NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA
S&T Capacity for the Next Decade
SUMMARY STATUS REPORT Draft 3.0
February 4, 1999
ESS S&T Capacities Ad Hoc Team
Importance of Earth Sciences to the Nation and the Earth Science Sector’s Role
Science-Policy Context for Future S&T Capacity Needs
Overview
Demographics
Program Priorities and Future Directions
Capacity Gaps
Technology and Facilities to Support Research
Partnerships
Culture Change
Key Competencies
Work Environment
Strategies to Address Capacity Gaps
The Earth Sciences Sector (ESS/NRCan) has examined its internal science and technology (S&T) capacity over the next decade (2000-2010) against a backdrop of evolving science policy issues, technology and national needs and capacities for the Earth sciences. To define and frame ESS’ future S&T capacity, extensive consultation with staff through focus groups was undertaken in 1998. The focus groups responded to the following questions: What is ESS’ capacity to deliver S&T over the next decade, in the context of demographics, evolving program demands, future issues and technological changes; what are the S&T gaps and related competencies; and, how can they be addressed? As well, ESS has engaged in limited consultation to-date with external advisory and stakeholder groups, comprising geoscience and geomatics representatives from other federal government departments, provincial and territorial government agencies, universities and the private sector. The ESS S&T Capacity study is linked with the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) science capacity exercise, an interdepartmental capacities exercise, and research associated with the new federal Council of S&T Advisors on the role of the federal government in S&T and its capacity to deliver.
The ESS S&T Capacity Study has resulted in a number of principal findings.
2. There are significant capacity gaps at present, brought on by restricted recruitment in most areas, staff departures and resource reductions.
3. Sector demographics indicate that the potential retirement of > 30% of the workforce between 2003 and 2010. Cumulative experience, knowledge and the continuity of national expertise and knowledge will be lost, unless steps are taken to ensure the recruitment and mentoring of the next generation, while retaining key current staff.
4. ESS will be in competition for highly qualified personnel, and the supply of students in some areas from Canadian universities and colleges will be insufficient. Consideration needs to be given to influencing university curricula to meet future expertise needs, and supporting undergraduate and graduate students through direct training, graduate scholarships and supplements, and ESS-NSERC Research Partnership grants to faculty.
5. Future retirements will permit new hiring, but the salary budget will remain locked up until such retirements occur, precluding overlap with existing staff which is required to ensure continuity of knowledge.
6. New initiatives and priorities, such as GeoConnections and climate change, have increased workloads while bringing only modest new incremental funding to date. More substantial incremental funding and/or program realignment will be required to meet new demands associated with emerging policy issues and evolving government priorities. Prioritizing of activities and securing new funds will be crucial to the future success of ESS.
7. The breadth of the client base and range of disciplines using Earth science information will likely increase in the future, in significant part as a result of the enhanced access to information through the Internet. As well, technology is evolving rapidly and is impacting on the nature of ESS programs. Delivery to clients must be both cost- and time-effective.
8. The S&T capacities issue in the Earth sciences is a national issue, involving capacity in ESS, other federal departments, provincial and territorial government agencies, universities and the private sector. All partners in the delivery of Earth science information recognize that no single organization can meet the challenges alone; and that our diminished resources require further collaboration and innovation in partnerships and strategic alliances.
9. ESS has some specific issues around facilities supporting S&T, including funding for Polar Continental Shelf Project, access to DFO ships for marine geoscience activities, and maintaining leading-edge laboratory facilities.
10. ESS needs to foster and facilitate a culture of flexibility and innovation, partnership and continuous learning for all employees, including managers.
In order to respond to the current and anticipated future capacity gaps in ESS, a number of strategies have been developed that can be implemented within the sector as well as at departmental, governmental and national levels. The Recruitment, Rejuvenation and Retention (3R) Strategy is linked with the NRCan 3R Strategy, and will be fully implemented in 1999/00 in ESS with a commitment to recruitment of junior staff across the sector (ESS Strategic S&T Recruitment Plan), as well as other specific initiatives. Recommendations are presented in this report regarding prioritizing capacity gaps, implementing an action plan to address the S&T capacities issues (via the 3R strategy and others), and building consensus about national needs and capacities with partners in other federal departments, provincial and territorial government agencies, universities and the private sector.
The 1990’s have been a time of great change for the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and Geomatics Canada (GC), the core S&T agencies of the Earth Science Sector (ESS). Reductions in resource levels, changes in operational mode, implementation of new partnership programs, rationalization of federal and provincial roles, and dramatic changes in information management and delivery have all had major effects. In response to a challenge by the Clerk of the Privy Council in late 1997, who asked if government and other S&T providers would be able to meet the S&T needs of the nation over the next decade, the Earth Sciences Sector initiated a study in early 1998 of its future capacity requirements in the context of national needs and capabilities for the Earth sciences over the next decade (2000-2010). A parallel and interrelated process undertaken interdepartmentally, the Framework for Human Resources Management in the Federal S&T Community, is addressing the revitalization of the S&T workforce through the development of strategies for recruitment, rejuvenation and retention of staff. Within ESS, the S&T Capacities Study and the development of a recruitment, rejuvenation and retention strategy are being undertaken concurrently in a well-integrated fashion.
The ESS S&T Capacities Study (see Appendix 1 for a definition of capacities and methodology for the study) is working on three levels. First, it is examining the current and future capacity of the sector to deliver its programs and services against a backdrop of the demographics, evolving science-policy issues and technology, and an increasing demand for information and expertise from a range of clients and stakeholders. Second, it is being undertaken in the national context and will involve extensive consultation with other government departments, provincial and territorial government agencies, universities and professional associations, in order to assess both the future national needs and the capacity of all players to meet these needs. Third, the ESS study is contributing to the NRCan Science Capacities initiative, which is providing input to exercises that involve most science-based departments and agencies in the federal government.
The Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers from science-based departments and agencies are studying the issue of the role of federal government in performing S&T and its capacity to deliver, in response to the Clerk’s challenge to "make the case" for science in government. Although Canada’s Federal S&T Strategy was launched in 1996, the present discussion on S&T across government is based on concerns over its ability to meet the needs of the nation into the new millennium, a recognition that a demographic bulge will retire in the next decade (largely 2005-2010), and a need to refine science-policy linkages in government departments. The second government-wide exercise involves the newly established Committee of S&T Advisors (CSTA), comprising representatives from the senior Ministerial advisory boards of departments and reporting to the Cabinet Committee on the Economic Union through the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. CSTA is examining the role of government in S&T and its capacity to deliver, as well as the issue of science advice to government. It is expected that CSTA will report to Cabinet on their findings in spring 1999, with a government response following in fall 1999.
In 1998, the ESS study involved focus groups with 20 divisions and over 250 staff and managers from across ESS, three extended meetings of senior managers, two sessions with the Minister’s Advisory Board on Earth Sciences and a number of government and industry stakeholder groups (see Appendix 1). It examined the capacity of ESS to provide timely, relevant, reliable and cost-effective S&T information, knowledge and expertise in the context of national needs and capacities for the Earth sciences over the next decade. For the purposes of the ESS study, S&T capacity was defined as competencies, technology, facilities and service delivery mechanisms for both S&T program units and corporate units that support it. Each focus group was asked the following questions: What is ESS’ capacity to deliver S&T over the next decade in response to demographics, evolving program demands, future issues and technological changes, what are the gaps and related competencies, and how can they be addressed? In order to place the ESS study in the national context, three further questions have guided the synthesis of consultation results: (I) What are the vision, strategic direction, partnerships and strategic alliances for ESS and the Earth sciences in Canada that will guide us to 2010? (ii) What are the nation’s future capacity needs for both geoscience and geomatics and will there be future gaps? (iii) What is the federal role, where should future capacity reside, and what institutional alliances will be required to ensure that the national interest is served? The Strategic Plans for the GSC (1996-2001) and GC (1997-2002) addressed in part the first question. The Program Review exercise influenced the second and third.
This status report summarizes the observations and analysis-undertaken to-date on the Earth Sciences Sector’s future S&T priorities and capacity needs for the next decade. It is based primarily on input from ESS divisions through the focus group sessions, managers meetings, existing strategic plans, and internal and external reviews of the science programs. In addition, it incorporates, where possible, some comment from external stakeholders. The final report will consider the written comments of the Minister’s National Advisory Board on Earth Sciences, the National Geological Surveys Committee, the Canadian Geoscience Council, the Council of Chairs of Canadian Earth Science Departments, the Canadian Council on Geomatics, the Geomatics Industry Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Geomatics, and other stakeholders. The consultation process on the ESS Capacities Study in 1999 is outlined in Appendix 1.
This report is structured in five principal sections: Importance of the Earth Sciences to the Nation, Science-Policy Context for Future S&T Capacity Needs, Key Results, Strategies for Addressing Capacity Gaps, and Summary and Recommendations. An important element of the Recommendations is a proposal to build a national consensus, with other Earth science agencies and stakeholders, in terms of ensuring and managing the national capacity. A longer report is being prepared, primarily for ESS managers, which contains the more detailed findings in terms of future priorities and capacity gaps in ESS programs and divisions, and will be available to external stakeholders upon request in March 1999.
Importance of the Earth Sciences to the Nation and ESS’ Role
Earth science information, expertise and technology are essential to the economic and social well being of Canadians, including standard of living, protection of the environment, health and safety and national infrastructure. The contribution of Earth sciences to sustainable resource development, and related social cohesion operates on local, regional and national levels. Rural, Aboriginal and northern communities seek to understand the pros and cons of resource development. Industry, governments, and interest groups also struggle with the costs and benefits of development. Development can mean an increase in jobs and economic benefits, but it can also raise concerns over the quality of life and the preservation of the environment and culture. Earth sciences information, knowledge, and technology are viewed as integral to land-use and resource management decisions. The new Territory of Nunavut represents an example at the regional level, where a priority will be placed on the sustainable development of natural resources, particularly mineral resources. All three northern Territories will be involved in negotiations for devolution over the next decade. They will become clients for geoscience information on resource potential, with a need to move towards economic self-sufficiency.
We are improving our understanding of the linkages between the Earth, ocean and atmospheric systems and processes, the impact of human population and activities, and the implications of these for environmental and human health. Early illustrations of such a linkage were smog and acid rain. A far more complex process is global climate change. To adequately understand and make sound policy decisions regarding adaptation strategies to mitigate the potential impacts of climate change (e.g., sea-level rise, melting of permafrost), Canada’s Earth scientists must monitor environmental change, analyse the geological record and project the range of possible impacts of a regionally variable increase in temperature through the study of previous natural changes recorded in the geologic record. Geodetic methodologies of very long baseline interferometry, GPS and satellite gravimetry are also playing an increasing role.
The Earth Sciences Sector provides a national geoscience and geomatics knowledge base to support public sector activities in Canada and investment decisions and operations by the Canadian private sector at home and overseas. ESS supports the development of the internationally competitive geomatics and resource exploration industries through the transfer of technologies, knowledge and expertise. It extends logistics support to Arctic science through the Polar Continental Shelf Project, which in turn supports policy goals such as sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change science, capacity-building for northerners and national sovereignty. The outputs of Geomatics Canada include topographic maps and aeronautical charts, legal surveys of Canada Lands, geodesy for precise positioning, and applications of remotely sensed Earth observation data. Through the Geological Survey of Canada, ESS provides the framework for mineral and petroleum exploration and helps Canadians mitigate the impact of hazards such as earthquakes and toxic substances in the environment. ESS is finding new applications for its knowledge and expertise, e.g. in climate change, fisheries habitat management (through seafloor characterization), groundwater resource management, agriculture, forest fire management, geotechnical engineering and construction, and transportation and other public infrastructure.
