IAIA 2017 Resilience Assessment Training Course Proposal Section 1 Basic information Course title: Resilience Assessment in SEA: Addressing Complexity and Unpredictability (with reference to climate change) Level: Foundation. Prerequisites for participants: Basic knowledge of SEA required. Language of delivery: English Duration (1 or 2 days): Two days Maximum number of participants: Thirty-five of whom four can be free. Laptop: Not required Name and contact details of each trainer: including whether each is an IAIA member and has signed IAIA s Code of Conduct: Roel Slootweg SevS human and natural environment consultants Terweeweg 20 2341 CR Oegstgeest The Netherlands Email: sevs@sevs.nl Mobile: +31 611 38 49 81 Member; signed code of conduct Mike Jones Swedish Biodiversity Centre Box 7007 SE-750 07 UPPSALA Sweden Email: mikejones.psa@gmail.com Mobile: +46 (0)73-507 17 39 Member; signed code of conduct Section 2 Course description Summary of the course: Strategic Environmental Assessment is commonly regarded as a tool to predict the consequences of planned development. The underlying assumption of predictability is valid for engineering projects in the built environment, but not for projects that modify the natural environment. For example, the construction of dams and levees to generate hydropower and control river flow are affected by the interactions between people and nature in the river catchment. Such interactions can have unpredictable chain-reaction impacts on plants, soils and river flow that may compromise the design of engineered structures, leading to the surprising collapse of systems that were believed to be stable. With the increasing visibility of climate change impacts, uncertainty and unpredictability becomes an increasingly relevant aspect of planning. Resilience assessment takes into account the changes arising from complex interactions between people and nature resulting in development interventions based on a model of change that recognizes the risk of undermining environmental stability. Integration of resilience assessment with SEA has the potential for improved decision making and reducing the
risk of undesirable consequences of climate change and to improve long-term environmental stability and sustainability. The resilience assessment course provides foundational level training for SEA practitioners who want to learn about resilience assessment and how it can be integrated into SEA. The course is built on workshops held at the IAIA Geneva conference in 2010, at the IAIA SEA conference in Prague in 2011 and at the IAIA 16 conference in Nagoya. These events led to the publication of a paper that explored the potential of resilience thinking and assessment to improve SEA practice by addressing the unpredictability that arises from complexity. Knowledge gained from these learning initiatives within the IAIA SEA community are supplemented with experienced gained from resilience training workshops held in other contexts to develop a training course for the IAIA SEA community. Anticipated learning outcomes are: 1. The difference between complex and ordered systems and implications for planning, assessment and management. 2. Resilience concepts and metaphors for environmental change, including but not limited to climate-related changes, in the context of long-term sustainability. 3. Use of resilience thinking heuristics for resilience assessment. 4. How to integrate resilience assessment in the SEA process. The target audience: This course will be suitable for consultants, government agency members and academics who are interested in bringing complexity science and resilience thinking into environmental management processes. Detailed description of course structure and content Day 1: From Theory to Practice Welcome and introduction - Self-introductions: who we are, where we come from, professional experience and interest in resilience. SEA Common Understanding of SEA: Tiering; 10 steps of SEA; Carrot and stick motivation for SEA; Proactive and reactive use of SEA; Q&A. SEA Case: Room for Rivers in the Netherlands: From simple, single sector problem to complex problem and stakeholder defined solution Discussion: How to recognize a complex problem and identify a trigger for resilience assessment. Complexity Snowden s model of system types and management defined by knowledge and order: Presentation of the basic framework; Elaborate the framework in Q&A discussion referring to points identified in the Room for Rivers case; Participant s reflections from SEA perspective Excercise Groups of 5 identify one example from their experience that fits each of the four kinds of system; Groups present and discuss. Group reflections on system types from SEA perspective The Importance of Stakeholders: SEA Case: Irrigation Development in the Nile Delta Q&A discussion: fitting the case to the system frame o How does understanding of a problem change with stakeholder involvement? How does this affect decision-making? o What circumstances change the perception of a problem?
o What happens to our understanding of a system when we think about larger geographical areas and longer time frames? Resiliency theory SEA Case: The Aral Sea Case as a Social-ecological System Resilience theory: adaptive cycle, panarchy and basins of attraction using the Aral Sea case to illustrate key theoretical points. Practical exercise Break out groups identify and describe slow variables, tipping points and drivers in systems with which they are familiar. Plenary presentation and discussion Reflections from SEA perspective Resilience in SEA Strategies for building resilience in SEA practice General discussion to summarize resilience theory in relation to SEA practice based on Seven Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services Participants identify the principles they have found from cases and theory during the day. Day 2: Resilience assessment framework Apply a resilience assessment framework to a selection of cases with additional questions that link the resilience frame to SEA procedures (Mike to draft and Roel to write extra questions) Section by section process using prepared cases; plenary feedback after each section has been discussed in groups. One page outline of each of four cases with one case per group of five participants. Course presenters act as stakeholder informants to trainees. System description Historical time line of change Interactions across scales System dynamics: Resilience of what system to what kind of disturbance and for whom? Where is the system on the adaptive cycle? What thresholds do we want to avoid, what are the drivers pushing the system towards those thresholds? Governance of the existing system Participation in decision making Overlapping jurisdictions Matching ecological and institutional/organizational scales Leadership and conflict negotiation. Scenarios and decision-making Alternatives in SEA, participants develop two alternatives and negotiate one. In the event of disagreement, comment on the different perspectives. Closing the adaptive cycle Monitoring and social learning (cases from literature that illustrate benefits) 30 min Ask participants what uncertainties exist in their chosen scenario, what monitoring and experimentation is required? Wrap up
Does resilience assessment fit the SEA frame and can it meet SEA performance criteria? What worked well in the training, what can be improved? What might be included in an advanced course? Presentation of certificates 30 min Group photograph Course Outcomes 1. Familiarity with the difference between complex and ordered systems and the implications for planning and environment assessment and management 2. Understanding of resilience concepts and metaphors for environmental change and what this means in terms of our perception of long-term sustainability 3. Familiarity with the application of resilience concepts in a resilience assessment process. 4. Understanding of how resilience assessment can be used effectively in SEA for planning processes, notably to be better able to address climate change related issues. Description of the materials participants will receive prior to or during the course: 1. Guideline to Learning by Doing Resilience Assessment 2. Resilience Concepts in Plain Language 3. Presentations delivered during the course 4. Selection of relevant literature Equipment Required: Room with flexible seating so that the workshop can alternate between Knowledge Café style break-out groups and plenary presentations and feedback sessions. Provisions for pre-conference and post-conference communication with participants: Both trainers will be attending the full conference. The trainers have proposed a workshop session entitled Managing Ecosystem Services to Enhance Climate Change Resilience that complements the training session and provides an opportunity for trainees to build on what they learned in the training, or even present their own cases. Section 3 Qualifications of the trainer(s) Roel Slootweg Roel is an ecologist with Ph.D. in Environmental Science. His work focuses on the integration of nature conservation, natural resources management and social-economic development in industrialised as well as developing countries. His experience in impact assessment includes: Capacity development: three-year capacity building with EPA Ghana; for the World Bank he has initiated the CLEEA network for the environmental assessment community in Africa; for Twente University he developed course modules on biodiversity in IA; capacity development needs assessments in Ghana and Cameroon. Several high level seminars on biodiversity in IA (Central American IA Directors, donor meeting at CBD Secretariat; European NBSAP representatives; Espoo Convention Geneva) and many times invited speaker.
Scoping, review, and assessment studies in The Netherlands, Albania, Montenegro, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Niger, Kenya, India, Rwanda, Uzbekistan). Development of conceptual and procedural approaches towards the integration of social aspects in IA and to the better representation of biological diversity in IA. This has resulted in the Guidelines for Biodiversity in Impact Assessment, adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2006. Various publications, most notably a recent book with Cambridge University Press (2010) on biodiversity in environmental assessment (lead author), two chapters in the International handbook on Social Impact Assessment (2003), and two IAPA papers (2001 & 2012) granted with IAIA Best Paper award. IAIA: member since 1997; co-initiator of the highly successful Biodiversity in Impact Assessment action programme, through the Biodiversity Section; member of the 2002 Conference programme committee (The Hague); co-author of IAIA s Biodiversity Principles (No. 3) and contributor to the SIA Principles (No. 2); keynote speaker at the first theme forum on Biodiversity (Vancouver); Together with co-trainer Mike Jones, initiator of the resilience and SEA initiative at the Geneva conference (2010), resulting in an award winning paper in IAPA with contributions from a number of longtime IAIA members. Roel has worked at Leiden University as associate professor (Biology Department and Centre for Environmental Science) between 1984 and 1993. Since 1993 he worked as a consultant, and started his own company in 2001. He tries to keep a close link between consultancy work and science, as shown by his continued presentations, lecturing and publications. Slootweg has working experience in some 30 countries in Europe, Africa, South America and in Central, South and Southeast Asia. Roel has received the 2011 IAIA lifetime achievement award (formerly the Rose-Hulman award) Mike Jones Mike is an ecologist whose work is currently focused on developing capacity for the application of resilience science to environmental management. His experience and skills lie in community conservation and co-management, protected area management, including planning, ecological research and environmental impact assessment. Experience relevant to the integration of resilience thinking in relation to planning and impact assessment includes: Consultant on short to medium term development assistance projects for various clients including GIZ, IFC, IUCN and NORAD: as team leader for EIA of development projects; training and support services for protected area management planning in Swaziland, Tanzania, Malawi and Zimbabwe and feasibility studies of tourism development projects 1991-1999. Community conservation consultant for three different US non-profit organizations developing an international network of landholders, scholars and conservation practitioners involved in collaborative conservation and co-management projects providing technical support and training services. Support included facilitation services, management planning, GIS and remote sensing, organisational development, policy development and design of monitoring systems for adaptive comanagement at a landscape scale. The work was grounded in participatory processes and aimed at developing local self-sufficiency. 2000-2011 Mike has been developing networks of resilience practice based on complex systems theory since 2009; delivering seminars and training courses on the application of resilience assessment to ecosystem based adaptation; disaster risk reduction;
adaptive co-management regimes, connectivity conservation, development strategy, and food systems. Together with co-trainer Roel Slootweg, initiator of the resilience and SEA initiative at the Geneva conference (2010), resulting in an award winning paper in IAPA with contributions from a number of longtime IAIA members. Together with Riki Thirivel, initiator of the resilience and sustainability assessment session in the Beyond Current SEA Practice Theme of the Prague IAIA SEA 2011 conference, resulting in a book chapter Beyond Current SEA Practice with Riki Thirivel and Bryan Jenkins. Mike currently holds part time positions with the Swedish Biodiversity Centre (integration of knowledge across academic disciplines and professions, transdisciplinary research and teaching); and the Wallowa Mountain Institute, Oregon, USA (adaptive co-management of US federal forests and community resilience workshops for undergraduate students). Mike is also the founding chair of the Resilience Thematic Group in IUCN s Commission on Ecosystem Management that was created in 2012. History of the course: This is a new course that builds on seminars and workshops delivered since 2009 of which the following are a sample: Vilm, Germany, 13-17 June 2009 Road to Resilience Thinking seminar as part of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans capacity building workshop. Schumacher College 22 24 February 2010 Applying Insights from Resilience Science to Workplace/Community/Social Settings (participants evaluation attached). Gaia Foundation, London 11 November 2010, Introduction to Resilience Thinking (participants evaluation attached). IAIA 10 Geneva 6 11 April 2010 Resilience Thinking Improves SEA leading to a published paper; and Resilience Thinking and Coping with Deep Uncertainty that lead to two one day workshops with the Oxford Resilience Thinking and SEA Group. IAIA SEA 2011 conference Resilience and sustainability assessment session in the Beyond Current SEA Practice, resulting in a book chapter Beyond Current SEA Practice with Riki Thirivel and Bryan Jenkins. IAIA Nagoya 11-14 May 2016: Making Resilience