Objectives of the forum

1. Identify and prioritize major challenges to the use of sound science in evidence- based federal and provincial policy for sustainable finfish and shellfish aquaculture.
   
   
2. Identify key interdisciplinary research areas and strategies to enable Canadian aquaculture to overcome these challenges.

Deliverables

Objective 1

A prioritized list of research questions which:

• focus on pre-planning and operations phases of Canadian aquaculture
• emphasize industry- and community-relevant issues. Property rights and access are a priority, but they are a defeasible priority so other priority claims are welcome. Questions proposed must fall within the parameters of the decision-matrix, in order to focus our efforts in generating a research portofolio.
• requires interdisciplinary and network-enabled research. Emphasis on socio-economic dimensions of these questions is appropriate: we were particularly tasked with improving the socio-economic aspects theme and with integrating its research with that of the other themes.
• can be answered in the near term, recalling both the near-term mandate of the NCE program, and our immediate need to demonstrate a substantial change of course for the network.

Objective 2

A list of research competencies associated with research questions identified in the first breakout session, and an associated list of strategic choices, mechanisms, devices, etc., to foster network-enabled research. These strategic choices should enable use to develop concrete, immediately viable responses to the Expert Panel’s criticism of our:

• failure to integrate themes
• comparatively weak socio-economic aspects theme
• failure to integrate the perspective of all stakeholders
• omission of considerations of freshwater aquaculture in the central region of Canada
• failure to develop highly qualified personnel other than graduate students and post-docs (no continuing education for professors, for example, and only occasional workshops for policy-makers)
• failure to overcome the communications gap between the research community and the policy community.

Objective 2’s reference to ‘interdisciplinary research areas’ should be understood as referring to particular convergences of disciplines. AquaNet has had weak involvement from economists, but strong involvement from sociologists and political scientists. A few law professors have participated, and philosophers are just beginning to participate. What disciplines or general competencies do we need represented to engage the science/policy gap? For example, the Expert Panel noted an absence of research in ethics in aquaculture. How might ethics research be involved? Objective 2’s reference to ‘strategies’ should be interpreted as novel ways of structuring research and dissemination programs to respond to the criticisms noted above.

Overview of agenda

This forum followed a similar format to that used in Fredericton and Moncton; however, by implementing lessons learned from those prior forums, we were able to compress this forum into two days.

Prior to the forum, we circulated three documents in an effort to focus the forum specifically on network research and not just the general problems of aqauculture today. The first, “Creating a Common Purpose”, is the record of the Canadian Centre for Management Development Roundtable on Science and Policy. The Roundtable identified several barriers to integration of science and policy in Canada. The second and third documents are NCE specific: “Results Based Management and Accountability Framewrok” sets out the outcomes indicators we must bear in mind as we refine our strategy. The third document is KMPG’s review of the Networks of Centres of Excellence program as a whole, together with its useful executive summary. Some participants appeared to have read these documents and the forum as a whole benefited from participants who were able to remind their groups of the need to focus on the issues facing AquaNet.

The forum began with a two-part introduction. Dr Scott McKinley discussed the nature and future of AquaNet in light of the new strategic plan. Dr Keith Culver identified key specific challenges to AquaNet and placed those challenges in the context of the forum’s agenda and the network’s place as a Network of Centres of Excellence.

Much of the remainder of the first day was occupied by plenary sessions from government, industry, academia, and industry/civil society/first nations representatives. By late afternoon participants were prepared to tackle the first objective in breakout groups. Three groups were composed with a view to equal distribution of various stakeholder groups, separation of persons with longstanding agreements or disagreements, balance between East and West, and in particular, equal distribution of social and natural scientists across the groups. The breakout exercise was designed as a parallel effort: each group considered the same question at the same time, with minimal interaction between groups. This strategy was chosen to enable us to identify by inter-group comparison whether there might be a convergence of opinion common to any adequately representative group of stakeholders, or whether, the issues in science and policy integration are highly relevant to personal experience and cannot be regarded as convergent on shared themes. The groups were led by volunteer facilitators who arrived having read a ‘Breakout Group Facilitators’ Guide’ further specifying process and goals, followed by onsite briefing and debriefing between stages of the breakout group process. The breakout groups’ progress was monitored by Keith Culver and Dave Besner.