The Earth Sciences Sector provides information, knowledge and expertise to a wide range of users or clients on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources. The Minister is responsible to Parliament for the policies, programs and activities of government, collectively with his cabinet colleagues, and individually for the Natural Resources portfolio. ESS responds to government priorities and emerging issues following direction from the Minister and his Deputy Minister. The sector’s federal role is governed through the Department’s mandate, as outlined in legislation such as the Resource and Technical Surveys Act, the Department of Natural Resources Act, Canada Land Surveys Act, the International Boundary Commission Act and Canada Lands Surveyors Act. The Canada Lands Surveys Act defines a survey system, which is used by other sectors in NRCan. A number of other government departments, provincial governments and territorial governments carry out responsibilities defined in legislation, such as the Indian Act, the National Parks Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Canada Mining Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the Yukon Condominium Act, the Northwest Territories Land Titles Act, and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. ESS contributes to the mandates and priorities of other government departments through legislation for which our Minister is partly responsible, and through collaboration and cooperation on horizontal files such as the Toxic Substances Research Initiative (led by Environment Canada and Health Canada).
ESS provides information, services, expertise and advice to a wide range of clients within the public and private sectors, including provincial, territorial, First Nation and municipal governments, educational institutions, and the following industries (as examples): mining and energy, geomatics, transportation, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, construction, environmental and geotechnical consulting and technologies, mineral and energy exploration technologies and services, construction (buildings, roads, etc.), insurance and real estate. In terms of the major private sector client groups, Canada's geomatics industry is one of the country's fastest growing knowledge sectors. The sector ranks second internationally in technology development and international billings, and leads internationally in remote sensing equipment and technology, supplying 10–15% of world sales value of remote sensing products. Canada's mineral exploration industry invested $800 million domestically in 1996 to search for mineral deposits and about $1.5 billion abroad. Canadian geophysical technology and services are marketed around the world. Canada's minerals and metals sector contributed 2.5% or $18.8 billion to Canada's GDP in 1997, and employed 203,000 Canadians directly or 1.5% of total employment. Canada's petroleum exploration industry spent $5.4 billion in 1997 in search of oil and gas resources. Canada's energy sector contributed 7.0% to GDP in 1997, and employed 193,000 people or 1.4% of total employment in Canada
ESS’ S&T must be capable of understanding and communicating Canadians’ vulnerability or risk to natural hazards, (i.e., the probability of incidence and the potential impact), and be capable of recommending steps to minimize the risk. A recent assessment of the value of ESS’ earthquake hazards program was that the money it had saved Canadian taxpayers in avoided costs each year, through amendments to the Building Code, would have paid for the entire range of programs provided by the Geological Survey of Canada. The GSC has recently published a poster (GeoMap Vancouver) containing a series of maps illustrating which areas are at greatest risks from these various types of hazards. It was produced to provide land use planners, geotechnical engineers and environmental professionals with accurate information on local geologic material, to identify important geologic issues with regard to natural hazards, and to increase public awareness of the spatially variable risks associated with natural hazards. It is anticipated that the demand for such products from professionals, planners and the general public will increase in hazard-prone areas across Canada. Geomatics Canada plans to contribute to hazards surveillance, disaster information management and disaster protection and relief using remote-sensing (RADARSAT) data, enhanced information management capabilities and emerging new technologies, and linkages through participation in the Global Disaster Information Network and the Canada Foundation for Innovation’s Disaster Information Centre at the University of Manitoba.
Much of what ESS provides is unrecognized by the general public, except as geological or topographic maps or images of Earth as viewed from space. In fact, we provide: the survey system for property rights for Canada Lands, aeronautical charts, globally consistent reference networks for accurate spatial positioning, Arctic logistics for the scientific community, and the basic geoscience knowledge infrastructure for the Canadian landmass and offshore regions. The resulting infrastructure is essential but largely invisible to Canadians. The consequences of not maintaining a solid and dynamic infrastructure are very real, with respect to the environment, economy and health. We have reduced resources, while attempting to take advantage of new information management technologies (e.g., Internet) and various revenue-generation and partnership strategies to remain as efficient and effective as possible. However, new problems are being created by the very technologies that enable us to "do more with less". We face an escalating demand for ever more customized data through the Internet. In the face of these opportunities and threats, we must ensure that the public interest of all Canadians is well served.
The importance of ensuring adequate S&T capacity in the Earth sciences can be expressed in terms of the social, economic and environmental benefits. For example:
In summary, the Earth Sciences Sector as Canada’s national geo-information agency supports and advises on government policy and provides knowledge and services in the public good to serve four principal goals. These are: (1) ensuring the well-being of Canadian society and the economy (in particular the sustainable development of Canada’s natural resources and mineral, energy and geomatics industries), (2) supporting environmental stewardship and understanding and addressing global climate change, (3) ensuring public health and safety, and (4) supporting Canada’s infrastructure needs, including the national topographic database, property rights system, Canadian Spatial Reference System and transportation network.
Science-Policy Context for Future S&T Capacity Needs
Science serves government in a number of ways: it provides information and advice for policy formulation and implementation, contributes to wealth creation and risk management, provides the basis for regulations and standards, and serves public good functions through providing a national knowledge infrastructure that contributes to the health and safety and the social, economic and environmental well-being of Canadians and Canada. In 1996, it was observed that "More and more policy requires the integration of scientific information into a policy framework."1 In Science for Policy 2, Jarvis concluded the demand for scientific information and knowledge for policy purposes is growing; whereas, the capacity (both human resources and funding) has been diminished. Furthermore, he posits that the government is at risk in areas, where the acquisition and analysis of scientific information is not keeping pace with the government’s responsibilities.
