MEMORANDUM

TO: ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests

FROM:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Tim Mealey, Sarah Walen, Karen Firehock, and Shawn Walker

SUBJECT:ÊÊÊÊÊÊ Follow-up Actions and Key Decisions from the January 18, 2000 Roundtable Meeting

DATE:ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ January 28, 2000

Greetings.Ê It was good to see those of you who were able to attend the January 18, 2000 meeting of the Roundtable on Sustaina ble Forests (Roundtable).Ê We appreciate your time and perseverance as we work through some of the challenges presented by this evolving process.Ê Despite some of these challenges and through many of your efforts, progress is being made towards addressing some of the technical issues related to implementation of the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) in the U.S. as well as the future needs of the Roundtable process.

Following is a brief summary of the key decisions and action items from the January 18th meeting.Ê As discussed at the meeting, over the next couple of months there will be a number of work group and Criteria Technical Committee (CTC) meetings in preparation for the three Criteria and Indicator (C&I) technical workshops that will take place in the spring of 2000.Ê In addition, the next RSF will be held following the workshops in late early summer of 2000 in Washington D.C.Ê A summary of next steps is presented at the end of this summary.

Summary

Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) began the meeting with the observation that the Roundtable was at an important juncture.Ê He noted there are a number of growing expectations on what the Roundtable plans to do, including preparations for the C&I technical workshops in the spring of 2000, data gathering, and communications nationally with the RSF website.Ê With regards to the broader subject of sustainability, Mr. Janik referenced the recent discussions at the Montreal Process meeting in Charleston, SC.Ê He commented that many from the international community anticipate the national report on sustainable forests in 2003 and look to the U.S. for leadership in this area.Ê Mr. Janik stated that those involved with the Montreal Process C&I were aware of the Roundtable and impressed with its progress.Ê In this regard, Mr. Janik felt that it was time for the Roundtable to become more focused and specific about its intentions and to be more cognizant of its leadership role.

On a domestic level, Mr. Janik explained that the USFS continues to try and institutionalize sustainability.Ê As examples of these on-going efforts, Mr. Janik referenced the following:

¯ $470,000 in the Forest Serviceâs FY00 budget to expand the Boise test on application of C&I to an additional six national forests.

¯ Several million dollars and increased efforts to work with state foresters on the Forest Inventory and Assessment (FIA) programs.

¯ A commitment of two full-time staff within the Forest Service to sustainability efforts; Ruth McWilliams, as the National Sustainability Coordinator; and David Radloff, USFS, who will work with the Forest Service deputy chiefs and regional offices on implementing sustainability in the field.

¯ Assignment of a task group to revise the redraft the FS planning regulations to reflect a focus on C&I that is consistent with the Forest Serviceâs strategic plan.

As a potential future issue for Roundtable consideration, Mr. Janik referenced a recent discussion with Peter Crane from the Royal Botanical Gardens, United Kingdom, during which Mr. Crane introduced the idea of a seed storage facility as a means to store various forest and grass seeds as an insurance measure for sustainability.Ê Mr. Crane proposed that the U.S. might want to consider taking part in the seed storage effort.

Mr. Janik also commented on a number of additional Roundtable issues for consideration, including the structure of the Roundtable and its involvement with the 2003 National Report.Ê He observed that, with the evolution and increasing visibility of the Roundtable, everyone involved will need to address potential concerns regarding Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) implications.Ê In regard to the 2003 national report, Mr. Janik referenced the high level of interest expressed by the international community in the 2003 report at the recent Montreal Process meeting.Ê Prompted by their questions about the expectations for the 2003 report, he shared his impression that the 2003 report was to be a status report on the progress towards achieving forest sustainability.Ê Mr. Janik expressed some urgency to begin to prepare for the report soon and commented that other countries had committed to establishing a standard format to address issues of consistency and coordinate their reporting efforts.Ê Mr. Janik envisioned that the national report would be data-rich and include an executive summary which might address data synthesis and interpretation but stop short of drawing conclusions regarding sustainability.Ê He commented on the need to establish who will produce the 2003 National Report, and to clearly define how the work of the Roundtable should proceed in this context.

