Indicator – D1. Effective instruments for inter-institutional coordination on land use and forest management exist 

Consultant's Initials:

LL, LI, BH

Source:

CIFOR

Identification No. in source: Use all refs:

1.1.2

Class:

Forest manage-ment planning and policy

Recommendation (after field testing) Yes or no

Yes

Revised Indicator Suggested? #

Box A:

Principle – Enabling conditions

Criterion- Policy, planning and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management.

Indicator –

Original: Effective instruments for inter-sector co-ordination on land use and land management exists.

Rewritten: Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land use and FOREST management exist.

Box B: Definition:

"Institutional" refers to the mix of landowners, managers and cooperative stewards of forest lands. "Inter-institutional" refers to the relationship between them.

Forest management and land use planning are complex tasks that require knowledge on diverse disciplines from different institutions. Governmental and non-governmental organizations within and without the forest sector will impact the ecological/biophysical, social and economic environment by their decision making processes. To make the right choices, and to maximize the societal benefits of forests without compromising their ability to continue to provide these benefits, society will have to create effective instruments to aid development of partnerships that employ the best and most current information available.

Box C: Attributes:

Rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1=no/bad/unimportant and 5=yes/good/important

Precisely defined? (clear)

3

Useable?

3

Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust)

4

Sensitive?

2

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

2

Is it applicable to all landowners?

Yes

x

No

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

N/A

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 1.1.1 3.1.1

CIFOR – BAG: 3.2.1 3.3.1 3.3.2

Box F: Geo-Political Scale:

Global

XX

North America

Intermountain

West

Study area

Tenure

X

Site

Notes: Inter-institutional co-operation to achieve sustainability is an indicator that applies to land tenure in the first place. Landowners will decide what institutions they will co-operate with. However, co-ordination between institutions is becoming an international issue that affects global sustainability. An example would be the USDA-Forest Service providing financial support to international agencies that promote sustainable management practices at national and international geopolitical scales. INIFAP (Mexican Institute for Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research) is in close co-operation with USDA - FS and the Canadian Model Forest Program to conduct joint efforts that lead to sustainable land use and forest management.

Box G: Indicator Characteristics:

Diagnostic

X

Predictive

Both

Notes: Known instruments for inter-institutional co-operation, such as symposia or councils, set down available knowledge and expertise to justify decision making.

Box H: Indicator Function:

Structure

Function/Process

Composition

Perturbation
Not Applicable

X

Notes: This is a social/management indicator and has nothing to do with structure, composition or perturbation, which are ecological classifiers.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

The Boise NF plan considered attitudes, beliefs and values as underlying concepts for the analysis of a management situation:

Generally, people’s expectations of forest management vary by group and communities. Overall, however, people seem to accept the concept of "multiple use management".

The people within the primary zone of the forest generally have both a commodity, and an amenity orientation. Commodity or amenity orientation is usually one of relative emphasis, not mutual exclusion. For example, some communities are economically dependent on forest commodities, but the people in those communities also enjoy the "social meaning" of the forest. Hunting, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, camping, and winter recreation activities (skiing and snowmobiling) are historically an important part of the lifestyle throughout the area.

Agencies that represent people’s interests on land use and on forest management will require different instruments to work out the best solutions. Inter-agency co-operation will have a greater chance to meet the needs of all people and to have the ecosystem sustainabily managed. Agencies have to work close and to co-operate with each other to avoid overlapping and waste of time and financial/staff resources.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Agencies that control or have influence on the land use and management decisions will have to co-ordinate among themselves to meet people needs and ecosystem’s sustainability. This indicator is a good gauge because it will measure the level of that co-operation, which should lead us to sense whether or not there will be sustainable management.

The BNF Land and Resource Management Plan reported that several groups have a sense of freedom and self-sufficiency related to the forest and its outputs. Many loggers and woodworkers hold traditional values of independence, concern for neighbors and a desire to control the future. Several area ranchers and farmers tend to have values greatly influenced by the pioneer settlers: in fact, many of these ranchers are third or fourth generation descendents of the original landowners. Ranchers are likely to be conservative and independent, show concern for their neighbors and respect the land.

Landowners are normally represented by one or more agencies. Agencies take the interests of landowners and forest managers into account to negotiate feasibility and suitability of different land uses. Inter-agency cooperation is required to properly use and manage the ecosystem so that sustainability can be achieved.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

A direct measurement of the existence of co-ordination among agencies would be to ask them whether they have such coordination or not; if they do, what type of co-operation is it and how does it work?

An indirect measurement of this indicator will be the number of inter-agency meetings, symposia, congresses, workshops, etc. that they have per year to work out solutions to problems.

Another measurement method will be number of projects being in progress and carried out between agencies looking for communal benefits between sectors.

The effort of federal and local governments to encourage co-ordination between agencies/sectors can be measured. Government encouragement to "co-ordination" will be providing maps with information on land use change and trend of impacts (how many, how specific and how useful will those maps be for the wealth of different agencies?).

Box L: Data Required:

First of all, we have to find out the existence of co-operation between agencies. What agencies are involved in what projects and what are the objectives and goals of each inter-agency project.

We need data on technology transfer and workshop events carried out between different agencies that relate to the FMU; i.e., a specific congress, looking for specific answers, might be a project to co-ordinate or to co-work a solution that provide benefits to different groups of people.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Boise Cascade, Idaho Ecosystem Management Demonstration Project. Mission: Develop data, tool, and expertise to implement ecosystem management. Cooperative partners: Boise National Forest, Payette National Forest, Sawtooth National Forest, Nature Conservancy, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, University of Idaho, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Idaho Department of Lands.

