Workshop Summary

Catching Ripples in the Water March 2-3, 2017

Photo by Prateep Nayak

A Social-Ecological Regime Shifts (SERS) Approach to Understand Rapid Changes in Coastal Watersheds and Crafting Governance Arrangements

A workshop organized with support from the Water Institute, University of Waterloo, and the

OceanCanada Partnership

2

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................. 3

Theme I: How should we characterize and define rapid changes and/or

regime shifts? ............................................................................................... 5

Theme II: Social-Ecological regime shifts (SERS) – Why are they

important and to whom? .............................................................................. 9

Theme III: How do we use our insights for the management and

governance of SERS? ................................................................................ 13

Synthesis Session ....................................................................................... 15

Moving Forward ........................................................................................ 18

Special Panel Event ................................................................................... 20

Appendix .................................................................................................... 25

3

Introduction

Approximately half of the world’s population lives within 150 kilometers from the ocean,

and this number is expected to increase significantly in the coming decades (UN Atlas of the

Oceans 2010). However, mega drivers such as climate change and globalisation are combining

with local, national, regional development and policy processes to make our coastal resources, and

the people that depend upon them, increasingly vulnerable (MEA 2005; Allison et al. 2009; Nayak

and Berkes 2010). The nature and intensity of change experienced in a significant number of

coastal watersheds around the world are often described as ‘regime shifts’, i.e., abrupt, long-term

and significant changes in ecosystem structure and function (Biggs et al. 2009). Such changes may

be irreversible, and they often produce complex and uncertain outcomes, with implications for the

maintenance of ecosystem services (e.g., coastal fisheries) and wellbeing of coastal communities

(Armitage et al. 2011; Nayak et al. 2015). Understanding and responding to such shifts is a

significant challenge for resource users and managers Walker and Meyers 2004). In this context,

efforts to govern coastal resources will be confronted with new challenges related to identifying,

acknowledging and navigating regime shifts before they are crossed, or addressing the often

undesirable consequences of regime shifts when they do occur.

The goal of the ‘Catching Ripples’ workshop was to further develop our understanding of

regime shifts and other forms of rapid change at the land-sea interface. Workshop participants

explored how linking social theory with ecological theory may help to address the challenge of

rapid change, and to consider the emergent concept of linked ‘Social-Ecological Regime Shifts’

(SERS). The workshop was thus designed to draw on the insights of an interdisciplinary group of

applied scholars and practitioners engaged in assessing or navigating the biophysical, social and

policy dimensions of regime shifts and rapid change in coastal watersheds.

Several questions helped to frame workshop activities: 1) what are the clear examples of

social-ecological regime shifts in coastal watersheds and the land-sea interface? 2) what do we

know about the key drivers causing major shifts in these contexts; 3) what are the main impacts of

social-ecological regime shifts on ecosystem processes and human wellbeing within coastal

watersheds? 4) what are the challenges of these changes for multi-objective governance of coastal

4

watersheds and the resources upon which people depend (e.g., coastal fisheries)? And 5) what is

the practical utility of a social-ecological regime shifts lens for policy makers, coastal managers

and resource users? These questions were explored in the context of targeted presentations,

dialogue sessions and an interactive evening panel discussion that was open to the students and

wider academic community.

Three thematic sessions provided general direction and a structure for workshop

participants to explore change in coastal watersheds.

Figure 1.1 – Catching Ripples Workshop Themes

At the conclusion of our 2-day workshop on rapid change / SERS, workshop participants

highlighted a need for the presentations, processes, and discussions that took place to be detailed in

a consolidated format. This summary document is considered our first step toward more systematic

collaborative work on the questions, themes, cases, and pathways forward that arose during the

‘Catching Ripples’ workshop.

5

Theme I: How should we characterize and define

rapid changes and/or regime shifts?

Photo by Prateep Nayak

In this session, we heard from four presenters – James MacLellan, Nandita Basu, Prateep

Nayak, and Graham Epstein. James MacLellan (York University) shared his work in resilience

with Metrolinks, highlighting the importance in being able to visualize key information for

different stakeholders across temporal scales, especially in deciding responses to complex issues.

Considering rapid change, this can be valuable by offering different ways to visually present and

therefore characterize change depending on which variables are important for various stakeholders.

