Collaborative. Interdisciplinary. Inclusive. Canadian Mountain Network: Better Together

Canadian mountain research

What is the CMN? • The Canadian Mountain Network (CMN) is a voluntary alliance

of numerous partners

• Established in 2016, the CMN is in the early stages of establishing a forum for collaboratively addressing the diverse challenges facing mountain regions by harnessing existing capacities and seeking new resources.

• Over the next 18 months, the CMN will lead the preparation of a national Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) proposal. Expecting LOI in the spring

Objective for today

The first step in establishing the Canadian Mountain Network is to form Initiating Groups across the country in order to understand mountain research needs, to expand network participation, and to create more opportunities for collaboration.

Presentation: Why a Canadian Mountain Network?

Dave Hik, Science Director, Canadian Mountain Network

Presentation: Building a research network: Lessons learned

Aynslie Ogden, Science Advisor, Government of Yukon

Presentation: Information needed from CMN Initiating Groups

Christy Urban, Executive Director, Canadian Mountain Network

Presentation: Community engagement

Sam Darling, McGill University

Breakout group discussions Yukon Initiating Group

Facilitators: Aynslie Ogden, Sam Darling, Christy Urban, Dave Hik

Presentation: How to stay involved Christy and Aynslie

Agenda

Building a research network: Lessons learned from the past 15 years of northern research

Context: State of Northern Research

• In 2000, Northern Research was considered to be in a state of crisis

• Federal northern science policy has responded through a suite of investments, both large and small

• Many of these programs have had northern capacity building as an intended outcome

• What impact have investments in Arctic S&T over the last 15 years had on supporting decision-making, capacity building and the northern economy?

Northern Science Policy Initiatives Funders Date Funding Northern Research Chairs Program NSERC 2002-2008 $7.2

International Polar Year AANDC, Tri Councils 2006-2012 $171M

ArcticNet Tri-Councils 2003-2018 $113M

Arctic Research Infrastructure Fund INAC 2009-2011 $85M

Northern Contaminants Program INAC 1991-ongoing $4M/yr

Polar Continental Shelf Program NRCan 1958-ongoing $6M/yr

Northern Scientific Training Program INAC 1961-ongoing $1M/yr

Research Infrastructure CFI 2008-2015 $112M

CHARS (station construction) INAC 2014-2017 $250M

CHARS (annual operating budget) INAC 2016-ongoing $26.5M/yr

Sentinel North CFREF 2016-2023 $98M

CFCAS EC 2000-2010 ($117M)

GEM 1 and 2 NRCan 2008-2020 $200M

Extended Continental Shelf Program NRCan, DFO 2005-2012 $109M

Project grants NSERC 2008-2015 ($22M)

Project grants CIHR 2008-2015 $36M

Project grants SSHRC 2008-2015 $86M

Ogden and Thomas (2013): • The vast majority of funding for science in northern Canada

comes from agencies south of 60˚. • The upside is that Northerners benefit from a level of

investment in knowledge acquisition that is beyond the investment potential of northern agencies.

• The downside is that Northerners often have limited opportunity to influence policy and investment decisions regarding science

Impact of Investment: Advancing knowledge acquisition

283287307

450473476476495

659790

1,0651,2171,226

2,0072,810

2,9473,065

3,4284,918

8,908

IcelandBelgium

SpainItaly

PolandChina

SwitzerlandAustralia

NetherlandsFinland

JapanFrance

SwedenDenmarkGermany

United KingdomNorway

Russian FederationCanada

United States

Impact of Investment: Canada is a world-leader in Arctic science

• Canada is ranked 7th in S&T publications

• Canada is ranked 2nd in Arctic S&T publications (behind US)

• These statistics reflect the tremendous impact of recent large science programs within the science community.

Source: Science-Metrix, 2009

Impact of Investment: Canada Arctic scientific strengths

• Canada’s strengths are in the fields of earth and space science, biology

• Fewer publications with relatively low scientific impact in the health and social sciences

Source: Science-Metrix, 2009

Biology

Biomedical Research

Chemistry

Clinical Medicine

Earth & Space(E&S)

E&S - Earth & Plantry Sci

E&S - Environmental Sci

E&S - Geology

E&S - Meteo & Atmos Sci

E&S - Oceano& Limno

Engineering & Tech

Health Sciences

Physics

Social Sciences

Scie

ntifi

c Im

pact

(A

RC

)

Specialization Index (SI)

Less Specialized World Average More Specialized

Less

Impa

ct

W

orld

Ave

rage

Mor

e Im

pact

Impact of Investment: Northern capacity building

Brunet et al 2014 Study: • Sought to determine the

extent to which there has been a paradigm shift toward more participatory approaches

Results: • The involvement of local

people in northern research has increased only slightly over the last half century

