Principle - Society accepts responsibilities for resource management.

Criterion - Forest management provides ongoing access to the resource.

Indicator – Original Wording: Access to forest resources is perceived locally to be fair.

Final Wording: Access to forest resources is perceived to be fair and secure.

CIFOR-BAG indicator 1.1.4 (access is perceived to be fair) was combined with CIFOR-Bag indicator 1.1.5 (access is secure) given that the concepts are related and measurement methods are similar. This final wording is used for testing.

Box B: Definition:

"Access" implies that the resources remain in sufficient quantity and quality to meet people’s needs, or at least meet these needs to the same extent as in the past; and that local people can acquire these resources.

"Security" about access to resources is a feeling. It implies a certainty that the current access will be maintained or that the resource will remain available. Security implies a lack of fear and concern about loss of those resources.

Local people feel that their own access to local resources is "fair" (however they choose to define fair). This includes the perspectives of all local groups, including women and minorities. No single local actor, or any group of actors, nor any external forces (timber companies, or other villages) have access beyond what is considered locally appropriate. Alternately, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers C&I defines fairness specifically as inclusiveness. Inter (between) and Intra (within) generational access should be considered in this concept.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners.

Access to resources will vary by landowner. Private landowners, for example, may not be willing to allow public access to lands; consequently, this indicator may be less relevant to them. In forest management, units of mixed-tenure access rights are often confusing to stakeholders. For some tenure-holders this access might change over time (e.g,. private industry may allow recreational access in some areas but restrict this access while harvesting is occurring) consequently security of access may be confusing.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR – BAG: 1.1.4 1.1.1

CCFM: 6.2.1 6.2.3 6.2. 6.4

Notes: Security of access is best assessed at the study area or tenure scale. Access rights, and consequently security of access, will change by tenure holder. As forest management practices are distributed across the landscape one could expect that in many cases access and security of access to specific sites (unless they have specific significance) may be restricted during active harvesting or for other resource management purposes. Consequently the site level may be too small a scale to examine security of access on.

Notes: This indicator is diagnostic of current conditions but it has an implied predictive aspect. Feelings of security are assessments of possible future conditions. While an assessment of a highly secure resource does not imply future security, it is a predictive assessment of how stakeholders feel about the security of that resource.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Colfer et al (1998) note that while a great deal of literature has focused on Security of Intergenerational Access to Resources (SIAR) (see for example Kundstadter et al., 1978; Fortmann and Bruce, 1988; Poffenberger, 1992; and Rose) there has been less focus on access to resources in timber concession areas. While access is recognized by certification agents as a common issue of concern (see for example FSC, 1998; SGS, 1997; LEI, 1997; Rainforest Alliance, 1993; Soil Association, 1994; ITW, 1994; and DDB, 1996) methods of assessing are not specified. Some of these certification processes and international processes (see for example Montreal Process, 1997; ITTO, 1997; Helsinki, 1993) have explicitly focused on access with respect to indigenous or aboriginal people (the Boise C&I test addresses aboriginal access issues specifically under Boise J1 though J5). Others focus on access specifically with respect to employment (e.g., Helsinki,1993). The Southern Appalachian Assessment (1996) focused on SIAR defining issues including: employment, income and the relationship of these to timber production and other forest industries; population; ownership and uses of land; and values pertaining to land and its uses. For this indicator (B2) we focus on ownership, uses of land and values pertaining to the land and its uses. Other indicators in the Boise C&I sequence focus on other aspects of SIAR.

When access to forest resources is perceived to be unfair, this is likely to engender negative reactions in those who feel they are unfairly treated. Such feelings of unfairness can escalate into destruction of property or acts of violence that can have negative effects on ecological sustainability and human well-being. Access can be interpreted literally as physical access to land and resources or access can be interpreted figuratively as perceived accessibility of the resource.

In areas of mixed land ownership or tenure, lines of ownership are often invisible although access rights might differ. This mixed ownership/mixed access scenario can present a confusing situation to users and can result in significant access concerns.