Nandita Basu (University of Waterloo) presented on her work on water in India, exploring the

complex variables that arise in a changing social-ecological system approaching many possible

tipping points. Her presentation highlighted the importance of the variables driving change, as well

6

as noting tipping points as a way to define when a rapid change has taken place. Prateep Nayak

(University of Waterloo) shared research interests including SES implications of power, politics,

poverty, noting that scale sensitive perspectives and taking stock of drivers, their influences, and

synergies will help characterize rapid change and SERS. He also highlighted the importance of

considering how changes are framed or used by different groups because of the implications for

equity and justice. Graham Epstein (University of Waterloo) delineated many of the problems we

face in defining and diagnosing regime shifts, arguing that new definitions aren’t needed, but rather

tools to characterize and analyze diverse SERS and identify potential solutions.

After the presentations, we participated in breakout sessions to explore three questions:

“What are rapid changes and/or SERS as you have seen through your own research? Why is it

important to characterize them? How can and should we characterize rapid change and SERS?” A

rapporteur from each group summarized their discussions to all workshop participants.

Table 1.1 – Theme 1 Breakout Groups Summary

Group Points Summary

Group 1 • Perspective matters

• Entry points

• Policy, social, and cultural issues are deeply

intertwined

• Robustness of results / characterization –

needs many perspectives

• Need a better understanding of system(s) to

avoid analysis pitfalls

Perspective matters for

recognizing and understanding

RS across different scales and

contexts, as well as

understanding the system itself.

Group 2 • Perceptions matter (RS with whom for

whom?)

• Tradeoffs

• Reversibility

• Characterizing through indictors or narrative

• Scale & embeddedness within a scale

matters (may not ‘see’ a RS if you’re

outside)

• Role of governance is often forgotten

While valuable and needed,

many perspectives delineate the

conflicts and tradeoffs in

changing systems, including

between qualitative and

quantitative approaches to

characterizing SERS. Humans

can have influence through

governance actions on RS.

7

Group Points Summary

Group 3 • Clarify dependent and independent variables

• Possibility for predictive power of variables

• RS is subjective

• Need a typology

• Descriptive vs. prescriptive – useful or

limiting?

• Cumulative change

There is a lot of subjectivity with

RS. Because there is complexity

of elements within a system,

drivers of change, and

interactions between the two,

clarifying variables and a

typology would be helpful.

All Groups

(commonalities) • Perspective is important – social, scale

(temporal, spatial), winners, losers

• Need to understand the system experiencing

rapid change / RS

• Characterizing the change is critical

A more systematic way to

understand and incorporate the

diverse variables, drivers, and

human perspectives would be

beneficial to recognizing and

addressing rapid change / SERS.

At the conclusion of the Theme 1 session, Derek Armitage summarized some of the smaller

themes he noticed arising around rapid change and SERS, including:

• The speed, intensity, magnitude of change

• The notion of scale (perspective changes everything)

• Insights on the use of existing frameworks

• The issues of multi-dimensionality of change

• Characterizing change

8

Overall, there seemed to be consensus around the question of, “Why is it important to

characterize rapid change / SERS”? Workshop participants highlighted the social pressures

experienced in systems undergoing rapid change, as well as the importance of characterizing

change for decision-making processes. Table 1.1 highlights three major challenges that emerged

from the break out group session: the numerous perspectives at play in a system, understanding the

system, and characterizing rapid change / SERS. There were more diverse perspectives about how

we can and should characterize rapid change / SERS, including diagnostic and prescriptive

approaches. Ultimately, there was consensus that the multi-dimensionality of rapid change / SERS

requires hybrid approaches for characterization.

9

Theme II: Social-Ecological regime shifts (SERS) –

Why are they important and to whom?

During this thematic session, we heard presentations on specific case studies from Nathan

Bennett, Johanna Wandel, Ellie Perkins, and Nancy Doubleday. These presentations sparked

excellent group discussions and provided the foundational material for conversations in the

subsequent breakout discussions. Nathan Bennett (University of British Columbia) highlighted the

historical challenges in differentiating among fast and slow change, as well as the implications for

adaptive capacity and adaptation. He focused on a case of sea cucumber harvesting in Rio

Lagartos, Yucatan and the emergence of jellyfish blooms in Thailand. After his presentation, the

group explored some of the governance concerns around these cases, but delved into a deeper

discussion about how ecological aspects of a change impact value (i.e. species being affected).

10

Johanna Wandel (University of Waterloo) provided a historical perspective on regime

shifts, noting the importance of examining the enabling conditions and drivers across time,

especially as each shift in a system impacts different actors in various ways. The cases she used

involved the agricultural sector in Alberta and groundwater management in India. The group had a

lively discussion around the differences (if any) between triggers, drivers, enabling conditions, and

other patterns, and determined these may be important in a more systematic understanding of rapid

change / RS in SES. Ellie Perkins (York University) presented her research on the water-energy

nexus, highlighting the more tangible social aspects like energy infrastructure in relation to the

more abstract or higher level environmental and climate change concerns. Nancy Doubleday

(McMaster University) concluded the presentation session by sharing her experiences around

policy changes in Arctic Canada, and specifically highlighted the catastrophic nature of SERS and

lags in policy to incorporate knowledge, thus advocating for an adaptive co-management approach

in responding to SERS.

