Message-ID: <330BE23F.21DC@nmsu.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:33:51 -0800 From: JuanCarlos Wandemberg <mailto:juwandem@NMSU.EDU> Subject: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY, SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
http://www.nmsu.edu/~iirm/articles/article.htmlSUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY, SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
A Participatory Model
> By Joel A. Diemer and Rossana C. Alvarez
>
> "When all is said and done, conservation is about people. It is about
> the balance that must be struck between humans and nature and between
> generations." (Janice C. Wright, 1988)
>
> Contemporary discussions on the future of the forestry profession
> calls for the development of new approaches to
> decisionmaking=97approaches appropriate to an increasingly turbulent an=
d > technology-affected environment. In this context, ecological knowledge
> (common sense) is receiving considerable attention. Funtowicz and
> Ravetz (1991) argue that in a rapidly changing world, science alone is
> an inadequate source for all answers; that we have little choice but
> to acknowledge and embrace the important contributions the public can
> bring to the decisionmaking and implementation process. In advancing
> the case for ecological knowledge, they virtually dismiss traditional
> scientific methodology as largely irrelevant to contemporary and
> emerging policymaking needs:"The task [of postnormal science] is to
> create the conceptual structures, along with the political
> institutions, whereby a creative dialogue may be developed" (p. 141).
>
> Mainstream resource management seems to be getting the point. Cubbage,
> O'Laughlin, and Bullock address the importance of citizen input in
> their encyclopedic Forest Resource Policy (1993):
>
> Forest management decisions [according to Duerr 1986] should be based
> on a new ethic that responds to the desires of people. This is an
> anthropocentric, utilitarian concept, but one that is flexible enough
> to accommodate the desires of recreationists as well as wildlife and
> wilderness enthusiasts=97all those who want to enjoy a product of the
> forest (p. 226, p. 242).
>
> John C. Gordon (1994) covers familiar ground in his exploration of the
> forester's new role in ecosystem management:
>
> Ecosystem management offers a way to begin to resolve the paradoxical
> need to manage nature.... In implementing a new paradigm, we foresters
> will not be accorded the luxury of passive observation. We should
> continue to try bold things and learn from setbacks or failure. But we
> should especially try to get our objectives, our intended outcomes
> right.... To know the objectives, we must ask our clients, the
> American people. How do we do this? Public education, public
> involvement, and politics are all now reasonably common forestry
> activities; but none seem to work very well in extracting a common
> vision.... Often, it seems, we would rather fight than win (p. 19).
>
> Jeff Romm (1994) goes beyond Gordon's assent-with-reservations to
> participation. In his differentiation between "sustainable forests"
> and "sustainable forestry," he suggests an avenue along which recent
> developments offer hope:
>
> [C]onflict has become counterproductive, eroding the very conditions
> in which investment on behalf of anyone's preferred forest is
> possible. The challenge is not to define the sustainable forest, a
> process that perpetuates conflict, but to develop social processes
> that recognize, accommodate, and respond more effectively to diverse
> perspectives of what the forest is and should be. The challenge is to
> achieve sustainable forestry (p. 35). [Sustainable forestry demands] a
> set of adaptive social processes that evade, settle, or surmount value
> conflicts in generally beneficial ways (p. 38).
>
> Romm's distinction is important. It reflects fundamental changes that
> have occurred in resource management conceptualization over the last
> half-century. The professional forester's concept of conservation has
> evolved from a focus on sustained yield and scientific- and
> research-based management as ends in themselves, to their inclusion in
> a holistic vision and community endeavor. The emerging perspective
> recognizes the existence of human ideal-seeking behavior as the key to
> sustainable ecosystems. Romm's viewpoint reflects this expansion of
> consciousness.
>
> Both Gordon's elaboration of "ecosystem management" and Romm's concept
> of "sustainable forestry" underscore a paradigm shift=97a shift that
> emphasizes the human factor in resource management policymaking.
> However, all too often careful research and intuition lead to sound
> conceptual conclusions and no further. Is there an answer to Romm's
> implicit question=97is there such a "set of adaptive social processes"?
>
> The answer is, "yes." The requisite "set of adaptive social processes"
> is presented in what follows as a two-stage model. This model links
> two methods, the search conference and the participative design
> workshop, to determine shared goals and to ensure their effective
> implementation. For the scientist, the methods come with robust
> theoretical underpinnings. For the practitioner, there is demonstrable
> viability from 40 years of successful application (largely outside of
> the Western Hemisphere). Finally, for the people who must live with
> the consequences, they offer the assurance of real participation in
> the development of their own sustainable futures.
