Square Kilometre Array (SKA) Project: Department Update; international study tour: discussion

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed two new Members, Dr J Kloppers-Lourens (DA)  and Dr M van Dyk (DA).

The Chairperson had had discussions with the Minister on progress of the bid for the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) while in attendance at the World Science Forum.

Square Kilometre Array (SKA) Project: Department Update
Dr Phil Mjwara, Director General, Department of Science and Technology (DST) said the first part of the presentation would give an update on the seven dishes that were constructed in Carnarvon, the Karoo Array Telescope (KAT-7), and then the initiatives that were happening in the countries that partnered South Africa in the bid – focusing on Mauritius, Mozambique, and Ghana. The presentation would then report on progress on the extension of the KAT-7 MeerKAT where it was hoped to build approximately 64 dishes in Carnarvon, and would end with the process towards the decision as to which country between Australia/New Zealand and South Africa had won the bid. The announcement was expected on 4 April 2012.

Dr Val Munsami, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Research, Development and Innovation, DST, said that  the project was working on the Multi-frequency Interferometry Telescope for Radio (MITRA) telescope in collaboration with Mauritius; the KAT-7, which led to the MeerKAT; the African Very Large Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) Network in partnership with African countries; the international lobbying efforts in terms of support for the Square Kilometre Array (SKA); and the process towards a site decision.

The Multi-frequency Interferometry Telescope for Radio (MITRA) was configured to work on a broad electromagnetic spectrum on a low frequency and the partner was the Durban University of Technology. It was through that programme that the Department looked at training some of the technicians. The Durban University of Technology had also installed a dish that was linked to the dish in Mauritius. Since the start of the project there was also interest from Zambia and from the African Continent as well. It was one of the partnerships that arose for the bid for the SKA.

The Karoo Array Telescope (KAT-7) would be moved out into the MeerKAT, although the design was slightly different. Essentially the KAT-7 was a seven-dish array that was already installed in the Karoo. Currently the dishes were commissioned and although the dishes were meant as a technology demonstrative approach exercise, they were being used for scientific experiments and there was interest from international parties to use the dish. The pathfinder to the SKA was the MeerKAT. Construction of the 64 MeerKAT dishes would commence in 2013 and it was planned to have the first twenty dishes by 2015, with full completion expected about 2016. Even although the MeerKAT was in the design phase and was going into construction there was huge interest from the international community in terms of using the dish and the first five years of operation of the dish had already been allocated.

Radio astronomy observatories throughout the world were all connected to one another. The African VLBI Network (AVN) was a very large baseline so large baselines between the telescopes would give a better resolving point. Other countries had many observatories but South Africa had only one at the Hartbeeshoek radio astronomy observatory 25-metre dish. The aim was to set up additional radio astronomy observatories in Africa. If the dishes were installed, given the longitude they would begin to talk to the European VLBI network and have direct linkage and one consolidated VLBI network taking the African VLBI Network and the European VLBI Network. There was huge interest from Europeans in terms of plugging into the African VLBI Network; the consequence of which would be huge support, especially in the African Union (AU): European Union (EU) bilateral. The aim was to get the VLBI Network in place by the next decade.

Ghana had made their telecommunications telescope available. A lot of the telecommunications telescopes were set up to receive telecommunications from satellite. With the arrival of optical cyber network some of those dishes had become redundant so one of the exercises was to take a telecommunications telescope and convert it to a radio astronomical telescope. The one in Ghana would become one of the many antennae that formed the African VLBI Network.

R500 000 was provided for a training telescope in partnership with Mozambique. A 7.6m antenna was made available by Telkom to be installed as a training telescope in Mozambique. The ultimate aim in terms of the VLBI Network was looking at a 12m antenna dish as part of a Radio Astronomy Observatory in Mozambique. South Africa was working with Mozambican engineers in terms of gaining experience. Brazil had offered postgraduate scholarships, which were offered to Mozambique given the Portuguese language. Two master of science (MSc) and two doctor of philosophy (PhD) students from Mozambique were studying in Brazil from February 2012.

One of the success factors of the SKA was the huge drive for scholarships for postgraduate students. The consequence of that was that whereas in 2003 the total number of astronomers in Africa was about 15, there were currently more than 60 purely because of the interest in the bid for the SKA. In excess of 300 PhD and MSc students were funded in terms of the bursary programme; twelve students from other African countries were supported. Given the SKA focus, other African universities started astronomy programmes at undergraduate levels where they never had astronomy programmes before, most of which were in partnerships with South African universities; five research chairs were awarded; and approximately 1000 local engineers were working on the project.

