Meeting
Summary
Roundtable
on Sustainable Forests
June 13, 2000
Hall of the States
Washington, D.C.
[Note to Reader: This
meeting summary refers to several attachments.Ê
All of these attachments were either distributed in advance of the
meeting or during the meeting.Ê We are
working to place the slide presentations that were given at the meeting on the
Roundtable website.Ê If anyone who was
not in attendance wishes to get copies of these attachments, please contact
Shawn Walker at shawnwalker@merid.org.]
Introduction
Tim
Mealey, Meridian Institute, welcomed participants to the Roundtable on
Sustainable Forests (Roundtable) meeting and turned to Phil Janik, Chief
Operating Officer of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), for opening remarks.Ê Mr. Janik began by thanking participants in
the Core Group for helping to prepare issues for review and discussion at the
Roundtable meeting, and stated that he found their efforts to be of help to him
as Chair of the Roundtable.Ê He invited
other participants of the Roundtable to comment if they had any concerns about
the function of the Core Group.Ê Mr.
Janik then provided background on similar Criteria and Indicator processes
currently underway for U.S. rangelands and mineral resources.Ê He recalled that after some deliberation
about whether or not to include rangelands as part of the initial Charter of
the Roundtable it was decided to exclude rangelands and rely on other parallel
efforts to evaluate the applicability of the C&I to rangelands and other
ecosystems.Ê Mr. Janik then invited
Larry Bryant, USFS, for an update on efforts toward the sustainability of
rangelands in the U.S. followed by a similar update from Dallas Emch, USFS, on
mineral resources.
Larry
Bryant provided the group with an overview of the rangeland initiative that
began a year ago.Ê There are 25
stakeholders representing 14 organizations that met to: develop a background on
the C&I; determine the steps to promote greater awareness of the C&I;
and develop support for the use of C&I as a means to measure progress
toward rangeland sustainability.Ê The
group agreed to evaluate the applicability of C&I to rangelands, and initiated
a suite of peer-reviewed research papers by the Rocky Mountain Research
Institute.Ê Drafts of five papers are
complete, two papers are almost complete, and one will be published in the
ãInternational Journal of Sustainable Developmentä and another in ãWorld Ecology.äÊ There was also positive response to a
presentation on the work of this group at last yearâs sixth international
conference on rangelands in Australia.Ê
Since then, a number of countries, including Peru and others, expressed
interest in C&I.Ê The rangeland
group is reaching out to other groups and range managers via newsletters and
other means, including a website, which is in development.Ê Another meeting of the rangeland stakeholder
group is anticipated in two months to discuss other ways to promote the
rangeland initiative.Ê Roundtable participants
were directed to contact Larry Bryant for additional information.
Following
the presentation it was clarified that the focus of the rangeland effort was
primarily national but includes efforts to gain international support for the
use of C&I for rangeland sustainability.Ê
Also, the suite of research papers shows that a number of the indicators
are applicable to rangelands and some are not.Ê
Subsequent work might involve developing additional indicators.Ê In addition, the group recognizes challenges
with key definitions such as the meaning of ãforest,ä which was also raised as
an issue in the context of delineating rangelands during the development of the
Roundtable Charter.Ê They acknowledge
the need to come to agreement on such terms in order to distinguish between
rangelands, grasslands, and shrub lands.Ê
Mr. Mealey encouraged the rangeland group to review the outcome of
Breakout Group C from the third C&I Technical Workshop who discussed use of
the National Vegetation Classification System as an alternative to the SAF
Forest Cover Types and related definition issues.
Dallas
Emch described a companion effort, the Sustainable Minerals Roundtable (SMR),
which was working on criteria indicators for mineral resources and sustainable
energy.Ê The process is co-sponsored by
the USFS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and has membership from
government, non-government, academic, private and industrial communities.Ê The SMR met four times since its inception in
June 1999, and is funded by a number of agencies including the USFS, USGS,
Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Energy.Ê Participants have developed a mission statement and have agreed
to operate within the framework of the Montreal Process C&I, as
appropriate.Ê They have alternated meetings
between D.C. and field locations and will next meet in Santa Fe, New Mexico and
work to involve tribal communities in their efforts.Ê The group agreed to three focus areas: 1) maintenance of
capacities; 2) maintenance of soil and water; and 3) maintenance of social and
cultural aspects to benefit the needs of society.Ê Thus far, the group has identified 45 indicators for minerals and
energy.Ê They intend to complete their background
work by 2001 and their First Approximation Report by 2002, in preparation for
inclusion in the national report on sustainability in 2003.Ê It was clarified that the group was focusing
on national indicators, with recognition that there are regional differences.Ê In addition, the group has a domestic focus
but is laying the groundwork for international applicability.Ê
Mr.
Janik looked forward to the report from the Technical Work Group (TWG) on the
culmination of 18 months of work on the C&I Technical Workshops.Ê He recognized the completion of the workshops
as a significant accomplishment related to the initial focus of the Charter of
the Roundtable ö to understand the state of the data, data gaps, and to develop
options to address those gaps.Ê He noted
that the next challenge would be to establish a process to interpret this
information and incorporate it into the National Report on Sustainable Forests
in 2003.Ê Based on his observations at
the third workshop, Mr. Janik felt that the discussions reinforced ongoing activities
related to forest sustainability on private and public lands.Ê He heard a lot of discussion at the
workshops that complement existing systems and not a lot of support for ãfixing
something that is not broken.ä
Mr.
Janik anticipated additional discussion on the 2003 National Report at this
meeting.Ê To aid in the discussion, he
noted that the Core Group discussed options regarding the potential scope of
the report.Ê He emphasized that the USFS
is committed to take the lead in developing and publishing the report, and
suggested that the report not be viewed as a ãreport cardä but rather as a
report on what people are doing with respect to advancing sustainable forests.
Mr.
Janik also commented on several other related activities.Ê He noted that the USFS received 20 responses
from Roundtable participants concerning the 2000 RPA Assessment.Ê In addition, he noted some occurrences in
the academic community that could enhance the work of the Roundtable, including
the transition of Hal Salwasser, formerly the Director of the USFS Pacific
Southwest Research Station, to the position as Dean of the School of Forestry
at Oregon State University.Ê Yale School
of Forestry has also shifted their emphasis to sustainability and expressed
renewed interest in the Roundtable.Ê He
added that Jim Lyons would be leaving his position as undersecretary at USDA to
become part of the Yale faculty.Ê
Mr.
Janik noted that the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is forming
a Standing Committee on Sustainability, chaired by Jerry Rose, State Forester
of Minnesota, to help influence the application of sustainable forest
management (SFM) across the country.Ê
Within the USFS, Mr. Janik reiterated that Ruth McWilliams and Dave
Radloff are committed fulltime to advancing SFM.Ê In addition, others in field leadership positions within the USFS
are prepared to actively implement the ãstep downä of sustainability through
collaborative stewardship and other means.Ê
He commented that, overall, the USFS is emphasizing public outreach,
particularly to underserved segments of society, as outlined in the reference, USDA Forest Service Interim Strategic Public
Outreach Plan (FS-665, April 2000).Ê In
closing, Mr. Janik highlighted a high-level July meeting of federal agency
representatives to be convened by the Chief, to reemphasize the federal
commitment to promoting SFM, discuss roles for each agency, and address the
financial requirements to continue the effort.Ê
Mr. Janik then turned to Adela Backiel, Director of Sustainable
Development, USDA for additional remarks.
Paul
Geissler, USGS, and Co-Chair of the TWG, provided the group with an overview of
the C&I Technical Workshops (see Attachment A).Ê Mr. Geissler explained that the first workshop, designed to focus
on the five biophysical criteria (criteria 1 - 5), was held on March 12 through
15, 2000.Ê The second workshop on the
social, economic, legal and institutional criteria (criteria 6-7), took place
on March 26 through 29, 2000.Ê The third
workshop was held on May 2 and 3, 2000 and served as a forum to synthesize and
resolve issues that cut across all of the seven criteria.Ê
For background on the C&I and the workshops, Mr. Geissler reviewed the Roundtable Charter, and highlighted excerpts from Q&A document developed by the Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG).Ê He also drew on the TWG Action Plan that was presented to the Roundtable at their September 30, 1999 meeting to describe the TWG goals for C&I implementation, and the charge to the TWG which was to: identify and characterize C&I-related data and institutional gaps; resolve data compatibility, standardization, definition, and access issues; and develop recommendations for methodologies and protocols for the efficient collection and dissemination of C&I-related data.Ê He described a series of data-related tasks identified to meet this charge, and explained that the TWG elected to hold the series of three C&I Technical Workshops to fulfill the tasks.Ê Mr. Geissler then described the workshop objectives, which focused on characterizing existing data monitoring programs and sources, institutional gaps, and options for filling the data gaps.Ê He stated the workshop follow-up will involve producing a final C&I Technical Report by Labor Day 2000, and the possible future involvement of the Criteria Technical Committees (CTC) who took part in the workshops in the C&I implementation process.Ê Mr. Geissler summarized some of the products from the workshops including:
identification and description of data sources; evaluation of data
available for each indicator; Criteria Level Summaries; C&I Gap Analysis
Matrix; and a summary of workshop findings and options to address data
gaps.Ê He concluded his part of the
presentation by recognizing that the process of creating the National Report on
Sustainable Forests in 2003 will help push forward the process of making data
available nationally.
