1

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES HEALTHY FORESTS:

A Handbook on Social Monitoring for Forest Stewardship Council Certified Landowners,

Mendocino and Humboldt Counties, California

Prepared by Students in Social Policy for Sustainable Resource Use Anthropological Sciences 167/ 267, Stanford University

Dominique Irvine, Associate Professor, Consulting Spring 2008

DRAFT FOR REVIEW JUNE 10, 2008

Authors Elizabeth Amstutz

Chris Jacobson Rachel King

Matthew Mendiola Mac Parish

Linh Tran Heather West

Beth Wylie

2

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES, HEALTHY FORESTS A Handbook on Social Monitoring for Forest Stewardship Council Certified Landowners, Mendocino and Humboldt Counties, California

Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…. Social Monitoring…………………………………………………………………. I. Intra-Company Issues…………………………………………………………. I.A Worker Well-Being

1.A.1 The Importance of Defining and Monitoring Worker Well-Being I.A.2 Training and Safety: A Mechanism for Employee Buy-in and Long-Term Vision of Worker Well-Being………………………….…………

I.C Contract Labor…………………………………………………………………… II. Landowner-Community Relations….……………………………………… II.A Community Input

II.A1. Community Input for Large Landowners………….………………………… II.A2 Community Input for Small Landowners…………………………………….

II.B Forest Access…………………………………………………………………………… II.C Indigenous Peoples…………………………………………………………….

3

Introduction [Go To ToC]

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is a non-profit organization that promotes

responsible forest practices world wide by offering a sustainable forestry certification process

for landowners and forest managers. In this voluntary program, participating landowners and

forest mangers commit to being good stewards of their land and to contribute to the well-being

of the surrounding community. As a benchmark, the FSC has created a list of ten Principles

and Criteria that landowners must meet to become certified and to maintain their certification.

Woven throughout these Principle and Criteria is an emphasis on social benefits of

sustainability, particularly in the first five. Sustainable forestry provides social benefits to local

communities affected by forest management as well as economic advantages for those who

depend on the forests for their livelihood. By fostering a stable community, the social benefits

of sustainability reduce pressure on the forest and provide a more secure business environment

over the long term.

In the spring of 2008, students in the Anthropology class, Social Policy for Sustainable

Resource Use at Stanford University focused on forest certification and the social implications

of logging in Mendocino and Humboldt Counties where the timber industry has been in an

integral part of the culture for the past century and a half. During the 1980’s and 1990’s,

corporate purchases of large expanses of timberland resulted in drastic increases in harvest

levels, and the practices of logging companies in the area were called into question. Many

community members worried about the environmental health of the forests and the future of

their communities protested, and the divisions that ensued are widely known as the “Timber

Wars.” Since then a new generation of landowners has shown a commitment to minimizing

negative environmental impacts on their land, to being good neighbors, and to continuing to

make improvements. The degree of conflict in the region may be the reason that FSC

certification flourished here and many landowners and forest managers were early adopters in

the certification movement. The quantitative nature of measuring environmental impacts of

forestry has allowed interested parties to study and monitor the health of the environment as

required by FSC, but little has been done to monitor the social impacts of current practices.

Indeed framing the social aspects of sustainable forestry has been hard for local landowners

and managers to understand. We hope to identify these social impacts to landowners and forest

4

managers in hopes that they will continue to improve and enhance the communities in which

they live and the workplaces they create.

Using the FSC’s Principles and Criteria as a benchmark for our evaluations, this

handbook looks to identify some of the social impacts of forestry in Mendocino and Humboldt

Counties. Our goal is to offer suggestions for how these social issues can be monitored by

certified landowners, forest managers, and those hoping to become certified in the future to

help identify problems and improve practices. In some cases we have provided examples of

others who have successfully tackled these issues, with the understanding that every property

and community presents different challenges. We also included suggestions for creating

monitoring systems for different issues, though questions of scale did not allow us to create an

all-encompassing model for small and large landowners. We invite landowners and forest

managers to engage appropriate parties to develop their own solution and monitoring

mechanism for their property.

Our handbook is organized into two different sections; one section for issues between

landowners and communities and another for internal company issues. Within these two

sections, different members of the class have taken on the issues of community input, access,

indigenous right, worker well-being, and contract labor. This handbook is by no means a final

analysis or an exhaustive list of all social issues surrounding the forestry industry in

Mendocino and Humboldt County. We offer it as an initial product of our findings, in hopes

that our research provides a fresh perspective on some of the social implications of forestry and

logging that have gone overlooked. In reading this document, we hope that landowners and

forest managers take a deeper look at the social impacts of their timber policies and practices

and engage community members and employees in developing solutions. Ultimately our class

hopes that our work will serve as a catalyst for more research and dialogue of the social issues

affecting the forest industry.

5

Social Monitoring [Go to ToC]

FSC Principle 8 calls for monitoring of both environmental and social impacts. Adaptive

management and sustainable forestry are dependent on an understanding of these impacts.

Many landowners already incorporate a system of environmental monitoring into their

management. However, social issues and monitoring processes are not well understood. This

handbook will highlight a number of key social issues and social monitoring processes in the

context of Humboldt and Mendocino counties.

The diagram above represents the cycle of adaptive management using the Plan-Act-Evaluate

Framework.1 Social monitoring is a key component of evaluation.

Plan The first step in social monitoring is to engage a diversity of stakeholders from the

community or company in order to identify a problem and set priorities based on a common

vision. Stakeholders can be community members, landowners, or any other interested parties.

If all relevant stakeholders are not engaged, it limits the ability of those involved to accurately

1 http://communitiescommittee.org/fsitool/Chapter4.html

6

frame the issues and formulate a plan of action. Because each community is unique, there is no

one formula to engage stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders varies between large and small landowners. Large

landowners can host community meetings as an effective way to maintain a dynamic and

informed relationship with communities. However, it is unrealistic to require small landowners

to host community meetings as well. In order to keep communication pathways open between

small landowners and community members, it is advisable that small landowners seek input in

other ways. This can take the form of attending community meetings of larger landowners in

order to seek input to better gauge the problems at hand, or by making sure that there are

avenues of communication available. Once a problem is identified, the basic framework that

small and large landowners use to address the problem is similar.

Then all stakeholders should work together to create monitoring questions and indicators

that assess the current problem and actions taken to solve it. The use of indicators (or

benchmarks) is a major part of the plan-act-evaluate framework. Indicators help stakeholders

understand where they are, which way they are going, and how far they are from where they

want to be. These indicators are determined during the planning phase and utilized to evaluate a

course of action. Indicators are not “one size fits all,” rather they should be tailored to the

problem and the community.

The stakeholders can create a plan of action that focuses on how to better reach their

goals based on this discussion. Ideally this agreed plan of action is shaped and improved by the

opposing ideas and interests of the stakeholders.

Act This step of the framework involves implementation of the plan of action. The plan of

action can be a specific policy change (i.e. grant permits to neighbors for hiking) or even the

execution of a monitoring process itself.

Evaluate Evaluation involves the use of indicators defined in the planning steps to measure the

success of actions taken. The process never ends because results of the evaluation should

inform future plans and actions. It can lead to the modification of existing management plans,

policies, or projects as well as help identify completely new problems.

7

SECTION I

INTRA-COMPANY ISSUES [Go to ToC] I.A Worker Well-Being 1.A1 The Importance of Defining and Monitoring Worker Well-Being …………………. I.A.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….………… I.A.2 Worker Well-Being in MRC & MFP……………………………..…………. I.A.3 What Does “Worker Well-Being” Mean to You?.......................................... I.A.4 The Importance of Individual and Group Well-Being in the Workplace………………………………………………………….……….. I.A.5 Communication…………………………………………………….………. I.A.6 FSC Principles and Criteria……………………………………………… I.A.7 Approaching a Monitoring Process………………………………………… I.A2 Training and Safety: A Mechanism for Employee Buy-in and Long-Term Vision of Worker Well-Being………………………….…………. I.A.21 Background to Intra-Company Worker Well-Being: Safety and Training…………………………………………………………. I.A.22 FSC Stance on Safety Training and Education…………………...………… I.A.23 A Plan for Monitoring “Buy-In” of Employees Through Safety and Training…………………………………………………………. I.A.23.1 History…………………………………………………….…………… I.A.23.2 Plan, Act, and Evaluate………………………………….…………….. Supplemental Information……………………………………...………………… I.C Contract Labor…………………………………………………………………… I.C.1 Introduction to the Problems and Issues……………………………………. I.C.1.1 Seasonality…………………………………………………………….. I.C.1.2 Job Instability………………………………………………………….. I.C.1.2.a Turnover and Safety……………………………………………… I.C.1.2.b Variation in Amount of Work……………………………………. I.C.1.2.c Variation in Timing of Work………...…………………………... I.C.2 FSC Certification……………………………...……………………………. I.C.3 Approaching Monitoring……………………………..…………………….. I.C.3.1 Focusing the Problem…………………………….……………………. I.C.3.2 Engaging the Community……………………………...……………… I.C.3.3 Defining a Vision and Goals…………………………...……………… I.C.3.4 Measuring Progress…………………………………..…………………

Supplemental Information………………………………………...………………

8

Section I.A. [Go to ToC] Worker Well-Being: The Importance of Defining and Monitoring a Broad-Reaching Issue by Elizabeth Amstutz I.A.1. Introduction

“Worker well-being” is an umbrella term that can refer to a spectrum of different issues,

including but not limited to workplace satisfaction, job stability, and a competitive salary and

benefits package for employees. While the issue of worker well-being is an essential one to

consider for all employers and employees, this analysis will be focused primarily on the sister

organizations of the Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC) and Mendocino Forest Products

(MFP). Their case may serve as an example from which both large and small landowners in the

Mendocino region (the companies in question included) may take home lessons on the

importance of understanding and upholding this ephemeral principle of “worker well-being”.

I.A.2. Worker Well-Being in MRC & MFP

As it stands, sources interviewed within the management2 of MRC and MFP indicate that

there is no company policy defining the term “worker well-being.” What does exist is a broad set

of practices and policies to support workers in their personal and professional lives. Both

companies offer competitive benefits packages to their workers, which are reevaluated on a

regular basis. According to management in both MRC and MFP, there is an emphasis on “doing

what is best for the workers and their families” – be that picking up the increased cost of

healthcare or simply making sure that workers get through the work day safely. In terms of job

satisfaction and personal growth, MRC and MFP have both an open-door policy for employees

to express concerns to their supervisors, as well as 1-on-1 semi-annual performance reviews and

salary reassessments scheduled on a sliding time scale. Management characterizes employee

interactions as mainly professional, though some groups of employees (such as wildlife

technicians) forming closer personal bonds faster than others. Though there was some

community animosity towards MRC soon after they purchased Louisiana Pacific’s lands in the 2 Interviews with Mike Jani (MRC President), Mike Benetti (MFP Senior Vice-President), Sarah Billig (Stewardship Director), and Adam Steinbuck (Timberlands Manager) occurred between April 30 and May 22, 2008.

9

mid-1990’s, current management’s perception is that workers have no conflicts with other

members of the community, and that this is no longer a source of stress for their employees.

Based on anecdotal information, management believes that MFP and MRC employees are

generally content. (Due to time and protocol constraints, I was not able to get any comments

from non-management level employees.)

I.A.3. What does “worker well-being” mean to you?

Discussions with MRC and MFP management for this project have revealed that there

appears to be a lack of periodic, physical documentation in a number of areas related to worker

well-being, including a quantifiable method for comparing workers’ feelings of job satisfaction

throughout their time with the company. In other words, there are no physical surveys or

questionnaires for workers to annually (or semi-annually) rate their workplace satisfaction. As

such, MRC and MFP do not have a way to realistically compare how effective their policies to

promote “worker well-being” are from one worker to the next, or even from one year to the next.

All information is currently anecdotal, which, while certainly important, may not give the full

picture and does not allow comparison due to the lack of a common well-being rating scale

between individuals. At the root of this issue is the fact that there is no single definition of

“worker well-being” within MRC and MFP. As I will discuss later, it is important to clarify what

the ultimate goal is (i.e. what is this “worker well-being” that the members of the company are

working to support?) in order to take steps toward that goal.

I.A.4. The Importance of Individual and Group Well-Being in the Workplace

As a general rule, the importance of a good work environment should not be

underestimated as a factor contributing to the success of an organization. It is even more

important when new workers are being integrated and/or when landowners are in the process of

expanding their operations. Recent studies indicate that employees who experience interpersonal

conflict and bullying are more likely to quit their jobs, as are those who have problems with their

immediate supervisors3. Sociologist Emile Durkheim suggests that individuals who do not feel

3 J. Chamberlin, A. Novotney, E. Packard and M. Price. “Enhancing worker well-being: Occupational health psychologists convene to share their research on work, health, and stress.” Monitor on Psychology. Volume 39, No. 5, May 2008: 26-. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/05/workstress.html

10

well integrated into society or the workforce will suffer from anomie – a feeling of alienation and

purposelessness – and will subsequently manifest decreased productivity. Such decreased

productivity is to the detriment of company output and individual job satisfaction. In this vein, it

is incumbent upon forest management and timber processing organizations of all sizes to

maintain communication with all employees, to document and track both positive and negative

quantifiable input on workplace satisfaction, and to emphasize the importance of individual and

team contributions during meetings and supervisor-employee interactions. (Though contractors

are not covered in this section of analysis, this advice should also be kept in mind when

considering their specific case.) When monitoring the long-term trajectory of worker satisfaction

within the company (information which, if properly compiled and analyzed, is a valuable

indicator to both the company in question and the surrounding community), it is important also

to maintain something of a paper trail, including statistics and written feedback from individuals

which may be collected during performance reviews and upon entrance and exit from the

company.

