Recommendations from the Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Project

Pamela WrightForest Monitoring Team LeaderUSFS Inventory and Monitoring Institute

Sustaining the Contexts That Sustain Us: Sustainability Monitoring at the FMU Scale

Nancy LankfordMt. Hood National Forest

LUCID Team Leader

Sustainability: A Multi-Scaled Quest

Sustainability is about the interaction of social, economic and ecological realms

Sustainability is a multi-scaled concept: Must work simultaneously on sustainability at multiple scales

E co lo g ica l

E co n o m ic

S u sta in a b ility

S o c ia l

Although the sustainability quest is shared among scales, the management challenges and the questions change at every scale

C&I are tools used to help define, and assess progress towards sustainability – designed at multiple scales

Certification Initiatives

FSC, AFPA, Smartwood, SCS

Certified Forests & Operations

Market PressuresGlobal Sustainability Dialogue

Santiago Declaration

Montreal Process

Helsinki Accord

National/International Reporting Initiatives

National Scale C&I Set

National Scale C&I Set

Regional AssessmentsState C&I Reporting

Multi-Scaled Sustainability Initiatives: The Context for the LUCID Test

Forest Management Unit Initiatives

CIFOR TestsCIFOR-NA (Boise)

LUCIDCommunity

Forest Initiatives

Model Forests

NAFC, Mexico, FAO Initiatives

A tool to establish a dialogue on sustainability and improve management on the ground

Forest monitoring designed to help measure progress towards plan objectives and plan decisions

Provide information to assist in, and inform, forest management

Increasing focus on broader goal of sustainability within an adaptive ecosystem approach to management

Why FMU Scale Monitoring?

Desire to move away from compartmentalized, input/output monitoring (focus on progress towards desired conditions)

Take a systems approach to monitoring that recognizes the complexity of forests/grasslands.

Sustaining Systems

National Forests and Grasslands are joint production systems – simultaneously, not independently, produce soil, water, air, plant and animal material and benefits that flow from them.

Ecosystem management, adaptive management and sustainability based on recognition of complexity and inter-relatedness of our environment

Complex Living Systems ~ A group of interrelated, interacting, and interdependent elements that form a complex whole.

Given the diverse values for our forests and grasslands a systems approach helps us:

We provide for diverse values by sustaining the contexts (the ecological, social and economic systems), the very systems that sustain us.

The Link Between Sustainability and Systems

Developing monitoring C&I requires identifying the relationship between the C&I framework and the construct of sustainability

Many choices in frameworks that may be more or less appropriate depending on the context, scale, questions of focus

For the FMU scale and with a focus on answering questions related to the sustainability of an LRMP we choose a framework to allow us to monitor the condition of the subsystems of the joint production system

Can We Monitor all of the Parts?

If the manager has the responsibility for the trajectory of an FMU we need to monitor its sustainability – not just certain aspects

Answer the question -- can the subsystem continue to support the JPS in the future?

Monitoring all of subsystem components and processes impossible

Must carefully select indicators of various systems to alert us to potential problems before they are serious

Each subsystem that operates at FMU scale needs to have one or more indicators of its sustainability measures (no fixed number) that address the expression of the specific subsystem component in that FMU

How Did We Define Our Scope

Forest Management Unit (FMU)– An area approximating a national forest in its local ecological, social and economic context

Flexible definition that is variously scaled because it’s a mix of both the administrative land management unit and a collage of social, economic and ecological polygons that are relevant to the management of the unit

Focus not defined based on the vegetation type/plant community – for example many of National Forests contain a mix of forested and non-forested environments – intent to address it in its entirety

Focus on monitoring for assessing progress towards sustainability consistent with questions asked at the scale of an LRMP

Examine relationships between scales

Develop a strategy to implement C&I monitoring for national forests and grasslands

Identify further development and research needs

Test feasibility of monitoring and assessment of sustainable systems at the forest management unit scale.

