Dr. James Barker: Pivoting and Moving Forward in the Post-COVID-19 New Normal

October 19, 2020 rbudd Leave a Comment

“Here at Dal and here in the Rowe School of Business, we are embracing creativity and adjusting to what will be a new normal for management. We are pivoting, not just our academic courses to a post-COVID-19 new normal. We are also pivoting our research, our ways of working together, and our ways of thinking about work and organizations.”

Dr. James Barker

Dr. James Barker
Founding Fellow, MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance

In February of 2020, our world changed. And we have all experienced that change together in the COVID-19 pandemic. A change that has affected everything that we do. How we conduct ourselves with each other, how we work, how we learn. Everything has been shaped, everything has been moved, everything is different. Words that maybe only a few of us had heard before like, Zoom, Teams, enhanced collaboration – even TikTok – are now part of our work vocabulary and work lives. We have brought so many new elements into our workplace in the last five months as we all have struggled to adapt to a situation none of us has ever experienced.

We like to use the words, “the new normal” to talk about how life is going to be different and will remain different after the pandemic. What is important for us, as we think about organizations, as we think about our businesses, is to start to understand what that new normal is, what it means for us, and how we move with it, especially how we engage in that new normal positively and effectively.

We learned quickly within the pandemic that we faced a constant push of new knowledge out to us all, from knowledge about social distancing, face masks, and about how to work together on-line: How to be more present in virtual meetings. How to dress for a virtual negotiation. How to lean into the camera when you want to make a point during on-line collaboration. Steadily and surely, we are beginning to learn how to make our new normal more productive for us.

With that thought in mind, I want you to know that here at Dal and here in the Rowe School of Business, we are embracing creativity and adjusting to what will be a new normal for management. We are pivoting, not just our academic courses to a post-COVID-19 new normal. We are also pivoting our research, our ways of working together, and our ways of thinking about work and organizations.

Just to speak for myself, much of what I have done in the last five months has been changing the pharmacy safety research that I do to account for the new normal of community pharmacy in Canada: identifying and assessing how our pharmacists can effectively and safely navigate the changes wrought by COVID-19. Here in the Rowe School and the Faculty of Management, we are actively learning how to manage in this new normal and continually working to feed that knowledge back to you. You will see this new knowledge, not just in the classes that you are taking, you will see it in our research reports and presentations, workshops and blog posts, everything from now on is going to be shaped by Covid19 and focused on what we can learn from our experience with the pandemic.

We are also rapidly identifying, assessing, and making available to you other emerging knowledge that you can use to navigate your own new normal of work. And we are collaborating with our peers around the world to ensure that we can move useful knowledge out to you quickly. Dal MBA students who have recently taken our Management Skills course will know the work of Phil Clampitt from the University of Wisconsin. Phil sent me a copy of his latest thinking about how to manage in the Post-COVID-19 organization for me to include for you in this post: Phil Clampitt Seven Lessons Learned from COVID-19.

Experiencing and engaging within the last five months has been a struggle for all of us. We are all struggling together. The pandemic has shown how closely interconnected, interrelated and interdependent we all are. How much our ability to cope with this pandemic depends upon how we deal effectively with that interrelatedness, interdependedness, and interconnectedness so that we can move forward, so that we can shift and address the potentialities of our movement, so that we move in a positive direction. As you go forward in your own navigating of the new normal, remember that here at Dal and at the Rowe School and Faculty of Management, we are working hard with you and to support you in that forward movement.

Editor’s Note: First published August 11, 2020

Dr. James Barker: Pivoting and Moving Forward in the Post-COVID-19 New Normal

August 11, 2020 rbudd Leave a Comment

Dr. James Barker

Dr. James Barker
Founding Fellow, MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance

We learned quickly with the pandemic that we faced a constant push of new knowledge out to us all, from knowledge about social distancing, face masks, and about how to work together on-line: How to be more present in virtual meetings. How to dress for a virtual negotiation. How to lean into the camera when you want to make a point during on-line collaboration. Steadily and surely, we are beginning to learn how to make our new normal more productive for us.

World Ocean Day: Jenny Weitzman: Confusion at the fish counter: How to eat fish responsibly

June 8, 2020 rbudd Leave a Comment

Confusion at the fish counter: How to eat fish responsibly

There are plenty of fish to choose from, but many aspects to consider.
(Shutterstock)

Jenny Weitzman, Dalhousie University

It now seems absurd that anyone once believed the ocean was inexhaustable: fish stocks are in dismal shape and scientists say overfishing is a global problem with potentially irreversible consequences to ecosystems and human livelihoods.

Sustainability has become a key driver of seafood consumer choices, according to a 2018 survey by Globescan on behalf of the Marine Stewardship Council.

But no longer is a visit to the local fish-and-chips restaurant a simple choice between cod and halibut. Consumers must also weigh geography, catch method and species in their food order. When did eating fish and chips get so complicated?

As a researcher who studies sustainable seafood, I also ask: “Which fish should I be eating?”

Why eat fish?

Taste aside, there are numerous health benefits to eating seafood, both for your brain and body.

Still, many Canadians remain confused or frustrated by varying health claims or unclear messages. They’re concerned about mercury, microplastics and genetically modified foods. (A Health Canada assessment concluded that the AquAdvantage GMO salmon is safe for consumption.)

It’s not surprising that many consumers are confused. The seafood industry is diverse and very different than any other meat industry in Canada.

For the most part, Canadians only eat one species of chicken, cow and pig. But an average grocery store sells a myriad of different species of fish and shellfish. Seafood is also a truly global commodity.

While most chicken and beef in North American supermarkets comes from Canada and the United States, fish species are imported from around the world — and come from very different growing conditions.

Choosing the right fish

Each consumer is different, so there isn’t one fish that rules them all. Consumers base their decisions on a variety of qualities — health, sustainability, price and origin.

1. Health claims

Like apples or broccoli, many consumers eat fish because it’s healthy. Fatty fish like salmon and mackerel are very high in important nutrients and omega-3s.

Yet many health benefits are often highly debated, and claims can be confusing. That healthy choice is sometimes obscured by concerns over contaminants like mercury or the use of antibiotics in aquaculture.

Some consumers, especially pregnant women or young children, may want to avoid larger, long-lived predatory fish like swordfish and tuna that can accumulate high levels of mercury.

In many countries like Canada and Norway, antibiotic use in aquaculture has decreased substantially in recent years, yet it remains widespread elsewhere.

