draft for discussion€¦ · web viewottawa canada - caribbean icura workshop. june 22 – 25,...

MINUTESOttawa Canada - Caribbean ICURA Workshop

June 22 – 25, 2008, Ottawa, Canada

Meeting: C-Change No.1; Ottawa Workshop Day 1Date: 9am-5pm, Monday, June 23, 2008 Location: DMS7170 Demarais Building, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa,

55 Laurier Ave East OttawaPresent: 15 participants: Sandra Sookram (SS), Michael Sutherland (MS), Sue Nichols

(SN1), Scott Parsons (SP), Lennox Hinds (LH), Colleen Mercer Clarke (CMC), John Clarke (JC), Carlyle Mitchell (CM), Yacouba Cissé (YC), Elie Moussalli (EM), Philippe Crabbé (PC), Sandra Noel(SN2), Yanlai Zhao (YZ), Patrick Watson (PW/Co-chair) and Dan Lane(DL/Co-chair)

Invited: David O’Brien, IDRC, Peter Zuzek (PZ, Baird & Associates – on phone, 9-10am)

1. Approval of Meeting Agenda. The agenda was accepted as drafted.

2. Welcome (DL, and PW). DL, as host, welcomed all participants to the Workshop and to the Telfer School of Management and extended a special welcome to UWI visitors, Drs. Sandra Sookram, Michael Sutherland, and meeting co-chair and project co-director Patrick Watson. PW thanked DL for the welcome and looked forward to the workshop proceedings.

3. Introductions – Tour de table. Participants at the workshop introduced themselves and provided a description of their interests and activities relevant to the project. (Comments summarized in the tale below.)

No. Participant Interests/Activities1 SP Adjunct Professor, Telfer School of Management, University of

Ottawa, Member C-FOAM, Former Assistant Deputy Minister – Science Sector and first ADM Oceans Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Past President of ICES, OMRN Working Group Leader for Fisheries and Oceans, interest in oceans policy, fisheries and aquaculture management, international fisheries

2 SS Professor, UWI, St. Augustine, Member of SALISES, Public sector analysis, economics, gender and poverty issues

3 YC Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, Member C-FOAM, Legal Advisor – Ivory Coast

4 CM Adjunct Professor, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Member C-FOAM, Founder and President of North-South

ICURA Ottawa Workshop June 22-25, 2008

Intermedium, Former DFO Fisheries Economist, fisheries development, involved in UNCLOS, Former OECS Director (Antigua), Grenada World Bank/IMF consultant, Southwest Africa Fisheries Organization (Namibia)

5 MS Professor, UWI, St. Augustine, Land Management and Survey, Certified Paralegal, GIS, FIG Council member, Member C-FOAM

6 SN1 Professor, UNB (Fredericton), Geodesy and Geomatics, Anthropological engineer, Land and Coastal Studies, global work on gender, experience with Caribbean land tenure project, NB Lidar mapping project

7 CMC Visiting Scholar, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Member C-FOAM, completing PhD in Interdisciplinary Studies (Dal), Landscape architecture (Guelph), marine biology, professional experience in site design and analysis, remedial strategies, Oceans Institute (Canada) Caribbean work, Canada-Cuba collaboration, Global Plan of Action- Gulf of Maine

8 JC Member C-FOAM, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 32 years at Environment Canada, Chemical Engineering-Pollution Control

9 PC Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, environmental and resource economics, systems approach, integrating aspects, interdisciplinary experience, Green Plan St. Lawrence CURA Director, member of IPCC, climate change and adaptation, social science interest

10 SN2 Research Facilitator, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa

11 YZ Research Associate, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Member C-FOAM, expertise in systems analysis, GIS

12 PZ Baird & Associates- Coastal Engineers, VP-Coastal Zone Canada, 15 years experience, FEMA model, extensive experience in the Caribbean, practitioner, linking scientific information to practical decision-making, planning in coastal communities and climate change

13 PW ICURA Project – Co-director, Professor, UWI, St. Augustine, Director of SALISES, multidisciplinary analysis of social science, Caribbean development, econometrics, social impact analysis

14 DL ICURA Project – Co-director, Professor, telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Director – C-FOAM, Chair – Ocean Management Research Network (OMRN), systems analysis, management science, modelling and analysis, decision making


The above table is based on participants present at the beginning of the Day 1 workshop proceedings. Other participants not included arrived after the round table introductions.

4. Review of the agenda (DL). DL distributed a table (see also below) containing, in point form: (I) the objectives of the workshop; (II) expected workshop outcomes; and (III) current status and milestones. These were:

I. Objectives of the workshopNo. Objective1 Meet team members2 Discuss direction and focus of project3 Discuss communities for study in Canada and Caribbean4 Discuss partnerships and alliances5 Discuss data, analysis requirements for proposal6 Set out assignments for individual follow-up7 Prepare agenda and assignments for Fall meeting

II. Expected outcomesNo. Outcome1 Establish consensus on direction and focus of project2 Identify specific communities in Canada and Caribbean3 Decide on partnerships and alliances and contacts4 Assign data collection and analysis work for proposal5 Determine individual follow-up and assignments

III. MilestonesNo. Milestone1 Communities2 Partnerships and alliances3 Indicators and data4 Methodology (Models & Tools)5 Scenarios6 Plans

Participants briefly discussed this item. Caribbean representatives had a clearer idea of what the project wanted to accomplish as described in the LOI proposal. Simply put, the focus will be on the social and economic impacts of sea level rise and storm surge. The major issue was to clearly state the objectives, how to go about the work, and where (what communities) in which to do the work. The Canadian group noted that they were not as advanced in terms


of identifying communities as the Caribbean group has been in selecting their 4 communities of interest as noted in the LOI proposal. It was also pointed out that existing work in the general area of climate change and policy linkages should be taken into account and that there was information such as in Atlantic Canada, and in the Caribbean buy the CCCCC group and others that the project needed to inform itself about regarding partnerships and work already done or underway in particular communities.

It was anticipated that the meeting would return to these items at the end of the meeting to determine the workshop’s coverage of objectives, outcomes, and milestones.

