OR/17/064 Thematic working groups
| Gill, J C, and Mankelow, J. 2017. Workshop report: earth and environmental science for sustainable development (Lusaka, September 2017). Nottingham, UK, British geological Survey, OR/17/064. |
The information collected in Prioritising the UN Sustainable Development Goals was used to establish three thematic working groups at the end of the first day of the workshop. Three themes were proposed by the workshop participants, and used throughout the second day of the workshop. The themes, and the reasons for their inclusion, were:
| Food security and nutrition | Focus on SDGs 2, 3 and 15. Zero hunger ranked highly in individual expressions of development priorities (Figure 3) and the group prioritisation (Table 2). It also received a high ranking when considering how Earth and environmental science can help deliver sustainable development (Table 5). |
| Clean water and sanitation | Focus on SDG 6. This SDG was repeatedly emphasised to be of high importance (Figure 3) and (Table 2), with a significant role for Earth science (Table 5). Multiple complex challenges were identified (Table 4), with links between SDG 6 and health, education, and gender equality emphasised. |
| Energy and climate change | Focus on SDGs 7 and 13. While access to clean energy and tackling climate change ranked low in terms of eastern African development priorities (Figure 3 and Table 2), climate action was a priority for Zambia (Figure 3). Both clean energy and tackling climate change were emphasised to be areas where Earth scientists could make an important contribution (Table 5). Links between climate change and high-priority development goals (e.g., water, food, poverty) were also highlighted. This theme, therefore, reflected a group desire to explore how improving energy access and tackling climate change can support the delivery of a broader range of SDGs. |
Each working group was also asked to recognise the importance of Quality Education (SDG 4) and tackling Poverty (SDG 1), given the emphasis placed on these goals during earlier exercises (Group perspectives on priority SDGs).
Methods
A modified theory of change approach was used to help frame the group discussions. An example of this process is shown in Figure 5, with each step highlighted and described.
Groups were encouraged to consider the steps required to bring about a change before determining what Earth/environmental science research, capacity building or innovation was required. This process is outlined below.
- Groups initially reviewed specific challenges (Characterising specific challenges) related to their working group, considering which challenges were the greatest priority. High priority challenges were rephrased as a positive change (e.g., a challenge of ‘contaminated water’, would be ‘reduce contamination of water sources’).
- Groups considered the steps required to make that change happen. Groups worked backwards, aiming to come up with three to five steps that characterised the ‘project’ to ‘impact’ pathway.
- Groups then determined and planned Earth and environmental science interventions to trigger this chain of steps.
The approach presented in Figure 5 is a simplified theory of change approach, and as such includes a number of limitations. The actual change pathways may be non-linear, involving multiple branches. The approach used in the workshop, however, encouraged groups to focus on one potential chain of events in detail. Furthermore, the change pathway may differ from one region or discipline to another, but ideas were integrated from our diverse participants into one generic change pathway. We used this approach to emphasise the importance of understanding context and desired development objectives prior to designing environmental science projects.
We present a summary of the discussions in each working group in Food security and nutrition – Energy and climate change. These summaries are based on notes taken by members of each group and the feedback presented during summary sessions. The notes below, therefore, offer a record of the conversations had by groups but these conversations have not been edited or checked to remove errors.
Food security and nutrition
This group included contributions from: University of Zambia, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, Basa Agro Co., Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development (Malawi), Chemistry and Soil Research Institute (Zimbabwe), and the British Geological Survey.
Access to sufficient and nutritious food (SDG 2) was the focus of this thematic group, integrating perspectives from diverse organisations in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi. The group started by reviewing the challenges associated with this goal (outlined in Table 4) and identified the reduction of micronutrient deficiencies as being a high priority challenge and soil degradation as a secondary challenge.
In addition to ensuring there is sufficient food, it should also be nutritious. Poor plant and animal nutrition can result in nutrient deficiencies in humans, with associated health implications.
Starting with the objective of reducing micronutrient deficiencies in humans, this group identified the key change steps that could help to realise this. These steps are outlined in Figure 7, showing the progression from research (e.g., how widespread are micronutrient deficiencies), to policy (e.g., improved agricultural management practices, to changes in practice (e.g., improved nutrient supply to crops, increased dietary diversity). In addition to research being a specific component of this chain of change steps, there is also an ongoing need for research and development to support the progression from one step to the next.
The primary activity initiating this set of change steps is a programme of capacity building to enhance research on micronutrient deficiencies in eastern Africa (particularly Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi). Research is enhanced by improved (i) baseline data, (ii) access to data, and (iii) training and development. A programme integrating these steps would enable the research community to identify data gaps, conduct more comprehensive analyses, and develop innovative research programmes to understand micronutrient deficiencies and approaches to address this challenge.
- Baseline Data. Climate, soil, livestock, plant/crop types, and indigenous genetic resource data would provide a useful underpinning framework for exploring food security in general, and micronutrient deficiencies in particular. Further socio-economic information would also be needed, including population and health data.
