Unpeeling the onion: examining the many aspects of collaboration in sustainable forest management

Collaborative Research Partnership for Sustainable Forest Management in New Brunswick, 22 November 2011

Tony Cheng, PhDDirector, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute Assoc. Professor , Dept. of Forest & Rangeland StewardshipColorado State University, Fort Collins, CO (tony.cheng@colostate.edu)

Uncompahgre Plateau Context

Uncompahgre Plateau Context

Uncompahgre Plateau Landownership

Uncompahgre National Forest• Est. June 1905• Managed by USDA Forest Service• “Multiple use” national lands• 572,000 acres (232,000 ha)

Other land ownerships• 260,000 acres (105,000 ha) – Bureau of Land Mgmt. •10,200 acres (4,100 ha) - State land • 185,000 acres (75,000) – private land

Uncompahgre Plateau History

Ute bands:• Long presence• Removed 1880s

Unregulated livestock grazing by settlers

‘High-grade’ logging

Fire suppression – “10 AM Rule”

Evolving human uses and future uncertainties

Development in the wildland-urban interface

Colo. River cutthroat trout Recreation

Small but persistent and culturally significant ranching

Changing forest industry sector

Climate change

Uncompahgre Plateau Past-to-Present

Human uses and future uncertainties: How to manage?

• Highly prescriptive national laws and regulationsNEPA ESA NFMA

• Conflicts resolved thru legal-regulatory framework• Flat/declining Forest Service capacities

Uncompahgre Plateau Present

Public Lands Partnership• Est. in 1993• Collaborative forum for civic learning , dialogue, and innovation• Alternative to social, political, and legal conflicts

Uncompahgre Plateau PresentEmerging learning: ecological conditions and processes “out of whack”

• Past & current land uses and policies -> altered vegetation structure, composition, and landscape patterns

• Loss of mule deer herds

• Huge ecological and economic disruption

• Past & current land uses and policies -> altered vegetation structure, composition, and landscape patterns

• Burn Canyon fire, 2002 – 31,000 acres

• Huge ecological and economic disruption

Uncompahgre Plateau PresentEmerging learning: Need for ecological restoration at landscape-scale, 2000-2005

Multiple scientifically-based ecological assessments at different geographic and time scales

Need to restore landscape “mosaic” lost by fire suppression and past uses

Uncompahgre Plateau PresentEmerging learning: economic and workforce capacity is part of sol’n

• ‘Lost generation’ of skilled workforce due to changes in Western U.S. wood products sector

• Need to import skilled and unskilled workers

• Desire to retain and cultivate resident knowledge and skillset

• Last remaining sawtimber mills in the region

• Makes economics of restoration feasible

• Helps diversify an otherwise service-based regional economy

Delta County, Colorado

Uncompahgre Plateau PresentEmerging learning: Need for sustained collaborative approach (est. 2001)

www.UPartnership.org

Uncompahgre Mesas Forest Restoration Project

• First effort to “operationalize” ecological restoration principles , 2007

• Ouray District ranger brought together working group through UPP

• What does restoration look like here?

Conflict over where and how much to cut, how much to leave

Lots of distrust over logging & fire mgmt. on national forests

• Called on CFRI for assistance in 2008

Participatory “forest forensics” Data analysis and synthesis report

Key findings: elements common 1875 but rare today:

• Low density Ponderosa pine (20-50 ft2/acre)

• Small meadows across the landscape

• Low density ‘warm-dry’ mixed-conifer (50-90 ft2/acre)

• Stand structures resulting from ‘mixed-severity’ fire regimes

• Ponderosa pine in mixed-conifer types

UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation

Data analysis and synthesis reportForest Service proposed action

UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation

Forest Service final decision: no appeals or litigation

• 8,000 acres of harvesting• Up to 24,000 ccf commercial timber• Up to 14,000 acres Rx burning• Local jobs

UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation

Community-based ecological monitoring training, indicator and plot selection, pre-treatment data

UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation

Lobbying for political support and resources to support the collaborative project

UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation

Defining “Collaboration”Collaboration occurs when two or more interdependent individuals/groups co-create and co-manage a process for defining and achieving outcomes they could not achieve by working alone.

• Recognizing interdependence• Self-organizing and self-governing as a “collaborative”• Learning, deliberating, and deciding together• Collectively acting for mutually beneficial outcomes

(Adapted from: Gray 1985, Daniels & Walker 2001; Cheng 2007)

Perspectives on collaboration

Collaboration as…

Issue Management Process ∙ Assessment ∙ Planning and analysis ∙ Decision-making

Restructuring Relationships ∙ New mode of communication & interaction ∙ Minimizes or manages conflict ∙ Builds trust

Mode of governance ∙ Self-organized body ‘∙ Steering’ goals and decisions ∙ Linking socio-economic & ecological systems “∙ Co-management”

Dimensions of collaboration: “Progress Triangle”

Substance· Conditions, trends, risks of SES· Material Interests· Instrumental Issues· Social-cultural meanings & values

(Figure 3.1, Daniels and Walker 2001)

Procedural· Constituting & Organizing· Interacting and communicating· Learning, analyzing, & deliberating· Decision-making

Relationships· Power· Conflict history· Interdependence· Trust and distrust· Commitment & assurances

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Framing & Re-Framing

Frame: a narrative about (1) the scope & scale of the situation, (2) how the current situation came to be, and (3) what needs to be done to maintain, improve, and change the situation. (Gray 2003; Burns & Cheng 2007)

Framing “lenses” common to SFM:Technical/scientific Economy vs. ecologyRole of government Role of non-gov’t sectorsCommunity futures Socio-cultural meanings/values

Framing and re-framing are continuous throughout a collaborative process

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Constituting & Organizing

Why, What, Who, How, and WhenWhy: Declaration of common purpose for self-organizingWhat: Decisions the group is empowered to make/influence – “decision space”Who: Who participates and conditions of their participation (who is missing?)How: Roles and duties encumbered on each participant; “ground rules”How: Delineation of organizational structureWhen: Frequency and location of interactions

Self-organizing is a foundational attribute of collaboration. A collaborative derives its power and authority from stakeholders’ desire and commitment to charting a different course in the absence of a workable alternative.

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

Justifying the collaborative’s existence to others as a legitimate body

• Persuasion & accountability assurances to ‘home’ organizations• Persuasion & accountability assurances to constituents & coalitions• Campaigning to secure political authority and resources

WHY?Collaboration often represents an alternative to forest governance and institutional approaches supported by individuals & organizations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Legitimizing

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

Principles Practices· Systems thinking · “Situation mapping”; resilience assessments

scenario analysis (Daniels & Walker 2001; Resilience Alliance)

· Use quality info, data & evidence · ‘Systematic review’ technique; field-based evidence (Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes)

· Integrate diverse ways of knowing · Knowledge panels; field visits; shared info/datalibraries; oral histories (Cheng et al. 2011)

· Decision rules · Levels of agreement criteria; accounting for dissent

· Monitoring & enforcing commitments · Social/political pressure; legal recourse??

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Learning & Deciding

(Daniels & Walker 2001; Ostrom 1990; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000)

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking

System map of forest fire causes and effects by Forest Service managers

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking

System map amended by stakeholders and community members – creating a richer picture of the linked social-ecological system

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking

System map of amending ‘instream flows’ – the exercise itself is what’s important!

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

• Projects that are jointly vs. unilaterally administeredFocus on “small wins”, intermediate gains (Ansel & Gash 2007)

• Management-as-experiment: replicated trials + monitoring effects

• Pooling resources in new waysFunding for joint projects Technical expertiseEquipment Local contractors/operatorsContract administration

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Acting

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

Did what we expect actually happen? “Single-loop learning”

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Evaluating & Adapting

Multi-party monitoring : collectively defined and measured indicators of hypothesized changes -- build trust and collective knowledge

Monitor changes to substantive, procedural, and relationship dimensions!!

Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Evaluating & Adapting

Are our assumptions about how the system works and responds valid? “Double-loop learning”

Requires more robust monitoring and detection systems

Attention to “slow” variables – drivers and responses that occur over long time periods and expressed at larger geographic scales (e.g., demographics, economic transitions, climate change)

Collaboration “Action Arenas”

Constituting &Organizing

Framing &Re-Framing

Legitimizing

Learning & Deciding

Acting

Evaluating &Adapting

‘Motors’ of Collaboration in SFM

• Not waiting for others to act – self-organization and self-empowerment• Clearly defined decision space• Clearly defined roles and expectations of participants, inc. authority to act on behalf of others (e.g., organization, company, agency, constituency/coalition

‘Motors’ of Collaboration in SFM

• Intermediary/boundary-spanning organization• Commitment to learning, challenging assumptions, and attitude of mutual respect• Knowledge partnerships – universities, industry R&D, agencies, NGOs, Tribes• Looking at whole social-ecological system

Final Thoughts

• Collaborative progress doesn’t happen overnight! UP project is the culmination of nearly 20 years…

• Focus on “progress” and “improvement”, not solving all problems

Best Wishes/ Meilleurs Voeux

Tony Cheng, PhDDirector, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute Assoc. Professor , Dept. of Forest & Rangeland StewardshipColorado State University, Fort Collins, CO tony.cheng@colostate.edu+1 (970) 491-1900 (voice)