Growth Rings:Communitiesand Trees

Growth Rings:

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE Communities and Trees

Lessons from the Ford Foundation Community-Based Forestry Demonstration Program, 2000–2 H APN INSTITUTE ASPEN THE

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE

One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 www.aspeninstitute.org The National Community-Based

Forestry Demonstration Program was

an initiative of the Ford Foundation, Photography: assisted by the Aspen Institute, Cover: Robert Donnan (top); Anne Carpenter (bottom) the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Text: All photography by Robert Donnan except the following: Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters—page 71 (#1) the Institute for Policy Research and Ann Carpenter—pages 1 (#1, 5, 7); 119 (#1, 4, 6); 143 (#6); 193 (#5); 221 (#3, 6) Evaluation at Pennsylvania State Oshana Catranides/Marko Bey—page 159 (#8) Wayne Fitzpatrick—page 99 (#1) University, Colorado State University, Makah Tribal Forestry—pages 21 (#7); 41 (#2); 99 (#2); 143 (#5); 185 (#4) and 13 demonstration sites. Vicky Sturtevant—pages 1 (#2); 143 (#1, 8); 185 (#2, 6); 193 (#3, 7) Kim Ziegelmayer—page 1 (#4)

This publication was made possible by Design:

funding from the Ford Foundation. Betsy Rubinstein, InForm Growth Rings:

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE Communities and Trees

Lessons from the Ford Foundation Community-Based Forestry Demonstration Program, 2000-2005

by Barbara Wyckoff-Baird with the 13 Demonstration Sites Copyright 2005 by the Aspen Institute. The opinions expressed in this book reflect those of the authors and not the positions of either the Aspen Institute or the Ford Foundation.

The Aspen Institute welcomes the quotation or use of material from this book in publications or for other professional purposes. However, we do ask that the Aspen Institute be notified through [email protected] and that proper credit be given.

The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 736-5800 Fax: (202) 293-0525 www.aspeninstitute.org

Printed on recycled paper iii

Table of Contents

This document presents many findings and lessons harvested over the past five years throughout implementation of the Ford Foundation National Community- Based Forestry (CBF) Demonstration Program. This “users guide” is intended to help you, the reader, navigate its contents — specifically, to hone in on the lessons that are especially relevant for your own community and to take this document not as a detailed blueprint for success, but for the guide and toolbox it is intended to be. Summaries of each chapter are presented below.

Foreword ...... vii Preface...... xiii Acknowledgments ...... xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Across a wide variety of settings, resourceful residents have developed a working framework that integrates many fundamental aspects of CBF. Chief among these principles are an emphasis upon community influence over local natural resources, including ecosystem management; a commitment to include as many local residents as possible in decision making and implementation of forest activities; and the idea that the well-managed forest can support sustainable livelihoods for rural communities. This section includes descriptions of CBF and asset-based community development; a working framework for CBF; a brief outline of how CBF has evolved in the United States, including the dynamics of the mobile workforce; and a description of the Ford Foundation, the National CBF Demonstration Program, and the 13 participating sites.

Chapter 2: Foundations of Community-Based Forestry...... 21

This chapter presents a set of overarching lessons drawn from the participating sites’ experiences with community-based forestry. As such, the lessons are essential to understanding how best to go about designing and implementing an integrated CBF program. In fact, it will be helpful to review these broad lessons carefully before reading the later chapters, if only to allow the reader to situate those forthcoming specific lessons more comfortably within this larger framework. Lessons include the importance of building community, using an integrated approach, some keys to effective implementation, and critical elements to ensuring broader, long-term impacts.

(continued on next page)

Table of Contents iv

Chapter 3: Building Just and Resilient Communities ...... 41

CBF recognizes not only the mutual interdependence of forests and people, but emphasizes that each in its own way must exhibit diversity, resilience, and long-term sustainability. Every CBF project encourages local people to ask themselves probing questions about how their communities actually function: Who actually participates in decision making about devising and implementing these projects? How do they plan to make use of local traditions and local knowledge? And, perhaps most importantly of all, who actually benefits, and who is left out? This section contains lessons for community-based organizations (CBOs), including cultivating the values of CBF, increasing the community’s capacity to undertake CBF, and describing roles and operating principles for CBOs as they work to build just and resilient communities.

Chapter 4: Fostering Sustainable Economies...... 71

This chapter explores what has been learned about building an economic strategy based on natural resources and how that work can be more accurately assessed. This section offers lessons about asset management, small business networks, business basics, markets, and the role of the CBO.

Chapter 5: Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems ...... 99

As it has evolved among contemporary CBF practitioners, this stewardship ethic most often focuses upon how best to implement an integrated, whole- system approach to ecosystem management, with a particular emphasis on forest restoration. These forest restoration efforts are ongoing, long- term, and uniquely adapted to address the complex needs of their specific environments. Most are today just in their beginning stages. As such, their vision of comprehensive, sustainable restoration will take many years to fulfill. This section offers lessons about ecosystem monitoring, tools and approaches for promoting forest restoration and ecologically sound practices, and taking projects to a landscape scale.

Chapter 6: Collaborating for CBF Action ...... 119

CBF’s ability to bridge seemingly intractable differences among stakeholders and forge innovative, productive new collaborative partnerships has been perhaps the strongest impetus for its recent emergence in the United States. More than a decade later, CBF has helped to heal some of the divisiveness that exists regarding forest management issues on federal lands. It also has helped to create landscape-scale approaches to managing forests on private lands, as well as to widen the circle of stakeholders who have access to the benefits. This section includes a description of the many reasons to collaborate and the benefits of such collaboration, as well as lessons about design tips and essential ingredients for partnerships, strategic roles different organizations can play, and institutional barriers within the U.S. Forest Service.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees v

Chapter 7: Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations ...... 143

The Demonstration Program made grants to CBOs in almost every region of the country. Some of these organizations were well established, while others were newly emerging. Organizations with existing missions that served private landowners saw CBF as another possible tool for their clients, so they developed CBF programs within their organizations to serve them. These organizations learned about CBF as they introduced the concepts to the community. For other organizations, CBF was their heart and soul, having emerged in response to the threats posed by changing forest management practices on the neighboring public lands. Still other groups evolved as membership-based. This section includes lessons on governance, structure, operations, staffing, and skills as learned from this broad range of experiences.

Chapter 8: Designing and Supporting CBF Programs ...... 159

This chapter examines and provides lessons on three components of designing and supporting CBF programs — grantmaking; use of a managing partner, including peer learning, technical assistance, and communications with the funder; and conducting research to test assumptions, build knowledge, and advance the understanding and practice of CBF more broadly in the United States.

Chapter 9: Building on the Past, Creating the Future ...... 185

More than five years have passed since the beginning of the Demonstration Program. As it draws to a close, it is timely to ask whether the CBF strategies it explored are making a significant difference. Have these pilot experiments lived up to early expectations about their likely outcomes? What has been learned that might encourage or instruct other communities as they proceed with their own CBF initiatives? What can be said about CBF’s prospects over the long term?

Appendix A: Descriptions of the 13 Demonstration Program Sites ...... 193

Appendix B: Digital Archive and Toolbox on Accompanying Compact Disk ...... 221

A directory of the compact disk (CD) accompanying this book, which includes tools discussed in the text, useful websites, and publications of the Community-Based Forestry Demonstration Program.

Table of Contents

vii

Foreword

he relationship between people products, and tap into markets. To qualify and the environment is one as true community assets, decision making T of the defining characteristics of for community-based forestry needs to be place and is particularly strong among inclusive, transparent, and participatory, indigenous peoples, rural communities, and and benefits should be equitably shared. those whose livelihoods depend on natural Finally, the community must, in turn, serve resources. The air, the water, the soils, the as an asset base for the land and forests — forests, and other ecosystem services on our non-human neighbors — especially which local economies ultimately depend through developing and maintaining a are all potential community assets. culture of reciprocity so that these assets are conserved and passed on or transferred The Ford Foundation Community-Based to future generations as vital, viable, and Forestry Initiative helps communities build healthy natural ecosystems. forest and natural resources assets in order to provide sustainable new jobs and enterprises and increased family income, revitalize land-based cultures, and improve Sustainable development will only occur when ecosystem health. Undergirding this work is strong and resilient communities respect and restore a perspective about livelihoods and asset- building that assumes sustainable develop- ecological processes, increase economic livelihoods ment will only occur when strong and resilient communities respect and restore and social well-being, and ensure equity and justice. ecological processes, increase economic livelihoods and social well-being, and ensure equity and justice. Community-based forestry builds on the Building natural community assets is part assumption that people closest to and of a continuum. In order to become assets, most dependent on forest resources are forests must be accessible and secure, in the competent and knowledgeable about forest sense that rights and responsibilities over and resource management, and have a them are clear and of significant duration. right and a responsibility to manage forests To be productive assets, forests must be carefully. As forest resources become local properly managed, enriched, and improved assets (whether collective, individual, or a to provide a secure flow of benefits, prod- combination of both), rural communities ucts, and services that add value locally increase their resilience and their capacity and to society as a whole. To capture these to add value, improve livelihoods, and retain benefits, communities must develop their a sense of belonging with the land. own institutions, build consensus through collaboration and partnerships, create and strengthen local businesses, develop new

Foreword viii

The Ford Foundation’s support for commu- the United States and have been funded for nity-based forestry in the United States grew five years in their efforts to develop viable out of its global experiences supporting community forestry approaches in a wide community-based forestry projects in over range of settings. 20 countries since the mid-1970s. Recent support has been provided for community- ■ The Watershed Research and Training based forestry in Mexico, much of Central Center in Hayfork, California; Wallowa America, Brazil, Chile, Kenya, Uganda, Resources in Enterprise, Oregon; the Tanzania, India, Nepal, Indonesia, the Public Lands Partnership in Delta, Philippines, Thailand, and China. Colorado; and the Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition in Silver City, New Mexico, serve communities of place, dependent on a landscape dominated by public lands. Community-based forestry builds on the assumption

■ The Alliance of Forest Workers and that people closest to and most dependent on forest Harvesters in Willow Creek, California, resources are competent and knowledgeable about is made up of forest-dependent, mobile communities that work and harvest forest forest and resource management, and have a right and products across a mosaic of public, tribal, and private lands. a responsibility to manage forests carefully.

