 6817200 jmadome@orc.ub.bw 5 Botswana Thakadu Dr Olekae HOORC 267 6817230 Othakadu@orc.ub.bw 6 Germany Ludwig Mr Ruediger BGR r.ludwig@bgr.de 7 Germany Schaller Dr Michaela CSC Michaela.Schaller@gkss.de 8 Germany Post Dr Joachim DLR 49 8153281470 Joachim.Post@dlr.de 9 Germany Roesner Mr Stefan DWD Stefan.Roesner@dwd.de 10 Germany Kluge Dr Thomas ISOE 816115567 kluge@isoe.de 11 Germany Liehr Dr Stefan ISOE 814867669 liehr@isoe.de 12 Germany Roehrig Dr Julia ISOE 816292820 roehrig@isoe.de 13 Germany Sandhaas Dr Bernd KfW sandhaasiizdvv@web.de 14 Germany Fluegel Prof Dr Wolfgang FSU 49 3691998850 c5wafl@uni-jena.de 15 Germany Akhtar-Schuster Dr Marian PT-DLR 49 40 226338403/0 175 2052525 Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster@dlr.de 16 Germany Homburg Dr Ingo UHH 49 1791113589 ihomburg@botanik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Germany Juergens Prof Dr Norbert UHH Norbert.Juergens@t-online.de 18 Germany Reinhold Prof Dr Barbara Univ Bremen 49 42121862861 breinhold@uni-bremen.de 19 Germany Finckh Dr Manfred Univ Hamburg 814621373 mfinckh@googlemail.com

20 Germany Grote Prof Dr Ulrike Univ Hannover/IUW grote@iuw.uni-hannover.de 21 Germany Winter Dr Etti Univ Hannover winter@iuw.uni-hannover.de Prof Dr 22 Germany Kirk Michael Univ Marburg kirk@wiwi.uni-marburg.de 23 Germany Stellmes Mrs Marion Univ Trier stellmes@uni-trier.de 24 Namibia McLeod Mr Carlo Attorney 061 2812238 chrisnghaamwa@me.com 25 Namibia Heyns Mr Piet Consultant 061 252066/0811284400 heynsp@mweb.com.na 26 Namibia Mannheimer Mrs Coleen Consultant 061 233614/0811272820 manfam@iafrica.com.na 27 Namibia Mendelsohn Dr John Consultant 061 254962/0811482385 john@raison.com.na 28 Namibia Zeidler Dr Juliane Consultant j.zeidler@iecn-namibia.com 29 Namibia Menge Mr Juergen CoW 061 2902334/0811283166 jgm@windhoekcc.org.na 30 Namibia Libanda Ms Tokkie CPP 061 249015 tnchindo@cppnam.net 31 Namibia Siebritz Ms Elzita CPP 061 249015/0813226113 esiebritz@cppnam.net 32 Namibia Seely Dr Mary DRFN 061 377500 mary.seely@drfn.org.na 33 Namibia Henschel Dr Joh Gobabeb 064 694198/0812771715 joh.henschel@gobabeb.org 34 Namibia Graefen Mr Christian GTZ 061 222447/0811294180 christian.graefen@gtz.de 35 Namibia Kehrer Mr Daniel GTZ 061 231416/0814240873 Daniel.Kehrer@gtz.de 36 Namibia Roemer Mrs Martina GTZ 811421700 martina.roemer@gtz.de 37 Namibia Schade Dr Klaus IPPR 061 220725/0813608232 Klaus.E.Schade@gmail.com 38 Namibia Amakali Mrs Maria MAWF 061 2087167 amakalim@mawf.gov.na 39 Namibia Christelis Mr Greg MAWF 061 2087089/0812508302 ChristelisG@mawf.gov.na 40 Namibia Hunger Mr Gereon MAWF 814759621 gereonhunger@gmail.com 41 Namibia Maggs-Koelling Dr Gillian MAWF 061 2087327 gillianm@mawf.gov.na 42 Namibia Nehemia Mr Abraham MAWF 061 2087111/0811275151 NehemiaA@mawf.gov.na 43 Namibia van Langenhove Mr Guido MAWF 061 2087257 LangenhoveG@mawf.gov.na 44 Namibia Negombo Mr Siku Meatboard 061 275830 sikunawa@nammic.com.na 45 Namibia Thomas Mr Elmo ME 061 2706149 ethomas@mec.gov.na 22

46 Namibia Sifani Mr John ME/DRST 061 2706144/0811229020 jsifani@mec.gov.na 47 Namibia Shikatepu Ms Etuna Media-Nampa 061 374000 etuna@nampa.org Media- 48 Namibia Kleinhans Ms Tammy Republikein 061 2972080 tammy@republikein.com.na 49 Namibia Shikongo Dr Sem MET 061 2842178/0811295109 sts@met.na 50 Namibia Uiseb Mr Kenneth MET - DSS 061 2842553 kuiseb@met.na 51 Namibia Kjobetsi Mr Odillo Met Services 061 2877001/0811495467 kjobetsio@meteona.na 52 Namibia Moetie Ms Jennifer Met Services 061 2877000/0812617621 moetiej@meteona.com 53 Namibia Mwangala Mr Sepiso Met Services 061 2877001 smwangala@meteona.com 54 Namibia Frege Mr Richard MFA 061 2822428/0855826954 rfrege@mfa.gov.na 55 Namibia Hattle Mr Allan MFA 811257899 onganda@iway.na 56 Namibia Haub Mr Olaf MLR 8113633744 olafhaub@yahoo.de 57 Namibia Kasita Mr Maria MLR 061 2965120 maria.kasita@gmail.com 58 Namibia Lenhardt Dr Peter NAB 061 379525/0812808340 mandevproj@nammic.com.na 59 Namibia Goagoseb Mr Matthews NACSO 061 230888/0811279217 magoagoseb@hotmail.com 60 Namibia Rusberg Mr Jerome NACSO 812776648 jeromerusberg@gmail.com 61 Namibia Mostert Mr Andre Namwater 061 712068 mosterta@namwater.com.na 62 Namibia du Plessis Mr NP Namwater 811279040 plessisa@namwater.com.na 63 Namibia Coetzee Mr Sakkie NAU 061 237838 sakkie@agrinamibia.com.na 64 Namibia Strohbach Mr Ben NBRI 061 2022017/0855624494 bens@nbri.org.na 65 Namibia Amunkete Ms Taimi NEPRU 061 277510 Taimi.Amunkete@nepru.org.na 66 Namibia Mwalwa Mr Bernard NMS 061 2877018 bnmwalwa@meteona.com 67 Namibia Fennessy Dr Julian NNF 061 248345/0814893109 jf@nnf.org.na 68 Namibia Brown Dr Chris NNF / NISD 061 248345 cb@nnf.org.na 69 Namibia Munjanu Mr Oloff NNFU 061 271117 munjanu@nnfu.org.na 70 Namibia Kamwi Mr Sylvester NPC 061 2834121/0814445656 skamwi@npc.gov.na 71 Namibia Verlinden Dr Alex NPC 061 2834042/0811221929 alex.verlinden@luxdev.lu 72 Namibia Coetzee Mrs Marina PoN 061 2072534/0813238478 mcoetzee@polytechnic.edu.na 23

