CARC WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION

(February 28 2003)

WORKING WITH BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA:  A PRELIMINARY STEP TOWARD AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT IN THE SLAVE GEOLOGICAL PROVINCE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

There are few examples of the actual use of social, cultural or economic indicators in natural resource management. Furthermore, while socio-economic monitoring and indicators research are identified as needed short-term actions in the draft Regional Plan of Action for the Slave Geological Province (NWT and Nunavut), the specific details for conducting this work still need to be fully developed.  In Canada’s 1996 State of the Environment report it was recognised that when evaluating potential development or ecological change an ecosystem approach is necessary.  That is, a comprehensive and holistic approach to understanding and anticipating effects, assessing the full range of consequences, and developing appropriate responses.  The ecosystem approach recognises that humans are an integral part of ecosystems and that human social and economic systems constantly interact with other physical and biological parts of the system.  Within the context of sustainability, all interactions must be considered in an integrated fashion.  Despite this, while concepts and indicators of ecological sustainability are relatively well established, indictors of economic, cultural and social sustainability are less well defined and more challenging to develop. Several initiatives, from community-based to government-driven, are, however, underway in the Slave Geological Province (SGP).  The proposed workshop aims to bring together some of the groups responsible for this work, as well as those working on the biophysical components, to initiate a dialogue to identify common ground between projects, means of creating links between groups, and preliminary steps for the development of integrated modeling tools.

2.0 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

In bringing together researchers concerned with social, cultural and economic and biophysical work as relates to cumulative effects assessment and monitoring in the SGP, the principal objectives of the workshop are to:

1.      open dialogue between the social science and natural science practitioners so that networks for greater communication can be developed;

2.      present examples from northern Alberta where significant research is underway to integrate socio-economic and biophysical components into resource management;

3.      identify the preliminary steps for the development of integrated modeling tools for use by resource managers and decision-makers in the SGP

3.0 WORKSHOP FORMAT

This will be a two-day open, facilitated workshop to be held at Northern United Place in Yellowknife.  In consultation with the facilitator, Mike Bell, the workshop will open with presentations related to:

1.      current social, cultural or economic monitoring initiatives in the SGP;

2.      related ongoing research in northern Alberta to develop economic indicators of sustainability;

3.      current biophysical monitoring and modeling initiatives in the SGP;

4.      biophysical modeling in northern Alberta;

5.      overview of existing databases, integration of data collected, and possibilities for model development (biophysical/social/economic/cultural) applicable to the SGP

Following the presentation component, we will use an Open Space process for the rest of the workshop.  A description of this process is in Appendix A.  Briefly, an Open Space is a self-directed learning experience that brings people together to explore an area of common interest.  In this case, the common interest, as the workshop theme indicates, is developing an integrated approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment in the Slave Geological Province.

A draft agenda is in Appendix B.

4.0 PROPOSED PARTICIPANTS AND PRESENTERS

It is expected that the workshop will attract interest from individuals from the following organisations:

·         CEAM Steering Committee members;

·         Nunavut Planning Commission

·         SGP communities

·         monitoring agencies, IEMA & EMAB

·         industry representatives; BHP, Diavik, DeBeers

·         MVEIRB / NIRB

·         NRCan/CIAM (Canada Integrated Assessment Modeling)

·         CIMP Coordinators

To spark discussion, presentations from the following individuals/groups have are planned:

·         Brad Stelfox, Forem Technology Ltd., ALCES landscape simulation model; northern Alberta example

·         Michel Haener, presently with GNWT – Aboriginal Affairs, former research associate from Univ. of Alberta where she worked on a socio-economic and biophysical modeling project in northern Saskatchewan;

·         Mark Boyce, University of Alberta – wildlife modeling and integrated resource management;

·         NRCan, Cumulative Impact Assessment Modeling (CIAM) initiative

·         Diavik Community Advisory Committee for socio-economic monitoring – Cindy Kenny-Gilday and two community representatives;

·         Gloria Enzoe and Marie Catholique – Lutsel K’e Community Based-Monitoring project

·         Adrian Boyd, Nunavut Planning Commission;

·         Alan Ehrlich, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Socio-economic assessment framework

5.0 TIMELINE

The two-day workshop will be held at Northern United Place, March 12-13, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

6.0 DELIVERABLES

In keeping with the workshop objectives:

1.      open dialogue between the social science and natural science practitioners so that networks for greater communication can be developed;

2.      present examples from northern Alberta where significant research is underway to integrate socio-economic and biophysical components into resource management;

3.      identify the preliminary steps for the development of integrated modeling tools for use by resource managers and decision-makers in the SGP/NWT;

a report will be produced to summarise the discussion and layout the next steps for moving ahead with initiatives for the development of integrated modeling tools.

7.0 CONCLUSION

A forum entitled, Incorporating the Human Dimension: The Role of Social Science in Natural Resource Management in British Columbia, was organised in 2001 and had as one of its primary goals to spark discussion about social and economic issues and information gaps related to resource management.  It was recognised, among other issues, that social scientists need to brought onto land and resource management planning tables and into mainstream decision-making.  The workshop proposed here will initiate a similar dialogue for researchers, government departments, agencies, and industry working on socio-economic and biophysical issues in the SGP, and will aim to create better links between groups and develop the next steps for creating modeling tools to assist decision-makers.

APPENDIX A:  Description of the Open Space process

THEME: “Towards an Integrated Approach

To Cumulative Effects Assessment in the

Slave Geological Province.  

ABOUT OPEN SPACE

THE PROCESS

After the presentation in the morning of the first day, and the mindmap first thing in the afternoon, we will use an Open Space process for the rest of the workshop. . 