I.A.5. Communication

In the case of many FSC certified organizations, great leaps forward have been observed

in terms of workers’ rights and the viability of operations. According to a study on the global

impacts of SmartWood certification, some of the most prevalent impacts of certification included

an “increased understanding of operation profitability and efficiency.”4 In the case of Mendocino

Redwood Company and Mendocino Forest Products, certification has bolstered their relationship

with Home Depot, giving them shelf space, but not a premium income due to limited consumer

demand for certified products. Given the mixed economic results of certification in this and other

contexts, it is important to consider the perspective of the sawmill or distribution center worker

who, as multiple sources5 within MFP and MRC suggest, may only see the hurdles attached to

certification and not the underlying benefits.6 Company policy related to certification is an area

where communication does not seem to be as strong between the upper and lower echelons of

4 Hewitt, Daphne and Deanna Newsom. “The Global Impacts of SmartWood Certification.” TREES Program. The Rainforest Alliance. 9 June 2005. 4 These are again the perceptions of management-level representatives, not sawmill or distribution center workers. 6 I do not wish to assert that certification has absolute, proven benefits; I do not believe that there is enough information at this point to make such a definite assessment. However, the underlying tenets that must be upheld by landowners to gain certification are beneficial on multiple levels.

11

management and employees. Due to the lack of readily quantifiable data on worker satisfaction

(as addressed above), the exact implications of this knowledge barrier on job satisfaction among

sawmill and distribution center workers are unclear.

I.A.6. FSC Principles and Criteria • FSC Principle 4 states that “Forest management operations shall maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic well-being of forest workers and local communities.”

The term “forest workers” should be interpreted as referring to not only those persons working

directly on forest lands, but also all of those who work in the mills, distribution plants, and

associated organizations. In order to maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic

well-being of these individuals, communication at all levels is key. Workers should be given the

information to understand why their organizations have chosen to become certified, and more

importantly what sustainable forestry means in terms of job stability and improvements to their

own quality of life.

•As section 4.3 of the Pacific Coast (USA) Forest Stewardship Standard indicates, workers need to feel comfortable in the workplace and know that there is a system in place to handle any internal conflicts that may arise.

(In the case of Mendocino Redwood Company/Mendocino Forest Products, a functioning policy

for conflict resolution is clearly defined and in place.) It is in the interest of certified

organizations to not only maintain the well-being of their workers, but to focus on enhancing that

well-being via active engagement in the certification process. It is important to remember that

workers are themselves stakeholders, and as such the FSC standards would see their consistent

engagement and feedback on the practices of their company.

12

I.A.7. Approaching a monitoring process

The issue of worker well-being is important to employees at all levels of a company – from

the president of the organization to the new hire at the sawmill. It is a question of maintaining

and improving the atmosphere of an organization for the benefit of the company as a whole as

well as for the positive experience of individuals. What follows are guidelines for approaching

the problem I have identified, acting on that problem, and evaluating the results.

• Problem: A lack of physical documentation and quantifiable analysis of “worker well-

being” [workers’ job satisfaction/input] over time within MRC and MFP.

• Actions: Discuss the definition or vision of worker well-being within the company.

This discussion should engage representatives from all different levels of the workforce

(president, stewardship director, HR representative, sawmill workers, distribution center

workers, wildlife technicians, etc.), as well as a third party expert in wellness or a related

field.

• Product: A definition or vision of worker well-being with a set of specific indicators

(e.g. satisfaction with employee-employee interactions, satisfaction with healthcare

options, etc.). These indicators should be all of the things that were identified as

contributing to worker well-being during the company-wide discussion.

• Evaluation: Implementation of entrance and exit assessments for all employees, and

annual quantifiable surveys/input based on the indicators of worker well-being previously

identified. These might include such things as questions eliciting a percentage of

satisfaction with different elements of the workplace (salary, benefits packages,

employee-employee interaction, supervisor-employee interaction, pride in product, pride

in process, individual position within the company), as well as yes/no and open-ended

questions.

The bottom line: Worker well-being is a complex issue. In order to address it, a company must first define what it means and how it can be measured. This definition should be the result of a company-wide discussion, incorporating the input from different levels of employees. With a definition in hand, the company must then regularly solicit input from its employees in the form of quantifiable (numerical) ratings based on the indicators of worker well-being that have been identified. This input can then be used in assessment and advancement of company policies, leading to enhanced worker and company well-being.

13

Section I.A2.

Training and Safety: A mechanism for employee buy-in and long-term vision of worker well-being

by Heather West

I.A.1. Background to Intra-Company worker well-being: safety and training

Worker well-being is enhanced when a company provides a safe work environment and

opportunities for workers to improve and advance their skills on the job. A company benefits

from increased well-being as safety and training can create an atmosphere where an employee

buys into the company policies and the future of the company. The last section explained:

“satisfied workers are more likely to produce a higher standard of performance and stay with

an organization longer.”7 Safety and training can be used to create an open, communicative

atmosphere where the employee buys into the company policies and thus has a stake in the

future of the company.

Within all forest companies there is a delegation of work and a separation of duties,

making communication key to all interactions. In order to achieve a high level of worker well-

being, forest managers8 must be actively involved in safety training, sustainable forestry

education, and educational advancement programs for employees. In other words, safety

training and education need to encompass all aspects of how a company runs and thinks. Gaps

in communication can result in higher incidences of safety violations as well as decreased

productivity and worker well-being.

Fortunately, Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC) and Mendocino Forest Products

(MFP) already have a safety program in place. In April of 2008, Mendocino Redwood

Company implemented a new safety program based on Dupont’s STOP safety training

observation programs. Dupont explains the program’s basic premise as follows:

7 Skinner, N. (2005) Workforce Development TIPS (Theory Into Practice Strategies) Chapter 13. Retrieved April 30, from: http://www.nceta.flinders.edu.au/pdf/TIPS/13-Worker_Wellbeing.pdf. 8 Forest managers are defined by the FSC as “the people responsible for the operational management of the forest resource and of the enterprise, as well as the management system and structure, and the planning and field operations” (**citation: FSC Principles & Criteria, Appendix A)

14

STOP trains each member of the line management organization to take responsibility for eliminating employee incidents and injuries by skillfully observing people as they work, talking with them in a caring and positive manner to correct unsafe acts, prevent injuries and reinforce safe work practices. STOP builds a common understanding and commitment to safety in the work place.9

MRC actively incorporates all members of the company by training all workers at the same

time to create a new safety culture. “STOP is about getting people more involved in finding

themselves within the company and to build communication.”10 Adam Steinbuck, the

Timberlands Manager of MRC, stated that in order to get a swell of safety awareness or safety

culture developed, it must come from within, and so the program is being rolled out in each

area of land management of MRC.11

In keeping with their goal of open communication, MRC also currently has a program in

place called the Employee Development Program (EDP). The program involves an employee

mapping out personal goals for his or her future within the company. The process involves the

employee discussing: here is what I am learning, this is where I see myself in the future, and

here is what I need to do to get there.12 EDP is a major step towards a greater understanding of

training for the employee, as he or she becomes a part of a sustainable company culture.

As a company morphs, maintaining or improving worker well-being is essential; high

standards of safety and training can contribute to this goal. As mentioned in the prior section, a

clear definition of worker well-being must be established before further programs can be

established to enhance worker well-being. The next section discusses the FSC Principle and

Criteria that are already in place regarding worker well-being, safety, and training.

Bottom Line: Safety education, training, and development programs must be monitored and made a part of a company’s plan to increase worker well-being.

9Retrieved April 30, 2008 from: http://www2.dupont.com/Safety_Products/en_US/products/programs_training/stop_supervision.html. 10 S. Billig, personal communications, May 20, 2008. 11 A. Steinbuck, personal communications, May 22, 2008. 12 S. Billig, personal communications, May 20, 2008.

15

I.A.2. FSC stance on safety training and education

The Forest Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria13 outlines responsibilities that

forest management and workers must follow in order to obtain and maintain certification.

Overall worker well-being, as well as education and safety training are significant themes in

the following principles or criteria:

FSC’s Principle 4 deals specifically with the importance of worker well-being. Within

the U.S. National Indicators, Principle 4.1.a. outlines specific areas on which an employer

should focus in order to enhance worker well-being:

Forest work is packaged and offered in ways that create quality work opportunities for employees, contractors and their workers. For example, quality work can include the following attributes:

• Employee and contractor relationships that are long term and stable • A mixture of diverse tasks requiring varying skill levels • Opportunities for advancement • A comprehensive package of benefits • Opportunities for employee and contractor participation in decision-making

The FSC states clearly the importance of “quality work opportunities” without stating that

“quality work” will directly correlate to enhanced worker well-being. It is important that FSC

also left these examples broad because it is important for each company to develop their own

programs.

I.A.3. A plan for monitoring “buy-in” of employees through safety and training

Getting employees to buy-in to a company program can be difficult, but this is not the

biggest problem. Having a larger vision of worker well-being is very important when

implementing programs for employee development and safety.

13 Appendix A.

16

EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT

WORKER WELL-BEING BUY-IN SAFETY TRAINING

In order for a company to create long-term worker well-being, it must define a vision of worker

well-being.14 From there, the company must develop a plan to enhance worker well-being, put

that plan into action, and evaluate the measures developed in the planning phase. Safety

programs and education or employee development programs can be used as the mechanism for

this process so that both employees and employers, the stakeholders in this case, are involved

in the future of the company. This section aims to give an example of this process. I will begin

by looking at the transition that occurred in July 1998 when MRC took over Louisiana Pacific

lands in Mendocino County.

I.B.3.1 History

Any time there is a change in management there are many unknowns. At MRC, the

change that occurred for most employees of LP was that a new management plan was rolled

out, and it was a plan into which all employees had a lot of input. The key employment change

that occurred in the transition was that MRC hired a new resource manager, but the entirety of

the LP staff stayed on, according to Adam Steinbuck. Educating the old LP workforce about

the new MRC culture did not simply result in policies created solely by the new management.

For example, according to Steinbuck, the idea to move from clear-cutting to variable retention

of tan oaks came from an old LP employee. As this example demonstrates, the development of

a company must be planned in order that a forum is given for all employees to be creative and

instrumental in that change. The inclusive process will allow employees to have a stake in the

future of the company, thus increasing worker well-being, and ultimately benefiting the

employer.

The task of developing a social monitoring tool for worker well-being is challenging,

14 Refer to I.A. as well as reference list at the end of this section

17

particularly when a company has existed without one. MRC’s challenge is to create a

monitoring tool that allows it to make changes to its employee programs to better achieve the

goal of enhanced worker well-being. A process in which a company plans, acts, and evaluates

creates a framework for monitoring worker well-being over time.

I.B.3.2. Plan, Act, and Evaluate

In the planning process, the first step is to engage stakeholders. All employees from

management to foresters (everyone!) should have input. In the past MRC has viewed this

process as buy-in, which is only one mechanism of worker well-being. Acting on these plans is

the next step and involves making the education and training available for employees realize

their goals. In addition, the acting step involves taking employee suggestions about training

programs and applying them. The third step in a monitoring program involves taking a step

back and evaluating the planning and acting process: ask “how effective have I/we been in

improving worker well-being through employee development programs?”

Questions that might be asked during the evaluation processes are:

1. How much input did workers/employees have in the initial process? Change must come

from within and visions for the future must be believed in and balanced across company

lines.

2. Are employee ideas still brought heard when defining management plans? Acting is an

ongoing process. EDP evaluations, whose frequency should be decided in the planning

stage, are important for employees to define their own goals within a company and to

give them a long-term vision. In addition, a process for incorporating changes into

existing programs should be established.

3. Are employees actively involved in safety education and training processes? To create a

safety culture all employees must buy into the culture and process.

Bottom Line: Engagement of all employees within a company ultimately leads to increased worker well-being, a united company culture, and a long-term vision of the future of the company. By planning employee development programs with the principle of worker well-being in mind, acting on those plans, and eventually evaluating individual and company progress, worker well-being will become a part of company culture.

18

Supplemental Information -This website contains a list of questions that a company should address when thinking about worker well-being: http://www.baldrige21.com/05%20CRITERIA%20BUSINESS/05%20CI%20Item%205.3.html

19

Section I.B.

Contract Labor [Go to ToC]

By Matthew Mendiola

I.B.1 Introduction to the Problems and Issues

The infrastructure for forest operations in timber companies today on the North Coast

has now considerably lessened, and by some accounts in interviews, has been lost entirely.

Companies in both Mendocino and Humboldt once carried out a full range of operations,

including the actual forestry, in house. Starting in the 1970s, timber companies started

contracting out some of their operations. This, according to the same sources, was coupled with

a growing Hispanic population that shifted from agriculture to forestry work. This trend

became apparent not only on the North Coast in Mendocino and Humboldt, but also throughout

the Pacific Northwest15.

Today, an increasing trend towards contracting has led to the development of complex

and sensitive issues revolving around this Hispanic workforce. Today, this population provides

many services, including: logging and extraction, distribution, tree planting, brush removal,

herbicide application, and vegetation management. This work is largely seasonal and at times

uncertain. Since the certification movement in the 1990s in both Humboldt and Mendocino

counties, forest operations large and small have had a difficult time assessing the place of

contracted labor within the certification system. Contract labor is not directly assessed under

the certification system, but the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) attempts to provide some

protection of contract labor which is discussed in the section entitled FSC.

For an analysis and discussion of labor statistics indicating the move towards either

contract labor and/or the general decline of jobs for the timber industry please see the

Supplemental Information located near the end of this section[SI.A].

15 Brown, Beverly et al. (2004). Contract forest laborers in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. Jefferson Center for Education and Research, retrieved from <http://www.jeffctr.org/docs/Contract%20Forest%20Laborers.pdf>

20

For a discussion on the background information collected on contractors, please see the

Supplemental Information section located near the end of this section[SI.B]. This may be a

helpful reference as both an introduction and accompanying material to the presentation of

problems below.

I.B.1.1 Seasonality

Seasonality has been a common feature of the timber industry affecting the job market.

The same data used for the general analysis of jobs located in the appendix also shows

seasonality, which is discussed in the Supplemental Information section [SI.C]. The place of

the contractor within this system of seasonality becomes vitally important when viewing long

term stability of the community and as some informants have mentioned, one of the keys to the

survival and stability of the timber industry.

Seasonality is driven by many factors including logging restrictions and regulations,

and market forces. Logging regulation comes in a variety of forms which are largely

environmental: Osprey nesting, Spotted Owl nesting, Marbled Murrelet nesting, botanical

considerations, riparian habitat considerations, and one unregulated but restrictive one which is

weather/wetness.

