Over the past few months I’ve been leading the writing up of a recent dyke realignment and salt marsh restoration project in Truro for an OECD report called Responding to Rising Seas, due out in January 2019. Co-authors are those who designed and implemented the case study from Saint Mary’s University and CB Wetlands and Environmental Services. The Truro case study is one of four cases explored in the report; others are in the UK, Germany and New Zealand. We culminated that case study with an all-day workshop November 21 at SMU on ‘scaling up the insights’ from the Truro case study. Requested by NRCan, funded by Lisa Danielson of the OECD’s Paris office, and hosted by Danika van Proosdij at SMU, we had sessions on policy, financing, engineering and human dimensions. Thirty attendees joined from across all scales of government, NGOs, First Nations and the private sector (as well as a few academics, but that couldn’t be helped). The various conversations and interactions knitted together some previously isolated groups working in parallel, and it felt very much like a day well spent. We hope attendees felt the same way.
A new paper is out this week that has been long in coming. Carlisle Kent’s post-graduation research contract in the winter of 2016 with the Reconciling Holistic Management project, released as a report in winter 2017, has been picked up and refined for publication by postdoc Wes Tourangeau. The paper will be out in the first 2019 issue of Weather, Climate and Society and is called: Of climate and weather: Examining Canadian farm and livestock organization discourses from 2010 to 2015. This work was part of our effort to understand the science-practice-policy interface around HM, in this case focusing on farmer organizations and how they communicate about climate and grazing. We found interesting patterns of discourses: Alberta groups speaking to members about acute matters of weather but national groups speaking to policy-makers about chronic climate issues. Climate-related discourses advocated regulation and weather-related discourses advocated insurance and other buffering mechanisms. Both promoted infrastructure and technological fixes as well as land management decisions. The only land management change advocated for both climate and weather challenges was managed/rotational grazing, suggesting that grazing practitioners and their advocates see utility. We are currently following up this work to explore the discourse of recent Senate and House explorations on agriculture and climate change.
I learned yesterday that I won the ‘Research Star’ award for tenured profs in the Faculty of Management, based on 2017-2018 papers and grants, which was a nice follow-up to winning the ‘Rising Research Star‘ award for pre-tenure profs in 2014-2015. Thanks to the adjudication committee for this honour.
Rangelands has a nice feature called ‘Browsing the Literature’, in which a handful of leading rangeland researchers is asked: “If you could recommend one paper or book that you’ve read recently that everybody in rangeland science or management should read, what would it be?” I’ve just learned that in the December 2017 issue, USDA rangeland scientist Dr. David Toledo recommended my commentary from last year with Ika Darnhofer, Precondition for integration: In support of standalone social science in rangeland and silvopastoral research. He commented:
It has become increasingly evident that we cannot view natural resource issues without considering humans as part of the natural resource system. However, there is a disproportionate amount of research in natural science journals regarding the social sciences needed to implement any ecosystem changes. This paper discusses issues related to the integration of the social sciences with the natural sciences (or lack thereof) and highlights the potential contributions of the social sciences in providing critical insights for achieving real-world impact of natural science research.
Thanks to Dr. Toledo for the good press.