collaboration and public involvement

A Taxonomy of Publics: From “One Third of the Nation’s Land”

by

In our discussion of where decisions are made with regard to public lands, there is a tension between those who feel that local concerns and interests should be preferred and those who feel that national concerns and interests should be preferred.

George Hoberg of University of British Columbia, argues here that nationalizing issues was and is a strategy of environmental groups (e.g., roadless today) – that the legalization and nationalization of issues have become paramount in US forest policy.

In Chapter Two of One Third of the Nation’s Land, there is a categorization of publics related to public land policies. The categories are:

1) “the national public: all citizens, as taxpayers, consumers, and ultimate owners of the public lands are concerned that the lands produce and remain productive of the material, social, and esthetic benefits that can be obtained from them.
2) the regional public: those who live and work on or near the vast public lands, while being a part of and sharing the concerns of the national public, have a special concern that the public lands help to support them and their neighbors and that the lands contribute to their overall well-being.
3) the Federal Government as sovereign: the ultimate responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare and, in so doiig, it should make use of every tool at its command, including
its control of the public lands.
4) the Federal Government as proprietor: in a narrower sense, the Federal Government is a landowner that seeks to manage its property according to much the same set of principles as any other landowner and to exercise normal proprietary control over its land.
5) state and local government: most of the Federal lands fall within the jurisdiction limits of other levels of governments, which have responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents and, thus, an interest in assuring that
the overriding powers of the Federal Government be accommodated to their interests as viable instruments in our Federal system of government.
6) the users of public lands and resources: users, including those seeking economic gain and those seeking recreation or other noneconomic benefits, have an interest in assuring that their special needs, which vary widely, are met and
that all users are given equal consideration when uses are permitted.

The Commission in each of its decisions gave careful consideration to the interests of each of the several “publics” that make up the “general public.” to the best of its ability, reflect all of the interests of the general public.
….
We, therefore, recommend that: In making public land decisions, the Federal Government should take into consideration
the interests of the national public, the regional public, the Federal Government as the sovereign, the Federal proprietor, the users of public lands and resources, and the state and local governmental entities within which the lands are located in order to assure, to the extent possible, that the maximum benefit for the general public is achieved.”

It is worth reading the whole discussion in Chapter Two found here. It is certainly a more nuanced view than the idea that each person in the US has equal say over what happens on public lands. In this light, place-based legislation can, perhaps, be seen as an attempt to rebalance the power that has shifted to the courts and to national groups.

Forest Advisory Boards- Past, Present and Future?

by

John Rupe and I spent a day last week in Rapid City, South Dakota for a public meeting on the new planning rule, and also for a meeting of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board.

It was an interesting experience for me to start with the Science Forum, the National Roundtable in DC, then to Denver, then to Cheyenne for a meeting with government officials, then to public meetings there and in Rapid City. By listening to the similarities and differences expressed in the different kinds of places, I think I am starting to understand better the concerns which have led to place-based legislation. More on that later.

We heard the story from our Regional Forester about the White Mountain Forest having had an advisory committee until they were dispensed with by Jimmy Carter..whereupon they continued to meet and the forest supervisor continued to meet with them.

Checking for other forest advisory committees, I found this link to the 1977 Bend Bulletin describing the disbanding of the Advisory Boards. Maybe there is some more history as to why they were disbanded. It appears the forest supervisors and the public found them useful.. it’s a bit of a mystery (perhaps our more historically-oriented readers could help here.)

But one thing we did find out. There were a wide variety of interests at our planning rule roundtable in South Dakota, but there was general agreement that the Black Hills Advisory Board was useful. Here’s the webpage for the Advisory Board. The Board is not just about forest planning, though, it addresses the myriad of micro to megascale issues related to the forest.

One thought was, if you had advisory boards, that some forests have grown too large (through reorganizations) to be addressed in a meaningful way, and then you might need more than one advisory board per administrative unit.

What do you think? Should advisory committees for each forest be required or encouraged in the new rule?

P.S. There are many amazing photos of the Black Hills National Forest, as well as documents, audio and video, published here.

The Right Mix For Collaboration

by

We have had a number of discussions about collaboration and the right mix of communities of interest and communities of place.