The federal S&T Strategy, entitled "Science and Technology for the New Century"3 was released in 1996 and proposed that federal S&T contribute to a Canadian innovation system that addresses three national goals: sustainable job creation and economic growth, improved quality of life, and advancement of knowledge. The strategy recommended that the government should invest in S&T in a strategic way, foster innovation, promote a science culture, develop partnerships and make expenditures now to save later. It also provided a series of directions that should be followed and in many cases, reported upon, by managers. These include increasing the effectiveness of S&T, partnerships, emphasizing prevention and sustainable development, building information networks, building international linkages, and promoting a science culture. Future capacity needs defined by ESS should be consistent with the federal S&T Strategy. In particular, the S&T Strategy anticipated the rise in partnerships and information networks as being central to new forms of institutional alliance and governance. ESS has made strong commitments towards these strategic directions in partnership programs such as NATMAP (National Geoscience Mapping Program), LEAP (Local Environmental Applications Program) and MITE (Metals in the Environment Program), as well as information network (ESS ResSources) initiatives such as GeoConnections (CGDI), the Canadian Geoscience Knowledge Network and the Sustainable Communities Initiative.
Earth Sciences Sector and Natural Resources Canada are guided by two principal themes: sustainable development and good governance. These themes respond to the view of Canadians that the use and development of its natural resources is undertaken in a way that protects the health of the natural environment and ensures a legacy for the future. As well, they reflect the fact that Canadians are concerned about the quality and accountability of their government, and want to be involved in policy development and decision-making. Good governance is achieved through improved, cost-effective and efficient service delivery, partnerships, furthering the public good in areas such as health and safety, and providing services that are responsive to the needs of the citizens and regions of Canada.
Building a higher standard of living for Canadians translates into a strategy for increasing Canada’s long-term productivity performance - to put in place both an economic and social environment that supports the best use of capital, spurs innovation and attracts investors. NRCan is addressing key policy challenges of the government’s productivity agenda through its action plan for Winning in the Knowledge Based Economy or WINS. These include:
Elements of the WINS Action Plan such as the Resource Innovation Initiative and Climate Change will require a national science capacity deployed through strategic alliances and partnerships and building on shared leadership with national agencies such as ESS.
In the ESS S&T Capacities Study, future trends in public policy issues and scientific and technological advancements were examined to evaluate potential future capacity needs. Consultation with staff has identified a number of issues that the nation may face over the next decade. We recognize the limitations of building capacity on the basis of today’s issues or predicating it on best guess of tomorrow’s issues. The OECD, in its Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 19984, indicate four key forces driving the long-term changes in OECD economies other than economic growth: (1) technological change, (2) globalization, (3) changing lifestyle and demand patterns, and (4) threats to the global environment. Other issues facing Canada and the global community include the growth in the human population, climate change, upgrading of the national transportation infrastructure, risks associated with natural hazards, demand for energy, mineral, soil and water resources, competing demands for land and resource use, devolution of land and resource management to First Nations and the Territories, the need to increase productivity performance and international competitiveness of Canadian industry, and mitigation of the environmental impacts of human activities. ESS will also need to work with continued rapid growth in technological capabilities for the acquisition, management, analysis and dissemination of Earth science information through the Internet and other media, along with the development of precise satellite positioning as a widely available utility.
Policy issues create a demand for quantitative scientific information and derivative products, such as estimates of resource potential, earthquake hazard assessments, detailed topographic information surrounding Canada’s airports, and others. The time required to conduct research, however, is often longer than the duration of a public policy issue, or of a specific government mandate. The ability of ESS to respond meaningfully to climate change issues, which became a government priority with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997, is due to the fact that scientists have been studying recent and ancient climate change since 1989, as part of their business of documenting Earth systems. Earth system science has emerged as a unifying theme for the Earth sciences, although the scientific community is still learning how the Earth, ocean, atmosphere and biological sciences interact and interrelate.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is responding to and supporting next century societal concerns such as the environment, water supply and climate change. The USGS’ Geologic Division has recently developed a Science Strategy for 2000-2010 that describes science goals to address issues that will impact on the US over the next decade. These goals focus on human interaction with the natural environment, and build on long-term fundamental research. The issues are natural hazards, natural resources in a global economic and environmental context, climate change, ecosystem structure and function, groundwater, waste disposal, and human health.
There is an increasing expectation by Canadians that the government should seek to mitigate the impact of natural disasters and understand the link to climate change, protect the environment and ensure a food supply untainted by toxic substances, sustain resource-dependent communities, and meet the needs and aspirations of First Nations and northerners in managing their lands and resources. Canadians are aware of issues and more involved in decision-making related to their land and resources. Canadians are demanding more geo-information, as both the evolution in technology and government service delivery support more citizen engagement and involvement in policy development and decision making. These changes are driving an organizational culture from a focus on the scientific and technical community to serving a much broader, less expert, client base (e.g., Canadian communities, general public). As well, an interdepartmental (i.e., horizontal) and intergovernmental approach to science-policy issues is required more and more often.
In summary, although the future cannot be predicted, a number of long-term science-policy issues for the federal government and ESS have been identified based on trends in Canada and globally. These include:
ESS needs to be responsive to emerging policy issues and government priorities and requires flexible and innovative staff and management. The increasingly complex nature of policy issues, science and technology, coupled with reduced resources and capacity in all Earth science organizations, has resulted in the development of partnerships, networks and strategic alliances within the national and international Earth sciences community. ESS will continue to build and participate in virtual organizations and networks with the national Earth sciences community; thus, facilitating its ability to respond effectively to policy issues and to meet new challenges and opportunities.
The challenge for the ESS S&T Capacities Study is to define the future national needs for Earth science information, expertise, technology and services, its role in meeting these needs and its capacity to deliver. The results to-date of the study indicate a current gap in some areas between needs and capacity, which will become more significant in the future due to the demographics of the ESS workforce, as well as that of other Earth science information providers in Canada. Factors that contribute to the gap between needs and capacity to deliver include new policy issues and government priorities, evolution in scientific concepts, current capacity and demographics, technological change, the complexity of multi-stakeholder and citizen-centered decision making, and the demand for more sophisticated, user-friendly and rapidly delivered information. The demand for Earth science information and expertise in support of policy issues is on the rise, as is the demand for information via the Internet. Looking ahead to 2010, there will be a gulf between expected demand on ESS for programs, products and services and the complement of S&T staff with the requisite education, training and experience, unless current and future capacity gaps are addressed.
