Upload
jesse-dolan
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Recommendations from the Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Project
Pamela WrightForest Monitoring Team LeaderUSFS Inventory and Monitoring Institute
Sustaining the Contexts That Sustain Us: Sustainability Monitoring at the FMU Scale
Nancy LankfordMt. Hood National Forest
LUCID Team Leader
Sustainability: A Multi-Scaled Quest
Sustainability is about the interaction of social, economic and ecological realms
Sustainability is a multi-scaled concept: Must work simultaneously on sustainability at multiple scales
E co lo g ica l
E co n o m ic
S u sta in a b ility
S o c ia l
Although the sustainability quest is shared among scales, the management challenges and the questions change at every scale
C&I are tools used to help define, and assess progress towards sustainability – designed at multiple scales
Certification Initiatives
FSC, AFPA, Smartwood, SCS
Certified Forests & Operations
Market PressuresGlobal Sustainability Dialogue
Santiago Declaration
Montreal Process
Helsinki Accord
National/International Reporting Initiatives
National Scale C&I Set
National Scale C&I Set
Regional AssessmentsState C&I Reporting
Multi-Scaled Sustainability Initiatives: The Context for the LUCID Test
Forest Management Unit Initiatives
CIFOR TestsCIFOR-NA (Boise)
LUCIDCommunity
Forest Initiatives
Model Forests
NAFC, Mexico, FAO Initiatives
A tool to establish a dialogue on sustainability and improve management on the ground
Forest monitoring designed to help measure progress towards plan objectives and plan decisions
Provide information to assist in, and inform, forest management
Increasing focus on broader goal of sustainability within an adaptive ecosystem approach to management
Why FMU Scale Monitoring?
Desire to move away from compartmentalized, input/output monitoring (focus on progress towards desired conditions)
Take a systems approach to monitoring that recognizes the complexity of forests/grasslands.
Sustaining Systems
National Forests and Grasslands are joint production systems – simultaneously, not independently, produce soil, water, air, plant and animal material and benefits that flow from them.
Ecosystem management, adaptive management and sustainability based on recognition of complexity and inter-relatedness of our environment
Complex Living Systems ~ A group of interrelated, interacting, and interdependent elements that form a complex whole.
Given the diverse values for our forests and grasslands a systems approach helps us:
We provide for diverse values by sustaining the contexts (the ecological, social and economic systems), the very systems that sustain us.
The Link Between Sustainability and Systems
Developing monitoring C&I requires identifying the relationship between the C&I framework and the construct of sustainability
Many choices in frameworks that may be more or less appropriate depending on the context, scale, questions of focus
For the FMU scale and with a focus on answering questions related to the sustainability of an LRMP we choose a framework to allow us to monitor the condition of the subsystems of the joint production system
Can We Monitor all of the Parts?
If the manager has the responsibility for the trajectory of an FMU we need to monitor its sustainability – not just certain aspects
Answer the question -- can the subsystem continue to support the JPS in the future?
Monitoring all of subsystem components and processes impossible
Must carefully select indicators of various systems to alert us to potential problems before they are serious
Each subsystem that operates at FMU scale needs to have one or more indicators of its sustainability measures (no fixed number) that address the expression of the specific subsystem component in that FMU
How Did We Define Our Scope
Forest Management Unit (FMU)– An area approximating a national forest in its local ecological, social and economic context
Flexible definition that is variously scaled because it’s a mix of both the administrative land management unit and a collage of social, economic and ecological polygons that are relevant to the management of the unit
Focus not defined based on the vegetation type/plant community – for example many of National Forests contain a mix of forested and non-forested environments – intent to address it in its entirety
Focus on monitoring for assessing progress towards sustainability consistent with questions asked at the scale of an LRMP
Examine relationships between scales
Develop a strategy to implement C&I monitoring for national forests and grasslands
Identify further development and research needs
Test feasibility of monitoring and assessment of sustainable systems at the forest management unit scale.
LUCID Project Objectives
Develop and test a suite of indicators to assess sustainability
Explore methods for synthesizing information about sustainability
Methods
O ttaw a N F
A lleg h en yN F
B lu e M n tP ro v in ce
To n g assN F
M o d o cN F
M t. H oo dN F
N ew loca lin d ica tors
L oca llyre levan t
in d ica torsL U C ID
set o f C & I
R ev isedL U C ID
set o f C & I
In itia lL U C ID
set o f C & I
In itia lL U C ID
set o f C & I
Revise and modify a draft set of FMU-scale C&I developed within a systems framework and adapt them to the unique conditions of each forest regardless of vegetation type/plant community;
Develop and design measures and reference values for each indicator;
Perform a field test of the suite of C&I;
Explore approaches and techniques for analysis and synthesis – for integrating across indicators
Conduct a relative sustainability assessment not an absolute determination
Lessons Learned: Systems Approach Valuable as an Organizing and Learning
Tool
F u n ctio nF u n ctio nS tru ctu re & C om p ositio nS tru ctu re & C om p ositio n
O rg an ism stru ctu re a n dcom p o sitionO rg an ism stru ctu re a n dcom p o sition
P op u la tion stru ctu re a n dcom p o sitionP op u la tion stru ctu re a n dcom p o sition
E co sy stem /co m m u n itystru ctu re an d com p o sitionE co sy stem /co m m u n itystru ctu re an d com p o sition
L a n d scap e stru ctu re a n dcom p o sitionL a n d scap e stru ctu re a n dcom p o sition
O rg an ism fu n ctio nO rg an ism fu n ctio n
P op u la tion fu n ctio nP op u la tion fu n ctio n
E co sy stem /co m m u n ityfu n ctio nE co sy stem /co m m u n ityfu n ctio n
L a n d scap e fu n ctionL a n d scap e fu n ction
I. Hydrologic function
M1. Watershed condition index
M2. Drought/flood severity index (Palmer)
Ecological Systems
Sustainability is about the complex whole – the parts and their interactions
Collectively build understanding of how the whole, the forest in context, works
Identified a process & set of tools to take a systems approach and a common ecological & socio-economic systems framework
Puts puts the focus on interpreting the indicator in its context – it adds meaning
Frames monitoring of key forest attributes and inter-relationships
Better define critical items for monitoring
Identified a core suite of systems-based FMU-scale criteria and indicators recommended for examination by National Forests.
Flexibility in selection, measurement and assessment is needed to adapt the indicators and develop measures to the contexts and management issues for each National Forest.
C riter io nC riter io n
R eferen ce Va lu eR eferen ce Va lu e
D a ta E lem en tD a ta E lem en t
M ea su reM ea su re
In d ica to rIn d ica to r
Core suite of C&I adaptable to the specific conditions of a forest – within systems framework (16/58)
Key elements of joint production systems that are common across forests – but broad concepts
Treat as a suite but still just a starting point
Lessons Learned: Core Suite of C&I
The process of engaging the National Forest staff and collaborators in a dialogue about sustainability and sustainability monitoring is invaluable.
Focus attention on values
Develop models of how system elements and issues are integrated
Identify desired future system conditions
Engage new partners and communities
Serve as basis for discussing public values (a relative assessment of sustainability) rather than an absolute measure of sustainability.
Learning about Sustainability
“FMU-level sustainability monitoring is a way to have an ongoing process to work with the public to have a way to create open dialog with the public”
Forest Supervisor’s and their teams found that FMU-scale sustainability monitoring and assessment can be accomplished and can provide valuable information for forest planning and management.
Conduct assessment of current situation
Prioritize and focus Forest monitoring efforts
Help identify priority actions for management and research
Emphasizes relationship of Forest to surrounding ecological, socio-economic contexts
Help tell the stories of sustainability
Lessons Learned: Sustainability Monitoring & Decision-Making
Evaluation Report
Amendment & Revision
Decision
Plan Monitoring
Plan Implementation
National Direction, New Information, etc.