The breakout groups after the individual presentations explored the main theme questions, “Why

are SERS important,” and “to whom?”

11

Table 2.1 – Theme 2 Breakout Groups Summary

Groups Points Summary

Group 1 • SERS is important because

of their environmental

impacts, social impacts,

increasing systems

connections, & governance

implications

• Distribution of impact

among different actors

(economic, social, cultural)

• Huge presence of tradeoffs

• Equitable systems tend to be

more resilient / robust

There are 4 broad areas that

can encompass why we

should care about SERS, but

there is a lot of nuance

particularly to the social

aspects considering justice,

equity, distribution of

impacts, and tradeoffs.

Group 2 • RS concept is within the

ecological domain – how to

incorporate social

dimensions (e.g., livelihoods,

social relations, power

dynamics, equity concerns,

etc.)?

• Participatory approach is

likely necessary

• Governance principles

invoked by SERS – defining

the system, distributive

justice and subjective value

of changes, adaptive

planning

An RS is defined by the

ecological changes, but the

major impacts and drivers

are social. The importance of

the social context needs to

be honored with a

participatory approach and

focus on governance.

Group 3 • Who cares about the change,

and who is affected (both

negatively and positively),

depends on who is disrupted

or benefited by the change

• Delta change may have to be

big enough or disruptive

enough for everyone to care

Who is experiencing the

change and the magnitude of

the change will dictate who

cares, but overall there are

systems repercussions for

the RS that are best

understood through a

defined scale and a ‘place-

based’ approach.

12

Groups Points Summary

• Need for ‘place-based’ rather

than ‘resource-based’

approach

• Need for scale because of

systems overlaps and

embeddedness

All Groups

(commonalities) • ‘Why we care’ can be

broken down into the SES

(ecological, social, and

connections) and governance

implications

• ‘To whom’ depends on the

effects, but everyone should

care (even if that’s not the

reality)

Though there are other

reasons, the social impacts

of SERS are the major

reasons we care, but because

effects of change are not felt

equally across a complex

system, justice is a concern.

Following the breakout group sessions, there was a lengthy discussion in the plenary that

covered a range of topics that was reflective of the complex nature of rapid change / SERS, and

especially surrounding certain methodological approaches and ways to conceptualize SERS.

Discussion highlighted that (1) a need for a theoretical scaffolding of how we conceptualize SERS

is evident, but (2) the diversity of disciplines, perspectives, and methodological approaches in the

room will make will make the outcomes of our collaboration more robust, and (3) especially

around governance solutions.

13

Theme III: How do we use our insights for the

management and governance of SERS?

During this thematic session, we heard from Tony Charles (St. Mary’s University), jointly

from Sondra Eger & Evan Andrews (both from University of Waterloo), and finally from Derek

Armitage (University of Waterloo). Tony Charles discussed management and governance as

drivers of change and pathways forward, using the Atlantic cod collapse as an example. Sondra

Eger shared her work on cumulative effects (CE) in SES, the parallels that can be drawn between

CE and SERS, and the need to recognize governance implications, as well as application

opportunities. Evan Andrews shared his work on human behavior and its influence on the

‘mechanics’ of RS, especially noting the implications of the drivers of human behavior (both

rational and non-rational in nature) for the governance of SERS. Derek Armitage gave the final

presentation, exploring the role of adaptive forms of governance that honor dynamic conditions in

SES using a case study of the Tam Giang Lagoon in Vietnam. Derek highlighted the role of

complexity in SES, as well as the implications for management/governance like bi-directionality of

governance, temporal mismatches, geographic patchiness, and consideration of normative

dimensions.

The breakout discussion did not have strict guiding questions, though many of the groups

reflected on the questions offered by Derek Armitage at the end of his presentation, namely, “What

are the ingredients of governance of SERS?”, and “How can knowledge of these ingredients be

used to shift governance processes and institutional arrangements?”

Table 3.1 – Theme 3 Breakout Groups Summary

Group Points Summary

Group 1 • Attention to social learning, fast change,

adaptive Capacity

• Need mechanisms for incorporating

Social Learning

‘Rapid change’ calls for

governances that systematically

incorporates (new) learnings &

enhances adaptive capacity

14

Group Points Summary

• Fast change fundamentally differs from

slow change

• Increase adaptive capacity

Group 2 • Governance as a cause: influences

behavior; reinforces power structures;

operates under ‘fear’ emotions

• Governance as a solution: influences

behavior; influence power structures

• Mechanisms needed for understanding

rapid change circumstances, rapid

decision-making & stakeholder

disagreement

• How do we build positive change into

governance structures?