Throughout the staff consultations, it was clear that this exercise was overdue. The reasons for this are many, but include the preoccupation during the last 5 years with downsizing; continuing loss of key staff and core competencies; the emergence of complex, horizontal policy issues (e.g., climate change), which require a depth and breadth in S&T capacity that exceeds current strengths; and the anticipation of significant retirements over the period 2003-2010 (up to 30% in many areas). A sense of concern about the current and future ability of ESS to provide high quality information and services has been conveyed through discussions with focus groups and meetings with stakeholder groups. Although ESS was downsized by 30% or more, it has managed to maintain highly competent and motivated staff, some of who are regarded as national and international leaders in their fields. However, ESS is missing key expertise and must fill these gaps in the short term. This problem will only worsen over the next 10 years.
The ESS S&T Capacity Study has a number of principal findings.
There has been no systematic hiring of the next generation in ESS, which will be an issue when the demographic bulge comes to retirement age in the period from 2003-2010. There is a need to mentor and ensure continuity of expertise and knowledge. However, resources for more systematic recruitment will only be freed up when people retire. Clearly, incremental resources for recruitment and rejuvenation of the workforce are needed in the next five years to address the demographics issue of 2003-2010. ESS needs to hire new staff, who can be mentored and coached prior to critical departures and gain experience and exposure prior to stepping into leadership roles.
ESS’ demographic profile is sharply weighted to staff in the 45-55 age range and is truncated at both ends. The mean age in the Sector is 44 years, with 46% between 40 and 49 and 19% between 50 and 59. The >60 age bracket is in significant part occupied by emeritus scientists, who will themselves be leaving the organization over the next decade. Of the total complement of ESS staff (1427 as of March 31, 1998), 46% are in Scientific and Professional categories and 29% are Technical. Considering both age and years of service ("55+30") in terms of scenarios for the earliest possible retirement will full pension, ESS could lose 12% of staff by 2003, 30% by 2007 and 41% by 2010. The numbers are highest for Scientific and Professional (22% by 2007 and 27% by 2010) and Technical (30% by 2007 and 45% by 2010) categories. ESS is currently assessing the relationship between projected departures and anticipated future capacity needs.
Recruitment is made more difficult by lack of flexibility in hiring, salary considerations in some areas, and competition for new hires in some areas. Competition for new hires will also be a future issue, given similar demographics in the provincial Earth science agencies and universities. All agencies are struggling to manage their own capacity issues. Based on the present situation, the supply of new graduates in some S&T areas from Canadian institutions will be insufficient (e.g., marine geoscience, quantitative modeling of Earth observation data).
Program Priorities and Future Directions
At present, ESS covers a broad range of Earth science program areas but no longer has the depth to do so effectively and efficiently across the entire range. As a result, a number of ESS programs do not have adequate staff or resources to undertake present responsibilities, let alone respond to new challenges and opportunities. Furthermore, ESS should not attempt to cover all aspects of Earth science in Canada, given that geoscience and geomatics knowledge and expertise are also provided by other federal departments, provinces/territories, universities and the private sector. To address these issues, ESS is currently refining its priorities and strategic direction, and will focus on a number of key areas that are clearly in our mandate and the federal role. This will enable ESS to respond in an effective and timely fashion to the needs and priorities of the government. National consensus will be required with all partners and stakeholders, if this is to be achieved.
Through its staff and external consultation to-date, the S&T Capacities study has defined a number of priority areas for the sector’s programs, recruitment and partnerships. These are being considered by senior managers, as part of the current exercise to refine the future vision and strategic direction for ESS. It is expected that the S&T Capacities Study will be integrated with the strategic direction for the sector in winter 1999, with the input of sector managers and staff, external stakeholders and the Minister’s Advisory Board on the Earth Sciences. This will provide a framework for implementing the recommendations of the S&T Capacities Study, including the Recruitment, Rejuvenation and Retention Strategy.
The priority areas identified through the S&T Capacities Study to date are:
Current and Future Capacity Gaps
The capacity gap analysis is based on previous GSC and GC strategic plans, internal and external reviews and consultations with ESS staff and managers through the focus groups. Capacity gaps are real and ubiquitous - some 150 specific gaps have been identified in terms of professional and technical expertise, laboratories and facilities. These will be described in the internal report being prepared for late March 1999. ESS cannot respond to them all simultaneously. Not all capacity gaps have the same strategic priority, and ESS has not exhausted its own internal resources or partnership opportunities to address some of them. In a significant number of cases, however, the problem is beyond the ability of a single division, branch or program to solve.
Some of the capacity gaps respond to emerging government priorities. For example, the North has re-emerged as a government priority in terms of capacity-building (Gathering Strength), governance (division, devolution), sustainable development (Northern Economic Development strategies), and environmental protection (Northern Contaminants Program). ESS has a substantially reduced capacity for northern science and logistical support (Polar Continental Shelf Project). Similarly, ESS is stretching its capacity to address new challenges presented by climate change science. Many programs are down to 1-2 staff members per specialty and/or region, leaving potential gaps in case of departures or changes in work focus. There are more demands for program activities and partnership opportunities across the country than can be met. Gaps exist in the delivery of ongoing GSC programs (e.g., Marine Geoscience) and projects (EXTECH), let alone in new initiatives (e.g., Hydrogeology, Metals in the Environment).
Within Geomatics Canada, S&T capacity is variable but, in general, there are demographic concerns and a limited pool of new resources for recruitment. In some areas, such as Geodetic and Legal Surveys Divisions, current capacities are stretched to the limit, leaving little room for partnering, retraining and refocusing on new directions and initiatives. In 1997, Mapping Services Branch set out the rationale for creating a sustainable S&T environment to support R&D projects and partnerships, aimed at the generation of new products and services. The implementation of this is now linked with the S&T Capacities Study. The Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS) sees its future as an information provider and broker, extracting data from Earth observation satellites and integrating other information for new, value-added products and services, including decision support and expert systems.
