Meeting Summary

Roundtable on Sustainable Forests

December 14, 2000

USDA Waterfront Center

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 If anyone who was not in attendance wishes to get copies of these attachments, please contact Shawn Walker at shawnwalker@merid.org.]

Opening Remarks

Tim Mealey, Meridian Institute, and Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), welcomed participants to the meeting.Ê For the new participants, Mr. Janik explained that participation in the Roundtable is voluntary and, even though he serves as Chair, the Roundtable is not a USFS controlled process.Ê He stressed that the Roundtable is a forum for dialogue and discussion of the advancement of the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management (SFM) and sustainability more broadly, and all participants at the table are key contributors.Ê See Attachment A for a list of participants.

Mr. Janik observed that the Roundtable is in transition, broadening its initial emphasis on the C&I ö an area of continued national and international interest ö to other dimensions of sustainability.Ê The Roundtable spent a lot of time considering how to put the National Report on Sustainable Forests in 2003 together ö a continued area of focus in the next phase of the Roundtable.Ê Many of the details on the content and organization of the Report have yet to be worked out, but the Report will be published by the USFS.Ê As publisher, the USFS looks to the Roundtable and others to help insure that the Report addresses all of the forestlands in the nation ö not just the National Forest System.Ê

Mr. Janik also commented on the significance of the Federal Agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Sustainable Forest Management Data, an effort lead by Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and recently signed by nine Federal Agencies.Ê In signing the MOU, these Federal Agencies agreed to increase the profile of how they advance the principles of sustainability, an action that dovetails nicely with the future activities of the Roundtable.Ê

Mr. Janik referenced two recent meetings he attended in the academic arena, one at Oregon State in Corvallis and the other with the Sustainable Forestry Partnership (SFP), where there was discussion about expanding University participation in the activities of the Roundtable.Ê There was also interest in developing the database matrix from the C&I Technical Workshops as a tool for identifying opportunities for setting research priorities.Ê He also noted that the Federal Geographic Data Committeeâs (FGDC) Sustainable Resources Data Work Group (SRDWG) will also increase its coordination with the academic community on complimentary federal activities.Ê Such coordinated activities might lay the groundwork for developing a national index on forest condition that will cover all forestland ownership ö possibly an issue for the 2008 National Report.

Mr. Janik expressed his view tat it is important for the Roundtable to begin discussing the connection of its activities with other related national efforts on sustainability, including certification and efforts such as the work of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (Pinchot) on developing a crosswalk between Criterion # 7 Indicators and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) Proposals for Action.Ê Mr. Janik also recognized the work of the Communications and Outreach Work Group (COWG) on developing the Roundtable web site as tool to integrate input from other interested parties on future activities of the Roundtable while at the same time tying in Roundtable efforts with other related activities in the field to make a difference ãon the ground.äÊ Mr. Janik closed by referencing a one-page list of some of the accomplishments of the Roundtable during its first phase of existence (see Attachment B).

Update on the Effort to Create a ãCrosswalkä Between the Montreal Process C&I and the Intergovernmental Panel of Forests Proposals for Action

Following Mr. Janikâs comments, Nadine Block, Pinchot Institute, gave a brief presentation on the crosswalk.Ê For the presentation she referred the group to two documents, Crosswalk Between the IPF Proposals for Action to the Criterion # 7 Indicators and Additional Indicators and Synergy of IPF Proposals for Action to Criteria and Indicators, both of which are include in Attachment C.Ê Ms. Block then turned to DeAndra Beck, Director of Policy for the Office of International Programs of the USFS, for background on the Pinchot efforts.Ê

Ms. Beck recalled that, at an earlier Roundtable meeting, the group decided not to address the IPF Proposals for Action at that time, consequently and Interagency Working Group was formed to address them.Ê Participants in the work group, along with Pinchot, decided to proceed with developing the crosswalk, the results of which were later presented to the Roundtable which endorsed the work and agreed that it would be helpful for Pinchot to participate in the related sections of the C&I Technical Workshops to help inform the degree to which there was synergy between the C&I and the proposals.Ê Ms. Block then provided the group with an overview of the synergy or strength (high/medium/low) of the relationship between the key elements of each proposal and the key elements in its linked indicators (indicators that are based on similar concepts).Ê Because the IPF proposals have different purposes than the C&I, the linkage or correlation between them varies.Ê Where the link is characterized as strong, more of the data available for the related C&I apply, and where the linkage is weak, alternative tracks for data collection will be required for the proposal(s).

At the conclusion of their presentation, Ms. Beck and Ms Block asked the Core Group (CG) and the Roundtable to:

¯ Consider and endorse the Pinchot work as a way to move forward.

¯ Endorse the recommendation of the Interagency Working Group to also implement the IPF proposals along with the implementation of the corollary indicator.

¯ Include the IPF proposals with linkages to the C&I in the COWG communication strategy.

It was agreed that the Core Group and the Roundtable would review the materials and consider the recommendations.

Overview of the Federal Agency Memorandum of Understanding

Ruth McWilliams, USFS, referenced theÊ Summary of Memorandum of Understanding on Sustainable Forest Management Data and the MOU (see Attachment D).Ê Nine Federal agencies signed the MOU and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Aeronautics and Space Administration will soon sign the document.Ê It is hoped other agencies responsible for data relevant to the National Report in 2003, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau, and the U.S. Department of Energy, will sign the MOU in the near future.Ê The MOU was created with two main objectives: 1) to create an interagency forum on data issues, and 2) to provide a process for developing the National Report in 2003.Ê To implement the MOU, a new work group of the FGDC was formed ö the Sustainable Resources Data Work Group (SRDWG).Ê This group will provide the interagency forum for organizing, planning, and coordinating interagency actions on sustainable forests as an initial focus.Ê For additional information about the FGDC, participants were referred to the FGDC Organization Image Map (see Attachment D) and the web site http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/fgdc/.Ê The official charter for the SRDWG will be established the first week of January 2001 and the first annual work plan for the group will be shared with the public soon thereafter.Ê The MOU will expire following the release of the 2003 National Report.Ê

Mr. Mealey commented on the significance of the MOU, observing that it was a significant milestone in achieving the goal of federal coordination originally sought by those outside the federal government in the letter of March 1998.Ê In addition, Mr. Janik noted the importance of the signing and was hopeful that in the spirit of bipartisanship, the strength of the MOU will be recognized by the new administration.

Overview of Timeline and Process for Producing the 2003 Report

Dave Radloff, USFS, described the timeline and process for producing the 2003 Report using the one page Draft Schedule and the 2003 National Report on Sustainable Forests Working Draft Table of Contents, as a guide (see Attachment E).Ê He noted that these documents remained unchanged from earlier drafts.Ê The draft table of contents and the schedule map out the steps to achieve the purposes of the MOU, focusing on specific actions required to produce the 2003 National Report.Ê The USFS is in the process of identifying chapter managers and authors and providing additional detail to the chapter outlines.Ê The opportunity for substantial input by others outside of the USFS ö through the efforts of the SRDWG, the Roundtable, the TWG and the Criteria Technical Committees (CTCs) and the Communication and Outreach Work Group (COWG) - will begin when the chapters are drafted Mr. Radloff hoped that, at their next meeting, the CG will look closely at the draft table of contents and begin to think through the meaning of each chapter, including Chapter 5 which will provide an opportunity for the U.S. to discuss what various institutions are doing to contribute to the goal of sustainable forest management.Ê In addition, Chapter 6 ö the chapter dealing with interpretation of the meaning of C&I data and itâs potential implications for science and/or policy ö he noted that there is still a need for further discussion on what is meant by ãinterpretationä ö what the data imply versus policy interpretation, and on Chapter 7 regarding future plans.

Mr. Mealey, referring to language contained in the MOU, noted it is now clear the USFS is taking the lead on ãcompiling data for and publishing the National Report,ä and that other roles would be defined in the annual work plan of the SRDWG, as well as elsewhere.Ê Therefore, the 2003 National Report is a government report ö not a Roundtable report.Ê A key role of Roundtable participants is to provide input on the report's content and possible applications to the USFS as well as other public and private institutions.Ê Finally, he noted, that according to the steps contained in the draft schedule, it appears that the process is behind on the schedule for selecting chapter coordinators and authors.Ê He also noted that the draft table of contents and schedule are not final and decisions on what chapters will be included in the National Report have not been made.Ê Mr. Radloff clarified that the FS has identified chapter ãmanagersä and is in the process of identifying chapter and subchapter (section) authors.Ê He also clarified that decisions have not yet been made on what chapters will be included in the National Report, but that it will soon be time to make such decisions.

One participant shared some reservations about including Chapter 5 in the National Report.Ê There was concern about the potential for Chapter 5 to be used as a vehicle to promote individual efforts that others may or may not agree are contributing to the as of yet undefined goal of sustainable forest management.Ê From this perspective, including Chapter 5 would require including a definition of what constitutes SFM, which is not yet possible.Ê More importantly, this participant expressed concern that if the content of Chapter 5 proved to be controversial, it could discredit the entire report.

A representative of private forest landowners commented that he would rather have the Roundtable oversee the development of Chapter 5 than any other group.Ê He saw chapter 5 as a necessity to provide perspective on C&I data.Ê

The group talked about alternatives for how to address the concerns regarding Chapter 5 as well as the factors influencing the timing of the decision about whether to include the chapter.Ê Mr. Mealey recalled that the concerns about Chapter 5 were expressed at the last two CG meetings and, while the concerns were not fully resolved, several options were discussed.Ê In addition to eliminating the chapter, one option was to move the contents of Chapter 5 into an Appendix.Ê Another option that Mr. Mealey recalled had been raised by a representative of the forest products industry was to include examples of individual efforts associated with the overarching goal of SFM in the reporting of specific indicators under Criterion # 7, or elsewhere in the context of reporting on specific indicators to which these activities apply, rather than in a separate chapter.Ê In addition to these alternatives, Roundtable participants raised the possibility of creating a subcommittee of the Roundtable to write a draft of the chapter, and only after the draft has been reviewed by Roundtable participants would a decision be made about whether to include it as separate chapter, an appendix, or to address the desired content in some other way.

In response to some of the concerns about Chapter 5, Mr. Radloff clarified that the chapter was meant to highlight processes that were using C&I as a framework for understanding SFM and aÊ screening process, informed by the Roundtable's input, couldÊ help ensure the chapter's objectivity.Ê Ruth McWilliams, who has been asked to serve as chapter manager for Chapter 5, added that she was working with others to frame and flesh out the chapter for discussion in January, at which point the goals and issues associated with the chapter will be better understood.Ê She suggested deferring further discussion on the chapter until then.Ê

Mr. Janik acknowledged that there has been a history of debate on whether the report should be include not only Chapter 5, but Chapters 6 and 7 as well.Ê He stated that Chapter 5 is not intended to be ãpromotionalä but rather as an objective report on SFM-related activities taking place in all areas, including the industry and non-governmental arenas.Ê He indicated that it should be presented in a matter-of-fact way, with involvement and input from all stakeholders.Ê He also suggested that additional discussion be deferred to the CG.

Roundtable participants also commented on the logistics of completing the National Report, observing that the USFS might not have the internal resources to complete the job.Ê Mr. Radloff indicated a lot of the work will be performed by the USFS, but aspects of most chapters would require substantive and substantial input from those outside of the USFS from both federal and non-federal arenas.Ê The SRDWG, TWG and CTCs, and the COWG will help to ensure input from others outside of the USFS.Ê

Overview of Revised Charter and Work Plan for Phase II of the Roundtable

Mr. Mealey briefly described the document, Revised Charter and Work Plan for Phase II of the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests, December 6, 2000 (see Attachment F).Ê He asked the group to focus their attention on the revised Charter and the new focus areas for future Roundtable activities.Ê The rest of the document was to be considered as information for further deliberation.Ê He noted that the statement of purpose in the Charter is the same as it was for the first phase of Roundtable activities.Ê In addition, the Charter includes a section summarizing the background and history of the Roundtable, followed by a description of the new focus areas.Ê The new focus areas include: I. Ongoing activities related to C&I implementation and utilization including a series of similar short and longer-term subtasks related to preparation for the National Report in 2003 and resolution of long-term technical issues and data gaps; II. Application of the C&I as a framework for SFM and building connections with other sustainability efforts within the forestry and other sectors; and III. Building on the C&I to establish an ãindex of SFMä.

The group commented on the format and content of the Charter.Ê The Charter was modified based on suggestions discussed and agreed to by the group and is presented in Attachment G as the Charter and Work Plan for the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests, January 3, 2001.Ê Highlights of their discussion are summarized below.

Charter Format

In the Charter, the format of characterizing the focus areas and subtasks within them with a series of questions was generally seen as confusing and potentially misleading.Ê Roundtable participants suggestedÊ that the series of questions in the charter be deleted as they implied a level of control over the outcome of the report which the Roundtable does not possess.Ê Instead this section should be replaced with the action items found later in the document.Ê Specific details for how these objectives are to be accomplished are found within the work group plans. The group agreed that it was important to preserve some background information to describe what the Roundtable is and how it does its work through its work groups, but brevity was preferred.Ê The group also agreed to delete the references to Phase Two, since the first period of work had not been referred to as Phase one and thus referencing a second phase would lead to confusion. The group agreed that the language in the Charter should more clearly reflect the role of the Roundtable in regard to its future activities ö e.g., I.A. - the Roundtable will ãassistä the USFS in the preparation of the National Report in 2003.

Charter Content

Roundtable participants were supportive of the statement of purpose in the Charter.Ê They agreed that subtask II.B. Coordination with Other U.S. Sustainability Efforts should address all sectors including natural resources, economic, social and other sectors.Ê The group decided not to include focus area III. Building on the C&I to Establish and ãIndex of Sustainabilityä in the Charter because, while it may be a desirable long-term goal, there is not yet agreement on the meaning of SFM or ãsustainabilityä and, consequently, developing an index would be not only controversial but extremely difficult.Ê It was suggested that the underlying issues associate with the use of an index be addressed in the context of building connections with other sustainability efforts.Ê For example, the Roundtable might consider how information learned from implementing C&I in forests could be aggregated to inform the higher-level set of sustainable development indicators used to assess broader sustainability issues.Ê As a cautionary note, one individual felt there was a necessity to understand how the C&I relate to one another before trying to understanding the relationship between the C&I and other sustainability efforts.

Highlights and Discussion on the Technical Work Group Work Plan

Paul Geissler, USGS, and Co-Chair of the TWG, provided an overview of theÊ of the TWG Work Plan section.Ê The background leading up to the current work plan for the TWG highlights the C&I Technical Workshops and the CTCs that were formed to help advise on each of the seven criteria as a critical link to experts from around the country.Ê The TWG will work closely with the SRDWG through overlapping membership and will observe potential limitations posed by Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) constraints.Ê The goals and objectives of the TWG relate directly to the Roundtable focus areas, including: addressing unresolved technical issues; technical aspects of the National Report in 2003; input into the FGDC SRDWG annual work plan; and coordination with the COWG.Ê Based on the Roundtableâs decision not to include building on the C&I to establish an ãindex of SFMä, the TWG will also remove goal # 5 which addressed this issue.

Following Mr. Geisslerâs presentation, it was clarified that, drawing on the work from the third C&I Technical Workshop on crosscutting issues, the TWG will be the primary forum through which the Roundtable will address questions related to the application of C&I as a framework for SFM and coordination with other sustainability efforts.Ê Because of the TWGâs role in the technical aspects of the National Report in 2003, it is also essential for the TWG to have input to the USFS on the critical steps necessary to complete the 2003 Report, including the timeline for completion and the roles of participating organizations in so doing.

Highlights and Discussion of the Communication and Outreach Work Group Work Plan

Bill Banzhaf, Society of American Foresters (SAF), and Co-Chair of the COWG, described the philosophical framework of the COWG plan.Ê The COWG will expand the discussions of the Roundtable to include the broader community, focusing initially on the National Report in 2003.Ê The COWG has identified target audiences that have interest in Roundtable efforts and the content of the National Report.Ê One of their challenges is finding the time and additional staff to conduct outreach activities nationally.Ê Michael Washburn, currently with the Sustainable Forestry Partnership (SFP) but soon to be with the Yale School of Forestry and the Environment, also Co-Chair of the COWG, commented on the groupâs areas of focus, products, and participation.Ê As the liaison between the Roundtable and other interested parties, the COWG is responsible for two-way communication with other potential stakeholders.Ê The COWG is interested in expanding the participation of stakeholders ö particularly those ãoutside the beltwayä ö and strengthning the involvement of groups such as private land owners.Ê To help achieve this end and increase the involvement of others from regional and state interests, the COWG hopes to hold at least some of the future Roundtable meetings in different regions of the country.Ê

Products of the COWG include the Roundtable web site, pilot outreach sessions (e.g., the one held at the recent SAF convention), and a tool kit for Roundtable members to conduct outreach to their own constituencies. The COWG is seeking $100,000 in resources and staff for the next year of activities and greater participation by in the COWG overall.Ê Mr. Mealey added that the involvement and activities of the COWG were expanding significantly and emphasized that Roundtable participants would be called upon to contribute to these activities.

Following the presentation Roundtable participants expressed concerns about reference in the work plan to ãidentifying, categorizing and implementing SFM as a way to evaluate activities in the fieldä because the goal of SFM was seen by some as not sufficiently understood to warrant such an activity.Ê It was suggested that the COWG work plan focus on the application of the C&I and determining what the data indicate ö not determining whether or not SFM is being achieved.Ê In response to this concern, it was noted that the C&I provide a framework for conceptualizing and understanding SFM and a key purpose of the National Report in 2003 is to evaluate national progress towards achieving the broad goal of SFM, notwithstanding the lack of a clear definition.Ê The activities of the COWG were seen as integral both to producing the report and to this broader orientation to C&I implementation.Ê

Participants also spent time developing a clearer understanding of the role of the COWG represented in the work plan.Ê It was unclear to some whether and how the COWG could ãpromoteä the C&I before the National Report in 2003 was complete and there was a better understanding of the results of the application of the C&I to understanding the nationâs progress towards achieving SFM.Ê Based on the results of the 2003 Report, the C&I might also be refined.Ê It was suggested that instead of using the phrase, ãraise support,ä a more accurate phrase might be to ãbuild understandingä of the C&I.Ê It was clarified that the 2003 Report was to be based on information currently available, consequently it would not represent a comprehensive evaluation of C&I implementation but rather a benchmark on for future actions.Ê Additional clarity will come as information for the Report is compiled, as well as from continued implementation and evaluation of the C&I.Ê

Closing Remarks

Mr. Janik complimented the Roundtable on the work it had done to date.Ê The Roundtable serves as a critical link to other stakeholders on the utility of the C&I and the importance of sustainability.Ê The Forest Service is clearly committed to completing the National Report in 2003, and will rely on Roundtable participants to continue to suggest refinements on the Report's content.Ê In addition, the Roundtable is close to agreement on the Charter for future Roundtable activities, including removing the reference to developing an ãindex for SFM.äÊ The TWG will also help to refine the schedule for completing the National Report and the roles and responsibilities for completing the tasks.Ê Mr. Janik thanked participants for their engagement in the process and acknowledged that while the process is sometimes just as complicated as the concept of sustainability, is also just as important.

Next Steps

¯ Meridian will modify and distribute the Roundtable Charter and Work Plans to reflect comments from the meeting.

¯ The CG will review the revised Charter and Work Plans and provide input on the need for any further revision before the documents are finalized.

¯ Meridian will follow-up with all Roundtable participants in the near future to clarify their desired level of participation in the Roundtable.

¯ The CG will follow-up on the Pinchot request regarding the ãcrosswalkä between the C&I and the IPF Proposals for Action.Ê

¯ With input from the TWG regarding the timeline, the CG will provide input to the USFS in an effort to refine the Table of Contents outline and the timeline for producing the National Report in 2003.