1 / 11

Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation

Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation . On Potential Refinements to the Montreal Criteria & Indicators. The Basics. January 20 through February 28, 2005 Objective: To collect stakeholder feedback on potential refinements to the Montreal C&I

daire
Download Presentation

Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Highlights of theOn-Line Stakeholder Consultation On Potential Refinements to the Montreal Criteria & Indicators

  2. The Basics • January 20 through February 28, 2005 • Objective: To collect stakeholder feedback on potential refinements to the Montreal C&I • 22 questions, all with open-ended responses • Site designed and managed by Dialogue by Design

  3. Respondents • Invitation sent to ~2,400 persons • 95 respondents • 23% Federal Agency • 22% College or University • 18% State Agency • 8% Non-profit Env./Cons. Group • 8% Other (unspecified)

  4. Respondents • Respondents were asked at what scale their organization works. • 41% national level • 45% regional level • 48% state level • 23% county or other local level

  5. Responses • Total of 944 responses to the 22 questions • Mean: 43 • Median: 40 • Range: 89 - 26

  6. Responses per Question

  7. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 1: Forest Biodiversity • Language should emphasize native biodiversity • Human element is missing • Genetic diversity is expensive to measure and difficult to understand • “Forest type” and “forest dependent species” are a vague and broad terms that needs to be defined more precisely

  8. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 2: Forest Productivity • Too focused on timber production • “Determined to be sustainable”: By whom? How? What is the benchmark? • Criterion 3: Forest Health • Indicators are too vague (or detailed) as stated to be meaningful • Need explicit explanation of “range of historic variation”

  9. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 4: Soil and Water • Indicators require a baseline to be meaningful • Many comments on how these indicators should be measured and how data should be interpreted • Criterion 5: Global Carbon Cycles • Important topic: Need to be better equipped to report on these indicators • Many technical issues related to carbon accounting that need to be addressed

  10. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 6: Socio-economic Benefits • Indicators are vague • Too narrowly economic and quantitative to capture many benefits • Methods used for recreation are outdated • More emphasis on social, cultural, and spiritual values • More emphasis on non-timber forest products • More emphasis on indigenous peoples

  11. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 7: Legal and Institutional Framework • Need more on actual public participation • Need something that speaks to stewardship incentives and the existence of a forest ethic • Can these indicators be evaluated in a way that is meaningful over time? Assessment protocols. • Market forces critical when discussing investment, management plans, etc. • Qualitative methods could help flesh out these indicators

More Related