Note: This seminar video will be available for viewing after the publication of Nathan’s paper. Stay tuned.
Using Perceptions as Evidence in Sustainability Science
Abstract:
Social scientists often use human perceptions in both qualitative and quantitative research on conservation, resource management, and sustainability. However, perceptions are also often dismissed as unreliable and anecdotal by those arguing for evidence-based decision-making. In this talk, I will define perceptions, discuss the strengths and limitations of using perceptions, explore how perceptions can be studied, and examine the types of insights that perceptions can provide to inform environmental decision-making and management. I will then draw on results from a recent survey of small-scale fishers in 11 marine protected areas from 6 countries in the northern Mediterranean Sea to show how perceptions of governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness are related to levels of support for conservation. In short, this talk will show that perceptions are an important form of social science evidence that can inform and improve decisions across different environmental policy realms.
Dr. Nathan Bennett
Research Associate, IOF
Bio:
Nathan Bennett is currently cross-appointed as a Research Associate with the OceanCanada Partnership at the University of British Columbia (Canada) and the Université Côte d’Azur (France).
As a broadly trained social scientist, he chooses to primarily focus on research projects that interrogate various aspects of the complex relationship between the marine environment and human society. He conducts research and publishes on such topics as social equity and governance in marine protected areas, responses of small-scale fishing communities to combined environmental and social change, indigenous perspectives on and approaches to conservation, the political dimensions of marine planning and ocean governance, coastal community access to marine resources and fisheries, the human dimensions of large-scale marine protected areas and the role of the social sciences in conservation. His work focuses on Canada, Thailand, Mexico, Europe, and the global oceans.
Prior to coming to UBC, Nathan Bennett graduated from the University of Victoria with a PhD in Geography from the University of Victoria in 2013, a MS in Environmental Studies from Lakehead University in 2009 and a BEd from the University of Victoria in 2002. His work has been supported by a SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship (2010-2013), a Trudeau Doctoral Scholarship (2010-2013), a SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowship (2013-2015), a Fulbright Visiting Scholar Award (2015), a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship (2015-2017), and a Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellowship (2015-2017). He is also an active member of the Commission on Ecological, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and is also affiliated with the Center for Ocean Solutions (Stanford), the Community Conservation Research Network, and the Too Big To Ignore project.
Producing Conservation Territories at Sea: Processes and Consequences at the Science-Policy Interface
Abstract:
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are playing an increasingly significant role in global ocean conservation governance. In just the past ten years, total ocean area under protected status has increased more than fivefold. Drawing on literature from political ecology, political geography, and Science and Technology Studies, this talk will examine how science and other kinds of knowledge are produced for, and integrated into, MPA policies. The talk will draw on research I have conducted together with collaborators and graduate students in Belize, Kiribati, and international policy venues, including the Convention on Biological Diversity. Collectively, these research projects demonstrate both the possibilities and limitations of various science-based approaches to MPA policy making, in terms of social outcomes and territorialization.
Dr. Noella Gray
Noella Gray is an Associate Professor at the University of Guelph. Her research focuses on the political ecology of marine conservation, examining how marine conservation policies are produced, the role of various actors and knowledge systems in informing these policy processes, and the consequences of these policies. She has conducted research in Costa Rica, Belize, Kiribati, and international policy venues. She received her PhD from the Nicholas School of Environment at Duke University, a MA in Geography from the University of Western Ontario, and a BSc from McGill University.
Congratulations to Dr. Leila Harris who has been promoted to Full Professor!
