1 / 39

Overview of CWN Watersheds Consortia

Overview of CWN Watersheds Consortia. Canadian Watershed Research Consortium Yellowknife, December 2012. Overview. CWN’s Consortium Approach Canadian Watershed Research Consortium goals Watershed nodes Community of Practice. CWN’s Consortium Approach.

becka
Download Presentation

Overview of CWN Watersheds Consortia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview of CWN Watersheds Consortia Canadian Watershed Research Consortium Yellowknife, December 2012

  2. Overview • CWN’s Consortium Approach • Canadian Watershed Research Consortium goals • Watershed nodes • Community of Practice

  3. CWN’s Consortium Approach • Collectively address shared water management research priorities • Focus on broad issues involving overlapping jurisdictions where no single agency or actor has the mandate, access to sufficient breadth of knowledge, or the ability to advance an issue individually. • Includes: • Pathogens-in-Groundwater Research Consortium • Canadian Municipal Water Consortium • Secure Source Waters Consortium • Canadian Watershed Research Consortium

  4. Governance Board of Directors Scientific Director Research Management Committee CMW Consortium Management Committee CWR Consortium Management Committees (one CMC per Node) SSW Consortium Management Committee CMW Consortium Advisory Committee

  5. Goals of Canadian Watershed Research Consortium(CWN’s perspective) • To support each node to achieve and maintain a practical and implementable cumulative effects monitoring framework • Beyond the scope of simply implementing research projects • Beyond the timeline of the current CWN funding

  6. How Can the “Watershed Consortium” Provide Best Value for End-Users? • Developing a defensible and shared approach to achieve alignment –with credible science-based rationale • Enable more effective use of data to achieve integrated watershed management • Demonstrate clearer benefits of approach for various participants

  7. General Observations on CEA Challenges • There are deficiencies in the CEA process – inconsistency between the intent and the practice : • Create barriers to: • Achieving/Maintaining Environmental Sustainability • Supporting Effective Watershed Management • Clarifying Accountability and Roles for Best Result

  8. Potential Benefits to framing CEA within Regional Environmental Framework • Quantify thresholds for environmental management -- “How do we know if it isn’t working/there’s a problem?” • Provide an avenue and basis for (re-)assessment and adaptive management -- “Was protection achieved and how to fix it if not?” • Outline clear lines of accountability and responsibility “Who has to do what and what is it that they have to do?”

  9. We are looking for pilot sites to test the development of Regional Environmental Effects Frameworks? • strategic, • integrated, • regional • monitoring design and decision-making strategy • for measurement of development-related change at an ecosystem level while incorporating site-specific needs. • fit monitoring within the context of an adaptive management framework • focus beyond any single project-specific needs

  10. Canadian Watersheds Research Consortium • Initial focal challenge –Cumulative Environmental Assessment Approaches • Establish 5 to 6 regional consortia which will be networked nationally • Choose strategic locations where shared need and commitment to addressing the issue is clear • Inaugural regional consortia have the advantage of helping shape how the priorities will be addressed, initial national focus, and early results

  11. Generic Interests and Needs of Consortium • how to better incorporate more science and “cumulative impacts” approach (includes monitoring, impact assessment etc) • how to improve the environmental assessment process for large developments so that it gives more confidence, is more adaptive, and improves public confidence • how to improve the level of work and community of practice

  12. NWT Slave River Watershed Node • How does the Slave River Watershed Node fit into the larger community of practice?

  13. Format for meeting today • Want to focus on providing the best information possible to help the teams develop the proposal so it best fits community needs • Examples of community input • Helping frame the questions • Making sure that the researchers have heard the question • Helping pick study sites • Providing advice and feedback as the project progresses • Have to be careful once the projects have started not to change the direction • Proposals have to remember that the goal is to provide community-based monitoring tools and it needs to link with TK

  14. Communication and Governance with CWN Canadian Watershed Research Consortium Yellowknife, December 2012

  15. Overview • Governance • Roles and Responsibilities • CWN Reporting and Review • Communication and data sharing • IP policies and agreements • Conflict of interest policies • Community of Practice

  16. Governance Board of Directors Scientific Director Core Consortium Management Committee Local Node CMC Representatives NorSt-EMP Watershed Node members Grand River Watershed Node members SJH Watershed Node members Local NWT Slave River Watershed Node members Tobacco Creek Watershed Node members Muskoka Watershed Node members

  17. Roles • Local node management groups • Researchers • Consortium Management Committees (CMC) • Research Management Committee (RMC) • CWN inc.