Some consumers seek organic options because they are grown without chemicals. In Canada, there are some certified organic options for farmed seafood, including organic mussels.

Mussels are high in protein, low in fat and often inexpensive.
(Shutterstock)

2. Sustainability

With increasing overfishing and declining ocean health, many consumers seek sustainable seafood options.

Shellfish like mussels and oysters are considered to have the lowest environmental impact since they have low energy requirements and do not need to be fed. In some cases, they can even clean the water where they are raised, potentially helping protect or improve degraded waters.

Eating farmed fish helps reduce reliance on already vulnerable wild fish stocks. It also has a lower carbon footprint than terrestrial livestock farming. Yet debates about seafood sustainability, especially aquaculture, continue.

An aerial view of the Atlantic salmon aquaculture pens in New Brunswick.
(Shutterstock)

Eco-certification labels, like the Marine Stewardship Council and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, help consumers identify seafood caught or grown in environmentally friendly ways. Depending on where you live, popular fish, including some types of tuna, salmon and halibut, have earned a spot on the “avoid” list of the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch.

3. Supporting local

In recent years, some Canadians have focused on eating local to reduce their environmental footprint and support nearby producers. For many, this means avoiding most shrimp and opting for fish like Canadian Atlantic salmon and lobster if you live near the coast or freshwater fish if you’re inland.

Consumers also need to know that many homegrown favourites are also imported, like Atlantic salmon from Norway or Chile, or tilapia from China or Indonesia.

4. Seeking affordability

While there are many great domestic seafood options, seafood in Canada is surprisingly expensive. Beyond taste, smell and appearance, price is an enduring priority for many Canadians.

Canned fish like tuna is a popular lower-priced option. Fillets of haddock, tilapia and farmed salmon are also affordable. Consumers seeking organic claims and eco-certification labels will pay a premium.

No easy feat

When it comes to fish, food labels have been unhelpful to consumers. Producers are only required to show the common name of the fish (potentially lumping many different species into a common name like tuna, shrimp or rockfish) and the origin of the packaged or fresh fish product.

To complicate matters, the so-called origin of a fish is defined as the place where it was last “transformed” into a fillet or boxed. For example, a fish caught in Canadian waters but sent to China for packaging could say “Product of China.” The origin thus doesn’t necessarily indicate where the fish was caught or farmed.

Recent investigations into fish species and origins by the conservation group Oceana have found that seafood products in Canadian grocery stores and restaurants are often mislabelled. For example, of the 472 seafood samples tested between 2017 and 2019, 47 per cent were labelled as something else. Red snapper was often substituted with tilapia and wild fish were replaced with farmed fish.

As Canadian consumers, we have a responsibility to demand more information about where and how fish reaches our tables and encouraging labelling requirements and responsible practices.

[ You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter. ]

Jenny Weitzman, Interdisciplinary PhD Candidate, Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Federal budget pledges a Canadian school food program but recipe requires funding

June 13, 2019 rbudd Leave a Comment

Federal budget pledges a Canadian school food program but recipe requires funding

File 20190313 123541 1c8afai.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Canada is ranked 37th of the 41 most wealthy nations in regards to child well-being and access to healthy food, according to UNICEF.
(Shutterstock)

Amberley T. Ruetz, University of Guelph and Sara FL Kirk, Dalhousie University

Hectic mornings of rushing around packing school lunches for kids could actually become a thing of the past for Canadian parents.

In the recent federal budget, Canada has finally declared its intention to work towards a national school food program with the provinces and territories.

The pledge is embedded in the new national food policy, although the government has not yet committed any funds for the program.

As researchers focused on student nutrition, wellness and national and provincial food policy, we see a national school food program is a no-brainer.

Food at school can improve children’s health and academic outcomes while creating economic opportunities for local, sustainable agriculture. To ensure this, however, the federal government needs to establish food procurement criteria and regulations to protect against corporate food and beverage from gaining entry into schools.

In many countries, parents’ main focus in the morning is getting their kids out of the door on time because schools handle lunch as part of a larger health, education and economic strategy.

In France, school lunches are part of the school day, not a break from it. Children are served a four-course meal while sitting at a group table with a supervisor who teaches them about nutrition, healthy eating and table manners.

In Italy, school meals are locally sourced and certified organic, with special meals provided for children with food allergies, intolerances and religious restrictions. School lunch menus are sent home on a weekly basis to help parents avoid overlap at home.

In Japan, where food education is mandated by law, lunches are cooked in school. In an effort to reinforce a culture of self-sufficiency students serve one another and when lunch is done everyone helps clean up.

In Japan, food education is mandated by law. Here, Yoshihiko Noda, former prime minister, joins children for a kindergarten in Yokohama, near Tokyo, in October 2011.
(AP Photo/Kyodo News)

In Brazil, school food is part of a national and comprehensive food strategy that integrates education, agriculture, health and food security while supporting family farming.

Health crisis spans economic divides

The last time the federal government seriously discussed implementing a national school food program was during the Second World War when the government rejected a school lunch program. Instead, Canada decided to provide a family allowance designed to ensure families had enough income to buy food for their children.

Since then, the pervasiveness of diet-related diseases among children may make today’s youth the first generation to have sicker, shorter lives than their parents as found by a House of Commons standing committee on health in 2007.

Children spend a considerable amount of time at school for well over a decade of their lives, so schools are the ideal medium for fostering and reinforcing a lifetime of healthy eating habits. Preventing chronic diseases through improving nutrition among children and youth should, therefore, be a priority.

A national, health-promoting school food program is essential for Canada. With adequate funding and national standards, it can be the powerful health-promotion program needed to reverse our current health crisis that spans socio-economic divides.

School food programs are not only about children eating healthier, but also about children developing lifelong skills towards good health.
(Shutterstock)

Universal, sustainable

Most provinces in Canada have some form of a school food program (breakfast, snack and to a lesser degree lunch), but the type of program and quality of food served varies across the country. Existing programs largely rely on charitable funding because if there is any provincial and municipal support, it often only covers a fraction of the cost.

A national research team that my co-author was part of recommended six key characteristics to guide a national school food program in Canada. Such a program would be:

1. Universal and offered to all students at no cost or subsidized cost, and administered in a non-stigmatizing manner.

2. Health Promoting, thereby focused on providing whole foods, specifically vegetables and fruits.

3. Respectful of local conditions and needs, serving culturally appropriate foods.

4. Connected to communities, supporting local food producers when possible.

5. Multi-Component and integrated with curricula to incorporate nutrition education and hands-on food preparation for the development of food skills.