Here’s a real world example, the National Forest Advisory Board for the Black Hills National Forest. Here’s a link to their charter.

They incorporate many of the concepts we have discussed, including being advisory beyond planning. Here’s the mix:

OFFICERS AND MEMBERSHIP

a The membership of the Board shall consist of not more than 16 people, each of whom will represent a particular interest or point of view. The committee shall be representative of the Black Hills community interests and fairly balanced. Membership
shall be representative of the interests shown in the following three categories:

(1) Five persons who—

(a) Represent economic development;
(b) Represent developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle users, or commercial recreation;
(c) Represent energy and mineral development;
(d) Represent the commercial timber industry; or
(e) Hold a Federal grazing permit or other land use permit within the area for which the committee is organized.

(2) Five persons representing—
(a) Nationally recognized environmental organizations;
(b) Regionally or locally recognized environmental organizations;
(c) Dispersed recreation;
(d) Archaeology and history; or
(e) Nationally or regionally recognized sportsmen’s groups, such as anglers or hunters.
(3) Six persons who hold—

(a) South Dakota state-elected office or elected-officer’s appointee;
(b) Wyoming state-elected office or elected officer’s appointee;
(c) South Dakota or Wyoming county- or local-elected office
(d) Tribal government-elected or -appointed office;
(e) A position as a South Dakota State natural resource agency official; and (f) A position as a Wyoming State natural resource agency Official.

What do y’all think of this mix?

Talking Across the Concrete- Abstract Divide

by

Words are essential to communication, whether in blogdom or in person.  One  reason it’s important to discuss topics with others is that you can find out through discussion that words can  mean different things to different people.  You might be in agreement about concepts and simply word them differently.  

 I am a more literal and concrete kind of person, and many people in planning are more visionary- a kind of Myers-Briggs sensing compared to intuitive kind of thing.

Concrete and Abstract

  • A concrete word or image is specific and sensual: it evokes a material reality.
  • An abstract word or image is general, and communicates an idea; it expresses a connection that is mental rather than sensuous, sometimes one that is not immediately obvious.

 

First, Martin and I have always disagreed about the need for “thresholds” in NEPA documents, and specifically for forest plans which incorporate adaptive management. I have always thought that that was too vague, and there are too many possibilities with no particular reason for choosing a target level of a given thing.

 But as we were talking today in our small groups at the Roundtable, we were talking about area occupied by species and talking about establishing a target of acres of habitat occupied (collaboratively) – and if the species would go below that – a chosen number of those acres based on monitoring- , the Rule could require the collaborative group to get back together, and figure out some different approach to species protection as  an amendment. To me, the inhabited acres would be called a target and lower limits, lower limits. But looking back on it,  I think I might, by lower limit,  mean the same thing as a threshold. But without going through an example with Martin, I didn’t get it. Assuming that is what he meant. But he can weigh in here.

Second, the idea of ecological sustainability being pre-eminent never appealed to me. Strictly pragmatically, I thought we can’t always make the most protective decisions (like fencing all the people out of the Angeles National Forest if they have too many environmental impacts). But talking to Professor Wilkinson, he meant it in a visionary, righ-brained way, as a goal which people could figure out through collaborative efforts and reinvent their interpretation through time and with learning. My original thought was “ecological sustainability” was an analytical idea, and the problem was that you could do all kinds of analyses of everything and never prove something was sustainable.

Something like forest planning, and planning rules involve people from a wide array of backgrounds with different meanings for the same words. That is why it is so important to have conversations with others across different views,  including the concrete/abstract divide.

Learning from Failure

by

One of the Meridian Institute consultants (working with the Forest Service on the “new planning rule”) recently asked me how I might frame discussions for the NFMA rule. Here is what I offered, adding that I thought it already too late for the kind of slow, thoughtful reflection/conversation that might make for effective change:

Suppose we could begin again. The public lands have just now been declared public. All laws, customs, and values are as they are, except that there is no RPA/NFMA. How might we begin to design a public process for managing the national forests as part of the nations’ public lands intermingled with private lands? How might we begin to discuss the possibility of a design process? How best to engage stakeholders?

Now fold in the RPA/NFMA, and the customs and history of the US Forest Service. What might we do now with the NFMA rule? How might that step fit within other design steps that might lead us to a useful outcome for managing the national forests?

