Four forest restoration initiative (4fri) annual evaluation 2012

transcript

FOUR FOREST RESTORATION INITIATIVE

(4FRI)

ANNUAL EVALUATION 2012

Windy Selig, Russ Winn, Anne Mottek Lucas

Presentation Today

1. Presentation of Results

2. Identified areas for Potential

Improvement

3. Identified areas to Celebrate &

Maintain

4. One unique area of success Oh, what could it be!

4FRI CHARTER

The 4FRI Charter provides:

“VI. Annual Evaluation: Section 1. The stakeholder group will set aside time

at least once a year (early October) to systematically evaluate the 4FRI program and actions to ensure regular adaptation and improvement; during the annual evaluation, the stakeholder group will also consider changes to the foundation documents, including the Charter and Structure of the 4FRI.”

4FRI ANNUAL EVALUTION RESULTS

4FRI participants will use evaluation results to help them:

Foster a discussion on highlights and lessons learned

Celebrate and continue successes Adapt 4FRI approaches and procedures

to improve implementation

Categories of Questions Organization and Structure Shared Vision Decision Making Internal Communication External Communication Adaptive Management (Identified for Improvement

in 2011) Trust Stakeholder Group & USFS Relationship Facilitation

Demographics

Categorization of Responses “Agreement Indicated”

Respondents indicated they strongly agreed/agreed/agreed somewhat with the statement

“Mixed” There were disparate views

“Disagreement Indicated” More than 50% respondents indicated they strongly

disagreed/disagreed/disagreed somewhat with the statement

Ranked Results

Organization and StructureAgreement Indicated Our foundational documents provide clear

guidance for our collaborative process. (82%) The foundational documents and structure of our

collaborative offers adequate guidance for accountability within the group (63%)

The existing revolving co-Chair system that occurs every three months is effective. (66%)

Working groups have adequate involvement to complete their assigned tasks. (54%) Open ended comments mostly dealt with last two:

Same people doing all the work.

Organization and StructureMixed results Working groups have adequate

resources to complete their assigned tasks. (33% 33% 33%)

The stakeholder groups’ efforts in moving products forward is timely and efficient. (37% 17% 47%)

Organization and StructureDisagreement Indicated The stakeholder groups’ efforts in

moving processes forward is timely and efficient (59%)

Shared VisionAgreement indicated I believe my organization can best make

significant progress on forest restoration by working together with the other stakeholders of the stakeholder group (86%)

I believe that our stakeholder group has made significant progress in the last year. (63%)

I believe the overall 4FRI Collaborative project (stakeholder group and USFS) has made significant progress in the last year. (77%)

Shared VisionMixed results The members of this stakeholder group have a

common shared vision of what success will look like for the 4FRI project. (33% 20% 47%)

The members of the stakeholder group and the USFS have a common shared vision of what success will look like for the 4FRI project. (27% 43% 30%)

Shared VisionMy vision statement for the future direction of the 4FRI project over the next 2-5 years would state: Seven (20%) didn’t answer. Of remaining 24:

10 specifically mention restoration as goal 9 mention monitoring and/or adaptive management 6 mention goals related to the 4FRI group itself 4 mention certain number of acres thinned 4 mention success of industry 4 mention getting work done faster Other themes: Getting EIS or DEIS (3) and Moving to

east (3)

Shared Vision Products to be completed in next 2-5

years Of the 75 specific things mentioned:

18 dealt with adaptive management or monitoring

13 dealt with getting first EIS through 12 dealt with success of industry 10 dealt with moving to eastern half 9 dealt with implementation in first area Other “products” mentioned: Items dealing

with how 4FRI group works (5) and Public acceptance (4)

Decision MakingAgreement Indicated Generally I am willing to make these trade-offs.

(93%) Disagreement Indicated Generally, my fellow stakeholders are willing to

make these trade-offs (52%) Less than ¼ felt others were as willing to make

tradeoffs as they were. For over ½ of respondents the difference was 2 or more categories (agree to disagree)

Internal Communication

I feel comfortable openly discussing my views in stakeholder group meetings.

I feel comfortable openly discussing my views within the working groups.

I believe it is each person's responsibility to hold themselves and members of the group accountable to the guidelines set forth in the 4FRI Charter

I try to communicate in a way that fosters trust among my fellow stakeholders. (Always/Often)

The Steering Committee openly communicates with the Stakeholder group. (Often/Always)

Agreement Indicated 16

Internal Communication

How can the Steering Committee improve communications with the stakeholder group?

Open Comments – Recurring Themes:

Faster and regular reporting of Steering Committee notes/summaries

External Communication

The stakeholder group has been effective at communicating the need for and benefits of forest restoration to the general public.

My organization upholds and honors the integrity of the stakeholder group's collaborative process when communicating with the general public.

Agreement Indicated 18

External Communication

The stakeholder group is effective at communicating stakeholder group positions to the general public. Open Comments – Recurring Themes: More Newsletters; Newsletter is effective Contractor selection was a problem Opposing viewpoints, confuse the public,

undermines the larger picture, impedes SH’s attempt to provide a clear position.

SH can do more to inform the public.

Disagreement Indicated19

Adaptive ManagementIn 2011, the SHG prioritized 3 areas for improvement and developed action items for each area. The following section evaluates the level of improvement in those 3 areas.