73 Namibia De Conner Ms Vera PoN 252633/0812856334 vdeconner@polytechnic.edu.na 74 Namibia Kennedy Dr Jeya PoN 061 2072496/0813372799 jkennedy@polytechnic.edu.na 75 Namibia Mhango Mr Brian PoN 061 2072163/0813414489 bmhango@polytechnic.edu.na 76 Namibia Mwewa Mr Lameck PoN 061 2072186/0812122847 lmwewa@polytechnic.edu.na 77 Namibia Teweldemedhin Dr Mogos PoN 061 2072304/0813448283 tmogos@polytechnic.edu.na 78 Namibia Riethmuller Dr Robert PoN 061 2072961 robert_riethmueller@yahoo.de 79 Namibia Erb Mr Peter RSSC 811285901 p.erb@rssc-southernafrica.net 80 Namibia Kohrs Ms Bertchen RSSC 061 227913/0812938085 bertchenk@iway.na 81 Namibia Matros-Goreses Dr Anna RSSC 061 377500/0814756514 amatrosgoreses@gmail.com 82 Namibia Mtuleni Mr Vilho RSSC 061 377504/0812326843 Vilho.Mtuleni@drfn.org.na 83 Namibia Kazapua Mr Vetuundja RSSC/MAWF 061 2087330/0811244984 Kazapua@mawf.gov.na 84 Namibia Mufeti Mrs Pauline RSSC/MAWF 061 2087191/0812500094 MufetiP@mawf.gov.na 85 Namibia Kangombe Mrs Fransiska RSSC/NBRI 061 2022016/0811481487 fkangombe@gmail.com 86 Namibia Tarr Dr Peter SAIEA 061 220579 Peter.Tarr@saiea.com 87 Namibia Gardiner Mr Mark Stanford Univ 816427664 mark.gardiner@stanford.edu 88 Namibia Angombe Dr Simon UNAM 061 2063728/0811470257 angombes@yahoo.com 89 Namibia Siyambango Ms Nguza UNAM 814638052 nguzasiya@gmail.com 90 Namibia Mfune Dr John UNAM 061 2063743/0812865601 jmfune@unam.na 91 Namibia Mwandingi Mrs Martha UNDP 061 2046231 martha.mwandingi@undp.org 92 Namibia Nghiulikwa Mr Romie UNDP romie.nghiulikwa@undp.org Fernandez 93 Namibia Polcuch Mr Ernesto UNESCO 061 2917000 e.fernandez-polcuch@unesco.org 94 South Africa Diederiks Mr Jonathan RSSC 27 (0)721908 jostian@gmail.com 95 Zambia Muvudika Mr Alick NISIR 260 211283150 muvun@yahoo.com 96 Zambia Mulolwa Dr Augustino NRSC 260 211282432 amulolwa@nrsc.org.zm 24

Annex 2: Workshop Programme Workshop Objectives: Improve common understanding of the RSSC concept Guide priorities for the scientific programme of RSSC Guide overall (national and regional) institutional framework for RSSC DAY 0: 21 July 2010 16:00-18:00 at Safari Hotel Informal gathering/networking with guests from partner countries and Germany Poster presentations/ PowerPoint presentations from interested parties DAY 1: 22 July 2010 Time Item Who Session 1: Opening- Master of Ceremony: Ms Shiweda (D-PS of MAWF) 08:30 Registration All 09:00 Official Opening Honorable Minister of MAWF 09:20 Opening remarks German Ambassador 09:35 RSSC Overview Prof Norbert Jurgens 10:00 Reflecting on aims and objectives of RSSC Mr Bertus Kruger 10:30 TEA BREAK Session 2: Needs identification- Facilitator: Bertus Kruger 10:50 Roles of all stakeholders/partners Define research vs action/implementation Ms Anna Shiweda 11:15 Strategic orientation- preparation for working groups Mr Bertus Kruger 11:30 Needs identification in parallel working groups: Themes: Water, Land, Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Biodiversity Cross-cutting issues: capacity building; information management and dissemination; long term climate change impacts Resource persons: Dr Anna Matros- Goreses/Dr Mary Seely; Dr John Mendelsohn; Mr Peter Erb; Mr Sem Shikongo and Dr Juliane Zeidler 13:00 LUNCH 14:00 Working groups continue All 15:30 TEA BREAK 15:50 Report back to plenary and discussions Working group reps 16:45 Closing Mr Bertus Kruger

DAY 2: 23 July 2010 Time Item Who 08:30 Registration All 09:00 Strategic orientation Mr Bertus Kruger 09:10 Recap of previous day Mr Peter Erb 09:30 Parallel Working Groups continue Detailed discussions on identified research All programmes 10:30 TEA BREAK Session 3: Governance and infrastructure- Facilitator: Mr Bertus Kruger 10:50 Presentation on Governance Dr Peter Tarr 11:15 Discussion on national governance options Principals on which institution should be based Mr Bertus Kruger 13:00 LUNCH 14:00 Discussion on Regional governance options Mr Bertus Kruger 15:30 Overall infrastructure Mr Bertus Kruger Session 4: Closing- Facilitator: Bertus Kruger 16:30 Way forward Dr Anna Matros-Goreses 16:50 Official closing Dr Tjama Tjivikua 26

Annex 3: Opening Remarks Statement by His Excellency Mr. Egon Kochanke, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany at the Regional Science Service Centre Namibian Stakeholder Workshop Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, John Mutorwa, Hon. Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Petrus Iilonga, Members of Government Ministries, Members of the Diplomatic Corps, Dear Colleagues, Members of the Media, Ladies and Gentleman, It is my great pleasure and honour to have been invited by the Hon. Minister to welcome participants in this Stakeholder's workshop. This two-day workshop marks a further step towards the establishment of the Regional Science Service Centre in Southern Africa after two round table discussions in September 2009 and March 2010. My invitation reached me rather late and normally I would have had to decline due to other engagements. But when I saw the topic climate change I rearranged my schedule due to this burning global issue. Climate change is a reality. Observations from all continents of the Earth are providing an increasingly precise picture of dramatic change and present new and enormous challenges to all countries. In Africa in particular, the sustainable management of land and natural resources is crucial for the livelihood of many people. This makes the continent and its people vulnerable to the detrimental effects of a changing climate. The international community has acknowledged these challenges in treaties such as Bali Action Plan or the final declaration of the 2007 G8- summit in Heiligendamm/Germany. More recently, in December 2009 the Copenhagen Climate Conference has shown that, despite all discrepancies, most countries, among them Namibia, recognize that climate change and its effects are one of the greatest challenges of our days. Consequently, later this year, international leaders will once again come together, this time in Mexico, to discuss possible strategies and hopefully conclude with a final accord. The German government is committed to turn these agreements into action and to support countries in Africa that have to adapt to a changing climate. Germany's goal is to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees, that represents a just about manageable level. 27