>
> A Model for Participation
>
> Funtowicz and Ravetz's "post-normal science" argues for the utility of
> participative processes within uncertain and volatile fields=97like
> modern forestry policymaking (1992). The model presented here is in
> accord with their conclusion that abstract knowledge and ecological
> knowledge are both essential in confronting conflict. This approach to
> participative action=97local or global=97focuses on the capacity of bot=
h > scientists and lay people for ecological adaptation. Familiar
> "participatory" methods stress involvement as a means of encouraging
> public buy-in to plans created by experts. In contrast, this two-stage
> model entails concerted action proposed and implemented by
> "learning/planning communities" committed to attaining shared
> objectives. During the first stage, the search conference (SC),
> strategic plans are generated; during the second stage, the
> participative design workshop (PDW), the correlation between
> effectiveness and organizational structure is explained and a
> participative, democratic organization is created (see Emery 1993).
>
> The SC, being a pure example of a temporary participative, democratic
> organizational design, embraces all the concepts for ecological
> adaptation between system and environment in the context of strategic
> planning. The world environment, the specific system, and their
> integration form the SC context. Participants explore the multiple
> dimensions of complex issues together as they address the question,
> "Where do we want to be in 200X?" They work through a structured,
> task-oriented, and systematically managed process to identify their
> desired endpoint. The process increases the effectiveness of strategic
> planning by offering the participants=97those who will live with the
> final outcomes=97a forum to determine their direction.
>
> Conflict may emerge during the SC process. When it persists, it is
> acknowledged and rationalized=97it is not "resolved." The process is no=
t > compromised through self-deceptive exercises in reaching "consensus."
> Applications include policymaking, rationalization of conflict,
> creating new organizations or networks, participative strategic
> planning (corporate, issue-oriented, etc.), and organizational or
> industrial development or reform.
>
> Following the search conference, the participative design workshop
> addresses the question, "How can we best organize ourselves to realize
> this shared vision or strategic plan?" The SC provides the context for
> planning; however, it does not=97and cannot=97deal with the structure o=
f > the larger permanent working environment. All organizations explicitly
> or implicitly have some form of design=97based either on bureaucratic o=
r > participative-democratic principles. Establishing, managing, and
> implementing plans require organization and understanding of
> organizational design principles. The PDW provides this
> understanding=97illustrating the divergence among organizational design=
s > and examining those divergences in behavioral terms.
>
> The PDW spurs awareness of the human consequences of organizational
> structure, and it can produce a meaningful democratization in any
> group. The process pools and mobilizes the knowledge, skills,
> creativity, and concerns of all participants. It places a premium on
> the idiosyncrasies and unique circumstances of individuals within the
> environment in which they interact. The method is appropriate for work
> design or redesign and for all types of organizations, communities,
> and issue-oriented teams=97from technicians or engineers on a factory
> floor to forest-based communities planning for a nonextractive future.
>
> Methodological Development: Stage I=97Search Conference
>
> The SC concept evolved from "action research" conducted by the
> Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London following World War
> II. The first SC was conducted in England in 1960 by Eric Trist and
> Fred Emery for the Bristol Siddeley Aircraft Engine Company. The event
> was an experiment in strategic planning designed to improve the
> quality of cooperative work and to develop common plans and strategies
> for an organization that resulted from the merger of
> Armstrong-Siddeley Company and Bristol Aero Engines Company.
>
> The method was subsequently taken to Australia and elaborated by Fred
> and Merrelyn Emery. The first community-level application established
> development guidelines for Gunghlin, a planned community in the
> Australian capital of Canberra (National Capital Development
> Commission 1973; Emery 1982). During the 1970s, more than 300 SCs were
> held in Australia. Through the early 1980s, Canada hosted more than 30
> such events in various organizational and community settings (Trist
> and Murray 1993). The method's utility as a strategic planning tool
> for turbulent environments has only recently been used in the United
> States=97by private industry and public agencies such as the USDA Fores=
t > Service.
>
> Stage II=97Participative Design Workshop
>
> The PDW also evolved from action research efforts at Tavistock.
> Research on mine workers at the Elsecar Coal Mine in South Yorkshire
> provided insights that led to the development of the Sociotechnical
> System Design (STSD) methodology=97 the PDW's precursor. While at
> Tavistock, Fred Emery contributed to the elaboration of the STSD
> methodology. His work during the 1960s with Einar Thorsrud of the
> Norwegian Work Research Institute on
>
> Norway's "Industrial Democracy" program helped crystallize the tenets
> of PDW. These efforts ended with widespread agreement that
> participative democracy was a viable alternative to workplace
> autocracy, but they did not address how the findings were to be widely
> implemented.
