Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management Jon D.
Download ReportTranscript Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management Jon D.
Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management Jon D. Erickson, Caroline Hermans, and Paula Zampieri Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont Jon Bouton Forestry Division, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Richard Howarth Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College Amy Sheldon White River Partnership Matthew Wilson Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont Private Owners, Public Values White River watershed and partnership Forestry work group and UVM class on forest resource values Group preference elicitation White River Watershed State of Vermont • 454,000 acres (710 sq. miles) Middle Branch WHITE First Branch Third Branch Upper White River Lower White River • 56 mile main stem – longest free flowing river in Vermont – largest un-dammed tributary to the Connecticut River • Over 100 miles with tributaries Middle White River • 21 towns • 40,000 residents White River Partnership Mission: to help local communities balance the long-term cultural, economic and environmental health of the White River Watershed through active citizen participation. www.whiteriverpartnership.org White River Partnership Six functioning stream teams; Active 11 member board; 300 volunteers planting trees in the spring; 30 volunteers collecting weekly water quality samples; Two full time staff, 1 Summer water quality intern, 2 Assessment Consultants (summer & computer); Numerous river restoration projects; Forestry work group . . . www.whiteriverpartnership.org Forestry Work Group Formed in 2003 in response to recent large scale change Partnered with UVM class in Spring 2004 March 2004 workshop on identifying criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management June 2004 workshop on reporting on the status and trend of criteria and indicators Sustainable Forest Management International Context National and Regional Application Stand-Level Implementation International Context UN Earth Summit, 1992 Statement of Forest Principles and Agenda 21 Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montreal Process) Santiago Declaration, Feb. 1995. Montreal Process Criteria & Indicators (www.mpci.org) Criteria Ind. Conservation of biological diversity 9 Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystem 5 Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality 3 Conservation & maintenance of soil & water resources 8 Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles 3 Maintenance & enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society 19 Legal, institutional & economic framework for forest conservation & sustainable management 20 National Application Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, United States, Uruguay U.S.: Roundtable on Sustainable Forests (www.sustainableforests.net) USDA Forest Service, National Report on Sustainable Forests, Nov. 7, 2002. Regional Application Canada: Model Forest Program (4 of 12 with significant private forest lands) Australia: Regional Forest Agreements and application of sub-national C&I United States: Local Unit Criteria & Indicators Development Project (LUCID) Vermont Forest Resource Advisory Council – Work Group on Sustainability Stand-Level Implementation Forest Stewardship Council (www.fscoax.org) Smart Wood (www.smartwood.org) Founded in 1993 Over 100 million acres certified worldwide Including 97 certificates in the U.S. across 9.4 million acres of forestland Founded in 1989, part of Rainforest Alliance Certified over 800 operations (20 in Vermont) and 24 million acres worldwide Vermont Family Forests (www.familyforests.com) Founded in 1995 6,489 acres currently enrolled Charge to 1st Workshop What are your objectives for the forest lands of the White River watershed? How can these objectives be measured? In 30 years we hope for . . . More local harvesting of high quality marketable wood products that are manufactured in the watershed with no waste. A local marketing cooperative Qualified, local forest practitioners and forest management that includes ecology as well as silviculture All forests and forest products to be sustainably certified No clear cutting or to have size limits for clear cuts Incentives that lead to good stewardship An emphasis on comprehensive, community based, management Examine/manage previous logging issues – restoration? Maintained or increased hunting access Improved deer yards and herds A youth population that appreciates and participates in hunting and fishing Clean water Recognition of the role the forest plays in water quality Forests and logging roads that are managed to minimize soil erosion In 30 years we hope for . . . A forest managed for biodiversity and sustainability Regulation/monitoring of recreational use (ATV, snowmobile, mtn. bikes) Large areas of pristine wilderness to be accessible for recreation (define “pristine”) The same amount of private lands Landowners to have the right to harvest trees on their own land Maintain current balance between private and public land as well as current wilderness designations An aesthetic watershed where no littering or dumping occurs Multiple use Forests to provide economic livelihood (pay taxes) A plan for emergencies (ice storms, disease, etc.) Management that takes into consideration possible residential development (i.e. subdivisions) in planning and incorporates forested areas (wilderness) into any development plans A state that has addressed the inequities in the market Increased quality/quantity of forestry education A vision for the forests of the White River Watershed Future 1 Economic Indicators Future 2 Economic Indicators Social/Cultural Indicators Environmental Indicators Future 3 Economic Indicators Social/Cultural Indicators Environmental Indicators Social/Cultural Indicators Environmental Indicators Charge to UVM Class What is the current status and trend of each indicator? Research Design: Multi-Criteria Group Preference Elicitation Formation of stakeholder group Structuring the decision problem Building the evaluation matrix Pre-elicitation ofCriteria individual preferences from citizen and Indicators groups Future 1 Group process; Negotiated group preference Future 2 Post-elicitation of individual preferences from citizen groups Future 3 Guidance from and reports to stakeholder group Shared vision for forest management in the watershed policy and management Within each criterion: • Maximize or minimize • Absolute or relative preference Score 1 Score 1 0 0 Difference Absolute Difference Relative Within each criterion: • Degree of indifference threshold Score 1 0 Difference Indifference Threshold Within each criterion: • Degree of indifference threshold • Degree of preference threshold Score 1 0 Difference Preference Threshold Within each criterion: • Degree of indifference threshold, AND • Degree of preference threshold Score 1 0 Indifference Preference Threshold Threshold Between criteria: • Weights GOAL Future 1 Future 2 Future 3 CEc CSc CEv CEc CSc CEv CEc CSc CEv w1 + w2 + w3 = 1 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Performance of each alternative by multiple criteria 1 C1 C4 C6 0 C2 C5 -1 C3 C7 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Pairwise comparison of alternatives by multiple criteria Alt-1 Alt-2 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Preference ordering of alternatives for each individual, and the group as a whole A2 Partial A3 A1 A5 A4 Complete A3 A2 A4 A1 A5 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Simultaneous comparison of criteria and alternatives (individual GAIA Plane) CEc CSc Alt-3 pi Alt-2 CEv Alt-1 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Simultaneous comparison of decisionmakers and alternatives (group GAIA Plane) DM-2 pi Alt-1 Alt-2 Alt-3 DM-1 DM-3 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process Sensitivity analysis – walking weights and stability intervals CEc CSc Alt-3 pi Alt-2 CEv Alt-1 Research on Preference Formation Intra-criterion preferences Inter-criteria preferences Max/Min, Absolute/Relative, Thresholds Weights of broad categories or specific indicators Order and strength of rankings Preference flows Partial or complete Project Information White River Partnership Project web site www.whiteriverpartnership.org www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/ Concept paper on group valuation: Wilson, M.A. and R.B. Howarth, 2002. “Valuation Techniques for Achieving Social Fairness in the Distribution of Ecosystem Services,” Ecological Economics 41, 431-443.