Transcript Integrating the NRE Project Insights

The things we learned about
rural capacity in the new
economy
The Environment Theme Team:
Tom Beckley, Diane Martz, Ellen Wall,
Solange Nadeau, John Parkins, Sara
Teitelbaum, Emily Huddart, Asaf Rashid
Katia Marzall, Ingrid Brueckner
1
Review of Environment Theme
Projects
• 1) Governance of natural resources
 Community Forestry Initiatives
 BC, ON, QC and NB
 Collaborative watershed management in NB
• 2) Climate change
 Capacity and resilience
• 3) Natural capital’s contribution to capacity
• 4) Environmental Values Survey
 National in scope (urban and rural)
2
The things we learned
1. Local capacity is strongly related to external
forces, trends and partners
2. Unit of analysis is critical for capacity
3. Context is critical – few universal lessons
4. Capacity is difficult to measure
A vast array of component parts need to be measured
and monitored over time.
The “complex” or dynamic version of our model looks
like…
3
T1
Time
Capitals = X +1.5
(F, N, H, S)
Capitals = X +1
(F, N, H, S)
T2
Capitals = X
(F, N, H, S)
T3
Catalyst #3
Threat
Catalyst #2
Opportunity
Catalyst #1
Threat
Relational
Spheres
Relational
Spheres
Relational
Spheres
Capacity
Capacity
Outcome
Outcome
#3
Capacity
Outcome
#2
Capacity
Outcome
#1
T3a
T2a
T1a
Time
4
1) Challenges in measuring capacity
• Limited natural resource data
• Amalgamation of data difficult
• Quality more important than quantity
 municipal waste water (not whether they
exist, but how effective)
 Chamber of Commerce (not whether one
exists, but how effective)
5
Implications
• New data requires collaboration
 Between natural and social sciences
 Between government agencies responsible for
data collection
• Need quality assessments of key capacity
variables
 Relevant to other data and analysis.
6
2) Capacity is strongly related to
external forces, trends and partners
• Bridging capital is critical in rural capacity.
• Rural-Urban alliances key to success
Resource flows from urban to rural
Urban markets for rural goods
External lobby groups
Isolated resource towns producing single commodities
have the steepest hill to climb
 Urban & Government political support (community
forestry)
 Cooperate and collaborate without losing rural
advantages




7
Examples (evidence)
• Capacity of farm lobby resulted in financial
assistance to Usborne farmers
 Local capacity less important than links to higher level
institutions.
• Local capacity alone is not sufficient to initiate
community forestry
 Needs enabling legislation, approval of pilot projects, or
government downsizing for it to happen.
• Community forestry requires a willing (or
apathetic) urban majority
8
Working Towards Community Forestry in New
Brunswick and Ontario
•Capacity Catalyst: Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc.
•Major downsizing created unemployed trained forestry staff
•Former employees (outsiders) instrumental in
establishing Westwind
•Brought experience and “legitimacy”
•External force developed community capacity
•Negative at the time, but some positives in the long run.
9
3) Unit of analysis is critical for
capacity
• Community-level bias
• Capacity doesn’t always coalesce at this
level
 (see earlier point about bridging capital)
10
More about measuring capacity:
Unit of analysis
• Our environmental values survey respondents
(national sample of 1600+) said they faced
constraints at the household or individual level.
 Not enough knowledge
 Not enough time
 Not enough money
 Lack of support from fellow householders
11
Unit of analysis
• Household capacity seems important in
environmental stewardship.
• Good news from this particular research
 85%
of all Canadians expressed concern for the
environment.
 70% acknowledged that they could and should do
better in reducing consumption and/or minimizing
their impact.
 Common ground between rural and urban, and a huge
amount of un-tapped “good intention”.
12
More on examples/(evidence)
regarding unit of analysis
• Some communities
are quite divided
• Tweed – Hog facility
 Capacity of the “pro”
forces are pitted
against the capacity of
the “anti” forces.
• Conflict isn’t all bad
 More overall capacity
may emerge from
situations like this
 Cohesion ≠ Capacity
13
Example (evidence)
• Miramichi Watershed Management Committee
• 14,000 Sq. Km. watershed. Broad geographic
scope, but narrow scope of interest
(recreational salmon fishery).
• Traditional unit of analysis (Blissfield) was not
sufficient to illustrate the critical resource
management issues going on there.
 Decisions and politics were happening at a higher
level.
14
Unit of analysis – continued
• The role of individuals must be recognized as
an important factor (perhaps the important
factor) in community capacity.
 Some places may be better off with 2 or 3 very
capable, connected, motivated individuals than
with 20 or 50 moderately competent, poorly
connected, slightly motivated people.
15
Examples
• Tweed Heritage Centre would not exist without
individual leadership skills of the director.
• Mill closure in Boisetown, NB. Small number of
key individuals made things happen.
• We have met many of these individuals in our
research experiences.
• These individuals are priceless.
16
Implications
• Nurturing capacity at the individual level may yield
the best results.
• Investments in individual capacity development
may be more efficient.
• Can we keep that capacity “in place”?
• Often times, these individuals already have high
capacity.
 Then the question is, “What resources do you need?”
 Not, “What training do you need?”
17
Unit of Analysis -
Getting past the urban rural divide and
looking at both sides of the coin
• Media plays up differences
• Research can identify common ground.
• Environmental values survey
 Rural/urban differences insignificant.
 The way environmental stewardship is
expressed and acted upon differs, but not
concern for the environment.
18
4) Context is critical
• Capacity to do what? This is our eternal
question.
 Even for the same phenomenon, there may
be many motivations
 e.g.
community forestry – environment,
recreation, non-timber products, aesthetics, local
control.
 Latent capacity – places may have more
capacity than they know but often it is not
evident until they are challenged or tested.
19
Context is critical
• The magnitude and source and characteristics of a
threat can contribute to capacity, but also reduce
it.
 Clear and identifiable external threats that appear
suddenly can galvanize communities (mill closures, Gov’t
downsizing, disasters like the 1998 Ice Storm)
 Slow-acting, vague or diffuse, internal threats may divide
communities (youth out-migration, slow deterioration in
water quality, slow transformation of community through
sprawl)
20
Implications
• There is no one best way to develop capacity
 “Recipe book” approaches don’t work

No “one size fits all” solution
 Difficult for bureaucrats to hear this message
 They
•
want transferable solutions
 Programme level solutions
Capacity assessments by local residents working with
“experts”
 Assessments will allow for capacity building where the greatest need
exists, or where the greatest gains are possible.
21
Summary
• Need to actively seek to overcome rural/urban
divide

Its not productive - lots of win-wins out there
• Need to understand local contexts and capacity
needs before imposing policy solutions

What works in one place, may not be effective at all in another
for reasons that are not readily apparent
• We need to work at multiple units of analysis

Not just communities (individual, household, regions)
• Need better data, and tools to allow different
datasets to “speak” to one another

Formats where social and ecological data can combine to tell a
more complex and nuanced story of success or decline
22