Following Mr. Geisslerâs presentation, Bill Sommers, USFS and
Co-Chair of the TWG summarized the findings from the workshops (see Attachment
B.)Ê Mr. Sommers began his
presentation with a history of the C&I, starting with the concept of
sustainable development presented in Our
Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development,
applying sustainability to natural resource management, the evolution of SFM,
and the development of the Montreal C&I.Ê
He explained that the C&I address a diversity of biological, social
and political issues and represent a significant step forward in providing a common
understanding of SFM through a framework for a variety of forest related
measurement and management issues.Ê Mr.
Sommers described in more detail the workshop products, which include:
¯ Database Input
Forms produced by workshop participants on selected databases with which they
had expertise and which might be utilized to measure and manage indicator data.
¯ Indicator Forms
produced during the workshop by each CTC.Ê
These forms include an analysis of indicator interpretation, applicable
data, and comments on the need to clarify the meaning and definitions in the
indicator; a section on problems and concerns with the indicator; and a section
on crosscutting issues.
¯ Criteria Level
Summaries that present an overview of the information learned about each indicator
within the criterion or subsection of the criterion.
¯ Gap Analysis
Matrices for each criterion that graphically characterize the applicability of
the identified databases to each indicator and the overall status of data
coverage for each indicator.
Products from the third workshop were produced by four breakout
groups:Ê Group A - Findings and
Conclusions; Group B - Critical Technical Barriers and Options for Overcoming
Them; Group C - Forest Classification System and Related Definitional Issues;
and Group D - Theoretical Questions, Integration of Linkages, and Research
Needs.Ê He characterized the products of
Groups A and B as higher level products, while the forest classification system
and related definitional issues discussed by Group C were central to many of
the indicators.
Mr. Sommers noted that the Indicator Forms are on the Roundtable
web site, and that the Criteria Level Summaries and other follow-up
documentation from the workshops will be refined and placed on the Roundtable
web site over the summer.ÊÊ The draft
Criteria Level Summaries, Gap Analysis Matrices, and products from the third
workshop were distributed in advance of the meeting and are attached hereto as
Attachment C.
Mr. Sommers closed his presentation with a list of issues raised
by workshop participants for future consideration:
¯ There are
terminology issues that need to be resolved.
¯ Some critical
databases are short of national coverage.
¯ Some critical
databases lack needed variables.
¯ There is a need
to determine how to better use high quality sub-national databases.
¯ There is a need
to enlist institutional sponsors for indicators.
¯ Indicator
definitions need to be interpreted for use in the U.S. context.
¯ There is a need
to focus on a continuing C&I information ethic.
¯ There is a need
to focus on cost issues.
Following the presentation on the C&I Technical Workshops,
Roundtable participants discussed the diversity of organizational
representation at the workshops.Ê
Participants observed that many of the scientists were from federal
agencies and academia, thus a possible next step would be to expand the
audience reviewing the workshop products to include more experts from industry
and non-governmental organizations.Ê
Some participants suggested that broader involvement was also critical,
particularly by private landowners, because forest products industries are
knowledgeable about the issues and bring credibility to the process.Ê Private landowners were characterized as reticent
about the C&I in general because they feel the C&I may result in more
regulations.Ê It was explained that
heavier federal involvement in the workshops resulted in part because a number
of the databases reside in government agencies.Ê In addition, it was noted that five AFPA members attended the
workshops and want to continue to participate.Ê
An individual also noted that organizations like World Resources
Institute (WRI) have substantial knowledge and should be part of the process.Ê In response, it was explained that there was
a strong attempt to involve members of the non-governmental communities, and
that to date WRI has not expressed interest in the process.Ê
Some participants expressed concern that some of the written
statements in the Indicator Forms were subjective and in some cases, beyond the
scope of the workshop.Ê The facilitator
explained that the Indicator Forms were a product of the workshop and
consequently, while it will be very helpful to receive specific comments on
controversial statements, any refinements to the forms needs to involve the
original authors.Ê In addition, it was
clarified that there was no attempt to reach consensus at the workshop and the
forms reflected all opinions expressed at the workshop, as well as consensus
where it was achieved.Ê It was noted
that following additional review by those who attended the workshop, it is
hoped that any controversial statements that are outside the scope of the
exercise will be removed from the final forms.Ê
It was also suggested that, with additional consideration of the adequacy
of the databases, the need for broader participation in the process might
increase.Ê To help prevent the
perception that some stakeholders were left out of the process, a Roundtable
participant proposed an open meeting for a ãstakeholder reality check.ä
In discussing the products from the third workshop, one individual
who participated in the workshop asked how the TWG intended to follow-up on the
issues that were raised at the workshop, such as, the definition of forest and
proposed use of the National Vegetation Classification System.Ê The Co-Chairs noted that the products from
the third workshop are in draft form and, in the refinement process that will
occur over the summer, some of these issues might also be addressed.Ê Another participant observed that breakout
Groups A ö D also raised a number of thorny and thoughtful issues, and
questioned the means by which these issues would be addressed.Ê It was noted that many of the issues raised
went beyond the charge to the TWG up to this point in time.Ê Thus, the appropriate means by which these
issues can be addressed are the Roundtable itself, along with the possibility
of establishing a new charge to the TWG.Ê
The participant suggested that the high-level July meeting might be a
setting to obtain the commitment to address some of these issues.Ê It was also pointed out that this was the
purpose of the agenda item later in the day.