What will be the impact of climate change on land use? How will water management on the African continent be affected? What can be done to address the threats to biodiversity? These and other questions have to be answered through research. You might say that most of the research has been done. Yes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) substantiated these findings with an abundance on scientific data. Although, a global phenomena the repercussions of climate change on the ground are different in various parts of the world. This is why the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has started a cooperation with Namibia, Angola, Botswana, South Africa and Zambia. Within the RSSC, African and German researches will conduct work together as equal partners to establish long-term research infrastructure in the region. With the aim that evidence-based advice can be presented to decision-makers and stakeholders. Only then it is possible to develop appropriate strategies to meet the challenges that come with current and future changes. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research is going to support the project by contributing 5.1 Million in the next two years to the centres in Southern and Western Africa. With the help of these funds, the RSSC will provide applied research, a helping hand for politicians and decision-makers and capacity building through the support of the qualification of young African researchers. By connecting applied research with concrete support to stakeholders, questions such as climate protection in general or how the agricultural sector should deal with increasing water shortages or a constant rise of temperatures in particular will be addressed. The cooperation will in my opinion - present a win-win situation to the partners since both sides will profit from the results of the research conducted. The establishment of the RSSC is complementary to the already existing projects within the German-Namibian development cooperation. The cooperation includes the sustainable management of natural resources as one of its priority areas. These resources such as land, water, mineral commodities, biodiversity and scenic integrity form the basis for Namibia s economic development through agriculture, mining and tourism. However, this development and the ambitious goals of Vision 2030 can be endangered by the effects of a changing climate. Particularly, for a country that relies so heavily on natural resources this could have detrimental effects on the future economic landscape. Therefore, strategies that support sustainable management of both natural resources and land use are of utter importance to the improvement of the livelihood of the people in this country. In our global village we all have to shift from exploitation to sustainable use of all the precious resources we are endowed with. 28

The provision of such strategies will be one of the main tasks of the RSSC. The objectives of the project are thus in line with the goals of the long-standing and proven German-Namibian development cooperation. The establishment of the RSSC will mark a new milestone in the cooperation between the five participating Southern African countries and my country by establishing this necessary long-term research infra-structure. Addressing the challenges that are presented by the changing climate as well as developing strategies to facilitate the controlled adaptation to the existing climate change are crucial for the social and economic well-being of Namibia and the other countries, that are part of the cooperation. I hope that this workshop will help to pin down Namibia's needs and to collect ideas how these could be addressed by the RSSC. I look forward to hearing about progress in the establishing process of the RSSC. As one of Namibia's key partners, the Federal Republic of Germany is proud to assist and to support with this initiative. I thank you! 29

Annex 4: Official Opening Speech OPENING REMARKS BY HONOURABLE PETRUS IILONGA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, WATER AND FORESTRY, AT THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHOP FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL SCIENCE SERVICE CENTRE IN SOUTHERN AFRICA, WINDHOEK, 22 JULY 2010 His Excellency, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany; Technical experts from research and development institutions in the partner countries of Angola, Botswana, Germany, South Africa and Zambia; Officials from various Offices, Ministries and Agencies within the Public Service of the Republic of Namibia; Technical experts representing local research and training institutions, non-governmental organisations, and private sector; Distinguished Guests; Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you all, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Namibia, and to officially open this National Technical Stakeholder Workshop in Windhoek. Not only are we here to improve our common understanding of the Regional Science Service Centre concept, but to provide Namibian input that will contribute to eventually defining the form, focus, functions and governance of this new institution. Thus, the outcome of this important workshop is a precursor to the realisation of an innovative intervention for the development of science and technology in our region. As we are all aware, the Regional Science Service Centre is anticipated to provide resources and expand scientific capacity in order to increase our ability to effectively respond to the challenges that compromise the well-being of the southern African region and its people. We all recognise the fundamental role of science and technology in designing measures to meet the needs of our continent. These include efforts to increase agricultural production and food security; to stem environmental degradation; to improve infrastructure and communications; and to promote industrial production. However, the urgency to address these particular issues, and many more, has escalated significantly. The agriculture and natural resources sectors, on a global scale, are being increasingly affected by the energy, food and economic crises. This situation is further compounded by natural disasters (such as the periodic droughts and floods experienced in Namibia), which are predicted to escalate due to the very real threat of 30

climate change. In fact, the negative impacts of climate change will be particularly felt in Africa, where economies are inextricably linked to natural resources. With its high dependency on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, the SADC region, as a whole, is extremely vulnerable. SADC has been singled out by international experts to be most at risk, with arid countries like Namibia predicted to be notably more affected than others. Within the region, Namibia, Botswana, Angola, South Africa and Zambia form a subregional cluster, which is now bound together by more than just geographical proximity. Together, we will need to develop relevant strategies and remedial measures to cope with the imminent impacts of climate change. We can do this by pooling resources and sharing experiences. Namibia, for example, has a proven track-record as a research leader in the fields of arid zone ecology; integrated land-use management particularly in drylands; and community-based natural resource management. We also enjoy a favourable reputation as a committed Party to relevant international instruments dealing with climate-change, biodiversity conservation, desertification, as well as plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and have extensive experience in the implementation of these treaties. As our dry, variable climatic conditions are mostly accommodated in the design of current research programmes, Namibian scientists are already sensitised to the significance of factoring in climatic influence. Thus, preconditioned to immediately mainstream climate change issues in new research and development initiatives, we believe we have learned valuable lessons, from which other countries in the subregion may profit. However, in order to overcome this challenge of climate change, increased national, regional and international support is needed to unlock Africa s potential for generating and applying innovations to reduce its impacts. Despite investment at various levels, the current scientific base is just too weak to stimulate and sustain meaningful advances in this regard. The support of the international community is likely to be a key factor in improving the status quo. We thus welcome the step of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to support the development of scientific capacity in Africa through the establishment of Regional Science Service Centres. We furthermore appreciate that this initiative will be implemented as a full partnership between the donor and countries from our region. The long-term success of such a centre will be dependent on the full involvement of local scientists in setting up research agendas based on existing capabilities and needs. For example, there is a vast pool of accumulated experience and skills in this room today that can identify the gaps, impediments, needs and opportunities, which through additional support like that potentially to be accessed through this initiative, could strengthen existing national and regional research systems to better cope with future challenges. 31

Implementation also must be driven by African scientists, who will be responsible to ensure that research products quickly reach stakeholders, including those at grassroots level. National authorities must take ownership of the initiative, ensuring its long-term sustainability, possibly through public investment, close collaboration with the private sector, the development of appropriate policy frameworks, and the creation of more science-literate societies. In Namibia, we are ready to grasp this opportunity. Already committed to the integration of science and technology as a critical ingredient for development as embodied in our own sectoral management plans, we are determined to see innovation embedded in national development plans. I note, with satisfaction, that this workshop will be building on our Vision 2030, especially addressing one of the eight themes, that of natural resources and environment, around which the Vision was formulated. We furthermore support the strengthening of the national research network, and consider it prudent to expand such networks throughout the region. We advocate for stronger partnerships with private sector, international agencies and donor nations. We aim to strengthen our capacity for scientific research and technological innovation through developing a critical mass of world-class scientists. We aspire for Namibia, and her neighbours, to become fully integrated into the global knowledge economy. Most importantly, however, we are ready to translate this sentiment into action. The vital investment to support the action required has been pledged by the German Government. I can also share with you that our Cabinet, during their session on Tuesday, discussed the issue of the Regional Science Service Centre in southern Africa and moved to support its establishment, in principle. Thus, we have the necessary political will. Our responsibility today is to apply our minds in designing an appropriate structure and mode of operation that are both relevant and responsive to Namibia s needs, and possibly also representative of the research and development needs of southern African countries. Let our contributions be progressive, inclusive and creative, yet implementable. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all partners, local, regional and international, who funded, facilitated or availed themselves to participate at this Workshop. Much thought has gone into the designing of a workshop format that will trigger appropriate discussion and identify the research priorities. With the finest scientific minds now being applied to deliver the desired results, I await the outcome with great interest. 32

Thank you for the opportunity to share these few remarks. In my personal capacity, I am pleased to be associated with this initiative that aims to grow scientific research capacity, with both immediate and longterm benefits, in the southern African region. Thank you all. 33

Annex 5: RSSC Overview Slide 1 Regional Science Service Centre (RSSC) for Climate Change and Adapted Landmanagement in the Southern African Subregion A joint initiative of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zambia, in cooperation with the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Namibian National RSSC Consultation Windhoek, 22 July 2010 Prof Norbert Juergens, RSSC Scientific Coordinator Slide 2 Regional Science Service Centre (RSSC) for Climate Change and Adapted Landmanagement in the Southern African Subregion Why? What? How? Namibian National RSSC Consultation Windhoek, 22 July 2010 Prof Norbert Juergens, RSSC Scientific Coordinator 34

Slide 3 Why? Slide 4 The global change problem: Global change of human demography, of social systems and of economy causes a global change of climate, of environment and of ressource availability, all being relevant for human welfare and stabile development. These changes carry both, great risks and opportunities. Science can help to avoid risks and to use opportunities. 35

Slide 5 Global Warming prediction for this century: Strong and negative changes for most of Africa Slide 6 Less rainfall for most of southern Africa 36

Slide 7 Human population growth: 6 Bln 9 Bln (2050) Africa alone: 973 Mil (2008) 1,766 Bln (2050) Slide 8 Increasing land use conflicts: The competition between food production, bioenergy, urbanisation, biodiversity and ecosystem services, and globalised land grabbing 37

Slide 9 What? Slide 10 Strengthen the regional scientific capacity to help to mitigate the effects of climate change on water resources, land use, biodiversity / ecosystem functions and services. 38

Slide 11 The RSSC vision To establish regional scientific services addressing (a) the future trends of global change, (b) the vulnerability (or resilience) of societies and ecosystems and (c) the potential for better management of natural ressources and services Enhancing knowledge-based decision making for efficient and sustainable resource management for societal & economic stability, poverty alleviation, disaster reduction, and robust and sustainable development: Science for development Slide 12 How? 39

Slide 13 BMBF Motivation Germany acknowledges its international responsibility in the frame of the political discussions on Climate Change (EU, UNFCCC), and supports the goals of the MDGs (G8). Adaptation to Climate Change is a huge challenge for all societies, but some African regions are particularly effected (IPPC IV). German chancellor Angela Merkel, June 17th 2009: Research with Africa instead of research for Africa or research in Africa and Research cooperation on equal footing. BMBF has adopted the related topics within its strategic research programmes: (a) High-Tech-Strategy for Climate Protection, (b) Strategy for Internationalisation (government) and its special (c) Focus on scientific co-operation with African countries. Slide 14 Process steps BMBF offering the potential for BMBF support for regional centers to embassies of African countries (early 2009). Based on feedback from embassies and subsequent communication with Angola, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zambia a first political Round table meeting took place in September 2009 (Windhoek). Botswana did not participate, however joined the initiative in March 2010. A similar initiative was taken up by ten countries in West Africa. At the 1 st Round Table the African countries welcomed the BMBF offer, to (a) fund a preparation phase of ca. one year and an implementation phase of 4 years and to (b) mobilise and transfer scientific competencies by involving suitable and interested German scientists (access to new technologies and methods). The first political Round table also defined a road map driving the further process defining the RSSC. The outcomes of the process will be discussed at a second round table, which will be hosted by Angola in September 2010. A final definition should be reached by end of 2010. 40

Slide 15 Agreed upon main focus areas for RSSC (1 st round table Sept 2009) Slide 16 Tasks 1. RSSC shall develop and implement new research activities in the area of sustainable land-use, resource management and climate change and co-ordinate regional and international research activities 2. Support capacity development for scientists from African countries by mutual research and education and enhance their visibility in the international scientific community 3. Act as regional advisory and information service close to implementation of scientific knowledge The three tasks should be taken into account with equal priority! 41

Slide 17 Slide 18 Potential Services of RSSC Recommendations to Policy & Administration Creating scientific excellence Open access data center Creating working / career options for scientists Cooperation with national, regional & intl. research programs Regional scenarios RSSC Early warning & response systems Tools, decision support & direct applications for farmers & local communities Scientific solutions for adaptation to CC Capacity development Regional vulnerability assessments Cooperation with existing research infrastructures e.g. CoEs 42

Slide 19 Angola Zambia Namibia Botswana South Africa Slide 20 The added value of a Regional integrated picture 43

Slide 21 Implementation of the decisions of the first Round Table At the 1 st Round Table the African countries welcomed the BMBF offer, to (a) fund a preparation phase of ca. one year and an implementation phase of 4 years and to (b) mobilise and transfer scientific competencies by involving suitable and interested German scientists. (a) BMBF has mobilised funding for the preparation phase (staff, workshops). (a) BMBF allocated up to 100 Mio for the implementation of two RSSCs (press conference Minister Schavan 14 July 2010) and contracted KFW (German Development Bank) for financial management. (b) BMBF identified a consortium of german scientists based on a call for proposals and a scientific review of the incoming proposals. Slide 22 German science consortium CLIMATE CLIMATE WATER WATER WATER REMOTE SENSING REMOTE SENSING REMOTE SENSING BIOGEOCHEMISTRY - Climate Service Center (CSC), Hamburg - German Meteorological Service (DWD), Offenbach "(associated partner)" - Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover - Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (FSU-Jena), Department of Geoinformatics Hydrology and Modelling (DGHM) - Institute for Social-Ecological Research GmbH - ISOE - Frankfurt - German Aerospace Center DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen - Universität Trier, Remote Sensing Department - Universität Würzburg, Department of Remote Sensing - Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena MICROBIOLOGY & FOOD SECURITY - Universität Bremen, Microbiology Institute SOCIAL ANTHROPOLGY SOIL SCIENCE BIODIVERSITY ECONOMICS & GOVERNANCE FOOD SECURITY & CERTIFICATION - Universität Hamburg, Institute for Social & Cultural Anthropology - Universität Hamburg, Institute for Soil Science - Universität Hamburg: BioCentre Zoology and Botany - Philipps-Universität Marburg - Institute for Co-operation in Developing Countries (ICDC) - Universität Hannover, Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade (IUW) 44

