Ellen Engstedt - September 26, 2005
Montana Wood Products Association
Forest Collaboration
KUFM COMMENTARY – SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
Decisions. Who should make them and how should they be made? When it comes to virtually anything on public land these days a small segment of the population demands to be allowed to micromanage each action under the guise of “collaboration”. Land managers try to function under the microscope without being paralyzed by the scrutiny of having each move analyzed. And, reasonable people who are way too polite are attempting to accommodate this very small vocal minority.
Many activities participated in by today’s society could benefit from collaboration – the action of working together and moving a project forward through cooperation. However, the key to real collaboration is that all parties participate in good faith and agree to uphold the outcome reached by the group.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act and other statutes call for participation by local citizens through a collaboration process to address concerns with the harvest of timber. This is as it could be on large projects if the concerns are legitimate, but again the participants have to use good faith and not simply use the process to stall any action. Forests and ecosystems are dynamic – they are constantly changing and evolving. Bugs and disease do not stop spreading while humans sit around collaborating on whether it is a good idea to stop the destruction.
Two very recent examples come to mind that thoroughly shake the concept of public collaboration. The Flathead and Kootenai National Forest Rehabilitation Act was enacted to enable proactive restoration on some of the lands burned in the Robert, Wedge and West Side Reservoir fires of 2003 in the Flathead valley. After 88 people from the local area spent countless hours developing a plan to implement action on the ground, two participants in the collaboration filed litigation to stop the project. Obviously good faith efforts did not enter the picture for those who did not get what they wanted during collaboration even though that is the process they claimed would be the most fair way to resolve perceived problems.
The second is the case in the Bitterroot National Forest where the forestlands are in dire need of human intervention and where outside forces are doing all they can to roadblock local efforts to provide restoration. Concerned residents of Ravalli County have been meeting on a regular basis with Forest Service personnel to develop a plan of action for the Middle East Fork area near Sula.
The preferred alternative selected by the Forest Service is one strongly supported by the local residents. Another proposal was submitted by a collection of individuals who prefer to see no action on the forest except for a small amount of work done around houses and raking needles from under decks. They say this is all that is needed to stop the spread of bugs and the threat of catastrophic wildfire burning again through the valley. The majority of the residents living there disagreed with that assessment and want significant work completed in their community.
A field trip to the project area held earlier in the summer was attended by many local residents some of whom later expressed concern that they had felt intimidated by other participants who opposed any active management.
When the Forest Service released the final document for the project last week, a few local supporters of the alternative to be used were invited to attend the press conference. Opponents of the restoration work showed up but were not allowed to participate because the supporters had been promised a safe environment without fear of challenge and intimidation. The hue and cry was loud and animated by those uninvited that they deserved to be present.
So, the process of true collaboration in both examples takes a hit because it was not conducted in good faith by all participants. It appears some think collaboration is a good thing only if they are granted everything they want. But, that is not the way the system is designed.
It is a safe bet that the next headline will read litigation has been filed in the Middle East Fork project. The losers will be the residents of the local area who did their part in the collaborative efforts, even while feeling intimidated. It is probably also safe to say they will think twice about “collaboration” in the future.
For the Montana Wood Products Association based in Helena, I am Ellen Engstedt. Thanks for listening.
|
|