Some participants were concerned in regard to the discussion in
Group A regarding the question, ãAre the 67 indicators a useful tool and are
they worth implementing?äÊ It was
explained that this was intended to be a rhetorical question the group had
identified as a way of organizing the findings.ÊÊ It was also noted that, while the group recognized that workshop
participants were not asked to consider this question directly, it would be
useful to discuss.Ê As a cautionary
note, one participant commented that in questioning the value of the
indicators, even rhetorically, it is important to be clear about the commitment
to use them.Ê He suggested finding
another way to ask the appropriate questions about their usefulness.Ê Others suggested that a broader audience,
including private landowners and other interests that are not broadly
represented in the current process, would raise these types of questions.Ê In a similar vein, it was unclear to some
what was meant by the comment from participants in Group A that some indicators
ãwere not applicableä to the U.S.Ê It
was explained that the intention of this comment was that the language in
selected indicators was more suited to conditions in different countries, for
example ãannual sustainable volumeä and ãnational timber volume goalsä are not
relevant to the U.S.
One individual highlighted the options for overcoming some of the
critical technical barriers identified in Group B, and the research specifics
identified in item # 7 in the work product from Group D, as potential concrete
next steps.Ê Another individual
commented that under the category of ãwho should doä the recommended actions
suggested by Breakout Group B for Criterion # 7, the Roundtable was identified
as the lead for some, where the USFS was identified as the lead for other
actions.Ê It was explained that the
Roundtable was identified for follow up tasks when there was no clear ãhomeä
for the data and additional work needs to be done to determine who should
collect the data.
Bill Sommers closed the discussion by summarizing that following
some additional review and refinement; the final workshop products will be
completed by Labor Day.Ê He noted that
individuals who took part in the workshops might also elect to produce
peer-reviewed articles based on the workshop findings.
Bill
Banzhaf, Executive Vice President, Society of American Foresters (SAF) and
Co-Chair of the COWG, provided the group with a report on COWG activities.Ê He began by commenting on the responsibility
of the COWG to guide the Roundtableâs communication ethics, which thus far has
occurred primarily through the web site.Ê
Roundtable achievements, largely manifested through the work of the TWG,
will continue to posted on the web site throughout the summer.Ê Mr. Banzhaf viewed this type of
communication about the Roundtable and the results of the workshops as a
beginning ö ãthe easy stuff.äÊ He saw
the challenge to be in the future, when the output from the C&I Workshops
will be reviewed by a broader audience and preparations will begin for the 2003
Report.Ê Mr. Banzhaf noted that, from
the stand point of the COWG, the challenge will be to make sure a diverse set
of stakholders stay engaged as the Roundtable moves forward.Ê On a positive note, he observed that those
who feel threatened by the process will remain or become engaged in order to
influence the process as it moves forward.Ê
As an example, he referenced an earlier reference to potential concerns
from the private sector, that implementing the C&I could result in
over-regulation.Ê In this regard, Mr.
Banzhaf stressed the responsibilty of each participant on the Roundtable to
ensure that they relay accurate information about the Roundtable to their
constituents.
Mr.
Banzhaf also noted that the COWG needs a renewed charge from the Roundtable and
that this renewed charge needs to flow from the clarity the Roundtable will
attempt to achieve about its own future.Ê
The COWG will use the clarity regarding the direction the Roundtable is
going and the renewed charge to the COWG that floows from that as a basis for
developing a ãplan of actionä later this summer.Ê Mr. Banzhaf reiterated that communication and outreach entails
more than a web page.Ê For example, the
COWG could facilitate a broader review of the workshop results utilizing
publications, such as something like the ãJournal of Forestryä for additional
peer review of the workshop results.Ê He
also referenced an upcoming opportunity for broader discussion on the
Roundtable and C&I at the national convention of SAF where there will be an
oportunity for open discussion on a variety of issues.Ê
Ruth
McWilliams, USFS, and Co-Chair of the COWG, added that there is not only a need
for clarification on the broad charge for the COWG, but also a need for clarity
on more specific issues such as: 1) of the 24 stakeholder groups the Roundtable
has previously identified for targeted outreach, which are the highest priority
and what should be the key messages; and 2) how should the COWG and
facilitators respond to inquiries about participation in the Roundtable since
there is no mechanism for participation other than attending Roundtable
meetings.
Phil
Janik commented that a ãplan of actionä for the COWG would be an appropriate
instrument to help resolve some of these ambiguities.Ê He suggested that the COWG include in this plan a way to sort out
broad access by the public to the Roundtable process, while at the same time
identifying opportunities targeted at interested people and important
institutions.Ê He noted particularly the
need to do some outreach and communication with the U.S. Congress.Ê Mr. Janik also observed that the Roundtable
is not yet working through the organizations represented by its participants as
effectively as it could.Ê In this
regard, he proposed that Roundtable participants be challenged to ãtell the
storyä of the Roundtable.Ê Mr. Janik
suggested establishing a deadline for producing the COWG ãbusiness plan.ä
Report from the Core Group
on Preliminary Thinking Regarding the 2003 National Report on Sustainable
Forests
Mr.
Mealey initiated the discussion on the Core Group and the 2003 National Report
by describing the origin of the Core Group, which was created at the September
30, 1999 meeting of the Roundtable.Ê He
explained that the Core Group met prior to the C&I Technical Workshops, in
December 1999, between the second and third workshops, and recently in
preparation for this meeting.Ê He noted
that the next series of Core Group discussions would include the development of
a road map for producing the 2003 National Report.Ê
David
Radloff, USFS, followed up with an overview of the options that the Core Group
is considering regarding the scope of the 2003 National Report.Ê Mr. Radloff explained that the Core Group
discussed the 2003 Report at its last two meetings, and in the process,
generated the draft table of contents presented in the meeting materials (see
Attachment C).Ê He noted that there are
seven chapters in the draft table of contents, including an overview of the
document.Ê He commented that the overview
would provide the reader with context about the report including the purpose
and function of the C&I as a means towards the end of achieving sustainable
forests, and the basic premise that better data leads to better dialogue and
decisions.Ê He explained that Chapter 1
ö The Idea of Sustainable Forest Management - would provide background on the
concept of SFM.ÊÊ Chapter 2 ö Describing
and Measuring Sustainability ö introduces the criteria and indicators as a way
to describe and measure sustainability.Ê
This chapter might also include discussion of the relationship between
parallel efforts like the RPA Assessment, the Montreal Process country reports,
etc.Ê Mr. Radloff characterized Chapters
3 and 4 as descriptive, where Chapter 3 ö Data About Indicators ö would present
a selection of data and reference other volumes of data available on the web or
elsewhere, indicating current and, where possible, historical trends.Ê He noted that Chapter 4 ö Analysis of Data ö
might ultimately be combined with Chapter 3.Ê
It was listed separately in the draft outline to indicate that there
might be something more that could be done with the data, such as utilizing
algorithms or other analytical tools that went beyond ãjust the facts.äÊ Regardless of whether Chapters 3 and 4 are
separate or combined, Chapters 1-4 are intended to be descriptive.Ê Furthermore, he noted that the Core Group
seemed to agree that the responsibility for producing Chapters 1-4 would be the
federal governmentâs, with the USFS taking the lead given its statutory
responsibilities and role thus far.Ê He
also noted that the development of Chapters 1-4 would still be done in a
collaborative manner with input from representatives of all stakeholder groups,
presumably through the Roundtable.Ê
Mr.
Radloff viewed the responsibility of producing Chapters 5-7, as described in
the draft outline, to go beyond that of federal agencies to include a broader,
multi-stakeholder set of contributors, possibly including the Roundtable.Ê Chapter 5 ö Assessing Sustainability ö would
include data interpretation and normative analysis of the data.Ê While consensus on the interpretation would
be beneficial, Mr. Radloff saw this chapter as an opportunity to present
alternative interpretations should a consensus not be possible.Ê Chapter 6 ö Current Actions to Promote SFM ö
would enable different entities across the U.S. to discuss what they are doing
to move the nation toward SFM.Ê Because
Chapter 6 would be descriptive rather than interpretive, he felt it might make
sense to reverse the order of Chapters 5 and 6.Ê In this way the descriptive information that would be contained
in the potentially reordered chapter on ãCurrent Actions to Promote SFMä could
flow more easily from Chapters 3 and 4.Ê
Chapter 7 ö Future Plans ö would present a discussion on what the nation
will be doing in the future to move towards SFM.Ê Mr. Radloff completed his presentation with the suggestion that
the 2003 National Report be viewed as a living endeavor and a vehicle for
continuous monitoring and reporting.Ê
Following
this presentation, Mr. Mealey noted that the discussion at this meeting would
not be the final discussion on the proposed outline.Ê He observed that Mr. Radloffâs presentation included information
on both possible content and scope of the report as well as who would be
responsible for what, including a potential role for the Roundtable.Ê He then invited participants to comment on
the proposed outline and suggested roles and responsibilities.