5. Review of work to date. DL referred participants to the collection of minutes of meetings (see also file attached) held among the Canadian ICURA and C-FOAM members between April 17 and May 16 in Ottawa. PW reported briefly on the Caribbean members’ meeting in St. Augustine. Full discussion on this item was deferred in order to accommodate the IDRC visitor (see item below).

6. IDRC-SSHRC Feedback

Comments from IDRC - David O’Brien (IDRC)

David O’Brien (DOB) of IDRC was welcomed by the participants. DOB is responsible for the new ICURA program and the international partners; SSHRC deals with the domestic Canadian partner. DOB noted that the ICURA program uses the SSHRC CURA program (of 10 years in Canada) as the model.

He noted that the ICURA program is complicated in that it brings together academic and community groups as well as the jurisdictional and international issues. DOB mentioned that the definition of community can be broad, e.g., to include the wider community as well as the local government agencies. The formal proposal should be presented in non-technical terms including models and their use and noting the involvement of partners down to the level of the communities.

DOB also noted that projects should: be responsive to community interests, making the link between academic thrusts and

community relevance bridge the divides between

o academia and communitieso jurisdictionso theory and implementation

Address a compelling and interesting problem that is shared between Canada and its international partner


Build upon on body of literature

Utilize existing knowledge and develop new knowledge that can be combined to improved understanding and practice

DOB’s presentation was followed by questions to him from the workshop participants. These questions are summarized as follows:

o What does academia bring to the dialogue?o How is the project going to advance academic knowledge?o Who are the community partners?o Why will these partners commit participate for the full five years?o What will the partners bring to the project?o What will the partners get from the project?o What can the partners learn from each other?

Community partners can be drawn from a range of definitions of the term ‘community’, e.g. Parks Canada or Environment Canada could be considered to represent a type of community.

Partners can provide assistance of both monetary and non-monetary resources –e.g. in-kind participation, sharing of equipment etc., and these should be clearly described; much is expected from partners and local links and alliances are more important than regional one, especially in the initial years and the immediate set of players.

Where tools such as models and data bases are created by the project, describe how these tools would be useful to the community.

The review panel of 8 members will be comprised half of Canadian members, half of international members, representing four disciplines.

Proposals should be written concisely and clearly, using language readily comprehensible to all, and avoiding discipline specific or academic styles.

This ICURA proposal needs to improve upon its identification of community partners and their roles.

DOB noted that it would be an asset to provide information in the formal proposal on:

o The linkages between Canada and the Caribbean through shared interests and experiences

o The need for tools that cross jurisdictions, especially in the Caribbeano The methods for mobilization of knowledgeo The delivery mechanisms for the tools and knowledge developed in the project

Though administered as two separate projects by the IDRC and SSHRC (with 2 budgets – one for the international group and one for the Canadian group), the proposal should be developed as a single project demonstrating clearly significant linkages between the two areas, as well as all opportunities for shared activities, knowledge and tools.

The proposal will likely be framed as one page for the Summary, approximately 8-10 pages for the detailed Description and methodology, additional pages for References, the Team, and the Role for Students.


The evaluation criteria is likely to be assigned as:

o Team 15%o Alliances 15%o Methodology 30%o Outcomes 40%

o 100%

Be creative and pay particular attention to the special opportunities created for students – knowledge gain, experience, capability building, creation of new employment opportunities.

[Thanks to Colleen Mercer Clarke for her minutes of the David O’Brien session.Thanks Colleen!]Workshop participants thanked DOB for his insight and frank discussion in preparation for the ICURA.

Workshop discussion:

Following the presentation and Q&A session with IDRC’s DOB, workshop participants made note of several points of relevance for the formal proposal document. These points included:

Project governance – this was noted as being very important, i.e., the presentation of the project management structure in the proposal especially in the engagement of the communities is key;

Definition of community – this project’s broader definition of community to include professionals (scientists, engineers, planners, corporate sector, etc.) needs to be clearly shown (and currently lacking) and integrated technical links into the delivery process to the local community;

Partnerships with local communities – the need for showing how capacity will be built at the level of the local community is key, moreover, the partnership and involvement of the local communities – as many as possible – is needed.

Letter of Intent Review commentsDan Lane/SSHRC/IDRC

DL reported to the workshop his feedback from SSHRC and ICURA officer, Luc Lebrun on the verbal comments he provided regarding the LOI proposal. It was anticipated that the comments (in harcopy) would be forthcoming toward the end of June. For the time being, and in light of formal proposal planning for the group, Luc Lebrun provided voice mail comments as follows:

a very good designation for knowledge mobilization


good potential for success the LOI proposal was well-written a full literature review was missing and thus, the types of previous research that had

been done not shown it was noted that there ,may be some key Canadian partners missing from the team as

presented student involvement in the project was noted reviewers’ scores for all 5 criteria (unstated) were noted as being “Good” the proposal was viewed as a “strong” overall the LOI proposal was ranked 8 of 9 accepted proposals (all of which were noted

as having high scores) it was reported that the budget (for $29,560) was judged as being appropriate but that

too much funding ($5000) was identified for the construction of a website.

ICURA Formal Application and Instructions

DL reported that SSHRC Officer Luc Lebrun had told him that the IT group at SSHRC had planned to upload the new ICURA Formal Application and Instructions sometime in July. However, it was generally understood that the ICURA formal proposal material would follow the CURA proposal, and the ICURA LOI content, separate budgets (for Canadian and international groups) excepted.

[Update: On July 23, Sandra Noel was informed by SSHRC that the 2008 CURA application forms and instructions were released to the SSHRC Webpage at www.sshrc.ca. DL sent the SSHRC-CURA pdf file to ICURA and C-FOAM participants July 23 for information purposes and on the understanding that CURA materials would be similar, but not identical to the ICURA forms not yet released.]

7. Project Elements and Focus

1. Identification of communities and threats to coastal infrastructure and community indicators

2. Development of models and tools to assess and manage risks through adaptation

3. Generation of scenarios for evaluation and review4. Building capacity through training, academic programming, and public

awareness

DL described the remaining workshop agenda over the remaining portion of Day 1, and Day 2 in terms of the above project elements: (1) identification of communities and threats, (2) modelling,


http://www.sshrc.ca/

(3) scenario development, and (4) capacity building. The workshop discussions around these items is described below.

