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

Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2004. The Role of Collaboration in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of Land and Resource Planning in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(1): 59-82.

Gunn, J.M., and R. Sein. 2000. Effects of Forestry Roads on Reproductive Habitat and Exploitation of Lake Trout (Salvenlinus namaycush) in Three Experimental Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 57(Sup. 2): 97-104.

Gunton, Thomas. I., and J.C. Day. 2003. The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Planning in Resource and Environmental Management. Environments 31(2): 5-19.

Hunt, Len M., and Wolfgang Haider. 2001. Fair and Effective Decision Making in Forest Management Planning. Society and Natural Resources 14: 873-887.

Hunt, Len M, Wolfgang Haider, and Michelle Johnson. 2000. Ontario Resource Based Tourism Operators and Forest Management: Highlights of an Operator Survey. CNFER Technical Report. TR-005. Thunder Bay, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Innes, Judith E. 1999. Evaluating Consensus Building. In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 631-675.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.

KenCairn, B. 1998. Criteria for Evaluating Community-Based Conservation/Natural Resources Partnership Initiatives. In A Report from Troutdale: Community-Based Strategies in Forest Stewardship and Sustainable Economic Development. San Francisco, CA: Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, pp. 34-40.

Lawrence, R.L., S.E. Daniels, and G.H. Stankey. 1997. Procedural Justice and Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision Making. Society and Natural Resources 10(6): 577-589.

Lead Partnership Group. 2000. The Lead Partnership Group Identifies Principles of Community- Based Forestry. Lead Partnership Group Newsletter IV(1): 1-2.

Leventhal, G.S., J. Karuza, Jr., and W.R. Fry. 1980. Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences. In Justice and Social Interaction, G. Mikula, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 167-218.

McKercher, Bob. 1992. Tourism as a Conflicting Land Use. Annals of Tourism Research 19:467-481.

Moote, M.A., M.P McClaran, and D.K. Chickering. 1997. Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning. Environmental Management 21 (6): 877-889.

Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (NOTO). 2003. Excerpt from MTR/NOTO RSA Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year 2004-2005--Benefits and Impacts of the Process. Unpublished document. North Bay, ON: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association.

Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2001. Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding: Guide to Resource Stewardship Agreements. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Schuett, M.A., S.W. Selin, and D.S. Carr. 2001. Making it Work: Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management. Environmental Management 27(4): 587-593.

Smith, P.D., and M.H. McDonough. 2001. Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making. Society and Natural Resources 14: 239-249.

Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse. Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.

Susskind, Lawrence, M. Van der Wansem, and A. Ciccareli. 2003. Mediating Land Use Disputes in the United States: Pros and Cons. Environments 31(2): 39-58.

Williams, P.W., R.W. Penrose, and S. Hawkes. 1998. Shared Decision Making in Tourism Land Use Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 25(4): 860-889.

Wondolleck, Julia M. 1988. Public lands--Conflict and Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.

Sarah Browne has a Master's degree in Resource and Environmental Management from Simon Fraser University. Her research interests are on the social side of resource management, specifically public/stakeholder involvement, mechanisms to aid policy development, and resource based tourism. Sarah is currently working as a Social Science Analyst at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research.

Murray Rutherford is an Assistant Professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. He is a policy scientist and planner whose research focuses on policy analysis and evaluation, ecosystem-based management, and human values and attitudes toward nature and the conservation of biological diversity. He can be contacted at mbr@sfu.ca

Thomas Gunton is a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management and Director of the Resource and Environmental Planning Program at Simon Fraser University. He has held numerous senior positions in government including Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines for the government of Manitoba and Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands, and Parks for the government of British Columbia. His research focuses on environmental mediation and dispute resolution and resource and environmental planning. He can be contacted at tgunton@shaw.ca

(1) Eighty-seven percent of Ontario's land mass (937,000 km2) is Crown land (land that is controlled and administered by the provincial government). The majority of this Crown land is located in northern Ontario where the tourism and forestry industries have potentially conflicting interests (OMNR 2004).

(2) The area covered by an individual resource stewardship agreement varies and depends primarily on the number of establishments owned by the tourism operator, the size of the forest management area, and on the proposed forest harvesting plans. For one RSA presented as an example at the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association's RSA summit, the area covered by the agreement was approximately 40 km by 80 km. Table 1. The Rating of the RSA Process on Each of the Goals Posited in the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding and on Each of the Goals Suggested by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association

Goals posited in the Tourism and Forestry Industry Rating Memorandum of Understanding somewhat met Allow the resource-based tourism and forestry industries

in Ontario to coexist neutral Allow the resource-based tourism industry in Ontario to

prosper undetermined Allow the forestry industry in Ontario to prosper somewhat met The industries [are to] negotiate in good faith

Goals proposed by the Northern Ontario Tourism Outfitters

Association undetermined Reductions in conflict and delays related to environmental

impact assessments undetermined Enhancement of wood supply (timber) undetermined Maintenance of tourism business values and employment neutral Encouragement of industry investment somewhat met Improved communications Table 2. Ratings for Academic 'Best Practices' Criteria Rating Process Criteria Purpose and Incentives met The process is driven by a purpose/vision and task that

are real, practical and shared by the group. met Parties believe that a collaborative process offers the

best opportunity for addressing the issues, as opposed to

traditional processes. somewhat met Process provides incentives to participate and work

towards an agreement. Inclusive Representation not met All parties that are affected by, or that have an interest

in any agreement reached are given a chance to

participate. This includes parties needed to successfully

implement the agreement and parties who could undermine it

if not involved in the process. not met The process must incorporate the values held by different

stakeholders. Voluntary Participation and Commitment neutral Parties participate voluntarily. Participants remain free

to pursue other avenues if this process does not address

their interests. somewhat met All parties are supportive of the process and committed to

invest the time and resources necessary to make it work. Self-Design somewhat met The parties self-design the process, including the

mandate, agenda and issues, to suit the individual needs

of that process and its participants. somewhat met All parties have an equal opportunity to participate in

designing the process. Clear Ground Rules somewhat met There is a clear, written plan of action. not met The process is open, accessible and transparent. neutral The process is consistent between persons and across time. Equal Opportunity and Resources neutral All participants have the resources to participate

meaningfully. This means consideration is given to

providing training on consensus processes and negotiating

skills, and adequate and fair access to all relevant

information and expertise. not met The process provides opportunity for equal and effective

participation by all parties, by providing equal