Ellen Conway, U.S. Department of State (DOS) added that the next Montreal Process meeting would take place in China in the fall of 2000.Ê She noted that draft progress reports from each of the countries involved in the Montreal Process are due to the Montreal Process Liaison Office by the spring of 2002.Ê Robert Hendricks, USFS, Chair of the Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee (MPTAC), noted that the MPTAC was charged with developing suggested proposals for how countries should present data in a standardized format.Ê He noted that this task will hopefully be accomplish at a meeting that will take place in June, 2000.Ê He invited Roundtable participants to contact him if they were interested in participating in the development of MPTAC.Ê (The Roundtableâs response to Mr. Hendrickâs suggestion, as well as clarification of the relationship between the Montreal Process ãcountry progress reportsä and the ãnational reportä referred to in the Roundtable process, are summarized below).

Report on the Montreal Process Working Group Meeting in Charleston, South Carolina

Ellen Conway, USDOS, distributed a document entitled, "Aide Memoire, Eleventh Meeting of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montreal Process), Charleston, South Carolina, USA, 29 November - 3 December 1999," for information on the agreements and next steps from the meeting in Charleston, SC.Ê (For those of you were not in attendance, if you wish to obtain a copy of this document, please contact Shawn Walker at 202-354-6450 or shawnwalker@merid.org).

Technical Work Group (TWG) Report

The TWG participants presented a status on their plans for the C&I technical workshops which will take place in March and May 2000.Ê The CTCs are progressing with the identification of workshop participants.Ê A list of approximately thirty individuals who have been contacted and expressed interest in attending the workshops was presented at the meeting.Ê Of the thirty individuals, seven have requested funding to cover travel expenses to attend the workshop.Ê Intensive efforts are underway by the TWG and the CTCs to complete the process of identifying the remaining participants who will make up the total number of approximately 120 invitees for the first two workshops.Ê It is hoped that this process will be completed by the end of January with letters of invitation going out in early February.Ê Roundtable participants were invited to contact Sarah Walen directly to view a more comprehensive list of prospective workshop participants by the close of business on Friday, January 21, 2000.Ê (For those of you who were not in attendance, if you wish to review the current status of the invitee list, please contact Sarah immediately (970-513-8340 x213) as invitation letters may go out as early as this week.)

TWG participants also explained that they were progressing with other plans for the workshops including refining workshop agendas, further defining how to prepare participants for the workshops, and coordinating workshop outcomes to facilitate the production of the Technical Assessment Reports (TARs).Ê To coordinate workshop outcomes, the TWG formed a small Workshop Output subcommittee of TWG participants including Paul Geissler, Robert Hendricks, and Tom Snellgrove.Ê These individuals will work on an approach for all of the CTCs to correlate actual workshop outcomes with the outline of the Technical Assessment Report contained in the General Guidelines document which was reviewed and approved by the CTCs at their organizational meeting on November 8, 1999.Ê While the TWG plans to meet the challenge of expected outputs from the C&I technical workshops on data availability, quality, etc, as well as the identification of data and institutional gaps, it was clarified that these outputs are not intended to explicitly address or make recommendations about policy issues associated with whether and how to take steps to address the gaps.Ê The TWG deferred to the Roundtable to help determine how the Technical Assessment Reports should be used as a stepping stone the 2003 national report and the broader goal of sustainable forests.

Some of the issues the TWG identified in the workshop planning process include the need to clarify or resolve differing interpretations and definitions of key terms, and funding for a subset of workshop participants.Ê The TWG stressed the importance of workshop participants being drawn from diverse perspectives and backgrounds while still focusing on those individuals with the appropriate technical experience and competence.Ê They commented that without funding, individuals from many non-governmental organizations (NGO), academia, and some local, regional, and state agencies, would not be able to participate in the workshops.Ê

Tim Mealey commented that the small fundraising group formed at the CTC organizational meeting on November 8, which includes himself, Nick Brown, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Michael Washburn, Sustainable Forestry Partnership (SFP), was actively soliciting $76,000 from private foundations to address the travel support needs related to the workshops.Ê However, he indicated they had received no funding commitments to-date, and the time had come to look at some fall-back strategies for addressing this need.

Roundtable participants reaffirmed the need for including a diversity of people with appropriate technical expertise in the workshops, with particular emphasis on including representatives of environmental groups, academia, forestry consultants, and experts who work "in the field."Ê

There was also some discussion on how best to involve private non-industrial landowner interests in the technical workshop process.Ê It was agreed that addressing the needs and concerns of this interest was critical.Ê However, it was also noted that many private non-industrial landowners might not have the technical background and expertise to participate in the C&I Technical Workshops.Ê Furthermore, given the focus of those workshops, it would be difficult to address the breadth and scope of the interests and concerns of non-industrial forest landowners in such a setting.Ê Thus, it was suggested that their interests might be more appropriately addressed in a more focused event that the Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG) could play a role in designing and conducting.Ê Keith Argow, National Woodlands Owners Association, agreed that such an approach to addressing the likely interests and concerns of private non-industrial forest landowners related to implementation of the C&I made sense.Ê Mike Washburn volunteered the assistance of the SFP in making this happen.

Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG) Report

COWG members reported on the status of the documents they have been charged by the Roundtable to develop for the website.Ê The Questions and Answers document is completed and incorporated into the website.Ê The work group is in the process of developing a list of key messages that will soon be available which is intended to assist Roundtable participants in any and all communication they might engage in regarding the Roundtable and the C&I.Ê In addition, Meridian staff, with the assistance of some of the COWG members, is in the process of developing targeted documents to aid in the fundraising process.Ê

It was noted that the COWG is limited in what it can do until the Roundtable resolves a number of issues that flow from those that will be focused upon in this meeting.Ê These include such questions as: 1) when and how use terms such as ãC&I implementation;äÊ 2) when will the Roundtable or its subgroups be making ãrecommendationsä and to whom; and 3) what is meant by ãparticipationä and/or ãmembershipä in the Roundtable and its work groups and the CTCs.Ê The COWG also offered to assist the TWG and the CTCs in producing the Technical Assessment Reports.

Ê

Discussion Topic: What Should be the Connection Between the Technical Assessment Reports and the National Report in 2003?

To begin the discussion on the connection between the Technical Assessment reports and the National Report in 2003, Tim Mealey provided an overview of the Issues Paper prepared by the Meridian Institute (which was distributed in advance of the meeting in an attachment to an e-mail dated 1/13/00).Ê He explained that the issues paper was composed as a means to develop greater clarity on:

1) How the products that will be produced by the TWG (and the CTCs) will contribute to the proposed National Report on sustainable forests in 2003?;

2) What other products or steps will be needed to produce a 2003 National Report?; and

3) Who is responsible for producing the National Report, what type of content should be included in the report, and what approach should be used to develop the report?

Mr. Mealey indicated that the Core Group (which was described in the Issues Paper and discussed in more detail below) identified three distinct ãtracksä of activities as it relates to these questions.Ê These tracks, which are also described in more detail in the Issues Paper, include: 1) the ãdata collectionä track; 2) the ãdata interpretationä track; and 3) the sustainable forest management ãpolicyä track.Ê One Roundtable participant expressed concern with the use of the term ãtrackä because it implied these activities can take place simultaneously rather than sequentially.Ê Mr. Mealey explained that when the term was introduced at the January 11^th Core Group meeting there was a recognition of the sequential aspect of these activities, in the sense that data needs to be developed and presented before it can be interpreted, for example.Ê There was also a recognition of the need to think ahead to the needs and roles and responsibilities of different organizations and processes, such as the Roundtable, as it relates to these various activities.Ê Mr. Mealey then presented a flip chart which elaborated upon the distinction between these three tracks which looked like this:

Actions, decisions, policyÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ TRACK ãCäÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

Ê ImplicationsÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

ÊÊ InterpretationÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ TRACK ãBä

ÊÊÊÊ Synthesis/Analysis

ÊÊÊÊ Meta-Data (description)ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ TRACK ãAä

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ Data (collection, aggregation etc.)

In an attempt to clarify the function of the Technical Assessment Reports (TARs), Mr. Mealey explained, and the co-chairs of the TWG confirmed, that the TARs will not constitute data collection and aggregation.Ê Rather, these reports will identify and evaluate existing data sources, and point out gaps in data related to the 7 criteria and 67 indicators, as well as institutional gaps as it relates to data collection needs.Ê

After some discussion the Roundtable agreed that the 2003 National Report should, at a minimum, include data and meta-data, as well as at least some degree of synthesis and analysis of ãrawä data in order to make sense of the data.Ê With regard to the question of whether the 2003 National Report should include any interpretation of data and, if so, how any interpretation should be generated, there was a recognition that the answer to this question depends upon developing a clearer understanding about who will be responsible for producing the 2003 National Report.Ê Therefore, it cannot and need not be answered at this time.

Before turning its attention to the question of who should be responsible for developing the national report, the Roundtable clarified the relationship between the ãnational reportä referred in its deliberations and the ãcountry level progress reportsä that the U.S. recently committed to in the Montreal Process, which are also due in 2003.