The impact of actions taken by regulators on the scheduling of forest operations was

mentioned in virtually all interviews and accounts. Wetness is linked to the start of the season

and the ability to work, because safety issues present themselves when the weather is wet. One

contractor also mentioned this factor being more important at the end of season, noting that

typically biological considerations are more important at the beginning in halting operations.

Operations can be halted because of the weather, though tractor loggers are usually able to

continue in the wet, though cable loggers are not.

According to forest managers interviewed, biological considerations on a site can be at

the scale of the forest stand or specific to a protected species, but issues raised can postpone

logging in a stand anywhere from a few weeks to 3 months affecting both the contractor and

forest management. Forest managers mentioned lags due to agency paperwork or to the

identification of a sensitive species. For plant species, this might mean waiting for blooming,

and for other species it might mean waiting until agencies allow them to work on a specific

21

area.

Riparian habitat considerations often require assessments and are also quite variable

and dependent upon each stream habitat. The forest manager may decide to leave an area

alone once these considerations are taken into account leaving a contractor to either move to

another project available or to another job with a different forestry management group.

These environmental regulations are some of the causes of seasonality of logging

operations. This situation also leads to job flux, which is discussed in the next subsection.

Given this problem of seasonality for logging, which is structurally built in to the timber

industry, many companies and contractors have tried to address it.

Large landowners and managers often try to guarantee a certain amount of work before

the season starts. Typically both large landowners/managers have greater resources and can

balance contract labor seasonality by offering more year-round work in the off-season.

Through Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs], larger size holding or managing organizations

can actually push logging start times up compared to smaller forestry management and are less

burdened by agency regulation. This situation described by small forestry management groups

often results in the best quality contactors getting tied up by larger groups who also typically

offer more work.

Contracting groups also work on bridging seasonality. One group works to attain 3

million board feet worth of work in a season to reasonably keep the company afloat and able to

pay the labor. Another contractor mentioned that they seek out work in non-timber industries

such as ranching, which requires a similar skill set for vegetation management. Even with these

two accounts however, more information is needed on how many are affected by seasonality

and the extent to which certain types of labor are less prone to seasonality, though it was

mentioned that heavy equipment operators can often do maintenance in the off-season. One

key informant noted that some enter the construction industry.

I.B.1.2 Job Instability

I.B.1.2.a Turnover and Safety

A second larger issue was identified around turnover within the contracted labor. There

22

is a great deal of variation within the Hispanic workforce according to people I interviewed,

ranging from permanent workers with greater English-speaking abilities to those with a high

turnover rate and less familiarity with English. One key informant noted that high turnover

exists in more labor intensive, difficult, or undesired contractual jobs such as herbicide

application, but more information is needed on the specifics of other types of labor.

More transient workers with higher turnover according to one small-scale forest

manager and one contractor often translates into language barriers and communication

problems. One contractor noted that contract laborers with poor English skills may not

understand what needs to be done, which was unproductive. He also notes that these workers

need more training, which is an inefficient use of time. This is clearly a problem for contract

laborers in terms of safety and presents the problem. Addressing the problem of high turnover

and giving perhaps a low level worker a greater stake within the contractor group would.

For larger scale operations, a Spanish speaking supervisor is sometimes integrated into

a site, working for the forest management group aimed at helping the process of understanding

what needs to get done at a site. The efficacy of this position remains questionable since in

some instances in practice this person was not on site.

I.B.1.2.b Variation in amount of work

Yearly variation in the number of contractors employed by forest management groups

also seems to affect the contracting groups. Things that affect employment of contractors

according to forest managers of all sizes are market conditions and various economic

underpinnings. Forest managers often vary the number of contractors they hire from year to

year because of increased costs (such as gas prices) or instability in timber markets. These

factors also affect the amount of work contracted out, and the type of contract work required,

so the effects vary among types of contractors. One forest manager mentioned specifically that

because of the combination of costs and market conditions, use of contractors for this year

would be significantly less, whereas in more stable times he would employ double the number

of contractors.

23

Summary of Problems • Seasonality created by logging regulation causes gaps

when a contractor can work • High turnover creates job instability for the long term and

also has safety implications revolving around training and language

• Variability in the amount of work yearly and variability in the timing of work yearly contributes to job instability

I.B.1.2.c Variation in timing of work

As mentioned earlier, environmental restrictions can also lead to halted jobs for forestry

management groups, which can mean halts for contract laborers doing the work. According to

one contractor, laborers were more affected near the end of the season when early rains can

cause a premature end to logging. Contractors are often shifted to another job with the same

forest manager or seek other opportunity with another forest manager, which in a recent

interview had occurred for one small forest manager. These halts and postponements seem to

affect the forest managers more since they are dependent upon contractor services and it does

seem that contract labor does have some ability to buffer themselves for these lags, delays, or

altogether cancellations. More information would be needed to assess its prevalence and

priority as an issue.

I.B.2 FSC Certification

Principle 4 of the FSC’s Principles and Criteria is the national level principle that houses

many of the attempts of the FSC to cover the role of the contractor. A listing of the Principles

including Principle 4 can be found in the Appendix. The Criteria that relate to contract

employees are the following: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.5. The specific Pacific Coast indicators for

these criteria, which are regional benchmarks that cover Mendocino and Humboldt Counties,

are:

24

List of Criteria and Pacific Coast Standards’ Indicators

The way in which managers comply is variable and not necessarily formalized in policy.

Safety concerns are generally self-regulated by contractors and they follow OSHA

requirements. Most safety issues seem to revolve around language since the Hispanic workforce

extensively uses Spanish. Small-scale forest managers generally have informal safety

procedures, if any, and supervision is largely relegated to a supervisor from the contracting

group, often times an owner of the business. They often employ such practices as teaming up

laborers placing an English-speaking laborer with a non-speaking or low level knowledge of

English laborer to compensate. For larger managers and companies of forestry management as

Criteria 4.1. The communities within, or adjacent to, the forest management area should be given opportunities for employment, training, and other services. 4.1.a. Forest work is packaged and offered in ways that create a high-quality work environment for employees, contractors, and their employees. 4.1.d. Forest owners or managers use qualified local foresters, loggers, and contractors. Forest managers and their contractors give preference to qualified local workers. 4.1.f. Forest owners or managers and their contractors comply with the letter and intent of applicable state and federal labor laws and regulations Criteria 4.2. Forest management should meet or exceed all applicable laws and/or regulations covering health and safety of employees and their families. 4.2.a. The forest owner or manager and their contractors develop and implement safety programs and procedures. Criteria 4.3. The rights of workers to organize and voluntarily negotiate with their employers shall be guaranteed as outlined in Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization (ILO). 4.3.a. Forest owners or managers and their contractors develop effective mechanisms to resolve disputes between workers and management. Criteria 4.4. Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of social impact. Consultation shall be maintained with people and groups directly affected by management operations. Criteria 4.5 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed for resolving grievances and for providing fair compensation in the case of loss or damage affecting the legal or customary rights, property, resources, or livelihoods of local peoples. Measures shall be taken to avoid such loss or damage.

4.5.b. Forest owners or managers and their contractors have adequate liability insurance.

25

mentioned earlier, there are questions about the efficacy of supervisory positions that are

mandated to deal with the problem of communication. However, in the Pacific Coast Standards,

language resources are mentioned to be used “as needed” under indicator 4.3.a.

Foresters and contractors mentioned a culture of safety for contracting groups because

of extremely expensive and costly liability insurance. Because it is so costly to have unsafe

contractors, managers mentioned safety is adequate and they cannot afford to hire unsafe

contractors.

Local area employment is complex, given the potential semi-permanent nature of the

workforce. More information would be needed to assess the true social and economic input

into the local community this population has year round.

Most forest managers and contractors noted that they rarely come into conflict with one

another; most managers evaluate a contractor after a season and will not rehire if the work is

not satisfactory. Within a contractor group, one contractor mentioned he had not experienced

such conflicts, but mentioned he was not sure how other contractors dealt with it. More

research in this area within a contracting company is needed, though it seems for a contractor-

forest management relationship, conflict largely arises out of misunderstanding or a difference

in what was expected versus what the work should have been in actuality. One manager

mentioned a holdback clause, which allows him to holdback a small percentage of biweekly

pay until the contractor can complete the work satisfactorily.

Some management groups also have their own informal policies to help promote

contract laborer experience, for instance, allowing a contractor group to take ownership of

solving a problem out in the field. This informal practice seems to be positive for both parties,

and also, small managers noted the extensive experience and knowledge of contract laborers.

It’s important to note that the way in which a certified manager complies with FSC is

partially left up to the way contractor groups regulate themselves, as well as the way they see

fit in complying with the Pacific Coast indicators. In all cases, it seems largely informal, but

relatively functional. Issues surrounding language seem to be a place where improvement

might be needed. It is clear however that more information is needed on the way in which other

forestry management groups handle satisfying FSC requirements.

26

I.B.3 Approaching Monitoring

To generally frame the monitoring section, the structure and ideas used by the Seventh

American Forest Congress Communities Committee was utilized. The process is outlined

through the subsections that follow using the example of seasonal gaps in work availability to

show the process and a related framework that could be developed to address this problem. A

similar process could be used for other problems identified in the earlier section.

I.B.3.1 Focusing the Problem

Because of various logging restrictions, there are gaps in the year when a contract

laborer can work.

I.B.3.2 Engaging the community

The problem of seasonality most directly affects the contract laborer and contractor

group. It’s important to distinguish the head of a contracting company and the labor for the

purposes of this discussion. The owner of a contracting group is a permanent community

member, and appears more able to buffer his income with off-season work, such as machinery

maintenance. The situation with Hispanic laborers is less clear, but they obviously have a

stake in this community problem. Questions that remain include the permanency of Hispanic

laborers in the community and whether they can find alternative work for the off-season.

Indications are that they are increasingly permanent members of the community. Other

stakeholders would clearly be forest managers who are dependent upon these contracting

groups.

For the purpose of this example problem, the wider neighboring communities are also a

crucial element to bring to the table. This would undoubtedly include ranchers and industries

that current logging contractors seek out during the off-season, for instance, vegetation

management, which requires similar skills to ones used for timber harvesting and extraction.

Competitive industries like construction and agriculture could also be represented, as they

could provide alternative jobs for contract laborers in the logging industry.

Representation from a group with interests in local job sustainability might also provide

assistance or knowledge, like the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs in Humboldt County. In

Mendocino this is less clear, but the Mendocino Environmental Center might be a reference

point to center on though job sustainability seems less their focus. MendoFutures, which has

27

had representatives from many of these industries, might also be another group that could

address this issue on a larger, community scale.

The roles of each of these community members and potential impacts will be discussed

more clearly in the next section. For the purposes of size, this framework is meant as a scalable

measure; for small landowners it would ideally be a joint process though it could be adapted to

suit one forest manager who might have several contractors—this might be problematic since

contractors are often shared between managers. For larger managers and companies, it might

be a little easier to facilitate this framework given the extensive personnel and resources they

typically have.

I.B.3.3 Defining a Vision and Goals

The first need identified was one which requires more specifics about the problem. The

first step in any evaluation of the problem is the need to gather more information. This step

would elucidate: who is most affected by the problem, what types of contractors or contract

laborers are more prone to seasonality, what do laborers do in the off-season, what have forest

managers done to try and alleviate the problems, and what are possible avenues to explore for

bridging seasonality. Though some of these issues are raised in this paper, they only represent a

fraction of the actual variation that might exist in the logging industry. Since for instance in

Mendocino the number of contracting groups is relatively small (estimates of 10-15), it would

be feasible to collect information over a given season that would provide a good representation

of the situation of contract laborers in the local industry.

Collection of this information could be done formally through a survey, given at the time

a forestry manager discusses the written contract for a job or maybe at the end of the season,

using the contract owner or supervisor as an informant. Other formal ways might be

distributing this survey to employees of contracting groups though this might be challenging

given language issues, though it could also be produced in Spanish. However, interviews may

be a more appropriate method, involving informal discussion with contract laborer divisions,

for instance a yarder group, where a group of workers might be in similar positions in terms of

skills and seasonal work. By examining these divisions, more information could be collected to

refine our understanding of the problem. Each of these methods could be relatively low cost in

execution.

28

The next step would be compiling the information and determining the extent of the

problem, then exploring the options based on that assessment. Forestry management groups or

the contracting groups themselves might coordinate this. Each has a vested interest in getting

this information as well as helping alleviate problems associated with seasonality. Workshops

or group meetings might be best for exploring options. Compiling the information into a

distributable document would require the initiative of someone either from the contractor or

management side, but the benefits of knowing this information could be incorporated into a

management group’s assessment of the FSC Pacific Standards as the aim of collecting this data

is to look at questions of the stability of the workers in the local community. This work might

also be done by community interest groups.

Once compiled, discussion and exploration would be the next steps towards managing

the impacts of seasonality. This is where the wider community could participate, for example,

through workshops or consultations. Alternative and competitive industries seem largely absent

in discussion with the logging industry yet it seems that there are contractual workers who

move into these industries after or during the season. Discussing ideas for management of

seasonality could be fruitful depending on the specifics of the problem. Groups that have

interests in sustainable jobs might also be able to provide consultation and advice as well as

assistance in obtaining all the components of this framework. Given that some organizations

like the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs are interested in promoting the same ideals outlined in

this process, there might be a level of cooperation that could help this process gain momentum.

I.B.3.4 Measuring Progress

Evaluation is the key to any type of framework of problem solving or monitoring of

problems. Given the previous sections, there is a clear need for a process to take place:

information gathering, compiling, and examination and exploration. The final step would be to

evaluate how well this process is working as well as how useful the information is. This could

be difficult, but a relatively simple indicator might be examining the turnover through this

process either formally or informally. The turnover is related to seasonality and job stability;

finding ways to keep forest workers involved in stable jobs which will cover the entire year is

29

crucial from keeping them from going into competitive industries during the season, for

instance marijuana cultivation, and also from migrating after the season. The information

gathering process could be adapted to cover this monitoring to include looking at the rate of

turnover within groups and whether or not exploration for avenues of work were fruitful in

increasing the overall ability for laborers to have jobs year round and a greater stake in the

local community.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Discussion of either the trend toward contract labor or the loss of jobs in forestry and

logging.

In the state of California, numbers and information gathered by the Labor Market

Information Division [LMID] of the Employment Development Department [EDD] help

explain the magnitude of forestry and logging jobs, show a comparison of the jobs through

time, help show the seasonality of the timber industry, and help provide insight into this trend

toward contractual labor.

According to the LMID numbers, there were 870 annual average jobs available in 1990

in the Natural Resources and Mining industry in Mendocino of which the largest and most

significant contribution was from forestry and logging, followed by fishing.16 This number has

dropped dramatically at the present time; figures for 2007 place the annual average at 370 jobs,

a 57% drop since 1990. This general trend is similar in Humboldt County with a decrease of

43%, from 700 to 400 jobs over the same time period.17

Although these trends could be indicative of decreasing jobs in the forestry and logging

industry, they also could be indicative of the continual move towards contract labor, which is

categorized under another large, growing, and expansive sector of Professional and Business

Services, which unfortunately has no breakdowns by operation [for instance Forest and

Logging] for industry data. Interestingly, the main economic indicators show that today,

16 Labor Market Information Division. (2007). retrieved from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/mendohaw.xls 17 Labor Market Information Division. (2007). retrieved from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/humbohaw.xls

30

tourism in Mendocino is the most significant industry, while in Humboldt, the industries are

much more diversified18,19.

Background to Contract Labor

1. Organization

Contracting companies on the North Coast are often family owned businesses, but there

exist a variety of companies in addition to these. One key informant noted that as Hispanic

workers become more permanent members of the community that they are also becoming

contractors themselves: for example, one contractor group helped some of its Hispanic workers

to learn the ropes of the business and to acquire ownership when they retired. Small forest

managers mentioned that the constituents of this contract labor workforce are diverse in terms

of length of stay: some are semi-permanent green card holders while others are part of the

permanent population.

2. Types of work

Interviews have shown that contract labor generally falls into two categories: degree-

holding professionals with specific jobs such as archaeologist or biologist, and the

predominately Hispanic non-professional workforce. For the purposes of discussion, the former

was left out of analysis since preliminary inquiry noted this group was specialized enough to

have stable work year round. Industries that compete for workers with contractors include:

construction, which pays more on average, illegal marijuana growing and extraction, and

agriculture, such as neighboring vineyard work.

3. History

Small forest managers talked about working with some contracting groups for as long as

15-30 years. Though not much is known on the specific details of the history of contracting

groups, from accounts in the Mendocino area there are approximately 10-15 contractor groups.

One forest manager mentioned that because of this small number, it’s not really a competitive

18 Labor Market Information Division. (2006). Mendocino County Snapshot, retrieved from www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/cosnaps/mendoSnap.pdf 19 Mullins, Dennis. (2008). A look at our labor market presentation, retrieved from http://www.humboldtwib.com/files_public/HUMBOLDTWIB4_2008.pdf

31

business where you might see more complex bidding and optimization. It is rather simple and

largely based on historical ties.

Trend of Seasonality in the Labor Statistics

From the same set of data on labor, one can view monthly data for Mendocino and

Humboldt from 1990 onwards—one clearly notes significant increases in Natural Resources

and Mining industry job numbers in May and decreases in December which follow the typical

season for timber harvesting, which runs from mid April to mid October or November. The

seasonality of contract labor in the forest industry seems to have declined in the region. In 1990

for Mendocino, this difference was about 400 jobs at the start of the timber season versus the

last timber season in 2007 where there was a difference of about 160 jobs.20,21 In Humboldt

these differences were similar throughout time with about 200 jobs being the amount of

difference though there were significantly more people working in the industry in 1990 than

there were in 2007 during the timber season and not so much at the starting month of April22,23

20 Labor Market Information Division. (2007). retrieved from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/mendohws.xls 21 Labor Market Information Division. (2007). retrieved from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/mendohws-1990.xls 22 Labor Market Information Division. (2007). retrieved from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/humbohws.xls 27 Labor Market Information Division. (2007). retrieved from http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indhist/humbohws-1990.xls

32

SECTION II

LANDOWNER-COMMUNITY RELATIONS [Go to ToC]

II.A Community Input II.A1. Community Input for Large Landowners………….………………………… II.A.1 Importance of Large Landowner Community Relations………………….. II.A.1.1 Case Study: The Conservation Fund………………………………… II.A.2 FSC Stance………………………………………………………………. II.A.3 Suggestions for a Monitoring System……………………………………. Supplemental Information……………………………………………………….. II.A2 Community Input for Small Landowners……………………………………. II.B.1 Importance of Small Landowner-Community Relations…………………. II.B.2 FSC Stance……………………………………………………………….. II.B.3 Suggestions for a Monitoring System……………………………………. II.B Access………………………………………………………………………… II.B.1 Background………………………………………………………………. II.B.1.1 Access, Customary Rights, and Accustomed Use…………………... II.B.1.2 Stakeholders………………………………………………………….. II.B.1.3 Types of Non-Timber Use: Non-Economic and Economic Use………………………………………………………. II.B.1.4 Significance of Non-Economic Uses for the Community…………………………………………………………… II.B.1.5 Significance of Economic Uses for the Community………………… II.B.1.6 Challenges to Community Access…………………………………… II.B.1.7 Benefits of Community Access……………………………………… II.B.2 FSC Stance……………………………………………………………… II.B.3 Suggestions for a Monitoring System……………………………………

Supplemental Information…………………………………………………

33

II.C Indigenous Peoples……………………………………………………………. II.C.1 Background………………………………………………………………. II.C.1.1 Stakeholders………………………………………………………… II.C.1.2 Historical Basis……………………………………………………… II.C.1.3 State and Federal Legislation………………………………………… II.C.2 FSC Stance………………………………………………………………… II.C.2.1 FSC Principle 3………………………………………………………. II.C.3 Cultural Use……………………………………………………………….. II.C.3.1 Background…………………………………………………………... II.C.3.2 Types of Use…………………………………………………………. II.C.3.3 FSC Stance…………………………………………………………… II.C.3.4 Interpreting Principle 3………………………………………………. II.C.4 Indigenous Input…………………………………………………………… II.C.4.1 Background…………………………………………………………... II.C.4.2 California Law on Consultation……………………………………… II.C.4.3 Consultation: Process and Content…………………………………… II.C.5 Suggestions for a Monitoring System……………………………………... II.C.5.1 Monitoring Case Studies…………………………………………….. II.C.5.2 Scalability……………………………………………………………. II.C.5.3 Conflict and Mediation………………………………………………

Supplemental Information………………………………………………………...

34

Section II.A

Community Input

by Chris Jacobson and Bethany Wylie

Community Input for Large Landowners [Go to ToC]

II.A.1. Importance of Large Landowner Community Relations

The purpose of this section is to look at community input mechanisms for large

landowners’ land management proposals. In this first section we will highlight important issues

surrounding community input and the importance of addressing these problems. We will use

FSC’s Principles and Criteria as a benchmark for these issues and then look at how a

monitoring process could be developed for the issue of input timing.

Currently, large certified landowners such as Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC) or

The Conservation Fund (TCF) are required by California law to submit longer-term land

management plans such as Option A or Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), or short-term plans

for specific timber harvests known as Timber Harvest Plans (THPs). All of these plans require

input from neighbors and other interest groups. As an aside, TCF also uses their own long-term

comprehensive management plan called an Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP),

which is not regulated by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). The following chart

outlines the input that these landowners receive on these types of management plans:

35

Type of Plan

Description of Plan Required Input Additional Gathered Input

THP THP is a short-term management plan that outlines each specific timber harvest.

• Draft plan reviewed by several agencies (including Department of Fish & Game, Water Quality, etc.)

• Landowners with land within 300ft. of timber harvest are sent notification of intent to file THP

• People who requested (by letter or email to CDF) are notified of submission

• For period of 30 days after pre-harvest inspection, plan is available for public input through CDF’s website and office

• CDF responds to comments on “significant environmental issues”

• “Often” share draft plans with neighbors, stakeholders before they go public (MRC)

• On a case-by-case basis input from different groups will be solicited if landowner feels there might be a high level of activism (MRC)

• Community forums and meetings held during the drafting process

• Host public tours for every THP (TCF)

• Send notifications to people on email list (TCF)

• In some cases, have added policies to meet community concerns

Option A

An Option A, which addresses management affects on timber resources, while considering watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, employment, and more. The non-timber resources are given a thorough analysis with each THP that is submitted to CDF, rather than in the MSP document.24

• Notice given to public and agencies 15 days prior to the start of 90 day review.

• The Director shall hold a public hearing on the Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) within 45 days of the start of the Public Review Period. The SYP submitter shall participate.

• At the end of the review and comment period the Director shall have 30 days to: o review public input o consider recommendations

and mitigation measures of other agencies

o respond in writing to the issues raised

o determine if the SYP is in conformance with the rules.25

• Facilitate stakeholder groups to come to participate in a discussion (MRC)

• Notice on website (MRC)

24 Mendocino Redwood Company [MRC], 2008. 25 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE], 2007.

36

HCP The Habitat Conservation Plan is designed to offset any harmful effects the proposed activity might have on species. The HCP process allows development while promoting species conservation.

• Wildlife Services “encourages the applicant to provide opportunities to brief or inform representatives of interested parties of key elements or issues to be addressed in the proposed HCP”26

• Optional “Steering Committee” that represents interest groups can be formed during the planning phase

IRMP (TCF only)

This long-term management plan is similar to an Option A SYP. It has a 100 year timescale to be updated every 10 years. Its goals include both timber harvest and conservation. Only one has been done – for the Green River Forest.

• None – this document is not intended for CDF, but is distributed to them and other agencies.

• Copies distributed to interested parties

• Hold public meeting • Select community members

for reviewing sections of the plan as it is being drafted27

Community input has clearly been identified by the California Forest Practice Rules and

by many landowners as a significant part of management planning, which we see reflected in

the above table. In general, the regulations and the extra measures enacted by certified

landowners like MRC and TCF have been relatively effective in obtaining a range of opinions

and a fair volume of input. However, the above processes often require proactive community

members and do not have sufficient monitoring for methods of community input. This leads to

situations where “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” while the opinion of the community as a

whole is not necessarily heard and the absence of proactivism is seen as agreement with land

managers. Two examples in which certain areas get more attention are the Greenwood Creek

watershed, which has an active organization that comments on every THP, and the Albion

watershed, which has had a very active environmental community for many years. Today,

although the mechanisms for input have changed very little, the activist community in general

has been aging, ownership of land has changed to companies seen as less threatening, and as a

result, there has been less involvement in forest management. The companies currently

26 Fish and Wildlife Services, 1996. 27 E. Smith, personal communication, June 2, 2008.

37

monitoring the effectiveness of their community outreach on the volume and details of input

may benefit by adjusting their mechanisms of input. As the community has transitioned from

active to more passive, there has been a need for the input mechanisms to move from passive to

active.

That said, there are still issues that solicit a lot of input. Most commonly we hear

disagreements about the use of herbicides, definitions of old growth, and fears of clear cutting.28

While this is a sample of current concerns from neighbors of large landowners debates about

these issues highlight room to improve current processes. Community activists who are still

making efforts to get involved have mentioned how the current methods of community input

make it easier for their comments on these and other issues to be disregarded. Though

landowners are required to make plans available for public review by community members,

they are not necessarily required to incorporate suggestions they receive. For example in THPs,

CDF does not have authority to deny a THP that is in compliance with state regulations even if

it is unpopular with the public.29 The public review period is starting to be seen as a time

consuming process without a high level of success which is discouraging future participation.

A major point of contention is that community members feel that the input mechanisms

above only allow them to comment on drafts of proposals and does not allow them to be a part

of the initial planning process. This is a serious problem especially for THPs as landowners are

required to submit their plans to agencies such as The Department of Fish and Game at an early

stage in the drafting process, but are not required to invite input from neighbors until the public

review period. This leaves active community members feeling neglected in the development

process. Neighbors feeling that they do not have a valid opportunity to participate in forest

management planning is a major issue. This is especially true if you consider that the point of

community input is to allow community members to have an opportunity to share their concerns

and interact with landowners. If this objective is not being met by the current process, it would

be advisable for landowners to try to design a system that will more effectively involve

community members or at the very least make modifications to show how community input is

being evaluated.

28 M. Jani, personal communication, April 30, 2008. L. Perkins, personal communication, May 4, 2008. 29 CALFIRE, 2007.

38

II.A.1.1. Case Study: The Conservation Fund

Although TCF may not be perfect in terms of current community input, their mechanisms

for getting input into THPs provide an excellent example. For every THP, not only does

TCF email its own compiled list of contacts but also conducts a public tour of the harvest

site. This goes above and beyond the regulatory framework, allowing for direct dialogue

with the company so that the community and landowner cultivate a healthy relationship.30

Finding methods to get community members involved earlier in the process would be a

way to reduce some of the tensions around community input. If community members

participated in the scoping of land management proposals, it would let landowners learn about

members’ concerns and underlying interests before too much time and too many resources are

invested into a draft. This then would allow more flexibility for landowners to incorporate those

ideas into their plans. Earlier involvement would also help prevent the negative dynamic where

an issue that is framed by one side and attacked by the other. Starting a dialogue at this stage

could prove very productive as it would allow community members to not only have input into

planning but also follow along in the process and ask questions.

Landowners also would have a great deal to benefit from the initiation of an early

dialogue. Many landowners have complained that often the input they receive from community

members is emotionally based or uninformed. They feel that the community attacks specific

polices or practices without any insight into the greater effects these have on other aspects of

their management plans. Earlier discussions could give landowners an opportunity to address

the basis of community concerns and educate concerned citizens about general forest practices.

A two-way dialogue early on would allow the groups to resolve basic misunderstandings and

false assumptions and then allow them to work through the planning stages together. This joint

approach spreads the ownership and accountability of the planning processes across the

community, which could reduce future conflict, or at least allow for both sides to approach the

problem with mutual understanding.