Today I’ll add that we might want some “framing” to evaluate the eventual outcome of this NFMA “rule” effort. As I was pondering that, and remembering the many past failed attempts to reform planning and management in the Forest Service, I reread The Logic of Failure, by Dietrich Dörner. (book review) Then I did some internet sleuthing, and found a nice little reflective design blog that also built from Dörner’s wisdom. One tidbit of wisdom was titled “Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers” (pdf). I thought of Forest Service planners and managers. Maybe, if ever they are to learn, some might learn from this little paper. Here, altered a bit to get closer to the Forest Service’s task at hand, is the heart of the message:

[Consider] moving through three transitions:

(P) Pre-emergence
(T) Transitional
(D) Designerly Thinking

Characteristic of each of these transitions is a penetration of barriers. Rather than progression along a smooth continuum, you penetrate these (intellectual, practical, psychological and social) barriers in a step-like function. …

Barriers (numerals in parentheses indicate the transitional stage(s) where the barrier occurs):

  1. Design definitions. Naïve designers [tweak what has been framed too narrowly]; experienced designers also include [interaction, experience from others, emotion, and a ‘systems perspective’]. (P)
  2. Best solution. Naïve designers hold onto the belief that there is a best solution; experienced designers believe there exist many solutions and judged by critical criteria and presented through a design argument or explanation. (P)
  3. Technology-centered vs. human-centered. Naïve designers focus on the technology; experienced designers study human behavior, motivation and need. It’s very difficult to “let go” of gadgets and things; there’s an over-fascination with techno-fetishism among naïve designers. (P, T)
  4. Me and we. Naïve designers defend their own designs; experienced designers look to their team for inspiration and solutions. (P, T)
  5. User research. Naïve designers underplay the role of user research; they know what people want. Tools such as personas [pdf] are resisted rather than embraced naturally in the design process. Experienced designers do not make assumptions about human desires and motivations; they study it instead. (P, T)
  6. Algorithm / design paradox. Naïve designers expect to memorize algorithmic solutions to problems; experienced designers learn to deal with ill-structured problems, seemingly paradoxical situations and design thinking. (P, T)
  7. IT domination. Naïve designers tend to overemphasize efficiency, effectiveness, scalability; experienced designers include experience and emotion. (T)
  8. Idea loyalty. Naïve designers hold onto a single idea; experienced designers engage in systematic exploration of multiple ideas. (T)
  9. Critique culture. Naïve designers worry about [internally generated performance measures]; experienced designers welcome critique. (T, D)
  10. Notebook. Naïve designers [focus on] a particular project; experienced designers sketch continuously, deriving inspiration from all contexts. (T, D)
  11. Role. Naïve designers are learning what they do and how to do it; experienced designers begin to defend the position of design in a multi-person development team made up of designers and non-designers. (T, D)
  12. Research and philosophy. Naïve designers find solutions [patterned from past experience, “best management practices”, etc. — single-loop learning]; experienced designers explore philosophical foundations of design as well [i.e. double-loop learning]. (D)
  13. Reflective designer. Naïve designers spend little to no time reflecting on how they are designing versus experienced designers who can look at themselves “out of body” as they design. (D)
  14. Omnipresence. Naïve designers see design embedded in objects [or events]; experienced designers see systems that affect designs and designs that affect systems. (D)
  15. External / internal. Naïve designers find external answers to design problems; experienced designers begin to look internally and introspectively for inspiration and resolution. (D)

Maybe we can use these barriers/’barrier busters’ to see flaws in the Forest Service’s design strategy/tactics. Or maybe the Forest Service and its bevy of consultants can use them. Or maybe the roundtable participants can use them. Or maybe I’m just once-again wandering about in the wilderness of esoteric thought. More on Dörner’s book in a later post. But it is a “must read” for planners and managers.

An Adaptive Governance Structure Round-up

by

Right now we have two possibly complementary approaches being discussed on this blog; which I will call Doing Useful Things and Satisfying NFMA Requirements (Andy’s KISS approach). Adaptive Governance probably falls in the former category.

I am sold on the concept of some form of adaptive governance, and so would like to explore some questions around “how would it work?” This post is about the structure.