LUCID Project Objectives

Develop and test a suite of indicators to assess sustainability

Explore methods for synthesizing information about sustainability

Methods

O ttaw a N F

A lleg h en yN F

B lu e M n tP ro v in ce

To n g assN F

M o d o cN F

M t. H oo dN F

N ew loca lin d ica tors

L oca llyre levan t

in d ica torsL U C ID

set o f C & I

R ev isedL U C ID

set o f C & I

In itia lL U C ID

set o f C & I

In itia lL U C ID

set o f C & I

Revise and modify a draft set of FMU-scale C&I developed within a systems framework and adapt them to the unique conditions of each forest regardless of vegetation type/plant community;

Develop and design measures and reference values for each indicator;

Perform a field test of the suite of C&I;

Explore approaches and techniques for analysis and synthesis – for integrating across indicators

Conduct a relative sustainability assessment not an absolute determination

Lessons Learned: Systems Approach Valuable as an Organizing and Learning

Tool

F u n ctio nF u n ctio nS tru ctu re & C om p ositio nS tru ctu re & C om p ositio n

O rg an ism stru ctu re a n dcom p o sitionO rg an ism stru ctu re a n dcom p o sition

P op u la tion stru ctu re a n dcom p o sitionP op u la tion stru ctu re a n dcom p o sition

E co sy stem /co m m u n itystru ctu re an d com p o sitionE co sy stem /co m m u n itystru ctu re an d com p o sition

L a n d scap e stru ctu re a n dcom p o sitionL a n d scap e stru ctu re a n dcom p o sition

O rg an ism fu n ctio nO rg an ism fu n ctio n

P op u la tion fu n ctio nP op u la tion fu n ctio n

E co sy stem /co m m u n ityfu n ctio nE co sy stem /co m m u n ityfu n ctio n

L a n d scap e fu n ctionL a n d scap e fu n ction

I. Hydrologic function

M1. Watershed condition index

M2. Drought/flood severity index (Palmer)

Ecological Systems

Sustainability is about the complex whole – the parts and their interactions

Collectively build understanding of how the whole, the forest in context, works

Identified a process & set of tools to take a systems approach and a common ecological & socio-economic systems framework

Puts puts the focus on interpreting the indicator in its context – it adds meaning

Frames monitoring of key forest attributes and inter-relationships

Better define critical items for monitoring

Identified a core suite of systems-based FMU-scale criteria and indicators recommended for examination by National Forests.

Flexibility in selection, measurement and assessment is needed to adapt the indicators and develop measures to the contexts and management issues for each National Forest.

C riter io nC riter io n

R eferen ce Va lu eR eferen ce Va lu e

D a ta E lem en tD a ta E lem en t

M ea su reM ea su re

In d ica to rIn d ica to r

Core suite of C&I adaptable to the specific conditions of a forest – within systems framework (16/58)

Key elements of joint production systems that are common across forests – but broad concepts

Treat as a suite but still just a starting point

Lessons Learned: Core Suite of C&I

The process of engaging the National Forest staff and collaborators in a dialogue about sustainability and sustainability monitoring is invaluable.

Focus attention on values

Develop models of how system elements and issues are integrated

Identify desired future system conditions

Engage new partners and communities

Serve as basis for discussing public values (a relative assessment of sustainability) rather than an absolute measure of sustainability.

Learning about Sustainability

“FMU-level sustainability monitoring is a way to have an ongoing process to work with the public to have a way to create open dialog with the public”

Forest Supervisor’s and their teams found that FMU-scale sustainability monitoring and assessment can be accomplished and can provide valuable information for forest planning and management.

Conduct assessment of current situation

Prioritize and focus Forest monitoring efforts

Help identify priority actions for management and research

Emphasizes relationship of Forest to surrounding ecological, socio-economic contexts

Help tell the stories of sustainability

Lessons Learned: Sustainability Monitoring & Decision-Making

Evaluation Report

Amendment & Revision

Decision

Plan Monitoring

Plan Implementation

National Direction, New Information, etc.

The Relationship Between Monitoring and Forest Planning

Indicators used for evaluating options

Regional scale assessments provide context and identify possible forest issues

Forest scale evaluation provides case study for regional assessments

Periodic evaluation /assessment of state of systems combines plan monitoring with other monitoring information

Critical systems indicators tied to plan decisions and desired conditions

Annual monitoring on critical systems components

Identify progress towards desired conditions and mid-course adjustments

Project scale monitoring organized within common systems framework

Identify critical areas for revision

Planning cycle series of 3 nested and inter-related loops working at different time scales: vision, strategy and design criteria

Scale Matters

Systems exhibit properties at a mix of scales

No one scale is correct and no single unified scale can be used to describe all systems

Different properties of systems are observable at different scales

All above applies equally temporally as it does spatially

Since systems reveal different characteristics at different scales, the questions (e.g., subsistence) change at every scale consequently the inventory, monitoring and planning activities may change.

F a cilita ted ia lo g u e &in fo rmm a n a g em en to n -th e-g ro u n d

In fo rmp o licy &b u d g et

F o rest M a n a g em en t P la nR ev isio n s/A m en d m en ts

F o rest M a n a g em en t P la nR ev isio n s/A m en d m en ts

FMU

FMU

F o rest P la n /S u sta in a b ility M o n ito r in g

F o rest P la n /S u sta in a b ility M o n ito r in g

R eg io n a l S ca le A ssessm en tsR eg io n a l S ca le A ssessm en ts

S ierra N ev a d aG rea t L a k es A ssessm en t

S ierra N ev a d aG rea t L a k es A ssessm en t

R eg ion

R eg ion

G R PAS tra teg ic P la n

N a tio n a l L ev e l R ep o rtin g (M P )

G R PAS tra teg ic P la n

N a tio n a l L ev e l R ep o rtin g (M P )N ation

N ation

Shared objectives but different questions and purposes at each scale.

Match questions and data to scale and system properties

Results are contextualized

Tools should complement each other

Corporate data and storage systems can facilitate this

Building Relationships Between Scales

Single scale tool does not address needs at any scaleStart by identifying the scalar question and system propertyThen identify type of scale relationship between conceptually related componentsMoves away from defining relationships as if they are all mathematically additive (aggregation response)Results in conceptual consistency and measurement flexibility

Shared Data

Different questions

Different analysis

Conceptual Relationship

Context

Adapted measures & reference values

Narrative relationships

Identifying Scalar Relationships

Simple scaling

Systems scaling

www.fs.fed.us/institute/lucid

Pwright02@fs.fed.us

“The LUCID test has identified common social, economic, and ecological threads that can be woven

together to tell the sustainability stories of our national forests and grasslands.”

Dale N. Bosworth

Applying Lessons Learned

Monitoring GuidancePlanning ruleForest plan prototypeRegional desk guidesWilderness monitoring

Training General systems thinking trainingSystems-based monitoring

regional training academyforest revision training

Refining ApproachesSystems approaches for MIS monitoring

Monitoring evaluation

Assistance to ForestsMonitoring guidance –a process for developing monitoring programs

Forests in revision (R1, R9…)

Stewardship contracting (R1)

R&DMulti-scale sampling relationshipsStandardized, scale specific monitoring protocolsSpatial optimization approaches

Implications and Challenges of Scale

We frequently apply the wrong scale tool (e.g., a standardized protocol) simply because its available or develop a tool without consciously thinking of what scale we need it for

Single scale tools don’t adequately address questions at all levels

Drive for consistency can overwhelm the utility of the tool For ‘measurement’ this requires conscious choices:

1. What is your question?

2. What are the system properties?

3. What scale(s) are these properties expressed and measurable at?

Scaling Up ~ We desire the ability to use our knowledge of small systems to predict and manage these large-scale systems

Simple Scaling: Multiply up a phenomenon observed in a small plot or sample to make a

statement about the forest, the region and the world

Hierarchical Scaling: This combines moving between systems and scale - in this type of

scaling we are interested in the relationships between phenomena in one hierarchical type to another

Scaling Up: Analysis, Synthesis and Sampling

Drive for consistency and efficiency typically lead to simple scaling – leads to invalid results

The idea of relationships or linkages is too often represented as one in which the relationship is mathematically additive (the aggregation scenario)