Adaptive Management - Trust

Over the last year, the stakeholder group has clearly identified the goals and intended use(s) of most of the products and documents generated by the stakeholder group.

Over the last year, the stakeholder group clearly and systematically captured and identified the decisions made by the stakeholder group, and their respective application.

In general, stakeholder’s interests are considered in the stakeholder group's collaborative process.

My fellow stakeholders rely on me to honor the integrity of the collaborative process.

Agreement Indicated21

Over the last year, individuals have articulated/shared their own individual and organizational interests and motives in 4FRI, identifying any special interests or abilities they bring to the stakeholder group.

(St. Ag./Agree 52%; Undecided/Disagree 48%)

Trust has increased among members of the stakeholder group over the last year.

(Undecided 43%; Disagree/Strongly Dis. 43%) Open Comments – Recurring Themes:

Contractor selection Small but vocal minority

I believe that everyone who is a member of our stakeholder group effort wants the 4FRI project to succeed. (St. Ag./Agree 38%; Undecided 28%; Disagree/St Dis. 34%)

Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Success occurs on individual

organization’s terms, not for the good of the group.

My fellow stakeholders honor the integrity of the collaborative process. (Agree 31%; Undecided 35%; Disagree/St. Dis. 34%)

Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Most/almost all do.

Adaptive Management – Relationship with the

In the last year, the USFS involved stakeholders in collaborative planning efforts at a level beyond what’s required by NEPA’s public process. (Always/Often)

In the last year, by working together with the USFS, the stakeholder group made progress on concrete issues.

In the last year, the USFS encouraged open communication with the stakeholder group and evaluated stakeholder ideas.

Agreement Indicated

Active engagement from the four USFS Supervisors is important for the effectiveness of the stakeholder group in the collaborative process. (57% Str. Agree; 36% Agree) VERSUS…

Active engagement from the USFS Regional Office staff is important for the effectiveness of the stakeholder group in the collaborative process. (25% Str. Agree; 39% Agree)

Agreement Indicated

Does the USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Planning Monitoring

Agreement Indicated

Does the USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Contracting (41% Often; 26%

Rarely; 19% Sometimes)

Open Comments – Recurring Themes: The process is unclear – how

contracting decisions are made, more transparent

Adaptive Management – Facilitation

External facilitation is important for the success of this group.

Self facilitation should continue to be a future goal for this group.

Agreement Indicated

This stakeholder group is ready for self facilitation.

Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Too many conflicts, Tenuous Issues,

Internal resistance

Disagreement Indicated

What did you like about the facilitation the stakeholder group experienced over the last year?

Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Staying on task/course, keeping discussion

moving Identified and worked on issues Neutrality

What did you not like about the facilitation the stakeholder group experienced over the last year?

Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Decisions/agreements/progress takes too

long Lack of enforcement/accountability – to the

Charter Not direct enough – did not force resolution,

push back on un-collaborative behavior, call out accusations

Demographic

Potential Areas for Improvement

Potential Areas for Improvement Organization & Structure

Timeliness: This was an identified issue in 2011

Co-Chair time requirement More involvement in working groups

Shared Vision Concerns about everyone having same

vision Decision Making

Trust about intentions of other stakeholders: 2011 issue

Potential Areas for Improvement

External Communication The stakeholder group is effective at communicating

stakeholder group positions to the general public. 2011: Disagreement/ 2012: Mixed

AM- Trust articulate/share your interests/motives in 4FRI Increase trust among members of the stakeholder group Statement: Everyone who is a member of our stakeholder

group effort wants the 4FRI project to succeed. Statement: My fellow stakeholders honor the integrity of

the collaborative process.

Potential Areas for Improvement AM – Relationship with USFS

The USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Contracting

AM – Facilitation The SHG is ready for self

facilitation. 2011 & 2012: Disagreement

Which actually means agreement!SUCCESS!!

Areas to Celebrate and Maintain2012 Results were compared with 2011 results (where possible) to reveal areas of improvement, status quo or regression.

Areas to Celebrate and Maintain

Organization and Structure Foundational Documents Existing co-chair system

Shared Vision Stakeholders commitment to 4FRI Progress has been made

2011 & 2012 Agreement!

Internal Communication – All aspects!

External Communication – With General Public Effective at communicating the need for

and benefits of forest restoration

2011: Mixed responses My organization upholds/honors the

integrity of the SHG’s collaborative process

SUCCESS!!

Adaptive Management - Trust SHG has clearly identified the goals and

intended use(s) of most of the products and documents

SHG clearly and systematically captured and identified the decisions made and their respective application.

SH’s interests are considered in the SHG's collaborative process.

My fellow SHs rely on me to honor the integrity of the collaborative process.

SUCCESS!

Adaptive Management – Relationship with USFS

All areas with one exception – Contracting

Adaptive Management – Facilitation External facilitation is important for the success of this

group. Self facilitation should continue to be a future goal for this

group.

SUCCESS!!

Area of Unique Success Decision Making

2011: Agreement that the Decision Making worked and did not require revisions

Before the 2012 Annual Evaluation: stakeholders recognized a gap in the Decision Matrix process, Adaptively Managed the situation, and adopted a newly revised DM.

SUCCESS!!

Let’s celebrate!

Areas to Celebrate and Maintain2012 Results were compared with 2011 results (where possible) to reveal areas of improvement, status quo or regression.

There were no areas of regression!

SUCCESS!!