Meeting Summary for the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests

Washington, D.C.Ê

June 26, 2001

 

Attendees: Phil Janik, DeAndra Beck, John Fedkiw, Rob Hendricks, Rob Mangold, Ruth McWilliams, Jennifer Moore, and Dave Radloff, USFS;Ê Adela Backiel, USDA; Bill Banzhaf and Jeff Ghannam, Society of American Foresters; Nadine Block, Pinchot Institute; Nick Brown, World Wildlife Fund; Nils Christopherson, Wallowa Resources; Mary Coloumbe, American Forest and Paper Association; Christina Cromley, American Forests; Brian Czech, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Scott Fenimore, American Forests; Paul Geissler, USGS; Ted Heintz, U.S. DOI; Janet Heaslerig, USGS Biological Resources Division; Chris Juahola, BLM;Ê Brian Kernohan, Ecosystem Management Research Institute; Chris Losi, Pinchot Institute and USFS; Jerry Rose; National Association of State Foresters; Laurie Schoonhoven, Penn State University; Edwin Sheffner, NASA; Jerry Stokes, Global Environment and Technology Foundation; Heather Townsend, U.S. Department of State; Michael Washburn, Yale University; Barbara Wells, North East Midwest Institute; Doug Williams, NRCS; Tim Mealey, Karen Firehock and Sarah Walen, Meridian Institute.

 

Orientation:

 

The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. with an orientation session for new Roundtable participants and others sponsored by the Roundtableâs Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG).Ê The orientation was followed by an informative discussion about the purpose and applications for the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators (C&I) and opportunities for participation in Roundtable work groups.Ê An orientation session will likely be held at the beginning of future Roundtable meetings to brief new participants, colleagues and staff of Roundtable participants.Ê Comments were solicited about the new orientation slide show (Attachment A), which will be modified based on those comments and made available for other Roundtable briefings and presentations.

 

Business Meeting:

 

Welcome and Updates

 

Phil Janik welcomed everyone and introduced Jerry Rose as the new Co-Chair of the Roundtable.Ê Mr. Rose then asked attendees to comment on why they had chosen to participate in the Roundtable given the many competing demands on their time.ÊÊ Comments from attendees included an interest in engaging in a productive dialogue about sustainable forests with a diverse group of stakeholders.Ê Others added that there were not similar venues elsewhere.Ê Additional comments from new participants included an interest in representing state and community level views in the dialogue.

 

Mr. Rose provided a brief review of the Roundtableâs progress to date and reminded all that the Roundtableâs Charter (Attachment B) states its purpose ã·is to serve as a forum to share information and perspectives that will enable better decision-making in the U.S. regarding the sustainable management of our nationâs forests.äÊ This involves input into preparation of the 2003 Report, including working on identifying and addressing long- term technical issues and data gaps concerning the C&I along with the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the Federal Interagency Annual Work Plan.Ê He thanked the Roundtable for assisting in having the federal interagency Memorandum of Understanding raised, discussed and signed to enable cooperation on implementation of the C&I.

 

Phil Janik remarked on Mr. Roseâs new role as Co-Chair and highlighted the benefits of demonstrating that the Roundtable is a partnership among government agencies and the private sector.Ê He added that the strength of the Roundtable comes from the diversity of its participants.Ê While sustainability has emerged as a rally cry for the United States, no one entity alone can achieve it so the Roundtable provides a venue to influence what is happening on the ground.Ê Mr. Janik encouraged all to take advantage of opportunities to more fully engage in the work of the Roundtable by becoming active in one of the Roundtableâs work groups.Ê

 

Mr. Janik then described highlights from two recent events at which the new U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth discussed his commitment to sustainable forest management.Ê Chief Bosworth spoke on May 29, 2001 at the Society of American Foresters National Capital Unit and at the Pinchot Institute on June 26, 2001.ÊÊ Relevant highlights from both presentations, included expectations for the Forest Service to expand its role in collaborative stewardship and sustainability as well as in issues concerning private forest management.Ê Improvement of sustainable forest management practices in the United States was also linked to influencing global forest product markets.Ê Of particular interest to Roundtable participants was the notion presented by Chief Bosworth that forest monitoring is underfunded and that it is time to evaluate if we are monitoring the most effective parameters.ÊÊ The need for effective conservation education was also emphasized, as were efforts to improve forest health while reducing fire risk.Ê Water conservation and roadless area management were further identified as critical focus areas for the Forest Service.