8. Group Reports on Project Elements

This item was discussed in plenary as part of item 9 below.

9. Identification of Project Locations

This item was discussed to the end of Day 1 of the workshop around the following subitems:

Rationale for community selection

The workshop discussed several items that would help rationalize the selection of communities. These included: (i) the existence of real and imminent threats from sea-level rise and storm surge; (ii) distinctiveness, uniqueness and special focus, e.g., as a tourist resort, or an eco-tourist site; (iii) local as well as outside attraction; (iv) importance to the wider, regional economy; (v) existence of a project champion in place from the ICURA team; (vi) anticipated ability of the team and the community to work together and partner; (vii) comparability of the community along similar lines in Canada and the Caribbean for the purposes of twinning.

Available data and resources Community alliance and partnership interest

General discussion on these items was deferred pending identification of the communities of interest.

Canada-Caribbean communities twinning

The concept of twinning of communities was generally accepted.

While there was no strict consensus about the final identification of communities, the discussion of possible twinned sets of 3 or 4 communities is summarized in the table below.

Communities

Ranking (Tenative)

Caribbean Canada

2 NE Coast of Trinidad, Grande Riviere, ecotourism, turtles+threats

Possible twinning choices: Bouctouche, N.-B. (eco-tourism, threats of coastal erosion); Lumsden, NL

1 Belize Barrier reef/Belize fisheries (shellfish), threats to fish+fisheries

Possible twinning choices: Alert Bay, BC (fisheries, tourism, indigenous


from “switch” potential in ecosystem, dependence of local community on reef-sport fishery; indigenous locals; threats to small keys and sand spits

peoples); OR Iqaluit, Nunavut (Don Forbes, NRCan assistance); OR Haida-Gwaii, Queen Charlottes, B.C.,; OR Canso, Chedabucto Bay, N.S.; (need for a project champion)

4 Island of Bequia, important in St. Vincent-Grenada island, whale watching tourism, local concern for threats from sea level rise, erosion (Princess Margaret Beach), champion in place (Phd student) vs Tobago Keys (also in same island chain)

Possible twinning choices: The Magdelaine Island, Quebec, (need for a project champion); Placentia Bay, NL (LOMA, Smart Bay)

3 Georgetown, Guyana; municipality, much coastal infrastructure, business district, serious threats (sea wall, 14’ below sea level),

Charlottetown, PEI; municipality, much coastal infrastructure, business district, and recreation (yacht clubs), serious threats (sea wall, 3-4’ below sea level), experience recent from Hurricane Juan storm surge (2005)

It is noted that the four Caribbean sites noted above were identical to the sites reported in the LOI proposal. Moreover, PW and the Caribbean team reported to the workshop that these sites were identified with the project’s concerns, and with particular rationale in mind. These sites were judged to be appropriate and were the sites that were expected to be explored by the Caribbean team further, in partial fulfillment of the formal proposal and its requirements for more specific alliances, partnerships, etc.

In contrast, the Canadian sites were not specially identified and set. As indicated in the table above, a number of sites were discussed and explored. The sites were considered relative to the LOI claims that Canadian sites would be selected for the Atlantic, Pacific, and Central and Arctic regions. However, the costs of obtaining community alliances given the distances and the required contacts for Canada were judged to be a drawback. Canadian sites were also reviewed with respect to twinning with the selected 4 Caribbean communities, and whether or not Canadian community champions could be identified from the ICURA team. Overall, the Canadian team recognized its shortfall with respect to community alliances and the need to develop these was also noted as a key exercise toward building the formal proposal.

It was generally concluded that Georgetown and Charlottetown would be a priority twinned set and that these would be pursued subsequently by both teams as the community pair for which the formal proposal could develop its project methodology and approach. It was recognized that


project members needed to enhance – at every possible site and in all jurisdictions – the opportunities for partnerships and community alliances wherever possible. It was recognized that the formal proposal would be strengthened by developing and presenting these community partnerships.

10. Day’s Wrap-up

The discussion on community identification marked the end of Day 1 and participants agreed that Day would move into the remaining project elements in Day 2.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5pm.




Meeting: C-Change No.1; Ottawa Workshop Day 2Date: 9am-5pm, Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Location: DMS7170 Demarais Building, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa,


(SN), Scott Parsons (SP), Lennox Hinds (LH), Colleen Mercer Clarke (CMC), John Clarke (JC), Carlyle Mitchell (CM), Yacouba Cissé (YC), Elie Moussalli (EM), Philippe Crabbé (PC), Sandra Noel(SN), Yanlai Zhao (YZ), Patrick Watson (PW/Co-chair) and Dan Lane(DL/Co-chair)

Invited: Peter Zuzek, Baird & Associates

1. Review of day’s agenda

Objectives Expected outcomes

Day 2 picked up on the Day 1 discussion of community identification and ensuing threats, impacts and indicators.

2. Community Threats, Impacts and Socioeconomic Indicators

The workshop discussed the idea of developing a taxonomy of sea level rise and storm surge threats. These included: (i) salination of the water supply, (ii) flooding, (iii) storm surge intensity, (iv) wave intensity. The group noted the importance of considering realistic threats as well as short and long term risks. Developing risk scenarios should be feasible and realistic – it is not appropriate to overstate the threats.

With respect to indicators, local information is crucial to consider real community impacts which are expected to be different for each community. It is important to consider existing indicator methodologies within the larger UN, national, and regional frameworks but to bring these to the local level (where they may not have been applied, e.g., Georgetown) with sectoral impacts (UN – Atkins, work of the Small Island Development States (SIDS) report). Institutional structures were noted as being hard to capture, but are important to find and understand for communities.

The discussion continued with respect to the threats to communities and also included general discussions around coastal Infrastructure and communities’ socioeconomic indicators. This


discussion centred around the twinned communities of Georgetown and Charlottetown and is summarized in the table and threats and indicators below.

