highlights of the on line stakeholder consultation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 11
daire

Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

103 Views
Download Presentation
Highlights of the On-Line Stakeholder Consultation
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Highlights of theOn-Line Stakeholder Consultation On Potential Refinements to the Montreal Criteria & Indicators

  2. The Basics • January 20 through February 28, 2005 • Objective: To collect stakeholder feedback on potential refinements to the Montreal C&I • 22 questions, all with open-ended responses • Site designed and managed by Dialogue by Design

  3. Respondents • Invitation sent to ~2,400 persons • 95 respondents • 23% Federal Agency • 22% College or University • 18% State Agency • 8% Non-profit Env./Cons. Group • 8% Other (unspecified)

  4. Respondents • Respondents were asked at what scale their organization works. • 41% national level • 45% regional level • 48% state level • 23% county or other local level

  5. Responses • Total of 944 responses to the 22 questions • Mean: 43 • Median: 40 • Range: 89 - 26

  6. Responses per Question

  7. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 1: Forest Biodiversity • Language should emphasize native biodiversity • Human element is missing • Genetic diversity is expensive to measure and difficult to understand • “Forest type” and “forest dependent species” are a vague and broad terms that needs to be defined more precisely

  8. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 2: Forest Productivity • Too focused on timber production • “Determined to be sustainable”: By whom? How? What is the benchmark? • Criterion 3: Forest Health • Indicators are too vague (or detailed) as stated to be meaningful • Need explicit explanation of “range of historic variation”

  9. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 4: Soil and Water • Indicators require a baseline to be meaningful • Many comments on how these indicators should be measured and how data should be interpreted • Criterion 5: Global Carbon Cycles • Important topic: Need to be better equipped to report on these indicators • Many technical issues related to carbon accounting that need to be addressed

  10. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 6: Socio-economic Benefits • Indicators are vague • Too narrowly economic and quantitative to capture many benefits • Methods used for recreation are outdated • More emphasis on social, cultural, and spiritual values • More emphasis on non-timber forest products • More emphasis on indigenous peoples

  11. Feedback Highlights • Criterion 7: Legal and Institutional Framework • Need more on actual public participation • Need something that speaks to stewardship incentives and the existence of a forest ethic • Can these indicators be evaluated in a way that is meaningful over time? Assessment protocols. • Market forces critical when discussing investment, management plans, etc. • Qualitative methods could help flesh out these indicators