E-participation Requires Systems Intelligence

1. E-participation Requires Systems Intelligence Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil Paula Siitonen and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory Marcelo Tabarelli, Pernambuco Federal University

2. Emotions as well as Facts are Important in Participation • Every participation process is systemic • People react to the way the process is initially framed and carried out • These reactions and feedbacks have an impact in the outcomes of the process • A successfull participation process requires the consideration of the facts and goals as well as peoples relationships and interactions with Systems Intelligence

3. Systems Intelligence (SI) • Intelligent and active behaviour of an individual in the context of systems with interactions and feedbacks (Saarinen & Hämäläinen 2004) • Systems intelligence: A person sees the situation as a system, herself in it, her own impact on the system and the impact of the other components (people, organizations) of the system on her. She behaves creativily concerning these feedbacks.

4. Understanding the System • Interaction and feedbacks between people and between human system and forest ecosystem • Includes facts and hidden values and emotions such as trust and fear

5. SI Participation Process • Bring the participants into a dialogue to build positive trust and to give people a voice • Frame the situation as a collaborative process to learn more together to reach mutual benefits instead of conflict management • Using dialogue work towards shared understanding of the situation as a system with intercations and feedbacks between the people and between the human and natural system. • Work together to define a common goal; the desired benefits and a process to produce them. Structure the objectives. Consider also unmeasurable invisible objectives such as trust. • Create and evaluate different ways to change the existing system to a desired one. These are strategy alternatives. • Monitor and evaluate the process. Consider what was created and also what was not yet created. See this as a possibility and a challenge for the future collaboration.

6. Case:Design a process for the sustainable conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil using SI

7. Policy Issues • Forests fragmented (3% remains), more large continuos areas needed for species survival: restoration and agroforestry • Hunting and illegal cuttings • People are poor and level of education is low • Most of remaining forests are on private lands • Law requires conservation of remaining forests and reforestation of river corridors. Law is not conformed • Suger mills started reforestation of the river corridors to ensure water supply and to improve competitiveness

8. How to improve species survival and economic and social wellfare?

9. Methods and Participation in Brazil Case • Dialogue • Internet page • Facilitated meetings • Systems description • Field excursions • GIS • MCDA-programs • Evaluating feelings

10. Starting • Dialogue to create positive trust • Framing the situation as a collaborative process: • To learn more • To reach mutual benefits • To create sustainable development in the region rather than just conservation

11. Seeing the Situation as a System • Who are the decision makers and other interested parties in Atlantic Forests? • Why? Benefits? Goals? • See interactions between the parties involved • See interactions between parties and forest ecosystem • Working towards a shared vision of the present situation

12. create markest for rural products society is better aware of environmental issues improve capacity environmental education Scientists knows what species, where and how should be planted to support maintenance of biodiversity Need for collaboration to achieve mutual benefits practical guidelines for agroforestry, tourism etc. society markets of products regulates what is produced create markets, capacity and infrastructure for ecotourism ”We have biggest atlantic forest of the region” agroforestry Usinas has infrastructure to produce and plant seedlings of native plants local people Bird toursim? diversity of rural products Improve competivity of usinas no money for investements for toxidies and fertilizers Usinas plant also native species not just increase forest accoring to law: doing more than law requires ”Wehave most bird species of the region” Proudness about conservation actions Usinas produce seedlings less dependent of fluctuation of price of just one product Usinas better prepared for new cetrificates Convince society ”Usinas owns most of land they are responsible for conservation and water protection!” Landreform ? income more segure year around Market for seedlings Convince other companies Buyers/market of sugarindustry products Jobs for people provide environmental education Improve public image of usinas environmental education Market for restoration National society Potential for carbon sink increases Create positive models: Serra Grande company 43 bird species! Hunters Atlantic Forest Potential use value Value itself Rural workers Usinas need Ngos of rural workers Small farmers sell sugarcane Water energy to produce sugar Maintain biodiversity Conservationist Fazendeiros Sindicates of usinas Usinas plant forest in river corridors Governmental agencies Scientists Water protection Fazendeiros no big need for water energy Maintain key ecological processes Maintain species: no extinctions of globally and regionally endangered spcies Munincipal government Gallery forests maintain water and soil Maintain genetic diversity Soil protection monitor implementaion of law Stamp for usinas Substitutes from government to usinas were stopped ”Restore 1 km gallery forest/year” maintain regionally endagered trees maintain 28 globally endangered birds Law to restore? indicators Law to protect gallery forests endagered species Need to compete with south by other means key processes: pollination, predation, dispersal mature forest Usinas in NE can not use machines at the steep slopes Green suger industry may increase competitivity FLEXFUEL Certification suitable habitat configuration to maintain species in each 12 habitat type (lowland) undisturbed forest Lowland and tabuleiros pay production costs at hills and slopes secundary forest Price increase Restoration? Buyers want certified products Price low representativeness persitence Decrease Usinas plant someting to hills to avoid invasion of land Markets of sugarcane products Increase Feasibility to plant steep slopes and hilltops 10 000 ha total area of each habitat needed quality= edge/core area relationship 10 units >1000 ha continuous core area/habitat type 10 units >1000 ha core area clusters for habitat type Conservation of existing fragments from illegal cuttings Conservation of fragments from hunting and cutting of valuable trees reintroduction of species:primates, trees, birds to existing mature forests restoration of new areas environmental education to change hunting and cutting tradition Agroforestry to create stepping stones and dispersal corridors restoration of galleryforest with native tree specis:guidelines for usinas

13. Defining a Common Goal • Focus on the desired benefits instead of conflicts ! • What kind of system or process produces these benefits? • Structure benefits as fundamental objectives such as maintenance of species, and means objectives, such as habitat area, and ways to reach them such as restoration. ”Water, Food, Species, Money...”

14. Evaluating Policy Alternatives • Law: reforestation of river corridors • Jointly improving: using native species, connecting fragments, environmental education and economic alternatives... • Aims to improve mutual understanding of the situation and to create innovative strategy alternatives

15. Conclusion • The way the process is started and framed is crucial • Goals and facts are just one part • Sustainable conservation is an outcome of a systems intelligent collaborative learning process • E-participation requires this all: a systems intelligenent approach

16. References • Daniels, S. E., Walker, G.B. (2001).Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative learning approach. Praeger, London. • Hämäläinen, R.P. (1988). Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland. Interfaces 18:12-23. • Hämäläinen, R. P, Kettunen E., Marttunen M., Ehtamo H. (2001). Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:331-353. • Hämäläinen, R.P. 2003. Decisionarium - Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12(2-3): 101-110. • Marttunen, M., Hämäläinen, R. P. (1995). Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessments. European Journal of Operational Research 87:551-563. • Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Marttunen, M. (2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling and Software. 19:537-547. • Saarinen E., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:9-37. • Siitonen, P., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). From conflict management to systems intelligence in forest conservation decision making. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:199-214. • Siitonen, P., Tanskanen, A., Lehtinen, A. (2002). Method for selection old-forest reserves. Conservation Biology 16:1398-1408.

17. References • Siitonen, P., Lehtinen, A., Siitonen, M. (2005). Effects of edges on distribution, abundance and regional persistence of wood-rotting fungi. Conservation Biology 19:250-260. • Silva, J. M. C., Tabarelli, M. (2000). Tree species impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic forest of northeast Brazil. Nature 404: 72-74. • Sinkko, K., Hämäläinen, R.P., Hänninen R. (2004). Experiences in methods to involve key players in planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 109:127-132. • Slotte, S., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2003). Decision structuring dialogue. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports E13. • Tabarelli, M., Silva, J. M. C. , Cascon C. (2004). Forest fragmentation, synergism and the impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1419-1425. • Väntänen A., Marttunen, M. (2005). Public involvement in multiobjective water level regulation projects –Evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25:281-304. • Wondellock, J. M., Yaffee S. (2000). Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington D.C. Project Web pages: Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil: http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi/brazil SAL – Environmental Decision Making and Participation: http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi