Toward cumulative effects assessment and management in the Athabasca watershed, Alberta, Canada

Abstract

This article examines watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) in the Athabasca watershed, Alberta, Canada. Using a focus group and semi‐structured interviews with 30 key informants from government, industry, NGOs, and First Nations, watershed CEAM was examined based on eight requisites to support CEAM: the presence of a lead agency; enabling legislation; financial and human resources; data management and coordination; multi‐scaled monitoring; CEAM baselines, indicators, and thresholds; multi‐stakeholder collaboration; and vertical and horizontal linkages. Results show that while there was broad agreement amongst participants concerning the necessity for these requisites, there was also considerable uncertainty respecting these requisite performances in this watershed. Several contributing factors may help explain this uncertainty. Participants noted a lack of willingness to share data to support CEAM, especially spatial data, as well as a lack of confidence in the integrity of water monitoring data. An absence of coordination and leadership for watershed CEAM has contributed to financial, human, and technical capacity limitations as well as power asymmetries respecting multi‐stakeholder engagement. Our results suggest that notwithstanding investment in cumulative effects science and monitoring in the Athabasca, advancing watershed CEAM requires much greater attention to the institutional requisites to implement and sustain CEAM programs.

Climate Change, Drought and Human Health in Canada

“…Water management and climate change adaptation plans are being developed by various watershed, municipal and regional authorities across Canada [ 278 , 279 ]. However, climate, human and other factors affecting water sources and reserves are extensive and rarely conform to the jurisdictional boundaries at which watershed management is required [ 280 , 281 ].…”

Climate change and resource development impacts in watersheds: Insights from the Nechako River Basin, Canada

“…Although individuals, industries, and governments may tend to view developments and projects—and even climate change—as separate events or issues, it is imperative that we acknowledge and consider how developments and other sources of change will combine and cumulatively influence each other over time. This research therefore adds to increased attention to cumulative effects and their resultant impacts (Noble et al ), with the additional imperative to ensure these approaches more fully consider climate change.…”

“…Resource development and related impacts are equally complex subjects and challenges (Davidson et al 2014). Thinking about the cumulative effects of multiple activities and impacts is challenging for stakeholders, decision makers, and researchers alike (Parkes, Morrison, et al 2010;Noble et al 2013). Therefore, it is extremely challenging to assess how these two sets of impacts interact.…”

“…An important feature of research that explores these overlays will therefore be selecting appropriate scales—such as watersheds—that encourage understanding of the combined social, ecological, and hydrological impacts of converging drivers of change (Falkenmark and Folke ; Parkes, Morrison, et al ; Bunch et al ). Concurrent with the need to understand the interplay of climate change and resource development impacts in specific contexts has been growing attention to the need to move from isolated assessments of resource developments towards a better understanding of “cumulative effects” of multiple forms of development on a landscape and the incremental changes that result (Hegmann et al ; Duinker and Greig ; Noble et al ). Despite the increased attention to assessment of cumulative effects and the topic's inclusivity, these assessments do not typically explicitly include climate change impacts.…”

Designing and evaluating analytic-deliberative engagement processes for natural resources management

“…Research providing insights into the design of effective analytic-deliberative engagement processes originate from many strands of the natural resources management literature, including strategic and cumulative environmental assessment (Noble et al, 2014), strategic land use planning (Gunton, 2017), risk decision-making (Webler and Tuler, 2018;Webler et al, 2014) and social acceptance of renewable energy (Cleland et al, 2016;Devine Wright, 2010;Fast et al, 2016). Nevertheless, the question of what constitutes successful participatory engagement, let alone successful participatory analytic-deliberative processes, remains contested in the literature: "despite hundreds of books and articles on the subject and countless ventures into the participatory arena, we still know precious little about what kinds of participatory programs are likely to be successful in any given situation, or even what success really means and how it might be measured" (Kasperson, 2006).…”