6. Sustainable and so receiving ongoing funding, staffing and training along with regular monitoring and evaluation.

Economic opportunity

A national school food program isn’t just an expense; it’s an economic opportunity. Internationally, school food programs have an impressive return on investment — three dollars to $10 for every dollar invested — including the creation of new jobs.

School food could also be a fruitful emerging economic activity in Canada as it is in the United States as my research aims to show. Canada would have the chance to develop a made-in-Canada school food economic growth strategy, akin to what Brazil or Italy has pursued.

The economic burden and preventable cost of nutrition-related disease in Canada is estimated at $13.8 billion annually. Treating chronic disease already consumes an alarming 67 per cent of all direct health care spending. Such expenditure levels could cripple Canada’s universal health care system. Yet, over 30,000 deaths could be averted or delayed annually if our diets complied with dietary recommendations, particularly for eating more fruit and vegetables.

Right now, more than 3,200 signatures have been put to a petition to the Minister of Health for the implementation of a universal healthy school food program whose cost is shared with the federal government.

This is an official e-petition to the House of Commons — that means it was made available online on the House of Commons website after it was introduced to Parliament by MP Julie Dabrusin on behalf of Debbie Field, co-ordinator of the Coalition for Healthy School Food.

The promise of a national school food program is an important step forward for Canada. The provision of adequate funding will ensure that it benefits all Canadian children.

An investment in a national school food program is an investment in children today and the leaders of tomorrow.

Amberley T. Ruetz, PhD Candidate in Geography and Arrell Food Scholar, University of Guelph and Sara FL Kirk, Professor of Health Promotion; Scientific Director of the Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dr. Sarah FL Kirk: Girls and women need more time in nature to be healthy

April 23, 2019 rbudd Leave a Comment

Girls and women need more time in nature to be healthy

File 20181107 74766 sast6h.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Getting enough physical activity can be challenging for women and girls, because they have to negotiate complex gender roles, stereotypes and cultural narratives about the body.
(Shutterstock)

Rebecca Spencer, Dalhousie University and Sara FL Kirk, Dalhousie University

Supporting girls and women in their efforts to be physically active must become a global public health priority. Preliminary results from our research at Dalhousie University suggests that access to nature may be key to achieving this.

A recent study in The Lancet Global Health pooled global data from the past 15 years and showed persistent and worrying trends: Women continue to get insufficient physical activity, and the gap between activity levels of women and men is widening.

Similar trends are seen in girls aged 12 to 17. Only two per cent meet the requirements of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines — which include adequate sleep and at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

Our own review of the evidence also found that girls have complex relationships with physical activity, requiring an ongoing negotiation of gender roles and stereotypes. They have to navigate cultural narratives focused on the “body” in many parts of their lives every day. They are expected to be pretty but to appear natural, to be thin but not too skinny, to be fit but not too muscular.

We are currently engaged in research to explore the health of adolescent girls and young women through a technique called photovoice, in which participants take photographs to represent their own experiences.

Flowers, trees, and water

In this study we asked seven research participants to take photos to explore their health, nutrition, and physical activity experiences and to bring them back to discuss in a group, and look for themes or trends.

A participant shows some of the photographs she submitted.
(Kylee Nunn Photography), Author provided

They found themes relating to challenging norms and stereotypes and to the importance of social support and confidence. They discussed their perceptions that “everything is gendered” and that there are activities girls are “supposed to do.” They talked about sometimes feeling excluded from sports dominated by boys, and expectations around what girls should wear while being active.

They also discussed how they challenge those norms. The girls, for example, took photos engaging in non-traditional physical activities like aerial circus silks and climbing trees in skirts. They also stressed the importance of support from friends and family to feel safe in challenging norms. There was also a surprising finding: the emphasis they placed on being outside in nature.

Although nature and the environment were not part of the intended research purpose, being outside emerged as important. Many of the girls and young women shared photos of natural elements, like flowers, trees and water.

A photo of a tree submitted by a research participant.
Author provided

They also took photos of themselves, their friends and families engaging in physical activity outside. This most often included general active outdoor play, but also, more specifically, activities like hiking and camping.

We learned that nature provided important context for these girls and young women to feel comfortable, safe and confident to navigate the complex gender norms around physical activity.

Safe spaces outdoors

A recent review shows that, due to urbanization and parental fears, youth are less connected to nature than ever before and are missing out on health benefits as a result.

A photo of a flower submitted by a research participant.
Author provided

This trend is duplicated in popular culture, with books, songs and films depicting nature less and less over time.

Similarly, a large-scale survey in the United States shows youth spend more time with technology than nature but also indicates they value their time with nature and need more opportunity for that connection.

With the United Nations’ recent warning that we have only about a decade to alter climate change without devastating consequences, engagement with nature has never been more urgent. This can be done through encouraging outdoor play, supporting active transportation and providing safe spaces for women and girls to participate.

Achieving gender equity

Interestingly, the evidence indicates that women face barriers to experiencing nature.

Gendered expectations, fear for their safety and feelings of objectification and vulnerability mean girls and women have to negotiate these feelings in order to participate in outdoor recreation.

A photo of a girl climbing a tree submitted by a research participant.
Author provided

Achieving gender equity is a key challenge for the 21st century, reinforced by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which also highlight the importance of nature, environments, sustainability and health.

The benefits of physical activity to mental and physical health are extensive but are not being realized by half the population. Studies are starting to explore gender and the outdoors, while the importance of nature to women is gaining momentum.

But there’s more to do to determine how this finding can support gender equity. The importance of nature for health promotion is an emergent trend in research, and the focus of the upcoming International Union for Health Promotion and Education Conference.

Can nature be the key to promote physical activity among girls and women? More research is needed to know for sure, but it certainly shows promise.

Rebecca Spencer, Interdisciplinary PhD Candidate & Instructor, Health Promotion, Dalhousie University and Sara FL Kirk, Professor of Health Promotion; Scientific Director of the Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dr. Meinhard Doelle: The Future Of Environmental Law

April 9, 2019 rbudd Leave a Comment

Dr. Meinhard Doelle, Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

“The Future Of Environmental Law.” has been republished from Dr. Meinhard Doelle’s blog, Environment Law News.