• Considering structural change

The human component of SERS

needs to be addressed considering

behavior, governance, and power

dynamics. Moving forward, we

need to highlight how to build

stronger governance structures by

incorporating learnings.

Group 3 • Moving beyond ‘humility’ Tradeoffs are

inevitable, so we need to account for

them in our management strategy

• A place-based approach would mean

considering scale, who’s in the room, and

bi-directionality.

• Importance of learning / knowledge

networks for systems transformation

A governance approach to SERS

should consider tradeoffs, use a

place-based approach, and

incorporate learning.

All Groups

(commonalities) • ‘Good’ Governance for rapid change -

need ‘good governance’ that addresses

the special pieces of SERS

• Need for transformational processes

• Promoting structural / institutional

change

The features that make SERS

unique need to be accounted for in

our governance approaches /

solutions, but overall, these should

also go beyond the status quo to

create transformations in our

governance systems themselves.

15

Synthesis Session

In the final session, workshop participants engaged in a conceptual mapping activity aimed

at integrating the lessons learned across the three workshop themes. Participants were asked to

write down two core ideas on a sticky note for each theme and then place those sticky notes on a

board under the corresponding theme. From there, participants read others’ thoughts and there was

a collective effort to group the sticky notes around key lessons and/or observed patterns of

responses. The general outcome of this exercise was the identification of a number of sub-

themes related to each major workshop theme (see Figure 2):

16

Figure 2 - Themes and sub-themes for Catching Ripples Workshop

The sticky notes that were posted under Theme 1 were all able to be grouped into two main

categories or sub-themes. Specific reasons justifying or elaborating on the need to characterize

SERS, and ideas on how to potentially go about characterizing SERS were discussed. Under

Theme 2, the sticky notes were grouped into three main categories: the role of context specificity

in SERS, the importance of scale, and an emphasis on the social aspects of SERS. For Theme 3,

the sticky notes were divided amongst 4 categories exploring the role of vision or shared vision,

the importance of considering fit, the value of learning & knowledge, and the ingredients or

principles that are needed for SERS-oriented governance. A more detailed summary of the

prioritization exercise is appended to this document. Ultimately, the outcomes of this ‘mapping’

exercise and insights from the plenary and breakout group discussion will form the basis of a

synthesis paper on SERs in coastal watersheds.

17

18

Moving Forward

The ‘Catching Ripples” workshop highlighted the potential for further collaboration among an

interdisciplinary group of applied scholars on understanding and navigating rapid change / regime

shifts in coastal systems. A number of next steps were suggested:

- Explore possibilities of keeping the SERS group active to further develop

transdisciplinary perspectives on rapid change / regime shifts with specific reference to

coastal watersheds. Some of the following activities will help achieve this objective.

- Development of a synthesis report of process, case studies presented by the participants

and outcomes of the Breakout Group discussions on Themes 1 – 3.

- Develop a repository (e.g., drop box) that will hold detailed notes and insights emerging out

of the workshop, and additional relevant material on the different themes relevant to

understanding regime shifts for collaborative use by the SERS group members.

- A Working Paper will be developed to organize all the material and outcomes obtained

from the workshop as a first step towards more organized outputs. The working Paper will

be published as part of Ocean Canada Working Paper Series with an objective to receive

constructive comments from a wide variety of readers. (To be submitted in February 2018)

- A synthesis paper on the theme of ‘a Social-Ecological Regime Shifts (SERS) Approach

to Understand Rapid Changes in Coastal Watersheds and Crafting Governance

Arrangements’ will be developed for publication in a high-ranking journal (preferably in

Global Environmental Change). (to be submitted in Summer 2018)

- Some SERS group members will pursue the workshop objectives and some of the issues

arising out of our discussions by exploring further case studies and similar research they are

currently working on. In particular, members showed interest in expanding their work and

publishing on related topics such as enabling factors for sustainability in the context of

19

SERS, extensive social elements that arise in relation to regime shifts, and identifying

effective governance strategies to respond to SERS impacts.

- Develop a funding proposal to continue research and scholarly collaborations on the

concept of social-ecological regime shift, possibly a SSHRC Insight Grant.