- Data Access. The data outlined above could be included within an open-access information portal. This would display available data from across the region (brought together from currently disparate locations), and help the research community identify information gaps so that further data collection can be targeted. The integration of diverse data sets, and ability to view spatial distributions at scales ranging from local to regional, would allow more complex analyses than are currently possible.
- Training and Development. Areas for focused researcher training include data management, sampling design (statistics), physiology, genetics, and nutrition. Targeted support could help to strengthen the skills and capacities of researches to collect the data and use the data portal described above.
Building on this capacity building, a research project was proposed looking at the use of geospatial data to understand the effects of diverse management practices on livestock and the subsequent food chain. This would include management practices such as bio-fortification, soil improvement and feeding trials, considering how they affect the health of indigenous livestock (e.g., chickens) in Zambia. Livestock, such as chickens, is a primary source of protein for much of the population, important economically, and a good indicators species for disease (e.g., oesophageal cancer). Improving the health of livestock could support improved human health.
The group briefly examined issues around soil degradation, and soil improvement technologies. They noted the diverse range of input required (e.g., soil chemistry, soil physics and soil biology), with important interactions and the need to examine this topic in an integrated way. They identified nutrient depletion as an important area for future research, which would ideally lead to new and affordable technologies to support soil improvement. Research and technology development would need to be done alongside farmers so that they understand how such technologies can help them, with research and technology combining together to result in improved welfare at the household level.
Clean water and sanitation
This group included contributions from: Zambian Open University, Ministry of Health (Zambia), BGR, University of Zimbabwe, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, Copperbelt University, University of Zambia, and the British Geological Survey.
Information on water (e.g., how much groundwater is there, is pollution occurring) is necessary for the delivery of SDG 6, but is also needed to underpin other SDGs. For example, expansion of agriculture to ensure zero hunger (SDG 2) will require water resources but also means an increase in fertiliser use. This information could be at borehole (i.e., fine resolution) or regional (i.e., coarse resolution) scale, each with associated advantages and disadvantages.
An overarching challenge is the lack of public water supply and sanitation infrastructure. Investment is needed to increase both infrastructure networks. Specific challenges relating to SDG 6 in Zambia (see Prioritising the UN Sustainable Development Goals) were initially grouped into themes of regulation, pollution and contamination, access to water, and interactions between water and sanitation facilities. Underpinning these challenges is the lack of up-to-date water resources data. Where data exists, it may be old or contains gaps limiting its use. High priority specific challenges included:
- Water pollution. This has many causes, including both natural geological pollutants (e.g., iron, fluoride, arsenic, salts) and anthropogenic activity (e.g., mining, agriculture, sanitation). The overall change objective associated with this challenge is ‘reduce water pollution’.
- Lack of effective regulation and management of water resources. The group noted the lack of a legal framework for regulation & protection of water resources. There is a growth in the number of boreholes drilled for personal use, particularly in Lusaka. Drilling is often unregulated, with weak water management structures in place to monitor water quantity and quality. A legal framework is in the process of being prepared; ensuring its implementation will be important. The overall change objective associated with this challenge is to ‘improve regulation and management of water resources’.
A theory of change for reducing water pollution helped to identify enhancing the capacity of key stakeholders and organisational structures as a key intervention. Figure 9 shows the steps by which this intervention would help to reduce water pollution.
This chain of steps suggests that enhanced capacity of key stakeholders and organisational structures will increase access to existing and new data, which would subsequently increase understanding of processes causing pollution. By understanding the processes causing pollution, legislation can be developed that is fit for purpose and enforced. Stronger legislation will result in better, and more informed management of the activities that cause pollution, and ultimately reduce pollution. This is a simplistic representation of a complex chain, with key assumptions being that enhanced process understanding is a key input to the formation of legislation, and that a more informed management would take the decisions necessary to reduce pollution.
Key stakeholders identified included those responsible for water management and monitoring, and those contributing to water pollution. Examples include: national, regional and local governments; Water Resources Management Authority (WARMA); Zambian Environmental Management Agency; National Water Supply and Sanitation Council (NWASCO); Zambia Bureau of Standards (ZABS); Department of Water Resources Development (DWRD); agricultural sectors (including small scale famers); industry; mining organisations; individuals with septic tanks; sanitation companies; borehole drillers; academic researchers; geological survey; communities; water users associations; health committees; and traditional leaders.
Key areas for capacity building include: financial (accessing and managing funds and sustaining income); transport; infrastructure; monitoring stations and the collection of data; laboratories, information technology; improved water treatment systems; human resources; and education. Given the small group largely consisted of those with a science and research background, the group focused on capacity building relating to laboratories and data collection.
Laboratories. In Zambia, there are too few laboratories, the equipment is not diverse enough, and consumables can be hard to access and afford. There are not sufficient staff to run these laboratories, and existing staff may lack the necessary training. Actions to address this lack of laboratory capacity all require financial investment. Capital investment (e.g., new laboratories and equipment) is necessary but difficult to secure. Investment in training is more feasible, and could include enhancements to the academic training of those working in laboratories, as well as in-service training courses, or continued professional development. Examples of courses include potability analysis, and training on specific research parameters (e.g., pesticides, organics).