Both intra- and inter-generational access are theoretically implicit in this indicator. In previous treatments of SIAR most of the specific indicators and associated measures have focused on intra-generational access issues. Colfer et al (1998) and other CIFOR C&I work and test teams have developed a criterion – "People link their and their children’s future with management of forest resources" (CIFOR-BAG 1.3) – designed to more explicitly address inter-generational issues. Six indicators have been associated with this criterion:

1.3.1 people invest in their surroundings;

1.3.2 out-migration levels are low;

1.3.3 people recognize the need to balance numbers of people with natural resource use;

1.3.4 children are educated about natural resource management;

1.3.5 destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare; and

1.3.6 people maintain spiritual links to the land.

The Boise test team’s review of these indicators resulted in low scores for these indicators as we felt they were: a) tenuous proxies for the concept of inter-generational access or equity; and b) that the direction of the linkage between the indicator and inter-generational access was not clear. While inter-generational access is an important concept in sustainability we feel that it is tautological with the concept. The inherent maintenance of ‘productivity’ of the resource and social and economic systems implies maintaining a resource for future generations.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Perceptions of inequity may represent less than optimal situations of human well-being in terms of needs being met. If local peoples’ needs are not being met, then sustainability of use will likely decrease, as local people are forced to put more pressure on other resources. Also, "fairness" or "justice" is in itself an important element of human well-being (Prabhu et al, 1996). In many areas, local peoples have been the "caretakers" of forests throughout history. They may have pre-existing rights to resources vis-à-vis outside actors. Feeling secure about one’s tenure, use rights, etc. is typically related to performing a stewardship function in regard to resources. In some cases, the feeling of security may perform the same sustainability function as actual security of access, at least in the short run. Furthermore, if local access is inequitable, it may lead to increased violence, and decreased human well-being, as well as potential destruction of resources. Finally, inequitable access may signal a decline in indigenous knowledge as local peoples lose access to their traditional resources. Such a decline is detrimental not only to the local peoples, but also to the global population which depends on indigenous knowledge as an important (if under-recognized) element of pharmacology, ecology and forest management.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurements methods that could be used to assess this indicator include:

1. compilation of access rights and restrictions by land managers and managers assessments of public security of access to the resource;
2. quantitative survey of perceptions of rights to access, security and preferences;
3. analysis of complaints or requests for access;
4. qualitative techniques such as ICM, historical trends analysis, transects of landscape, participatory mapping and benefit sharing methods.

Box L: Data Required:

Methods one and three should be relatively easy to accomplish through examination of forest manager information or interviews and through examination of public comment and complaint documents. These methods are neither costly nor time consuming and could be used to track access issues over time.

For method two, public perception survey of access rights, security and perceived fairness could be combined with other survey needs for indicator monitoring and other management purposes in order to reduce costs. Social surveys, while requiring approval of appropriate agencies (for USFS – OMB approval is needed) are regularly conducted and expertise exists within the agency or with University cooperators. Care should be taken in sampling to ensure that traditionally marginal segments of the population are included. Perceptions are difficult to measure and it is assumed that perceived security will be influenced by: a) knowledge about the forest management unit; and b) confidence or trust in the tenure manager.

For method four, qualitative assessments of people’s perceptions of fairness are needed. Such data are not typically collected in North America, but could be without too great an effort. Discussions may be passionate in areas where the topic is controversial, but respondents are usually willing to discuss the issues. This method does give excellent insight into explaining the interpretation of fairness of access to specific individuals. However, generalizations to the larger area of the forest management unit or to all stakeholder groups is limited with qualitative techniques unless representative sampling methods are used.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Several methods are available for testing this indicator and a thorough test would probably use a multi-methods approach (see Box K above). Data for methods 2 and 4 are not available. Data sources for method 1 and 3 include:

• Personal communications with BNF staff: Lynette Morland, Ecosystem Management Coordinator and Jeff Foss, NEPA Coordinator
• USDA-FS. 1995. Things You Should Know. Boise National Forest Information Guide. Boise National Forest.
• USDA-FS. 1998. Boise National Forest. Recreation Map.