Dr. Leila Harris is a Full Professor at Institute on Resources Environment and Sustainability and in the Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice at the University of British Columbia. She also serves as Co-Director for UBC’s Program on Water Governance (www.watergovernance.ca), is a member of the EDGES research collaborative (Environment and Development: Gender, Equity, and Sustainability Perspectives, www.edges.ubc.ca), and is an Associate of the Department of Geography. During the current year, she is a Wall Scholar in residence with the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at UBC. Dr. Harris’s work examines social, cultural, political-economic, institutional and equity dimensions of environmental and resource issues. Her research focuses on the intersection of environmental issues and inequality / social difference, water governance shifts (e.g. marketization, participatory governance), in addition to a range of water governance challenges important for the Canadian context (e.g. First Nations water governance). Current and recent projects include SSHRC funded projects on everyday access and governance of water in underserved areas of Cape Town, South Africa and Accra, Ghana., as well as a research effort focused on non-material dimensions of water insecurity. Dr. Harris also served as principal investigator for the SSHRC funded International WaTERS Research and Training Network focused on water governance, equity and resilience in the global South (www.international-waters.org).
For more on Dr. Harris’s current work and publications, see here.
The UBC Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES) is delighted to welcome Dr. Claire Kremen who has joined as one of UBC’s first President’s Excellence Chairs.
Dr. Claire Kremen has commenced her appointment as the UBC President’s Excellence Chair in Biodiversity Studies. Joining the university as a Professor, Dr. Kremen holds a joint appointment in UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, and the Department of Zoology. She was previously a Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management at University of California, Berkeley, as well as Faculty Director of the Berkeley Food Institute.
As a conservation biologist, Dr. Kremen’s applied research advances the fields of ecology, biodiversity and agriculture, seeking mechanisms to prevent or reverse the loss of biodiversity – one of the greatest environmental challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. Dr. Kremen’s lab at UBC will investigate how to create sustainable landscapes that benefit both people and nature. She will also develop a new initiative in Conservation Science at UBC’s Biodiversity Research Centre that will promote new research on pressing conservation problems and provide a platform to train the next generation of conservation practitioners and leaders.
Dr. Kremen holds a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biological Sciences from Stanford University and a PhD in Zoology from Duke University, and her research has been published in highly-regarded journals such as Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London – Series B, Ecology Letters and Conservation Biology.
Environmental Violence as Colonial Violence: Embodied Geographies of Indigenous Consciousness & Resistance
Abstract:
In this presentation, I draw on Mushkegowuk (Cree) conceptualizations of environmental violence as state-sanctioned violence against Indigenous peoples in Canada. I situate my discussion in mining developments on Mushkegowuk lands-waters-bodies in Treaty 9 in northern Ontario, Canada. I am specifically interested in expanding on narrow land-based orientations of environmental violence to center the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples. In doing this, I trace the violent impacts of extraction in rural areas to state violence against Indigenous peoples in urban centers, such as in the city of Thunder Bay Ontario. I end by discussing Mushkegowuk responses to environmental violence that move beyond legal and diplomatic negotiations and policy change with the state.
Dr. Michelle Daigle
Assistant Professor, UBC Department of Geography
Bio:
Michelle Daigle is Mushkegowuk (Cree), a member of Constance Lake First Nation in Treaty 9 in northern Ontario Canada, and of French ancestry. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Geography at the University of British Columbia, located on the unceded and ancestral territories of the Musqueam nation. She is interested in bringing Geography into critical dialogue with Indigenous Studies to examine colonial capitalist dispossession and violence, as well as Indigenous movements and everyday practices of resistance, resurgence and self-determination. Her current research examines the embodied impacts of state-sanctioned environmental violence reproduced through mining extraction in Treaty 9.
Polar bears became poster children for carbon reduction initiatives around 2006, when an animated polar bear failing to climb on a melting ice floe featured in Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Once icons of predatory ferocity, polar bears were promptly transformed into delicate victims. Scientists warned of their declining numbers. Greenpeace protestors in polar bear costumes marched to protest global warming. However, one influential voice managed to turn the polar bear into a platform for arguing against human-caused climate change. And many Inuit, who do not deny climate change, argue that polar bear numbers are increasing. Although it is clear that without Arctic ice, polar bears will not survive, their use as icons of global warming raises questions about colonial attitudes, climate activism, and the differences between Inuit attitudes to other-than-human animals and those of the mainstream.
