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 1 Conservation of Biological Diversity9 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity: Forest Ecosystems 5 3. Maintenance: Forest Ecosystem Health3 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

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 Report: Assessment 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 AvailabilityScopeScaleUsefulness

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 C#7 on Legal and Institutional Capacity – –Move economic indicators (58-59) to Criteria #6

24. Existing data provide an incomplete picture about the legal, institutional, and economic frameworks. Summary: Criterion 7 Data

25. 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 Data

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 – –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”

30. Questions?