20

Special Panel Event

Coastal watersheds in the Anthropocene: Understanding

rapid change and implication for people and ecosystems

A public panel discussion was organized on the first evening of the workshop on the 2nd

March 2017. The facilitated panel discussion on coastal watersheds in the Anthropocene was

supported by the OceanCanada Partnership and the Water Institute, this public event was organized

as part of the main two-day workshop with the goal to develop and apply a social-ecological

system perspective to broaden our understanding of abrupt and rapid changes in coastal

watersheds. Open to the larger University of Waterloo community and members of the public, this

event aimed to highlight that as we navigate the Anthropocene, it is important to understand what

rapid environmental change means for our human and planetary systems. As part of this public

panel, four expert panelists from across Canada explored the implications of regime shifts in

coastal watersheds from a social-ecological systems perspective, as well as the implications for the

future of environmental management and governance. This pubic event was delivered as a

facilitated panel discussion chaired by Simon Courtenay, University of Waterloo, from 4:30pm -

21

6pm followed by a reception where light refreshments were served. There was a total of four

presenters and a discussant, followed by open dialogue period with audience. The topics and

presenters included:

Natalie Ban (University of Victoria) provided an engaging overview of regime shift based on her

talk titled A social-ecological systems perspective of rapid change to clarify that an

interdisciplinary perspective rooted in human-environmental system thinking is core to the analysis

of rapid change across multiple scales.

William Cheung (University of British Columbia) delivered a talk on The future of Canadian

fisheries under multiple human drivers and provided case examples to underscore that success in

better understanding regime shifts would rely on our ability to manage multiple drivers of change

David VanderZwaag (Dalhousie University) brought legal perspectives on regime shift to bear

through his thought provoking talk on Canadian Ocean Governance in the Anthropocene: Legal

Laments and Promises outlining the readiness of Canada to address coastal and ocean management in an

era of rapid changes. Canada’s progress in this area was captured by VanderZwaag as hinged between legal

laments and unfulfilled promises.

Ratana Cheunpagdee (Memorial University) spoke on the topic of A transdisciplinary

perspective on change highlighting the importance of bottom up governance as a path forward

towards responding to rapid changes.

The presenters and the key questions they explored in their talks are listed below in the figure.

22

Around ninety individuals attended the public event, including fifty graduate students from

the Collaborative Water Program in course 601. The event was also made available via Facebook

livestream for online viewers and a total of about fifteen individuals joined the session via

Facebook (A live stream of the event is available on request from pnyak@uwaterloo.ca). It

provided a unique platform for the university community, members of the public, and graduate

students to come together on an important topic to engage collaboratively with an objective to

discuss issues and reflect on possible solutions. Following the presentations, the panel discussion

coalesced around three key points for the ensuing discussion section: 1) What new ideas and

perspectives emerging from the panel will be useful to understand rapid change in coastal

watersheds? 2) Given the multiple, sometimes divergent, approaches to understanding change,

what can we do to achieve convergence of these useful perspectives? 3) In the context of change,

what is the state of our environment today? Is change inevitable, if so, what option do we have for

moving forward?

Pressures may not be rapid,

but small changes

compound

Managing the 'drivers' of

change

Take advantage of opportunities relating to RS

Legal laments in Canada & ways forward

23

hoto of workshop participants

24

References:

1. United Nations. 2010. UN Atlas of the Oceans. UN Oceans Project. United Nations. Online:

http://www.oceansatlas.org/

2. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: General

synthesis. In: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Chicago, IL, USA: Island Press. Online at:

http://www.Millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.aspx

3. Allison E, Perry AL, Badjeck MC, Adger WN, Brown K, Conway D, Halls AS, Pilling GM,

Reynolds JD, Andrew NL, Dulvy NK. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to the

impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10(2): 173-196.

4. Nayak PK, Berkes F. 2010. Whose marginalisation? Politics around environmental injustices in

India’s Chilika Lagoon. Local Environment 15 (6): 553–567

5. Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Brock WA. 2009. Turning back from the brink: Detecting an

impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

106: 826-831

6. Armitage D, Marschke M, Tuyen T. 2011. Early-stage transformation of coastal marine

governance in Vietnam? Marine Policy 35: 703-711

7. Nayak PK, Armitage D, Andrachuk M. 2015. Power and politics of social–ecological regime

shifts in the Chilika lagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Regional Environmental

Change Online First: DOI 10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4

8. Walker B, Meyers JA. 2004. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: A

developing database. Ecology and Society 9: 3. [Online] URL:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3/