II.A.2. FSC Stance

30 E. Smith, personal communication, June 2, 2008.

39

In the supplemental information section you will find a list of many FSC Criteria which

pertain to the issues of community input into management planning. However, none of the

criteria address specifically when or in what form input is to be solicited, they simply require

that some form of input be used or that dialogue be maintained. We find that the most relevant

of FSC’s points is Criterion 4.4, which discusses FSC’s expectation of having landowners

consult the individuals and groups who will be impacted by their forest practices:

4.4 Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of

social impact. Consultations shall be maintained with people and groups (both men and

women) directly affected by management operations.

While this Criterion lays out an expectation of consultation, it does not specify the

timing or form of that input. Certifiers and auditors must use their own judgment to identify

whether or not a landowner is meeting this standard. Defining a monitoring system can go a

long way in clearing up some of these ambiguities by clearly defining how a landowner will be

soliciting input.

II.A.3. Suggestions for a Monitoring System

In creating a monitoring tool for community input, we find it helpful to think through the

‘plan, act, evaluate’ model. Spending time to plan out a monitoring process will allow a

landowner to create a clear vision of what the system should achieve. Specifically for the issue

of community input it can allow a landowner to set goals about what precise groups or

individuals it would like to engage, the format in which they want to exchange information, and

the timeframe for these discussions. It can also address specific outcomes that can be measured,

outcomes such as greater participation in the creation of management planning or a reduction in

future conflicts with neighbors.

After clear objectives and processes are identified a landowner can begin to monitor the

input they are receiving. Throughout the implementation landowners should be evaluating the

effectiveness of the tool with respect to the baselines they previously identified. Differences in

the quality of input could be evaluated across watersheds, or in areas with different levels of

organization. Judging progress in measurable ways provides the opportunity to make

40

modifications when particular processes are not meeting the objectives initially identified and

will help in the next planning stage of another cycle of the ‘plan, act, evaluate’ model.

One effective too used to connect landowners and community members is Participatory

Research.31 Participatory Research enlists community members throughout the planning

process by using the public to help develop research goals, collect and analyze samples, and

even interpret findings. Involvement in this process will give visibility to all assumptions made

throughout the research and planning phase, assumptions that can be explained by landowners,

discussed by the group, and possibly corrected when necessary. The other benefit of this system

is that it distributes the ownership of long-term policies throughout the community. This will

require more groups than the landowners to take responsibility for the implementation and

consequences of these decisions, keeping them active throughout the process. Participatory

Research, while it is important for management planning, can also be an excellent tool for

evaluating or monitoring community input mechanisms. Because input is a two-sided process, it

can most effectively be monitored by both the landowner and the community. Thus,

Participatory Research serves as a versatile tool that fits into the “act” and “evaluate” steps of

the plan-act-evaluate process.

Another tool, which mainly fits into the “act” portion of our methodology, that has been

successfully used as a basis for community input into socioeconomic issues is the use of GIS. In

the Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement local tribes were able to use maps of the region to

highlight areas of different concerns to them.32 (See an example map in Supplemental

Information Section.) This clearly identified areas in which different management objectives

would need to be harmonized, and where planning of forest operations would require

coordination. Similar methods of identifying areas of concern or local values could be used for

other community members to communicate with land managers during the development of land

management proposals. If the landowners worked with neighbors to map out the areas of

potential conflict, landowners would be more informed about their interests and would be able

to consult interested parties should forest management be necessary or desired in those areas.

These tools are examples of the types of systems that can be put in place to formalize the

31Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2008. 32 Algonquins of Barriere Lake, 2000.

41

mechanisms of community input. After the adoption of any tool, it is important that there is a

constant system of monitoring. As suggested above, measuring the questions of local concern,

the amount of involvement, or the volume of concern can be specific measures of a tool’s

success. These indicators are important to identify from the outset and should be continually be

evaluated and modified when necessary.

Given the amount of land they control and the potentially devastating consequences of a

large company with harmful forestry practices, it is incredibly important that these landowners

engage the neighbors that they stand to affect. Not only that, but they must ensure that they are

involving the community in a productive way that leads to a healthy long-term relationship. A

well-designed monitoring system is a useful tool to help landowners accomplish this difficult

goal.

42

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Relevant FSC Criteria:

1.1 Forest management shall respect all national and local laws and administrative

requirements.

4.4 Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of social

impact. Consultations shall be maintained with people and groups (both men and women)

directly affected by management operations.

4.5 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed for resolving grievances and for providing fair

compensation in the case of loss or damage affecting the legal or customary rights, property,

resources, or livelihoods of local peoples. Measures shall be taken to avoid such loss or

damage.

7.1 The management plan and supporting documents shall provide: a) Management objectives.

b) Description of the forest resources to be managed, environmental limitations, land use and

ownership status, socio-economic conditions, and a profile of adjacent lands. c) Description of

silvicultural and/or other management system, based on the ecology of the forest in question

and information

7.2 The management plan shall be periodically revised to incorporate the results of monitoring

or new scientific and technical information, as well as to respond to changing environmental,

social and economic circumstances.

7.4 While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly

available a summary of the primary elements of the management plan, including those listed in

Criterion 7.1.

8.2 Forest management should include the research and data collection needed to monitor, at a

minimum, the following indicators: a) Yield of all forest products harvested. b) Growth rates,

regeneration and condition of the forest. c) Composition and observed changes in the flora and

fauna. d) Environmental and social impacts of harvesting and other operations. e) Costs,

productivity, and efficiency of forest management.

8.4 The results of monitoring shall be incorporated into the implementation and revision of the

management plan.

43

8.5 While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly

available a summary of the results of monitoring indicators, including those listed in Criterion

8.2.

9.3 The management plan shall include and implement specific measures that ensure the

maintenance and/or enhancement of the applicable conservation attributes consistent with the

precautionary approach. These measures shall be specifically included in the publicly available

management plan summary.

Barriere Lake GIS Mapping

44

Section II.B

Community Input for Small Landowners [Go to ToC]

by Chris Jacobson and Bethany Wiley

II.B.1. Importance of Small Landowner-Community Relations

Small landowners are faced with a different set of issues regarding community input

than large landowners because of the kind of management plan they use and their more limited

resources. While their issues are different, their potential impact is on par with the large

landowners, for they own 45% of all privately held timber lands on the North Coast.33 Non-

Industrial Timber Management Plans (NTMPs) are the main forest management plan that small

landowners submit. The NTMP is a cost effective alternative to the Timber Harvest Plans

submitted by large landowners. It allows small landowners to submit one NTMP to outline their

long-term management plans and then gives them the flexibility to harvest anytime they submit

a Timber Notice Operation so long as their plans fits within the scope of their NTMP. The

indefinite lifespan of the NTMP allows small landowners to harvest when the market is strong.

It requires that they use uneven age management and work to sustain long-term maximum

yields, a benefit to all those concerned with the forest management in the area. One issue that

was brought up by some community members and is outlined in the Buckeye Conservancy’s

2004 NTMP Workshop Report is that the NTMPs have limited periods allowing community

comment. Below is a chart outlining the input solicitation required for an NTMP:

33 E. Smith, Personal Communication, June 2, 2008.

45

Description of Plan Required Input Additional Gathered Input

NTMP

A timber harvest plan for landowners who own 2,500 acres or less. After the initial paperwork, the plan is valid indefinitely with occasional review by CDF. This allows for small landowners to cut their timber when the market is strong.

• If someone requests notice of submittal, the CDF director will provide them with a list of NTMPs or Notices of Timber Operations.34

• Landowners owning land within 300 feet of harvest area are sent notification of preparation.35

• Neighbors and indigenous tribes 1000 ft. downstream required to be contacted.36

• CDF Director must place copies in locations that will provide adequate public notice.37

• CDF Director will invite and consider written responses, but there is no requirement to respond.38

• There is only one opportunity – the initial approval period – for public review.39

• Occasionally small landowners will reach out to neighbors or community members who might have an issue with specific harvest plans or methods.

Clearly the regulatory framework for receiving input on NTMPs does not provide

opportunities for neighbors and community members to bring up concerns that may arise over

time as conditions change. The scope of input is generally limited to essentially physical

neighbors and we have not found many community members interested in commenting on

NTMPs. Public awareness of NTMPs is quite low – the focus is generally on large landowners

with greater visibility. This is significant as small landowners own, as previously mentioned,

34 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE]. (2007). /Forest Practice Rules 2007/. 35 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE]. (2007). /Forest Practice Rules 2007/. 36 D. Mahoney, personal communication, May 5, 2008. 37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE]. (2007). /Forest Practice Rules 2007/. 38 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE]. (2007). /Forest Practice Rules 2007/. 39 The Buckeye Conservancy. 2004. Non-industrial Timber Management Plan Workshop Report. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.buckeyeconservancy.org/pdf/ntmp-final-report.pdf.

46

about half of all privately owned timber land. Furthermore, NTMPs, once approved, remain in

force until the landowner chooses to abandon it. The public, however, is given the opportunity

to review the plan only during the initial submittal phase. Large landowners have supplemented

their input with long term plans like Option A and HCPs and extra efforts that relate directly to

short-term management plans like THPs. However, small landowners have generally not

supplemented the lacking regulatory requirements for input with self-initiated mechanisms for

soliciting input on a consistent basis.

This is not to say that landowners do not do an effective job of communicating with

neighbors on specific issues. In fact our interviews lead us to believe that input and notification

for specific issues such as road use and domestic water quality are being effectively addressed

in a proactive fashion by forest managers. While the neighbors are often given an opportunity to

comment on the specific issues that might affect them on a daily basis, the limitations of public

input mechanisms outlined by the NTMPs restricts their ability to help shape a long-term vision

of the land. Only providing one period of community input into an indefinite management plan

places the burden of understanding long-term public interests squarely on the shoulders of these

small landowners and their forest managers.

Small landowners have reason for not becoming too transparent with their plans. With

regulations and popular opinion continually shifting, there is a fear amongst some small

landowners that providing too much visibility into their forest practices has the potential to limit

their long-term ability to control the way they manage their land. Even if they currently comply

with all certification regulations, receiving input on their NTMPs over a period longer than the

current regulatory one could force them to adjust their practices as policies or opinions change.

The fear is that eventually these policies and opinions could shift so drastically that it prevents

them from cost effectively completing any timber operations.40 Small landowners do not have

the incentives to solicit feedback into their long-term plans. The NTMPs will last indefinitely

and any criticism that arises can do nothing but jeopardize their standing.

40 C. Blencowe, personal communication, May 27, 2008.

47

II.B.2. FSC Stance

The FSC outlines that certified landowners should maintain contact with the general

public about their logging practices and scientific findings. Perhaps Criterion 4.4 exemplifies

this most clearly:

4.4 Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of social impact. Consultations shall be maintained with people and groups (both men and women) directly affected by management operations.

The FSC clearly envisions that certified landowners should be proactive in forming and

maintaining dialogues with groups and community members that can be affected by their

practices, an expectation that goes beyond the requirements for an NTMP. A formal process for

dealing with these issues is not a requirement however it is important that practices are

identified in order to create more dialogue and reduce conflict.

II.B.3 Suggestions for a Monitoring System

In creating a monitoring tool for the issue of community input into small landowners

plans, we again find it helpful to think through the ‘plan, act, evaluate’ model. While the

problems of community input are certainly not universal, we find that this framework can be

applied to all landowners. In order to have any success, it is essential to identify initial

objectives to guide inquiries. Spending time to plan out a monitoring process would allow a

landowner to create a clear vision of what a system will achieve. Small landowner can set goals

about how often and in what form they would like to solicit input. One example of a goal might

be to solicit input once a year while an NTMP is valid and to engage neighbors and community

members and to ascertain whether any new concerns have arisen. Going through this initial

vision-setting process will help small landowners address specific outcomes that can be

measured, outcomes such as increased community input.

After clear objectives and processes are identified a landowner can begin to monitor the

input they are receiving through the use of indicators. Throughout the implementation

landowners should be evaluating the effectiveness of the tool with respect to the baselines they

previously identified. Differences in the quality of input can be analyzed to determine the

effectiveness of the input mechanisms, which can be modified to address any issues. Judging

progress in measurable ways provides the opportunity to make modifications when particular

processes are not meeting the objectives initially identified and will help in the next planning

48

stage of another cycle of the ‘plan, act, evaluate’ model.

Some specific indicators that small landowners might be able to measure are: how often

they solicit input on their NTMPs, how often community members approach them about

concerns, or the content of those concerns. It may also be worthwhile to measure these

indicators with respect to how often neighboring lands shift ownership. New owners may not be

present during the public input stages of NTMPs, but it will still be important for small

landowners to reach out and make sure they understand the needs of new neighbors.

It is still understandable that small landowners are going to be hesitant to make their

practices and plans too transparent; however there is an identified need for the public to have an

opportunity to comment on land management policies that affect them. At the very least, it

would be a step in the right direction to identify a standardized channel for community input. If

such a channel were opened, it would allow landowners to receive input and keep records of the

community’s interest. Hopefully this would also promote a two-way dialogue which could be

educational for both sides. As conversations continue this could also be a way to further

community relationships and build trust between small landowners and their neighbors.

49

Section II.C

Forest Access [Go to ToC]

by Mac Parish and Linh Tran

II.C.1. Background

II.C.1.1. Access, Customary Rights, and Accustomed Use

Open access by all members of the public to private certified forestlands is not required

by FSC, nor is it considered appropriate for good forest management. However, establishing

appropriate levels of community access is directly related to the FSC requirements for definition

of customary rights as well as maintenance of community socioeconomic well-being.

Customary rights to forestland are difficult to define due to changing landowners and the

diversity of communities and entities that claim these rights. They include informal agreements

of land use between particular individuals or groups and are usually “derived from practices that

have a long tradition; they often bear meaning and import tied to concepts of livelihood or

culture.”41 Customary uses are not the only types of access sought by community members.

“Accustomed uses” are uses which a community feels it has claim to but which do not have a

long established history of customary utilization.42 Landowners who provide community access

to their private certified forestlands are considered “good neighbors.” The provision of access

can have a significant impact on community well-being. As such, exercise of both customary

rights and accustomed uses should be incorporated into management planning and

socioeconomic monitoring which are necessary for adaptive land management. (Please see the

following section for a more detailed explanation of the relevant FSC Principles and Criteria.)

It is essential to understand that there is a broad range of experience regarding access

depending on the community in question, and that not every situation can be handled in the same

way. An activity that falls within one group’s customary rights could be regarded as an

accustomed use in another community. Moreover, it is important to understand that each

community values access to forestland for a range of both non-timber economic and non-

41 Goldman, R. et al. (2004). Forest Trespass or Customary Rights in Northern California? Final paper for Social Policy for Sustainable Resource Use class, Stanford University (Prof. Nickie Irvine), 21-38. 42 Brown, B. (1996). Fencing the Northwest Forests: Decline of Public Access and Accustomed Rights. Cultural Survival Quarterly.

50

economic uses. Uses of land that are not economically significant for some user groups could be

financially critical for others, and restricting these activities may have significant socioeconomic

impacts. Providing community access to certified forestland can be crucial to community-

landowner relations on the North Coast.

This introduction provides a starting point for defining the value of community access to

forestlands in Mendocino and Humboldt counties. It will frame access issues by highlighting

different uses for forestlands, interested groups, and community-landowner challenges and

benefits over time. Without thorough documentation of forestland uses and their histories, it is

difficult to differentiate between customary rights and accustomed uses and their relative

importance (economic and non-economic) to the community. This differentiation is necessary in

order to formulate a community-accepted access policy that is in accord with adaptive land

management and planning.

II.C.1.2. Stakeholders

A diversity of stakeholders should be included in the discussion of community access.

Identified stakeholders can be classified into four categories: landowners (and their forest

managers), neighbors, communities of interest, and indigenous peoples. This access section will

focus on neighbors and communities of interest. Neighbors include commercial landowners and

non-commercial landowners such as non-industrial timber harvesters (whether resident or not),

back-to-the-landers, and nearby town residents. Communities of interest are entities that are

organized around a specific use for forestlands. Some relevant communities of interest are:

recreation associations (i.e. hunting clubs, mountain biking groups), educators/researchers,

watershed/environmental groups, and youth groups like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

Indigenous peoples are included in a separate section because of their strong customary rights

claims and importance under the FSC Principles and Criteria. (Please see that chapter for more

information about cultural use and indigenous input.)

II.C.1.3. Types of Non-Timber Use: Non-Economic and Economic Uses

Forestlands provide a number of both non-timber economic and non-economic uses. The

timber wars led to more legislation and strained community-landowner relations, and change in

landowners (like the transition for LP to MRC), have created changes in access over time.43 For

43 L. Perkins, personal communication, May 22, 2008.

51

details about whether or not an activity has economic and/or non-economic value and the

changes in these activities please see Supplemental Information Section A. In general,

community access to land has become more restricted over the last 15 years.44 The most common

current uses are detailed in the tables below.

Importance of Different Uses

High

1. Recreation/Rights of Passage

- Hiking - ATVs - Horseback riding - Picnicking - Mountain biking

2. Mushrooms 3. Firewood

Medium

1. Restoration initiatives 2. Hunting Deer 3. Hatchery Research 4. Berries

Low

1. Fishing 2. Floral Resources 3. Hunting Turkey 4. School Field Trips 5. Camping 6. University Access (Humboldt State, etc.)

II.C.1.4. Significance of Non-Economic Uses for the Community

Access to private forestlands for community members directly affects their quality of

life45. Many neighbors feel strongly that they are entitled to access these regional resources.

According to community informants several uses continue despite landowner restrictions

because of their importance to the community. Some feel that they have a spiritual connection to

the land and that it is their duty to provide stewardship over it even if they do not have property

rights.46

II.C.1.5. Significance of Economic Uses for the Community

As discussed in greater length in the Intra-Company chapter, a number of factors make

living in the Humboldt and Mendocino region economically difficult. In the last fifteen years,

44 H. Gundling, personal communication, May 23, 2008. 45 A. Harwood, personal communication, June 2, 2008. 46 L. Perkins, personal communication, May 22, 2008.

52

the region has been characterized by the decline in the timber industry. This decline has been the

result of increased regulation and the associated costs (e.g. 1973 Forest Practice Act,47 1994

Northwest Forest Plan48) as well as degradation of forest resources.49 There has been a down

turn in local employment and a shift to contract labor in the timber industry. As a result, many

community members have turned to service-based industries, such as tourism. Unfortunately,

the majority of tourism-dependent jobs do not provide living incomes. Furthermore, affluent

absentee landowners who have second homes in the area have driven up average housing prices

since the late 1970s.50

Due to increased poverty in the region, it is important to examine community uses for

forestlands that provide economic benefit. These economic benefits can include activities that

provide additional income or subsistence. Bev Brown, in her work on the impact of changes in

access to private land for poor workers in the Rogue River Valley of Oregon, highlights the

importance of mushroom and berry gathering, fishing, and hunting for consumption.51

Additionally, in neighboring Trinity County, Hayfork residents were once dependent on gathered

firewood for home heating. Restrictive permits preventing the collection of enough firewood has

led to a financial strain on the community.52 Similar to these other areas, Mendocino and

Humboldt county residents engage in forest uses that have economic benefit (e.g. turkey and deer

hunting, mushroom and berry gathering, and firewood collecting), but further research should be

conducted to better understand the significance of current uses and to uncover other potential

uses.

Preliminary research indicates that many of the current economic benefits from forestland

uses profit landowners and outside groups or individuals rather than community members. For

example, landowners benefit from permit fees to private hunting clubs and exclude community

members from hunting. Additionally, individuals from outside the community usually profit

from the collection and sale of edible mushrooms (e.g. chanterelles, matzutake, boletes, milk

47 After the establishment of the 1973 Forest Practice Act, the cost of preparing documents for permit approval has steadily increased. 48 The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan marked an especially burdensome phase in permit acquisition. 49 Goldman, R. (2004). 50 H. Gundling, personal communication, May 23, 2008. 51 Brown, B. (1996). 52 Goldman, R. (2004).

53

caps, russulas, agaricus, and armillaria).53 It is unclear whether or not game hunting and

collection of edible mushrooms are accustomed uses to Mendocino and Humboldt community

members. It is important to understand and study this socioeconomic context of these

communities. Social issues should not be viewed separately since one problem can amplify the

negative effect of another. For example, restricted access to game hunting in combination with

the declining Douglas fir market can result in greater financial hardship than the simple sum of

these two separate problems.

II.C.1.6. Challenges to Community Access

For many landowners, there are clear tradeoffs between community access and the

resulting consequences. Liability, environmental concerns, and increased management costs pose

disincentives for landowners to provide community access.

Liability

Environmental Concerns

Management Costs

Landowners are liable for what happens on their forestlands and are apprehensive of lawsuits. Safety risks include:

- Personal injury - Discovery of

marijuana plantations

- Accidental fires

Indiscriminate use of forestland (e.g. ATV utilization, use of poorly maintained roads, incursion into ecologically sensitive areas) can result in:

- Erosion - Sedimentation of

streams - High prevalence of

invasive species

Increase costs due to:

- Vandalism - Inappropriate waste

disposal - Road and gate

maintenance - Security patrols - Infrastructure (e.g.

restroom facilities)

At present, large and small landowners address these challenges to forest management in

distinct ways. Large landowners utilize both liability release forms and permit systems. Permits

are used for a number of activities such as hunting, hiking, horseback riding, camping, and

firewood collecting depending on the landowner. For example, Usal Community Forest and the

Conservation Fund ask from liability release form from all visitors and Mendocino Redwood

Company requires permits for hunting and camping. Small landowners often arrange access on a

case by case basis rather than have a formal access policy. Due to their smaller scale, they are

53 L. Perkins, personal communication, May 22, 2008.

54

less likely to utilize permits and/or waivers.

Access solutions for landowners can place a burden on community members. Some

community members assert that permits are difficult to obtain and impede their exercise of

accustomed uses and customary rights. For example, exclusive hunting permits for fee-paying

groups provide economic benefit to the landowner but exclude local community hunting.54

The variety of stakeholders and uses lead to disagreement about sufficient community

access to private certified forestlands. According to FSC Principle 2, landowners must uphold

customary rights on their property. However, customary rights for non-indigenous people in this

region are not well-defined. FSC Principle 4, which deals with community benefits, supports the

right of community members to accustomed use.55 Because accustomed uses are less understood

than customary rights, their importance to the community can often be overlooked. More

research is needed to determine specific customary rights and accustomed uses for different

groups in Humboldt and Mendocino.

Furthermore, it is difficult to prioritize which activities should be permissible for

particular user groups and to balance community benefits against landowner benefits. For

example, mushroom picking by neighbors is primarily a recreational activity. Though they

consume the mushrooms, they are not dependent on them for sustenance; however, there are also

people from outside the community who are reliant on mushrooms for their livelihood and gather

them for commercial sale.56 Secondly, while they do not compensate landowners, neighbors

firmly believe that for the sake of common decency they should be granted use over more distant

fee-paying communities of interest.57 Relying on a hierarchy of economic over non-economic

uses may not be the most beneficial for the community.

Anecdotal evidence indicates there is a disconnect between the perceived level of

community satisfaction with landowner access policies and the sentiments of the community

about these policies. Further research should be conducted to tease apart the reasons for this

disjoint, what the community perceives as an accustomed use vs. customary right, and the

54 Goldman, R. (2004). 55 Goldman, R. (2004). 56 L. Perkins, personal communication, May 22, 2008. 57 Goldman, R. (2004). Also states that goals of efforts like the Northwest Forest Plan conflict with “accustomed uses” and traditions; L. Perkins, personal communication, May 22, 2008.

55

economic and non-economic values of each uses.

Lastly, illegal marijuana growing is a large concern that has not been adequately

addressed by law enforcement and the community at large in the region. It impedes access and

use of the forestlands because of the dangers associated with the discovery of grow operations.

This problem must be dealt with, before the community can realize the full benefits of access.

II.C.1.7. Benefits of Community Access

Some FSC-certified landowners have benefited from community access to their private

lands. Accessibility to private forestland is not well-documented in Mendocino and Humboldt

counties, which means that there are few examples of cases in which increased access has

concretely benefited landowners and community members. This section uses the Collins

Pennsylvania Forest to illustrate the potential advantages of increased access to private

forestland for all parties involved.

56

The Collins Pennsylvania Forest has increased

community benefits by allowing, for example:

- Camping - Hunting - Road Use - Hiking

In return, landowners have seen many

management benefits. In exchange for access,

neighbors and communities of interest provide

assistance to landowners in a variety of ways,

including:

- Control of damage to timber resources - Maintenance of roads and gates - Reporting on vandalism and other

damaging activities - Assistance in locating and monitoring

sensitive species - The creation of better community relations - More positive business-oriented relationships58

Increased access as well as inclusion in management processes helps the Collins Forest

community members feel as if they have a stake in the land. It has inspired community

stewardship of the forest. Energy spent fighting for access can be channeled towards learning

about the land, and informed community members are less likely to engage in environmentally

destructive and/or unsafe uses of the land. This consequently reduces management costs and

liability concerns. Therefore, through increased access the Collins Pennsylvania Forest has

been able to maximize benefits both for the landowners and for the community members.

The Collins Forest’s “Forest Game Cooperator Program” counteracts risks that come

with open access like marijuana growing, ATV use, and illegal dumping. In this program,

private landowners provide access for hunters to their land and gain an “extra set of eyes and

58 Dodge, G. (2007). The Collins Pennsylvania Forest: Providing Public Access and Creating Positive Community Relations. FSC News and Views, 7(1).

COLLINS PENNSYLVANIA FOREST 127,000 Acres FSC Certified 1994 Managed by Kane Harwood Open Access Model: - No gates, no charge, maps provided - Decreased community-landowner tensions - Increased stewardship of the forest Pennsylvania Landowner Liability Act: landowners are not liable for incidents on their land if they allow public recreation free of charge. This limits the liability concerns of landowners, and should be considered in California.

57

ears” on their property.

Although Collins Pennsylvania Forest uses an open access model supported by

Pennsylvanian legislation, the benefits from Collins Forest can be realized in Humboldt and

Mendocino counties through a careful program of increased community access and

encouragement of community stewardship. For instance, the increased traffic on lands also

could play a significant role in limiting the amount of illegal marijuana grown on private lands.

Increased community presence could deter growers from setting up operations. Furthermore,

community members could help identify suspicious activities (e.g. vandalism) to landowners

and law enforcement.

TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IN MENDOCINO AND HUMBOLDT59 In Mendocino and Humboldt, there are several initiatives to establish a network of connected trails. There are efforts to establish a trail connecting Usal Road and Westport-Union Landing State Park and improve the California Coast Trail. In order to complete these trails and link different parts of the county, access through private lands is essential. This network of trails can provide public good for the community as well as many of the benefits associated with increased presence on forestland for the landowner.

II.C.2. FSC Stance

Two of the ten FSC Principles are relevant to the issue of non-indigenous access –

Principle 2 and Principle 4. As discussed in the background, the formulation and monitoring of

appropriate programs for access to certified lands has implications for socioeconomic well-being

of local communities via customary rights, improved economic livelihood, as well as knowledge

and respect for natural resources. While many of the FSC Principles are relevant to access they

do not specifically address it as in issue. This section will clarify each of these principles in the

context of Humboldt and Mendocino counties using FSC Criteria and Pacific Coast Indicators.

59 The Conservation Fund. (2005). Conservation Prospects for the North Coast: A Review and Analysis for Existing Conservation Plans, Land Use Trends and Strategies for Conservation on the North Coast.

58

PRINCIPLE 2: TENURE AND USE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Criteria 2.1 - Clear evidence of long-term forest use rights to the land (e.g. land title, customary rights, or lease agreements) shall be demonstrated.

Pacific Coast Indicator 2.1.a - Forest owners or managers make available information on legal and customary rights associated with the forest. These rights include both those held by the party seeking certification and those held by other parties.

Criteria 2.2 - Forest owners or managers allow lawful customary uses of the forest to the extent they are consistent with the conservation of forest resources and the stated objectives in the management plan, and do not present a legal liability.

Criteria 2.3 - Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed to resolve disputes over tenure claims and use rights. The circumstances and status of any outstanding disputes will be explicitly considered in the certification evaluation. Disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify an operation from being certified.