Threats, Impacts, and Indicators – Georgetown, Guyana and Charlottetown, PEIThreat Category

(Ecosystem/Infrastructure/Human)Indicator(s)

Direct flooding from storm surge event

Dynamic actions: Short-term - Resource and coastal inventory (the Stern Report)

Katrina analogy Hurricane Juan experience

1-Economic activity shutdown, Structural damage

Community vulnerability indices (see also UN vulnerability indicators, and resilience measures)

Storm surge intensity

2-Criminal activity, looting Economic and environmental vulnerability and susceptibility to threats

Wave intensity 3-Human dislocation, relocation Income lossSalination of the water supply

4-Rehabilitation COMSEC vulnerability index

Longer term - Local data needsNational and regional impactsCoastal agriculture

3. Spatial modelling and tools to assess and manage risks (SN, MS)

Micheal Sutherland made a presentation to the workshop on recent work and several examples of spatial modelling of marine and coastal areas. For the ICURA project, GIS development work would need to be low cost but would need to provide communities with demonstrations of modelled scenarios to illustrate local change possibilities. He noted the work that was done in southeastern New Brunswick and the coastal modelling involving coastal erosion and sea-level rise evidence. This included the longitudinal aspects of trends, monitoring and projections of coastal environmental shifts. Finally, he noted the need for the project to build capacity (and include the involvement of students) and develop academic curriculum as part of the ICURA program requirements.

4. Presentation of Baird and Associates – Coastal Engineers (Peter Zuzek)

Rationale for selection and identification of models and tools Available data and resources Identification of partners and alliances in data collection and analysis Preparation and content for formal proposal and 5 year project work


Invited guest Pete Zuzek of Baird & Associates, Coastal Engineers made a presentation of Baird’s extensive involvement with coastal projects in Canada and the Caribbean. He noted Baird’s commitment to developing creative solutions at the land-water interface through coastal engineering expertise in dealing with shoreline erosion and watershed dynamics. He reported on work done with FEMA in New Orleans (post-Katrina), in the Beaufort Sea (permafrost melting), east coast Canada (Pictou sand spit recovery and sea level rise scenarios), in the Great Lakes (Point Pelee watershed and flooding scenarios), 10 years of work in Barbados (beach degradation recovery), and water quality in the Caribbean. He noted the importance not just of design for sea level rise, but also of sewage drainage problems (water quality) and the ecosystemic issues as a whole. PZ added that Baird is a leader in computer simulation modelling of these systems. Models included tracking hurricane dynamics, and wave and climate shifts as well as storm surge modelling (e.g., Barbados work).In the ensuing discussion on his presentation, PZ noted the SIDS project involvement and Integrated Management of watersheds as an important approach to coastal management (see also the “Toolkit for Harmonizing and Enhancing Laws and Institutions to Implement Integrated Watershed and Coastal Area Management” involving 13 SIDS in the Caribbean). He also pointed out the work of CERMES (UWI) in this area. The group noted the need to link to local community needs and to co-learn – effectively (good versus bad community learning) - toward the requirement that communities need help in doing a better job of planning and adapting local circumstances for pending change due to coastal threats. PZ pointed out the importance of a benefit-cost analysis – as now required by all government work – to affect needed change. PZ reiterated the systems view that “climate change” issues needed to be considered in the wider perspective of managing effluent, watersheds and ultimately, creating better water quality, as well as noting things like the criticality of reefs for beach sustainability, and keeping people out of harm’s way through more effective policies, coastal zoning, and decision making.Finally, PZ presented visual modelling and GIS work done at Baird using the Google Earth model. This including modelling flood inundation lines developed in Google Earth data files. He noted Google Earth’s wide availability and relative ease of use. Participants also discussed the upcoming development of Google Ocean that is expected to be released soon. It was generally felt that Google Earth was: (1) a good tool to develop demonstrable community information; (2) a tool that is generally available and one that could be used to provide communities with basic information on the project.

5. Scenarios for evaluation and review

Rationale for scenario generation and preparatory planning


Available data and resources Identification of partners and alliances in evaluation and review Preparation and content for formal proposal and 5 year project work

Following the models discussion above, the workshop discussed aspects of scenario development. This discussion is summarized in point form below:

Scenarios should be plausible with a strong scientific foundation (implausible scenarios would not be judged favourably nor would they stimulate further planning opportunities)

The IPCC also developed scenarios – and not predictions – of what might be; these tended to be long-term in perspective and regional or national (not local)

Scenarios should be developed as dynamic events (not static) Scenario time frames need to be well defined and in many cases (e.g., of sea-level rise)

these tend to be long term (50-100 years) which may not be considered “realistic” for this project; use the idea of short-term possibilities and occurrences, e.g., the 50 or the 100 year storm occurrence

Scenarios should be developed as what-if events that can be reviewed regularly Engage the local community in developing scenarios and what is important Define baseline scenarios or status quo and compare others to this case Develop position (via risk assessment and analysis of costs and benefits) that relying on

the status quo is not appropriate and that is it necessary to develop adaptation policies, and mitigation strategies(as well as poverty reduction strategies)

Develop scenarios on the basis of data available; depending on data input available, this determines the output capabilities

6. Capacity building and training

Public and professional (corporates, governments, planners, engineers, communities)

Academic programming and community alliances

This item was held over to Day 3.7. Day’s Wrap-up

Workshop participants expressed concern regarding the project’s major elements and project “outcomes”, and the need to express and capture these in the formal proposal. The workshop discussion, identifying items for the formal proposal, is summarized below by the following points:


1. Provide evidence of significance of sea-level rise and storm surge and note the importance of local planning, adaptation and mitigation strategies. 2. Define communities and linkages for co-learning; elaborate on linking communities arrangements and alliances.3. Identify communities under threat – establish ownership of research question by communities and note needs to be considered important by the communities; remember that the CURA are community-based and the ultimate source of co-learning; communities must also be significant partners in the project’s management and operating structure, i.e., communities need to be included in the governance of the project.4. Develop systems analysis ecosystem models of sea-level rise and storm surge as applied to communities.5. Determine geospatial (GIS-based) model scenario analyses by community for realistic cases that may occur and are of particular concern to the communities themselves.6. Develop the socioeconomic impact model including dynamics, indicators, indices, and measures of vulnerability, adaptability, and resilience.7. Propose policy implications and strategies for preparedness with reference to local, and regional governance and the political arena; understand and describe community local, and regional institutional arrangements and co-learning possibilities.9. Develop evidence of capacity building with respect to local communities and decision making, as well as universities; academic programming and new course curricula, and ‘Caribbean-Canada university twinning’ (e.g., among UWI and multiple campuses; UO, UNB, UWO) and institutional strengthening between government offices. 10. Clarify notion of “project outcomes” – beyond that referred to in the LOI proposal – as those things such as community plans, strategies, and recommendations for specific policy directions, that will be operationalized and into the hands, responsibilities, and governance of the communities of interest.