Thinking relevant for Impact Assessment: three short introductions followed by an open discussion with the audience. A course for international Masters Students in Sustainable Develop at Uppsala University that uses concepts form complexity and resilience science to integrate social, economic and ecological issues in sustainable development delivered in Nov/Dec 2015 and to be delivered in Nov/Dec 2016. Section 4 Commitment of the trainer(s) Roel Slootweg has participated in three IAIA pre-conference trainings titled: Increasing tangibility in SEA through Valuation of Ecosystem Services (with Maria Partidario). No courses have ever been cancelled. Courses where held in 2010 (Geneva), 2011 (Puebla) and 2012 (Porto). In 2011, due to private matters, I was not able to attend the training. We solved the problem by making video lectures on my part of the course. Participation to the conference may depend on the number of participants, since the cost of travel and lodging has not been covered yet. This may change, depending on
project funding that hasn t been secured yet. More certainty on this isn t expected before January 2017. This is the second time that Mike Jones s has offered an IAIA pre-training. Mike is highly committed to this course, as application of resilience thinking is extremely relevant to the design of responses to climate change. The course builds on previous experience with the introduction of resilience concepts to SEA, growing interest in the application of resilience thinking to SEA, and creates a good opportunity to advance the application of a new paradigm and tool for impact assessment. The resilience thinking is also consistent with and adds to ideas about the application of complexity science to impact assessment that were introduced during IAIA 16. The minimum number of ten participants will determine delivery of the course. We are agreed that free places will be offered in the ratio of one free for every ten who sign up for the course, for a total of four free places in a fully subscribed course of 35 participants.
1. What worked well? Schumacher Resilience Workshop 22-24 Feb 2010 Participants Evaluation Active learning, small group discussion, own case studies Exercises to apply learning Exploring Panarchies Application to real life case studies Thorough ground approach Building a comprehensive understanding of systems and resilience that I can see how to apply Working from examples from our own situations Simple logical progression from principles to practice Good facilitation - come to Schumacher as facilitators Interesting material, flexibility 2. What might be changed? More components of the Wilber diagram Make learning more physically active and varied Using the same case study across several exercises Make case studies more relevant to participants lives More examples to work with Less words in some presentations More or greater use of diverse learning techniques More time, more generative dialogue More stories, less diagrams Lack of work in open will and open heart Balance of intelligences or processes used to engage with topic Arguing from theory to practice of led to too much being in head space The problem is often that people take one quadrant and say thatʼs the whole story (individual - collective: inner - outer) Potential of thresholds and leverage points... immense possibility 3. Was there an AhHa moment? The role of development agencies in capitalist systems Seeing the adaptive cycle in 3D Getting off the cycle and plotting inside the 3D cube Cycle is time Feelings of overwhelm when working with complexity
Potential of using facebook and a marriage as ways to explore resilience qualities of response diversity What scale means Small and fast vs large and slow variables 4. Did the Course Meet Your Expectations? Please explain your answer. Mostly. I expected more discussion about issue of how this would best work as a course for Schumacher college. I met my expectations of learning about concepts, models and tools of resilience thinking and how to use them. Yes - detailed explanation; good stock of concepts; good participation; and good??? No - loose use of concepts and levels; not taking the systems thinking into the way things change. Provided potential tools for working with systems in different socio-ecological situations and described their limitations; yes - although less sure what resilience means. I had very little idea about it except a basic appreciation of the concept of resilience; I would say yes and no, I would have liked much more narrative input but we did get an appreciation of what resilience means. Yes thanks - although hadnʼt quite expected the intensity! Different, more academic yet giving good overview of resilience. Yes, I wanted to understand resilience science and it application. Yes and no; have a better understanding of RT but more uncertain about its applicability. Yes. It filled in some gaps in knowledge around resilience thinking; it gave me some tools to work with; theoretical knowledge. The course met all of my initial expectations; understanding of key concepts; an ability to recognise thresholds/ feedback loops; methods for explaining key concepts to others; an awareness of how to use this professionally and personally - though I will need to practice this. As a general comment, I think this course has opened my eyes to the potential of resilience thinking in both professional, community and personal systems. Thank you both! 5. What Were the Strengths of the Course? Range of content covered was clear; content was good; good to build up and layer concept; good to apply each new concept after learning it. Concepts of resilience; systems thinking; panarchy.
Did adapt to requests from participants. Good time keeping; good facilitation skills; responsive presenters. Teaching was great; small group; clarity. Thorough, examples. Clear presentation, flexibility, ability to synthesize who and what the participants brought; very respectful facilitators. Lots of creative discussion and participation. Intellectual rigour; clarity; good journey through resilience system thinking; allowed some really interesting discussion to emerge. The openness of the leaders to change the methods and accept feedback; the use of different methods of learning; - though I would expand on this. e.g., more exercises like those provided by Chris and Tony; the openness to contributions from participants (e.g., Nick); the logical progressions from different techniques to practice. 6. What Were the Weaknesses of the Course? Methods of teaching/ learning could be more active and creative; more relevant examples; more time required for working on own - perhaps starting own example earlier; in delivering content, provide contrast of this is how we normally do it and see consequences and then get people to do/ see / feel the difference of different ways of doing it. Loose use of concepts; resilience needs not just an open mind, but an open will and heart. More work on the different levels of the Wilber diagram. Too much work on case studies - not enough input. Too rushed at times without adequate opportunity to process the learning; I would have appreciated a greater variety of examples - particularly in our tasks - I think it would have broadened and deepened the learning. Arguing from theory too much led to too much ʻhead spaceʼ; too much of an external rather than participation. Not enough time.
No comment. You had to go some way down the process to get to useful place where you can start applying these techniques. This course would benefit from being offered to teams of people with a knowledge of particular systems (rather than individuals from different organisations). While I believe in the value of of different view points this is clearly a subject in which this might be desirable. 7. What Could be Done to Improve the Course? Include in teaching other dimensions from Wilbers Quadrants; include session on how do we communicate with other people about all this; include stuff from integral model and spiral dynamics and how people interpret and work with different levels of complexity; include stuff about the required/ different speed of working. Rigorous definition; deal in detail with the???; build simulations. Course should be 5 days; explore different ways of knowing/ learning. For me, much more narrative, illustrative input to back up the theoretical concepts. The diagrams should be relied on less than demonstration and explanation. More reflection time; more changes of energy - different learning styles (drama and meditation); more examples. Relate to internal ethical values More general discussion; simple examples to explain the theory. Perhaps more structure in the later sessions in terms of what to discuss. Could give some options and people select their group accordingly. Felt we may have spent too much precious time thinking how to frame the discussion. Focus on outcomes the participants want; streamline the systems approach. Greater variation in the case studies used - perhaps 4 total; more stories with images to illustrate the key issues; the interaction between personal and professional, e.g., Nickʼs method; greater use of experiential learning.
Evaluation Scores Gaia Resilience Seminar: Participants Evaluation Results 15 Nov 2010 % Mark Introductory material 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 86.00 Simple or Complex 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 84.00 Resilience Concepts 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 78.00 Building Resilience 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 81.82 Managing Thresholds 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2 5 4 3 70.91 Seminar Objectives 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 80.00 Personal Objectives 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 78.18 Overall 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 86.67 Comments Didnʼt have time to read the introductory material [Walker & Salt Ch 6 & ] in any detail but it looks very interesting and I shall look forward to reading as a follow up. Found the?? of reference material very useful and I intend to follow up by reading some of the background material (e.g., Snowden) Found some of the aspects very intellectually engaging (epistemology). However, also aware that the level of thought required is quite high (if thatʼs the right term) - felt like a post graduate seminar group at times (not a bad thing!) As another participant mentioned, some of the terms used in the presentation materials were a bit value laden (e.g., sophisticated-complex vs. unsophisticated-simple) and might form unnecessary blocks to learning with other types of groups. Overall really enjoyed the day. Schieved my main objective of interacting with my new colleagues (and others) in a different environment/setting. More definitions for some key words e.g., conservation - as this can be read/ understood in a variety of ways therefor layers or additional terms might be useful. It would be useful to have more practical/tangible examples of some of the cycles in action. Generally time to give and share examples.
