Upload
tacita
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Four forest restoration initiative (4fri) annual evaluation 2012. Windy Selig, Russ Winn, Anne Mottek Lucas. Presentation of Results Identified areas for Potential I mprovement Identified areas to Celebrate & Maintain One unique area of success . Presentation Today. Oh, what could it be!. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
FOUR FOREST RESTORATION INITIATIVE
(4FRI)
ANNUAL EVALUATION 2012
Windy Selig, Russ Winn, Anne Mottek Lucas
Presentation Today
1. Presentation of Results
2. Identified areas for Potential
Improvement
3. Identified areas to Celebrate &
Maintain
4. One unique area of success Oh, what could it be!
4FRI CHARTER
The 4FRI Charter provides:
“VI. Annual Evaluation: Section 1. The stakeholder group will set aside time
at least once a year (early October) to systematically evaluate the 4FRI program and actions to ensure regular adaptation and improvement; during the annual evaluation, the stakeholder group will also consider changes to the foundation documents, including the Charter and Structure of the 4FRI.”
3
4FRI ANNUAL EVALUTION RESULTS
4FRI participants will use evaluation results to help them:
Foster a discussion on highlights and lessons learned
Celebrate and continue successes Adapt 4FRI approaches and procedures
to improve implementation
4
Categories of Questions Organization and Structure Shared Vision Decision Making Internal Communication External Communication Adaptive Management (Identified for Improvement
in 2011) Trust Stakeholder Group & USFS Relationship Facilitation
Demographics
5
Categorization of Responses “Agreement Indicated”
Respondents indicated they strongly agreed/agreed/agreed somewhat with the statement
“Mixed” There were disparate views
“Disagreement Indicated” More than 50% respondents indicated they strongly
disagreed/disagreed/disagreed somewhat with the statement
6
Ranked Results
8
Organization and StructureAgreement Indicated Our foundational documents provide clear
guidance for our collaborative process. (82%) The foundational documents and structure of our
collaborative offers adequate guidance for accountability within the group (63%)
The existing revolving co-Chair system that occurs every three months is effective. (66%)
Working groups have adequate involvement to complete their assigned tasks. (54%) Open ended comments mostly dealt with last two:
Same people doing all the work.
9
Organization and StructureMixed results Working groups have adequate
resources to complete their assigned tasks. (33% 33% 33%)
The stakeholder groups’ efforts in moving products forward is timely and efficient. (37% 17% 47%)
10
Organization and StructureDisagreement Indicated The stakeholder groups’ efforts in
moving processes forward is timely and efficient (59%)
11
Shared VisionAgreement indicated I believe my organization can best make
significant progress on forest restoration by working together with the other stakeholders of the stakeholder group (86%)
I believe that our stakeholder group has made significant progress in the last year. (63%)
I believe the overall 4FRI Collaborative project (stakeholder group and USFS) has made significant progress in the last year. (77%)
12
Shared VisionMixed results The members of this stakeholder group have a
common shared vision of what success will look like for the 4FRI project. (33% 20% 47%)
The members of the stakeholder group and the USFS have a common shared vision of what success will look like for the 4FRI project. (27% 43% 30%)
13
Shared VisionMy vision statement for the future direction of the 4FRI project over the next 2-5 years would state: Seven (20%) didn’t answer. Of remaining 24:
10 specifically mention restoration as goal 9 mention monitoring and/or adaptive management 6 mention goals related to the 4FRI group itself 4 mention certain number of acres thinned 4 mention success of industry 4 mention getting work done faster Other themes: Getting EIS or DEIS (3) and Moving to
east (3)
14
Shared Vision Products to be completed in next 2-5
years Of the 75 specific things mentioned:
18 dealt with adaptive management or monitoring
13 dealt with getting first EIS through 12 dealt with success of industry 10 dealt with moving to eastern half 9 dealt with implementation in first area Other “products” mentioned: Items dealing
with how 4FRI group works (5) and Public acceptance (4)
15
Decision MakingAgreement Indicated Generally I am willing to make these trade-offs.
(93%) Disagreement Indicated Generally, my fellow stakeholders are willing to
make these trade-offs (52%) Less than ¼ felt others were as willing to make
tradeoffs as they were. For over ½ of respondents the difference was 2 or more categories (agree to disagree)
Internal Communication
I feel comfortable openly discussing my views in stakeholder group meetings.
I feel comfortable openly discussing my views within the working groups.
I believe it is each person's responsibility to hold themselves and members of the group accountable to the guidelines set forth in the 4FRI Charter
I try to communicate in a way that fosters trust among my fellow stakeholders. (Always/Often)
The Steering Committee openly communicates with the Stakeholder group. (Often/Always)
Agreement Indicated 16
Internal Communication
How can the Steering Committee improve communications with the stakeholder group?
Open Comments – Recurring Themes:
Faster and regular reporting of Steering Committee notes/summaries
17
External Communication
The stakeholder group has been effective at communicating the need for and benefits of forest restoration to the general public.
My organization upholds and honors the integrity of the stakeholder group's collaborative process when communicating with the general public.
Agreement Indicated 18
External Communication
The stakeholder group is effective at communicating stakeholder group positions to the general public. Open Comments – Recurring Themes: More Newsletters; Newsletter is effective Contractor selection was a problem Opposing viewpoints, confuse the public,
undermines the larger picture, impedes SH’s attempt to provide a clear position.
SH can do more to inform the public.
Disagreement Indicated19
20
Adaptive ManagementIn 2011, the SHG prioritized 3 areas for improvement and developed action items for each area. The following section evaluates the level of improvement in those 3 areas.
Adaptive Management - Trust
Over the last year, the stakeholder group has clearly identified the goals and intended use(s) of most of the products and documents generated by the stakeholder group.
Over the last year, the stakeholder group clearly and systematically captured and identified the decisions made by the stakeholder group, and their respective application.
In general, stakeholder’s interests are considered in the stakeholder group's collaborative process.
My fellow stakeholders rely on me to honor the integrity of the collaborative process.
Agreement Indicated21
Adaptive Management - Trust
Over the last year, individuals have articulated/shared their own individual and organizational interests and motives in 4FRI, identifying any special interests or abilities they bring to the stakeholder group.
(St. Ag./Agree 52%; Undecided/Disagree 48%)
22
Mixed
Adaptive Management - Trust
Trust has increased among members of the stakeholder group over the last year.
(Undecided 43%; Disagree/Strongly Dis. 43%) Open Comments – Recurring Themes:
Contractor selection Small but vocal minority
23
Mixed
Adaptive Management - Trust
I believe that everyone who is a member of our stakeholder group effort wants the 4FRI project to succeed. (St. Ag./Agree 38%; Undecided 28%; Disagree/St Dis. 34%)
Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Success occurs on individual
organization’s terms, not for the good of the group.
24
Mixed
Adaptive Management - Trust
My fellow stakeholders honor the integrity of the collaborative process. (Agree 31%; Undecided 35%; Disagree/St. Dis. 34%)
Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Most/almost all do.
25
Mixed
Adaptive Management – Relationship with the
USFS
In the last year, the USFS involved stakeholders in collaborative planning efforts at a level beyond what’s required by NEPA’s public process. (Always/Often)
In the last year, by working together with the USFS, the stakeholder group made progress on concrete issues.
In the last year, the USFS encouraged open communication with the stakeholder group and evaluated stakeholder ideas.
26
Agreement Indicated
Adaptive Management – Relationship with the
USFS
Active engagement from the four USFS Supervisors is important for the effectiveness of the stakeholder group in the collaborative process. (57% Str. Agree; 36% Agree) VERSUS…
Active engagement from the USFS Regional Office staff is important for the effectiveness of the stakeholder group in the collaborative process. (25% Str. Agree; 39% Agree)
27
Agreement Indicated
Adaptive Management – Relationship with the
USFS
Does the USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Planning Monitoring
28
Agreement Indicated
Adaptive Management – Relationship with the
USFS
Does the USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Contracting (41% Often; 26%
Rarely; 19% Sometimes)
Open Comments – Recurring Themes: The process is unclear – how
contracting decisions are made, more transparent
29
Mixed
Adaptive Management – Facilitation
External facilitation is important for the success of this group.
Self facilitation should continue to be a future goal for this group.
30
Agreement Indicated
Adaptive Management – Facilitation
This stakeholder group is ready for self facilitation.
Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Too many conflicts, Tenuous Issues,
Internal resistance
31
Disagreement Indicated
Adaptive Management – Facilitation
What did you like about the facilitation the stakeholder group experienced over the last year?
Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Staying on task/course, keeping discussion
moving Identified and worked on issues Neutrality
32
Adaptive Management – Facilitation
What did you not like about the facilitation the stakeholder group experienced over the last year?
Open Comments – Recurring Themes: Decisions/agreements/progress takes too
long Lack of enforcement/accountability – to the
Charter Not direct enough – did not force resolution,
push back on un-collaborative behavior, call out accusations
33
34
Demographic
35
36
Potential Areas for Improvement
Potential Areas for Improvement Organization & Structure
Timeliness: This was an identified issue in 2011
Co-Chair time requirement More involvement in working groups
Shared Vision Concerns about everyone having same
vision Decision Making
Trust about intentions of other stakeholders: 2011 issue
37
Potential Areas for Improvement
External Communication The stakeholder group is effective at communicating
stakeholder group positions to the general public. 2011: Disagreement/ 2012: Mixed
AM- Trust articulate/share your interests/motives in 4FRI Increase trust among members of the stakeholder group Statement: Everyone who is a member of our stakeholder
group effort wants the 4FRI project to succeed. Statement: My fellow stakeholders honor the integrity of
the collaborative process.
38
Potential Areas for Improvement AM – Relationship with USFS
The USFS collaborate to the fullest extent possible in: Contracting
AM – Facilitation The SHG is ready for self
facilitation. 2011 & 2012: Disagreement
39
Which actually means agreement!SUCCESS!!
40
Areas to Celebrate and Maintain2012 Results were compared with 2011 results (where possible) to reveal areas of improvement, status quo or regression.
Areas to Celebrate and Maintain
Organization and Structure Foundational Documents Existing co-chair system
Shared Vision Stakeholders commitment to 4FRI Progress has been made
41
2011 & 2012 Agreement!
2011 & 2012 Agreement!
Areas to Celebrate and Maintain
Internal Communication – All aspects!
External Communication – With General Public Effective at communicating the need for
and benefits of forest restoration
2011: Mixed responses My organization upholds/honors the
integrity of the SHG’s collaborative process
42
SUCCESS!!
SUCCESS!!
Areas to Celebrate and Maintain
Adaptive Management - Trust SHG has clearly identified the goals and
intended use(s) of most of the products and documents
SHG clearly and systematically captured and identified the decisions made and their respective application.
SH’s interests are considered in the SHG's collaborative process.
My fellow SHs rely on me to honor the integrity of the collaborative process.
43
SUCCESS!
SUCCESS!
Areas to Celebrate and Maintain
Adaptive Management – Relationship with USFS
All areas with one exception – Contracting
Adaptive Management – Facilitation External facilitation is important for the success of this
group. Self facilitation should continue to be a future goal for this
group.
44
SUCCESS!!
SUCCESS!!
45
Area of Unique Success Decision Making
2011: Agreement that the Decision Making worked and did not require revisions
Before the 2012 Annual Evaluation: stakeholders recognized a gap in the Decision Matrix process, Adaptively Managed the situation, and adopted a newly revised DM.
SUCCESS!!
46
Let’s celebrate!
Areas to Celebrate and Maintain2012 Results were compared with 2011 results (where possible) to reveal areas of improvement, status quo or regression.
There were no areas of regression!
SUCCESS!!