Based on the consultation to date and the emerging priorities identified above, the following capacity gaps (in terms of professional and technical expertise) are identified as the most pressing in ESS. It is important to note that these will be refined as ESS senior management completes its evaluation of future strategic directions for the sector. Furthermore, the following list only identifies some priority areas where action to address present or future gaps is recommended. It does not represent a list of the capacities and/or competencies required for ESS to undertake its programs over the next decade. A more complete treatment of the science activities and related support services and partnerships required to undertake ESS programs and meet government priorities is contained in the existing GSC and GC Strategic Plans5, 6, and will be updated with the new ESS Strategic Plan being developed in 1999-2000.
Technology and Facilities to Support Research
Technology is a facilitator of science and production operations. Technologies of the future include high-resolution satellites, improvements in GPS and other space geodetic techniques, Internet, low cost telecommunications equipment and service, high accuracy microanalysis and others. Issues related to technology include: capacity in data management, analysis, modeling, integration, visualization, and developing and delivering integrated information products. Key research
directions include: data models for interoperability, data generalization, dynamic integration, feature extraction and change detection. The Internet is a key mechanism for searching, accessing, integrating, and disseminating information and knowledge. Developing and facilitating the use of decision-support systems or expert systems is envisaged as a means through which policy development, decision-making and implementation can be supported by scientific information and knowledge.
Laboratories have evolved from units serving internal program needs to centres that now interact with other groups both inside and outside of government. Laboratory capacity must be examined in a national context. For example, in geochemical analysis, most of the laboratories of provincial surveys are either small or are on the verge of non-viability. There are no functioning geochronology laboratories housed in provincial geological surveys, although a number have affiliations with university- or museum-based laboratories. At the same time, some university laboratories have capacity concerns. ESS laboratories vary in their need of equipment replacement and physical plant renovation, and have varying opportunities for revenue generation and/or research partnerships. An internal GSC report (1998) on the situation in its laboratories indicated that several laboratories are deteriorating and/or working to capacity. Issues pertaining to the physical facilities for laboratories are being addressed through NRCan’s Integrated Accommodation Plan.
There is broad support for an ESS or NRCan committee or secretariat to improve communication and coordination among laboratories, in order to avoid duplication of instrumentation, improve efficiencies and achieve cost savings. A long-term capital replacement plan is required, perhaps managed by a secretariat, for refurbishment and re-equipping laboratories with state-of-the-art instruments. Some ESS laboratories may become national centres of expertise and specialized instruments, partially funded by external users and research granting councils. This concept needs to be explored with our partners and potential users.
Research support is a common capacity concern across ESS, with technical support in laboratories forming a key gap in a number of divisions. However, a number of these gaps could be filled by new hiring from revenue generated through providing laboratory services to external clients, if revenue generation activities can be balanced with laboratory research and meeting ESS program needs. Critical to the GSC’s Marine Geoscience Program are access to ship time and technology. Both issues need to be resolved to enable longer-term planning. In 1997, a consortium of Canadian marine scientists considered issues of declining support for marine science, marine vessels (DFO), and better coordination and collaboration. A key recommendation was to form a National Marine Science Council, to be responsible for developing a National Marine Infrastructure System (equipment, research platforms).
In addition to technical support in laboratories and in the field, there is a myriad of other necessary functions required in ESS to support its S and T activities. These range from administrative and support services, and include areas such as libraries, publishing and policy. Some of the challenges of increased workload and adapting to new technologies are being felt in these and other areas. Technological improvements often require new skill sets and, therefore, training. In some cases, operating systems can change faster than our ability to feel fully functional and comfortable with them. This leads to stress and loss of productivity. Administration and other support staff, whether they be technical, business or secretarial, must be acknowledged as integral components of the sector’s capacity to undertake S&T activities. In many cases, support staff have long experience in government, or with technical issues, and can effect great efficiencies in undertaking program activities, if consulted and made part of the team. Demands on staff are only going to get more complex, as ESS engages in more and more partnerships and as technology evolves, facilitating new working arrangements (e.g., telework).
Research in the Canadian Arctic relies on the Polar Continental Shelf Project and the Coast Guard (DFO) for logistical support. However, due to substantial budget reductions during Program Review, both PCSP and DFO are no longer able to support research at an adequate level, particularly for government scientists. PCSP has gained operational efficiencies and recovers costs where possible, but staff are now stretched to the limit.
Driven by downsizing and the horizontal nature of the challenges, we are continuing to develop a multi-stakeholder relationship with the Provinces and Territories, universities and industry on program delivery (e.g., the Intergovernmental Geoscience Accord) and information dissemination (e.g., GeoConnections). With other federal S&T departments and agencies (in particular Environment (EC), Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC), and Health (HC)), we recognize our mutual inter-dependency in terms of delivering upon our respective mandates and in addressing cross-cutting science-policy issues. We have developed strong research partnerships with some universities. These arrangements were reduced significantly over the past few years and we are now re-introducing their modern equivalents at both working program and institutional levels (e.g., ESS-NSERC Research Partnership Program). These are essential for the delivery of national programs. They also address concerns with a supply of future graduates, with the skills to meet future ESS challenges. International partnerships need to be fostered, as they can provide heavily leveraged benefits for Canada.
ESS needs to explore new and innovative ways of doing business in order to work effectively and efficiently with the national capacity for the Earth sciences. This includes enhancing existing and building new partnerships, networks (e.g., Network Centre’s of Excellence such as GEOID) and strategic alliances (e.g., Canadian Space Agency and CCRS). It needs to pursue new funding in priority areas for the government, and build win-win partnerships to increase the resources (financial, intellectual) and reach of the programs. As an example, LITHOPROBE has been an outstanding success for Canada. Win-win partnerships are exemplified through the alignment of the GSC’s National Mapping Program (NATMAP) projects with LITHOPROBE transects. As a result, the program has shifted its mode of operation from single scientist projects to a much more integrated, team- and partnership-oriented program.