• USFS. 1990. Public Comments on the Boise National Forest Plan. Boise National Forest.
• Bengston, D., and D. Fan. 1997. Attitudes Toward Roads on the National Forests: An Analysis of the News Media. USDA: North Central Forest Experiment Station. Also available in draft form from the world wide web.

Box N: Example Results:

Compilation of access rights and restrictions by land managers and managers assessments of public security of access to the resource.

The first stage in assessing perceptions of the fairness and security of access rights is the compilation of access rights and restrictions by land managers. Personal communications with a Boise National Forest Ecosystem Specialist noted that the Boise National Forest provided a number of access opportunities to the public including: recreational access; berry picking; firewood and pole harvesting; mushroom picking and other opportunities. An assumption in the assessment of fairness and security is that the public is informed as to the possible access rights to the resource. Three primary sources were suggested by the Ecosystem Specialist and NEPA Coordinator to find a comprehensive listing of these rights: The 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan; the Things You Should Know brochure; and the Boise National Forest Service Recreation Map. While the recreation map provides a fairly comprehensive inventory of recreation access and use rights, no listing of other uses including berry or mushroom picking, firewood or pole harvesting or other access rights could be found in either document. Availability of these access rights, the method of allocation (e.g., non-permitted, free permitted, or fee-permitted), and the spatial distribution of these access rights is only available by visiting each individual Forest Service department to ask whether an activity is permitted. Anecdotal evidence indicated that many individual’s surreptitiously participated in activities even though they were not restricted or permitted activities.

Recreation Access Rights on the Boise National Forest

Analysis of Complaints or Requests for Access.

Summary of Public Comments

The 1990, Public Comments on the Boise National Forest Plan included a category of complaints on road closures on the Boise National Forest. About twenty letters contained comments such as:

• "As a disabled Veteran and a Senior Citizen, closure of certain roads will severely curtail my enjoyment of the scenic values of the forests…"
• "No future road closures to off road vehicles."
• "I am writing to object to the closure of the West Fork Scriver Creek road #696

In a more current study conducted at a national level, an analysis of media reports on attitudes toward roads on National Forests (Bengston and Fan, 1997) found eight different attitudes towards roads ranging from commodity benefits to ecological.

Indicator Summary

While no formal quantitative method of analyzing the status of this indicator was developed a summary of the limited data examined would suggest two problem areas with respect to this indicator:

1. Most access rights are not widely known and information on the availability of these rights is difficult to obtain;
2. Concerns have been expressed regarding security of access with respect to road use.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

This indicator can be tracked over time relatively easily if the forest managers are committed to collecting the data. There is nothing inherently difficult or costly about tracking the issue although the quantitative survey can be expensive if not combined with other purposes. For qualitative techniques, constraints in the Idaho context might be: a) lack of personnel trained in assessing people’s perceptions; and b) difficulty of formal forest managers’ getting people’s real opinions due to the polarization of stakeholders.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

Assessment of this indicator provides high value information on access to forest resources. Collection of this information will enable the development of equitable plans for resource use.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

Strengths are the relatively simple measure of fairness and security of access. Weaknesses are the difficulty in assessing the optimal distribution of access to resources.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

Yes. Access to forest resources is perceived to be fair and secure.

Box S: References:

Bengston, D., and D. Fan. 1997. Attitudes Toward Roads on the National Forests: An Analysis of the News Media. USDA: North Central Forest Experiment Station. Also available in draft form from the world wide web.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Canadian Forest Service. Ottawa, ON.

CIFOR Methods Testing Team. 1998. Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well Being. Bogor, Indonesia.

CIFOR. 1998. Criteria and Indicator Resource Book. Pg. 16. Bogor, Indonesia.

Colchester, M., 1993. "Forest Peoples and Sustainability.: In: M. Colchester and L. Lohmann (eds.) The Struggle for the Land and the Fate of the Forest. World Rainforest Movement/The Ecologist/Zed Books, New York, pp. 61-95.