■ The Vermont Family Forests Partnership and the New England Forestry In each of these countries, a vital element Foundation work with small forest own- of the Foundation’s approach has been to ers, woodworkers, and local forest-based provide support to real communities on businesses in the Northeast. the ground, helping them find innovative tools and strategies to tackle the many ■ The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ barriers that frequently have resulted in Land Assistance Fund in Epes, Alabama, them being bypassed by decision making, and the Penn Center on St. Helena Island market access, or opportunity. Rooted in in South Carolina work with communities collaboration and partnerships — and based of African-American landowners in the on adaptive management solutions — these Southeast. grounded experiences then serve as demonstrations that can be linked through learning ■ The Healthy Forests, Healthy networks at local, regional, national, and Communities partnership (part of even global levels to broaden constituen- Sustainable Northwest) in Portland, cies and policymaking in order to achieve Oregon, works with a network of small greater impact at scale. producers of sustainable forest products.

The 13 implementing partners whose individ- ■ Rural Action in Trimble, Ohio, and Makah ual and collective experiences form the basis Tribal Forestry in Neah Bay, Washington, of the learning outlined in this book are part focus on communities and non-timber of the Foundation’s National Community- forest products. Based Forestry Demonstration Program in

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees ix

■ Lastly, D.C. Greenworks works with poor The process of building collaborative urban communities to develop sustain- partnerships often was slowed by frequent able green jobs in Washington, D.C. transfers and changes of professional staff in land management agencies, staff Each of these settings and circumstances turnover in the community groups, and the come with their own histories of conflict and slow but steady pace needed to build trust struggle, unique cultural contexts, variety and relationships. Many groups struggled of stakeholders and actors, different forest with the difficulties of revitalizing or ecosystems and ecological considerations, reinventing a new kind of sustainable, local and levels of experience in community- forest-based enterprise and backfilling an based forestry. Each also has created economic landscape abandoned by large important opportunities for the individuals industry. and families they serve. Linked together as a learning community by a wonderful team Building new linkages with markets required serving as the Demonstration Program’s the creation and testing of local branding managing partner, which was based at the and storytelling, as well as the establish- Aspen Institute in Washington, D.C., these ment of connections with different clients disparate partners have forged a respect and buyers. The need to ensure a flow for the diversity of their individual contexts of short-term benefits to “land-rich and and experiences and a collective identity as dirt-poor” landowners as they waited for travelers along the same fundamental road. the long-term flow of revenues from timber required a slow process of trial and error The Demonstration Program set out to test with different non-timber forest products. a number of hypotheses: that community- Helping build the institutional capacity and based forestry could improve livelihoods effective mechanisms to provide support and revive rural communities; that it could and services to dispersed and largely “invis- restore and maintain ecosystem health; ible” communities of mobile forest workers and that community-based forestry could and collectors of forest products took time reduce the polarization between extreme and new governance structures. environmental groups and fundamental “property rights” advocates to establish a more “radical middle” that would recast the debate altogether. The Demonstration Program set out to test a number

of hypotheses. But along the way, these neat academic Along the way, these neat academic hypotheses met the messy and exciting hypotheses met the messy and exciting reality of work reality of work on the ground. Gaining access to public forestlands for restoration on the ground. That’s the story this book tells. and fuels reduction work took frustratingly long for many groups. The translation of new authorities and rules into completed contracts for actual work in the woods was patchy and slow, often depending more on the local innovation of field staff than on a clearly articulated plan for widespread application or replication.

Foreword x

Developing effective monitoring systems to conservation and community development measure ecological, economic, and social are interlinked and interdependent. New impacts from community activities required community-level institutions have been cre- the development of new participatory tools ated. Innovative solutions were developed and techniques. Indeed, a fully fledged for the utilization and marketing of small- research component to the Demonstration diameter timber, sustainably produced Program evolved only in the last year and a wood products, and non-timber forest half, and it will continue to gather and syn- products. Where access to public lands thesize information beyond the program’s was finally gained, valuable work in the formal life span. And perhaps most frustrat- woods has helped reduce the risk of large- ing of all, community-based forestry groups scale fire and improve the vitality of forest continued to find it extremely difficult to stands. On private lands, more acreage access funding from private, philanthropic, now is under sustainable management and and public sources. forest certification.

Yet, in spite of these hurdles, much has At the national level, decision-makers know been accomplished both at the local and what community-based forestry means and national levels. Additional income has been have incorporated many concerns of com- generated in small towns and communities. munity groups into policy and regulation. A number of jobs and businesses have been The rhetoric is changing, and, in more and created in counties that have seen nothing more places, innovative forestry rangers are but decline for a decade. Individual and seeking to facilitate new collaborative solu- group capacity for collective action has tions. Finally, remarkable individual leaders been strengthened. and workers have grown in stature and shown the power of their positive actions to revive hope and pride of place.