Sabbaticals are an opportunity for reflection. When I started mine last summer, I promised myself that in addition to getting caught up on some of my ongoing research projects and starting a few new ones, I would take the opportunity to reflect on the state of my chosen field. Among the issues on my list was the state of environmental law, and, more broadly, the state of efforts toward sustainability, toward human civilization living within planetary boundaries, along with a range of social goals and the realization of basic human rights for all. The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are one articulation of what many of us are aiming to achieve.

It is not hard to conclude that we are further away from these goals now, including their environmental elements, than even a decade ago, let alone two or three. The evidence is overwhelming. Particularly at a planetary level, things are looking increasingly bleak. We have reduced the global animal population by 60% since 1970, the list of endangered and extinct species continues to grow with every passing year, nature continues to be converted to serve consumption purposes at alarming rates, plastics, other waste and pollutants are becoming more prevalent in our oceans than fish, and climate change threatens to undermine the ability of the planet to sustain natural systems and humans alike.

Increases in human population over time have made living sustainably on a planet with finite resources more challenging, but by far the most dominant causes of the sustainability crisis have been overconsumption and the wasteful use of the planet’s resources. We are fundamentally mismanaging of our relationship to nature, as evident from the land and natural resource demands associated with human consumption, and the pollution and waste associated with the way we provide the goods we consume and services we use. The depletion of natural resources and the destruction of natural systems is not an inevitable consequence of meeting the needs of a growing human population, but rather the result of poor choices. We can respect and protect natural systems while improving the quality of life of the many who still don’t have access to basic human needs such as adequate food, water, shelter, education and basic health care.

Much has been written about the failure of environmental law to solve the growing sustainability crisis. I was inspired to write this reflection in part by Professor Inara Scott’s contribution to a recent special issue on the state of environmental law. In it, she describes the way we conceive environmental law as consisting of three problematic limitations:

Environmental law addresses interactions between humans and the natural environment, and ways to limit human actions in order to protect the environment. Conversely, environmental law does not focus on human-to-human interactions or economic transactions. Matters having to do with corporate law, tax, and business are generally not included. It is only recently that energy law—including fossil fuel extraction and electric utility regulation—has been considered alongside or even linked to environmental law.

Environmental laws address narrow targets with narrow solutions. For example, the ESA creates a mechanism for protecting individual species. It was not intended to create a mechanism for considering bigger questions (i.e., how do we protect biodiversity?).

Environmental law is furthered by liberal white activists. Environmental law is not relevant to conservatives, people of color, or people living in urban settings who do not like the woods.

Some accuse elements of the environmental movement of having been co-opted by governments and business interests to accept unacceptable levels of harm in return for a seat at the table. Others point to a failure of democracy, of international law and of multilateralism. Yet others focus on corporate power applied in the pursuit of short-term greed over sustainability and prosperity. Many disciplines and individuals have contributed to a better understanding of how we got here, and how we could have done better. It is not my intention to go over this well covered ground. My modest proposition in this post is that assessing what has and has not worked in the past, while important, is no longer enough, as past experience is no longer an adequate predictor for how to solve the problems of the future. Let me explain.

As explored in a 2016 book called “Thank You for Being Late” by Thomas L Friedman, we live in a period of human history that is dominated by exponentially accelerating change. Friedman identifies three critical areas of such change, environmental harm, (computer) technology, and globalization. His basic proposition is that at least in these three areas, change has accelerated exponentially over the past few decades, and is showing no signs of slowing down. Whether one agrees with Friedman on the details, it is hard to dispute that we can expect the world to change in unimaginable ways in the next one or two decades. It is becoming increasingly difficult to predict what the world will look like even a decade from now, except that it won’t be anything like it is today. It is also increasingly difficult to predict how individuals, and even governments and businesses, will be able to influence the path of humanity.

What will happen to nation states when so much power transcends national borders? How will democracies fare in a world of alternate facts, trolling, the decline of independent media, and political leaders with dictator-like tendencies who offer simplistic solutions in an increasingly complex world? How will humans fare in a world dominated by artificial intelligence? What will happen to the climate system, to the oceans, to safe water and adequate food? My basic proposition is that in order for the natural services critical for human survival and that of other species on this planet to be secured, those concerned about the sustainability crisis, including those of us thinking about the role of law, policy, and governance systems to protect natural systems, must look beyond past experience to look for solutions.

We cannot rely on what has worked in the past, and we similarly cannot simply fix and adjust what has not worked. Rather, we need to reflect on what is ahead, and rethink how to protect the natural systems and resources we all depend on in light of new, emerging, and constantly evolving circumstances. We will have to continue to do so again and again for as long as this period of accelerating change in technology, globalization and environmental harm continues. In short, we have to become adaptable as never before.

In the remainder of this post, I will illustrate the opportunity for previously unpredictable solutions to emerge quite quickly. I will do this with a brief exploration of two emerging technological innovations that, when put together and applied effectively, have the potential to offer a powerful tool for sustainability. However, each also carries with it the risk of perpetuating the status quo. The two technologies I have in mind are artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain. To be clear, my point here is not that they are the solution to our sustainability challenge, but to illustrate that that new thinking is needed to identify the solutions of tomorrow, that the tools of the past may not be the most effective tools to solve the sustainability challenges we face today, and that adaptability to new and emerging circumstances will be critical to finding and implementing sustainability solutions in an ever-changing world.

Blockchain technology is essentially a system of decentralized electronic records shared among users. They key contribution of blockchain is its promise to ensure that these records are secure, traceable, and auditable, and are maintained on a peer-to-peer network that can be publicly accessible. One potential application of blockchain is to track the supply chain and life cycle of goods and services. In theory, blockchain technology could ensure full transparency of all key social and environmental determinants of the sustainability of products and services offered, no matter where they are manufactured, sold, used, reused, recycled or discarded. Of course, achieving this would require a coordinated effort to ensure the right information is tracked, and adequate oversight to ensure the data collected is accurate and properly reflects the social and environmental performance of the product or service in question.

Similarly, in theory, governments and citizens, through artificial intelligence based ‘virtual assistants’ such as Amazon’s Alexa or Google Assistant, could have access to, analyze, and make purchasing and regulatory decisions based on all this blockchain data made publicly available on all products and services. This could give governments and individuals the information needed to ensure only environmentally responsibly products are purchased, that preference is given to the most environmentally and socially responsible products, and that the durability, and the operating, maintenance and repair costs of products are factored into price comparisons. Products that don’t meet a certain sustainability threshold could be banned by regulators, while others would be rejected by virtual assistants based on either built in or stated preferences for more sustainable products, or for products that are more cost effective over their life cycle. The end result could be a global race to the top, a world, where businesses who are able to produce the most sustainable products are rewarded, rather than those with the most effective marketing strategy.

