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