Day 2 discussions ended with the realization that the workshop would have one half-day to define its work plan and participants’ tasks.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5pm.




Meeting: C-Change No.1; Ottawa Workshop Day 3Date: 9am-1pm, Wednesday, June 25, 2008 Location: DMS7170 Demarais Building, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa,


(SN), Scott Parsons (SP), Lennox Hinds (LH), Colleen Mercer Clarke (CMC), John Clarke (JC), Carlyle Mitchell (CM), Yacouba Cissé (YC), Elie Moussalli (EM), Philippe Crabbé (PC), Sandra Noel(SN), Yanlai Zhao (YZ), Patrick Watson (PW/Co-chair) and Dan Lane(DL/Co-chair)

1. Review of day’s agenda

Objectives Expected outcomes

The discussion took place around the major elements of the proposal requirements that were identified at the end of Day 2 (see also above). These were summarized and distributed to participants for discussions as: (1.1) project outline major elements for the formal project proposal; (1.2) major project elements (with more detail); and (1.3) major project items as requirements for participants’ further work. (See also handouts in the appendix below.)

The major elements of the project proposal were identified as:

1.1 ICURA Project Outline

Major Elements (Formal Proposal)

1. Evidence of significance of sea-level rise and storm surge 2. Definition of communities and linkages 3. Identification of communities under threat – ownership of research question by

communities; (needs to be considered important by the communities)4. Models of sea-level rise and storm surge as applied to communities5. Model scenario analyses by community6. Socioeconomic impact model7. Institutional arrangements – need to learn about the existing conditions and

governance8. Policy implications – these are important and linked to governance9. Capacity building – universities twinning, identify academic curricula, and institutional

strengthening


10. Outcomes – operationalizing results and getting these outcomes into the hands of the communities

Further detail on the project’s major elements were provided and discussed as follows:

1.2 Major Elements (more detail) 1. Evidence of significance of sea-level rise and storm surge to coastal communities (in

Canada and the Caribbean; general aspects, recent, topical literature review); biophysical description

2. Definition of communities – communities need to have a say; identify community interest groups; citizens, Decision Makers, community specific interest in project issues; co-learning; linking communities arrangements

a. Caribbean and Canada – issues, linkages to all sectors, need to build capacity and provide planning tools; vulnerability; socioeconomic impacts

b. Linkages (inhabitants, professionals, governers), sectoral activities, infrastructure, ecosystem

3. Identification of communities under threat:a. Selection rationale [serious, immediate threat to focal point (ecotourism, 5-star

tourism, economic sector, human habitat); relative distinctiveness (community/people); good data/models availability; opportunities for partnerships and alliances; and champion in place]

b. Caribbean communities twinned with Canadian communities (3 or 4 pairs max)c. Formal alliances and partners at communities were noted as having the highest

priority; the project will benefit from more alliances4. Models of sea-level rise and storm surge as applied to communities

a. Soft system perspective – engagement, participation, governance, identifying issues/questions)

b. System dynamics model of links from threat to ecosystem to human impacts by community – used as a participatory tool; negotiation with communities

c. Geographical modelling requirements (accessibility to communities, data availability) by community

5. Model scenario analyses by communitya. Establishment of baseline, inventory for status quob. Identification and measure of specific, plausible threats to communitiesc. Data and modelling analysis of ecosystem shifts due to scenario

6. Socioeconomic impact modela. Baseline socioeconomic conditions by communityb. Indicators – specification of human vulnerability indices (gender, poverty

reduction, highly vulnerable groups (ethnic groups) and measures by communityc. Scenario impacts by community

7. Policy implications – split from institutional arrangements to highlight


8. Institutional arrangements – tie in with existing governance systems in place; a. Baseline governance structure; including barriers and bridges (opportunities) –

Decision making arrangements and supportb. Linkages from communities (writ large) to policy

9. Capacity building – universities twinning (UWI,UO, UNB ++ ) and institutional strengthening - See LOI: UWI, UO, UNB, others (SFU, UWO, UdeM...); community workshops

10. Outcomes – operationalizing results (getting “it” into the hands of the communities)a. Co-learning exercise among communities – Local workshopsb. Decision support toolsc. Training (academic, public, private, local) - focusedd. Community strategic planning: templates and plans for scenariose. Governance advice from co-learningf. Evolution over the project and lasting legacy within/across communitiesg. General/community assessment of the work/success of the project (part of

management structure – including monitoring and evaluation); measuring buy-in h. Academic output –publicationsi. Outcomes as ongoingj. Outcome as community representation in research, issues discussion


Finally, the project’s major elements were listed in terms of the requirements for participants’ further work:

1.3 Major Item Requirements1. Evidence of significance of sea-level rise and storm surge to coastal communities (in Canada

and the Caribbean) – literature review (LOI proposal, Parsons’ recent information)

2. Definition of communitiesa. Linkages/people (inhabitants, professionals, governers), sectoral activities,

infrastructure, ecosystem – description of issue (applicable to Canada and Caribbean communities) about the need to link broad notion of “communities” around the strategic issue, risks, and threats

3. Identification of communities under threat:a. Selection rationale [serious, immediate threat to focal point (ecotourism, 5-star

tourism, economic sector, human habitat); relative distinctiveness (community/people); good data/models availability; opportunities for partnerships and alliances; and champion in place]

b. Caribbean communities twinned with Canadian communities - identification to be finalized; project champions to be secured;

c. Alliances and partners - alliances and partnerships to be secured through the champions at each community site

4. Models of sea-level rise and storm surge as applied to communitiesa. System dynamics model of links from threat to ecosystem to human impacts by

community – to be defined; literature review; broad-based model recognizing sea-level rise/storm surge within wider context

b. Geographical modelling requirements (accessibility to communities, data availability) by community – existing modelling to be reviewed (Atlantic); analogy to Caribbean applied via co-learning; develop model around Google Earth basic (and accessible) applications; acquire data based on this platform