Slide 23 Preliminary proposal for science programme -1* I II III Drivers of change Assessing the consequences of change Mitigation and Adaptation Management [Regional scenario development] [Regional vulnerability analysis] [Regional adaptation management] Slide 24 Preliminary proposal for science programme - 2 I II III Drivers of change I.1 Climate Change I.2 Social and economic drivers of change Assessing the consequences of change II.1 Hydrological processes and Sustainable Water Management II.2 Ecosystems and biodiversity: Functions, Processes, and Conservation Mitigation and Adaptation Management III.1 Ecological Restoration III.2 Sustainable land & resource management 45

Slide 25 Preliminary proposal for science programme - 2 I II III Drivers of change I.1 Climate Change I.2 Social and economic drivers of change Assessing the consequences of change II.1 Hydrological processes and Sustainable Water Management II.2 Ecosystems and biodiversity: Functions, Processes, and Conservation Mitigation and Adaptation Management III.1 Ecological Restoration III.2 Sustainable land & ressource management Slide 26 Preliminary proposal for science programme - 3 Example: Hydrological processes and Sustainable Water Management Improved REGIONAL network of weather stations Improved REGIONAL meteorological models Improved REGIONAL weather forecasting Improved REGIONAL analysis of groundwater resources and their dynamics Improved REGIONAL models of surface water flows in rivers Improved REGIONAL space observation of flood wave Contribution to a reliable Flood Early Warning System Contribution to design efficient response measures. 46

Slide 27 Role of this workshop Based on the definitions made by the first political round table, guide the future political decisions, regarding: Namibian needs definition scientific programme (available science, existing efforts, gap analysis) capacity development needed products and services required infrastructures and investments national & subregional governance models Slide 28 Expected outcomes Needs definition: Which are the most pressing / least solved problem areas in your country, related to climate change, water and land management? Adequate science: For which of these problems do you regard science and RSSC as a key role player? (which science?) Needed science projects: Which scientific activities (projects) do you regard as necessary? (Ranked) Needed investments: infrastructures, staff,,#, Capacity development: Which additional education programmes do you regard as necessary in order to enable autonomous RSSC activities? (Ranked) Needed investments: infrastructures, staff,,#, Products and services: Which products of above research projects will qualify as a service for which user group? How can these services be delivered and applied? (Ranked) Needed investments: infrastructures, staff,,#, Team formation: Who are the actors/players who should form a team to develop single research proposals further? 47

Slide 29 Expected outcomes National Governance model: Which governance model do you prefer at national level? (Participating institutions, steering committee, ) Regional Governance model : Which institutional arrangements would be acceptable: MoU or Intergovernmental agreement? Legal robustness? Are bilaterals like the Namibia-Germany agreement on cultural cooperation helpful? RECs & AU: Representation and links to SADC, AMCEN, Other international partnerhips? UNESCO? UNEP?... Slide 30 Other helpful outcomes Proposals for a better name? Which elements should be part of a logo? Sustainability of long-term funding? How to ensure data access and availability? Which quality control mechanisms need to be established? Which criteria could guide decisions on the location of infrastructures 48

Slide 31 The road ahead National workshops in Angola, Zambia, Botswana, South Africa (22.7.-19.8.) Political round table hosted by Angola, 7-9 September 2010. Based on RT decisions, compilation of final RSSC science & business plan Review of science & business plan Implementation in early to mid 2011 Slide 32 Thank you 49

Annex 6: Working Group Matrix design and Presentations Thematic Needs Identification: Amalgamation of all working group results Need/Topic What is done so far? What else is needed? Capacity needs Hardware Software Freshwater and Associated Resources Capacity Building networking on env. education Models IWRM Masters (WaterNet/PoN) Courses at local level (eg. WPC, BMC such as groundwater monitoring, reading rain gauges) Support Curricula at all levels Improved Networking (eg geohydrology links short courses (recognised), e-learning, distance) Water auditing for formal and nonformal education - access to internet - Video conferencing facilities - test basins (eg. modelling, TDR probes) Products/ Outputs - People with appropriate KSA Use of Products Possible partners UNAM, NEEN, DRFN PoN Floods and water resource assess early warning floods and droughts (G) -risk assessment of floods and droughts (G) -Earth observation for monitoring (G) -Flood early warning and management -Investigate improved flood forecasting and warning systems -Space technology-estimating water levels from satelite images

Water Quality Water quality guidelines Limited water quality monitoring Limited laboratory capacity Limited analysis capacity Limited DataBase Pollution control at some places (WCA) Research on WQ improvement options and technologies (e.g. desalination, deflouridation) Investigate groundwater vulnerability from pollution. Research on impacts of anthropogenic activities on water bodies. Monitoring of drinking water quality for pollution and appropriate treatment technologies (e.g. CAWS) Identification and mapping of ecological sensible zones/areas for water protection Water Quality information system (database) Equipm ents associat ed with projects Action plans Manua ls Report s Guidel ines Maps Data Improved water quality manageme nt and protection Service providers Water users/consum ers Government institutions SADC ICP NEPAD Etc. Climate Change Monitoring Atmosphere surface and upper-air Atmospheric composition Meteorological variables Terrestrial variables - Precipitation. - Runoff, - river discharge - River sedimentatio n - Groundwater (level, flow, salinity, quality) Isotopic measurements Observations by in situ and remote sensing (radar, satellites) Operation, enhancement, and sustainability of existing (and new) observation networks. Data accessibility at national, regional and international level RSSC should serve as facilitator to get access to relevant partners national, regioal and international levels. 51

Water Demand Management Water supply strategies Information and awareness campaigns Some retrofitting National WDM strategy More retrofitting Leakages management Different options for water demand management Reports Manuals Efficient water use Municipalities Industries Service providers 52

Transboundar y research and management Linkage to on-going joint projects Namibia Water Resources Management (NWRM): BMZ/GTZ IWRM in Cuvelai Basin: ACP- EU/GTZ/BGR Sensorweb: DLR, NASA, UNOOSA no funding Future Okavango: BMBF Improved monitoring - Meteorological - Hydrological - Groundwater - Water quality Catchment modelling - Water quality - Groundwater - Dams - Surface water Remote sensing Early warning - Floods - Droughts - Erosion River basin information systems Decision Information Systems (DIS) - Decision Support Systems (DSS) - Integrated Decision Systems (IDS) Transboundary River Management Integrated Water Demand Prognosis (focused on urban) Incorporation of climate change Risk assessment (floodmapping) Environmental flow requirements River-groundwater interaction - Hydrological Services (MAWF) - Meteorological Services (MWT) - Dept of Agriculture (MAWF) - Soils Division (MAWF) - Disaster Risk Management Directorate (OPM) - Basin Management Committees - NamWater Geological Survey - UNAM to be brought in - Polytechnic - Ministry of Environment and Tourism - Coordination, harmonisation and knowledge and data management for existing and future transboudary water research and management - Interbasin transfers and impact on water quality 53