>
> Emery returned to Australia in 1969, committed to providing workers
> with a simple set of social concepts and a process for redesigning
> their work along participative, democratic lines (Emery 1993). Van
> Eijnatten (1993) explains that, "[the PDW] breaks with the classical
> expert-led STSD tradition. It is a genuine 'do-it-yourself' approach
> with only a minimum of theory and concepts" (p. 46). He attributes the
> PDW's relatively slow diffusion, thus far, to its "anti-expert
> character that puts consultancy agencies on a sideline" (p. 53). The
> PDW has been used in Australia, Norway, India, The Netherlands, and
> more recently in the United States, Canada, Honduras, and Mexico.
> Little of this work is documented in the literature, however, because
> the method's developers made a conscious decision to emphasize that
> PDW reports are the property and responsibility of the subject
> group=97not the event managers (Emery 1995, pers. common.).
>
> The Model in Practice: Stage I
>
> The process begins when people within the system recognize a need. A
> period of careful preparation and planning follows. The task for the
> SC is established during this preliminary phase. Participant
> selection, which is next, depends on the SC task and the system for
> which strategic planning is being undertaken. In a community forestry
> application, participants are selected by the community, using
> specific criteria and a process called the Community Reference System.
> In this system, members who have taken the initiative=97perhaps resourc=
e > management agency staff, local officials, and community members
> concerned with the environment=97establish a "social map of their
> community. They then develop criteria for selecting SC participants.
> Each area of the social map should be represented, for example private
> citizens, industry members, local government officials, and natural
> resources professionals. Selected individuals then name 2 to 3 other
> individuals who meet the criteria, and after several repetitions of
> this pattern, those people who are most often referenced are chosen
> for the SC group. Finally, background research needs must be
> addressed. These preliminary activities can extend over several
> months.
>
> During the SC, participants go beyond themselves and their explicit
> task to examine possibilities=97rather than just probabilities and
> feasibilities=97and then narrow these to a set of common strategic
> goals. "The process moves from the uncritical pooling of individuals'
> perceptions, to critical reflection on these through dialogue, towards
> a shared representation of reality that can guide future action"
> (Crombie 1985, p. 8 ). SC protocols include the stipulation that all
> perceptions are valid. This encourages free expression and opportunity
> to consider all ideas and opinions. All work is done in the open and
> recorded on large sheets of flip-chart paper. These are hung on the
> walls as a reference and "permanent" record for the community.
>
> The SC event has three phases:
> Phase 1. Participants brainstorm to compile a list of recent global
> events that impress them as novel or significant. This data is
> analyzed in response to the questions, "Where is the world headed if
> things are not done differently?" and "What do we want the world to
> be?"
> Phase 2. The focus shifts to their particular system (organization,
> community, or issue) and a communal history is inscribed. Participants
> then collectively consider the distinctive elements of the system at
> present: what to keep, what to eliminate, and what to initiate.
> Finally, participants construct the most desirable future of the
> system=97their general strategic goals.
> Phase 3. Participants integrate the information compiled during phases
> 1 and 2. They identify constraints and distinguish between simply
> desirable ends and desirable and achievable futures. Finally, they
> develop detailed action plans of viable strategies for realizing their
> goals.
>
> The SC makes learning and planning one integrated process through
> which participants become a planning community. Membership in this
> community fosters understanding and meaningful adaptation to
> environmental turbulence. The complicated act of working together
> encourages a sense of belonging and guards against dissociation.
>
> The Model in Practice: Stage II
>
> The SC yields a motivated planning community with a strategic plan. It
> does not provide the community with guidelines for organizing itself
> for the long term to accomplish its objectives. Organizational design
> principles are unfamiliar territory to most people. The PDW provides
> conscious knowledge of organizational structures and the design
> principles on which they are based. Design principles, their dynamics,
> effects on human behavior, and their relative practicality are
> demonstrated in three briefings:
> Briefing 1. Participants are introduced to design principle 1=97the
> organizational structure known as bureaucracy. The inverse
> relationship of bureaucracy to the six psychological requirements for
> productive activity (room for decisionmaking, continuous learning,
> variety, mutual support and respect, meaningfulness of work, and
> personal desired future) is discussed (Emery 1993). Bureaucratic
> structure is shown to frustrate both individual and group enthusiasm
> and effectiveness. Its tendency to limit individual development by
> discouraging learning and use of a variety of skills is highlighted.
> Using the six psychological requirements, participants evaluate their
> current situation. Their evaluations are discussed and entered in a
> common matrix for later use. Then participants collectively inventory
> the critical skills and capabilities needed to implement their
> strategic plans. Finally, they evaluate themselves in reference to
> each skill and enter the data in a second matrix, also for later use.
> Briefing 2. Participants are introduced to design principle
> 2=97participative democracy=97and its positive relationship to the six
> psychological criteria for productive work. This structure is shown to
> raise individual enthusiasm and effectiveness levels far above those
> experienced in bureaucracies and, correspondingly, to engage available
> skills more efficiently and fulfillingly.
> In small work groups, participants simultaneously design a
> participative, democratic organization to implement their plans. The
> groups present their designs for discussion and evaluation.
> Participants select a preferred design then work on any remaining
> deficiencies.
> Briefi ng 3. The final briefing outlines tasks intended to focus on
> the details needed to make the group's organizational design work and
> to meet the practical demands of implementing their strategic plan.
> Tasks include setting targets for work groups, establishing and
> coordinating training requirements, arranging to recruit help in areas
> where essential skills are lacking, and evaluating the proposed design
> with reference to the six psychological criteria for productive work.
> Before the workshop concludes, participants must feel that the
> immediate work is essentially done, and that it is time to involve the
> larger community.
>
> Why a Two-Stage Model?
>
> The history of participative endeavors is littered with exemplary
> events that have failed to yield long-term results. Without a viable
> organizational structure, people are often unable to sustain their
> initial enthusiasm. Failure is predictable when participants in the
> planning are unmindful or incapable of establishing a congruence
> between the envisioned system, its relevant environment, and their own
> mode of operation. The SC phase is specifically designed to produce
> adaptive relations between system and environment. However, it is
> incapable of maintaining that adaptation where the structural
> conditions necessary for longterm success remain maladaptive. The PDW
> complements the SC, providing assurance that SC outcomes can be
> successfully implemented. The importance of linking the two methods
> cannot be overstated.
>
> Ideally held consecutively, the overstated stages require a total of
> 30 to 40 working hours. However, the process should not be viewed as a
> one-time event. A planning learning community needs to routinely scan
> its environment, revisit its goals and action plans, and monitor the
> integrity of its participative democratic organization.
>
> Conclusions
>
> Sustainability in the forestry arena, or any sector, depends on people
> establishing an adaptive relationship with their environment=97a proces=
s > that typically includes other people. With their specialized
> knowledge, foresters play an important role when their expertise
> results in a clearer understanding of whatever system is being
> searched. This model provides an ideal format within which people can
> communicate their specialized knowledge with others=97who, in turn, hav=
e > special knowledge of their own to offer. Within the model's
> parameters, scientists, "not as aspiring Newtons" (Norton 1991, p.
> 117) but as integrated members of their society with relevant and
> important insights to offer, may fruitfully contribute to the
> development of both sustainable communities and sustainable forestry.
> Norton noted, "The goal must be to promote education in the richer
> sense of helping the public to think more dearly about the social
> goals of environmental management" (p. 104). The two-stage
> model=97linking the SC to the PDW--offers an appropriate vehicle for
> this noble yet practical endeavor.
>
> Literature Cited
>
> CARLEY, M., and 1. CHRISTIE. 1993. Managing sustainable development.
> Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
>
> CUBBAGE, E, J. O'LAUGHLIN, and C.S. BULLOCK, III. 1993. Forest
> resource policy. New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
>
> CROMBIE, A. 1985. The nature and types of search conferences.
> International Journal of Lifelong Education 4(1):7-25.
>
> EMERY, M. 1982. Searching. Canberra: The Australian National
> University, Centre for Continuing Education.
>
> _________. 1993. Participative design for participative democracy.
> Canberra: The Australian National University, Centre for Continuing
> Education.
>
> FUNTOWICZ, S.O., and J.R. RAVETZ. 1991. A new scientific methodology
> for global environmental issues. In Ecological economics: The science
> and management of sustainability, ed. Robert Costanza. New York:
> Columbia University Press.
>
> GORDON, J.C. 1994. From vision to policy: A role for foresters.
> Journal of Forestry 92(7):35-39.
>
> NORTON, B.G. 1991. Ecological health and sustainable resource
> management. In Ecological economics: The science and management of
> sustainability, ed. Robert Costanza. New York: Columbia University
> Press.
>
> ROMM, J. 1994. Sustainable forests and sustainable forestry. Journal
> of Forestry 92(7):35-39.
>
> TRIST, E., and H. MURRAY. 1993. The social engagement of social
> science: A Tavistock anthology. Vol. 2, The socio technical
> perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
>
> VAN EIJNATTEN, E. M. 1993. The Paradigm that changed the work place.
> Stockholm: The Swedish Center for Working Life.
>
> WRIGHT, J.C. 1988. Future generations and the environment. In Studies
> in resource management, no. 6. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln
> College.
>
> About the Authors: Joel A. Diemer is director and Rossana C. Alvarez
> is research specialist, International Institute for Natural,
> Environmental, Cultural Resources Management, Box 30003, Dept. 3169,
> New Mexico State University, Las Cruces 88003.