5. Model scenario analyses by communitya. Establishment of baseline, inventory for status quo – multidimensional data on

ecosystem, infrastructure, sectoral activity, human vulnerabiltiesb. Identification and measure of specific, plausible threats to communities – clear

identification of what is identified for each community as real threat to be defined for each (3 scenarios per community)

c. Data and modelling analysis of ecosystem shifts due to scenario – Google Earth scenario building – descriptive


Major Item Requirements (continued)

6. Socioeconomic impact modela. Baseline socioeconomic conditions by community - multidimensional current data

on human socioeconomic vulnerabilties; applicable to communities broadly; determine standard (UN? Other?)

b. Indicators – specification of human vulnerability indices and measures by community - multidimensional dynamic data on human socioeconomic vulnerabilties; applicable to communities broadly; determine standard (UN? Other?)

c. Scenario impacts by community - multidimensional scenario postulated data and dynamics on human socioeconomic vulnerabilties; applicable to communities broadly; determine standard (UN? Other?)

7. Policy implications - Linkages from communities to policy – describe linkages to policy of economic, professional, political, community sectors

8. Institutional arrangementsa. Baseline governance structure – description of governance structure at each

communityb. Decision making arrangements and support – description of how, who, rationale

in decision making process related to coastal issuesc. Linkages from communities (writ large) to policy – describe linkages to policy of

economic, professional, political, community sectors

9. Outcomes/capacity buildinga. Co-learning exercise among communities – modelling, data, indices, institutionsb. Decision support tools – propose mechanisms for assistance c. Training (academic, public, private, local) – modelling and data analysis,

governance models, socioeconomic indicators measurement, decision support tools

d. Community strategic planning: templates and plans for scenarios – real documents for use as planning mechanisms, contacts, linkages, threats and response in communities, lessons learned

e. Governance advice from co-learning – case studies


2. Proposal Drafting and Related Work

Workshop participants reviewed the project’s major item requirements and took on roles and responsibilities according to the table below. Note: These roles identify elements of items’ work loosely defined. The responsible members are free to modify, redefine, and contributes as they feel necessary. It is anticipated that participants’ work will be submitted by the end of July 2008 for feedback and further discussion and leading into the second project workshop in September meeting in Trinidad.

Major Item Requirements

No Item Responsible1 Evidence of significance of sea-level rise and storm surge to coastal

communities (in Canada and the Caribbean) – literature review (LOI proposal, Parsons’ recent information), examples for all regions; WG II IPCC – Adaptation;1 page text + 1 page references

Scott Parsons

2 Definition of communitiesLinkages/people (inhabitants, professionals, governers), sectoral activities, infrastructure, ecosystem – description of issue (applicable to Canada and Caribbean communities) about the need to link broad notion of “communities” around the strategic issue, risks, and threats

Philippe Crabbe

3 Identification of communities under threat:a. Selection rationale [serious, immediate threat to focal point

(ecotourism, 5-star tourism, economic sector, human habitat); relative distinctiveness (community/people); good data/models availability; opportunities for partnerships and alliances; and champion in place]

Patrick Watson (Caribbean); Sue Nichols+ Scott Parsons (Canada)

b. Caribbean communities twinned with Canadian communities - identification to be finalized; project champions to be secured; twinning?

Sue Nichols; Scott Parsons

c. Alliances and partners - alliances and partnerships to be secured through the champions at each community site

Patrick Watson (Caribbean); Sue Nichols+ Scott (Canada)


4 Models of sea-level rise and storm surge as applied to communitiesSoft system perspective – engagement, participation, governance, identifying issues/questions); literature review

Philippe Crabbe

System dynamics model of links from threat to ecosystem to human impacts by community – to be defined; literature review; broad-based model recognizing sea-level rise/storm surge within wider context

Philippe Crabbe/Lane/Simonovic

Geographical modelling requirements (accessibility to communities, data availability) by community – existing modelling to be reviewed (Atlantic); analogy to Caribbean applied via co-learning; develop model around Google Earth basic (and accessible) applications; acquire data based on this platform

Michael Sutherland; Yanlai Zhao; Sue Nichols

5 Model scenario analyses by communitya. Establishment of baseline (SQ), inventory for status quo – regional

vulnerabilities; multidimensional data on ecosystem, infrastructure, sectoral activity, human vulnerabilities

Linked to #6 below;

b. Identification and measure of specific, plausible threats to communities – clear identification of what is identified for each community as real threat to be defined for each (3 scenarios per community)

Michael Sutherland

c. Data and modelling analysis of ecosystem shifts due to scenario – Google Earth scenario building – descriptive

Michael Sutherland

6 Socioeconomic impact modela. Baseline socioeconomic conditions by community - multidimensional

current data on human socioeconomic vulnerabilties; applicable to communities broadly; determine standard (UN? Other?), lit review

Carl Mitchell (general), Patrick Watson (specific)

b. Indicators – specification of human vulnerability indices and measures by community - multidimensional dynamic data on human socioeconomic vulnerabilties; applicable to communities broadly; determine standard (UN? Other?)

Patrick Watson and team; Philippe Crabbe

c. Scenario impacts by community - multidimensional scenario postulated data and dynamics on human socioeconomic vulnerabilties; applicable to communities broadly; determine standard (UN? Other?)

Patrick Watson and team; Philippe Crabbe


7 Institutional arrangements and policy implicationsBaseline governance structure – description of governance structure at each community

Yacouba Cisse (legal aspects)

Decision making arrangements and support – description of how, who, rationale in decision making process related to coastal issues

Len Hinds (governance structures), Lane (decision making)

Linkages from communities (writ large) to policy – describe linkages to policy of economic, professional, political, community sectors

Carl Mitchell; Scott Parsons; Patrick Watson + team

8 Outcomes/capacity buildingCo-learning exercise among communities – modelling, data, indices, institutions

TBD

Decision support tools – propose mechanisms for assistance LaneTraining (academic, public, private, local) – modelling and data analysis, governance models, socioeconomic indicators measurement, decision support tools

Watson (Caribbean) and Lane (Canada)

Community strategic planning: templates and plans for scenarios – real documents for use as planning mechanisms, contacts, linkages, threats and response in communities, lessons learned

TBD

Governance advice from co-learning – case studies TBD

3. Workshop Wrap-up

Workshop participants discussed the timing of hte 2nd project workshop to be held in Trinidad: The next workshop was tentatively scheduled for St. Augustine, September 5-7, 2008. Ottawa members would travel Thurs., Sept 4.