Partnerships with provincial geomatics agencies, other federal departments and private sector organizations have been a key factor in the creation of the National Topographic Data Base (NTDB). From its inception a decade ago, cost-shared data collection has contributed to the majority of the 6000+ data files available. From the original and very successful Geographic Information Technology Development Program to more recent agreements with the provinces of Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland, NTDB data files have been created either from existing provincial mapping data or by cost sharing the digitization of existing National Topographic Series maps. Partnerships continue to be the approach of choice for the maintenance of this data. Agreements on updating topographic data have been reached with a number of Provincial agencies, including British-Columbia and Saskatchewan, and dialogue has been established with most provinces and territories. This effort is critical to the realization of the Framework Data thrust of GeoConnections.
Interdepartmental and intergovernmental cooperation is critical to climate change science, impacts and adaptation research (e.g., with DFO and EC for coastal zone impacts of sea level rise, and AAFC for groundwater issues related to agriculture in the Prairies). Although such cooperation is being addressed through interdepartmental (NRCan-EC) coordination of the Climate Change Action Fund and National Implementation Strategy, impediments remain in information sharing, alignment of science-policy positions, and cost recovery policies for products and services. A virtual or real interdepartmental environmental centre could be considered. In the Metals in the Environment Program in GSC, ESS will need to develop or enhance partnerships with Canadian Forest Service, HC, AAFC and EC. The proactive development of partnerships and new institutional arrangements by the Centre of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria is positive. An integrated marine science institute was seen as a cost-effective means to undertake science and deliver the program. The marine geoscience program is increasingly linked with, and delivering research for, other government departments (EC, DFO). It is moving towards a more holistic and integrated marine science (ocean system) approach.
ESS regional presence and program delivery is an important consideration. The federal government must be responsive to the varying needs of different parts of the country, addressing them in the context of the federal role and, increasingly, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments.
During the fall of 1998, ESS managers discussed future vision and direction from organizational and program perspectives. The overall consensus of senior managers was that over the next 5 to 10 years, ESS is facing a period of dramatic change for which it needs to be flexible, highly relevant, proactive and politically astute within a clear and focussed understanding of its role in government and the community. This is consistent with the findings of the S&T Capacities Study, which would further argue that forward looking management of the cultural shift will be critical to the future success of the organization. The changes foreseen come mainly from the technological revolution that, through the Internet and the wider use of computers, will place our knowledge about the Canadian landmass and its resources at the fingertips of almost all communities and most Canadians. A new and broader range of clients will put greater demands on our expertise and knowledge for a wide range of issues. New products, syntheses and knowledge integrations will be demanded. The link between our scientific and technical knowledge and policy choices at all levels of government will become more urgent and will have to be communicated quickly in ways that are heard and understood.
The future vision emerging from these deliberations is that ESS will be the national authority and steward of Canadian Earth science information and knowledge. Managers believe that ESS should serve a broader range of clients, be one of the best managed sectors in government and be an exciting, challenging and satisfying place to work. To achieve this vision, ESS will need to be credible, respected, relevant and responsive. In addition it will need to be well connected within government and externally, well integrated with its partners and a good communicator. ESS must be concerned with integrating knowledge from other sources and within itself, facilitating the development of national standards, widely distributing its information, and providing scientific leadership as appropriate. Its clients will range from decision-makers to communities and citizens - a considerable broadening of the current client base.
To be successful, ESS will have to refine, negotiate and clearly understand its role in the geoscientific and geomatics community at large. It will have to build partnerships, taking the lead, where necessary, but being a team player where appropriate. It will have to place itself firmly in the policy agenda and be proactive in providing and communicating relevant advice and expertise. ESS is committed to ongoing improvement of the management of its programs and projects, with the aim of ensuring of meeting high standards for accountability and client satisfaction. ESS needs to foster and facilitate a culture of flexibility and innovation, partnership and continuous learning.
ESS needs a staff who can generate new ideas and knowledge and display intellectual flexibility underpinned by a solid scientific or technical background. Key competencies include: flexibility and adaptability, interdisciplinary skills, information technology competence, team and partnership building skills, leadership potential, communication and outreach skills and business or marketing skills. Emphasis is placed on communication skills, in terms of connecting with decision-makers and the general public, to ensure that ESS is seen to contribute to the science and policy issues. For example, communication and information management skills are core competencies for hazard researchers. The inclusion of non-traditional skills for S&T staff will need to be communicated with universities and colleges. A continuous learning approach for ESS will be essential to fostering these competencies in existing staff and sustaining and developing them in new hires.
The work environment is a factor for recruiting and determining the length of time that an employee will stay. This is important in retaining scientists and technicians. Positive factors include:
Factors that drive employees away from ESS include: competition from the private sector or universities, overwork, and lack of perceived commitment and vision from management. Steps must be taken to minimize these factors.
STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING CAPACITY GAPS
In order to respond to the current and anticipated future capacity gaps in ESS, a number of strategies have been developed that can be implemented within the sector as well as at departmental, governmental and national levels.
Recruitment, Rejuvenation and Retention Strategy
The ESS Recruitment, Rejuvenation and Retention (3R) Strategy is linked with the NRCan and interdepartmental 3R strategies. The ESS 3R Strategy is based on five principal themes. First, recruitment of new employees will be targeted at filling anticipated capacity gaps in priority areas for the sector. Second, a key focus will be on motivation at work to renew the commitment of employees to the organization. Third, the career path for employees should be aligned with the strategic direction for the sector. Fourth, continuous training and challenging assignments for staff. Fifth, partnerships will be sought to leverage limited financial resources in ESS and create win-win situations. Beginning in 1999/2000, ESS is implementing a Strategic S&T Recruitment Plan will commit the equivalent of at least 1% of its budget for recruitment of new junior staff. Branches/ Divisions will establish recruitment targets based on the priorities defined by the S&T Capacities Study and the Strategic Direction exercise, and managers will be accountable for achieving these targets within the next fiscal year. Employment equity will be considered in the recruitment plan, with the aim of building a workforce that is representative of the Canadian population.
