Principle – Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.

Criterion- Concerned stakeholders have a right to participate in open and meaningful public participation processes in order to influence management.

Indicator – Original Wording: The contributions of all stakeholders are mutually respected and valued at a generally satisfactory level. Final Wording: The process should be inclusive with all interests represented.

Box B: Definition:

Public participation opportunities should be inclusive of all interests. Inclusivity is defined as open participation in which the full spectrum of interests has the opportunity to participate. Participation is meant to include a broad range of public involvement techniques that range from information-oriented techniques to consensus or shared decision making or management.

An interest can be defined as the things that motivate people: hopes, desires, fears or concerns. In contrast, positions are specific ways or means of meeting fundamental interests (Fisher and Ury, 1981).

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners:

This indicator will in general be applicable to all landowners but different landowners will have different definitions of stakeholders or interests to which they must be responsive and different mechanisms for dialogue. Federal land managers will have the broadest definition of stakeholders (the National public) while private industrial forest lands may use stockholders as generally synonymous with stakeholder.

 Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR – BAG: 2.2 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.4 2.2.2

CCFM: 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3

Notes: This indicator is relevant in particular up to the study area scale. As the scale expands, so will the definition of interests, however, these interests are typically associated with a specific forest management unit (e.g., Boise National Forest) or particular tenure holder (e.g., US National Forest Service). Evaluating at the forest management unit level, the study area scale is the most appropriate.

Notes: This indicator provides a diagnostic reading of who current interests are and the extent to which participation processes include them. As interests emerge or are redefined frequently and are often specific to a particular management action or issue the indicator is not predictive.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Public participation, alternative dispute resolution and shared decision-making theory all underlie this indicator. The principle issue is the definition of, and differentiation between, stakeholders and interests. A stakeholder is normally defined as "all those who have a stake" in the process. Alternatively, stakeholders have been defined as those who have an ability to effect the outcome of any decision. CIFOR defines stakeholders initially in a broad fashion as anyone with an "interest in the forest". They then use a method to separate out the "most important ‘forest actors’ from the broader category of ‘stakeholders’ or individuals with an interest in the forest based on a ranking on six dimensions: proximity to the forest, pre-existing rights, dependency, local knowledge, forest/culture integration, and power deficits. This method was used to identify more important stakeholders for commercial forest management.

In a North American context, while commercial forest managers are involved in forest management, the predominant form of tenure is public. For federal forests, stakeholders then can be defined as all citizens of the US and State/Provincial forests as residents of those jurisdictions. Attempting to determine who "counts more", as with the CIFOR process can be difficult and inequitable. As a result, there is substantial ongoing debate in resource management professions over "who’s voice" should be counted. A contrasting approach is the identification of interests and not the identification of individual stakeholders or groups of stakeholders.

Interests are defined as fundamental, but often intangible, expressions of what motivates people: hopes, fears, desires, and concerns (Fisher and Ury, 1981). This technique has been widely adopted by land and resource management planners in many Canadian jurisdictions particularly British Columbia (LUCO, 1993). The interest-based method of representation suggests that each interest is awarded standing in the participation process. This method both recognizes that individuals have common and overlapping interests and that individuals hold more than one interest. More importantly, interest-based techniques for representation do not identify who counts more or less but rather recognizes each interest as legitimate. When interest-based representation models are accompanied by consensus decision making, as they often are, the lacking of weighting of any particular interest is reinforced as each interest has, in effect, veto power regardless of size. Jack Ward Thomas, former Chief of the USDA Forest Service, defined this "community of interests" as a "group of concerned individuals who are leaders and advocates for the things they believe in. Some members have formal authority to act on behalf of groups or institutions to which they belong, but most are without authority or title of any kind. Membership is open to all who express an interest in the goals of the group. A community is large, diverse, and inclusive" (Thomas, 1995).

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management :

Public involvement is assumed to be linked to sustainable development because of the breadth of goods and services that stakeholders demand from their forests. If all of the stakeholders advocating varying uses of forests are included in the decision-making process, it is more likely that forest management will be carried out on a sustainable basis to maintain the flow of these goods and services (CCFM, 1996).

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Methods for assessing the inclusivity of the public process include:

1. An examination of appeals, complaints or petitions for participation in the process;
2. A comparison of interests participating in the process vs. interests defined a priori (e.g., from NFMA Regs., F.S. Manual, stockholder lists, past Forest Management Plan, professional judgement, etc.)

Scaling methods to examine this indicators adequacy need yet to be developed. Negative case analysis, however, can be used to identify areas needing improvement.

Box L: Data Required:

1. Lists of individuals, organizations and agencies who expressed the desire to participate, vs. participated in the public participation process. Sources:

USFS – National Forest: Public Comments document from previous Forest Plan EIS

~ while interests are fluid, the previous Forest Plan EIS and associated records will contain a list of those individuals, organizations and agencies who were involved in the most recent large forest planning effort. This list should be complete and reliable. Comments are made public through the EIS process and therefore this information should be public.

USFS – National Forest: Issue, Concern, Opportunity (ICO) identification process

~ information reliable and public but not necessarily complete: names/addresses from licenses and other user groups may not be identified here unless they specifically identified interest in forest management planning

Industrial Forest Lands – Stockholder lists/annual report mailing list

~ both stockholder lists and annual report mailing lists are probably confidential

2. Outline of public participation processes including timelines, notification procedures, methods of participating, means of removing financial barriers.

Public Agencies – List or calendar of public participation process and mechanisms for involvement should be available from each agency. Contact agency planner or public involvement specialist.

3) List of known or recommended groups (from regulations, past plans etc) that consultation is recommended with.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data sources included:

• Interview with BNF NEPA Coordinator Jeff Foss
• BNF 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan
• Public Comments on the Boise National Forest Plan.
• Record of Decision: for the Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Boise National Forest Plan.

Box N: Example Results:

Appeals, Complaints or Petitions for Participating in the BNF Activities

BNF NEPA Coordinator noted that to his knowledge no formal appeals, complaints or petitions had been recorded for participation in forest planning activities. Complaints were noted, however, regarding timing for public participation processes and notice of these events and the response times. Such complaints associated with the current planning process have resulted in an extension to the public comment period for the scoping process.

Interest Groups Participating in the 1990 Boise National Forest Plan Development

Over 1600 written comments were received for the proposed Boise National Forest Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (1990). The bulk of these responses came from preprinted cards (Timber Industry cards and Heli-Industry cards) while the rest were individual comments. Of the 500 letters received, 60 percent were from Idaho residents and 40 percent came from out of state.

Agencies, Organizations and Interest Responding to the Proposed Boise National Forest Plan or the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Responses in the proposed forest plan or DEIS were not tallied by subject area or respondent but were grouped by interest. Full detail of these interests, including example comments, can be found in the Public Comments on the Boise National Forest Plan Chapter IV of the EIS but are grouped by subject area in the table below.

Interests Responding to the 1990 Boise National Forest Plan EIS

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

For those forest management tenures who are required to record this information (e.g., USFS-NFMA requirements) this indicator can be relatively easily measured over time without great expense or great searching. For tenures for whom the information is not normally available (e.g., some State agencies) or for whom the information is private (e.g,. private forest industries) evaluating this indicator will be more difficult and may require a self-audit conducted by that organization itself.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

This indicator will provide basic, relatively low level information regarding how extensively the forest management tenures consulted with interests in their area. While this is low level information this step must be evaluated before the quality of the interactions or participation can be assessed. For some interests and in some jurisdictions, merely gaining access or the right to participate is a significant step in moving towards the sustainability of forest management units.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

This indicator was accepted because it is a stepping stone, or basic, indicator from which to assess the overall adequacy of public involvement. An additional strength is that identification of those groups who had access to the process will provide the sample for evaluating subsequent related indicators. The main weakness is the relatively low information value associated with this indicator.

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

Yes. The process should be inclusive with all interests represented.

Box S: References:

• British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1991. Sustainable Communities.
• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1996. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Technical Report. Canadian Forest Service. Ottawa, ON.
• CIFOR Methods Testing Team. (1988). Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-being. Draft,1998. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Colfer, C.J. 1995. Who Counts Most in Sustainable Forest Management? CIFOR Working paper No. 7. CIFOR, Bogor.
• Colfer, C.J.P., Wadley, R.L., Hartwell, E. and R. Prabhu. (1997). Intergenerational Access to Resources: Developing Criteria and Indicators. Working Paper No. 18, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Colfer, C.J.P., and R. Wadley. 1996. Assessing "Participation" in Forest Management: Workable methods and Unworkable Assumptions. Working Paper No. 12, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Fisher, Roger and William Ury. 1981. Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books, NY:NY.
• Land Use Coordination Office. 1993. Land and Resource Management Planning: Public Participation Guidelines. http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca/lrmp/
• Prabhu, R., C.J. Colfer, and R. G. Dudley. Guidelines for Developing, Testing and Selecting Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. CIFOR, Bogor.
• Thomas, J. W. 1995. Engaging People in Communities of Interest. A presentation of the C.Eugene Farnsworth Memorial Lecture and Fellowship, Syracuse University. Syracuse, New York. March 20, 1995. http: www.fs.fed.us/intro/speech/jwtsyr.html.
• USDA-FS. 1990. Public Comments on the Boise National Forest Plan. Chapter VI of the EIS. Boise National Forest.
• USDA-FS. 1990. Record of Decision: for the Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Boise National Forest Plan.

Appendix:

Informal Ethnographic Interviews

CIFOR Principal Scientist and Anthropologist, Carol Colfer conducted a series of ethnographic interviews as part of the Boise test of C&I. While Dr. Colfer was only able to participate in the study for a few days, the interviews she conducted provided valuable insight into the indicators from local people’s perspectives. To retain confidentiality, individual respondents are identified only with a set of initials (m=male, f=female). Comments obtained relevant to this indicator are summarized here below.