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: Degree of public participation in decision-making processes.

Final Wording: The decision making processes must be transparent such that participants are confident that their opinions and values will be considered during the process and be reflected in the final product.

The final wording for this indicator (Boise C4) combines elements of CCFM 6.4.1 (participation in the design of decision-making processes) and CCFM 6.4.2 (participation in decision-making). The following evaluation is completed on the final wording of the indicator.

Box B: Definition:

Transparency in decision-making refers to the fact that the public involvement process must be carried out in such a way that; i) the agency mandate and purpose for public involvement is clear; ii) the lines of accountability and degree of decision making delegated to stakeholders is clearly outlined; iii) that stakeholders know how their information or participation will be used and how it will affect decisions; and, iv) that rationale for the decision, including what stakeholder information was used in that decision, is clear.

The USFS define this concept as making sure that the results of the public’s input are clearly demonstrated, and the public understands how public involvement affected the decision or outcome (USFS).

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

This indicator will generally be applicable to all landowners, however, different landowners will conduct different kinds of public participation processes. While non-industrial private forest owners may still have to address neighbors concerns, they will not normally have public participation processes. Consequently this indicator will not be applicable to them. Industrial forest lands may use stockholders as generally synonymous with stakeholders.

Box E: Overlap::

CCFM: 6.4.1 6.4.2

Notes: Evaluating at the tenure level or the forest management unit level, the study area scale, is the most appropriate as public participation opportunities are likely to be either specific to each tenure or agency (based on differing mandates) or be held at the study area scale.

Notes: This indicator is diagnostic of the nature of the public participation process.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

An important concept of decision making is that if the process is transparent, it will increase the likelihood that public involvement information/results will influence the management decision. Selman (1995) notes the importance of transparent decision-making in encouraging citizen views and actions. A number of studies have demonstrated, however, that forest managers are not willing to have the public participate in ways or at a level that would influence management decisions. An Office of Technology Assessment study noted that a common criticism regarding public involvement in the USFS is that while the agency asks for public input, that input does not affect final decisions (US Congress, 1992). This OTA assessment also noted that "most national forest managers still fail to recognize the purpose of public involvement, believing public participation is primary an exercise in gathering information" (US Congress, 1992). Schlager and Freimund (1994) found that resource managers in the ICBEMP area "like to come up with a plan and then go from there" and that "Forest Service managers generally believe that they are the experts regarding natural resource decisions anyway and do not want their scientific expertise diluted by including the less knowledgeable public". Cortner and Shannon (1993) found that when participation occurred through formal (one-way) communication processes "staff merely acknowledged those comments" and citizens "were more likely to use other forums…to affect agency decisions and policies" (p. 15).

In the US Forest Service, the role of citizens has been constrained by the passage of the Federal Advisory Act. In addition, NEPA prescribes certain procedural restrictions on how LRMP EIS procedures should be conducted. However, Cortner and Shannon note that at times "procedures used to analyze public comments constrained organizational learning" (1993, p. 15) by separating the comment from its context. Jack Word Thomas, former Chief of the US Forest Service noted that "too often, we have treated individuals and groups as data points to be classified and analyzed, rather than as individuals with feelings and values, not to mention as members of a community with shared values and common goals. This has left many people who are interested in natural resource management with a perception that they are not being heard by the agency, and that they cannot affect the outcome of our plans and decisions" (Thomas, 1995).

Increasing transparency and increasing opportunities for public input to influence management can be measured directly or through proxy measures. A number of schema have been developed to portray a range of public participation techniques on a continuum with respect to the ‘level’ or type of public involvement. Arnstein (1969) one of the earliest of those to develop such a schema displayed citizen participation techniques on a continuum from those that were truly ‘non-participatory’ to those that involved significant ‘degrees of citizen power’. Since Arnstein’s model was developed, other researchers have refined these schema. These schema can be used as a proxy measure of the degree of possible public involvement in decision making and consequently transparency.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

CCFM notes that "public involvement is assumed to be linked to sustainable development because of the breadth of goods and services that [the public] demands from their forests". They note that "if all 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, 1997).

To be truly included in decision-making, the process must be transparent. Transparent public involvement processes are relevant to sustainable management because they are indicative of democratic decision making methods and they increase the accountability of the forest manager to the stakeholders.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

The CCFM document notes that measuring public participation is difficult and that "[q]uantitative assessments, such as person days of participation, the number of forest products companies with citizen advisory boards, and the number of government-sponsored public meetings, fail to reflect" their real spirit. Qualitative assessments, they note, "likely will prove more useful in determining progress toward sustainable development" but "are difficult to compare" with no one formula working in all situations (CCFM, 1997).