Relationship With the Montreal Process Country Level ãProgress Reportsä

It was clarified that the proposal to produce a national report on sustainable forests originated in the letter from several stakeholder representatives to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that was sent back in March 1998.Ê This concept was further discussed at the July 1998 ãChiefâs Roundtableä meeting that led to the formation of the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests.Ê The letter recommended that CEQ and OMB identify the USFS as having a lead role in collaboration with other federal agencies and a variety of other public and private entities, in using the C&I as the basis for collecting data to be contained in a report on the status and trends of all forest resources in the U.S.Ê The 2003 date was first identified at the July 1998 meeting.Ê This date coincides with the next national level Resource Assessment (which includes forests as well as other renewable and non-renewable resources) which the Forest Service is obligated to complete under the Resources Planning Act (RPA).Ê

After some discussion, it was established that the 2003 national report referred to in Roundtable documents should be the same report as the ãcountry level progress reportä that the U.S. agreed to produce at the last Montreal Process Working Group meeting.Ê It was noted by all that if this were not the case, it would be counterproductive to produce two very similar reports, one for the Montreal Process and the other for very similar but somewhat separate purposes.Ê However, since it was not yet clear what will be the requirements concerning the content and format of the Montreal Process ãprogress reports,ä it was agreed, at a minimum, the 2003 national report would serve to meet the minimal requirements of the Montreal Process.Ê In other words, it remains to be seen whether the 2003 national report will go beyond the minimum requirements of the Montreal Process, but it will, at the very least, meet whatever the minimal requirements are.Ê

Roundtable participants noted that the Montreal Process country level progress reports are due in draft in the Spring of 2002 and in final form in 2003, at which time they will be combined with other country level reports into a single report from the Montreal Process Working Group (MPWG).Ê Rob Hendricks, USFS,Ê pointed out these dates were agreed to only after the U.S. objected to proposals from other countries to complete the final report from the MPWG at a much earlier date.Ê Roundtable participants noted, but did not discuss, the need to achieve greater clarity about the timing implications of a draft report being due in the spring of 2002 for the Montreal Process, and the 2003 date previously identified by the Roundtable for the ãnational report.ä

Roundtable participants also discussed the role of the Roundtable in relation to the development of the 2003 Report.Ê It as agreed that the role of the Roundtable is dependent upon the determination of who will have the lead role in producing the 2003 report.Ê However, given the work that has been done to date, there is a unique opportunity for the Roundtable to be involved in the process.Ê They viewed the work of the Roundtable, including the Technical Assessment Reports, as providing a basis for making informed decisions about the scope, content, format, and approach to producing the 2003 report.Ê

In turning its attention back to the three tracks described above, the group noted there is a tension between what they saw as the need for the Roundtable to remain focused on Track ãA,ä data collection and institutionalization, before assuming the challenges of data interpretation, let alone the potential policy implications of the data embodied in Tracks B and C, while at the same time there is a need to look forward and plan for ãC&I implementationä to include all of these activities.Ê The existing Roundtable Charter was referenced in this context as a reminder that the initial focus of the Roundtable was to ãimplement and promote utilization of the C&I.äÊ It was suggested that there was a role for the Roundtable in facilitating the process of institutionalizing data collection efforts.Ê There was also a less defined role for the Roundtable in using C&I as a framework for engaging stakeholders in the U.S. on sustainable forest management.Ê In this regard, a distinction was made between ãlittle p" policy measures (i.e., those policies that are aimed at clarifying roles and responsibilities, and related agency funding needs, for institutionalizing data collection), and ãbig P" policy issues (i.e., what might be the implications of the C&I data as it relates to policies aimed at achieving sustainable forest management).

Role of the U.S. Forest Service

Roundtable participants discussed the role of the USFS in the Roundtable process, as well as in relation to the 2003 National Report.Ê Several Roundtable participants indicated they had all along envisioned the Forest Service taking the lead in producing a national report, as is evident from the March 1998 letter which was written before the Roundtable was conceived and formed.Ê While all participants supported the continuation of the Roundtableâs open and inclusive process of ãshared leadership,ä there was a strong recognition of the need for a more structured and, perhaps, more formal process, with a stronger leadership role for the Forest Service than currently exists in the Roundtable.Ê This need was seen as particularly acute as the process of C&I implementation moves forward from the evaluation of data sources and data and institutional gaps which will be included in the TARs, into data collection and aggregation, and from there into data interpretation and potential policy implications.Ê In describing the types of changes that are needed in moving to a more structured and formal process, the group urged Phil Janik, USFS, to continue serving as the Chair of the Roundtable, but to shift the approach that uses in this role from what he has previously described as a "loose" chair to a more formal chair.

The group discussed various styles of chairmanship and, in so doing, expressed support for continued use of the Meridian Institute as the facilitators of the Roundtable.Ê One participant described the distinction between what is envisioned for the roles of chair and facilitator as shifting the responsibility from the facilitator to the USFS to make concrete proposals to the group on how to proceed, for the chair to take on more responsibility for achieving closure, and, in the absence of a clear consensus on how to proceed, for the chair to make a decision on how to proceed, taking into account all expressed views.

When the facilitator asked whether anyone objected to moving in this direction, one participant expressed a concern about perceptions of the Forest Service in the political realm (e.g., in Congress and with certain constituencies), given the degree of recent controversy over such high profile issues as roadless areas, the draft forest planning regulations, etc.Ê However, when asked whether these concerns warranted going in a direction different than what was being proposed, the objection was withdrawn.

The group agreed that what was most important is that the leadership of the USFS, through Phil Janik serving as Chair of the Roundtable, should continue to be exercised in the context of a shared leadership process.Ê In other words, the Roundtable process should be designed and managed to allow other participants to serve in both an advisory and a collaborative role in relation to the USFS, at the same time the Forest Service begins to take on a more structured and formal leadership role in this ãshared leadershipä process.Ê

Phil Janik indicated that he was ready to take on the higher profile chairmanship role for the Roundtable process that was being described, and that the Forest Service as an agency would also begin to take on a stronger leadership role in general, while still maintaining the very important shared leadership aspects of the Roundtable process.

In discussing the role of the USFS in the Roundtable process, the group also touched on the question of whether the Roundtable might need to formally chartered as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).Ê One participant noted he has been of the view that the Roundtable or some subset thereof should be chartered under FACA.Ê The group charged the Chair and the USFS to work closely with the other federal agency participants, to make a determination about whether and, if so, how FACA might apply to the future deliberations of the Roundtable as it moves into its next phase of work and, to the extent necessary and appropriate, to use the Core Group (see below) as a ãsounding boardä on how to best proceed in this regard.

[NOTE: With regard to the question of whether the USFS should assume the leadership role for actual producing the national report in 2003, it is the facilitatorsâ impression that the current assumption is that the USFS should take the lead role in producing the national report, once again in the context of the Roundtable serving in both an advisory and collaborative capacity to the USFS.Ê However, the Roundtable did not achieve closure on this point, partly due to running out of time, but also, it appeared to the facilitators, due to an understanding that the question of what it will mean for the USFS to take such a leadership role will be better answered later this spring after the completion of the C&I Technical Workshops, when the results of the TARs will be in hand.]

The "Core Group"

The group discussed the concept of the "Core Group."Ê As described in the Issues Paper, the proposed purpose of the Core Group is to:

¯ advise the facilitator on how the Roundtable process should be managed and facilitated to achieve its expressed goals and objectives; and

¯ develop and present issues, options, and proposals for how to proceed with the Roundtable process to the full Roundtable.

There was some discussion about whether the Core Group should be considered as a possible means by which the Roundtable process could become more structured and formal in the sense that the Core Group could serve as a FACA committee, should such a committee be deemed necessary.Ê After additional consideration, Roundtable participants saw value in the Core Group as described in the Issues Paper to serve as an advisor to the facilitator and the Roundtable as a whole.Ê They agreed that the Core Group should be responsible for helping the USFS develop options and recommendations on a structure for moving forward, and that this new subgroup role will need to be coordinated and integrated with the changes that are now envisioned with regard to the leadership role of the USFS.

Phil Janik thanked the Roundtable participants for their work and adjourned the meeting.

Ê

Summary of Outcomes and Next Steps

¯ The TWG will evaluate whether and how it will coordinate with MPTAC as it develops a proposal for a "terms of reference" document for the Montreal Process reports in 2003.Ê They will also consider adding an agenda item to the third C&I technical workshop on providing input to the MPTAC "terms of reference" document.

¯ The Core Group will continue in an advisory capacity to the Roundtable.Ê Between this and the next Roundtable meeting in June or July of 2000, the Core Group will develop options and recommendations on Roundtable structure and leadership for current and future Roundtable activities.

¯ The next Roundtable meeting will be in June or July of 2000.