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

Roundtable on Sustainable ForestsTechnical Workshop

April 13-14, 2005Minneapolis, MN

Michael A. Kilgore and Paul EllefsonDepartment of Forest Resources,

University of MinnesotaSt. Paul, MN

Montréal Process CriteriaMontréal Process Criteria No. of No. of IndicatorsIndicators

1 Conservation of Biological Diversity 9

2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity: Forest Ecosystems

5

3. Maintenance: Forest Ecosystem Health

3

4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources

8

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

19

7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management

20

Indicators – Legal FrameworkIndicators – Legal Framework5 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

Indicators – Institutional FrameworkIndicators – 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

Indicators – Economic FrameworkIndicators – Economic Framework

2 Indicators

Investment, taxation, and regulatory policies that encourage long-term investment

Nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest products

Indicators – Monitoring FrameworkIndicators – Monitoring Framework

3 Indicators

– Data and statistics describing Criteria 1-7 indicators

– Forest inventories, assessments, and monitoring

– Indicator compatibility with other countries

Indicators – Research FrameworkIndicators – Research Framework5 Indicators

Forest ecosystem characteristics & functions

Measure and integrate environmental and social values

Technology and its impacts

Human impacts on forest ecosystems

Climate change

National Report:National Report:

Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Economic Framework (12 indicators)Economic Framework (12 indicators)

Led by:– Dept. of Forest Resources, U of MN

– USDA-Forest Service-Southern Research Station

Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Economic FrameworkEconomic 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)

Institutional, Legal, and Economic Institutional, Legal, and Economic Framework AssessmentFramework 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

Criteria DescriptionsCriteria DescriptionsIdeally:

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

Subcriteria DescriptionsSubcriteria DescriptionsIdeally:

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)

Indicator DescriptionsIndicator DescriptionsIdeally:

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

Indicator DescriptionsIndicator DescriptionsWhat 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

Indicator DataIndicator Data

Ideally:

Sufficient in quantity

Sufficient in quality

Capable of being aggregated

Capable of being analyzed

Collected over time

Available at a reasonable cost

Indicator DataIndicator DataWhat 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

Important Indicator and Data IssuesImportant Indicator and Data Issues

AvailabilityAvailability

ScopeScope

ScaleScale

UsefulnessUsefulness

AvailabilityAvailabilityData 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

ScopeScope

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

ScopeScopeInstitutional 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)

ScaleScaleInstitutional Scale Variable indicator focus on:– Federal– State– Local organizations

Sector Scale Variable Indicator focus on:– Public– Private sectors

UsefulnessUsefulnessData Shortcomings:Data Shortcomings:

OutdatedOutdated

Incompatible with other data setsIncompatible with other data sets

IncompleteIncomplete

Inability to describe trendsInability to describe trends

Summary: Criterion 7 IndicatorsSummary: 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 C#7 on Legal and Institutional

Capacity– Move economic indicators (58-59) to

Criteria #6

Existing data provide anincomplete picture about the legal, institutional, and economic frameworks.

Summary: Criterion 7 DataSummary: 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.

Summary: Criterion 7 DataSummary: Criterion 7 Data

Our Conclusions…Our Conclusions… In spite of these concerns, theexercise was worthwhile

Provides a platform to make future judgments about legal,

economic, and institutional indicators more meaningful

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

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

Think About…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 – I‘ll 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 C&I data in LAY TERMS. – National Report reads like “inside baseball”

Questions?Questions?