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

Most of the surveyed resource-based tourism operators are satisfied with the outcomes of the RSA process and view their involvement as a positive experience. Fifty-four percent of respondents who had commenced participation in the RSA process felt their most recent RSA was worthwhile, 50% felt that their participation in the RSA process will make a difference in the forest management plan and 76% believed that the benefits of the RSA process outweigh the costs. Three-quarters of the respondents who had signed an RSA were satisfied with their most recent agreement. Prior to the development of the RSA process, there was little tourism involvement in forest management planning in Ontario and a tourism stakeholder was not required to be a part of two key participatory forest management processes: the forest management planning team and the local citizens' committee (Hunt and Haider 2001). In 1998, less than 20% of resource-based tourism operators surveyed by Hunt et al. (2000) were satisfied with timber-harvesting policies and lake-access (road) restrictions. Current research into shared decision making (e.g. Moote et al. 1997, Susskind et al. 2003), predicts that the very fact that tourism operators are now formally included within the forest management planning process should result in greater satisfaction with the outcomes.

Increased Dialogue, Reduced Conflict

The RSA process brings the tourism and forestry industry together and encourages the parties to discuss their respective needs and to cooperate with regard to operations on Crown land. Research shows that having parties discuss their issues early in a process can reduce the magnitude of any conflicts and prevent delays in decision implementation associated with appeals (Moote et al. 1997, Susskind et al. 2003).

The RSA process also helps improve or maintain positive relationships between parties. Thirty-three percent of respondents who had commenced an RSA indicated that their relationship with the forest industry improved as a result of the RSA process while only five percent indicated a deterioration in their relationship. Where conflicts do arise, the RSA process provides the capacity for dispute resolution between the tourism and forestry industries. The RSA's emphasis on getting adversarial parties to discuss their issues will likely result in a reduced number of appeals of the final forest management plans.

The exchange of information and ideas between parties as part of the RSA dialogue also resulted in learning and has produced innovative solutions to problems. Thirty-seven percent of respondents who had commenced an RSA indicated that because of the RSA negotiation process they were able to develop innovative solutions to their land use problems. By learning from, and understanding, each other, the two industries can design prescriptions for forest management that are mutually agreeable and they can be united in presenting these prescriptions to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and to the public for review. By encouraging these two major forest stakeholders to negotiate prior to introducing other stakeholders into the process, there is a better chance that a solution agreeable to both the tourism and forestry industries will be reached.

Commitment to Process and Implementation

Most respondents (93%) who had commenced an RSA felt the issues dealt with by the RSA process are important for themselves and the forest industry, and that the RSA process is a good way to resolve their problems with respect to forest management planning (88%). This belief in the process is an important first step in making the process a success. If issues are not deemed as important by parties, or if parties do not feel a process will help resolve their problems, they are unlikely to be interested in participating.

To be effective, agreements must not only be negotiated, but also be successfully implemented and enforced. Most operators who have signed an RSA (84%) are optimistic their RSA agreements will be successfully implemented. Supporting this opinion is the fact that parts of an RSA that are approved as part of a forest management plan become legally binding and must be implemented. This presence of legal procedures to ensure implementation helps legitimize the process.

Principled Negotiation, Respect, and Trust

Many procedures have been developed to ensure that parties undertake negotiation seriously and treat each other with respect. Half of responding tourism operators believed that RSAs are being negotiated in good faith. Sixty-three percent of operators who have commenced an RSA believe that the process creates incentives for cooperation and collaboration. This is a vital component of the process as relationships developed during the RSA process could help the tourism and forestry industries cope with future problems associated with their mutual dependence on Ontario's Crown lands.

Balanced Distribution of Power

The RSA process uses policy and regulations to reduce an historical power imbalance between the tourism and forestry industries. A major source of power in a negotiation is determined by the parties' best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). RSAs--along with their parent document, the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding--reduce the forest industry's BATNA. Under this policy, the forest industry's BATNA is to risk having the OMNR refuse to approve their forest management plan and thus delay timber harvesting. The tourism industry's BATNA does not change; it can still rely on the protection afforded by existing ecological guidelines. This reduction of the forest industry's BATNA is important to ensuring the success of the RSA process.

Although the RSA process reduces the power of the forest industry, there remains a perception by tourism operators that the forest industry retains most of the power in the tourism-forestry relationship. This is discussed below. Although unequal distribution of power in a shared-decision-making process is not necessarily a fatal flaw (Frame et al. 2004), suggestions for further reducing the power imbalance are presented below.

Costs versus Benefits

This study did not complete a comprehensive analysis of the benefit-cost ratio for the RSA process, assess the costs to the forestry industry, or assess the costs incurred by the provincial government in designing and implementing the RSA process. However, over three-quarters of respondents believe the benefits of the RSA process outweigh the costs.

Potential Areas of Improvement within the RSA Process

Inclusive Representation

Under the RSA process not all parties that are potentially affected by or that have an interest in any RSA that may be signed are given the opportunity to participate in designing the agreement. Shared decision-making processes should, by definition, encourage the involvement of all the stakeholders that have the potential to be affected by the outcomes of the process. By including more stakeholders, the RSA process could become more democratic, would ensure a greater chance that the resulting outcome will endure unchallenged, and could result in more innovative agreements. The process would also be more likely to produce a just outcome that serves the common good. Including more stakeholders in RSA negotiations could eliminate the current need for final approval by the OMNR.

One stakeholder group that should be considered for inclusion in RSA negotiations is local recreationists. Recreationists (anglers, hunters, campers) from northern Ontario communities may be greatly affected by management prescriptions for forest harvesting and for forest access roads. Likewise, local recreationists are likely to dictate the success of attempts on the part of the forest and tourism industries to retain remoteness while still allowing forest harvesting. Over 60% of resource-based tourism operators surveyed by Hunt et al. (2000) in 1998 believed that road-based recreationists would negatively affect their operations within five years. Similarly, over 60% of remote operators had received either 'several' or 'many' complaints from guests regarding recreationists accessing water bodies by non-fly-in means during the previous five years (Hunt et al. 2000). Including local recreationists at the RSA negotiating table could generate the knowledge and insight necessary to resolve problems associated with access by this group.

Transparency

Parties to an RSA are under no obligation to share the results of their agreement, except where provisions will be incorporated into a forest management plan. Ensuring the transparency of the RSA process, that is making the results of the agreements available to all that are interested in them, is a means of ensuring a fair and democratic process. It is possible that if RSAs were open to public scrutiny, the need for the OMNR to change the resulting agreements would be reduced. Transparency would also help ensure RSAs are negotiated using a consistent interpretation of the MOU, and that both the forestry and tourism industries are being treated equally, province-wide.

Equal Opportunity, Equal Resources and Effective Process Management