Colfer, C.J.P., A. Salim, A.M> Tiani, B. Tchikangwa, M.A.Sardjono, and R.Prabhu. 1998. Whose Forest is this, Anyway?: C&I on Access to Resources. CIFOR draft paper. Bogor, Indonesia.

Colfer, C. J.P. and R. G. Dudley, 1993. Shifting Cultivators of Indonesia: Marauders or Managers of the Forest? FAO Community Forestry Case Study Series No. 6, FAO, Rome.

Colfer, C. J.P., 1995. Who Counts Most in Sustainable Forest Management? Working Paper No 7, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Colfer, C. J.P, Wadley, R. L., Hartwell, E. and Prabhu, R., 1997. Intergenerational Access to Resources: Developing Criteria and Indicators. Working Paper No. 18, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

DDB. 1996. Evaluating Sustainable Forest Management (compiled by Stortenbeker), The Netherlands.

Farmer, A. and J. Tiefenthaler, 1995. Fairness Concepts and the Intra-household Allocation of Resources. Journal of Development Economics. 47:179-189.

Fortmann, Louise and John W. Bruce. 1988. Whose Trees? Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

FSC. 1998. Forest Stewardship Council’s Ten Principles, reprinted in Guidelines for Developing, Testing and Selecting Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, by Prabhu, Colfer and Dudley, CIFOR draft Special Publication.

Helsinki Process. 1993. Ministerial conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 16-17 June. Maa- ja metsatalousministerio, Helsinki, Finland.

ITTO. 1997. Report of the ITTO Expert Panel on Criteria and Indicators. Appendix 4: Criteria and Indicators for the Measurement of Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests. Part III. Criteria and Indicators. Yokohama, (September).

ITW 1994. Assessment of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management (compiled by Jochen Heuveldop). Kommissionsverlag Max Wiedebusch, Hamburg, Germany.

Kundstadter, Peter, E. C. Chapman, and Sanga Sabhasri, eds. 1978. Farmers in the Forest: Economic Development and Marginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

LEI. 1997. From the web-page of Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia at http://www.iscom.com/~ekolabel/buku1.html (2 October).

Poffenberger, Mark , Betsy McKean, N. H. Ravindranath, and Madhav Gadgil. 1992a). Field Methods Manual, Volume I. Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi, India.

Prabhu, R., Colfer, C. J. P., Venkateswarlu, P., Lay, C. T., Soekmadi, R. and Wollenberg, E., 1996. Testing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Forests: Phase I Final Report. CIFOR Special Publication, Bogor, Indonesia.

Prakash, S. and M. Thompson. 1994. Institutions and Transactions: The Risks and Fairness Approach to Environmental Economics. Proposal submitted to CIFOR (November).

Rainforest Alliance. 1993. Smart Wood Certification Program. Annex 6, La Jolla, California.

Rose, Carol M. 1994. Property and Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory, and Rhetoric of Ownership. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

SGS. 1997. Sustainable Forest Management: A Practical Guide (First Draft for Consultation and Review). Oxford Centre for Innovation and IIED, United Kingdom.

Soil Association. 1994. Responsible Forestry Standards for the United Kingdom. United Kingdom.

USFS. 1990. Public Comments on the Boise National Forest Plan. Boise National Forest.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.

Physical Access Issues:

In the Boise National Forest area, physical rights of access and fears over insecurity of those access rights appear to be a significant issue. CIFOR team members attended a public meeting in Idaho City on the management plan revisions for the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup LRMP. Rights for continued access to roads for commodity and recreational uses were a dominant theme at the meetings. As Congress examines the issue of roads and roadless areas there has been a significant increase in media coverage of this issue. A web search on roads found a specific, Forest Service web site on the road issue (URL http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/) containing a number of road related issues including a draft report (12-22-97) by Bengston and Fan (1997) on attitudes toward roads on the national forests in the media. This report was examined for general trends on road issues in Region 4. In addition, the public comments for the 1990 LRMP were examined for comments on roads.

Informal Ethnographic Interviews: