E-participation Requires Systems Intelligence

Paula Siitonen and Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory

Marcelo Tabarelli, Pernambuco Federal University

Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil

Emotions as well as Facts are Important in Participation

• Every participation process is systemic• People react to the way the process is initially

framed and carried out• These reactions and feedbacks have an impact

in the outcomes of the process• A successfull participation process requires the

consideration of the facts and goals as well as peoples relationships and interactions with Systems Intelligence

Systems Intelligence (SI)

• Intelligent and active behaviour of an individual in the context of systems with interactions and feedbacks (Saarinen & Hämäläinen 2004)

• Systems intelligence: A person sees the situation as a system, herself in it, her own impact on the system and the impact of the other components (people, organizations) of the system on her. She behaves creativily concerning these feedbacks.

Understanding the System

• Interaction and feedbacks between people and between human system and forest ecosystem

• Includes facts and hidden values and emotions such as trust and fear

SI Participation Process1. Bring the participants into a dialogue to build positive trust and to give

people a voice

2. Frame the situation as a collaborative process to learn more together to reach mutual benefits instead of conflict management

3. Using dialogue work towards shared understanding of the situation as a system with intercations and feedbacks between the people and between the human and natural system.

4. Work together to define a common goal; the desired benefits and a process to produce them. Structure the objectives. Consider also unmeasurable invisible objectives such as trust.

5. Create and evaluate different ways to change the existing system to a desired one. These are strategy alternatives.

6. Monitor and evaluate the process. Consider what was created and also what was not yet created. See this as a possibility and a challenge for the future collaboration.

Case:Design a process for the sustainable conservation of

the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil using SI

Policy Issues• Forests fragmented (3% remains), more large

continuos areas needed for species survival: restoration and agroforestry

• Hunting and illegal cuttings• People are poor and level of education is low• Most of remaining forests are on private lands• Law requires conservation of remaining forests and

reforestation of river corridors. Law is not conformed• Suger mills started reforestation of the river corridors

to ensure water supply and to improve competitiveness

How to improve species survival and economic and social

wellfare?

Methods and Participation in Brazil Case

• Dialogue • Internet page• Facilitated meetings

• Systems description• Field excursions• GIS• MCDA-programs• Evaluating feelings

Starting

• Dialogue to create positive trust• Framing the situation as a collaborative process: • To learn more• To reach mutual benefits • To create sustainable development in the region

rather than just conservation

Seeing the Situation as a System

• Who are the decision makers and other interested parties in Atlantic Forests?

• Why? Benefits? Goals?• See interactions between the parties involved• See interactions between parties and forest

ecosystem• Working towards a shared vision of the present

situation

Atlantic Forest

Sindicates of usinas

Usinas

ConservationistGovernmental agencies

Buyers/market of sugarindustry products

Small farmers

National society

Water protection Gallery forests maintain water and soil

Law to protect gallery forests

Certification

Water energy to produce sugar

Improve public image of usinas

Market for restoration

Market for seedlings

Potential for carbon sink increases

Jobs for people

Usinas plant also native species not just increase forest accoring to law: doing more than law requires

”We have biggest atlantic forest of the region”

”Wehave most bird species of the region”

Bird toursim?

Proudness about conservation actions

Substitutes from government to usinas were stopped

”Usinas owns most of land they are responsible for conservation and water protection!”

Landreform ?

Markets of sugarcane products

Buyers want certified products

Usinas in NE can not use machines at the steep slopes

Need to compete with south by other means

Green suger industry may increase competitivity

”Restore 1 km gallery forest/year”

Stamp for usinas

Create positive models: Serra Grande company 43 bird species!

Maintain biodiversity

Convince other companies

Convince society

Munincipal government

Scientists

Soil protection

Usinas plant forest in river corridors

Usinas produce seedlings

Usinas has infrastructure to produce and plant seedlings of native plantsImprove

competivity of usinas

need

Law to restore?

Fazendeirossell sugarcane

Feasibility to plant steep slopes and hilltops

Price increase

FLEXFUEL

Price low

DecreaseIncrease

Usinas plant someting to hills to avoid invasion of land

Lowland and tabuleiros pay production costs at hills and slopes

Restoration?