One
individual supported the conceptual break between the facts in Chapters 1 ö 4,
followed by discussion and interpretation in Chapters 5 ö 7.Ê However, he found it difficult to understand
the utility of Chapter 6 because to him a factual representation of current
actions of existing institutions would be covered in the reporting of Criterion
7 in Chapter 3 / 4.Ê The point was
acknowledged, and it was noted that the potential for duplication would apply
to the factual output for both Criteria 6 and 7.Ê Another participant commented that, because this document will
not be read from cover-to-cover, some duplication might be appropriate.
A
participant requested clarification on the process by which various work
products including the draft outline, the C&I Technical Workshop products,
and the future COWG ãbusiness planä would become final Roundtable products.Ê He felt it was important for people to
understand that efforts like these are progressing and while the Roundtable
process is open for those who want to contribute, it is also important to make
progress.Ê Mr. Mealey clarified that
while the Roundtable does not have any ground rules or legal authority to make
decisions, the Roundtable has operated by consensus.Ê Consensus is determined by getting a ãsense of the groupä at
Roundtable meetings.Ê While it is also
true there has not been consistent participation at Roundtable meetings, those
who are not in attendance will be given an opportunity to comment on the
directions the Roundtable is heading through review of the meeting summary.
Given
the Roundtableâs current lack of legal authority, one participant stated it is
important to determine who will be responsible for the 2003 Report.Ê He commented that developing a hybrid
document which is partly federal, and therefore subject to the federal review
process by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and partly developed by
other non-federal organizations, such as through the Roundtable, would
represent a unique effort and present a number of challenges.Ê While some did not see shared authorship or
the OMB review process as stumbling blocks, other participants agreed a hybrid
approach could present a challenge.Ê
Another
participant pointed to the reference in the draft outline for Chapter 2 to the
relationship between the 2003 Report to other efforts like the RPA Assessment
and the Montreal Process country level report.Ê
She suggested that, based on the outline, there could be two
reports.Ê She observed that Chapter 3
and 4, especially if they were combined, would correlate closely with the
Montreal Process country report and the RPA Assessment.Ê She noted that data interpretation was not
planned as part of the Montreal country level reports.Ê She saw no problem with the Roundtable
efforts going beyond the international requirements for the Montreal Process
country level report.Ê Mr. Mealey noted
that the Core Group discussed the overlap between these reports, and agreed the
contents of the overlapping portions (i.e., Chapters 3 / 4) should correlate as
much as possible.Ê He also commented on
the timeframe for the Montreal Process reporting process whereby a draft is due
in the spring of 2002, and the final report is due in 2003.Ê If a draft report on the C&I data is
completed in 2002, it would not appear likely that the interpretation of the
data could be completed by this deadline.Ê
Furthermore, since the data must be available before it can be
interpreted, these two activities might not only be logically separated by who
does them, but also by when they are completed.Ê Another individual suggested deferring the discussion on the 2003
Report outline until more is known about the Montreal Process report
outline.Ê
Several
individuals were supportive of separating the report on data in Chapters 1-4,
and possibly 6, from the other chapters that include data interpretation and
future plans.Ê One individual felt that
the report on data would set the foundation for informed discussion and later
interpretation.Ê Including
interpretation with the data could ãlead to advocacyä and potentially lessen
the credibility of the data.Ê Another
participant felt it was less risky to produce a report that was focused on
ãjust the facts,ä and cautioned against including interpretations in the first
report.Ê
In
response to the concern about the risk of including interpretation, another
participant commented that data do not speak for themselves.Ê He suggested that, rather than focusing on
minimizing the risk in presenting the data along with its interpretation, it
would be more reflective of the collaborative nature of the Roundtable process
to include comments on the extent to which there is agreement or disagreement
on the interpretation of data to help determine how to move the overall SFM
process forward.Ê The participant was
supportive of some level of interpretation, but in a reasonable timeframe and
with a phased approach.Ê He commented
that the Roundtable is a process, not a product.Ê In addition, he emphasized that the Roundtable product should be
of high quality and subjected to peer review to help quell the concern about
risk.Ê
Another
participant felt there was a strong need to integrate all of the pieces in the
2003 National Report and that the Roundtable was the appropriate entity to do
this.Ê He commented that it was
important for those who were focused on policy to work closely with those who
focused on data to maintain a balanced perspective.Ê One individual suggested that part of this integration should
include correlating individual sets of data with selected indicators and
providing some sense of what the C&I tell us as a whole, as would be
reflected in Chapter 5.Ê Another
participant was supportive of some level of interpretation in the 2003 report,
if only to determine what additional information is necessary to work towards
the goal of measuring progress towards sustainability.Ê Another participant was supportive of a
logical progression in the reporting process, but cautioned against
interpretation until the overarching goal of achieving better data was
accomplished.Ê He favored including
Chapters 1 ö 4 and possibly 6 in the 2003 National Report, and proceeding with
interpretation later.Ê He did not think
there was sufficient time for interpretation if a draft Montreal Process
country level report was due in the spring of 2002.ÊÊÊÊ
In
regard to the integrity of the data, one participant observed that data do not
come in black and white packages but in shades of gray.Ê He explained that the decision to collect
data is based upon the data having a function; consequently the data are
associated with a function and a utility.Ê
If the data are aggregated further with other data for a useful purpose
ö the data change from having utility to having meaning.Ê Following this rationale, he posed the
question, ãif there is no meaning ascribed to the data, what is the point of collecting
it?äÊ He observed that, by bringing the
C&I to life, the Roundtable must go beyond reporting on the data and assign
some meaning to it.
Phil
Janik commented on the table of contents from the perspective of a potential
reader and their view of the utility of the C&I.Ê From that standpoint, he was concerned about Chapter 5 because,
as a result of the data gaps identified in the C&I Technical Workshops, the
nation might not have sufficient data upon which to base an evaluation of its
progress towards sustainable forests.Ê
He felt more comfortable with the approach suggested for Chapter 6
because it would provide a simple description of activities in regard to
SFM.Ê He stressed that the report should
focus on the C&I data and other types of descriptions of SFM-related
activities and that it not try to assess national sustainability.
Mr.
Mealey initiated a discussion on the next phase of the Roundtable by suggesting
the group refocus and start their discussion with what he saw as the ãgivensä:
1) there will be a country level report for the Montreal Process C&I in
addition to an update to the RPA Assessment which will continue to make use of
the C&I; 2) the USFS will play a lead role within the federal government in
producing these reports; and 3) there will be efforts to interpret the C&I
data regardless of whether Roundtable participants choose to do so
collaboratively through something like the current Roundtable process.Ê He stated that it seemed clear the group
agrees the 2003 National Report should include a factual reporting on the
C&I data and this effort should be coordinated with both the Montreal
country-level reporting requirements and the upcoming update to the RPA
Assessment.Ê He went on to state that it
was also clear that there were differences of opinion on whether or not to
include chapters or produce a separate report that includes interpretations of
the C&I data and/or future plans to achieve SFM.Ê He suggested that it might not be possible to determine what
future role and function the Roundtable should play until these differences are
resolved and urged the group to continue to grapple with these questions.Ê
One
individual observed that the current base of support for the Roundtable might
dissipate if data interpretation and policy issues are addressed in the 2003
National Report.Ê He commented that it
is not a given that the Roundtable would be able sign off on the 2003 National
Report if it includes data interpretation and discussions of policy
issues.Ê Another participant felt that
the decision to include a chapter on interpretation of C&I data was
premature because the data gaps are substantial and need to be addressed before
interpretation is possible.Ê He
cautioned against interpretation based on incomplete data because people will
make decisions based on the interpretations regardless of how good they
are.Ê He felt it was better for the
Report to contain information on where we are and what needs to be done to get
a more complete picture of where we have to go.
One
participant noted that, regardless of the concerns about whether or not to
interpret the data, the data would be interpreted.Ê Thus, the question facing the Roundtable is whether to commit to
figuring out how to interpret the data together, to the best of our ability, or
to just let interpretation happen.Ê In
response to this comment, one individual observed that interpretation meant
different things to different people.Ê
To some it meant looking at the current status of data to be able to say
what data are currently available and what are additional data needs.Ê To others the term meant a policy
interpretation.Ê This participant felt
there was not sufficient data to engage in policy interpretations nor would
there likely be sufficient data for this purpose by 2002 or 2003.Ê
Another
participant felt the Roundtable should provide energy and direction to a
smaller subset of Roundtable participants that take an active role in helping
the larger group determine how to go about producing the 2003 Report. ÊHe suggested that the Roundtable task another
small group to develop a plan for the future that would address a process for
moving from reporting the data to data interpretation in a credible way.Ê It was suggested that the Core Group should
develop aÊ ãroad mapä for the Roundtable
to help figure out whether, when, and how C&I data interpretation should
occur.
Mr.
Mealey observed that the group seemed to be looking for some additional clarity
before committing to any Roundtable sponsored activities that go beyond factual
C&I related data reporting.Ê He
elaborated on the suggestion for the Core Group to develop a ãroad mapä by
indicating that such a document could include: time lines and process
descriptions; how to address data integrity; how to develop data where data are
lacking; and how to address data interpretation.Ê Mr. Janik agreed with the summary and supported using the Core
Group to develop the ãroad mapä for the Roundtableâs consideration.Ê Because many members of the Core Group are
also on the COWG, their involvement will help to address some of the concerns
voiced by the COWG regarding their need for clarity and additional direction.
Following
these remarks, participants commented on the idea of a ãroad mapä for the
Roundtable and what they saw as the role for the Roundtable in the future.Ê One participant saw the Roundtable as a
catalyst to inspire the federal government to ensure that the data were
correct.Ê With greater clarity on the
ãroad mapä this individual said he would be more comfortable addressing data
interpretation.Ê Others saw utility in
having the Roundtable consider and prioritize which of the data gaps should be
addressed earlier and in a way that avoids duplication of effort.Ê One participant was not comfortable with the
idea of prioritizing because there was a potential for bias in the
prioritization process that might result in perpetuating selected data
gaps.Ê She suggested instead, through a
ãroad map,ä priorities would be identified along the way.
One
participant observed that it was clear the many Roundtable participants were
supportive of policy level interpretation.Ê
However, he recognized that there was an important need not being met by
others in the research and policy communities.Ê
He noted that diverse organizations are unable to come to agreement on
what is necessary to address SFM.Ê At
the same time, he noted that representatives of the foundation community in New
York have recognized this need and are considering establishing a national
commission on forest sustainability.Ê In
their discussions they are talking about the need for synthesis and better
common understanding of what SFM means for the nation.Ê They may also establish a Blue Ribbon Panel
of experts for research with the intent of making a difference ãon the
ground.äÊ This individual commented that
at this time the Roundtable does not have all of the right people who could
make important contributions to this kind of research and thinking.Ê He suggested the Roundtable consider adding
to its participant list experts in certification and other forestry systems and
ownerships to expand the Roundtable perspectives in these areas.Ê In addition, he commented that unless the
Roundtable does some strategic recruiting and thinking about how to address the
concerns about data interpretation and policy soon, the Roundtable could take a
back seat to the New York foundationâs efforts on SFM.Ê The individual closed by stating, ãThe best
way to preclude is to include,ä and suggested that the COWG be put to task on
this.
Robin
O'Malley, The Heinz Center, provided the group with an update on the Heinz
Center Report.Ê He reported that by the
end of 2001 the Heinz Center would produce a report with indicators for several
ecosystem types.Ê He noted that they
will have no more than 20 indicators per ecosystem type and they are currently
in the process of refining the number of indicators for each ecosystem
types.Ê Mr. OâMalley would like to share
the early draft of the forest ecosystem portion of the study with the
Roundtable to get feedback on the choice ofÊ
indicators.Ê One individual
commented on what he observed as a tendency in the past to want to work with
fewer indicators.Ê He was concerned that
the small set chosen by the Heinz Center may subdue the interest in the larger
more comprehensive, C&I process.Ê
Mr. O'Malley responded that the Center is aware of this possibility and
is trying to determine how to prevent this perception from occurring.Ê
¯
The
C&I Technical Workshop products from the TWG and the CTCs will be refined
over the summer after a process of review for errors and additional analysis of
crosscutting issues and listing of those issues still requiring resolution and
the products will be posted on the Roundtable web site.Ê A final C&I Technical Report on the
indicators will be posted on the web site by Labor Day.Ê
¯
The
Core Group will develop a ãroad mapä by Fall 2000 on the future Roundtable
process.Ê In constructing the road map
the Core Group will address the need for:Ê
a) synchronization with the Montreal Process country report and the RPA
Assessment, within a timeframe that is consistent with the need to produce the
2003 National Report in a way that insures data integrity, and b) a renewed
charge for both the TWG and COWG.
¯
Based
on feed back from this meeting and their work on the ãroad map,ä the Core Group
will modify the outline for the 2003 report.
¯
The
COWG will develop a ãbusiness planä based on the Core Group ãroad mapä for the
production of the 2003 National Report and to gain greater awareness of and
involvement in the final C&I Technical Report.
¯
The
USFS will think strategically about enhancing Roundtable participation from
some of the groups not currently participating that would add value to the
process.
Mr.
Janik thanked participants for their time and commitment to the process.