There appear to be at least two key elements to making effective use of these technologies to reduce the environmental (and other) harm of products and services. One is to ensure blockchain or similar technologies are used effectively to collect accurate, reliable and comparable information about the environmental and social impacts of products and services. The second is to ensure this information is used to prevent unsustainable products and services from being made available for purchase, and to encourage consumers to purchase those that are the most socially and environmentally responsible. In short, human societies could put such technologies to effective use in the effort to become sustainable.

Of course, that is not what is happening so far, in part because those who understand the scale of the sustainability crisis tend not to be at the table to help shape the use of these technologies. They are not the ones negotiating the rules of engagement between manufacturers and Amazon’s Alexa or Google Assistant. They are not the ones deciding whether and how blockchain is used to track the life cycle of a product, or how ‘smart contracts’ are designed based on the supply chain information available through blockchain. They are not the ones designing the algorithms that tell us what to buy and what not to buy, nor are they at the table where decisions are made about the regulation or application of these technologies.

That task, by default, appears to be left to those who tend to view environmental protection as a luxury, as a fringe issue that cannot be permitted to interfere with economic growth, people who continue to live in a fantasy world of unlimited resources, and unlimited assimilative capacity of natural systems to clean up our messes. So, while we fight to protect the last bit of wilderness and the last few orcas or right whales, Amazon and Google, not represented by sustainability advocates and not regulated by sustainability oriented governments, negotiate with manufacturers around the world about the recommendations Alexa will make when you decide to buy your next gadget, kitchen appliance, car, or piece of clothing.

I am not suggesting that the environmental movement should stop fighting to protect important natural ecosystems, endangered species or stop pushing for laws that reduce pollution and waste. At the same time, we have not been able to win the battle using these tools, and there is every reason to expect that these tools will continue to become less powerful over time. More importantly, with change, there will be new opportunities, ones we are likely to miss if we continue with the mindset that environmental protection is something separate from the rest of society, separate from corporate law, from trade law, from technology and internet law.

To save the planet, nature, and human civilization, environmental protection and sustainability need to become mainstream, an integral part of everything we do, including the regulation of AI, of research, development, and the dissemination of new technology, of the regulation of corporations, the internet, AI, and international trade. We cannot afford to think of environmental law as distinct and separate from the governance of human society. Environmental law needs to be integrated and adaptable, and we need to regularly re-evaluate where the opportunities are to shift human civilization toward sustainability.

Things will continue to get more complex but hidden in the complexity are opportunities to achieve things that were unthinkable before. Emerging technologies such as blockchain and AI illustrate this, as they have the potential to put a stop to misinformation about the environmental and social impact of products and services and encourage a race to the top. They have the potential to put a stop to planned obsolescence, greenwashing, and consumer misinformation. However, they will not do so unless directed to. They will only do so if those who understand the seriousness of the sustainability crisis identify these opportunities and get involved in making them happen.

What it will take to identify and realize such opportunities are individuals in all sectors of society looking for them, not just a few committed individuals working or volunteering for ENGOs pushing for stronger environmental laws. It will take innovative thinkers in corporate boardrooms, in research labs at Google, Apple and Microsoft, at cabinet tables and in government bureaucracies to identify and realize these opportunities. It will take those who understand the significance of the sustainability crisis and are committed to working to addressing it to work for businesses and governments, not just for ENGOs. We need those committed to this cause to include all races, all cultures, and all demographics, and we need them all to look for and pursue solutions in unlikely places.

As an academic and a teacher, I am mindful that to achieve this, we need to reach all students, and we need to educate with a message of modesty that is based on the premise that the world is changing too fast for us to have and teach answers, and to instead give our students the tools for critical analysis, so that they can diagnose the problem in light of ever changing circumstances and find their own solutions, solutions that are today still inconceivable, and are designed for problems that will look very different when our students are ready to take them on.

Selected References

Inara Scott, et al, “Environmental Law. Disrupted” (2019) 49 ELR 10038.

Mahtab Kouhizadeh and Joseph Sarkis, “Blockchain Practices, Potentials, and Perspectives in Greening Supply Chains” (2018) 10 Sustainability, 3652

Thomas L Friedman (2016) Thank You for Being Late (Farrar, Straus and Grioux, New York)

Dr. Meinhard Doelle, Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

Dr. Meinhard Doelle, Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, has graciously agreed to join the CEGE Connection conversation and share his insights on climate change and environment law. We highly recommend a visit to Professor Doelle’s Blog: Environment Law News, which provides vital information that speaks to the complexities of environmental and energy law, climate change, GHG emissions, and the role of human rights in these areas of enquiry.

Quieter ships could help Canada’s endangered orcas recover

March 26, 2019 rbudd Leave a Comment

Quieter ships could help Canada’s endangered orcas recover

File 20190108 32145 zkc40y.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — A female resident orca whale breaches while swimming in Puget Sound in January 2014.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP, Elaine Thompson

Priyanka Varkey, Dalhousie University and Tony Robert Walker, Dalhousie University

With the death of the young female orca calf known as J50 in the Pacific Northwest in September 2018, the population of southern resident killer whales has fallen to 74.

At the time, Ken Balcomb, the founder of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Wash., said the world was “witnessing a slow motion extinction” of this population of killer whales.

These incredibly low numbers paint an alarming picture for the future of the endangered southern resident killer whales. Experts predict that two more southern resident killer whales will die by this summer due to starvation. Only 40 of the calves born to the southern resident killer whale population have survived since 1998, and 73 have gone missing or found dead. No newborn whales have survived since 2015.

Why are they in such dire straits? The three main stressors for this dwindling population are noise pollution from increased vessel traffic, ocean contaminants and declines in Chinook salmon — the whales’ main source of food.

Research shows that a quieter ocean may help save the southern resident killer whale population, but without regulations yet in place, it may be too little, too late.

Impacts of ship noise

Three groups of orcas — the transient, offshore and resident — live along the Pacific coast. The resident group is further classified into northern and southern populations that have some distribution overlap but do not interbreed. The southern resident population, typically found from southwestern Alaska to central California, is the only orca population in Canada listed as “endangered.”

Underwater ocean ambient noise has increased by approximately 15 decibels in the past 50 years due to increased marine transportation and other anthropogenic (human-made) sources.