The second day continued the breakout session, culminating in group presentations of prioritized research questions regarding integration of science and policy. There was considerably variation amongst the groups, as might be expected in a policy arena occupied by very diverse interests.

Breakout groups consistently avoided prioritizing research questions, tending instead to view questions as a cluster of interrelated issues. More formally stated, it seems that participants viewed resolution of these issues as jointly necessary for success of the Canadian aquaculture sector.

Realized deliverable for Objective 1.

Area: Public perception

• What are public perceptions of aquaculture?
• What information are they based on?
• Who are the key, trusted information sources for the public?
• How is public perception taken up in the policy domain?
• What is the interaction between public concerns and evidence-based policy development and implementation
• Where conflicts between public concerns are based on faulty information, how can science-based positions be used to educate or break deadlock?

Area: Decision-Making

• Hypothesis: A major roadblock to the development of aquaculture is that policy interpretation and implementation is neither evidence-based nor responsive to evidence.
  • Can regulators arbitrate between competing demands from different constituencies (in a way which is not purely political)?

Area: Regulatory Institutions

• What are the institutional mechanisms for aquaculture regulations, and how do they affect the development of Canada’s aquaculture industry?
• Analyze institutional decision-making mechanisms (inertia, memory, locus of power)
• Analyze composition of decision-maker group and how it makes decisions

Area: Regulatory Institutions

• What are the economic benefits/costs of Canadian aquaculture?
• Costs of moratoria and delays, NGO and First Nations interactions
• Effects on communications?
• Resource use trade-offs?
• What will create the business climate that will attract and keep companies investing in Canadian aquaculture?

Realized deliverable for Objective 2.

Communication:

How can AquaNet position itself to be a trusted information source?

• Become an efficient, up-to-date information clearing-house
• Disseminate science at national meetings that include aquaculture specialists and the broader scientific community
• Enforce a communication budget directed at communication to non-scientific audience, with detailed plans included in the proposal (explore the Guelph model)
• Commission synthesis reports aimed at the educated public
• Offer ‘synthesis time stipend’ to release faculty (not graduate students) to provide targeted syntheses of important issues

Highly qualified personnel:

• Enhance communication regarding aquaculture by promoting involvement by students in communications, journalism, creative writing
• Promote cross-disciplinary training programs for graduate students
• Conduct policy forums which target key decision-makers

Research team composition:

• In considering team construction, look for successful models in research in First Nations, rural communities and industry.

Appendix 1 Paritipants

1. Brown, Joe (Memorial University)
   
2. Castle, David (Univ. of Guelph)
   
3. Culver, Keith (UNB)
   
4. Ginetz, Ron (BC Salmon farmers)
   
5. Graham, Bud (ADM, BCMAFF)
   
6. Grydeland, Odd (Industry BC)
   
7. Hammell, Larry (Univ. of PEI)
   
8. Harry, Richard (Triumph Strategic Advice)
   
9. Hicks, Brad (Taplow Feeds)
   
10. Kilmury, Ron (BCSFA)
    
11. Knapp, Gunnar (Univ. of Alaska)
    
12. Laberge, Larry (UBC)
    
13. Little, Monty (Syndel Int’l)
    
14. MacKinlay, Don (DFO)
    
15. McKinley, Scott (Aquanet)
    
16. Moccia, Rich (Univ. of Guelph)
    
17. Morgan, Andrew (BCMAFF)
    
18. Paisely, Richard (UBC Law School)
    
19. Parker, Pam (BC Shellfish Growers)
    
20. Reyner, Jeremy (Malaspina Univ. College)
    
21. Reid, Keith (Odyssey Shellfish)
    
22. Rideout, Dave (CAIA)
    
23. Sams, Linda
    
24. Smith, Jamey (NB Salmon Growers Assoc.)
    
25. Thomson, Andrew (DFO)
    
26. Walling, Mary Ellen (BC Salmon Farmers Assoc.)
    
27. Walters, Brad (Mount Allison Univ.)
    
28. Webb, Allision (DFO)