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

1. 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, PhD Director, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute Assoc. Professor , Dept. of Forest & Rangeland Stewardship Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO (tony.cheng@colostate.edu)

2. Uncompahgre Plateau Context

3. Uncompahgre Plateau Context

4. 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

5. Uncompahgre Plateau History ‘High-grade’ logging Ute bands: • Long presence • Removed 1880s Unregulated livestock grazing by settlers Fire suppression – “10 AM Rule”

6. Uncompahgre Plateau Past-to-Present 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

7. Uncompahgre Plateau Present Human uses and future uncertainties: How to manage? • Highly prescriptive national laws and regulations NEPA ESA NFMA • Conflicts resolved thru legal-regulatory framework • Flat/declining Forest Service capacities Public Lands Partnership • Est. in 1993 • Collaborative forum for civic learning , dialogue, and innovation • Alternative to social, political, and legal conflicts

8. Uncompahgre Plateau Present Emerging 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

9. Uncompahgre Plateau Present Emerging 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

10. Uncompahgre Plateau Present Emerging 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

11. Uncompahgre Plateau Present Emerging learning: Need for sustained collaborative approach (est. 2001) www.UPartnership.org Delta County, Colorado

12. 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

13. UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation 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 Participatory “forest forensics” Data analysis and synthesis report

14. UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation Forest Service proposed action Data analysis and synthesis report

15. UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation • 8,000 acres of harvesting • Up to 24,000 ccf commercial timber • Up to 14,000 acres Rx burning • Local jobs Forest Service final decision: no appeals or litigation

16. UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation Community-based ecological monitoring training, indicator and plot selection, pre-treatment data

17. UP Mesas Project: collaborative learning and deliberation Lobbying for political support and resources to support the collaborative project

18. 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)

19. 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” Perspectives on collaboration Collaboration as…

20. Substance · Conditions, trends, risks of SES · Material Interests · Instrumental Issues · Social-cultural meanings & values Dimensions of collaboration: “Progress Triangle” Procedural · Constituting & Organizing · Interacting and communicating · Learning, analyzing, & deliberating · Decision-making Relationships · Power · Conflict history · Interdependence · Trust and distrust · Commitment & assurances (Figure 3.1, Daniels and Walker 2001)

21. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

22. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

23. 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. ecology Role of government Role of non-gov’t sectors Community futures Socio-cultural meanings/values Framing and re-framing are continuous throughout a collaborative process

24. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

25. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Constituting & Organizing Why, What, Who, How, and When Why: Declaration of common purpose for self-organizing What: 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 structure When: 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.

26. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

27. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Legitimizing 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.

28. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

29. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Learning & Deciding PrinciplesPractices · 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/data libraries; oral histories (Cheng et al. 2011) · Decision rules · Levels of agreement criteria; accounting for dissent · Monitoring & enforcing commitments · Social/political pressure; legal recourse?? (Daniels & Walker 2001; Ostrom 1990; Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000)

30. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking

31. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking System map of forest fire causes and effects by Forest Service managers

32. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking System map amended by stakeholders and community members – creating a richer picture of the linked social-ecological system

33. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Systems Thinking System map of amending ‘instream flows’ – the exercise itself is what’s important!

34. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

35. Collaboration “Action Arenas”: Acting • Projects that are jointly vs. unilaterally administered Focus on “small wins”, intermediate gains (Ansel & Gash 2007) • Management-as-experiment: replicated trials + monitoring effects • Pooling resources in new ways Funding for joint projects Technical expertise Equipment Local contractors/operators Contract administration

36. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

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

38. 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)

39. Evaluating & Adapting Framing & Re-Framing Constituting & Organizing Learning & Deciding Acting Collaboration “Action Arenas” Legitimizing

40. ‘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

41. ‘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

42. 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

43. Best Wishes/ Meilleurs Voeux Tony Cheng, PhD Director, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute Assoc. Professor , Dept. of Forest & Rangeland Stewardship Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO tony.cheng@colostate.edu +1 (970) 491-1900 (voice)