Commercial and recreational boats watch orcas in the Salish Sea in British Columbia in July 2015.
(AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Noise travels approximately five times faster in water than air and has a wide range of detrimental effects on whales. With increasing numbers of vessels plying the world’s oceans, their engine noise is making it hard for many whale species to communicate.

The documentary “Sonic Sea” likens anthropogenic ambient noise, such as that from vessel engines and drilling for oil or gas, to being trapped in a loud, dark nightclub, unable to see or hear the people right next you. While a human can leave a noisy night club, whales cannot escape these underwater noises.

According to a recent study, the frequency of ship noise overlaps with that of orca communication. It masks noises the orcas make and can interfere with echolocation, which orcas use for navigation and to hunt prey. For the southern resident killer whale population, the limited availability of Chinook salmon combined with vessel noise adds to the challenge of finding food.

The Haro Strait, off the coast of Victoria, is the summer feeding habitat of the southern resident killer whale population. It is also one of the loudest areas along the Pacific coast, especially in the frequency range that orcas use for communication.
As noise from vessels has increased in loudness and now covers a larger geographic area, killer whales have adjusted their vocal communication by increasing the amplitude of their calls to compensate for the underwater noise. But this increased vocal output could have energy costs, cause increased stress or further hinder communication.

Mitigating ship noise

Unlike other forms of marine contamination, noise levels in the ocean can be reduced with relatively small interventions. A recent study investigated ways to reduce vessel noise, and suggested adopting a “multi-pronged approach” to mitigate ocean noise.

The study found that when fast-moving, large vessels reduced their speed to 11.8 knots, the emitted noise dropped by three decibels. This reduction is consistent with precautionary “Okeanos” targets supported by the International Maritime Organization to reduce shipping ocean noise by three decibels within a decade. Shipbuilding industries are already retrofitting noisy ships with quieter engines and designing even quieter ones.

Scientists studying the Haro Strait have suggested using a convoy approach to manage the increasing amounts of ship traffic. Incoming ships would be grouped based on their time of arrival and enter the strait together. Ship noise may increase during the convoy period, but its duration is dramatically reduced. The same study suggested designating B.C.‘s Salish Sea as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) during the summer months to help the southern resident killer whale population recover.

Both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have implemented regulations to mitigate the stress on the orca population. DFO is working with U.S. agencies to coordinate measures to reduce underwater noise impacts on the southern resident killer whales.

A southern resident killer whale breaches near Henry Island in Washington state.
Shutterstock

In 2017, DFO published an action plan to aid in the recovery of the southern resident killer whales, including reduction of underwater noise, limiting disturbance from humans, monitoring whales from a safe distance, ensuring accessible food supply and protecting critical habitat. Recovery plans are legally required for endangered species listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), but have been criticized by conservationists for delays in implementation.

In 2018, the government of Canada imposed restrictions on Chinook salmon harvesting with the hope of increasing their availability for the southern resident killer whales.

Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee also launched a task force to create a long-term plan for the recovery and future sustainability of the southern resident killer whales. The recommendations ranged from increasing Chinook salmon availability to a temporary whale-watching moratorium, but they remain a long way from being implemented.

Glimmers of hope

Whale-watching boats and commercial ships are facing an increased number of regulations on how close they can get to orcas in the Salish Sea. As of July 2018, vessels must stay 200 metres away to help limit disturbance of the whales. And in August, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal rejected the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which could result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the Salish Sea, to 35 vessels a month.

While addressing noise reductions alone is unlikely to be sufficient, it is a necessary first step. The delay in implementation of measures combined with the uncertainty of the effectiveness of implemented measures can make the prospects seem grim for this declining orca population.

However, it is important not to lose hope. There have been recent reports that three females in the southern resident killer whale population are pregnant.

With increased awareness, further action and a $167.4 million investment towards the protection and recovery of endangered whales by the federal government, maybe it’s not too late to save the southern resident killer whales.

Priyanka Varkey, Master’s student, Dalhousie University and Tony Robert Walker, Assistant Professor, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dr. Debbie Martin: Indigenous knowledge is the solution to Canada’s health inequities

March 14, 2019 rbudd Leave a Comment

Indigenous knowledge is the solution to Canada’s health inequities

File 20181127 76743 ib05su.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Addressing Canada’s health inequities through the health-care system will only take us so far. Real change will require listening to Indigenous stories, which teach about our relationships to one another as human beings, and between us and our four-legged, winged, finned, rooted and non-rooted relations.
(Unsplash/jongsun lee), CC BY-NC-SA

Debbie Martin, Dalhousie University

It is no secret there are stark differences between the health of Indigenous peoples in Canada and their non-Indigenous counterparts.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples fare more poorly than the average Canadian on virtually every measurable health indicator including infant mortality, maternal health, suicide, mental health, addictions, life expectancy, birth rates, infant and child health issues, chronic diseases and the incidence of illness and injury.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action appeal to the health sector. They call for the federal government to publish annual progress reports on its attempts to measure and address this unacceptable gap.

They also argue for more cultural competency training for health and medical professionals, as well as greater efforts to attract and retain Indigenous students into the health professions. These suggestions are measurable, achievable and commendable. However, these efforts will do very little, in and of themselves, to close the health gap.

Well, you might say, if addressing issues within the health-care system won’t solve the health crises facing Indigenous communities, then what will?

Indigenous knowledge.

But before we go there, let’s take a step back.

Plant medicines and ceremonies

Let’s imagine for a moment that we all wake up tomorrow and somehow all of the recommendations from the TRC that directly pertain to health have been addressed.

The health and medical professionals in our health-care system have received cultural competency training. We have managed to attract and retain Indigenous health and medical staff within all of our health-care institutions. Students in all health professional programs are receiving mandatory curriculum that educates them specifically about Indigenous history and health. There is a robust progress report released each year that measures steps taken within the health-care system to reduce inequities.

These would be amazing leaps forward and I sincerely hope that we all wake up tomorrow and these changes have happened.

Evelyn Youngchief burns sweetgrass during a Coalition on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls news conference, in Vancouver, B.C., in 2017. Sweetgrass is a healing herb, used in smudging, to cleanse and purify.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

However, the question I keep coming back to is: what measurable improvements could that yearly progress report possibly offer if we continue to restrict our notion of Indigenous health to that which can be addressed and solved by the health-care system?

Now let’s return to the term Indigenous knowledge. I use this term in its broadest, most complete and utterly comprehensive sense. Indigenous knowledge includes, but is not limited to, knowledge about traditional medicines.