Water information systems Water Development Sanitation Linkage to ongoingprojects: Technical University of Darmstadt University of Bremen CuveWaters research on predictive models on aquifer water resources (quantity/quality) under different climate scenarios establish hydrology and geohydrology measuring an monitoring network for research purposes setup and enhancement of a decision information support tool (DIST) Development and implementation of integrated decision support system (IDSS) for IWRM development of data and information exchange facilities- national and across countries; harmonisation, quality standards; easy availability; monitoring, updating programmes ; Spatial data (sampling, management, accessibility) Research on rain water harvesting. Desalination; technologies adapted to local conditions; Reuse /recycling Conjunctive use of surface and ground water. Research in potential of renewable energies. Impact assessment on the implementation of new water sources Suitable, acceptable and affordable systems Capacity building maintenance Social marketing and enhanced acceptance Water re-use and grey water cycle Hygiene standards and water re-use (irrigation) Monitoring and evaluation - MAWF - MRLGHRD - MHSS - MWT - City of Windhoek - Town Councils: Outapi, Walvis Bay - Habitat Centre - NamWater 54

Groundwater Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water with a view to enhance recharge. Make it a real regional activity/ issue. Assessment of groundwater recharge. River basin management to include groundwater and transboundary issues. Impact of bush encroachment on groundwater recharge. Quantification of groundwater availability. Groundwater quality monitoring, risk assessment and management Implementation of international regulations on groundwater use at regional level. socio-economic factors on future development of water use, including climate change. Land, Agricultural Production and Forestry 55

Inventories, monitoring and assessments of natural resources and climate 50% of the population on communal land, and the poorest 45% in urban areas -> people have voted with their feet 5% on freehold land Namibian land has low carrying capacity Low input low output for crops assumed ignorance Household economies Extensive areas needed for livestock Low input low output for crops assumed ignorance Forest resource assessment Strengthening network of climate stations Systematic climate observations and research Monitoring rangelands and land cover Patterns of wood consumption Land uses in communal areas Forestry, NMS, NBRI, Agric. Research (DART), Hydrology, Gobabeb, MET/CBNRM DMC (Drought Monitoring Centre of SADC), SANBI (Southern African National Biodiversity Institute) Household economies Extensive areas needed for livestock Namibia is farming country Low input low output for crops assumed ignorance Household economies Extensive areas needed for livestock Namibia is farming country Namibia is farming country 56

Adaptation to short (flooding and droughts) and long-term climate variability and change In most arid areas Can accommodate few people Productive value decreasing -> communal land and investment security Driven by policy and fair research background Strong programmes for rural development, but weak for urban areas Impact of fire on climate change Adaptations to droughts and floods Study of extreme climate events, e.g. droughts and floods Indigenous knowledge and breeds i.r.t. climate change Impact of climate change on urbanisation DRFN, CPP (Country Pilot Partnership), Min. of Agriculture (agricultural research) (DART), Conservation Farming and many other projects) Oxford University Economic values of natural resources and land uses No CAPITAL value and limited FINANCIAL value Very limited revenue value (cash needs met from elsewhere) About 70% of income is off-farm Policy and research vacuum Income diversification Use of livestock as security Financial consequences of land use changes Compensating farmers for environmental services Increasing the value of communal land IPPR, NEPRU, Directorate Environmental Affairs, MRC (UNAM) Stellenbosch Agro-Economics Dept. FOOD self-sufficiency versus FOOD security versus FINANCIAL security Shifting from low to high value or cash earning crops Livestock as a commodity or as security Conflict between commodities Conflict between communities 57

Data management and sharing and modelling (technical aspects) Land tenure policy Availability of climate data Consolidating forestry data Need for comprehensive land information system Economic consequences of land tenure systems Averting conflicts over land resources Does communal tenure limit production? Land tenure i.r.t. land degradation Impacts of land reform Governance issues in communal areas NSDI Spatial / statistics, MET (EMIN and SPAN projects), NMS, EIS/EWIS, DMS (Min of Land) Forestry, Research (Agriculture) (DART), NBRI, Hydrology, MET/CBNRM Satellite Application Centre (SAC), Climate System Analyses Group (CSAG), AMESD (African monitoring of the environment of the sustainable development) IPPR, LAC, UNAM Legal Dept., DRFN, Univ. Western Cape (PLAAS) 58

Capacity Development Soil management Improved marketing of agricultural products (supply chain management) Product development Rangeland and livestock management Local level research and extension Public outreach and awareness: information management and dissemination Need for agro-meterologists Improving land management and forest resource utilization Molecular biology and genome research Raising public knowledge and quality of public debate UNAM, Polytech., DRFN, Min. of Education, MAWF (Extension Services), NAU/NNFU/ NECFU (farmers unions), Agric. Training Division (lots of NGOs and development projects), Vocational Training Centres 59

Land degradation (its causes and impacts) Mitigation measures for climate change Transparency/ governance Biofuels Loss of woodlands in the north-east Bush encroachment Household fuels: changing patterns and opportunities Genetically modified crops Science & Knowledge Capacity building Biodiversity Ecosystems & Functioning Value of Biodiversity & Ecosystem services Biodiversity inventories & monitoring Policy impacts Biodiversity policy issues & needs for conservation & economic development Land use & management options Adaptation to change Cost of Biodiversity loss High-level environmental awareness Training Environmental education & Public awareness 60

Services Data & knowledge management Value addition to scientific & local / traditional knowledge Tourism CBNRM Understanding tourism benefits in conservancies, costbenefit analysis, HWC perceptions Biosphere, branding of concept & possible value added through tourism Carbon foot-print offsets, especially for long distance tourism Impact of supporting infra-structure & services (for tourism, but also communities in general), e.g. energy Deciding on land-use options decision support system SAM Social Accounting Matrix at regional level CBNRM governance, WWF involvement, University of Florida National Tourism satellite account, Conservancy income data Wildlife and Tourism Understandi ng economic benefits down to household level Keep up-todate on C- offset trends & development s Quantifying/ monitoring of impacts CBNRM broader capacity building initiative (resource economic s) General awarene ss Reports for science, conservan cies, Gov, NGOs and private Develop partnership on how to tap into emerging markets Feed into land-use decision support; ensure sustainabili ty of CBNRM Partnership between Namibian and German expertise 61

Wildlife Mgmt. Wildlife as defined in Bill, i.e. including wild animals and plants Elephant management in region/kaza Technology Climate change Ownership of research data/ publications Consumptive utilization understanding social systems (e.g. hyena clans) Wildlife research on key commercial & tourism species (Distribution mapping, better counting, advice on off-take levels etc) ICT tools to report poaching, veld fires, data collection, HWC Tourism demand in public conservation areas especially accommodation Scattered distribution mapping, censuses not readily available, no predictive models Data centre approach WWF initiative using cell phones for data capture 62

WORKING GROUP RESULT PRESENTATIONS Slide 1 Land, agriculture and forestry Proposals for RSSC Slide 2 Inventories, monitoring and assessments of natural resources and climate (7/3) Forest resource assessment Strengthening network of climate stations Systematic climate observations and research Monitoring rangelands and land cover Patterns of wood consumption Land uses in communal areas

Slide 3 Inventories, monitoring and assessments of natural resources and climate (7/3) Forestry, NMS, NBRI, Agric. Research (DART), Hydrology, Gobabeb, MET/CBNRM DMC (Drought Monitoring Centre of SADC), SANBI (Southern African National Biodiversity Institute) Slide 4 Adaptation to short- (flooding/droughts) and long-term climate variation/change (6/3) Impact of fire on climate change Adaptations to droughts and floods Study of extreme climate events, e.g. droughts and floods Indigenous knowledge and breeds i.r.t. climate change Impact of climate change on urbanisation 64

