Incorporating shared decision making in forest management planning: an evaluation of Ontario's Resource Stewardship Agreement process.

Abstract

Ontario's Resource Stewardship Agreement (RSA) process introduced shared decision making into the management toolbox for land use planning in Ontario's Crown forests. Within the RSA process, resource-based tourism and forestry operators negotiate mutually agreeable solutions to forest harvesting and tourism-use conflicts. Policy documents were reviewed and tourism operators surveyed to evaluate this small-scale, shared-decision-making process. The evaluation, which was conducted during the implementation of the RSA process, found that the process benefited forest management by including tourism operators in forest management planning, promoting dialogue between the two industries, and balancing power relationships. RSAs could be improved by including more stakeholders, making the process more transparent, and improving the negotiation process.

Resume

Le processus de l'Entente d'intendance des ressources (EIR) de l'Ontario a integre la prise de decision partagee a la gamme des outils de gestion relatifs a la planification de l'utilisation des terres dans les forets de la Couronne en Ontario. Dans le processus de l'EIR, le tourisme fonde sur les ressources et les exploitants forestiers negocient ensemble des solutions acceptables pour les deux parties, en regard des differends concernant la recolte de bois et l'utilisation de la foret a des fins touristiques. Les documents sur les politiques ont ete examines et les exploitants en tourisme ont repondu a un sondage pour evaluer ce processus de prise de decision partagee a petite echelle. L'evaluation, qui a ete menee pendant la mise en oeuvre du processus de l'EIR, a revele que le processus etait profitable en matiere de gestion de la foret en ayant fait participer les exploitants en tourisme a la planification de la gestion de la foret, en favorisant le dialogue entre les deux secteurs d'activite, equilibrant ainsi la relation de pouvoir. Les EIR pourraient etre ameliorees en faisant participer davantage d'intervenants, en rendant le processus plus transparent et en ameliorant le processus de negociation.

Key Words

Policy evaluation, resource management, forestry/tourism conflict, collaborative planning

Introduction

In 2000, three Ontario government ministries signed a memorandum of understanding with the resource-based tourism industry and forestry industry in the province. This memorandum of understanding called for the introduction of resource stewardship agreements (RSAs), a form of shared decision making designed to help resolve land-use conflicts between resource-based tourism operators and the forest industry in Ontario's Crown forests. This paper examines and evaluates the RSA process as an example of shared decision making, using criteria drawn from the academic literature. This evaluative lens was chosen because the Ontario government promotes the RSA process as a type of shared decision making, and because of a trend within natural resource management towards collaborative initiatives and participatory decision making.

Tourism--Forestry Conflicts in Northern Ontario

In Ontario, land use conflicts between resource-based tourism and forestry exist due to the disparate and conflicting uses that these two industries often have for the same piece of Crown land. (1) The resource-based tourism industry, which is composed mostly of fishing and hunting lodges or outposts, depends on a pristine environment, a high-quality fishery, unpolluted water bodies, remoteness, and solitude to attract clientele (Hunt et al. 2000). However, active logging operations--which may produce noise and pollution, destroy fish and wildlife habitat, and have negative effects on the aesthetics of a region--conflict with these needs (McKercher 1992). In addition, forest-access roads, constructed to facilitate the removal of harvested timber, allow access by motorized recreationists that can spoil the feeling of remoteness and can stress a fishery (McKercher 1992, Gunn and Sein 2000).

In 2000, the Tourism and Forestry Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between Ontario's resource-based tourism industry, the forestry industry, and three Ontario government ministries (OMNR 2001). The MOU calls for the two industries to recognize the factors that are important for their respective successes and to respect these needs. RSAs are the operational tool of this MOU. They are voluntary, business-to-business agreements negotiated between a single sustainable forest licensee (forest company) and a single licensed resource-based tourism operation (OMNR 2001). Each RSA sets out a specific and detailed plan for forest harvesting and for protection of tourism values in areas of Crown forest where both parties have interests. (2) These prescriptions are then incorporated into the forest management plans for the area, upon approval by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR 2001).

Background on Shared Decision Making

The RSA process, which involves resource-based tourism stakeholders in the management of Ontario's Crown forests, is part of a broader trend toward increased use of collaborative initiatives in natural resource management. Collaborative initiatives include such processes as shared decision making, alternative dispute resolution, consensus-based processes, participatory democracy and the mediation model of planning (Susskind et al. 2003, Gunton and Day 2003). The benefits of collaborative initiatives are numerous and include the perception of fairness, greater acceptance of and compliance with the resulting decision, increased confidence in decision-makers, and increased trust in the process (Moote et al. 1997, Lawrence et al. 1997, Duffy et al. 1996). Shared decision making is a specific kind of collaborative initiative whereby stakeholders who may be affected by the outcomes of a decision are empowered to jointly come to a mutually agreeable (usually consensus-based) decision along with those that traditionally have decision-making authority (BC CORE 1996, Frame et al. 2004, Gunton and Day 2003). A good shared-decision-making process endeavors to ensure that the concerns of all stakeholders are resolved fairly and that the outcomes accommodate the interests of all involved (Williams et al. 1998, Susskind et al. 2003, Gunton and Day 2003). Shared-decision-making processes often result in creative solutions, offer joint gains, produce longer lasting agreements, and resolve underlying conflicts (Susskind et al. 2003, Duffy et al. 1996, Innes and Booher 1999). In conjunction with resolving disputes, shared decision making can support the development of trust, improve communication, foster positive relationships, and promote learning among stakeholders (Moote et al. 1997, Susskind et al. 2003, Duffy et al. 1996, Innes and Booher 1999).

Components of a good shared-decision-making process include: a definite goal or purpose, participation by all affected stakeholders, information exchange and communication among the stakeholders, organisational support, respect and balanced power among stakeholders, interest-based negotiation, and consensus-based decisions (Schuett et al. 2001, Moote et al. 1997). In addition, the resulting plan or outcome should be technically feasible to implement and should maximize the gains to society (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987).

Evaluating the RSA process

Although each RSA negotiation involves only two parties, the RSA process represents a significant departure from traditional approaches to forest management in Ontario, in that it directly involves a stakeholder other than the forest industry in early decisions about forest management plans. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assess how this process compares with recognized standards for shared decision-making.

Choosing an evaluative framework

The appropriate perspective for an evaluation and the best criteria to use depend on the type of policy or program being evaluated and the goals of the evaluation. Because the RSA process was designed to help the tourism industry protect its business values on Crown land, this study was conducted from the perspective of this industry. Using this perspective, the RSA process was compared to stated goals and compared to standards from academic theory. The key questions are as follows:

1. Are the goals set by policy makers and other interested parties for the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding being achieved?

2. Based on shared-decision-making theory, as well as collaborative theory, participatory democracy theory, and other research presented in the academic literature, could the RSA process be considered an equitable, efficient, and effective process?

Two sets of goals were used in the evaluation: the goals listed in the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding and a set of goals for the RSA process put forward by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (NOTO) (NOTO 2003). Two sets of goals were used to help prevent bias associated with the policy writer's definition of the problem and in an attempt to circumvent the problem of vague goals. NOTO's goals were chosen because NOTO is Ontario's resource-based tourism industry's largest representative and, therefore, NOTO's goals for the RSA process are most likely to be representative of the tourism industry as a whole.