Fazendeiros no big need for water energy

Maintain species: no extinctions of globally and regionally endangered spcies

Maintain genetic diversity

Value itselfPotential use value

maintain 28 globally endangeredbirds

maintain regionally endagered trees

Maintain key ecological processes

indicators

endagered species

suitable habitat configuration to maintain species in each 12 habitat type

(lowland) undisturbed forest

secundary forest

representativeness persitence

10 000 ha total area of each habitat needed

quality= edge/core area relationship

10 units >1000 ha continuous core area/habitat type

10 units >1000 ha core area clusters for habitat type

Conservation of existing fragments from illegal cuttings

Conservation of fragments from hunting and cutting of valuable trees

reintroduction of species:primates, trees, birds to existing mature forests

restoration of new areas

environmental education to change hunting and cutting tradition

Agroforestry to create stepping stones and dispersal corridors

restoration of galleryforest with native tree specis:guidelines for usinas

mature forestkey processes: pollination, predation, dispersal

provide environmental education

Rural workersHunters

monitor implementaion of law

Ngos of rural workers

create markest for rural products

markets of products regulates what is produced

society is better aware of environmental issues

improve capacityenvironmental education

society

local people

practical guidelines for agroforestry, tourism etc.

diversity of rural products

no money for investements for toxidies and fertilizers

less dependent of fluctuation of price of just one product

agroforestry

environmental education

income more segure year around

create markets, capacity and infrastructure for ecotourism

Scientists knows what species, where and how should be planted to support maintenance of biodiversity

Need for collaboration to achieve mutual benefits

Usinas better prepared for new cetrificates

Defining a Common Goal

• Focus on the desired benefits instead of conflicts !

• What kind of system or process produces these benefits?

• Structure benefits as fundamental objectives such as maintenance of species, and means objectives, such as habitat area, and ways to reach them such as restoration.

”Water, Food, Species, Money...”

Evaluating Policy Alternatives • Law: reforestation of river corridors• Jointly improving: using native species,

connecting fragments, environmental education and economic alternatives...

• Aims to improve mutual understanding of the situation and to create innovative

strategy alternatives

Conclusion

• The way the process is started and framed is crucial

• Goals and facts are just one part• Sustainable conservation is an outcome of a

systems intelligent collaborative learning process

• E-participation requires this all: a systems intelligenent approach

References• Daniels, S. E., Walker, G.B. (2001).Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative

learning approach. Praeger, London. • Hämäläinen, R.P. (1988). Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland.

Interfaces 18:12-23.• Hämäläinen, R. P, Kettunen E., Marttunen M., Ehtamo H. (2001). Evaluating a framework for

multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:331-353.

• Hämäläinen, R.P. 2003. Decisionarium - Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12(2-3): 101-110.

• Marttunen, M., Hämäläinen, R. P. (1995). Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessments. European Journal of Operational Research 87:551-563.

• Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Marttunen, M. (2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling and Software. 19:537-547.

• Saarinen E., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:9-37.

• Siitonen, P., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). From conflict management to systems intelligence in forest conservation decision making. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:199-214.

• Siitonen, P., Tanskanen, A., Lehtinen, A. (2002). Method for selection old-forest reserves. Conservation Biology 16:1398-1408.

References• Siitonen, P., Lehtinen, A., Siitonen, M. (2005). Effects of edges on distribution, abundance and regional

persistence of wood-rotting fungi. Conservation Biology 19:250-260.• Silva, J. M. C., Tabarelli, M. (2000). Tree species impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic forest

of northeast Brazil. Nature 404: 72-74.• Sinkko, K., Hämäläinen, R.P., Hänninen R. (2004). Experiences in methods to involve key players in

planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 109:127-132.

• Slotte, S., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2003). Decision structuring dialogue. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports E13.

• Tabarelli, M., Silva, J. M. C. , Cascon C. (2004). Forest fragmentation, synergism and the impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1419-1425.

• Väntänen A., Marttunen, M. (2005). Public involvement in multiobjective water level regulation projects –Evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25:281-304.

• Wondellock, J. M., Yaffee S. (2000). Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Project Web pages:

Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil: http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi/brazil

SAL – Environmental Decision Making and Participation: http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi