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

Although the RSA process uses policy and regulations to reduce an historical power imbalance between the tourism and forestry industries, a few adjustments could be made within the scope of the RSA process to further shift power away from the forest industry and improve process effectiveness. Providing training in interest-based negotiation and providing a neutral facilitator can help reduce power imbalances between parties (Frame et al. 2004). Interest-based negotiation is a technique that calls for negotiating parties to separate the problem from the people; to resolve problems based on parties' interests, not on prefabricated positions; and to invent solutions for mutual gain (BC CORE 1996). The main benefit of interest-based negotiation, as opposed to traditional means of conflict resolution, is that it promotes 'win-win' solutions (BC CORE 1996). Having neutral facilitators present at the negotiating table can help overcome an uneven balance of power and can help promote fairness by monitoring the interaction of negotiating parties and intervening where necessary, and by helping to ensure a common level of understanding (BC CORE 1996).

Policy managers should consider having an independent third party, instead of the forest industry, conduct the management and administrative functions of the RSA process. This would also help disperse some of the power away from the forestry industry. Such adjustments should help reduce conflict in adversarial RSAs and could give smaller tourism operations more confidence when negotiating with a multinational forestry corporation.

Enforcement and Deterrents

No land or resource management strategy that involves restrictions on use can be expected to succeed without proper enforcement. This survey asked respondents if RSAs would be unnecessary if there was better enforcement of the land use access restrictions that have already been put in place. Fifty-six percent of responding operators agreed or somewhat agreed with this statement, indicating that there is concern about Ontario's ability to enforce access restrictions on Crown lands. Attendees at the NOTO RSA Summit also mentioned enforcement as one of the problems affecting the management of remote areas and listed it as a problem hampering the effectiveness of the RSA process (Bioforest 2005).

While it is expensive to monitor a large land base like Northern Ontario, some of the money designated for the RSA process might be put to better use enforcing access restrictions. No matter how creative the solutions that emanate from the RSA process, they will only be effective if there is adequate enforcement.

Perceived Bias of Decision Makers towards the Forest Industry

Several respondents felt that forest management officials in northern Ontario had an allegiance with the forest industry. For example, one operator commented; "No matter what, the forest company always WINS," while another stated; "Employees' attitudes within MNR must improve! Forestry [operators] know it [that the OMNR will support them] and know they do not have to budge." Other respondents expressed concern that the Ontario government does not really care about resource-based tourism as an industry. One respondent commented, "[The] RSA process would not be required if tourism values were being protected or considered an asset by the government of Ontario. They do not look at remote tourism as an industry, rather as an annoyance affecting fiber extraction." Another respondent stated; "Until the MNR realizes that standing trees have a ... value [that is] equally important, all tourism businesses in the presence of logging [will] continue to struggle."

Unless corrected, this perceived bias of the OMNR could have a detrimental impact on the success of the RSA process. The RSA process uses policy and regulations to encourage the tourism and forestry industries to negotiate with regards to their shared use of Crown lands. If the forest industry perceives OMNR as sympathetic to their needs, there may not be the incentive for them to enter and remain in RSA negotiations. At the same time, some tourism operators may be reluctant to participate if they feel that the OMNR favours the forest industry.

The Role of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

The OMNR can veto, or amend, RSA recommendations they feel are not consistent with the OMNR's mandate of conserving and managing Ontario's public lands and resources for all citizens (OMNR 2001). Eight respondents expressed concern regarding the power of the OMNR in the RSA process. The following two comments are representative: "[I] think the government inhibits better relations by establishing regulations that sometimes represent roadblocks" and "I have a problem with the MNR coming in and changing the plans we made." Indeed the RSA process could be irrelevant if the OMNR exercises its veto power over all decisions pertaining to forest management prescriptions.

Practicality of Implementing Improvements

It may not be feasible to implement all of the suggested improvements to the RSA process because of the small-scale nature of the process. For example, to maximize the benefits of inclusive representation we recommend that as many affected stakeholders as possible should be allowed to participate. However, the small scale of each RSA means that the potential number of RSAs to be negotiated is large and it might not be practical for all stakeholder groups to participate in every RSA process.

Indeed the RSA process may be too small scale, with too narrow a mandate to make full use of shared decision making. A true shared decision-making process requires extensive input and commitment from a diverse set of stakeholders. The RSA process simply sets out to resolve business-to-business conflicts between the forest industry and the tourism industry in Northern Ontario. While this is an important problem to resolve, there are other stakeholders and other conflicts occurring on Ontario's Crown land that have the potential to impact both the forestry industry and the tourism industry. This process does nothing to voice or honor their conflicts. While it would be beneficial to include more stakeholders (particularly recreationists) and widen the mandate of RSAs, inclusionary planning should also be conducted at a broader scale.

Conclusion

The RSA process is one of Ontario's first experiments with a participant-based approach to forest management. This evaluation shows that the RSA process appears to be a positive move in forest management. The process is partially meeting two out of the three policy mission statement goals evaluated here. In addition, when compared to the shared decision making evaluative criteria, the process met or somewhat met 31 evaluative criteria; only eight criteria were not met.

Benefits of the process include greater involvement of the tourism industry within forest management planning in Ontario, the ability to get parties communicating with each other, and the ability to balance some of the power of the forestry industry. Areas for potential improvement are also apparent. To make the RSA process more democratic, more likely to be in the public interest, and to ensure an enduring outcome, more stakeholders should be included and the process should be more transparent. In addition the provision of a neutral facilitator and training in interest-based negotiation could help mitigate power imbalances, perceived or otherwise.

Although these suggestions for improvements to the RSA process would help to improve the fairness of the process, in practice, some of them may be difficult for such a small-scale process. Forest management officials in Ontario should also consider implementing shared decision making at a broader scale of forest management.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank SSHRC for funding support for this research and the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.

References

Bioforest. 2005. Summary of the Forestry and Tourism Resource Stewardship Agreement Summit. North Bay, ON: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. [Accessed July 27, 2005.]

Blumberg, L. 1999. Preserving the Public Trust. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 4(2): 89-93.

Born, S.M., and K.D. Genskow. 2000. The Watershed Approach: An Empirical Assessment of Innovation in Environmental Management. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.

British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (BC CORE). 1996. Strategic Land Use Planning Source Book. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer.

Browne, Sarah A. 2006. Engaging the Tourism Industry in Forest Management Planning: An Evaluation of Ontario's Resource Stewardship Agreement Process. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University.

Conley, A., and M.A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 16: 371-386.

d'Estree, T.P., and B.G. Colby. 2000. Guidebook for Analyzing Success in Environmental Conflict Resolution Cases. Fairfax, VA: Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. George Mason University.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.

Duffy, D.M., M. Roseland, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1996. A Preliminary Assessment of Shared Decision-Making in Land Use and Natural Resource Planning. Environments 23(2): 1-16.