Within the boreal forests of Canada, for example, more than 546 diverse plant species have been used by Indigenous peoples to treat over 28 different diseases and disorders, including everything from gastrointestinal disorders to musculoskeletal issues. But Indigenous knowledge does not stop there.

Indigenous knowledge also includes practices that relate to overall health and well-being. One example of this would be the ceremony of smudging, which is performed by many First Nations across the country. Two separate studies have found that the act of using medicinal smoke may have particular health benefits and can act as an air purifier by reducing airborne bacteria that is harmful for human health.

Now let’s imagine for a moment that hospitals and pharmacies decided to start prescribing these different types of plants medicines to their patients beginning tomorrow. Would that address the health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples? Probably not.

Stories teach us how to heal

One of the reasons for this is that Indigenous knowledge is (w)holistic — spelled with a “w” to indicate the whole-ness and completeness of the knowledge.

It is intended to exist within a particular context, for a specific purpose and tailored to the intended users and/or listeners of that knowledge.

This is why, in virtually any Indigenous culture, Elders will share their knowledge via stories. Those stories hold infinite lessons — about life, about living, about what are the important things to learn from and focus on.

You may hear the same story more than once. And that is OK because each time you hear it, you may take a little more meaning away it. Until one day that story becomes a part of you, and you can pass it along to others.

Often the stories that get shared might teach you something specific — like, for example, how to use a certain tree root to cure a headache. But the real meaning behind the stories isn’t simply the intellectual knowledge that you have gained about the medicinal use of a plant.

Many Indigenous communities remain deeply connected to the land, water and air and recognize that the health of people depends upon the health of the natural world. Here, NunatuKavut in southeastern Labrador.
(Emily Beacock), Author provided

The story itself will tell you much more than that — it will teach about our relationships to one another as human beings, and about the relationship between us and our four-legged, winged, finned, rooted and non-rooted relations that live alongside us on this shared space we call home, or Mother Earth.

And as we learn these important stories, we learn to understand that it is in our best interest, as human beings, to protect and preserve the air, water and soil around us so that the plants and animals upon which we rely for our own well-being will continue to be there for us when we need them.

It is the richness of language, culture and rootedness in place that gives rise to this particular knowledge. It is this knowledge that we all require, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to heal ourselves.

Respect for “all our relations”

So what is required for us to lessen the gap in health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples? It requires relationships — listening and learning about how to respect one another and the world around us.

So yes, the TRC is right — we do need more Indigenous health professionals, more culturally competent health-care providers, and we do need to measure our progress.

But we need to do so within the context of the TRC Calls to Action, addressing not just those that pertain to health.

In his last Facebook post before his death, acclaimed Indigenous writer Richard Wagamese captured this sentiment very well. He stated:

“I’ve been considering the phrase ‘all my relations’ for some time now. It’s hugely important. It’s our saving grace in the end. It points to the truth that we are related, we are all connected, we all belong to each other. The most important word is all. Not just those who look like me, sing like me, dance like me, speak like me, pray like me or behave like me. ALL my relations. It means every person just as it means every blade of grass, rock, mineral and creature. We live because everything else does. If we were to collectively choose to live that teaching the energy of that change of consciousness would heal all of us — and heal the planet. We do it one person, one heart at a time… we are connected, we are the answer.” Richard Wagamese, Facebook, Feb. 23, 2015.

All my relations. Inogiamit nunattinit ikKasugiaKavugut (Inutittut). Msit No’kmaq (Mi’kmaq). Nii’kinaaganaa (Ojibwe). Mitakuye-Oyasin (Lakota). Kakina ni Dodem (Algonquin). Niw_hk_m_kanak (Cree).

Debbie Martin, Associate Professor & Canada Research Chair, Indigenous Peoples’ Health and Well-being, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Rethinking Canada’s climate policy from the ground up

February 21, 2019 rbudd Leave a Comment

Rethinking Canada’s climate policy from the ground up

File 20190103 32124 1wl8f2a.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks about the federal government’s newly imposed carbon tax at an event in Toronto in October 2018.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

Adebayo Majekolagbe, Dalhousie University

The latter half of 2018 saw the release of a flurry of climate change reports, from the special report on global warming of 1.5℃ to the Emissions Gap Report (EGR). The conclusions are the same: current global commitments under the Paris Agreement fall far short of the 1.5℃ target, and a 2℃ (or more) increase in temperature will trigger adverse consequences for humans and nature.

The EGR also reaffirmed Canada’s front seat in the laggards’ zone. It confirmed that Canada is neither on track to meet its Cancun pledge for 2020 to achieve a 17 per cent decrease in emissions, nor its unconditional commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce its emissions by 30 per cent relative to 2005 levels by 2030.

Canada has generally taken a top-down approach in the design of its climate policy. This approach is not only detached from the political reality of the Canadian federal system, it also fails to capture the communicative demand of climate policy making.

But it is possible to reboot Canada’s climate policy by taking into account local peculiarities and making it more resilient to government turnover.

The state of play

One might contend that Canada’s current backwardness is not for want of trying.

In December 2016, shortly after Canada made its Paris commitments, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corralled premiers to create the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF). The framework, which centres on carbon pricing, is designed to help Canada meet its commitment under the Paris Agreement. With the exception of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the provinces and territories endorsed the PCF.

But within two years of signing the historic agreement, the newly elected governments in Ontario and New Brunswick also rejected the PCF, and the United Conservative Party in Alberta has indicated that it will renege, if elected in the province’s 2019 general election.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford (centre), Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe (right) and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs (left), seen here in this December 2018 photo, have rejected the federal government’s carbon tax plan.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes

The PCF is dogged by questions of effectiveness, equity and flexibility. Saskatchewan and Ontario, for instance, argue that carbon tax would not significantly reduce emissions, will kill jobs and make it difficult to play to the comparative advantages of the provinces.

Two central sub-themes of these questions are burden sharing, through which climate burdens can be allocated by identifying the peculiarities of provinces, and political acceptability, which speaks to the electoral phobia of political office holders.

Burden sharing

At the First Ministers’ meeting in Vancouver in 2016, the idea of assigning specific climate obligations for each province and territory was considered to be too sensitive a subject. Rather, a working group did a nationwide sectoral scan of specific mitigation opportunities.

The caution was not without justification. The issue, in part, had sounded the death knell of the previous National Climate Change Process (NCCP) negotiation, when the provinces and territories had failed to agree on a formula to allocate climate burden. But falling once is no reason not to walk again.