 

Technical Work Group (TWG) Report

 

Dave Radloff provided an overview of the process for producing the National Report on Sustainable Forests (2003 Report) and the context for engaging the Roundtableâs TWG (Attachment C).Ê Report writing teams are populated primarily by USFS staff that is in the process of pulling together the Report and are being assisted by the Federal Geographic Data Committeeâs Sustainable Forests Data Group (FGDC-SFD).ÊÊ There is some overlap among the work of the three groups but their unique approaches and interactions provide a value-added function for creating the Report.

 

The TWG Co-Chair Laurie Schoonhoven gave an overview of the groupâs recent progress, which has involved clarification of their role in relation to the FGDC-SFD and the Forest Service Writing Team in producing the 2003 Report.Ê The TWG has also discussed technical issues, which remain to be resolved, such as the National Vegetation Classification System (NVC) for which several participants are creating an automated crosswalk to enable comparison of the NVC with other systems.ÊÊ Contact information for those who participated in the Roundtable sponsored Spring 2000 technical workshops have been provided to the 2003 Report Chapter authors for any needed follow-up or clarification concerning their findings.Ê There remain technical issues, such as the definition of forests and fragmentation, which will likely not be resolved in time for the 2003 Report.

Ê

The TWG Co-Chair Paul Geissler followed up, explaining that he is also serving as Co-Chair of SFD and they have considered holding workshops concerning additional technical issues to be resolved for the Report.Ê Next, Mr. Geissler provided an overview of stakeholder input opportunities for the 2003 Report which included the timeframe of August through September 2001 and again through an April 2002 workshop as well as venues identified through the Roundtableâs Communication and Outreach Work Group (COWG.)ÊÊ Another option for input is available via the web.Ê Two discussion papers,Ê ãClarification of the Indicators in the Montreal Processä and ãInterpretation of the Criteria and Indicators from the Montreal Process,ä are available from the SFD at http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/brd/Sfissues.htm.Ê The papers each present technical issues concerning interpretation of the C&I and provide an option for web-based commenting on the issues.

 

Discussion of TWG Report:

 

Roundtable participants discussed the importance of highlighting assumptions on which the Report will be based, such as the definition of which lands are forest lands or whether, for example, major highways are considered as a factor in forest fragmentation.Ê A related question concerned communication with other initiatives, such as coordination with the Rangelands Roundtable concerning how they plan to define forest lands

 

Several participants questioned the status of developing measurement options for indicators for which no methodology has yet been established, such as non-timber forest products (NTFPs).Ê Mr. Radloff replied that while some technical issues will take longer to address and quantify, determination of NTFP measurement options is on the short list for resolution.Ê All agreed that the several page section descriptions to be produced and shared by the Report writing teams should shed light on these assumptions and proposed approaches.Ê Mr. Mealey added that the annual plan of the FGDC work group will help with understanding how these technical issues are being worked on as well as how the Roundtable can best coordinate with their efforts.

 

Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG) Report

 

The COWG Co-Chair Michael Washburn presented an overview of the COWGâs activities since the last Roundtable meeting.Ê He explained that the COWGâs sensing exercise was very informative.Ê The sensing exercise was conducted by COWG participants this past Spring to contact representatives of the key stakeholder groups identified in the COWG plan in order to determine their awareness, perceptions and interest in the C&I.Ê One of the key findings of this sensing exercise was the finding that there is relatively low awareness about the existence, purpose and potential applications for the C&I.Ê Another key finding is that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the relationship between C&I and forest certification programs which led to the work group's suggestion that this topic should be explored through a Roundtable meeting.Ê

 

The COWG's next phase includes the following three primary objectives for stakeholder outreach:

 

 

Mr. Washburn explained that the COWG is achieving its outreach objectives in several ways:

 

á        Development of a stakeholder input workshop concerning potential C&I relevance and applications, the first of which is to be held at the Society of American Foresters conference in Denver on Saturday, September 15, 2001.Ê Meetings at other venues will follow. Roundtable participants are requested to let the COWG know of any upcoming workshops of meetings at which the work group could provide a presentation.

á        Development of new tools that can be used to orient new Roundtable participants and their constituencies, such as the new Roundtable slide show (Attachment A) which was previewed during the morning orientation session and will be made available to RSF participants for presentations at conferences, workshops etc.

á        Improved communications through the RSF website (www.sustainableforests.net) which has been redesigned to more clearly differentiate between the Roundtableâs work and related efforts and which includes a web database for tracking the COWG's outreach efforts.

 

Discussion of COWG Report:

 

Rob Hendricks pointed out that the entire Roundtable should fulfill the function of outreach while others discussed the need to better link with related efforts.Ê Mr. Banzhaf remarked that Roundtable participants should be conducting outreach to key stakeholders and that the current level of outreach is appropriate given that the Report is not yet out and is not on most peopleâs radar.Ê

 

Concerning outreach activities related to the 2003 Report, some Roundtable participants cautioned that the messages should emphasize that the Report is not an endpoint but rather a snapshot picture of forest trends and data gaps with indications for future actions.Ê Several participants highlighted the need to ensure there is a broader public discourse about the Report and its findings.Ê

 

U.S. Forest Service Plan to Produce the 2003 Report and Intended Audience(s)

 

Dave Radloff gave an overview of the plan to produce the 2003 Report (Attachment C).Ê Mr. Radloff explained that during last summer and fall, roles for producing the Report were clarified and that the responsibility for producing the Report is that of the federal government with the USFS as the lead entity.Ê He emphasized the importance of gathering stakeholder input on the Report's format, content and recommendations.ÊÊ

 

There are now five chapters with essentially the same content as outlined previously.Ê However, chapters have been reorganized such that Chapter Two provides data analysis and Chapter Three is intended to provide a sense of what people are doing to seek to achieve sustainable forests on the ground.Ê Chapter Four will cover data interpretation and Chapter Five will describe future plans.Ê The Report chapters will, of necessity, be produced sequentially as each chapter builds upon information found in the preceding chapters.Ê For instance, data gaps apparent in Chapter Two will be linked to future plans covered in Chapter Five.Ê Stakeholder input into the Reportâs content will likely be most critical for Chapters four and five.

 

The current plan to produce the 2003 Report is the same as the plan presented at the last Roundtable meeting with the addition of the role of the COWG in facilitating the involvement of the full range of interests.Ê Mr. Radloff emphasized that the timeframe from September 2001 to April 2002 is a key time for input into the Report and that the COWG and TWG will work together concerning how to achieve the needed outreach and on what will and will not be important to include in the Report.Ê

 

Discussion of 2003 Report Process:

 

In response to questions from the group, it was noted that there are three reports that will be produced: the Data Report, the 2003 Report (about 100 pages) based on the Data Report and the Montreal Process Country Report.Ê Mr. Hendricks explained that Montreal Process country representatives would meet at the end of September to discuss and compare report drafts among countries and to plan for a spring 2002 workshop to compare draft country reports.Ê By November 2001, a plan that describes how to report on the seven criteria for all 12 Montreal Process Counties will be produced.Ê Mr. Hendricks noted that a report on the worldâs temperate and boreal forests would be prepared based on indicators similar to those used by the Montreal Process Countries.Ê

 

Further discussion ensued concerning which projects would be selected for mention in Chapter Three of the 2003 Report.Ê Some participants questioned the subjectivity of the selection process.Ê Ms. McWilliams explained that a Delphi Process is being utilized in order to provide an objective approach for selecting projects to highlight in Chapter Three.Ê She noted that the description of this process was shared previously with the Roundtable and could also be posted to the Roundtableâs web site.

 

Several participants questioned whether there would be an attempt to analyze Canadian and U.S. forest interactions since there are shared forests across U.S. and Canadian borders.Ê Mr. Hendricks responded that there is, as of yet, no effort to have a North American report but that the Canadians have been working on a grid to compare results which may be of use in future comparisons.Ê Ms. McWilliams added that a 20-state effort is now working with Canada and will likely be highlighted in Chapter Three of the 2003 Report.Ê Additionally, the North American Forest Commission may then also seek to review cross border linkages.

 

Mr. Janik summarized the following several key points concerning the scope for the 2003 Report:

 

Discussion of Audiences for the 2003 Report:

 

Ms. Block posed the question as to whether private landowners were an audience or whether the Report would be geared more towards those interested in policy issues.ÊÊÊ

Mr. Christopherson surmised that there is potential for controversy among private landowners who may fear that the Report is a veiled attempt to justify new regulations, which has been a concern in the Oregon state C&I initiative.Ê Mr. Brown suggested that C&I should be promoted to private landowners as an effective tool to provide a series of checkpoints that can demonstrate where can we get the most effective and efficient benefits in land management approaches.Ê He suggested that the Report state explicitly areas where the indicators can be addressed at different scales (e.g., some indicators are more or less relevant to large or small landowners, etc.)Ê Mr. Banzhaf followed up with the comment that non-industrial private landowners care about stewardship, and if we explain how the indicators can help them better manage their lands, we might connect with their needs in an informative rather than a threatening manner.