Rejuvenation and retention of staff through training, redirection and attention to the work environment will be key elements of the 3R Strategy. Retraining in some areas may be accompanied by a short term decrease in the level of service or program activity, as staff develops new skills and masters new technologies, unless additional staff are hired to maintain the level of service during the transition for the group. At the same time, ESS staff will continue to have an important role themselves in the training of the next generation of Earth scientists and technical staff, through student employment programs, internships, adjunct professorships and student thesis supervision.
Internal Strategies
Partnerships Strategy
Networks and Strategic Alliances
New Funding Strategies
NRCan and Federal Strategy
Government S&T is critical to the public interest and will have increasing demands put upon it, as the knowledge based economy and the information society develops. ESS, however, can not provide the same breadth of Earth science programs, products and services that it did prior to Program Review. Some general conclusions are:
There are a number of challenges to reaching the vision of ESS being the national authority and steward of Earth science information and knowledge in Canada. Being recognized and relevant is the challenge of maintaining ourselves at the cutting edge of our expertise, having good linkages and improved communication. Being efficient and effective in S&T management means focussing on accountability, continuously improving project and program management and increasing the satisfaction of our clients and stakeholders in our products and services. Being flexible carries a number of practical challenges ranging from breaking the "silos", linking the regions and developing the ability to respond to new issues and opportunities without impeding ongoing commitments. The challenge of setting priorities comes with the acknowledged consequences of re-allocating resources and ultimately eliminating some activities. Recruitment and rejuvenation is a major challenge aimed at bridging the oncoming demographic gap, maintaining capabilities in key areas and attracting new staff. A clearly associated challenge is that of managing our human resources to ensure recognition and job satisfaction and to deal with excess workload. The challenge of keeping up with the technology centres on the Internet, satellite space geodesy, GIS and other data management, visualization and integration technologies. Managing our partnerships with industry, the provinces, territories and other government departments is a challenge and opportunity. Finally in communications we need to understand and document our impact on society, to ensure that staff understand the priorities and to make the required effort to make ourselves recognized and seen to be relevant.
There are four principal recommendations at this point in the study:
1): Based on the ESS S&T Capacity Study, ESS must identify capacity gaps that are consistent with the vision and strategic direction, which are currently being refined for the sector, and develop Action Plans to address these gaps;
2): The Action Plans must include consideration of the following mechanisms for responding to issues of strategic concern:
3): The Action Plans must assign accountability and time-frames, including what actions must occur in Year 1, Years 2-5 and Years 5-10. This will be an evolving Action Plan, as objectives are met and as threats or opportunities emerge.
4): ESS must continue to be innovative and seek a consensus, within the community, on the priorities and strategies of ESS, with respect to the national capacity. This vision and strategic direction, along with the Action Plans, will form the basis for a new ESS Strategic Plan.
APPENDIX 1: FRAMEWORK FOR THE ESS S&T CAPACITIES STUDY
NRCan’s Earth Sciences Sector (ESS) initiated work on S&T Capacity in January 1998. Work to April 1998 indicated that S&T capacity for ESS is a pressing issue and that a study of future capacity needs (10 year horizon) should be undertaken in a national context. The duration for a credible study (12-18 months) precludes immediate solutions to current problems. Solutions to capacity gaps take time, including nurturing future staff through college and university education and continuous learning in the work environment, retraining of existing staff, and program reorientation.
What is S&T Capacity?
"S&T" is defined in the broad sense and includes basic and applied research and development, systems and technology development, i.e., "research and development (R&D) and related science activities". Related scientific activities and support for science-related work include: scientific data collection, information services, testing and standardization, feasibility studies and related administration.
"Competencies" refers to the skills, knowledge, wisdom and experience of personnel, and represents the principal component of capacities. In defining capacity needs, it is important to consider what specialized tools, technology, facilities and service deliveries need to be in place.
Objectives
To assess ESS’ S&T capacity in a national context, the study involved a number of elements:
Scope
The ESS study examined future (10 years) S&T capacity in the national context through consultation with other Earth science information providers, stakeholders and clients. These include:
Methodology
Phase I: May to December 1998
This is the information collection stage, leading to a December 1998 interim report. Information is collected through research and consultation to: (1) define the requirements for Earth sciences, (2) describe the roles of other S&T providers, (3) identify key capacity gaps, and (4) assess future capacity needs. Background information includes current S&T capacity in ESS, demographics, previous reviews of ESS S&T capacity, national studies of future needs and challenges for the Earth sciences community, and international studies.
External consultation will focus on key groups by informing them of its intent, inviting input, and soliciting their involvement for the principal external consultation phase (Dec.-March 1999). Internal (ESS) consultation is being undertaken through focus groups from all units and are structured around six key questions:
1. How will programs evolve over the next 10 years?
2. What will be the major issues for ESS and partners to address?
3. What will be the impact of technological change on ESS programs?
4. What are the program delivery gaps (both short and long term)?
5. What are the competencies, facilities and other elements required to fill the priority gaps?
6. What strategies are required to fill the priority gaps?
Phase II: January 1999 to March 1999
ESS will seek external input through a number of key stakeholder associations and advisory groups. This report will be validated through internal and external review. Outputs from this study will include a final report and an ESS Recruitment, Rejuvenation and Retention Strategy.
Key stakeholder and advisory groups for external consultation include:
"Strengthening our Policy Capacity", DM Task Force Report, Ottawa, December 1996, p. 13.
Bill Jarvis, "Science for Policy: A Status Report on Capacity", prepared for the Policy Research Secretariat, October, 1998.
Government of Canada, Science and Technology Strategy for the New Century: A Federal Strategy, 1996.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 1998. Chapter 1, p. 17.
NRCan, GSC, The Geological Survey of Canada’s Strategic Plan for Geoscience 1996-2001, 1996.
NRCan, GC, Geomatics for the New Millennium - A Strategic Plan for Geomatics Canada 1997-2002, 1997.
Text prepared by S. Lucas, GSC, Ottawa