Data collection and monitoring, data management, and data transfer. Samples are collected and supplied to laboratories in Zambia by a range of stakeholders, including those in government, academia and the private sector. Challenges in the collection of data for monitoring of the environment, management of data, and transfer of data to others (e.g., laboratories) result in reduced data quality and utility. For example, there are not enough people trained to do fieldwork, a lack of equipment and financial challenges that limit access to transport and fuel. The frequency at which data is collected is often not sufficient, and the data that is collected may not be of good enough quality. Procedures to manage this data are lacking, as is the necessary metadata on sampling sites. Staff need improved access to health and safety training and equipment, and must be qualified and motivated to work well. These challenges could be addressed through training, access to enhanced field and health and safety equipment, and improved procedures on topics such as health and safety, fieldwork and sample collection, and data transfer and management. New technologies (such as apps) were highlighted as having the potential to help improve data management and transfer.
Effective data collection requires agreed common standards, protocols, and templates for different data formats. Water samples are collected by diverse groups (e.g., national government, local government, universities), and therefore common standards and protocols would help to improve data quality assurance. Fit-for-purpose technologies, such as mobile applications (apps), could help disseminate these templates, which are completed when samples are submitted to laboratories for testing. Such a project would need to be incentive driven to encourage people to use the application.
In summary, an emerging theme during this discussion was the importance of enhancing the quality assurance of data going into and coming out of laboratories. Improved templates for different data formats and improved data transfer procedures would strengthen data management and quality assurance in laboratories. Enhancing the data output from laboratories (e.g., through enhanced training) would help to increase access to reliable data, understand research gaps, and develop evidenced process models to understand pollutant sources and pathways.
Energy and climate change
This group included contributions from: BioGas Solutions, Zambian Open University, Zambia Agricultural Research Institute, University of Zambia, Copperbelt University, and the British Geological Survey.
After evaluating the range of challenges in Table 4 associated with energy and climate change, this group focused on two priority challenges:
- Lack of clean and appropriate energy. The first challenge considered by this group related to a lack of clean, reliable and appropriate energy for Zambians. The desired change, therefore, is greater access to clean and appropriate energy in Zambia. This requires a set of steps, as visualised in Figure 11 and summarised as (i) improved clean energy infrastructure, (ii) increased utilisation of smart and affordable energy, (iii) encouragement to use and participate in clean energy production, and (iv) an improved understanding of future energy demand and location. The group proposed the collection and communication of geological science data to support sustainable energy development.
The group identified potential energy technologies to be solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas, wind and nuclear. Technologies would benefit from being locally scaled, providing off-grid energy for the community. The development of any technology would require enhanced Earth and environmental science data. For example, data on ground conditions (geotechnics), maps to visualise seismic risk and maps of geothermal (heat) potential. Data on population growth would also help understand the future nature and scale of demand. The integration of such data would inform decision-making and investments. Partnerships with economists, statisticians, the geological survey, commercial sectors, government ministries, and NGOs would be necessary to deliver this project and catalyse the subsequent change steps. Communities would also need to be involved, with this helping to overcome any resistance to new technologies.
- Lack of awareness regarding climate change in rural communities. Information regarding climate change and its impacts is needed by rural communities, helping to strengthen resilience and enhance resource (e.g., food, water) security in the context of a changing climate. The desired change, visualised in Figure 12, is therefore enhanced awareness of climate change and its impacts. Stakeholders refer to all community groups within rural villages, working with community leaders, women’s groups, youth representatives and appropriate NGO and Government intermediaries.
To enhance awareness of climate change, there needs to be (i) reductions in knowledge gaps among stakeholders, (ii) increased access to relevant information collated in an appropriate form, and (iii) enhanced engagement with different stakeholders to understand their needs, knowledge, and knowledge gaps. These steps can also be visualised in Figure 12.
The group proposed two activities to help increase engagement and access to relevant information. The first activity centred on community sensitisation, taking time to engage with communities (using information collected in Example pathways to impact), and using diverse approaches to communicate information. This includes story telling where literacy is low, printed brochures/websites in other settings, and community interviews to determine perceptions on environmental change. The second activity centred on research to identify Zambian makers of climate change. This, together with the use of a citizen science approach, would help to connect climate change to the lives of Zambian communities, demonstrating its applicability to their context.
Areas of project overlap
Across the three thematic working groups, two common themes emerged.
- Data management. Each group emphasised the collation and integration of data to support future project steps. Groups highlighted the importance of integrating environmental data with socio-economic data (e.g., future population, health). Data is currently in diverse formats and held by disparate organisations. The full potential of this data can only be realised when appropriate data management systems are in place, and data is integrated. This will help to identify where data gaps exist, explore future research questions, and conduct more sophisticated analyses of existing data.
- Engagement with common stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, local governments, communities). Across the various projects, the steps to development impact require engagement with relevant national ministries (e.g., water, health, natural resources and tourism, agriculture), local governments (e.g., district and regional governments and extension officers), and community groups.