It is often assumed that Canada’s 30 per cent emission reduction target simply translates into a 30 per cent emission reduction obligation for each province. This presumption and the commitments it induces, however, leads to an aggregate that is less than Canada’s national goal under the Paris Agreement. Yet the flaw can be addressed by a burden sharing approach.

The 2016 Vancouver meeting was a missed opportunity to design a burden-sharing formula for Canada. Burden sharing is not just a tool for allocation, nor does it impose implementation pathways. Rather, it is an instrument of reassurance of the possible and the equitable distribution of costs.

This lesson is powerfully taught by the European Triptych burden-sharing approach developed in 1997. The approach identified emissions-intensive sectors in each European Union member state, calculated the emission allowances for each sector considering particular circumstances and derived state-by-state targets by adding up the sectoral allowances.

An offshore wind farm in Sweden.
Tomasz Sienicki/Wikimedia, CC BY

This gave a clear picture to each state of how their obligations were reached, and their capacity to achieve such targets. It also made provisions for states that will incur the highest cost or those without the capacity to implement prescribed responsibilities.

Cohesion fund countries like Portugal, Greece and Croatia, for example, with GDPs less than 75 per cent of the EU GDP average, were allowed to grow their electricity consumption by 1.9 per cent, compared to 0.9 per cent growth allowance for more developed EU states. Triptych even led to emissions-reduction targets that were higher than what the states had been prepared to accept.

To be clear, designing a Canadian burden-sharing formula will not be easy. It will be fought by some provinces, while others will embrace it. But, as the PCF has shown, any Canada-wide climate policy will be contentious. Taking the burden-sharing route is a worthwhile fight that will not only put Canada on a path to meeting immediate climate commitments, but can also help provinces forge an enduring cooperation based on the principles of equity and flexibility.

Direct engagement

The provinces protesting the PCF refer to its adverse effects on their constituents. If the people are central to the opposition of provinces, one wonders if this is not a natural place to begin the design of a pan-Canadian climate policy. To what extent were residents of emissions-intensive provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan directly engaged prior to creating the PCF?

We can learn from German thinker Jürgen Habermas on the importance of communicative action for the legitimacy of policies. Regardless the “inherent good” of a policy, its effectiveness boils down to acceptance, and acceptance is a function of communication.

But the PCF — both in the lead up and the aftermath — falls short of this requirement, and the research proves it. For instance, a 2018 study found that less than half of Canadians understand what carbon pricing is, despite this being at the core of the PCF. And most people in Québec and British Columbia don’t know that those two provinces have had a carbon tax for at least a decade.

As important as market mechanisms might be, behavioural change is central to fighting climate change, and this lies with individuals. It is, therefore, imperative that the climate change conversation in Canada leaves the realm of governmental institutions and centralized policies. The conversation must be strategically deregulated.

It is about time we agreed that there are real, even if at times misguided, concerns in carbon-intensive provinces. People fear that they will spend more, lose jobs and their provinces will become unviable. It is not enough to reach these people through their political representatives. Governments must develop a mechanism that allows them to directly engage with individuals. Nothing is more important.

Adebayo Majekolagbe, Junior Fellow, MacEachen Institute of Public Policy and Governance; Doctoral Candidate, Marine and Environmental Law Institute, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Research is Ongoing – The SSHRC Partnership Engage Team

December 18, 2018 rbudd Leave a Comment

SSHRC Partnership Engage Team

“Sophisticated technologies have increased our opportunities to connect even as they have presented new challenges in how we communicate without the benefit of face-to-face interaction.”

Dr. Binod Sundararajan

Dr. Martine Durier-Copp, in an May 2017 interview with CEGE Connection maintained that research is ongoing and must be integrated within our day-to-day interaction and activities. Research goes beyond academic walls for it is the foundation of knowledge exchange and is a continual process.

Research is a core strength of Dalhousie’s Faculty of Management.

“To be engaged, today’s citizen needs to be able to tease out fact from fiction. Notably, it is not just about obtaining information and being able to cite the sources of one’s ideas but being able to digest information, think critically, and participate in dialogue among others with different perspectives.”

Dr. Joyline Makani

CEGE Connection recently learned that Dr. Martine Durier-Copp, Dr. Joyline Makani, Dr. Binod Sundararajan, Dr. Stéphane Mechoulan and Research Assistants, Alison Brown and Conor Falvey ( aka the SSHRC Partnership Engage Team) have been awarded a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Grant to explore virtual teams, e-leadership within the context of the public sector. Dr. Durier-Copp notes, “This is an exciting research initiative that will enhance our understanding of how project teams and working groups collaborate within a virtual environment.”

The professional landscape in the Canadian public service is increasingly dominated by project teams and working groups which collaborate virtually to address complex problems. Not constrained by traditional geographic and time boundaries, virtual teams like these can offer many advantages, if effectively managed: improved efficiency, leveraged expertise, increased ingenuity and innovation, and reduced costs. However, literature demonstrates that most virtual teams are established without planning or training, are not working to their full potential, and are leading to unsatisfactory outcomes and sometimes even conflict

In the coming months, the SSHRC Partnership Engage Team will develop, deliver, and assess the value and impact of a set of guidelines and best practices intended to enhance the management and leadership of virtual teams within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Guidelines and training will be designed to meet the specific needs of virtual teams within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, including cultivating trust, keeping employees engaged, leveraging technology to overcome communication barriers, aligning organizational goals, and clarifying roles, objectives, and expectations. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will benefit from finalized actionable guidelines that will enable enhanced productivity and innovation of its virtual teams and contribute to overall strengthened organizational performance and service to Canadians.

Connect

Archives for Dalhousie Research

Confusion at the fish counter: How to eat fish responsibly

Why eat fish?

Choosing the right fish

No easy feat

Federal budget pledges a Canadian school food program but recipe requires funding

Health crisis spans economic divides

Universal, sustainable

Economic opportunity

Girls and women need more time in nature to be healthy

Flowers, trees, and water

Safe spaces outdoors

Achieving gender equity

Quieter ships could help Canada’s endangered orcas recover

Impacts of ship noise

Mitigating ship noise

Glimmers of hope

Indigenous knowledge is the solution to Canada’s health inequities

Plant medicines and ceremonies

Stories teach us how to heal

Respect for “all our relations”

Rethinking Canada’s climate policy from the ground up

The state of play

Burden sharing

Direct engagement