Dr. Margery Fee
Bio:
Margery Fee is an Emeritus Professor of English at UBC. Her book on polar bears for Reaktion Press’s Animal series will appear this year. Her most recent other books are Literary Land Claims: The ‘Indian Land Question’ from Pontiac’s War to Attiwapiskatand, with Dory Nason, Tekahionwake: E. Pauline Johnson’s Writings on Native North America, both published in 2015.
Water is an essential input for mining and minerals processing, but the industry’s use of water can pose detrimental impacts on natural ecosystems and the communities that rely on them. In the past decade, water has emerged as a priority issue among mining companies globally. Two thirds of the world’s largest mines are now located in countries experiencing high water scarcity, while water-related concerns have become a frequent trigger of conflict between companies and communities. In this seminar, I will provide a high-level overview of my evolving research program which focuses on characterizing and resolving water-related risks from the perspective of companies, communities and governments within mining regions. My research strategy is inherently interdisciplinary, bridging the fields of mining engineering, hydrology, social science and operations research. Current study regions include Canada, Chile, Peru, Brazil and Mongolia.
Dr. Nadja Kunz
Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Norman B Keevil Mining Engineering
Bio:
Nadja Kunz is an Assistant Professor and NSERC Canada Research Chair in Mine Water Management and Stewardship, jointly appointed across the UBC School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and the Norman B Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering. Nadja received her PhD from The University of Queensland (UQ) in 2013. Prior to joining UBC in 2017, Nadja spent 2 years as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Eawag Aquatic Research Institute in Switzerland and consulted as a Water Specialist for the International Finance Corporation. Nadja has Bachelor degrees in Chemical Engineering and Business Management, both from UQ.
Effecting change through community research and non-research projects
Abstract:
Sustainability research exists in the realm of post-normal science, and is often carried out by researchers who have deep commitments to change. Therefore, their research can ignite, draw from, and exist alongside on-the-ground community projects and initiatives. In this seminar, we will speak to researchers who have gotten involved in hands on work and collaboration in the communities that they study. What are the benefits and challenges created by occupying the position of researcher and participant concurrently? How does the role of knowledge generation and documentation affect ethical and appropriate participation of researchers in activist, technological, commercial, and political ventures in communities? This seminar will wade into the ambiguous and productive waters of research that turns into something more.
Panel Speakers:
Dr. Terre Satterfield
Professor, IRES
Dr. Satterfield is an anthropologist by training and an inter-disciplinarian by design. Her work concerns environmental values and sustainable natural resource development as these intersect with First Nations interests in land management, local food security, policy and regulation.
Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi
Professor, IRES
Hadi Dowlatabadi’s sees the world in terms of interacting social, economic and environmental systems. He is interested in how these systems create and respond to challenges over time. Most of his work has focused on the interface of technology, energy, the environment, public health and public policy.
Dr. Nathan Bennett
Research Associate, IOF
Nathan Bennett is an environmental social scientist. Dr Bennett’s recent research focuses on marine protected area governance in Mexico, responses of fishing communities to environmental change in Thailand, indigenous community perspectives on conservation in Canada, marine planning initiatives in North Am. and human dimensions of large-scale marine protected areas.
Governments worldwide have barely managed to work towards the modest commitments under the Paris climate accord, and it’s not enough to address the problem.
Climate initiatives are currently under siege from major polluters. The United States and Australia have organized pro-coal events amid climate talks, carbon emissions are increasing again while new political regimes in Brazil and Saudi Arabia have shown worrying signs of climate skepticism. Why is it so difficult for politicians around the world to take the necessary steps to deal with the climate crisis?
Experts commonly offer two options to address climate change: Flexible regulations on polluting sectors like electricity and transportation, and carbon pricing that reflects the indirect cost of pollution.
These are justified economically, since mitigating climate change can result in popular sustainable development opportunities, create new jobs, prevent loss in professions that depend on healthy ecosystems and improve health outcomes at a lower cost. But that may not be enough — there is no bold Green New Deal that is even being contemplated in places like Russia or China at this time.
Political leaders need to care about climate enough to take on polluting entities like fossil fuel companies that supply or generate the vast majority of energy, provide millions of jobs and make political contributions.
