Private Owners, Public Values Citizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management

1. Jon D. Erickson, Caroline Hermans, and Paula Zampieri Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont Jon Bouton Forestry Division, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Richard Howarth Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College Amy Sheldon White River Partnership Matthew Wilson Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont Private Owners, Public ValuesCitizen Participation in Designing Sustainable Forest Management

2. Private Owners, Public Values • White River watershed and partnership • Forestry work group and UVM class on forest resource values • Group preference elicitation

3. White River Watershed • 454,000 acres (710 sq. miles) • 56 mile main stem – longest free flowing river in Vermont – largest un-dammed tributary to the Connecticut River • Over 100 miles with tributaries • 21 towns • 40,000 residents

4. White River Partnership Mission: to help local communities balance the long-term cultural, economic and environmental health of the White River Watershed through active citizen participation. www.whiteriverpartnership.org

5. White River Partnership • Six functioning stream teams; • Active 11 member board; • 300 volunteers planting trees in the spring; • 30 volunteers collecting weekly water quality samples; • Two full time staff, 1 Summer water quality intern, 2 Assessment Consultants (summer & computer); • Numerous river restoration projects; • Forestry work group . . . www.whiteriverpartnership.org

6. Forestry Work Group • Formed in 2003 in response to recent large scale change • Partnered with UVM class in Spring 2004 • March 2004 workshop on identifying criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management • June 2004 workshop on reporting on the status and trend of criteria and indicators

7. Sustainable Forest Management • International Context • National and Regional Application • Stand-Level Implementation

8. International Context • UN Earth Summit, 1992 • Statement of Forest Principles and Agenda 21 • Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montreal Process) • Santiago Declaration, Feb. 1995.

9. Montreal Process Criteria & Indicators (www.mpci.org)

10. National Application • Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, United States, Uruguay • U.S.: Roundtable on Sustainable Forests (www.sustainableforests.net) • USDA Forest Service, National Report on Sustainable Forests, Nov. 7, 2002.

11. Regional Application • Canada: Model Forest Program (4 of 12 with significant private forest lands) • Australia: Regional Forest Agreements and application of sub-national C&I • United States: Local Unit Criteria & Indicators Development Project (LUCID) • Vermont Forest Resource Advisory Council – Work Group on Sustainability

12. Stand-Level Implementation • Forest Stewardship Council (www.fscoax.org) • Founded in 1993 • Over 100 million acres certified worldwide • Including 97 certificates in the U.S. across 9.4 million acres of forestland • Smart Wood (www.smartwood.org) • Founded in 1989, part of Rainforest Alliance • Certified over 800 operations (20 in Vermont) and 24 million acres worldwide • Vermont Family Forests (www.familyforests.com) • Founded in 1995 • 6,489 acres currently enrolled

13. Charge to 1st Workshop • What are your objectives for the forest lands of the White River watershed? • How can these objectives be measured?

14. In 30 years we hope for . . . • More local harvesting of high quality marketable wood products that are manufactured in the watershed with no waste. • A local marketing cooperative • Qualified, local forest practitioners and forest management that includes ecology as well as silviculture • All forests and forest products to be sustainably certified • No clear cutting or to have size limits for clear cuts • Incentives that lead to good stewardship • An emphasis on comprehensive, community based, management • Examine/manage previous logging issues – restoration? • Maintained or increased hunting access • Improved deer yards and herds • A youth population that appreciates and participates in hunting and fishing • Clean water • Recognition of the role the forest plays in water quality • Forests and logging roads that are managed to minimize soil erosion

15. In 30 years we hope for . . . • A forest managed for biodiversity and sustainability • Regulation/monitoring of recreational use (ATV, snowmobile, mtn. bikes) • Large areas of pristine wilderness to be accessible for recreation (define “pristine”) • The same amount of private lands • Landowners to have the right to harvest trees on their own land • Maintain current balance between private and public land as well as current wilderness designations • An aesthetic watershed where no littering or dumping occurs • Multiple use • Forests to provide economic livelihood (pay taxes) • A plan for emergencies (ice storms, disease, etc.) • Management that takes into consideration possible residential development (i.e. subdivisions) in planning and incorporates forested areas (wilderness) into any development plans • A state that has addressed the inequities in the market • Increased quality/quantity of forestry education

16. Future 1 Future 2 Future 3 Economic Indicators Economic Indicators Economic Indicators Social/Cultural Indicators Social/Cultural Indicators Social/Cultural Indicators Environmental Indicators Environmental Indicators Environmental Indicators A vision for the forests of the White River Watershed

17. Charge to UVM Class • What is the current status and trend of each indicator?

18. Research Design:Multi-Criteria Group Preference Elicitation • Formation of stakeholder group • Structuring the decision problem • Building the evaluation matrix • Pre-elicitation of individual preferences from citizen groups • Group process; Negotiated group preference • Post-elicitation of individual preferences from citizen groups • Guidance from and reports to stakeholder group • Shared vision for forest management in the watershed  policy and management

19. 1 1 Linear Score Score Non-linear 0 0 Difference Difference Absolute Relative • Within each criterion: • Maximize or minimize • Absolute or relative preference

20. 1 Score 0 Difference Indifference Threshold • Within each criterion: • Degree of indifference threshold

21. 1 Score 0 Difference Preference Threshold • Within each criterion: • Degree of indifference threshold • Degree of preference threshold

22. 1 Score 0 Indifference Threshold Preference Threshold • Within each criterion: • Degree of indifference threshold, AND • Degree of preference threshold

23. GOAL Future 1 Future 2 Future 3 CEc CEc CEc CSc CSc CSc CEv CEv CEv • Between criteria: • Weights w1 + w2 + w3 = 1

24. Outcomes of the MCDA decision process • Performance of each alternative by multiple criteria C1 1 C4 C6 0 C2 C5 -1 C3 C7

25. Outcomes of the MCDA decision process • Pairwise comparison of alternatives by multiple criteria Alt-1 Alt-2

26. Outcomes of the MCDA decision process • Preference ordering of alternatives for each individual, and the group as a whole A2 A3 Partial A1 A5 A4 Complete A3 A2 A4 A1 A5

27. CEc CSc Alt-3 pi Alt-2 CEv Alt-1 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process • Simultaneous comparison of criteria and alternatives (individual GAIA Plane)

28. DM-2 pi Alt-3 Alt-2 Alt-1 DM-3 DM-1 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process • Simultaneous comparison of decision-makers and alternatives (group GAIA Plane)

29. CEc CSc Alt-3 pi Alt-2 CEv Alt-1 Outcomes of the MCDA decision process • Sensitivity analysis – walking weights and stability intervals

30. Research on Preference Formation • Intra-criterion preferences • Max/Min, Absolute/Relative, Thresholds • Inter-criteria preferences • Weights of broad categories or specific indicators • Order and strength of rankings • Preference flows • Partial or complete

31. Project Information • White River Partnership • www.whiteriverpartnership.org • Project web site • www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/ • Concept paper on group valuation: • Wilson, M.A. and R.B. Howarth, 2002. “Valuation Techniques for Achieving Social Fairness in the Distribution of Ecosystem Services,” Ecological Economics 41, 431-443.