Participants were asked to consider their work and submission of draft materials as follows: Target: (1) submit drafts for distribution and comments by end July 2008; pieces of the proposal draft will be resubmitted by mid-August. This will include feedback from “local” community meetings to be held in Canada and the Caribbean selected and potential community sites. In the interim, the C-Change project Website will aim to be drafted for fully and for participants’ use by end of August 2008 including pictures, data dump and ftp site.

Finally, participants are urged to prepare their travel plans as soon as possible and report on domestic meetings that will be a major presentation item for the September workshop in Trinidad.


Post-meeting informationProject Updates:1. Sue Nichols and Michael Sutherland met with NRCan rsearcher, Dr. Don Forbres, on Friday,

June 26 at BIO, Dartmouth, N.S.; this was a positive meeting in which Dr. Forbes was invited to be part of the project co-applicant team given his high level of involvement in Atlantic Canada on sea-level rise and storm surge studies in Prince Edward Island, the Bay of Fundy, and in Northumberland Strait, as well as in Iqaluit, Nunavut.

2. Dan Lane and Philippe Crabbe met with ICURA team member Dr. Slobadan Simonovic of the University of Western Ontario on July 7, 2008 for lunch. (Dr. Simonovic was unable to attend the Ottawa workshop but was in Ottawa for other meetings this day.) DL presented the Ottawa Workshop discussions, and DL and PC discussed Dr. Simonovic’s potential role in the project. Dr. Simonovic shared his experience on a recent CURA in Manitoba, as well as his extensive experience internationally with respect to communities use of soft systems approaches for analysing and participant in complex problem solving. He expressed his interest in working on a project that would have a valuable local impact and he suggested that the ICURA project had potential in this regard. DL and PC committed to keeping Dr. Simonovic aware of the project development. He stated his interest in pursuing the project through to the formal proposal.

3. Dan Lane met with Dr. Forbes at BIO on July 10 and confirmed the project’s willingness to involve him in the formal proposal team. Dr. Forbes’ past and current involvement, including his international work on island states is judged to be important for the project team.

4. As participants were previously notified, Sanda Noel of the Research Office of the Telfer School of Management has secured an additional funding amount for project travel of $4,000 from the International Research Office and matched this with $4,000 from the School of Management Research Funds (SMRF) for a total of $8,000. Thank you Sandra! These funds can be used by project members for travel on project related business. These funds are deposited at the University of Ottawa (along with the IDRC funds) and may be claimed by submitted receipts through D. Lane. All participants are encouraged to approach the project co-directors with travel opportunities. These funds (along with the LOI IDRC-SSHRC budget award) need to be spent before submission of the formal proposal on Oct 22, 2008.

5. Also as previously notified on July 23, SSHRC have released to their website (www.sshrc.ca ) the CURA applications and forms for 2008. (Thanks again to Sandra Noel for this notification.)

Dan Lane Arichat, Cape Breton July 25, 2008


http://www.sshrc.ca/

APPENDICES AND HANDOUTS TO MINUTESOttawa Canada - Caribbean ICURA Workshop


List of materials for discussion at Ottawa Workshop. These handouts and tables were presented at the Ottawa Workshop and used s the basis for discussion on the related topics (see below):

1. ICURA Ottawa Workshop raft Agenda2. Regions – Canada and The Caribbean maps (2)3. ICURA Ottawa Workshop Outline Table4. ICURA Group Work Table5. ICURA Threats Table6. ICURA Website Home Page and access information

Materials in separate files:

1. SSHRC-ICURA Letter of Intent Proposal (November 2007) – separate Word file2. SSHRC ICURA Canada Discussions Minutes – separate Word file3. ICURA Website draft contents – separate Word file


1. DRAFT AGENDAOttawa Canada - Caribbean ICURA Workshop


Sunday, June 22 142 Huntersfield Drive, Ottawa (Lanes’ Residence)1800 Pick up at Radisson Hotel, Queen Street, Ottawa

1815 Pick up at University of Ottawa, Pavilon Fauteaux Hall (Law) Building

1830 - 2000 Welcoming reception

Monday, June 23 DMS7170 Demarais Building, 55 Laurier Ave East0800 - 0830 BREAKFAST COFFEE

0830 - 0845 Welcome………………………………………………………………………… Dan Lane, Patrick Watson

0845 - 0915 Introductions – Tour de table………………………………………………….. All participants

0915 - 0945 Review of the agenda…………...……………………………………………… Dan Lane

Objectives of the workshop

Expected outcomes

Current Status and Milestones

0945 - 1015 Review of work to date

Canada………………………………………………………………………. Dan Lane

Caribbean…………………………………………………………………….Patrick Watson

Open Discussion and Review……………………………………………...All participants

1015 - 1030 HEALTH BREAK

1030 - 1100 IDRC-SSHRC Feedback

Comments from IDRC………………………………………………………David O’Brien (IDRC)

Letter of Intent Review comments…………………………………………Dan Lane/SSHRC/IDRC

ICURA Formal Application and Instructions……………………………....Dan Lane/SSHRC/IDRC

1100 - 1200 Project Elements and Focus……………………………………………………...All participants



7. Generation of scenarios for evaluation and review

8. Building capacity through training, academic programming, and public awareness

1200 - 1330 WORKING LUNCH – Definition and assignment of groups to project elements


Monday, June 23 DMS7170 Demarais Building, 55 Laurier Ave East (continued)1330 - 1500 Group Reports on Project Elements……………………………………………All participants



3. Generation of scenarios for evaluation and review

4. Building capacity through training, academic programming, and public awareness


1500 - 1615 Identification of Project Locations……………………………………………….To be determined

Rationale for community selection

Available data and resources

Community alliance and partnership interest

Canada-Caribbean communities twinning

Preparation and content for formal proposal and 5 year project work

1615 - 1630 Day’s Wrap-up……………………………………………………………………..Dan Lane

1830 DINNER


Tuesday, June 24 DMS7170 Demarais Building, 55 Laurier Ave East0800 - 0830 BREAKFAST COFFEE

0830 - 0845 Review of day’s agenda………………………………………………………… Dan Lane, Patrick Watson

Objectives

Expected outcomes

0845 - 1015 Coastal Infrastructure and communities’ socioeconomic indicators……….. To be determined

Rationale for description of infrastructure and indicators

Available infrastructure and community data and resources

Identification of partners and alliances in data collection and analysis



1030 - 1200 Spatial modelling and tools to assess and manage risks…………….. Sue Nichols, Michael Sutherland

Presentation of Baird and Associates – Coastal Engineers……………………..Peter Zuzek

Rationale for selection and identification of models and tools


Identification of partners and alliances in data collection and analysis


1200 – 1330 WORKING LUNCH – Definition and assignment of groups to project elements

1330 - 1500 Scenarios for evaluation and review……………………………………………… To be determined

Rationale for scenario generation and preparatory planning


Identification of partners and alliances in evaluation and review


1500 – 1515 HEALTH BREAK

1500 – 1615 Capacity building and training……………………………………………………Dan Lane, Patrick Watson

Public and professional (corporates, governments, planners, engineers, communities)

Academic programming and community alliances

1615 - 1630 Day’s Wrap-up……………………………………………………………………..Dan Lane

1830 DINNER


Wednesday, June 25DMS7170 Demarais Building, 55 Laurier Ave East 0800 - 0830 BREAKFAST COFFEE

0830 - 0845 Review of day’s agenda ……………………………………………………… Dan Lane, Patrick Watson

Objectives

Expected outcomes

0845 - 1015 ICURA Application Contents…………………………………………………..Dan Lane

1. Relevance and Importance of the Problem

2. Research Outcomes

3. Research Methodology

4. Knowledge Mobilization (Partnerships, Alliances, Collaboration, Governance, and Dissemination)

5. Literature Review and Reference

6. Budget (5 years with justification)

7. Identification of Co-applicants on formal proposal

1015 – 1030 HEALTH BREAK

1030 – 1200 Proposal Drafting and Related Work.......……………………………………. Dan Lane, Patrick Watson

Community contact, alliances and partnership support

Public and professional groups alliances (governments, planners, engineers, corporates)

Proposal section writing drafts

Budget preparation

Project website and ongoing communications link

Format of proposal and preparation for presentation to SSHRC-IDRC

1200 – 1230 Workshop Wrap-up……………………………………………………………….Dan Lane, Patrick Watson

Review assignments

Follow-up and deliverables

Next meeting


Workshop Handout: Map of Canada


2. Workshop Handout: Map of Caribbean


3. Ottawa Workshop - Objectives, Estimated Outcomes, and Milestones

I. Objectives of the workshopNo. Objective % Achieved1 Meet team members2 Discuss direction and focus of project3 Discuss communities for study in Canada and Caribbean4 Discuss partnerships and alliances5 Discuss data, analysis requirements for proposal6 Set out assignments for individual follow-up7 Prepare agenda and assignments for Fall meeting 8 Other:9 Other:10 Other:

Comments:

II. Expected outcomesNo. Objective % Achieved1 Establish consensus on direction and focus of project2 Identify specific communities in Canada and Caribbean3 Decide on partnerships and alliances and contacts4 Assign data collection and analysis work for proposal5 Determine individual follow-up and assignments6 Other:7 Other:8 Other:

Comments:

III. Milestones

No. Objective Start Finish % Achieved-to-date1 Communities2 Partnerships and alliances3 Indicators and data4 Methodology (Models & Tools)5 Scenarios6 Plans


4. ICURA Group Work Table

Project Elements and FocusWORKING LUNCH Assignments – Day 1

GROUP ONE

Identification of communities and threats to coastal infrastructure and community indicators

I. Communities

Ranking No.

Caribbean Canada

2 NE Coast of Trinidad, ecotourism, turtles+threats

Bouctouche, N.-B. (eco-tourism); Lumsden, NL

1 Belize Barrier reef/Belize fisheries (shellfish), threats to fish+fisheries, indigenous locals,

Alert Bay, BC (fisheries, tourism, indigenous peoples); OR Iqaluit, Nunavut (Don Forbes); OR Haida-Gwaii; OR Canso, Chedabucto Bay

4 Island of Bequia, STVG, champion (Phd student) VS Tobago Keys

Maggies (champion?); Placentia Bay (LOMA, Smart Bay)

3 Georgetown, Guyana; serious threats (sea wall),

Charlottetown, PEI

II. Threatened Coastal Infrastructure

No. Ecosystem/Environment Infrastructure12345

III. Community Socioeconomic Indicators

No. Indicator No. Indicator1 52 63 74 8


4. ICURA Group Work Table (continued)

Project Elements and FocusWORKING LUNCH Assignments

GROUP TWO

Development of models and tools to assess and manage risks through adaptation

I. RisksNo. Ecosystem/Environment Infrastructure12345

II. DataNo. Ecosystem/Environment Infrastructure12345

III. ToolsNo. Identification Characteristics12345




GROUP THREE

Generation of scenarios for evaluation and review

I. RisksNo. Ecosystem/Environment Infrastructure12345

II. ScenarioNo. Ecosystem/Environment Infrastructure12345

III. Performance Evaluation MeasureNo. Identification Characteristics12345




GROUP FOUR

Building capacity through training, academic programming, and public awareness

I. Training ProgramNo. Training Program Affiliation Personnel Trained12345

II. Academic ProgramNo. Program Level/Number of Candidates annually12345

III. Public ProgramsNo. Location Affiliation/Alliance Accreditation achieved12345


5. ICURA Workshop Day 2 - Threats and Indicators Table

Coastal Infrastructure and communities’ socioeconomic indicators

Community

No. Caribbean Canada

Threats, Impacts, and Indicators

No. Threat Category (Ecosystem/Infrastructure/Human)

Indicator(s)

12345678910


6. ICURA Website Home Page and access information

ICURA Website – Home Page

ICURA Members Only Access:

ID: cchangePW: ende345,,


draft for discussion€¦ · web viewottawa canada - caribbean icura workshop. june 22 – 25,...

Documents