Federal Clean Water Act. Project Mission: Different agencies are cooperating to assure clean water throughout the state. Cooperative partners: The US Environmental Protection Agency, the Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (Division of Environmental Quality), Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and representatives of private forestry interests including forest industry and non-industrial owners, logging operators and contractors and private citizens.

USFS / BSU Joint Project. The evolution of forest management-25 years of change on the Boise National Forest. Map Purpose for 1966, 1976 and 1990.

Forest Service/Boise NF and University of Idaho joint project. Using a GIS-based hazard/risk model developed in cooperation with the University of Idaho, the BNF has estimated that up to 1.2 million acres (about 40% of the area encompassed by the BNF) are most at risk to large, uncharacteristic fire. This figure includes intermingled State, other Federal, and private land, and it also includes some grass and shrublands, and other vegetation types.

In March, 1992 the BNF signed a letter of intent for a Forest Health Study Initiative with other agencies, groups, and industry. This effort was known as the "American Forest Partnerships". This study began the BNF’s informal forest health initiative and push for restoration actions. It provided the foundation for identifying the cause of the forest health symptoms. Because the study was based on science, it focused the debate and allowed the BNF to move forward.

The Western Forest Health Initiative led to the development, funding and implementation of forest health projects in the West. Such a project was sponsored by the Idaho Department of Lands and the USDA Forest Service. This project, "Idaho City Watershed Wildland/Urban Interface Project", was designated and implemented to reduce stocking levels and fuel loads of timber stands. Stocking levels were reduced through thinning and prescribed burning. Cooperators in the project included Boise Cascade Corporation, private landowners, and land owner associations.

SW Idaho CIFOR project is an example of inter-agency cooperation to test Criteria and Indicators of sustainable forest management. Multi-agency partnership: CIFOR, USAID, European Commonwealth and GTZ published a tool in Resource Book, 1998. This Source and related consultants are now under U.S. Forest Service/CIFOR co-ordination testing criteria and indicators of sustainability. Co-ordination is being established with nine international government and non-government agencies from Canada, USA and Mexico.

Box N: Example Results:

The FMU selected by an international group of professional people is an example result for this Box. The mission of the North American Team is to test principles, criteria and indicators within a portion of the State of Idaho. These professional people were collected in Boise during a five week period to achieve a common objective. Agency/organization representativeness on the team included: USDA Forest Service, Department of Canadian Heritage Parks Canada, USDA Forest Service International Forestry/USDA Forest Service, Boise Cascade Corp.-Idaho, Forest Insect and Disease Section/Idaho Department of Lands, Canadian Forest Service Atlantic Region, Center for Coastal Studies/School for Field Studies-Bamfield, BC, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestlas, Agricolas y Pecuarias/North Central Region-Mexico, Greater Fundy Ecosystem Model Forest, and Boise State University.

An example result from the North American Team is the FMU being selected to focus co-ordination and efforts. The FMU is in the following map:

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Yes, it can be tracked over time. The ongoing and completed projects should report results that will verify the impact of co-ordination between agencies.

The number of inter-agency meetings that are carried out towards sustainable forest management may be closely related to achieving sustainable forest management.

The technology that is being used by forest managers/landowners could be linked to an original source so that inter-agency co-operation can be tracked over time.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

Yes, this indicator will provide information to managers and others stakeholders. Changes in attitudes and trends towards sustainable resource management can be compared before and after the implementation of joint projects.

The information on inter-agency cooperation can show a manager the difference between management with and without inter-agency cooperation. Showing to the manager example results from other inter-agency projects can improve the information value of this indicator.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted -

Weaknesses: The fact that lands and forests are managed using inter-agency co-ordination will not guarantee sustainability by itself. Inter-agency cooperation as an indicator can show that many meetings and projects occurred between agencies but cannot show that sustainability has been achieved. There are examples of management with inter-agency cooperation where managers were not able to achieve sustainability. The Boise Test Site has an example on this. Despite the fact that forest managers within the FMU, mainly from National Forests, have access to inter-agency cooperation, they experienced a wildfire in 1994 that severely affected a Spruce Fir forest type. Hundreds of thousands of acres were burned as a result of wood overstocking.

Strengths: It may be argued that as a result of inter-agency cooperation a management plan can constantly be adjusted. As an example, in 1995 the Idaho Sporting Congress (ISC) made a contribution to the Boise and Payette Forests Plan. ISC encourage Boise and Peyette Forests managers to address changes needed to the Forest Plans, including changed conditions created by the 1994 fires.

Another example of "strengths": on April 27, 1994, the Wilderness Society, Idaho Conservation League, Sierra Club, and Idaho Sportsmen Coalition promoted negotiations with the Payette National Forest. As a result, a settlement agreement was signed on December 21, 1995. It states the Forest Service will complete a revised Forest Plan for the Payette National Forest by December 31, 2000.

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

Yes. We replaced the word "land" with the word "forest"; we also replaced the word "sector" by "institutional" so that the indicator will refer to the mix of landowners, managers and cooperative stewards of forestlands. The revised indicator is: "Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land use and forest management exist".

Box S: References:

Appendix:

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.

Since this indicator was not found in CIFOR nor in CCFM source documents, definitions and comments in some boxes came out strictly from what the Team considered was right.