In order to meet this principle, certified landowners and their forest managers must address access issues. Criteria 2.1 of the Pacific Coast (USA) Forest Stewardship Indicators, emphasizes the importance of a clear description of legal and customary rights. This information is crucial for all stakeholders to understand what type of access is permissible and the reasoning why certain uses are not authorized. For example, some legally recognized rights may include: public rights of way, public use of water, collecting firewood for personal sale or use, collecting non-timber forest products for personal use or sale, recreation, hiking, hunting, fishing, plant materials for traditional cultural purposes by American Indians, and visiting ancestral grave sites. However, not all of these uses are available on each parcel of forestland and not all stakeholders are interested in all uses therefore frequency of access and who can access land varies. Forest owners and managers should take a proactive role in engaging the many stakeholders to clearly define use rights. The more stakeholders are engaged the less likely there will be conflicts over access that lead to environmental degradation or legal issues (which according to Criteria 2.2 can be grounds for prohibiting access). When conflicts over access arise, certified operations should utilize dispute resolution mechanisms or policies.

59

PRINCIPLE 4: COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND WORKERS’ RIGHTS

Criteria 4.5 - Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed for resolving grievances and for providing fair compensation in the case of loss or damage affecting the legal or customary rights, property, resources, or livelihoods of local peoples. Measures shall be taken to avoid such loss or damage.

Pacific Coast Indicator 4.5.a - The forest owner or manager attempts to resolve grievances and mitigate damage resulting from forest management activities through open communication and negotiation prior to legal action.

The community relations facet of Principle 4 is the most pertinent to access conflict resolution. These mechanisms should enable open communication and negotiation in order prevent costly litigation. Unresolved access disputes can result in perpetually strained community relations and diminished socioeconomic well-being.

II.C.3. Suggestions for a Monitoring System

In the Plan-Act-Evaluate framework, one can use specific methodologies to more

effectively address problems. In the case of access issues, the Pressure-State-Response (PSR)

methodology discussed by the Seventh American Forest Congress can help structure discussion

in the planning phase.

The Pressure refers to the underlying cause of the problem. The Response includes policies,

investments, or other actions that can be taken in order to solve the problem. The Response

should be appropriate to the size of the property. The State describes some physical, measurable

characteristic that evaluates the effectiveness of the Response and helps decide whether or not a

Pressure Why is there a problem?

State Is the current solution working?

Response What will be done to solve the problem?

60

new Response is needed.

The following four examples illustrate how to use the PSR framework when monitoring

accessibility to private forestlands. These examples are illustrations how PSR could be

implemented rather than instructions that detail what to do about each of the problems listed.

The examples offer possible responses and corresponding evaluation measurements.

Stakeholders in Mendocino and Humboldt counties should determine appropriate pressure,

responses, states, and a plan of action to problems in their region.

Economic vs. Non-economic Uses

Problem: There are conflicts between landowners, community members, and people outside the community in setting boundaries about mushroom gathering on private lands. Pressure: Lack of discussion/communication between stakeholders regarding mushroom gathering policies. State: Average amount of mushrooms collected by gatherers in the community as compared to those outside the community. Accessibility of policies of individual landowners regarding mushroom picking on their land. Number of complaints annually of landowners due to community members trespassing to gather mushrooms Response: Communicate gathering policies via email, telephone, newsletter, and/or community meetings. Designating parts of properties open for public gathering. Designing a permit system that regulates access to land may include stipulations about mushrooms. Establish a training and educational program like those in place in Washington State to avoid negative impacts on forestlands.

61

Communities of Interests vs. Neighbors

Problem: Permits for hunting are difficult and expensive for neighbors to obtain. Pressure: Landowners profit more from contracts with hunting clubs outside the community, which leads to an increase in the price of permits. State: Number of permits granted to individuals in hunting clubs vs. neighbors. Response: Lowering price of permits, discounted permits for neighbors, or “community days” for hunting. If landowner would like some compensation, it is possible to provide cheaper access to neighbors in exchange for increased vigilance on the property, helping with gate maintenance, etc.

62

Management Costs vs. Recreation

Problem: Community members are barred access to rights of passage like hiking on neighboring private lands. Pressure: Landowners say that rights of passage increase their management costs because of liability issues and maintenance expenses. State: An annual comparison of management costs that assess whether increases in costs are correlated with access. These management costs should be broken down into liability concerns and increased maintenance. Response: Create easily accessible waiver to limit liability of landowners. Split cost of increased maintenance between the community and the landowners through volunteer service and/or monetary contributions.

63

Differences in Large vs. Small Landowner Response

Problem: Inability to control marijuana operations on private land. Pressure: Landowners experience different obstacles in preventing marijuana operations depending on the scale of their property*.

- Small landowners do not have the resources to employ security systems. - Large landowners own too much land to effectively patrol it.

State: Percentage of land effectively monitored. Financial investment for monitoring measures. Response: Large landowners can more effective patrolling through higher investment in security details. Small landowners can pool resources to contract patrols that monitor all of their lands. Large and small landowners can collaborate with neighbors to secure properties. * The marijuana operations are also difficult to control because it provides much of the economic base of the region and poses personal risks to those who patrol properties.

64

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Section A These tables illustrate different form use and their values for each of the stakeholder categories. Individuals from different user groups engage in a variety of uses, making it difficult to identify usage trends solely on the basis of group membership. Consequently, since we have generalized our research findings there may be overlap in uses by the different groups that is not displayed in the tables.

Neighbors Types of Use Economic

Value Non-

Economic Value

Past Community Accessibility

Present Community Accessibility

All terrain vehicles (ATVs)

de facto open access prior to LP

restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Berry gathering de facto open access prior to LP

restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Camping de facto open access prior to LP

little permissible community access

Firewood Collecting

de facto open access prior to LP

restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Fishing de facto open access prior to LP

restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Floral resources (commercial or personal use)

de facto open access prior to LP

restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Hiking de facto open access prior to LP

varies by landowner; usually restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Horseback Riding

de facto open access prior to LP

varies by landowner

Hunting (e.g. deer, turkey)

de facto open access prior to LP

legally only by paid permit; restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Mountain Biking ? varies by landowner Mushroom Picking (commercial or personal use)

de facto open access prior to LP

restricted but reduced-level of prohibited activity present

Picnicking de facto open access prior to LP

varies by landowner; MRC has designated picnic areas

Swimming de facto open access prior to LP

?

65

Communities of Interests Types of Use Economic Value Non-Economic

Value Past Community

Accessibility Present

Community Accessibility

Fishermen (for hatchery research)

(to the fishermen)

varies by land owner

varies by land owner

Hunting clubs (to the

landowner)

access permitted and regulated by state hunting regulations

paid permits

Local teachers and students

de facto open access prior to LP

Little access

Mountain biking groups (such as IMBA)

? expressed interest by using lands but have not been granted access to our knowledge

Restoration groups

(to workers and

possible restoration

organization)

varies by landowner

varies by landowner

University researchers

? = Lack of information for Mendocino and Humboldt; requires further research.

66

Section II.D

Indigenous Peoples [Go to ToC]

by Rachel King

II.D.1. Background

The purpose of this section is to address the interactions between certified landowners

and neighboring indigenous peoples over land management in Mendocino and Humboldt

Counties. These interactions will be divided into two categories: cultural use and indigenous

input. These subheadings have been chosen for their comprehensiveness and for their relevance

in the context of this study as a whole. We recognize that these are by no means the only issues

involved in this debate, and we encourage both landowners and Native Americans to revisit and

revise our discussion to suit their particular circumstances.

II.D.1.1. Stakeholders

These stakeholders include landowners, forest managers, and the federally recognized

Native American Tribes and the two Tribal organizations in Mendocino and Humboldt Counties

(9 and 3 Tribes, respectively). Recognition is recorded in the Federal Register, is based on a set

of criteria defined by the federal government, and is granted after review of an application by a

Tribe or Tribal organization. Tribal organizations in the region are groups formed by Native

Americans from distinct federally recognized tribes who have joined together out of a shared

public interest. For a list of Tribes and Tribal organizations in Mendocino and Humboldt

counties, please see Appendix B at the end of this paper. There are two main Tribal

organizations in Mendocino and Humboldt Counties: the Noyo River Indian Community in Fort

Bragg, which is not a federally recognized group but is comprised of enrolled Tribal members in

the community; and the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, a nonprofit consortium of ten

Tribes from Mendocino and Lake Counties.

II.D.1.2. Historical Basis

Historically, Native Americans’ rights have been at best neglected and at worst abused by

white settlers in North America. Settlers arriving in the early nineteenth century in the wave of

Western migration brought on during the gold rush were eager to gain land by any means

possible. Native Americans had already occupied most of this land for generations, and methods

for removing them often included illegal seizure of property, forcible displacement, and, in the

67

worst cases, violent massacres. The federal government began establishing reservations for these

displaced Native Americans toward the end of the nineteenth century and continued into the

twentieth, although these reservations were often far from their indigenous homelands. While in

the past few decades federally recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations have been given

federal trusts to purchase back their land, the history of maltreatment is a long way from being

remedied. Both modern Native Americans and non-Native landowners (many of whom consider

their current ownership of formerly Native land unrelated to the actions of a century

ago) experience persistent problems with land disputes, racism, and mutual mistrust.

II.D.1.3. State and Federal Legislation

As part of an increasing effort to obtain Native American input and act with respect for

their land and practices, both the state of California and the U.S. government have enacted

several pieces of legislation requiring Native American input in land management. The Forest

Practice Act,60 Public Resource Codes,61 and the California Environmental Quality Act62 require

state and local government agencies to consult with Native peoples before implementing land

management plans. This aims to avoid damaging cultural places or lands (locations important

for religious or historical reasons), or otherwise impacting Native cultural practices. These

regulations apply to both publicly and privately managed land, as well as land managed for

commercial purposes. This consultation remains difficult in many cases, however, because of

the land disputes, racism, and mistrust mentioned above.

II.D.2. FSC Stance

FSC’s policies differ from those imposed by the state of California in one very important

aspect: while the state demands proof of consultation only at the formation of a management

plan and then relies upon existing laws to encourage compliance, FSC’s five-year re-assessments

of its certified landowners require proof of ongoing consultation and interaction with Native

communities throughout the life of a management plan, thus demanding landowners to go

beyond the state laws. The goal is to encourage ongoing partnerships between indigenous

peoples and land managers, and thus ensure that the interests of both parties are taken into

60 Z’Berg-Nejedley Forest Practice Act (PRC Section 4511 et seq.) 61 California PRC 5097.9, PRC 5097.95, PRC 5097.99, PRC 5097.991, PRC 65351, PRC 65352, PRC 65352.3-4 62 California PRC 21083.2

68

account. This study attempts to elucidate FSC’s criteria and to provide suggestions for

monitoring these relationships in the interim between FSC re-assessments of certified

landowners.

II.D.2.1. FSC Principle 3

FSC’s Principle 3 states: “the legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own,

use and manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected”

(Appendix A). FSC defines the terms “recognized and respected” as follows:

A legal or customary right is considered to have been recognized and respected when its existence has been acknowledged and damage to it or interference with it is avoided, accommodated or compensated.63

This principle is seen as a specific case arising from Principle 2 on Tenure and Use Rights and

Responsibilities, and so the two principles taken together are important for understanding FSC’s

stance on indigenous peoples. In 2006 FSC provided extensive guidance for national standards

development and certifiers in the form of an official policy document entitled: FSC Principles 2

and 3: Guidance on Interpretation, which we will cite in the following discussion.64 The

following two subheadings will deal with individual criteria from Principle 3.

It should further be mentioned here that FSC’s criteria apply to two categories of

indigenous stakeholders: those with a “legal right” who own the land under consideration for

certification (whether they manage it themselves or allow external parties to develop the

management plan); and those with a “customary right” who do not own land now but whose

customary uses of the forest in the past should be recognized by certified non-indigenous

owners. The only Tribe or Tribal organization in the redwood zone of Mendocino County that

falls in the former category is the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, which is, as of the

time of this writing, not FSC certified. Criterion 3.1 of FSC’s Principle 3, which requires

assurance that indigenous peoples control forest management on their land, applies specifically

to the first category of indigenous ownership, and as it is not currently relevant to the parties in

this study, it will not be discussed. The second category of respecting customary rights is the

situation that prevails in the coastal zone of Mendocino and Humboldt Counties. Although

63 FSC Principles 2 and 3: guidance on interpretation. 2006. Policy and Standards Unit, Forestry Stewardship Council, FSC-DIS-30-004. Pp. 11. 64 FSC Principles 2 and 3: guidance on interpretation. 2006. Policy and Standards Unit, Forestry Stewardship Council, FSC-DIS-30-004.

69

Criteria 3.2-3.4 apply to both categories, they will be considered only as they pertain to the

second category mentioned above.

II.D.3. Cultural Use

II.D.3.1. Background

In this study, cultural use is defined as an extension of customary use, and consists of the

practices in which Native peoples have traditionally engaged on the land. The gist of the

problem at hand is that Native peoples have historically lived off this land and maintained access

to forest resources for cultural reasons – the question is how this might be accomplished if they

are not the land’s legal owners.

II.D.3.2. Types of Use

Non-consumptive uses include:

Tribal gatherings Recreation centered around cultural themes Cultural education in order to re-learn indigenous practices that have been lost

over the years Visiting sites with cultural relevance Using forestland as part of rehabilitative treatment programs for Native

Americans

Consumptive uses include:

Harvesting and consuming foods and medicinals Gathering basket-making plants Gathering wood for artistic purposes

With regard to these practices, the issue is not only one of access but also of how

environmental management can affect Native Americans. For example, Native American

basket-makers often request the right to collect their materials from traditional locations, which

today are often under management by non-Native landowners. These landowners may spray

pesticides on or near plants that are important to basket-making, causing basket-makers to come

into contact with these chemicals either by touching them or by ingesting them.

70

II.D.3.3. FSC Stance

Cultural land use is a wide-ranging issue that constitutes different activities depending

upon the parties involved in its discussion. For this reason, FSC has developed its criteria to

emphasize the principles of recognition and respect for indigenous rights, and has provided

policy guidance on how they should be interpreted. However, FSC ultimately leaves the

question of how these principles will be manifested open to development by those stakeholders

involved in the certification process.

