Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lydia-wood |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Overview of CWN Watersheds Consortia
Canadian Watershed Research Consortium
Yellowknife, December 2012
OverviewOverview
• CWN’s Consortium ApproachCWN’s Consortium Approach• Canadian Watershed Research Consortium goalsCanadian Watershed Research Consortium goals• Watershed nodesWatershed nodes• Community of PracticeCommunity of Practice
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 Canadian Watershed Research Consortium
GovernanceBoard of Directors
Scientific Director
Research Management
Committee
CWR Consortium Management Committees
(one CMC per Node)
CMW Consortium Management Committee
SSW Consortium Management
Committee
CMW Consortium Advisory Committee
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
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
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
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?”
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
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
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
NWT Slave River Watershed Node
• How does the Slave River Watershed Node fit into the larger community of practice?
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
Communication and Governance with CWN
Canadian Watershed Research Consortium
Yellowknife, December 2012
OverviewOverview
• GovernanceGovernance• Roles and ResponsibilitiesRoles and Responsibilities• CWN Reporting and ReviewCWN Reporting and Review• Communication and data sharing• IP policies and agreements• Conflict of interest policies• Community of PracticeCommunity of Practice
Grand River Watershed Node
members SJH Watershed Node members
Governance
Board of Directors
Scientific Director
Local Node CMC Representatives
Core Consortium Management
Committee
Local NWT Slave River Watershed Node members
NorSt-EMP Watershed Node
members
Muskoka Watershed Node
members
Tobacco Creek Watershed Node
members
Roles– Local node management groups– Researchers– Consortium Management Committees
(CMC)– Research Management Committee (RMC)– CWN inc.
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
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
Roles and Responsibilities• Research team• NWT Slave River Watershed Node• Consortium Management Committees (CMC)• Research Management Committee (RMC)• CWN inc.
Administration details• Award agreements• Budget
Meetingsa) Initial proposal invitation meeting (Dec 2012)b) With individual nodes and all researchers/students (min
once per year) – before spring sampling beginsc) Inter-node meeting (once per year, late fall or winter) –
for cross communication and building community of practice
d) Webinars (as needed, on specific management topics)e) Presenting to community of practice
Community of PracticeHow this node fits into the larger consortium
Integration and SharingValue 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
Proposal Evaluation
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
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?
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?
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
Board of Directors
Scientific Director
Research Management
Committee
CWR Consortium Management Committees
(one CMC per Node)
CMW Consortium Management Committee
SSW Consortium Management
Committee
CMW Consortium Advisory Committee
Meetings
• Governance• Communication• Meetings• Reporting (by research team, by node)• Integration and sharing
Meeting type
ParticipationFrequency CostsLocal node Researchers CWN staff CMC Partners
Kick-off Y Y Y N Y Spring 2012Node funded except CWN staff travel
Annual individual
nodeall all Y N Y Annually
Node funded except CWN staff travel
All nodes rep rep Y rep rep Annually shared
Webinar rep Depends Y N N As neededCWN
funded
Project leaders
N rep Y N N Annually Paid by researchers
Extra node
meetingsY Depends Depends N Depends Determined by
node Node funded
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