Slide 5 Adaptation to short- (flooding/droughts) and long-term climate variation/change (6/3) DRFN, CPP (Country Pilot Partnership), Min. of Agriculture (agricultural research) (DART), Conservation Farming and many other projects) Oxford University Slide 6 Economic values of natural resources and land uses (7/1) Income diversification Use of livestock as security Financial consequences of land use changes Compensating farmers for environmental services Increasing the value of communal land 65

Slide 7 Economic values of natural resources and land uses (7/1) IPPR, NEPRU, Directorate Environmental Affairs, MRC (UNAM) Stellenbosch Agro-Economics Dept. Slide 8 Data management and sharing and modelling (technical aspects) (7/4) Availability of climate data Consolidating forestry data Need for comprehensive land information system 66

Slide 9 Data management and sharing and modelling (technical aspects) (7/4) NSDI Spatial / statistics, MET (EMIN and SPAN projects), NMS, EIS/EWIS, DMS (Min of Land) Forestry, Research (Agriculture) (DART), NBRI, Hydrology, MET/CBNRM Satellite Application Centre (SAC), Climate System Analyses Group (CSAG), AMESD (African monitoring of the environment of the sustainable development) Slide 10 Land tenure policy (6/1) Economic consequences of land tenure systems Averting conflicts over land resources Does communal tenure limit production? Land tenure i.r.t. land degradation Impacts of land reform Governance issues in communal areas 67

Slide 11 Land tenure policy (6/1) IPPR, LAC, UNAM Legal Dept., DRFN, Univ. Western Cape (PLAAS) Slide 12 Capacity Development (6/3) Need for agro-meterologists Improving land management and forest resource utilization Molecular biology and genome research Raising public knowledge and quality of public debate 68

Slide 13 Capacity Development (6/3) UNAM, Polytech., DRFN, Min. of Education, MAWF(Extension Services), NAU/NNFU/NECFU (farmers unions), Agric. Training Division (lots of NGOs and development projects), Vocational Training Centres Slide 14 One loose grouping Soil management (5/2) Improved marketing of agricultural products (supply chain management) (3/0) Product development (2/0) Rangeland and livestock management (3/1) 69

Slide 15 Local level research and extension (0/0) Public outreach and awareness: information management and dissemination (3/0) Land degradation (its causes and impacts) (3/3) Mitigation measures for climate change Transparency/governance Biofuels Genetically modified crops 70

Slide 1 Land, agriculture & forestry SOME REMINDERS: Slide 2 Framework: Understanding human uses of land, biodiversity and water while adapting and mitigating long-term climate change impacts. Funding focus is divided into a third of the following: Applied Research Capacity Building (technical/practical) Products and Services 71

Slide 3 Research: To be demand driven and could be within all science disciplines (e.g. natural, socioeconomic, development etc) Remember cross-cutting issues: Long term climate change impacts Capacity building Information management/dissemination Technical Working groups will be formed to take the planning process further beyond the workshop so go as far as you can now Slide 4 Products: Research areas Capacity building Products & services identification Who is currently doing it? Who else should be doing it? What must be done? nationally and regionally Costs Priorities 72

Slide 5 Land 50% of the population on communal land, and the poorest 45% in urban areas -> people have voted with their feet 5% on freehold land Namibian land has low carrying capacity Slide 6 Communal land No CAPITAL value and limited FINANCIAL value Very limited revenue value (cash needs met from elsewhere) About 70% of income is off-farm Policy and research vacuum 73

Slide 7 Freehold land In most arid areas Can accommodate few people Productive value decreasing -> communal land and investment security Driven by policy and fair research background Strong programmes for rural development, but weak for urban areas Slide 8 Agriculture Low input low output for crops assumed ignorance Household economies Extensive areas needed for livestock Namibia is farming country FOOD self-sufficiency versus FOOD security versus FINANCIAL security 74

Slide 9 Agriculture (continued) Shifting from low to high value or cash earning crops Livestock as a commodity or as security Conflict between commodities Conflict between communities Slide 10 Forests and woodlands Loss of woodlands in the north-east Bush encroachment Household fuels: changing patterns and opportunities 75

Slide 11 PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND DEBATE Slide 12 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DRIVERS OF CHANGE 76

Slide 13 CLIMATE CHANGE versus CLIMATE CHANGE Floods..droughts 77

Slide 1 Water Group Slide 2 Research needs and Priorities Needs Number of projects Votes (Namibian only) Votes (including external groups) Capacity building 1 3 5 Floods and water resource assessment 6 3 4 CC Monitoring 1 1 3 Water Quality 12 2 3 WDM 9 1 2 Transboundary cooperation Water information systems Water Development (new sources) 5 1 1 6 1 1 8 1 1 Sanitation 1 1 1 Groundwater management 9 0 0 78

Slide 3 Need Capacity Building What is done so far? - networking on env. education - Models - IWRM Masters (WaterNet/Po N) What else is neede d? - Support Curricul a at all levels - Improve d Network ing (eg geohydr ology links short courses (recogni sed), e- learning, distance) Capac ity needs - access to internet - Video confere ncing facilities Produc ts/out puts People with approp riate KSA Use of Products UNAM, NEEN, DRFN Possible partners 79

Slide 4 Need/topic Water Quality What is done so far? Water quality guidelines Limited water quality monitoring Limited laboratory capacity Limited analysis capacity Limited DataBase Pollution control at some places (WCA) What else is needed? Research on WQ improvement options and technologies (e.g. desalination, deflouridation) Investigate groundwater vulnerability from pollution. Research on impacts of anthropogenic activities on water bodies. Monitoring of drinking water quality for pollution and appropriate treatment technologies (e.g. CAWS) Identification and mapping of ecological sensible zones/areas for water protection Water Quality information system (database) Capacity needs Products/Outputs Use of Hardware Software products Equipm Action plans Improved ents Manuals water quality associa Reports management ted Guidelines and protection Maps with Data project s Possible partners Service providers Water users/consume rs Government institutions SADC ICP NEPAD Etc. Priority 80

Slide 5 Need/topic WDM What is done so far? Water supply strategies Information and awareness campaigns Some retrofitting What else is needed? National WDM strategy More retrofitting Leakages management Different options for water demand management Capacity needs Products/Outputs Use of Hardware Software products Reports Efficient water Manuals use Possible partners Municipalities Industries Service providers Priority 81

Slide 1 Wildlife and Tourism working group Slide 2 82

Slide 3 83

Slide 1 Biodiversity Working Group Slide 2 Science & Knowledge Ecosystems & Functioning (6) Value of Biodiversity & Ecosystem services (5) Biodiversity inventories & monitoring (5) Policy impacts (4) Biodiversity policy issues & needs for conservation & economic development Land use & management options (4) Adaptation to change (3) Cost of Biodiversity loss (3) 84

Slide 3 Capacity building High-level environmental awareness (4) Training (3) Environmental education & Public awareness (1) Slide 4 Services Data & knowledge management (4) Value addition to scientific & local / traditional knowledge (3) 85