A bit more on how we might apply thinking (obviously due to time constraints this wasnʼt possible). Many thanks! Thank you for a stimulating discussion I would have lied to have learned more real-world examples of the resilience concepts you so eloquently described. In particular if resilience is posited as a theory with wide application, it would be good to have political, ecological and revolutionary examples, so as to reinforce the learning of the different parts of the cycle. One again a thousand thanks. Best wishes to you. Excellent to be able to discuss the concept and feed off each other. I think it is imporant to keep on track though. Definitely broadened by knowledge of resilience, but for me some of it seemed slightly beyond me. Many thanks. Extremely rich and informative but also very high level/ intense/ lots to take in. I will need to go away to digest before I can say Iʼve fully met all my objectives for understanding resilience, but I have certainly learned a lot towards that path... I just had no idea it was quite so complex! Keen to know more and find out how Gaia can use it practically and in communications to really describe our work and holistic approach. Thank you!!! I found the coverage of multiple aspects of resilience to be extremely useful, but with so many new concepts some of the definitions appeared blurred - I am not sure if resilience and transformation were not inconsistent or over lapping? Either way a thoroughly useful introduction - some examples from within a community development context would have made it even better. Thanks! Much information to absorb, very important for organisational and practical planning. Could have done with more concrete examples/ application of each concept discussed. Also could have done with a session to think how concepts apply to our work on the ground and how we move forward.
Also could have had longer in depth session on the 9 points - I think is is more practical than looping diagrams etc., and was too rushed. Also could slides have more pictures of biodiversity and people? Grounds in reality not just abstract academic concepts. But overall, a very exiting discussion, and I look forward to exploring these ideas more. Very interesting - good discussion - helpful for thinking - more examples. More application to climate change (examples discussion) (if we had more time). More practical examples (or activities) Relationship to conflicy theory? And organisational development? Life cycle of an organisation. Persons to systems. Thank you. A very insightful overview of resilience thinking and principles with good discussion of living examples. The workshop has planted seeds of interest and reflection to explore how it relates with other emerging philosophies and practice of Earth Jurisprudence/ Wild Law. Mire time needed to digest the heavy concepts through a two day workshop. Would be keen to unpack some of the concepts and values and explore in context of law and transform law. Also would like to learn more of how resilience works in Nature/ ecosystems - to learn from from Nature as well as people/ communities. Another session on how to strengthen Gaia Foundationʼs internal resilience and also personal resilience and leadership in a changing world. All the material was very helpful - but I now need time to absorb and think it all through! Hence the personal objective scored lower because I still need more work to be able to express it succinctly and also to really understand how it could be integrated into Gaiaʼs work with partners. Perhaps the day could have been simplified a bit - I am afraid I had brain overload by No 6 managing thresholds. I would have loved to spend more time on the models. Would love another session focussing on Gaia partner/work to see how resilience thinking could be applied in practice. Thank you! Really do need more time. Too short to digest. Would be helpful to have more real life. Fascinating concept. Need more examples to consider practical application to our work. Stress vital to engage in preliminary reading and for?? on internet to pursue more.
Very worth while. Thanks so much Mike. Suggestions for Follow Through Gaia Evening Session on climate change with climate change experts Session with Gaia on Gaia strategy Conflict resolution Organisational Development Fit with eco-mapping Earth jurisprudence, environmental law and resilience Food sovereignty