When we think of adaptive governance, we may be thinking of something informal, as Dave described in his recent comment

Many years ago on the Boise NF we got a forest planning group of collaborators together for a one-time meeting to set a stage for followup meetings. The Boise NF sup told the various groups that if they (as an independent/interdependent group) called subsequent meetings, then the FS would most-likely attend. He also told them that if any consensus were to develop (across a very wide distribution of interest groups, state and local gov interests, etc.) that the FS would find it hard to do something other than try to follow the lead of the group. The Sup. also made the forest plan ID team available to the group.

I immediately thought of more formal approaches, such as the FACA committee approach, used in RACs, the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Committee, the RACNAC and so on (in my post here). Then there are the Cooperators committees, who work on forest plans, who are elected officials and other government folks. Easier to organize, but not so broad-based. If formal collaboration is important, perhaps it would be useful to streamline the process to develop FACA committees. At least in the past, committee members had to be reviewed by the Administration (the Office of White House Liaison). FACA committees can either be long term (BHNFAB) or for a particular purpose (RACNAC).

Another interesting approach, possibly better for a particular one-time purpose, was the approach of the Colorado Roadless Taskforce. It was developed by state legislation

(4) The task force shall consist of:
(a) The executive director of the department of natural resources or the executive director’s designee, who shall convene and chair the task force and who is authorized to contract with a mediator or other third party to facilitate accomplishment of the task force’s duties;
(b) Four members appointed by the governor;
(c) Two members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives;
(d) Two members appointed by the president of the senate;
(e) One member appointed by the chair of the house agriculture, livestock, and natural resources committee;
(f) One member appointed by the chair of the senate agriculture, natural resources, and energy committee; and
(g) Two members appointed by mutual agreement and consent of the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the president of the senate.

Of course, this approach is only bipartisan as long as the House, Senate and Governor are somehow split between the parties. If that were not the case, the concept could be tweaked to have one person determined by the majority lead and the minority lead for each category. What I thought was interesting were the people who needed to be agreed upon cross parties- what does it take to be recognized across interests as having a valuable perspective? Whatever that is, we probably need more of it, in our sometimes unnecessarily partisan world. This approach was not as formal about the different interests to be represented as some of the FACA committees (one of this interest group and one of that interest group), but through coordination most of the important interests were represented. Another interesting things is that it is an expressly political approach; it’s not by interest, or by scientific discipline.

This was a state-wide deliberative body, and many of the folks are still working together on various issues- as they were before the Taskforce. So the relational piece is there, possibly to a greater extent than a national advisory group.

As Lynn said in her comment here, I think working on explicitly characterizing and understanding the relationships between local and state governments as part of the planning process is important, especially if we are to make good on some kind of “all lands approach.”

So the above are groups developing and implementing plans and policies. As Lynn says in her post here, there may also be a need for a mediation group to take disagreements with those plans and policies before litigation. I like her idea of the Federal Reserve Board as a model.

What other structures have you seen? How have they worked?

Start with the Human Scale- Elinor Ostrom

by

Guest Post by Lynn Jungwirth

I asked Fran Korten, who interviewed Elinor Ostrom (2009 Nobel Prize winner in economics) for “Yes Magazine”, about
the difficulties with “large landscape level planning”. This answer came
back:

“Yes, there’s a role for large landscape level planning, but when you get
down to implementation, it’s got to be at smaller levels. As Lin puts it,
you’ve got to have decision making and implementation in nested tiers that
start at the human-scale level and stack up to the larger resource.”

Wow! “Starting at the human-scale level and stack up to the larger
resource.” We do it exactly opposite. Start with the National Level, then
the Forest Level, and then try to make the local level fit in with those
goals and constraints. Maybe we should invite Elinor Ostrom and her team to
work with this planning rule.

Excerpt from the “Yes” interview. Here’s the link.

Elinor Ostrom:
At the Workshop we’ve done experiments where we create an artificial form of
common property-such as an imaginary fishery or pasture, and we bring people
into a lab and have them make decisions about that property. When we don’t
allow any communication among the players, then they overharvest. But when
people can communicate, particularly on a face-to-face basis, and say,
“Well, gee, how about if we do this? How about we do that?” Then they can
come to an agreement.