25

Appendix 1: Participatory Mapping Sticky Notes Activity Results

THEME 1 THEME 2 THEME 3

INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSES

It’s important to

characterize them so we

can develop insights across

changing systems

Important for the

community groups that

experience the burdens of

change

Focus on creating rapid

desirable change

Need to incorporate

subjective RC into our

characterizations of change

Important to resource-

dependent communities

and rural populations

Identify actual values to

society

Examples: species

composition changes

(forest trees), hydrological

events as in flooding,

decision to remove dam

Rapid change hurts the

already marginalized most

so management and

governance need to focus

on equity

Humility – maybe we have

to accept lower yields from

resources to protect during

periods of stress

Identify true impacts Impacts on people The role of vision

Diversity Winners and losers Fit

Function of an SES may

characterize the RS too

Power and politics of RS /

SERS

Need to explore fit for

changes & governance

More work needed on the

social components of RS

What scales is appropriate

for management?

Understanding

mismatches/fit

Important to understand

how management and

restoration measures may

affect fisheries; tradeoffs

Tend to undermine the

vulnerable while providing

opportunities to those with

assets (resources) (x2)

Linked to understanding

“appropriate” scales,

boundaries

Indicators and stories /

narratives (multiple

approaches to

characterization are

needed)

Principles for “good

governance” can assist in

democratic governance

adaptation / improvements

Coherence between

political and ecological /

bioregional boundaries can

facilitate effective SERS

governance

Trade-offs vary based on

perspectives (bothersome

catastrophic)

Scale determines whether

an RS is ‘important’

The value of social

learning

Whose change?

Perspectives and scale are

everything

At what geographic scale

does it make most sense to

detect / manage for RC?

More beyond amount &

control to accommodate

uncertainty

Dependent on scale /

context

Incentives Value risk (learn to)

Characterization important

b/c they change how

people behave, how

communities function, and

undermine resource

management

If real, decision-makers

need to organize

themselves and policies to

allow addressing of RS

including collection of

relevant information

The opportunities /

mechanisms for governing

SERS are the same as

those for good

environment governance;

RC can emerge from either

social drivers or ecosystem

changes

Important for getting

social science insights to

decision-makers

However, speed of SERS

introduces an additional

challenge

Need to ensure that social

and governance regimes

Scale is important – often

RS are distinguishable

only at small scales in

Need to synthesize what

works from other similar

environment or social

26

shifts are considered as

much as ecological ones

relatively homogeneous

communities

change literature

discussing governance

Changing community (of

animals) composition in

estuaries. Important to

characterize to determine

what this tells us about

watershed health

As a consequence of

management regime shift

we have caused

exclusion, displacement &

seated disparity &

imbalance

We have a good sense of

ingredients, but no

implementation /

institutionalization so need

to step it up a notch for

actively learning

Focus on drivers There are always tradeoffs Opportunity for learning

Loss of sea ice in Arctic

and needed gov. responses

Same shift is good for

some and bad for others

Create space for

innovation

Colonialism – capitalist

globalization – income &

political inequities

Need to do something to

avoid further damage

Understanding change is a

starting point

Examples: India rainwater

harvesting; Clean Water

Act

Depends on place-based

narratives for a holistic

understanding

Learn as much so we can

then do something useful

with the knowledge

Important to characterize

them to manage systems

better and learn what

triggers RS

Power of RS idea is only

realized when it is situated

in particular place-based

context

Learn from “natural

experiments” of different

approaches to mitigating /

adapting to rapid change

Transboundary fish stocks

movements and the

questions of sharing the

changing distributions

Important b/c we can help

to understand change in

order to develop

mitigation and adaptation

strategies

Importance of scaling up

information from

periphery to understand

approaching changes

Define system Context v. Generalizability Better monitoring

Slow and rapid drivers

(triggers) of change

important & how they

intersect

To whom or among

whom?

Actual amelioration of key

causal problems

Management toolbox Triggers and drivers –

same, different?

Anticipate land-use

problems

Use of ITQs, TURF,

MPA/MSP

Social triggers dominant? Identify actual values to

society

The crucial importance of

energy transitions and the

shift to renewable,

distributed energy

Reducing the risk of

harmful rapid change / RS

by managing the drivers,

improving adaptive

capacity

Transformation of

institutional arrangements

Changing community of

fish in coastal waters –

importance of changing

fisheries & understanding

of trophic cascade

Rapid change reveals

adaptation challenges need

to be addressed at multiple

levels

Is there a difference

between governance for

RS and governance for

other things?

Collapse is not a regime

shift – it’s a trigger for a

regime shift, but the

reorganization leads to a

new regime

Rapid changes are

important to mitigate as

far as possible to avoid

SES disruptions at

multiple scales

Regime shifts may require

more precautionary and

dynamic control / ocean

management

Rights-based approach

with human rights in mind

Principles of governance

for RS

27

What kind of change do

these examples create?

What are the

consequences?

Ingredients of governance

for RS

Caribou collapse, the

failed government

response and vindication

of indigenous knowledge

Regimes shifts will require

a broad array of adaptive

management responses

Discussion of ‘good’ and

‘bad’ regime shift is highly

value-laden and not very

useful, since there are

multiple perspectives

Nested governance;

smaller set of actions for

rapid changes & larger set

for slow moving variables

Truth and Reconciliation

Commission – new

paradigm / new start

Nested diverse governance

models

Adaptive governance

Need equitable and

proactive management

outcomes

Need mechanisms to

rapidly incorporate new

people, information and

lessons into governance

Institutional diversity

Need certain key qualities

of governance systems

(robustness, flexibility,

adaptiveness) to best

anticipate and perhaps

avoid undesirable regime

shifts (or maybe to

facilitate desirable ones)

Adaptive management

capacity – collection of

relevant information and

responses

Participatory grassroots

research and community

engagement are crucial

Seem to be the

strengthening of existing

‘best practices’ of adaptive

management and

governance

Consider multiple drivers

and cumulative effects

28

Appendix 2: Participants of Breakout Groups

THEME 1 – How should we characterize and define rapid change and/or SERS?

Main question to explore: What are rapid changes and/or social-ecological regime shifts as you

have seen through your own research and why is it important to characterise them (including the

process of characterisation).

Breakout Group 1: James MacLellan (Lead Facilitator), Evan Andrews (Rapporteur), Natalie

Ban, Ratana Cheunpagdee (Rapporteur), Tony Charles, Prateep Nayak

Breakout Group 2: Nandita Basu (Lead Facilitator), Sondra Eger (Rapporteur), David

VanderZwaag (Rapporteur), Ellie Perkins, Derek Armitage, Kevin Reid

Breakout Group 3: Graham Epstein (Lead Facilitator), Simon Courtenay (Rapporteur), Nathan

Bennett, Nancy Doubleday (Rapporteur), William Cheung, Johanna Wandel, Danielle

Lindamood

THEME 2 – Rapid change and/or SERS: Why are they important and to whom?

Main question to explore: Highlight the implications of rapid changes and/or social-ecological

regime shifts for management and governance. What needs to be done?

Breakout Group 1: Nathan Bennett (Lead Facilitator), James MacLellan, David VanderZwaag,

Kevin Reid (Rapporteur), Natalie Ban, Graham Epstein (Rapporteur), Simon Courtenay,

Danielle Lindamood

Breakout Group 2: Ellie Perkins (Lead Facilitator), Evan Andrews (Rapporteur), William

Cheung (Rapporteur), Ratana Cheunpagdee, Prateep Nayak

Breakout Group 3: Nancy Doubleday (Lead Facilitator), Tony Charles (Rapporteur), Nandita

Basu, Derek Armitage, Johanna Wandel (Rapporteur), Sondra Eger

THEME 3 – How do we use our insights for management / governance of rapid change

and/or social-ecological regime shifts?

Main question to explore: Highlight the implications of rapid changes and/or social-ecological

regime shifts for management and governance, and what needs to be done?

Breakout Group 1: Tony Charles (Lead Facilitator), Nathan Bennett (Rapporteur), Sondra

Eger, Ellie Perkins, Nancy Doubleday, Prateep Nayak (Rapporteur)

Breakout Group 2: Kevin Reid (Lead Facilitator), Johanna Wandel, Natalie Ban (Rapporteur),

David VanderZwaag, William Cheung, Nandita Basu (Rapporteur), Graham Epstein

Breakout Group 3: Derek Armitage (Lead Facilitator), James MacLellan (Rapporteur), Simon

Courtenay, Evan Andrews (Rapporteur), Ratana Cheunpagdee, Danielle Lindamood

29

Appendix 3: List of Workshop Participants and Affiliations

Name Affiliation and email ids

Prateep Kumar Nayak School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of

Waterloo, Canada, Email: pnayak@uwaterloo.ca

Derek Armitage School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of

Waterloo, Canada, Email: derek.armitage@uwaterloo.ca

Simon Courtenay School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of

Waterloo, Canada, Email: Simon.Courtenay@uwaterloo.ca

Johanna Wandel Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo,

Canada, Email: jwandel@uwaterloo.ca

Nandita Basu Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth and Environmental

Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada, Email:

nandita.basu@uwaterloo.ca

Graham Epstein School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of

Waterloo, Canada, Email: graham.epstein@uwaterloo.ca

Natalie Ban University of Victoria, Canada, Email: nban@uvic.ca

Ratana Chuenpagdee Memorial University, Canada, Email: ratanac@mun.ca

James MacLennan University of Toronto, Canada, Email: jim.maclellan@utoronto.ca

Ellie Perkins Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Email:

esperk@yorku.ca

William Cheung University of British Columbia, Canada, Email:

w.cheung@oceans.ubc.ca

Nathan Bennett University of British Columbia, Canada, Email:

nathan.bennett@ubc.ca

Anthony (Tony) Charles Professor, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada, Email:

Tony.Charles@smu.ca

Nancy Doubleday McMaster University, Canada, Email: doublen@mcmaster.ca

David Vanderwagg Marine and Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie University,

Halifax, NS, Canada. David.VanderZwaag@Dal.Ca

Evan Andrews Doctoral Student in Social-Ecological Sustainability, School of

Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo,

Canada, Email: e3andrews@uwaterloo.ca

Sondra Eger Doctoral Student in Social-Ecological Sustainability, School of

Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo,

Canada, Email: seger@uwaterloo.ca

Danielle Lindamood Masters Student in Sustainability Management student (SUSM),

School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of

Waterloo, Canada, Email: dlindamood@uwaterloo.ca

30

Appendix 4: Workshop Program

Catching Ripples in the Water:

A Social-Ecological Regime Shifts (SERS) Approach to Understand Rapid Changes in

Coastal Watersheds and Crafting Governance Arrangements

A Workshop organised with support from the

Water Institute, University of Waterloo and the Ocean Canada Partnership

WORKSHOP PROGRAM

Day 1 (Thursday): March 2

Venue: EV1 - 221

11.30 – 12.30

PM

Welcome and light lunch - Venue: EV1 – Courtyard

12.30 – 1 PM Introduction, objectives of the workshop, key themes, desired outputs (Prateep

Nayak and Derek Armitage)

1 – 4 PM

(Health break 20

minutes

included)

Theme 1: How should we characterize and define rapid change and/or SERS?

Session Facilitator / HQP Lead: Derek Armitage and Evan Andrews

• Four seed presentations (10 minutes each)

James MacLellan (University of Toronto), Nandita Basu (University of Waterloo),

Prateep Nayak (University of Waterloo), Graham Epstein (University of Waterloo)

• Breakout group discussion (60 minutes)

• Reporting back to plenary and open discussion (60 minutes)

4.30 – 6.30 PM Public Event / Facilitated Panel Discussion:

Coastal watersheds in the Anthropocene: Understanding rapid change and

implication for people and ecosystems

Venue: Conrad Grebel University College Great Hall

Session Chair: Simon Courtenay, University of Waterloo

Four presenters followed by open dialogue period with audience

Natalie Ban (University of Victoria): A social-ecological systems perspective of

rapid change

31

William Cheung (University of British Columbia): The future of Canadian

fisheries under multiple human drivers

David VanderZwaag (Dalhousie University): Canadian Ocean Governance in the

Anthropocene: Legal Laments and Promises

Ratana Cheunpagdee (Memorial University): A transdisciplinary perspective on

change

Reception 6:30 - 7:00 pm

7 PM Self-organised dinner

Day 2 (Friday): March 3

Venue: Conrad Grebel University College, Ronald and Barbara Schlegel Community Education

(Room 2202)

9 – 9.20 AM Recap

9.20 AM – 12

PM

(Health break 20

minutes

included)

Theme 2: SERS: Why are they important and to whom?

Session Facilitator / HQP Lead: Prateep Nayak and Sondra Eger

• Four seed presentations (10 minutes each):

Nathan Bennett (University of Washington), Johanna Wandel (University of

Waterloo), Ellie Perkins (York University), Nancy Doubleday (McMaster)

• Breakout group discussion (50 minutes)

• Reporting back to plenary and open discussion (50 minutes)

12 – 1 PM Lunch

1 – 3.30 PM

(Health break 15

minutes

included)

Theme 3: How do we use our insights for management / governance of rapid

change and/or SERS?

Session Facilitator / HQP Lead: Johanna Wandel and Graham Epstein

• Three seed presentations (10 minutes each)

Tony Charles (St. Mary’s University), Kevin Reid (Ontario Commercial Fisheries

Association), Derek Armitage (University of Waterloo)

• Breakout group discussion (50 minutes)

• Reporting back to plenary and open discussion (45 minutes)

3.30 – 5 PM Summary of Workshop: Next steps, Possible publication, future funding

proposals and other ideas / reflections?

5 – 5.30 PM Wrap-up and concluding session

6 PM - Workshop Banquet