Behavioural psychology suggests that politicians are resistant to measures that aren’t popular with voters or donors.
Even moderate efforts to price carbon have sometimes faced political backlash. A prime example is the domestic unrest in France where carbon pricing on top of economic measures exacerbated economic insecurity within society.
A man makes his way through tear gas as demonstrators protest on the Champs-Elysees on Dec. 15, 2018 in Paris. It was the fifth straight weekend of protests by the country’s ‘yellow vest’ movement. (AP Photo/Kamil Zihnioglu)
As politicians delay decisive action, what could be realistically and quickly done within political systems as diverse as those of the U.S., China, India and Russia? Together, they are the top four polluters, contributing 53 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2017.
Citizens are apathetic too
We argue that the apathy of political leaders reflects the apathy of their citizens. Many politicians, and the people they represent around the world, simply do not view climate change as a crisis. Even when mainstream cable channels are covering it (a rarity in itself), people seem to care more about the next sports showdown or celebrity gossip for entertainment in their daily lives.
At the extreme are those who associate climate change and carbon pricing with various conspiracy theories. This includes everything from the supposed financial gain of climate scientists to socialist schemes to create a world government to destroy capitalism, and a Chinese plot against Western economies.
Arguably, discussions on climate change under these conditions can sometimes deepen the political divide given proponents of such conspiracy theories are largely immune to evidence and reason.
So how do we get citizens to care about climate?
Any energy transition will need to be preceded by a transition of vocal and influential citizens, or swing voters, away from an anti-climate position. We don’t necessarily need all citizens of diverse socioeconomic and educational backgrounds to understand climate science or proactively support it (though that would be highly desirable), we just need a politically influential section of citizens to not oppose bold climate action.
Presenting the case for climate action on CNN, BBC or CBC is important but leaves out the billions of people across China, Russia, India and a host of other countries with divergent political systems and their own media landscape.
They must also be concurrently convinced to take action. How?
Appealing to citizens via their wallets
If carbon pricing is going to be a significant vehicle for climate action, then the key to securing broader support is through people’s wallets.
We should take advantage of human nature. People care about personal gains like well-paying jobs and pay raises. And they instinctively oppose taxes. But would they oppose a tax if they directly profit from it?
This would address real concerns that carbon pricing can disproportionately affect the economically marginalized (as seen in France). But it also dangles a real incentive for citizens to actually demand a carbon tax.
Higher energy prices would still encourage a shift to renewables, and any energy conservation by consumers would financially benefit them even more. This is the core of the “Canadian backstop” proposal.
Carbon taxes could yield cash immediately — and loads of it. An estimated carbon price of US$40 to US$80 per tonne of carbon dioxide is needed by 2020 to achieve the Paris accord goals. Yet, in the 48 OECD and G20 countries (accounting for 80 per cent of global carbon emissions), 46 per cent of emissions are not taxed, while another 13 per cent was charged less than US$6 in 2018.
Science academies should take the lead
If governments are unwilling to convince the public of the personal benefits, the respective national academies of sciences should use their expertise on science and economics to take the lead. Citizens around the world should know how much “carbon dividend” a working family could earn every month if carbon revenues are returned as a dividend.
Even with a modest tax of $20 a tonne, the Canadian federal backstop would return $300 a year more to 70 per cent of the households affected. A more ambitious tax, say $60 per tonne, could be combined with explicit policies to return nearly all the revenue to households with the amount depending on their income levels.
A modest portion from the world’s biggest economies could be earmarked for climate adaptation in the most vulnerable developing countries. At minimum, this might ensure agreement with, or even widespread demands, for a carbon tax.
The best-case scenario is that a critical mass of citizens then starts showing interest in this extra income, and politicians respond with pragmatic carbon pricing design without alienating their core support base. If the estimated carbon dividend could be paid a year in advance, it would only sweeten the deal.
So let’s pressure the politicians across different political systems to act, or they risk alienating citizens who are waiting for their carbon dividend cheques.