An Open Space is a self-directed learning experience that brings people together to explore an area of common interest.  In this case, the common interest, as the workshop theme indicates,  is developing an integrated approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment in the Slave Geological Province.  

The opening session (immediately after the mind-mapping exercise) begins with a brief explanation of the Open Space Process. Then, each participant is invited to identify the issue, theme, or area of interest that is of particular concern to them.  They write their issue or theme down on a piece of paper, explain it briefly to the whole group, and post it on a wall.  By doing this they indicate to the group that they are willing to lead a discussion around that particular issue or theme.  Participants may write down a number of issues that are of interest and offer to lead a number of discussion groups (“Leading the Discussion” means indicating why the topic is of interest or concern to you—then making sure everyone gets a chanced to participate in the discussion.)

After the participants post their various issues and themes, they review the “menu of options” and “sign up” for the various discussions that are of particular interest to them.  Then, thorough the course of the day, they move to the various discussion groups they have selected.

Discussions usually last an hour and a half--but they may last longer, depending upon the desires of the participants. Also, it is quite common for groups exploring similar ground to merge with one another.

Typically, all participants meet together twice a day in plenary sessions--once at the beginning of the day, the other at the end. In these sessions they share news, test the ground for changes or additions to the discussion groups, and handle housekeeping items. 

In terms of planning the conference, there is no formal planning other than the development of the brief “Theme Paper.”  This has already been developed by CARC (the CARC Workshop Proposal) and was sent to you along with your invitation outlining what the conference is all about. 

At the end of the Open Space there is often a consolidation of learning.  The facilitator in the final plenary session asks the participants to identify the “things they have learned” or the major conclusions they have come to as a result of the discussions.  The facilitator captures these on a flip chart.   Often part of the final discussion is “Where do we go from here—the next steps.”

If a set of “conference proceedings” is required, each discussion leader has the responsibility for having someone in their discussion group take notes and type up a one or two page summary of the discussion. These are then presented to the organizers or the facilitator to be included in the final report.

THE CONTENT

We cannot anticipate in advance what the actual content of the conference will be.  That will depend upon the interest and concerns of the participants.  We can anticipate that the content will explore various aspects of the Workshop Theme.  Likely discussion groups are: the state of the art of CEA; best practices and models that have worked elsewhere or are being developed; steps or requirements for developing an integrated approach; challenges of combining the natural sciences with the social sciences, the particular challenges of doing CEA in the Slave Geological Province;   a community perspective on CEA etc.  

THE OPEN SPACE APPROACH

The Open Space approach was designed in the early 80's by Harrison Owen, a management consultant working out of the U.S.  Since then, “open spaces” are continually being used in various parts of the world.  They bring together people from individual organizations--businesses, institutions, non-profits, government departments, community groups-- and from groups of organizations who must find the common ground to work together.  An interesting feature of this approach—it adapts itself well to both small and large groups.  (Open Spaces have been held with groups ranging from less than a dozen participants up to 500 participants).

The approach is guided by a set of simple principles that are explained at the beginning of the conference.  It works on the assumption that most people who attend a conference do not want to be taught by experts telling them what they need to do. Rather, it assumes that most people want to learn for themselves what they need to do--and that the best way to do this is through discussion: sharing information about issues and projects that that are of deep concern to them with others who have similar concerns.

But the open space approach is not for everyone nor for all occasions.  It does not work well in cases where the outcome is known in advance and/or where there is a need to teach a specific set of skills (competency-based learning). And, it is not for individuals who require a highly structured learning environment. 

APPENDIX B: Draft Agenda

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 

in the

SLAVE GEOLOGICAL PROVINCE.

“TOWARD AN INTEGRATED APPROACH”

 DAY ONE: Wednesday, March 12, 2003

MORNING: 9:00AM

• 9:00AM Welcome, Introductions, Purpose of the workshop—CARC

-  Overview of the workshop—Mike Bell

-  Background: What is Cumulative Effects Assessment—(brief 10 minute presentation by CARC))

• 9:30AM Presentations

• #1: Brad Stelfox – Integrated landscape modeling: Examples from Alberta and applicability to the Slave Geological Province
• #2: Michel Haener (GNWT, former research associate in Rural Economy at the Univ Alberta) – Socio-economic investigation/modeling in northern Saskatchewan

(10:30AM Morning Break)

• #3: NRCan (Michael Lynch, Scott Clausen, Arvind Amand) – Cumulative Impact Assessment Modeling (CIAM) initiative
• #4: Alan Erhlich (MVEIRB) – Developing a Social and Economic Impact Assessment Framework

(NOON to 1:00PM – Lunch provided)

AFTERNOON:

• 1:00PM Presentations (cont’d)

• #5: Lutsel K’e – Community-based socio-economic and cultural monitoring
• #6: Diavik Community Socio-economic Advisory Committee – Update on community-based monitoring activities

• 2:15 PM : Overview: Identifying the trends, issues and priorities (Mind Map)

(3:00PM-3:15PM; Afternoon Break )

• 3:15 PM  Introduction of the Open Space—Mike Bell
• Open Space discussions
• 5:00PM  Wrap-up of  Day One.

DAY TWO: Thursday, March 13, 2003

MORNING

• 9:00AM  Opening Session—The Day ahead
• 9:20AM-10:30AM   Discussion Sessions

 (10:30AM-10:45AM Morning Break)

·        10:45AM-12:00PM  Discussion Sessions

(12:00PM-1:30PM: Lunch)

AFTERNOON

·        1:30PM-2:45PM  Discussion Sessions

(2:45PM-3:00PM Afternoon Break)

·        3:00PM-4:15PM  Discussion Sessions

·        4:15PM-4:45PM Synthesis:  Pulling it Together

·        4:45PM Wrap-up