The Relationship Between Monitoring and Forest Planning
Indicators used for evaluating options
Regional scale assessments provide context and identify possible forest issues
Forest scale evaluation provides case study for regional assessments
Periodic evaluation /assessment of state of systems combines plan monitoring with other monitoring information
Critical systems indicators tied to plan decisions and desired conditions
Annual monitoring on critical systems components
Identify progress towards desired conditions and mid-course adjustments
Project scale monitoring organized within common systems framework
Identify critical areas for revision
Planning cycle series of 3 nested and inter-related loops working at different time scales: vision, strategy and design criteria
Scale Matters
Systems exhibit properties at a mix of scales
No one scale is correct and no single unified scale can be used to describe all systems
Different properties of systems are observable at different scales
All above applies equally temporally as it does spatially
Since systems reveal different characteristics at different scales, the questions (e.g., subsistence) change at every scale consequently the inventory, monitoring and planning activities may change.
F a cilita ted ia lo g u e &in fo rmm a n a g em en to n -th e-g ro u n d
In fo rmp o licy &b u d g et
F o rest M a n a g em en t P la nR ev isio n s/A m en d m en ts
F o rest M a n a g em en t P la nR ev isio n s/A m en d m en ts
FMU
FMU
F o rest P la n /S u sta in a b ility M o n ito r in g
F o rest P la n /S u sta in a b ility M o n ito r in g
R eg io n a l S ca le A ssessm en tsR eg io n a l S ca le A ssessm en ts
S ierra N ev a d aG rea t L a k es A ssessm en t
S ierra N ev a d aG rea t L a k es A ssessm en t
R eg ion
R eg ion
G R PAS tra teg ic P la n
N a tio n a l L ev e l R ep o rtin g (M P )
G R PAS tra teg ic P la n
N a tio n a l L ev e l R ep o rtin g (M P )N ation
N ation
Shared objectives but different questions and purposes at each scale.
Match questions and data to scale and system properties
Results are contextualized
Tools should complement each other
Corporate data and storage systems can facilitate this
Building Relationships Between Scales
Single scale tool does not address needs at any scaleStart by identifying the scalar question and system propertyThen identify type of scale relationship between conceptually related componentsMoves away from defining relationships as if they are all mathematically additive (aggregation response)Results in conceptual consistency and measurement flexibility
Shared Data
Different questions
Different analysis
Conceptual Relationship
Context
Adapted measures & reference values
Narrative relationships
Identifying Scalar Relationships
Simple scaling
Systems scaling
www.fs.fed.us/institute/lucid
“The LUCID test has identified common social, economic, and ecological threads that can be woven
together to tell the sustainability stories of our national forests and grasslands.”
Dale N. Bosworth
Applying Lessons Learned
Monitoring GuidancePlanning ruleForest plan prototypeRegional desk guidesWilderness monitoring
Training General systems thinking trainingSystems-based monitoring
regional training academyforest revision training
Refining ApproachesSystems approaches for MIS monitoring
Monitoring evaluation
Assistance to ForestsMonitoring guidance –a process for developing monitoring programs
Forests in revision (R1, R9…)
Stewardship contracting (R1)
R&DMulti-scale sampling relationshipsStandardized, scale specific monitoring protocolsSpatial optimization approaches
Implications and Challenges of Scale
We frequently apply the wrong scale tool (e.g., a standardized protocol) simply because its available or develop a tool without consciously thinking of what scale we need it for
Single scale tools don’t adequately address questions at all levels
Drive for consistency can overwhelm the utility of the tool For ‘measurement’ this requires conscious choices:
1. What is your question?
2. What are the system properties?
3. What scale(s) are these properties expressed and measurable at?
Scaling Up ~ We desire the ability to use our knowledge of small systems to predict and manage these large-scale systems
Simple Scaling: Multiply up a phenomenon observed in a small plot or sample to make a
statement about the forest, the region and the world
Hierarchical Scaling: This combines moving between systems and scale - in this type of
scaling we are interested in the relationships between phenomena in one hierarchical type to another
Scaling Up: Analysis, Synthesis and Sampling
Drive for consistency and efficiency typically lead to simple scaling – leads to invalid results
The idea of relationships or linkages is too often represented as one in which the relationship is mathematically additive (the aggregation scenario)