Impact of Investment: Northern partnerships

Recommendations: Further decentralization by • Allowing non-academic

PI’s to receive funding • Involve communities in

research priority setting, proposal review and funding allocation processes

Brunet et al 2016 Study: • Sought to better understand the

benefits and challenges associated with northern research partnerships

Results: • Overall, researchers were

perceived to benefit more from research partnerships than their community counterparts

Impact of Investment: Northern economy Carr et al, 2013 Study: • First to look at economic

impacts of publicly funded research in northern Canada

• Looked at research expenditures from Tri-councils, SCI, NEI, PCSP, AIR, ArcticNet, NCP, NSTP and IPY

Results: • <5% of total research spending.

Year Research expenditures in

the North 2000 $486,481

2001 $864,627

2002 $514,971

2003 $733,860

2004 $412,039

2005 $668,807

2006 $983,355

2007 $5,473,869

2008 $5,263,007

2009 $5,819,761

Total $21,220,777

Impact of Investment: Supporting decision-making

Results: The past decade of Arctic research as largely failed to address some scientific goals identified by policy makers and residents and has not succeeded in finding ways to help stakeholders cope with a changing environment

Ibarguchi et al. 2015 Study: Analysis of the extent to which alignment exists among stated science priorities, recognized societal needs, and funding patterns of the major North American and European agencies

Science in the Yukon: Advancing a vision for evidence-based decision-making Lessons learned:

1. Recognize the importance of science and innovation 2. Incorporate local and traditional knowledge 3. Focus on needs 4. Support improved coordination 5. Ensure scientific activities are appropriately resourced 6. Keep pace with development 7. Keep current with scientific advances 8. Promote health and social sciences 9. Foster partnerships 10. Establish and maintain a strong Yukon-based science community

Canadian Mountain Network: Possible Benefits to Yukon Reasons for Participating in the Sustainable Forest Management Network Klenk and Hickey (2012) Proposition Agree

I had prior connections/relationships with individuals at the Network 98%

The research focus at the Network matched my (our) interests 82%

I (we) wanted to access Network expertise 64%

I (we) wanted access to equipment and/or facilities at participating Network organizations

25%

I (we) wanted to access to Network students as prospective employees 64%

I (we) wanted to engage in cross-sector collaboration 82%

Canadian Mountain Network: Possible Benefits to Yukon Perceived benefits of participation in the Sustainable Forest Management Network Klenk and Hickey (2012) Proposition Agree

The Network enhanced my (our) collaborative activities 74%

SFM concepts brought to fruition that would have been otherwise difficult to achieve

72%

My work with the Network enhanced my career prospects 62%

I (we) obtained access to new ideas, know-how, or technologies 78%

Network funded research improved a product or process in my (our) organization

52%

Canadian Mountain Network: Possible Benefits to Yukon

• Unique opportunity to be involved in influencing investment decisions

• Early engagement and partnership development is critical

• Need for capacity building in the north

Vision: The Government of Yukon supports the active pursuit, gathering and storage of scientific knowledge so it can be easily retrieved, transferred, shared and used to support evidence-based decision-making

Canadian Mountain Network: Possible Benefits to Yukon

Breakout group discussions 1. Pick a group 2. Take a few minutes to think about the

questions posed. 3. Write your thoughts on a sticky. 4. Pair up with the person next to you to discuss 5. After five minutes we will reconvene to share

your work with the group. 6. After 20 minutes move on to the next group 7. Your facilitator will recap previous discussions

Think, pair, share

Breakout Group 1: Christy Engagement 1. Who is currently involved in mountain research

in Yukon? 2. Who is currently benefiting from mountain

research in Yukon? Who else needs to benefit? 3. Who needs to help shape the direction of

network activities in Yukon?

Breakout Group 2: Aynslie Benefits to Yukon 1. What would make this Network important to

Yukon? 2. How can this Network be designed to maximize

benefits to Yukon? 3. In 15 years, what would you want this Network

to achieve?

Breakout Group 3: Dave Research Needs 1. What solutions to complex challenges should this

network be designed to address? 2. What research needs have been identified in Yukon

through collaborative, participatory processes? 3. What codes of conduct/best practices for research

should be adopted by the Network? 4. What infrastructure is needed to support research

activities in Yukon (short, medium and long term)?

Breakout Group 4: Sam Capacity Building 1. What does capacity building mean in a Yukon context? 2. What capacity is needed to be developed? 3. How can the Network contribute to developing this

capacity? 4. How can the network train and prepare graduate

students for employment outside academia? Would you consider this type of training a valuable service?

5. HQP is defined by Tri-Councils as individuals with university degrees at the bachelor’s level and above. For the Yukon how would you redefine this?