Dr Munsami turned to the African SKA bid. South Africa and its partner countries submitted the African SKA bid in September last year. Factors considered were the scientific basis and the technical perspective -  the infrastructure and the long-term operations given that it was about a 40-year project. It was still unclear as to how the cost would feature. Africa was an excellent potential site for the SKA and the Department had confidence in the bid. All eight African partner countries submitted letters of commitment in support of the SKA bid.

In terms of international lobbying, the SKA bid was featured in the African Union agenda and a 2012 Summit declaration called for continuing SKA support from African countries and regional communities; proposed radio astronomy as a priority in the African-EU partnership on science, information society and space; and supported investments in the African VLBI network. It was interesting that the EU expressed interest in radio astronomy. South Africa was also looking at finance from the other African countries.

The Minister had led a series of international lobbying and in addition the Deputy Minister took a trip to India, which had an interest in the SKA and formally signed up as a member, and there were discussions with India, including Tata. A Carnegie meeting was hosted in South Africa in November with Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), France, the United States (US) and Canada in attendance, where the SKA featured prominently on the agenda. The Deputy Minister also took a road show to Germany last year and 2012 was the South Africa/Germany Year of Science and radio astronomy was identified as a focus area. It was a radio astronomy initiative and not an SKA initiative. Radio astronomy was also adopted as one of the focus areas of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) Science and Technology sector; the Department would be hosting the next meeting in September.

In terms of mobilising EU support, there was a declaration around radio astronomy and in order for that declaration to take effect a vote of at least 51% of the European Parliament in favour, which equated to 378 signatures, was required. There were currently 299 signatures and if it reached 300 (one more vote) Africa would be given an extension in terms of getting the additional votes. 79 more votes were needed.

Dr Munsami turned to the site decision. The SKA Organisation was established as a legal entity in November 2011 and registered as a non-profit private company limited by guarantee under British law. Member countries were South Africa, Australia, China, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. When the site decision was taken it would include South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. The other countries would take the decision. It was possible that Germany and Canada may join the member countries.

Looking at the SKA decision process, the documents were submitted in September. The report and recommendations of the SKA Site Advisory Committee (SSAC) were supposed to have been concluded by 7 February. The report would be verified by the SKA Siting Group (SSG) and then submitted to the Board of the SKA Organisation, which was planned for 22 February. If the Board was happy with the report it would then send it to the member countries. There would be a meeting of SKA members, excluding the candidates, on 4 April. The four countries would convene, look at the report, and if the report were clear-cut as to which bid won, a decision would be announced on 4 April. If there was no clear cut decision between South Africa and Australia there would be a prolonged process and a second round of voting would need to take place four to six weeks after 4 April.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the presentation.

Dr Mjwara added that the SKA was not formally on the agenda of the Carnegie meeting that was held in November, but the meeting was used to indicate the competency that already existed in South Africa by showing what had been done on the Karoo Array Telescope.

On the declaration for the EU, South Africa was not on the SKA but was on the support for science and radio astronomy broadly.

Discussion
The Chairperson found the presentation very interesting, especially as he had interacted with the SKA founding board members; and also the four countries that would make the decision on 4 April. The support from the EU in terms of radio astronomy was also interesting. There was much interest in the Netherlands and in the European Parliament in the counter bid. The bid was very interesting and promising, and the information given was very valuable. Parliament should be briefed on this issue to create awareness of the type of science and training being brought into the country. There was also an appeal from the world that South Africa must send at least 12 students per year to attend international astronomy activities.

Dr Mjwara said the Department would be happy to brief Parliament.

Ms M Dunjwa (ANC) asked for clarification on the five research chairs; only three universities were mentioned – Cape Town, Stellenbosch and the University of South Africa (UNISA) – which were the other universities?

Dr Mjwara responded that they were the University of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, UNISA,      University of the Witwatersrand, and the University of the Western Cape.

Ms Dunjwa said Dr Munsami had referred to the ‘noise’ that was coming from Australia that Parliament and South Africa would be exposed to – what was that ‘noise’?

Dr Mjwara responded that the way the bid was handled the Department should continue to focus on what it was doing well. There was a range of journalists and people from Australia talking about the African bid, which was what the ‘noise’ was. They raised issues such as security around the Continent and other negative things. The Department listened to those things but communicated the support that  it had and the fact that even though it was building the MeerKAT and others at this early stage, the scientific community had made comments on that.

Ms Dunjwa noted that three factors would be considered for the SKA. Would the Committee be informed of the cost factor in due course?

Dr Mjwara explained that the third factor was the cost. The site chosen in Australia was in a very remote area where there was very little infrastructure. South Africa already had the roads, electricity and infrastructure and the seven dishes preliminary to the 54 dishes. In the construction of those dishes the Department felt it had a better idea of what the costs of the SKA would be. Because South Africa had a site with infrastructure the cost would be one of the advantages. Other factors to be taken into account could be the ease of getting permits for people who wished to work in South Africa.

Ms Dunjwa was excited and very proud that international scientists were interested in the South African SKA.
She was concerned as to whether the community in the proximity of Carnarvon were informed of what would happen and the impact it would have on their lives.

Dr Mjwara responded that a forum met monthly to provide up to date information and get a sense from the people in the Carnarvon area. They received briefings on progress on the project and the briefings were used as a forum for them to raise specific issues. The Department had been working with the schools in the area and last year was the launch of the information technology (IT) infrastructure to assist learners to do maths and science. The Department had engaged with the farmers and had taken into account all the issues they had raised, especially around the need to keep the reserve radio silent. The Department was also looking at setting up an information  and communications technology (ICT) microelectronics hub in the Northern Cape as part of the support and the work done by the SKA and the engineering aspect.

The Chairperson said that there would be a conference on 26 March 2012 that would focus on children as young as four years being brought into astroscience; people from Sutherland and SAAO would be participating in that conference.

Dr Mjwara said he would get the details of the Netherlands meeting.
 
Another important issue Ms Dunjwa raised was the cost factor. Decision-making was sensitive and highly technical. The Department should be able to estimate the costs by this stage.

Dr Mjwara explained that the Department would be following up the process that was followed by the SKA Siting Advisory Committee and would look for flaws in the processes that had been followed. There would be a teleconference on 22 February as to how the SKA Siting Advisory Committee went through the bid, how they analysed the information and how they arrived at a recommendation on the technical aspects and the recommendation on the scientific aspects. He thought the process proposed so far had been fairly transparent and would pick up on any issue that may be flawed.

Ms P Mocumi (ANC) was also interested as to what extent the stakeholders in the Northern Cape were involved.

Ms Mocumi noted that two MSc and two PhD students from Mozambique would study in Brazil because of the language. She felt that Portuguese was an easy language to learn and students should also be sent from South Africa.

The Chairperson agreed that one could study in any language anywhere in the world; people could be trained in language courses. The Committee had experience where, on the SKA development, initially it had seemed that South Africans were excluded from the project in favour of people from other African countries. He was concerned that perhaps now language was being used as an excuse to exclude South Africans from getting that training.

Dr Munsami added that South Africa had been engaged in astronomy since the 1800’s and did have expertise and recognised astronomy programmes. In terms of comparison, South Africa was world class

Ms Mocumi asked which African universities had started astronomy programmes; perhaps South African students could be sent there? In terms of uptake the preference was for South African students because the money came from the South African fiscus. If there were no full uptake it would then look at other African partners. South African students who applied would be supported through the South African bursary scheme. The partnership with Brazil came in to expand the resource and so the scholarships were offered to the four postgraduate students - two at MSc level and two at PhD level.

Dr Mjwara was aware that the University of Mauritius had a strong programme and the University of Nairobi had an undergraduate programme. The Department was engaging with the University of Botswana that wished to start a programme but was first sending students to South Africa.

 Ms S Plaatjie (COPE) appreciated the progress made thus far and the effort put in by the team.
Local communities were the best vehicles for marketing strategy, such as caps and T-shirts.

Dr Mjwara noted the comment of getting local communities involved in the marketing.

Dr J Kloppers-Lourens (DA) was also interested in the five research chairs and asked whether these included the new research chairs announced by the Minister on Tuesday?

Dr Mjwara responded that the five research chairs were announced last year and three of the universities had already filled those positions.

Dr Kloppers-Lourens asked what employment opportunities would be created through the project?

Dr Munsami responded that the KAT-7 created about 100 employment opportunities but they were not sustainable jobs. About 400 employment opportunities were targeted for the MeerKAT, of which some would be sustainable and others not. If South Africa won the SKA bid the numbers would be significantly increased

Dr Kloppers-Lourens asked why the United States was not included as an Organisation member.

Dr Mjwara responded that the United States had chosen not to join the SKA. However, the Department was working with the United States on two projects in Carnarvon.

Dr Munsami added that the US was also involved in the building of an extremely large telescope that was probably a cash constraint and the reason why they were not involved in the SKA. It was still hoped that they would join once the SKA was up and running.

The Chairperson recalled that there had been a briefing by a lady from the United States on the SKA project.
Dr Kloppers-Lourens noted that under certain circumstances there might not be a clear-cut decision – what circumstances were they?

Dr Mjwara responded that he did not know but the Department was hoping that there would be a clear-cut decision. If there were a split it could involve a second round of voting. The proposal roughly was in order for one country to have a clear cut decision there must be 75% support for the project, if that 75% did not happen the board might then engage with the bidding countries on a ‘horse premium’ to break the deadlock. A ‘horse premium’ meant that South Africa would be asked what it would offer the project if it won the bid, and the Australians would be asked the same. However, that was just speculation.

Dr Kloppers-Lourens asked whether there was a possibility of both countries being responsible?

Dr Mjwara said he did not know.

The Chairperson understood that the United Kingdom would be hosting the SKA office. He asked what impact that would have on the people who made the decision on the bid in terms of heritage, and how much impart would countries such as China that were initially in the bid and were now part of the deciding factor, have?

Dr Mjwara confirmed that the project office was located in the UK but the Chair of the Board, John Womersley, had said that if people voted against South Africa it would not be because the board was located there, or because of the historical ties with Australia.

The Department had been engaging with China and especially the Shanghai Observatory. When the Department went there for the BRICS meeting it also engaged with China around partnership on the SKA.  Chinese companies would be building the dishes that would be part of the MeerKAT. The Deputy Minister would be visiting China in about two weeks and would have deeper engagements about China supporting the bid. Dr Mjwara did not think that China would withhold its support due to having been dropped out of the first round.

The Chairperson asked to check whether the Board Chairperson was the John Womersley who used to be Head of the South African Institute of Engineers? He could have interests in South Africa.

Ms Dunjwa asked why the project office was in the UK when the project was in South Africa?

The Chairperson was also interested; the office was placed there before the bid, who decided that and why?

Dr Munsami reminded Members that, whoever won the bid, it would not become an African or Australian project; it remained an international project. The office was resourced by international staff; it just happened to be based in the UK.

The Chairperson still had a problem that. He had recently attended the World Science Forum and the founding boards of SKA were not in the UK but in the Netherlands. It was important to understand the politics.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for the presentation.

International study tour to South Korea postponement
The Committee was supposed to have undertaken a study tour to South Korea commencing 17 January 2012. For reasons unknown it was put on hold. It was not the first time; it had been put on hold in 2010. This time the trip was fully approved. It was also a constitutional mandate of committees of Parliament to go to at least one overseas destination during their five-year term.

The Chairperson was particularly concerned that when at the Conference of the Parties (COP) 17 in Durban he had spent a lot of time with the House Chair, including the day that he received the message from the Committee Secretary that the trip was put on hold. If it had come from the House Chair he would have been told. The message was not in writing and had only been relayed telephonically. Because it was not in writing it could not be challenged in any platform of Parliament. He did not understand how a trip that was fully approved could have been changed as the host country had made arrangements for their arrival. The Committee Secretary had been told that the reason was that the Committee had no funds. That could not be because it was an international constitutional trip for which the money came from the international pool fund. He went to the former Chair, now the Minister of Labour, to ensure that he was correct in that and was told by the former Chair of International Relations that a trip of that nature could not be put on hold once it had been approved; if there were a problem it would not have been approved. If for any reason funds were not available it could still not be put on hold, but the delegation could be reduced.

It was especially disturbing that many committees that had not even applied were allowed to go on visits, including those that had no money. Mr C Frolick (ANC) had said the Committee could not go to two places unless they were adjacent to each other, yet committees had visited places in separate areas. The Chairperson had met with other committees that were in the same situation. It was a matter that undermined the work of Parliament and had to be challenged.