  18. Reporting and Review - Node • Research team reporting to node: • To be determined by node and communicated to research team • Ongoing communication is key • Minimum requirements: • sampling schedule and location approved by node in late winter • report on results of sampling at each meeting • Share with CWN through minutes and presentation materials • Review by node: • Review results and progress against node goals • Node to provide a statement to CWN regarding the suitability of progress indicated by research team’s report

  19. Reporting and Review - CWN • Research team reporting to CWN/CMC: • Annual statistical reporting • Annual progress reporting • Final report and end-user oriented applications report • CWN to share with nodes • CWN review process: • Administrative requirements (HQP, networking, budget etc) • Knowledge mobilization and translation • Have node objectives been met? • Node reporting to CWN/CMC: • Challenges, timelines – ongoing and at fall meeting • Avoid duplication

  20. Roles and Responsibilities • Research team • NWT Slave River Watershed Node • Consortium Management Committees (CMC) • Research Management Committee (RMC) • CWN inc.

  21. Administration details • Award agreements • Budget

  22. Meetings • Initial proposal invitation meeting (Dec 2012) • With individual nodes and all researchers/students (min once per year) – before spring sampling begins • Inter-node meeting (once per year, late fall or winter) – for cross communication and building community of practice • Webinars (as needed, on specific management topics) • Presenting to community of practice

  23. Community of Practice • How this node fits into the larger consortium

  24. Integration and Sharing • Value in sharing progress and ideas with all five nodes • Common goals – developing community of practice, bragging… • How could this be facilitated? • Share examples of communications between nodes • Share communications with CWN to post on our website • Webinars, workshops on specific topics • Standard data reporting requirements • Website for public/broader audience • Portal for sharing (online community of practice) • Others? • Sharing beyond current five nodes • Reports, papers, success stories, case studies? • Linkages to federal and provincial EA processes • How to engage CCME and CEAA etc? • Towards what goal? • Integrate into each node

  25. Proposal Evaluation

  26. Proposal Evaluation – Consortium Management Committee • Potential to Contribute to the Consortium and Partnership Goals • Excellence of Research Plan and Approach • Strength and Excellence of the Project Team • Experience with Traditional Knowledge and Appropriate Design • Development of Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP) • Knowledge Mobilization Plan • Project Networking and Management Capacity •  Appropriateness of Budget

  27. EoQ Evaluation – Slave River and Delta Node 1.      Has the team identified commitment and a meaningful approach to working in partnership with the SRDP and/or community and Aboriginal groups to address community concerns?  (include a clear indication of the role that these groups will play in all parts of the research) 2.      Has the team indicated a clear strategy for communicating and reporting back to the SRDP, the communities and the region (i.e. posters, community meetings, plain language summaries, etc.)? 3.      Has the team identified opportunities for training and capacity building for community members? 4.      How well does the proposed research answer community questions about aquatic ecosystem health?

  28. EoQ Evaluation – Slave River and Delta Node 5.      Does the team indicate previous experience working in the NWT? 6.      How well does the team indicate knowledge of working in the NWT? 7.      How well does the team show that they can address all of the different components of the research call? 8.      How well does the team demonstrate inclusion of traditional knowledge into their work?

  29. SRDP proposal review criteria • Focus on community concerns, answers community questions and meets community needs • Collaborative, inclusive and participatory • Cost-effectiveness and design (long-term community monitoring) • Clear linkages between the four theme areas • Clear indication of roles for all parts of community • Clear strategy for communicating and reporting results • Meaningful strategy for training opportunities and capacity-building • Improvement on the inclusion of Traditional Knowledge in a meaningful way and clear understanding to how this will be accomplished • Leveraging funding and resources

  30. Board of Directors Scientific Director Research Management Committee CMW Consortium Management Committee CWR Consortium Management Committees (one CMC per Node) SSW Consortium Management Committee CMW Consortium Advisory Committee

  31. Meetings • Governance • Communication • Meetings • Reporting (by research team, by node) • Integration and sharing

  32. Inter-Node Workshop • January 17-18, 2013 in Saint John NB • Goals: • Help nodes learn from each other and build towards a larger, integrated Cumulative Effects community of practice. • Share experiences, challenges, and ideas. • Participants: • Up to 3 representatives from each node • Project leaders or their representative • Core CMC members • Federal CEAA and Provincial Reps • Broader team and nodes by webcast

More Related