What Can We Say About the Economic, Institutional, and Legal Framework for Sustainable Forest Management in the United States?

1

• What Can We Say About the Economic,
  Institutional, and Legal Framework for
  Sustainable Forest Management in the United
  States?
• Roundtable on Sustainable Forests
• Technical Workshop
• April 13-14, 2005
• Minneapolis, MN
• Michael A. Kilgore and Paul Ellefson
• Department of Forest Resources,
• University of Minnesota
• St. Paul, MN

2
Montréal Process Criteria No. of Indicators No. of Indicators
1 Conservation of Biological Diversity 1 Conservation of Biological Diversity 9
2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity Forest Ecosystems 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity Forest Ecosystems 5
3. Maintenance Forest Ecosystem Health 3. Maintenance Forest Ecosystem Health 3
4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources 8
5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles 5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles 3
6. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple Socio-Economic Benefits to Meet the Needs of Society 6. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple Socio-Economic Benefits to Meet the Needs of Society 19
7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management 7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management 20
3
Indicators Legal Framework

• 5 Indicators
• Property rights
• Periodic planning, assessment, policy review
• Public participation opportunities in policy
• Best management practices for forest management
• Conservation of special environmental, cultural,
  social and scientific values

4
Indicators Institutional Framework

• 5 Indicators
• Public education, extension, and information
• Periodic planning, assessment, policy review
• Human resource skills
• Physical infrastructure for forest management
• Enforcement of laws, regulations, and guidelines

5
Indicators Economic Framework

• 2 Indicators
• Investment, taxation, and regulatory policies
  that encourage long-term investment
• Nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest
  products

6
Indicators Monitoring Framework

• 3 Indicators
• Data and statistics describing Criteria 1-7
  indicators
• Forest inventories, assessments, and monitoring
• Indicator compatibility with other countries

7
Indicators Research Framework

• 5 Indicators
• Forest ecosystem characteristics functions
• Measure and integrate environmental and social
  values
• Technology and its impacts
• Human impacts on forest ecosystems
• Climate change

8
National ReportAssessment of Institutional,
Legal, and Economic Framework (12 indicators)

• Led by
• Dept. of Forest Resources, U of MN
• USDA-Forest Service-Southern Research Station

9
Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Economic
Framework

• Review Structure
• Interpretation (definitions and clarity)
• Conceptual theoretical background (rationale)
• Capacity (private, federal, state, local)
• Issues and trends (change in conditions)
• Information adequacy (major deficiencies)
• Indicator appropriateness (usefulness,
  compatibility with other indicators)

10
Institutional, Legal, and Economic Framework
Assessment

• Review focused on identifying information capable
  of describing
• Current and future conditions
• Capability or potential to address a subject area
• Less focus was placed on
• Evaluating the outcomes associated with
  implementation
• Value judgments about implementation

11
Criteria Descriptions

• Ideally
• Criteria should describe a distinct condition or
  outcome.
• e.g., Conservation of biological diversity. (C
  1)
• What We Have
• 6 Criteria are condition/outcome oriented
• Maintenance of
• Conservation of
• Criteria 7 is not outcome or condition oriented

12
Subcriteria Descriptions

• Ideally
• Subcriteria should describe a distinct subset of
  this condition or outcome
• What We Have
• 3 subcriteria
• Legal
• Institutional
• Economic
• Distinction between Institutional Legal not
  always clear
• Institution may include legal considerations
• Planning (49) and Planning (54)
• BMPs (51) and Enforcement (57)

13
Indicator Descriptions

• Ideally
• Easy to understand
• Descriptive of the subject
• Grounded in important principles/concepts
• Sensitive to change
• Relevant to stakeholders
• Capable of describing current future conditions
• Described at the appropriate scale
• Measurable

14
Indicator Descriptions

• What We Found
• Indicators did not meet these standards
• In most cases, indicator language was difficult
  to interpret
• Review team made several suggested changes to
  existing indicator language

15
Indicator Data

• Ideally
• Sufficient in quantity
• Sufficient in quality
• Capable of being aggregated
• Capable of being analyzed
• Collected over time
• Available at a reasonable cost

16
Indicator Data

• What We Found
• Data was
• Incomplete
• Not always at the appropriate scale
• Not uniformly collected
• Not always up to date
• Not always able to describe important trends

17
Important Indicator and Data Issues

• Availability
• Scope
• Scale
• Usefulness

18
Availability

• Data availability was extremely variable among
  indicators
• Huge data gaps were the norm
• Some data we thought was readily available had
  not been compiled
• Even when available, data sometimes not the right
  scale or in the right form.
• e.g., regional, but not national data

19
Scope

• Ecological Scope Indicators focused broadly on
  forest resource values as well as specific forest
  resources
• Planning (49) broad definition of forest values
  and outputs
• BMP (51) enforcement (57) water quality focus
• Infrastructure (56) Wood products focus

20
Scope

• Institutional Scope Uncertainty regarding
  indicator focus on agencies with exclusive vs.
  primary vs. tangential focus on forests
• Forest Service only vs. FS, BLM, EPA, etc.
• Indicator Scope -- Variability influenced overlap
  with other indicators
• Broad indicator scope indicator overlap
• Public participation (50,53)
• Planning (49, 54)
• Investment and trade policies (58, 59)

21
Scale

• Institutional Scale Variable indicator focus on
• Federal
• State
• Local organizations
• Sector Scale Variable Indicator focus on
• Public
• Private sectors

22
Usefulness

• Data Shortcomings
• Outdated
• Incompatible with other data sets
• Incomplete
• Inability to describe trends

23
Summary Criterion 7 Indicators

• Indicator Ambiguity Indicator wording not
  always clear and unambiguous hampered
  evaluation and interpretation
• Indicator Redundancy Some indicators might be
  better placed with other Criteria
• e.g., Focus C7 on Legal and Institutional
  Capacity
• Move economic indicators (58-59) to Criteria 6

24
Summary Criterion 7 Data

• Existing data provide an incomplete picture
  about the legal, institutional, and economic
  frameworks.

25
Summary Criterion 7 Data

• Does existing data give us enough
  information to draw a bottom line conclusion
  about the sustainability of U.S. economic,
  institutional, and legal frameworks? Probably
  not.
• Does existing data provide enough
  information about specific aspects of the
  U.S.s economic, legal, and institutional
  framework? Maybe.

26
Our Conclusions

• In spite of these concerns, the exercise was
  worthwhile
• Provides a platform to make future judgments
  about legal, economic, and institutional
  indicators more meaningful

27
Think About

• How to interpret/synthesize the data used
  to describe these indicators, given the
  extensive scope of the subject matter addressed
  by this criterion?
• The messages are sometimes conflicting
• Are there "core" indicators for Criterion
  7 that should be the focus of future data
  gathering efforts?
• Shotgun versus targeted approach

28
Think About

• How can indicators focus more on outcomes
  and less on influences?
• Example
• Taxation cost-share policies and programs
  versus levels of investment in private forest
  land management

29
Think About

• The need to define Sustainable Forest Mgmt.
• Helpful, but is it possible? Is it necessary?
• Index of Sustainable Forest Management?
• Further lumping will make interpretation
  difficult
• Greater emphasis on trend information
• Ill take time series data on SOMETHING over the
  quest for the perfect" indicator any day of the
  week
• A good executive summary that interprets the CI
  data in LAY TERMS. 
• National Report reads like inside baseball

30
Questions?