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: Local stakeholders have detailed, reciprocal knowledge pertaining to forest resource use (including user groups and gender roles), as well as forest management plans prior to implementation. Final Wording: Stakeholders should have detailed and meaningful reciprocal background information necessary to provide quality input into the public participation process.

This indicator was revised from CIFOR-BAG 2.2 with concepts included from CIFOR-BAG 2.2.2 (Updated plans, baseline studies and maps are widely available…). The local or indigenous knowledge aspect of the original CIFOR-BAG 2.2 indicator was combined in CCFM 6.2.2. The following evaluation is completed on the final wording of the indicator.

Box B: Definition

This indicator supports the idea that stakeholders should have timely and full access to information including background information, draft plans or decisions, justifications, scientific information and studies in order to be able to participate meaningfully (LUCO, 1993). Timely refers to the idea that information must be provided to the stakeholders with sufficient time to allow them to realistically review and critique the information prior to their participation. This also assumes then that stakeholders are notified sufficiently in advance of public participation processes of the opportunities for participation, the mechanisms for participation and the timelines involved.

The aspect of reciprocity was included in this indicator to suggest that stakeholders and forest managers should also have access to background information from other stakeholders. This would include traditional or local knowledge, values, legal rights and use patterns.

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 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.1 2.1.2

CCFM: 6.2.1 6.2.3

Notes: This indicator is relevant in particular up to the study area scale. As the scale expands, so will the definition of stakeholders, however, the public participation processes and background information if 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. In some cases, such as the Boise test, larger scale scientific or background studies (such as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan) will serve as principle resources for the study area.

Notes: This indicator is diagnostic of the extent to which stakeholders are adequately informed enabling them to participate meaningfully in public participation. It is only predictive in the sense that there is a strong link between stakeholder understanding of material and the quality of their participation.

Box I: Underlying Concepts :

This indicator is based on the basic assumptions that in order to meaningfully participate, participants must understand, or have the opportunity to develop an understanding of, the background material. Informing stakeholders so that they can meaningfully participate is assumed to increase the potential quality of participation and in turn, the quality of the decision. Magill (1991) notes that the complexity of management documents and technical jargon used by resource managers "tends to discourage public involvement". Gallagher and Patrick-Riley (in Magill, 1991) found that "the language in various land management plans proved too difficult for some members of the public to understand – the documents were not written for people with average reading ability (p. 16)".

Public participation guidelines for some Land and Resource Management Plans suggest that where scientific or management information is inaccessible to stakeholders because of a degree of technical knowledge required to understand the materials or because of financial barriers that prevent stakeholder groups from accessing this information then it is the responsibility of the coordinator of the public participation process to ensure these barriers are overcome. In British Columbia, Land and Resource Management Planning guidelines and standards established by the BC, Commission on Resources and the Environment suggest that the management agency appoint a technical panel to survey as ‘data’ interpreters to the stakeholders.

With respect to the issue of traditional or local knowledge, the concept of ‘local’ knowledge refers to the fact: that those who use or live in the resource often possess knowledge about the resource and how they have traditionally managed the resource. This information is not typically organized in a standard, western-scientific or resource management framework and as such has often been ignored or devalued. This indicator is based upon the assumption that information from multiple sources is valuable and valued and that some mechanism needs to exist to incorporate this information into forest management. While traditionally applied to Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples, the concept of traditional knowledge has been applied to non-aboriginal, resident people.

Adequate notification of timing of public involvement processes is critical to ensure meaningful participation. Processes that take too long to complete, however, can also be impediments to public participation. While some mechanisms for public involvement are particularly long, delays in public comment periods can also be obtained for strategic purposes such as ensuring the status quo of management or exhausting some participants away from involvement.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management :

Informed decision-making is a key to making management decisions that will lead to sustainability. Assuming that the public is a part of the decision making model (as informants, participants, advisors or decision-makers) they, along with managers, must be adequately informed. Informed decision making is also relevant from the perspective of justice which forms a part of human well-being (Prabhu et al., 1996). Stakeholders have a right to be informed regarding activities which may impact them.