The Chairperson had met with the Speaker and told him that the situation was unacceptable to Parliament. The Speaker was not able to assist as nothing was in writing. The House Chair and the Presiding Officer asked the Chairperson to put it in writing, but the Chairperson would wait until the Committee had met. It was a matter that needed to be raised in caucus. Committees were not being treated equally.

Ms Mocumi was just as frustrated, having only learnt a week before the Committee was due to leave. The Speaker had requested a letter but it would be better to request a meeting with the people who had cancelled the trip and had not even put it in writing. The Committee had applied for a study tour in 2010 and were told that it should rather undertake it in 2011. The Committee even went to the House Chair’s office to ensure that the trip was approved and finalised.

The Chairperson interjected that that a study tour had been put on hold because of elections; the Committee was in a cluster that was due for 2012, and the House Chair had said those that were ready must go. The Researcher and the Department were engaged and the Committee was briefed by the Department of International Relations.

Ms Mocumi agreed, the tour was not decided on the spur of the moment; a lot of effort was put into it. The country of destination was informed and she wondered whether it was informed that the Committee was no longer going. The Committee should demand a meeting; it was about Parliament work. It might be understood if there were no committees that undertook study tours. The officials did not even have the courtesy of putting the message in writing. It was a serious matter.

Ms Dunjwa believed it was for the House Chair to explain, it was important to hear from the person who had authority. It was a matter that affected the issue of trust. To hear something so important telephonically from an official was not acceptable and the matter must be addressed once and for all. She proposed that the Committee undertake the trip before June.

Dr Kloppers-Lourens was a Member of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training and that Committee had experienced the same problem. That committee was scheduled to go to Germany in the first week of December and was kept in the dark until approximately a week before due to leave.

Ms Plaatjie supported meeting with the House Chair because, if it were a matter of funds, that should have been checked before approval was granted.

The Chairperson supported meeting with the House Chair and the Speaker; he had discussed the matter with the Executive. It was also serious that the Committee had not been informed of the request from the Committee on Science and Technology from Uganda until it was too late. The Committee was being undermined. He felt it would be futile to call the House Chair before the Committee because it was a matter of principle. The Committee was one of the engines of Parliament and had to be given the authority it deserved and constitutionally had. It was not only about the trip, but how the Committee was supposed to function with its constitutional mandate. The State of the Nation Address was on a knowledge-based economy and it was a constitutional disaster when the committee of another country wished to meet with its counterpart in South Africa and the Committee was not even informed of that until it was too late. The Minister’s view was that the Committee could not continue like this because it hindered the progress of the Committee generally. The Committee must write a formal report to the Political Committee.

It was agreed that a delegation approach the Office of the Speaker to request an appointment  so that that Speaker be made aware of the situation.

The Chairperson said that probably Committee time could be made for that to take place next week.

Dr Kloppers-Lourens felt it was important to get the backing of the Minister or the Deputy Minister and that they be invited to be present.

The Chairman agreed; once a date was verified the Minister would be invited. The points for discussion must also be clearly set up on the agenda. Those issues were the trip to Korea, the visit of the delegation from Uganda that was not communicated to the Committee, the mandate of the Committee versus micro management, and other matters.

Ms Dunjwa felt the two items would be sufficient, but suggested adding the whole issue of oversight both locally and internationally. The Committee was not being treated correctly and that had to be corrected.

The Chairperson was also concerned about the information that other committees had been allowed to go overseas without even having complied.

Dr Kloppers-Lourens said that when she was deployed to the Committee she was assured that it was a very important committee, particularly around the knowledge economic environment; somebody should brief the Committee on its role around that theme of Parliament. It seemed that everyone was in the dark about that.

The Chairperson objected. The Committee had Vision 18; there was even Vision 2015 that supported the vision to change South Africa into a knowledge based economic country, and there were many innovations to support that direction. There was a history of how the work had moved from finance or human capital based economy to a knowledge based economy, which was technology based. That was where all developed nations were now and that was the vision of the Department over a ten-year grand plan that would finish in 2018. The conference the Chairperson had attended in Hungary was a global one on knowledge economy development in the world, the landscape of science. It was a vision in a white paper of the Department of Science and Technology.

Committee programme
Ms Shanaaz Isaacs (Committee Secretary) briefed the Committee. A draft programme would be circulated. It basically stemmed from a meeting last year when Members listed the six grand challenges and spread it over weeks so that when it came to strategic plans and budgets could give overview schemes. The draft programme could always be updated.

The meeting was adjourned.