Fran: But what about the “free-rider” problem-where some people abide by the
rules and some people don’t? Won’t the whole thing fall apart?

Elinor: Well if the people don’t communicate and get some shared norms and
rules, that’s right, you’ll have that problem. But if they get together and
say, “Hey folks, this is a project that we’re all going to have to
contribute to. Now, let’s figure it out,” they can make it work. For
example, if it’s a community garden, they might say, “Do we agree every
Saturday morning we’re all going to go down to the community garden, and
we’re going to take roll and we’re going to put the roll up on a bulletin
board?” A lot of communities have figured out subtle ways of making everyone
contribute, because if they don’t, those people are noticeable.

Fixing the “Rule”

by

As we have been discussing in previous posts/comments, one possible resolution to the forest planning dilemma — as part of NFMA rule development — is to deal with what has been called forest planning under the broad umbrella of adaptive governance, or adaptive co-management.

A part of the process would be to require an “every five years review/evaluation” of ALL decisions related to or interrelated with an administrative unit of the national forest system. This was recommended by the Clinton era Committee of Scientists as I recall. The evaluation, along with a database of all decisions relating to the FS unit would be all that a new rule would require. Specifics required by the law could be packed into the review/evaluation requirements or allowed in other decisions fitting into “ALL decisions” above. Note that most decisions would be appropriately framed (scale and scope) and dealt with as wicked problems (Wikipedia, EcoWatch) at levels above or below the forest administrative unit—on rare occasions “at” the level of the administrative unit.

The “review” might be accompanied by some simple scenario planning (Wikipedia) — which is more the stuff of futuring than of planning — to deal with emergent, but unknown, even unknowable futures. Note that scenario planning specifically avoids the “desired future” trap.

My vision of the every-five-years-evaluation would also allow for “niche” statements to be developed for a forest unit (perhaps for appropriate subunits as well). As with “scenario planning”, the Forest Service/USDA might or might not require niche statements in the NFMA Rule. My preference would be to include both, but with a strong caution not to over-complicate “requirements”, in the rule, in manuals, in handbooks.

I would be pleased to see the Forest Service adopt such a resolution or to at least explain how such is inappropriate framing (Wikipedia) for RPA/NFMA forest planning/management, or inferior to alternate proposals. Maybe some who frequent this blog can step up and explain any inappropriateness in advance of what will likely be yet-another nonresponse from the Forest Service. Or maybe you will like it, and will offer up suggestions for improvement. I am very concerned that the forthcoming “show and tell” NFMA Rule meetings will yield no useful results. So any suggestions coming from us here may be the Forest Service’s best hope to avoid another wasted 30 years.

Related:
The Frame Game
A Simpler Way (Forest Policy-Practice, 2006)
Interrelated Ecosystems and Adaptive Management, (EcoWatch, 1992)

QLG – Granddaddy of Place-Based Collaboration

by

The granddaddy of place-based national forest legislation is the 1998 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (“QLG”), which resulted from a 1993 collaborative group “community stability proposal.”  So how has the law worked out?  Here’s what the Forest Service reported in its latest QLG monitoring report:

Implementation of the Pilot Project continues to be affected by litigation and appeals. Court decisions are pending on cases that have been in litigation for up to four years. In FY08, approximately 90 percent of all timber sales or service contracts across the HFQLG Pilot Project area were stalled due to litigation or appeals. As a result, volume of both sawlogs and biomass sold declined by 50 percent from FY07 levels.

Since 1998, QLG-area sawlog volume sold averaged less than 20% of the 1992-1997 average level.  Forest Service expenses have stayed constant, but timber revenues have declined to 35% of pre-QLG law levels.  Forest industry jobs have dropped 25% and several of the area’s largest sawmills have closed.

The Forest Service bureaucracy is the major beneficiary, as QLG proved to be a magnet for federal spending.  But few would argue that the original “community stability” goal was realized, nor, perhaps, could changes in natural resource policy alone alter the downward economic trajectory suffered by most of the West’s rural communities.

Modern-day proponents of similar schemes, e.g., Beaverhead-Deerlodge and eastern Oregon legislative proposals, would do well to learn from QLG’s experience.