 

Several participants commented that while the data may be complex, the Report should be aimed at the American public, such that the key findings are presented in a manner that can be comprehended by a broad audience.ÊÊ However, Bill Banzhaf disagreed, suggesting that the stakeholders engaged in the Roundtable are the primary audience.Ê Others added that there should be an intentional effort to target audiences at different scales as well as options for using the C&I for regional and state applications.Ê

 

The group concluded that one option is to develop an outreach strategy rather than attempting to reach all possible audiences through one single report.Ê For example, outreach materials created based on the Report could help to draw links to various stakeholder interests and the COWG could begin developing messages and linkages for different audiences and scales before the final Report is completed in order to make the Report relevant as soon as it is available.

 

Concerning stakeholder input and Report distribution, Ted Heintz suggested that the COWG consider a variety of options for formats to share the Reportâs findings (CDs, newsletters, presentations, etc). Additionally, Mr. Banzhaf suggested that the Roundtable and others seek to engage less traditional audiences, such as the urban forest constituency.Ê Several participants suggested that the Southern Forest Resource Assessment process might be a useful model for stakeholder engagement.Ê Additionally, the Southern Forest Science Conference in November is a good opportunity for stakeholder input.Ê

 

Other cautions by several Roundtable participants concerned not focusing on promoting C&I but rather on striving to be clear on how C&I can and cannot be utilized or applied.Ê Additionally, Ms. Cromley noted that reporting of data is inherently value laden based on which data are reported so it will be important to avoid presenting the 2003 Report as value free.Ê Finally, all agreed that the Roundtable would serve a key function in ensuring that the Report's information is utilized to foster better decisions concerning sustainable forest management.

 

Special Topic Presentation and Dialogue:

 

Comparing Forest Management Certification Systems and the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators

 

Michael Washburn and Nadine Block presented a paper comparing and contrasting forest certification systems and the C&I.Ê Mr. Washburn explained that the impetus for the paper and presentation grew out of the sensing exercise conducted by the COWG, which revealed a great deal of confusion by stakeholders concerning whether the C&I were intended as a forest certification program.Ê A slide presentation (Attachment D) was used to describe the various certification systems such as FSC and SFI as well as American Tree Farm, Green Tag, ISO 2000 etc.Ê Similarities and differences in the goals, outcomes and implications of these programs as compared to the Montreal Process C&I were highlighted.

 

Discussion of presentation:

Ms. Coloumbe commented that both certification and C&I seek to fulfill the goal of achieving better, more consistent data about aspects of our forests over time but that certification and C&I seek to fulfill different purposes.Ê She added that the Roundtable is focused on the question on getting better data and what systems will achieve this.ÊÊ Mr. Brown agreed that good monitoring is a fundamental link, but questioned some of the elemental differences highlighted in the presentation.Ê He noted that some of the indicators could be used at multiple levels, such as monitoring at scales needed to measure endangered species habitats.

 

Ms. Cromley suggested that it might be worthwhile to consider the relationship of C&I and certification systems in a broader context by noting that C&I also include economic and social indicators that cross-jurisdictional and political boundaries.Ê Mr. Washburn agreed it might be useful to emphasize how C&I and certification systems complement each other.Ê Another participant commented that C&I are more useful at eco-regional, national and international levels whereas forest certification seeks to define the status of individual forest tracts.ÊÊÊ

 

Several participants commented on the continuing lack of clarity concerning the scale at which C&I can be applied. For example, while the C&I were designed for application at the national level, certain indicators may also be able to be applied at the local or regional scale.Ê Some participants questioned whether C&I could be used internationally, but Ms. Beck cautioned that this conversation is complicated by the different measurement approaches and forest types in each county (e.g., Can forests in Australia be compared to forests in the U.S. when eco-regions and forest types are so different?).ÊÊ Several participants expressed an interest in a future determination of how the C&I could be utilized to learn the impacts of various management regimes over time.Ê

 

Next Steps:

 

á        A Roundtable CEO Meeting in October.Ê The Roundtable will seek to hold a session to inform the leadership of Roundtable groups and other stakeholders about the progress of the 2003 Report.Ê Meridian staff will work to set the date as soon as possible to maximize potential attendance.

á        2003 Report Workshop.Ê The Roundtable will seek to sponsor a workshop to comment on the 2003 Report draft, possibly in April 2002.Ê The Roundtableâs work groups will begin drafting the schedule, format and outcomes for the workshop.