II.D.3.4. Interpreting Principle 3

The sections of FSC Principle 3 that are most relevant to the category of cultural use is

Criteria 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (see Appendix 2 at the end of this section). Box 1 contains a brief

outline of how FSC Guidance on Interpreting Principles 2 and 3 describes the meaning of these

criteria:

71

Box 1 Outline of FSC Criteria 3.2-3.4

Criterion 3.2: - Area-based and tenure rights - Focuses on resources spread over a broad area and might be mobile - Examples:

Hunting migratory game over a range of migration Harvesting plants over range of distribution

- Recommendations: If management plan consumes or restricts access to these

resources, they should be made available elsewhere without excess hardship

Criterion 3.3: - Immoveable features - Sites, rather than areas, defined as point locations - Examples:

Archaeological sites (scatters or temporary camps) Economic resources (certain fungi or plants)

- Recommendations: Protect sites with buffers Extend area of some buffers to as to not reveal the site’s exact

location Consult with archaeologists, either through CAL FIRE, NAHC,

or the Register of Professional Archaeologists (www.rpanet.org) Criterion 3.4: - Intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples - Examples:

Knowledge about medicinal plants, ecological practices, or conditions

- Recommendations: None of this information should be used without permission

and/or written documentation of consulted peoples

72

II.D.4. Indigenous Input

II.D.4.1. Background

“Input” as a concept is central to FSC’s principles and to principles of community

integration in forest management, but in practice it is difficult to define and discuss. The FSC

Guidance Document on Principles 2 and 3, however, provides significant recommendations and

examples of how such a consultation process could be undertaken. For the purposes of this

study, we will define indigenous input as consultation with Native Tribes of a region on forest

management practices, implying dialogue (rather than simply notification) that aims to build a

consulting partnership between the two parties.

II.D.4.2. California Law on Consultation

California law requires that landowners contact Native American communities during the

formation of a management plan.65 A list of Tribes organized by county is available online

through CAL FIRE.66 CAL FIRE also established the Native American Advisory Council, and

California Public Resource Code 5097.9 provided for the creation of the Native American

Heritage Committee, both of which are ways of establishing contact with Native peoples.

These partnerships are an ideal situation in forest management, but realistically some

conflicts cannot be reconciled. Depending on the degree of the objection, the plan may be

approved regardless, it may be dismissed, or, in the extreme case, legal action may be taken. The

Karuk Tribe, for example, filed suit against Oregon-based PacifiCorp in 2007 to hold them

responsible for the toxic algae blooms in the Klamath River that deprive them of water resources

and their ability to practice religious rituals that involve immersion in river water.67 The Hoopa

Tribe has also defended its right to keep the course of the Trinity River flowing through their

land against Westlands Water District’s petition to divert the river and thus deprive the Tribe of

important cultural and ecological resources.68

65 California PRC 21083.2. 66 http://www.indiana.edu/~e472/cdf/native_american_contacts.shtml 67 Chichizola, Regina, Glen Spain, and Craig Tucker. "Groups Want PacifiCorp Held Accountable for Toxic Discharges." 20 Feb. 2007. Karuk Tribe of California Press Releases. Sacramento, CA. 20 May 2008 <http://http://karuk.us/press/press.php>. 68 Bailey, Eric. "Tribe Sees Its Culture Drying Up. the Hoopa are Fighting to Keep Water, Diverted for Agricultural Use, in the Trinity River to Save the Fish and Their Way of Life." Los Angeles Times 6 Sept. 2003. Hoopa Indian Tribe. Hoopa, CA. 20 May 2008 <http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/news/trinityriver.htm>.

73

II.D.4.3. Consultation: Process and Content

FSC’s Principle 3 does not have a specific section stating that certified landowners must

demonstrate contact with local indigenous communities (as the state of California does), but this

communication is specified in Principle 2, from which it derives. Effective consultation depends

upon the degree of trust present between the two sides.69 Adapting recommendations from the

FSC Guidance Document, examples of effective consultation should include those listed in Box

2.

FSC does not, however, offer suggestions to landowners who solicit feedback from these

stakeholders and receive no response. In this case, FSC’s philosophy of recognition and respect

for indigenous peoples’ sites and ways of life should be fundamental to any land management

philosophy regardless of the extent of these peoples’ direct involvement in the planning process.

Identifying and monitoring these factors much more difficult, however, but should under no

circumstances be disregarded.

II.D.5. Suggestions for a Monitoring System

Effective monitoring comes from effective consultation, in which forest managers and

indigenous peoples collaborate on management plans at the outset of the plans’ formations, and

then sustain these relationships throughout the plan’s life. This requires high levels of

communication and trust in order for the partnership to function properly. In order to accomplish

this, the forest manager should initiate contact with Native Tribes or Tribal organizations early

and begin to solicit input on the management plan. Monitoring should be incorporated into the

consultation roughly according to the process indicated in Figure 1, which will be further

detailed in the following sections.

In order to be most effective, this consultation should not end when the plan is approved,

but should be ongoing, especially in the period between FSC’s five-year re-assessments and even

between one-year visits to examine subsets of data.

69 While consultation with Native Americans on land management plans is required by the California State Government, it is not required that these Native Americans are allowed onto the land during the consultation phase. While FSC does not mandate that landowners allow this, it is strongly encouraged that they consider it where possible. Allowing Native Americans to participate in land surveys where possible would not only ensure that these surveys ensure the most comprehensive body of input possible, but would have a profound effect on cementing a partnership between indigenous communities and landowners.

74

Box 2 FSC Suggestions for Effective Consultation

II.D.5.1. Monitoring Case Studies

To create a foundation for monitoring, both sides should agree upon a set of benchmarks

and reference points (such as maps, charts, and criteria), are crucial. The Barriere Lake Trilateral

Agreement is one example of at set of such references (Box 3). Here, the Algonquins of Barriere

Lake and Arbex Forest Development Company jointly developed a series of sensitive area maps

(emphasizing which areas of land were to be used for commercial and cultural purposes) and

maps demonstrating measures to harmonize cultural and commercial practices using GIS.70

They then developed their programs on indigenous knowledge development and socioeconomic

development, using these maps as reference points for progress. While such advanced projects

as this might be limited by funding and resources, the message is applicable to all landowners:

jointly developing a set of materials to which both sides can refer throughout the life of the

management plan is a successful method of monitoring.

70 “The Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement,” Algonquins of Barriere Lake, Government du Québec, Government of Canada. 2000.

1. Consultation should be designed with indigenous communities and agreed to by them and the forest manager.

2. The management plan should be designed with indigenous communities. 3. Indigenous communities should be satisfied that the timeline presented is

adequate to provide them with effective involvement. 4. Indigenous communities should be satisfied that their concerns have been

recorded (through maps, audio/video recordings, etc.). 5. Indigenous communities indicate (on maps, where appropriate) the resources

and tenure rights they require to be protected. 6. Indigenous communities are satisfied that these strategies avoid threatening or

depleting their resource rights and tenure use. 7. In the event of unanticipated threat to resource presence or tenure and use

rights, indigenous communities are satisfied that appropriate measures are taken to respect these rights.

8. Financial, technical or logistical capacity-building support, in proportion to the scale and intensity of operations, is available to indigenous communities where required to assist in cooperation.

75

For a more quantifiable system, something along the lines of the Conservation Prospects

for the North Coast71 document that the Conservation Fund produced would also be useful (Box

4). In this analysis of existing conservation plans, the Conservation Fund used regional measures

of changes in the real estate and timber employment sectors to monitor possible impacts that

their projects could have. They used trends and predictions for changes in these areas to alert

them to parts of the management plan such as labor and neighboring land turnover and adjusted

the plan accordingly. These indicators could be applied easily to northern California and to

Native American concerns, especially when monitoring the concentration of Native communities

in managed areas and the amount of income Native peoples are receiving from employment on

managed lands.

71 “Conservation Prospects for the North Coast: A Review and Analysis of Existing Conservation Plans, Land Use Trends and Strategies for Conservation on the North Coast of California,” The Conservation Fund, 2005.

76

Figure 1 Native American Consultation Process

Forest manager establishes contact with Native American

stakeholders

No response/interest Proceed with plan

while recognizing and respecting

indigenous values

Native American stakeholders express interest in the plan

Forest manager consults with Tribes; management plan is formed through collaboration

and takes into account cultural impacts

Maps, charts, criteria, and

points of reference

Measures of resource abundance and regulations

on use

Goals for social and economic development

Monitoring Based on mutually agreed-upon

criteria

Certification

5-year Re-assessment

OR 1-year subset assessment

Trust or effective communication cannot

be established

Third-party mediation/facilitation, either by a committee or individual that meet approval by both sides

77

Box 3 Case Study: The Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement

II.D.5.2. Scalability

The suggestions mentioned above can apply to both large and small landowners, but the issue of

scalability ultimately becomes one of resources for management plan development. In the case

of large landowners, who often have greater financial resources at their disposal, a more

expensive process such as GIS mapping may be feasible. Designating an employee to serve as

liaison with the Native community, or including this as part of an existing job would be a very

effective way of monitoring this issue. An ideal solution would be hiring someone from a local

Native Tribe in this position. Easily accessible input mechanisms such as comment forms on a

website or a designated phone line would also facilitate communication, especially in the case of

landowners whose holdings are very large. Mendocino Redwood Company has implemented

this successfully. They have designated an employee to handle input from Native American

stakeholders and to process comments received on their website. It should be emphasized,

however, that the monitoring mechanism should be developed jointly so as to be specific to the

specific management plan.

The Barriere Lake Trilateral Agreement Stakeholders:

Algonquins of Barriere Lake Arbex Forest Development Company

Process: 1. Identify resource values. 2. Develop management strategies. 3. Use various strategies and test for sustainability.

Socio-economic studies of workforce, jobs related to land management, etc.

Document traditional ecological knowledge. Document cultural value of land.

4. Use these to develop options for management plans. Benefit:

Real manager-indigenous peoples relationship Blends traditional ways with modern development processes Documents cultural and ecological indigenous ways of life

78

Box 4 Case Study: The Conservation Fund

Smaller landowners are, of course, limited by size and financial constraints on the extent

of the monitoring processes they may create. In these cases, the landowner can maintain

successful monitoring programs simply by making themselves available for consultation and

feedback from Native communities, and publicizing this fact. If the relationship between the

landowner and neighboring indigenous peoples is made strong at the outset of the landowner’s

tenure, the trust built up in that relationship and the small scale of the operation will ideally

facilitate monitoring.

II.D.5.3. Conflict and Mediation

In the event that conflicts in management strategies, communication problems, or lack of

confidence on one or both sides prevents a solid partnership from forming between landowners

and indigenous peoples, it may be useful to establish a third-party monitoring entity72. This

entity could be anything from a single mediator to a committee composed of members from both

sides of the discussion (depending on the size of the operation) who are familiar with FSC’s

policies and standards, and would be responsible for soliciting input on management plans from

both sides, and then integrating this input into the plans in a manner on which both parties can

agree. This would facilitate discourse in an otherwise difficult situation and ensure impartiality

in the resulting plan. One disadvantage, however, would be that asking a third party to interpret

for two sides already experiencing difficulty communicating could make the problem worse 72 FSC Principles 2 and 3: guidance on interpretation, pp. 6, 8.

The Conservation Fund Stakeholders:

The Conservation Fund land managers Communities of location and communities of interest

Process: Examine population and real estate projected growth and business

and industry trends. Use these to predict changes in economic activities, employment, and

potential land turnover due to economic factors. Relate these to potential social consequences. Set goals to support strategic and long-term efforts that can withstand

projected changes. Benefits:

Based on “real-time” changes in economic situation Ways of measuring Native American presence in all socioeconomic

sectors Comprehensive integration into management plan

79

instead of better (like adding another link into an already garbled game of “Telephone”).

Ultimately, it is up to the two parties to decide which option they would like to pursue. The key

point, however, is that because differences of opinion arise, landowner’s consultation of

indigenous peoples and developing monitoring plans for this consultation should not be

abandoned. These communications are essential to FSC certified land management plans, and

FSC’s criteria for certification leave room for creative solutions to difficult problems such as

these.

If monitoring processes for indigenous peoples’ rights are formed once a management

plan has already been approved, it may be more difficult to establish a consulting partnership,

but it is nonetheless possible and is still essential to maintaining good stewardship practice.

Effective communication becomes even more necessary to obtain input, and it may be necessary

to employ a third party entity, at least at the outset of the relationship.

Of course, if no input is offered, the forest manager may proceed with the plan as they

see fit, but the FSC requirements on indigenous rights remain in place; the management plan

must still show adequate respect and recognition for indigenous peoples’ rights and practices.

They must still be aware of existing Native American Tribes and Tribal organizations in the

region, initiate archaeological surveys to identify sites, and abide by the archaeologists’

determinations about conservation methods. Information on how to identify Tribes and Tribal

organizations by region and the process for initiating archaeological surveys can be found in the

list of resources at the end of this handbook.

80

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

FSC Principle 3 Criteria

Criterion 3.1

Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories unless they

delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies.

Criterion 3.2

Forest management shall not threaten or diminish, either directly or indirectly, the resources or

tenure rights of indigenous peoples.

Criterion 3.3

Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples

shall be clearly identified in cooperation with such peoples, and recognized and protected by

forest managers.

Criterion 3.4

Indigenous peoples shall be compensated for the application of their traditional knowledge

regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations. This

compensation shall be formally agreed upon with their free and informed consent before forest

operations commence.

81

List of Federally Recognized Tribes and Tribal Organizations in Mendocino and Humboldt Counties Humboldt: Hoopa Valley Tribe Hopland Band of Pomo Sinkyone InterTribal Wilderness Council Table Bluff Rancheria Mendocino: Cahto Indian Tribe Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Cuyapaipe Community of Diegueno Lytton Rancheria Manchester Band of Pomo Indians Noyo River Indian Community Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Potter Valley Rancheria of Pomo Redwood Valley Round Valley Indian Tribes Sherwood Valley Rancheria Sinkyone InterTribal Wilderness Council