Annex 7: Governance Slide 1 DISCUSSION ON GOVERNANCE OPTIONS FOR THE RSSC JULY 2010 Acknowledgements: Judy Beaumont, Wieland Gevers, Brian Child, Mary Seely, Mark Winslow, Thomas Auf der Heyde, Jill Kent, Peter Erb Slide 2 What a good governance system must achieve political legitimacy (accepted at GRN and maybe SADC levels. It must manage potential conflicts, duplication, resentment, secrecy and mistrust, power struggles, etc. Needs to be acceptable to donors) Professional legitimacy (accepted by scientific community, practitioners, etc. who gives and who takes at what price?) Social legitimacy (another fashion NGO?, donor-driven leakage scheme, or for the greater good? people will want to see it making a real difference) Legal accountability (money involved!) 86

Slide 3 Different needs and relationships require many levels of co-operation The right governance model must facilitate coordination and co-operation at: Political level (within country and transboundary) Scientific level (data generators, users) Administrative level (donors, local level) Public level??? This presentation focuses on the political level, which inevitably influences the co-operation at scientific and administrative levels Slide 4 There are principles that should guide the selection of governance model The chosen model of governance should, at least, be: Clear on mandate, products and purpose; balance between independence, State and donor involvement (define relationships well), oriented towards service delivery; responsive to both sub-regional and national needs (global?); should have strong mechanisms for accountability, Promote sustainability? (financial, institutional). 87

Slide 5 Options for RSSC institutional structure 1 structure in a selected host country, that serves the other participating countries (Head Office Model); or 1 structure in a selected host country, with a number of satellite institutions in participating countries (Head Office and Country Node Model) ; or an arrangement or agreement among a number of existing institutions in the participating countries, with NO central new institution (Virtual Institution Model) Slide 6 Compare the models Head Office Model + visible, formal, conventional, structured, full time staff, permanent - expensive, limited local ownership, competition, brand new?, highjacked for prestige by host country (or milked)? Head Office and Country Node Model + as above, but also more local ownership, could link to existing body, broader based, more accessible, some flexibility - expensive, competition, brand new? Virtual Institution Model + cheap, less political, more flexible, could link to existing bodies - informal, not taken seriously, not enough structure, unreliable momentum (sustainability?), relies on volunteers 88

Slide 7 Other considerations for the selection of a governance model For any of the above models, there are a number of further considerations on governance to facilitate the political relationship: A legal agreement between the 5 countries? A political arrangement to guide the strategic direction of the RSSC (e.g. council, advisory board, steering committee)? An arrangement to guide the every day activities of the RSSC? (e.g. executive committee) An agreement between the various scientific institutions in the different countries (data sharing, costs, peer review (standards), copyright, protocols, ethics, capacity building, storage systems, confidentiality, etc.) Slide 8 There is a spectrum of governance models that can be considered On the one end of the spectrum the MOU model: an in principle memorandum of understanding (MOU) among countries with the RSSC established as a national institution, with a regional function; The MOU would be a framework political agreement (not detailed) The Centre could either be a newly created national institution, or an existing institution that is designated to host the RSSC The governance mechanism (e.g. advisory board or steering committee) could either be established informally or in terms of the national legislation of the host country 89

Slide 9 Spectrum of options (continued) On the other end of the spectrum the intergovernmental agreement model: a detailed intergovernmental agreement with the Centre established as an autonomous intergovernmental body. In this case, a legally binding agreement is needed, signed by the participating countries, underpinning the management, operation and financing of the centre. This may require ratification by the national parliaments The governance mechanism would be established in terms of the intergovernmental agreement Slide 10 Advantages and disadvantages Between these 2 ends of the spectrum there are a range of possible variations Within Africa there are many examples of co-operation agreements that can provide useful examples and experience For the MOU model, the advantage is that it is easier to negotiate, with shorter timeframes. The disadvantage is that the governance mechanism is established in terms of the host country national legislation, which may or may not be fit for purpose. Another disadvantage is that a lower level of political buy-in is needed, which can affect the long term sustainability of the RSSC. For the intergovernmental agreement model: the advantage is that the legal instrument is designed and drafted specifically for the RSSC needs, is legally binding, secures high levels of political buy-in, provides institutional autonomy, and enhances potential for long-term financial sustainability. The disadvantage is that it takes time to finalise the drafting, signing and ratification. 90

Slide 11 Considerations on financial sustainability The funding of a regional centre, regardless of what governance model is adopted, is one of the major challenges. A key issue is how to ensure longterm financial sustainability and independence (beyond the first donor funded years). In relation to the 2 governance models presented above: For the MOU model, in which a national institution has regional roles: mostly finance is on a project funding basis. The major funding contribution comes from the host country and donors. For a regional centre set up as an intergovernmental body with an intergovernmental agreement, the funding of the core activities is provided primarily by the participating countries (eg. through assessed contributions), supplemented by project funding from donor or other sources (eg. private sector). The advantage here is that there is more freedom, flexibility and opportunity to develop arrangements for long term financial sustainability 91

Slide 12 92

Annex 8: Way forward Slide 1 Way Forward RSSC technical workshop 23 July 2010 Slide 2 National workshops in Angola, Zambia, Botswana, South Africa (22.7.-19.8.) Workshop proceedings Post workshop working groups: Political preparation for roundtable Themes (Water, Land, Biodiveristy, Wildlife and Tourism) Governance (national model) Sustainability (financial, institutional, functional) Political round table hosted by Angola, 7-9 September 2010. Based on RT decisions, compilation of final RSSC science & business plan Review of science & business plan Implementation in early to mid 2011 93

Slide 3 Acknowledgements All participants (including guests) Logistical support group Presenters and Resources persons Poster presenters MAWF- support and sponsoring of cocktail party Facilitator and proceedings writer 94

Annex 9: Closing Slide 1 RSSC Closing Remarks Tjama Tjivikua Slide 2 Where does Namibia fit? Stages of Industrial and Economic Development 95

Slide 3 Tertiary Education in the World Slide 4 Researchers in the World 96

Slide 5 Contrasts in Education GER, 19-24 years GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4 66,99% - 94,87% 49,85% - 65,58% 29,00% - 47,20% 3,00% - 26,80% Australia Argentina Chile Azerbaijan Cuba Austria Colombia Brazil Denmark Belgium Croatia China Finland Canada Cyprus Costa Rica Greece Czech Republic Jordan India Hungary Estonia Malaysia Iran Italy France Mongolia Kenya Latvia Ireland Panama Luxembourg Lithuania Japan Peru Mexico New Zealand Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Morocco Norway Netherlands Slovakia Namibia Republic of Korea Poland Switzerland Nigeria Russian Federation Portugal Thailand Oman Slovenia Romania Tunisia South Africa Spain United Kingdom Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Sweden Venezuela Uruguay United Arab Emirates United States 5 Slide 6 Knowledge a Unique Kind of Resource use JOBS WEALTH INNOVATION I know that I know 1 2 3 4 I know that I don t know 6 I don t know that I know I don t know that I don t know Based on a model by E. Watanabe, 2008 97