The purpose of the criteria that this indicator fits within is to provide open and meaningful processes that enable the public to influence management. An open and meaningful process necessarily includes open and meaningful access to the information. It is presumed that it would be much more difficult for the public to ‘influence management’ if they are not adequately informed about the management decision.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement methods include:

1. an inventory of background resources (maps, reports, etc.,) that have been made available to stakeholders by mechanism (e.g,. Web site, printed report available at public meeting etc.,), timing (when that was provided to stakeholders), and the accessibility (e.g,. readability) of that information;
2. a quantitative or qualitative assessment by stakeholders of the perceived adequacy and availability of this information with respect to: a) extent of information provided; b) timing; c) method of disseminating information; and d) accessibility; and/or
3. a comparison of the background resources available to stakeholder versus the background resources available to forest managers.

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

Box L: Data Required:

Data sources include:

• Public participation process or schedule.
• Inventory of information provided to stakeholder (by mechanism and timing)
• Inventory of total available information and accessibility of that information.
• Stakeholder assessment of adequacy of background information provided.

A relatively low cost mechanism for conducting the perceived adequacy assessment by stakeholders (method # 2) is to use feedback forms at public participation meetings or as part of the information packages themselves.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data sources used for the Boise test 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.
• Public Involvement with the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands policy.

Box N: Example Results:

Mechanisms for Providing Background Information

Mechanisms for providing background information to the public were summarized by J. Foss and include the following:

• Technical information available at Forest Service offices in the area;
• Summary information available at public meetings;
• Planning newsletters with summary information;
• Mailing of notices and planning newsletters to those on mailing lists;
• Freedom of information requests for post-decisional information;
• Forest Service plans and options and draft EIS documents;

Technical advisory panels are not mechanisms that are utilized in the BNF area, however, the forest planning team includes a number of individuals including the public affairs specialist and writer/editor who can assist in this manner.

Public Participation Opportunities in the 1990 Boise National Forest Plan Development

Indicator Summary:

The provision of adequate meaningful, timely, and reciprocal background information is difficult to address with available information. Scaling methods are also absent and consequently negative case analysis tends to be the most useful. Although information available for this test is limited some summary observations can be made. Regarding timing of presentation of information, the current Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Forest Plan revision and amendment process, the recent extension to the public comment period regarding the scoping process (the first stage of this planning process) would suggest that there are issues regarding the timely nature of the process.

With respect to the meaningfulness (e.g., the readability) of the background information no formal assessment can be conducted. Formal analysis should be conducted to examine the readability vs. content tradeoffs of information.

With respect to reciprocity and the sharing of information that other (non-management) stakeholders will bring to the process, only the public meetings and hearings specifically provide an opportunity for non-management stakeholders to present information or perspectives. This information is consequently limited by the available time and by whether or not the information is captured in a means that can be shared with others. Public comment summaries do provide a mechanism for sharing information although it tends to be limited to perspectives (although not always) on management options and not the presentation of new data.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

This indicator is relatively easy to assess and monitor on a continuous basis at a relatively low cost.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

Although this indicator measures a primary or initial step in assessing the overall nature of the public participation process it is fundamental to an open and meaningful process. The information level is relatively low but a necessary first step.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

The strengths are that the indicator is relatively straightforward to measure and provides a good initial indication of the extent to which the public participation process is meaningful and through which participants will have an opportunity to influence management. The weaknesses are the relatively low level of information provided.

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

Yes. Stakeholders should have detailed and meaningful reciprocal background information necessary to provide quality input into the public participation process.

Box S: References:

• British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1991. Sustainable Communities.
• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Canadian Forest Service. Ottawa, ON.
• CIFOR. 1998. Criteria and Indicator Resource Book. Pg. 16. Bogor, Indonesia.
• Gallager, T.J., and K. Patrick-Riley. 1989. The Readability of Federal Land Management Plans. Environ. Manage. 13(1): 85-90. In, Magill, A.W. 1991. Barriers to Effective Public Interaction. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 89(10).
• Idaho Department of Lands. 1994. Public Involvement with the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands.
• Land Use Coordination Office. 1993. Land and Resource Management Planning: Public Participation Guidelines. http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca/lrmp/
• Magill, A.W. 1991. Barriers to Effective Public Interaction. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 89(10).
• Prabhu, R., C.J.P. Colfer, P. Venkaesarlu, C.T. Lay., R. Soekmadi and E. Wollenberg. 1996. Testing Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Forests: Phase 1 Final Report. CIFOR Special Publication, Bogor, Indonesia.

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.