Assessing the status of this indicator requires the examination of several different dimensions:

• the mandate and purpose for public involvement;
• the degree to which the nature, type and purpose for public involvement is communicated to, and known by, participants;
• the degree of involvement of the public in the decision-making process; and
• the transparent nature of the decision;

Although, as the CCFM document notes, qualitative assessments are difficult to compare, a case study approach can be used to examine the specifics of the public involvement processes for transparency and suggest patterns or common issues or concerns with public involvement.

Possible case study methods to be used to assess these dimensions include :

1. does the organizational mandate allow for public participation;
2. measuring how and to what extent the purpose, nature and type of public involvement is made known to participants;
3. determining if there is a record of information/results from public involvement;
4. determining if there is a record of decision available, is a justification for the decision included, is the rationale including use or non-use of public comments detailed;
5. examining the ongoing methods for receiving, responding and recording public involvement data; and
6. is there a method for continuous notification of management actions.

If quantitative, or more generalizable techniques are desired a number of approaches are possible although testing of these methods needs to be conducted. Possible methods include:

1. comparison across public involvement process through the use of a common scoring gauge for each of the methods and associated dimensions listed above;
2. a stakeholder survey of knowledge about and satisfaction with the transparency of the process;
3. use of a proxy measure such as typology of public participation technique (e.g., Arnstein, 1969 or Vance, 1990) involving the dimension ‘degree of decision making authority’.

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:

• Tenure/agency mandate for public participation, outline of public participation process, methods of accepting and compiling public input;
• Summary of public comments on public participation process;
• Final management decision with rationale and use of public input data;
• Assessment of public (stakeholder) understanding of the transparency of the process;
• Ongoing method of receiving, responding to and recording public comments.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data utilized include:

• USDA-FS. 1998. Southwest Idaho Ecogroup (Boise, Payette and Sawtooth Forests) Forest plan Revision and Amendment in Brief.
• 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.
• BNF. 1998. Schedule of Proposed Actions

Box N: Example Results:

Transparency in decision-making involves a multi-stage and multi-methods assessment. A cursory examination of the Boise National Forest process suggests that most stages of transparency are at least present, however, this examination does not assess the adequacy of this process. An example of one of the stages of transparency is also presented.

Communicating the Purpose, Nature and Type of Public Involvement

The ongoing Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Forest Plan Revision and Amendment process presents a summary of how information from the public involvement process will be used in management decision making. An example from the briefing overview is included below.

Indicator Summary

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Conducting a case analysis of transparency including methods 1, 3, 4 and 5 is a relatively straightforward and easily replicable task. These aspects of this indicator can be measured repeatedly at relatively low cost. Method 2 can be assessed in a similar fashion by examining agency records for how they communicated to participants about the public involvement techniques. If this approach is used then the measure should be easily replicable and inexpensive to monitor. If method 2 is assessed using stakeholder or public input (e.g., an assessment of the extent to which stakeholders knew about the process of public involvement and felt about the transparency of the process) then a more involved quantitative (e.g, public survey) or qualitative assessment (ethnographic interviews) would be needed. These approaches would be more time consuming and costly but would not be particularly difficult.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

The information value for this indicator is fairly high as case analysis includes both data and an assessment of that data simultaneously.

Box Q: Overall Assessment:

Accepted

The strength of this indicator is that it provides a partial measure not only of how meaningful the public participation process is, but also an assessment of the likelihood that public involvement will influence management. The weaknesses associated with this indicator are the lack of quantitative, generalizable techniques for comparing transparency.

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

Yes. The decision making processes must be transparent such that participants are confident that their opinions and values will be considered during the process and be reflected in the final product.

Box S: References:

• Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. 35:216-224.
• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. Canadian Forest Service. Ottawa, ON.
• Cortner, H.J. and M. A. Shannon. 1993. Embedding Public Participation in it Political Context. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 91(7):14-16.
• Idaho Department of Lands.1994. Public Involvement with the Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands.
• Selman, P. 1995. Local Sustainability: Can the Planning System Help Get us From Here to There? Town Planning Review. Vol. 66:287-302.
• Schlager, D.B., and W.A. Freimund. 1994. Institutional and Legal Barriers to Ecosystem Management. Unpublished paper submitted to the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project.
• 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.
• U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1992. Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems. OTA-F-505. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
• U.S. Forest Service. Public Involvement in the Forest Service. URL http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/pi
• 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.
• Vance, J.E. 1990. Tree Planning: A Guide to Public Involvement in Forest Stewardship. British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Vancouver, B.C.

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.