Groups that once were unable to sit at the same table This book draws from the work of these have developed constructive dialogues on restoration incredible individuals — some whose names are now familiar in the halls of the U.S. forestry, and this process is moving gingerly toward a Forest Service and even the U.S. Congress, but also the unsung forest workers, mush- new understanding that conservation and community room harvesters, ginseng growers, farmers, ranchers, small business owners, county development are interlinked and interdependent. officers, forest agency field staff, community volunteers, students, family members, doers, supporters, observers, and critics. They are Groups that once were unable to sit at the incurable optimists, solution-oriented change same table have developed constructive agents — cutting through the polemics and dialogues around principles of restoration polarization of recent forest conflict and forestry, and this process is moving gin- the history of structural oppression, and gerly toward a new understanding that unafraid to stand for dialogue and compromise. Collectively they have done wonderful, selfless, quiet, often unrecognized work on the frontiers of the future.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees xi

Fortunately, the many individuals and the 13 implementing partners featured in this The amount of forestlands controlled and managed book represent only a small (though illustri- ous) part of the growing community-based by local communities and indigenous peoples around forestry movement in the United States. It is our hope that the lessons learned from the the world has doubled over the last 10 years and work that we have supported, however ten- now accounts for almost 25 percent of the forests in tative, when merged with the accumulating force of community action, research, and developing countries. advocacy around the country, will help move community-based forestry approaches to a significant scale, beyond the pilot phase and into the mainstream. goes the credit for much of its design. However, I have been fortunate to have Studies have shown that the amount of had the honor of serving these wonderful forestlands controlled and managed by people and institutions for most of the past local communities and indigenous peoples five years with my colleagues Brian Mori around the world has doubled over the and Suzanne Shea at the Foundation. It is last 10 years and now accounts for almost not an overstatement to say that we could 25 percent of the forests in developing not have accomplished as much as we countries. Significant changes are still have as a group without the amazing work needed to improve policy, practice, and of Barbara Wyckoff-Baird and her team science — and a strong commitment to social of Mary Mitsos, Mary Virtue, Danyelle justice will need to be bolstered at the level O’Hara, Robert Donnan, Kelly Malone, of community practitioners — for community- and Anne Carpenter — all of whom served based forestry to truly prove its viability as as the managing partner at the Aspen a paradigm for sustainable development in Institute. Thanks are due to one and all. the United States. But from these valuable glimpses of local efforts, we can draw confidence that a better world is within reach. Jeff Campbell I inherited the responsibility of overseeing Senior Program Officer this Demonstration Program from my The Ford Foundation predecessor, Michael Conroy, to whom New York, N.Y.

Foreword

xiii

Preface

ver the past ﬁ ve years of imple- especially grateful for the helpful comments menting our community-based received from this report’s reviewers, listed O forestry (CBF) projects, an abiding in the Acknowledgments, who thoughtfully sense of community and camaraderie has critiqued our work. And we would welcome developed among a fledgling network of hearing your insights. enterprising community development practitioners. All of us have been deeply engaged Five years, though, is but a blink of an eye with the ongoing creativity, problem-solving, in the evolution of changing values, com- and hands-on learning prompted by the munities, economies, and environments. Ford Foundation National Community- Like the person who steps into the river, Based Forestry Demonstration Program. the Demonstration Program may have Throughout this remarkable shared experi- changed the flow of the water, but CBF’s ence, each one of us has sought to learn as ultimate destination remains unknown. much as possible about this promising new Many successes are noted in the pages field of practice — CBF — and to adapt its that follow, but the journey toward genuine strategies and tools to the particular circum- sustainability will take at least a genera- stances of our individual communities. tion, if not more. As such, this document is not a blueprint for overnight success. The Demonstration Program also afforded Moreover, success will be achieved over us the opportunity to engage in an ongo- the long term only if each local community ing dialogue with our peers from other factors very specific local conditions into participating sites scattered across the the design and implementation of its CBF country. In so doing, we discovered that strategies. all of us were able to learn a great deal from one another, whether by exchanging practical insights or simply through sharing stories about our own unique experiences. If we represent knowledge as a tree, At times, just knowing that others were out we know that things that are divided are yet there, struggling in their own way with simi- “ connected. We know that to observe the divisions and lar challenges and opportunities, provided genuine reassurance and much-needed ignore the connections is to destroy the tree.” support. —Wendell Berry This document presents many of the Farmer, ecologist, essayist, and poet findings and lessons harvested over Kentucky those past five years. As such, it reflects our informed opinion, and, as with any opinion, there will be as many differences of interpretation and meaning as there are individuals who hold them. We are

Preface xiv

Throughout the Demonstration Program, we have been fortunate in having the ongoing This publication will best serve everyone as it inspires support and technical assistance provided communities to embark on their own journeys to by our funder, the Ford Foundation, and our managing partner, the Natural Assets create integrated CBF systems that can sustain and Program at the Aspen Institute.

benefit both current and future generations. For the Ford Foundation, community-based forestry represents an important opportunity to build the social, economic, and natural This publication, then, will best serve every- assets of forest-dependent communities so one as it inspires communities to embark that they generate higher and more stable on their own journeys to create integrated incomes and sustainable livelihoods. This CBF systems that can sustain and benefit asset-building approach to the alleviation of both current and future generations. For poverty and injustice is the key strategy sup- some readers, this actually may be the ported by the Foundation’s Asset Building first time that you have thought of your and Community Development Program. forest resources as genuine assets upon Overall, the Demonstration Program is but which to build resilient communities and one key element of the Foundation’s support vibrant economies. Insights from the to the growing CBF movement. It also sup- Demonstration Program may be able to ports national and regional networking and help you to jump-start the process — and learning organizations, research, policy edu- possibly avoid reinventing the wheel along cation, and on-the-ground implementation. the way. For others, the learning here may simply reinforce your own intuition and The mission of the Aspen Institute is to experiences, affirming that you are on foster enlightened leadership and open- the right track and to continue with your minded dialogue. Through seminars, policy experimentation. programs, conferences, and leadership development initiatives, the Institute and We further hope this publication will serve its international partners seek to promote those whose work it is to nurture and nonpartisan inquiry and an appreciation for support the creation of those sustainable timeless values. systems. Donors can learn from the Ford Foundation experiences with engaging a The Ford Foundation also provided a grant managing partner and providing flexible, early on to the Institute for Policy Research sustained funding to new organizations. and Evaluation at the Pennsylvania Univer- By learning about the experiences of the sity. At that time, the Institute conducted CBF field, specifically, donors will be able to a broad-based social science research, deepen their understanding about investing educational, and public service program in community and rural capacity building directed at the design and evaluation of more generally. Policymakers, too, will public sector and foundation-sponsored benefit from this document, which identifies programs in economic development, both recommendations and the next steps health, environmental quality, and other that are needed to support CBF in a wide policy areas. variety of settings.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees xv

More recently, the Foundation provided sup- that offer more in-depth analysis that will port to Tony Cheng and Maria Fernandez- be useful to practitioners of both CBF and, Gimenez at Colorado State University to more broadly, rural economic develop- coordinate an interdisciplinary, participa- ment. tory research effort to work collaboratively with community sites participating in the These materials provide a wealth of supple- Demonstration Program to test assump- mental information that surely will benefit tions, build knowledge, and advance the any community that seeks to build upon understanding and practice of CBF in the what has been experienced by the diverse United States. We look forward to their participants in the Demonstration Program. report, expected in late 2006. In fact, the CD also features two additional, brand-new publications: Finally, we wish to call the reader’s attention to the compact disk (CD) that accompanies ■ The online Branding and Marketing this report, as it contains digital files of Toolkit, which provides a step-by-step nearly all of the materials created and guide to identifying your community’s distributed by the Demonstration Program most appropriate forest products, conduct- over the past five years, including: ing market research, and building a brand.

■ The National CBF Demonstration ■ Staying Power: Using Technical Program brochure and other materials Assistance and Peer Learning to Enhance that provide general information on the Donor Investments, which is also based Demonstration Program, its various part- on lessons from the Demonstration ners, and a mid-program assessment of Program and offers donors more in-depth lessons learned; learning on the use and effectiveness of having a managing partner and the roles ■ Planting Seeds, which was the it can undertake. Demonstration Program’s periodic update to the broader field, offering a concise Upon the formal conclusion of the summary of current trends useful to Demonstration Program in Fall 2005, all of practitioners and the general public; and the above information and documents will be posted and maintained on the National ■ Occasional Report series, which offered Network of Forest Practitioners (NNFP) case studies and meeting proceedings website (www.nnfp.org).

Preface

xvii

Acknowledgments

irst and foremost, this publica- Thanks also are due to the Ford Foundation tion —and, indeed, the whole for its commitment of sustained, flexible F National CBF Demonstration funding. Senior Program Officer Jeff Program — would not have been possible Campbell’s personal and professional without the time, commitment, and deep commitment to grassroots participatory love of people and places brought to this approaches ensured local voices were effort by the communities and their part- empowered and heard. His patience and ners. Literally hundreds of individuals have persistence provide incredible examples for contributed to the program’s success, includ- others. ing the many reviewers of this publication. Also at the Ford Foundation, Brian Mori and As was expected, the journey has not always Suzanne Shea provided behind-the-scenes been easy nor smooth, but it has been an support to all of the CBF partners, without incredible one of exploration, learning, and which the road would have been a lot growth, both professionally and personally, bumpier. for everyone involved. Similarly, at the Aspen Institute, I appreci- Specifically, I want to thank my colleagues ate the day-to-day administrative support in the managing partner. Mary Virtue has provided so capably by Kelly Malone, as been a co-creator of many of the managing well as the institutional support offered by partner’s activities since 2001, providing Kirsten Moy and the Economic Opportunities a sounding board to help sort through our Program, with which the Natural Assets many ideas as well as contributing chapters Program has been affiliated. to this publication. Danyelle O’Hara offered guidance and education in issues of com- Thanks, too, to the many reviewers for this munity engagement and understanding report, all of whom contributed their time power relations, in addition to her contribu- and thoughtful comments to improving tions to this report. Robert Donnan advised its content and presentation of the les- some of the grantees about their strategic sons from the Demonstration Program: communications and also provided writ- Jeff Campbell, Mary Chapman, Nils ing and editing for both this report and Christoffersen, Cecilia Danks, Jan Engert, other publi cations of the National CBF Anthony Flaccavento, Rory Fraser, Cece Demonstration Program. Headley, Sandra Jones, Lynn Jungwirth, Mark Lorenzo, Scott Maslansky, Mary I especially want to thank Mary Mitsos for Mitsos, Denise Smith, Diane Snyder, Karen her unwavering support, weekend hours, Steer, Ryan Temple, Gus Townes, Jonni challenging questions, and dreams of a Trettevick, Jude Wait, and Carl Wilmsen. In different future — from the very beginning to particular, I’d like to thank Erin Melville of the very end. Wallowa Resources for suggesting the title Growth Rings: Communities and Trees.

Acknowledgments xviii

Finally, I wish to thank my family for their Barbara Wyckoff-Baird constant support — whether managing life Director, Natural Assets Program while I was on the road or listening to me The Aspen Institute when I was at home — and for their love. Washington, D.C.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees CHAPTER1 Introduction 2

n the United States, most commu- This report documents the rich experiences nity-based forestry (CBF) projects of 13 diverse communities who participated I have been underway for less than a in the Ford Foundation’s recently concluded decade. Even so, their early successes and six-year National CBF Demonstration outcomes — chiefly, important first steps Program, which included a one-year start- toward balancing the long-term sustain- up and planning phase and a five-year ability of local forestlands with the diverse implementation phase.1 In so doing, it offers needs of the human communities that a closer look at many aspects of CBF as an depend upon them — are providing a promis- emerging field of practice — its origins, key ing model and some important lessons for components, challenges, and rewards. As CBF practitioners. one reviews these findings, it will be helpful to keep in mind that CBF is fundamentally a Historically, disputes over the best use and process of creative adaptation. As such, the most effective stewardship of America’s deepest learning begins at home among forest resources often have been conten- one’s own community, beginning at the tious and, at times, even rowdy. Individuals, moment local people begin to consider special interest groups, public agencies, launching their own CBF initiatives. and entire communities, especially in rural areas, have found themselves mired in costly, protracted stand-offs that yield no What is community- truly workable solution. based forestry?

Community-based forestry had its origins Definition of a CBF Practitioner— and early development among communities overseas, especially in Asia. Today, many An individual who spends some or all of his or her time countries in the developing world — India, and effort engaged in community-based forestry, Nepal, the Philippines, and Mexico — are very advanced in their use of CBF as a practice most often working directly with communities for alleviating poverty, achieving social justice, protecting forests, and reforesting land. and forests at the grassroots level. Across a wide variety of settings, resourceful CBF practitioners have developed a working Community-based forestry, on the other framework that includes many fundamental hand, offers a broadly based, participa- aspects of community-based forestry that tory approach to forest management that lately have been exported to the West. Chief strengthens communities’ capacity to work among these principles are an emphasis through deeply entrenched, highly polarized upon community influence over local natural conflicts. In so doing, local residents and other stakeholders are finding they can engage one another in an ongoing dialogue 1 Throughout the following chapters, this document about their hopes and fears, as well as often may refer to the Demonstration Program as having been ﬁ ve years in duration. In such instances, create a shared vision of a better future for it refers to the ﬁ ve-year implementation phase, from themselves and their children. which the report distills the majority of the lessons presented here.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 3

resources, including ecosystem manage- public forests as well as promoting best ment; a commitment to include as many management practices on private lands local residents as possible in decision making through education, technical assistance, and implementation of forest activities; and and new market opportunities. More recent the idea that the forest can support sustain- initiatives also have created value-adding able livelihoods for rural communities. enterprises, promoted more effective marketing and branding of certified sustainable This means that CBF works through a products, and enhanced skills of forest locally directed process whereby community workers in ecological restoration. residents accept responsibility for building vibrant local economies, even as they safe- guard and manage the natural assets, such CBF is forestry that centers in, as forest ecosystems, that are the source of their community’s wealth. They also seek “and is a direct result of, what people in the to invite broader community participation community see as important.” in local decision-making processes about natural resources, as well as to make eco- —York Glover nomic opportunities more widely accessible. Clemson University Extension Most often, they view CBF as one approach nested within a larger set of strategies and Beaufort County, South Carolina tools — including, for example, land-use planning and other incentive structures — that taken together can provide an effective platform for sustainable change. An integrated, three-pronged working framework As a result, CBF today is emerging as a viable alternative or complementary model to Diverse in scope, CBF derives its funda- forest management, one that may succeed mental strength and versatility via a three- in promoting both effective forest steward- pronged working framework that honors ship and sustainable communities in ways the mutual interdependence of forest and that the previous and still widely practiced human communities. Within that frame- paradigm of forest management — based on work, each component strategy of com- scientific and technocratic strategies — has munity-based forestry — social, economic, not. By integrating ecological, economic, and and ecological — is considered to be equally social strategies into cohesive approaches important. to forestry issues, community-based forestry offers local residents both the opportunity The social strategy promotes the more and the responsibility to manage their natu- equitable engagement of all members of ral resources effectively, and then to enjoy the community. In so doing, it builds local the benefits of that responsibility. relationships of trust and reciprocity among diverse groups — including even those that In the United States, CBF is evolving rapidly, long may have opposed one another. This adapting to meet multifaceted local needs strategy draws upon traditional community and challenges. Initial efforts have focused knowledge and strengthens the commu- primarily upon providing a voice for local nity’s capacity to learn about, design, and communities in the management of nearby implement not only sustainable forestry

Introduction Chapter 1 4

practices but sustainable business practices practices. This strategy seeks to assure a as well. Its long-term objective is to enable healthy forest ecosystem that thrives both local people to build more resilient commu- in its own right and as a source of natural nities that are better equipped to respond to resources and wealth for the community. emerging challenges and opportunities. All CBF initiatives — whether rural or urban, The economic strategy builds and sustains working with publicly, privately, or tribally livelihoods based upon natural resources. owned forests — strive to integrate all three of It often involves creating small-scale, and these core strategies, as well as their associ- in some cases larger-scale, value-adding ated outcomes. Taken together, they are the enterprises for both timber and non-timber foundation of every CBF program or project. forest products (NTFPs). This strategy further CBF offers a dynamic means to sustain a seeks to reinvest the economic benefits of complex process of creative adaptation such efforts back into the local community. over time. It is not a simple prescription to Ultimately, its goal is to create vibrant, achieve an illusion of stability, as might be sustainable local economies that draw implied by the metaphor of the three-legged upon and responsibly steward the natural stool. In fact, implementing CBF is a lot resources afforded by the local environment, more like the challenge of acquiring the while at the same time making economic skills, strength, and courage required to opportunity more accessible to all commu- keep one’s balance while standing astride a nity members. rolling log as it floats down a river.

The ecological strategy involves the com- Because it exemplifies an adaptive, living- munity in enhancing and restoring forested systems approach, CBF looks remarkably ecosystems. In so doing, it builds upon local different from place to place, from region knowledge, traditions, and management to region. Strategies that work successfully in one community may only work there because they are well suited to the unique ecological, economic, and social conditions CBF is a balance of ecological, social, of that particular environment. As those and economic values. All three pieces underlying conditions change over time, it’s “ also possible that these same approaches don’t have to be equal all of the time, but they may not even work well there tomorrow. each have to be there and considered at some level. As a forestland manager, I may be able to get to the Moreover, because CBF is a participatory, ecological values, but that isn’t the reality of society. consensus-building process, it tends to be somewhat messy and improvisational. Without balance, there will be negative Along the way, it likely will challenge long- consequences for someone or something.” established patterns of behavior, especially regarding who wields power in the com- —Rick Wagner munity. And, as virtually anyone involved Oregon Department of Forestry, northeastern Oregon with restoring local ecosystems or building sustainable local economies can attest, accomplishing significant, measurable results can take a long, long time.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 5

In exchange for that patient, broadly based Because community-based forestry is such investment, however, CBF appears to convey a recent development in the United States, remarkable rewards: most fledgling CBF initiatives are still emerging and adapting to the particular ■ It has helped rural communities in the circumstances of their local environments. Southwest to gain access to public lands As such, most do not yet comprehensively that previously had been denied. address the full range of potential implicit in the CBF movement’s early promise. There ■ It has allowed western communities to is a profound need for diverse experimenta- work through long-standing conflicts over tion and assessment in a variety of settings, ecosystem management and pull together including public, private, and tribal lands. to create new value-adding enterprises.

■ It has enabled limited resource landowners in the Southeast to gain access to Community-based forestry is a recent development in needed support services. the United States, and most fledgling CBF initiatives

■ It has supported small entrepreneurs are still emerging and adapting. Accordingly, there in the Northeast in their efforts to earn a premium for their value-added wood remain many unanswered questions—and a profound products derived from sustainably managed woodlots. need for diverse experimentation and assessment.

■ It has brought together a diverse group of harvesters in central Appalachia to share Accordingly, there are many unanswered information about sustainably growing, questions regarding how forest-dependent harvesting, and marketing herbs and communities can best go about devising other botanicals. and implementing their CBF initiatives. Among the 13 sites involved in the Ford ■ It has enabled forest-dependent commu- Foundation National CBF Demonstration nities in all parts of the United States to Program, for example, the primary leader- create expanded networks of practitioners ship and guidance for specific projects and resource personnel that both provide derived from community-based organiza- technical assistance and lobby for construc- tions (CBOs). What are the advantages of tive changes in state and federal policies different kinds of organizational structures affecting natural resource management. for this sort of work? What challenges do they face? What skills do they need? What ■ It has brought together diverse cultures types of partnerships must they develop to and ethnic groups of forest workers and implement their CBF projects effectively? harvesters in the Pacific West to increase Across the life cycle of their CBF initiatives, their understanding of one another, find what kinds of managerial, structural, and mutual respect for their diversity and governance challenges and options will common ground in seeking just compen- they face? sation for their labor, and improve the environmental sustainability of techniques and approaches used on the ground.

Introduction Chapter 1 6

Many of these issues — and more — are of things — whether savings, property, or addressed in the chapters that follow, includ- even tools — they still have access to what ing specific, pragmatic lessons distilled from the Ford Foundation affirms as “intrinsic the collective experiences of the participants resources, such as intelligence, creativity, in the Demonstration Program. For example, diligence, and inner strength. Groups of many of the organizational issues described people also share common resources, such in the preceding paragraph are addressed in as community-based organizations and Chapter 7. Before moving forward to examine cultural values and practices.” those specific concerns, however, it will be useful to step back and briefly consider the Taken together, these individual strengths larger context and origins of community- and community attributes are important based forestry, especially those factors that forms of community capital. Used wisely, have influenced current thinking and practice. such assets are sustainable resources that can leverage significant changes in both community attitudes and diverse outcomes, including economic, ecological, psychologi- Underlying everything that CBF strives to accomplish cal, and social benefits. is the belief that building upon existing assets is by far CBF practitioners are hardly the only com- the best way for local people to achieve sustainable munity activists embracing asset-based approaches. Other advocates include healthy forests and sustainable healthy communities. progressive financial institutions, grassroots organizing groups, other natural resource management organizations, community foundations, labor market intermediaries, Asset-based community and faith-based nonprofits. For all of these development groups, as John L. McKnight and John P. Kretzmann have reported, “rebuilding local Underlying everything that CBF strives to relationships offers the most promising route accomplish is the belief that building upon toward successful community development existing assets is by far the best way for local and underlines the necessity of basing those people to achieve sustainable healthy forests relationships upon the strengths of the par- and sustainable healthy communities. But ties, never on their weaknesses and needs.” exactly what sorts of assets are necessary? And does every group of individuals — even those typically identified as isolated or CBF: chronically poor — have a sufficient base A working framework upon which to build? What sorts of benefits can those assets genuinely provide? By now, it is clear that community-based forestry inhabits a place all of its own. It First of all, in community development work, is different from the extraction-oriented, assets have come to mean far more than timber management models that focus on just financial holdings, although that is cer- the single bottom line of economics, tend to tainly an important kind of asset. Even when use intensive forest management practices people possess relatively minimal amounts (such as clear-cutting, herbicides, lowest bid

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 7

contracting, etc.), and convey benefits primarily to a privileged few corporations and large We all want a clean, healthy, and safe landowners. It is equally different from the “nature knows best” model that assumes that “environment. Working off of the connections all human intervention in ecosystems is bad. built by the tree plantings, there have been a great number of neighborhood cleanups initiated. It will be useful here to introduce and examine key CBF practices that can be considered These activities have brought together all of the essential building blocks of any successful various tree stewardship community groups.” community-based forestry project: —Deborah Thomas, ANC Commissioner ■ Building capacity Washington, D.C. ■ Collaboration ■ Ensuring open and inclusive participation ■ Enfranchisement, equity, and benefit sharing Building capacity ■ Resource stewardship and restoration ■ Economic vitality/investments at the local In the broadest sense, organizational or level community capacity refers to a wide-ranging ■ Adaptive management/monitoring and set of skills, characteristics, and resources learning that, taken together, improves the group’s ■ Networking for learning, strengthening ability to recognize, evaluate, and respond the CBF movement, and policy change creatively and effectively to challenges and opportunities. Building capacity, therefore, At first glance, some of these fundamental asks that an organization or community building blocks might sound overly generic. take a hard look at itself — sometimes with Nonetheless, in both their essence and care- a little outside help, to gain better perspec- ful application, they are fundamental to a tive — and then take steps to address any thorough understanding of what is required inherent weaknesses or liabilities. to adapt and fully implement community- based forestry in a variety of settings. The fundamental question to ask, of course, is “The capacity to do what?” For example, does the community — a group of Community-based forestry inhabits individuals — already have, or can it develop, leadership with a vision for a different kind a place all of its own—different of future, and does that leadership have the ability to mobilize community interests? Is from models that focus on the the community able to communicate and single bottom line of economics partner across differences to effectively leverage the community’s diverse perspec- and from the “nature knows best” tives? Is the community willing to strengthen its capacity to launch, support, and expand model that rejects all human various sorts of CBF-related value-adding manufacturing enterprises, training pro- intervention in ecosystems. grams, and/or other avenues to increase community residents’ access to work?

Introduction Chapter 1 8

The interventions required to address these so weary of protracted conflict that they questions can take many forms, depending were willing to try virtually anything — even upon whether one is concerned about collaboration! enhancing access to financial resources, enhancing local influence concerning As such, CBF collaborations represent the natural resources, or simply strengthening antithesis of the prevailing “winner-take-all” the community’s social capital (formal and attitude that pervades much of American informal networks of social interaction). culture. They ask community stakeholders to come up with win-win solutions; to share the burden, expense, and benefits of implementation; and to work together to monitor and Because of the collaboration and bringing assess outcomes. These sorts of workable different“ expertise and the agencies in, and working collaborations seldom arise overnight. They as a team, we’re getting better results on the land. take a lot of time and patience. More treatments are done in a better way, and more In recent years, collaborative stewardship people are seeing them and are willing to change has become increasingly important to the strategies if the monitoring shows it works better.” U.S. Forest Service — especially as it has moved toward achieving objectives at the local and regional scale. As Andrea Loucks —Dave Kaufman of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation Bureau of Land Management, west central Colorado has reported, the U.S. Forest Service must consider efficient and effective ways of designing and implementing complex Collaboration new projects that cover vast landscapes. Collaborative projects appear to be the CBF initiatives inevitably create new avenues most workable solution. For communities, for collaboration. They require reaching such approaches can offer a boost to local out to unfamiliar partners, whether to gain economies, a stronger voice in determining access to resources and skills, or, even more how stewardship projects are created and fundamentally, to foster a broadly based put into practice, and enhanced training consensus among diverse community stake- and job opportunities for local residents. holders about precisely what the community wants to do. Ensuring open, inclusive, and widespread local participation, Effective collaboration almost never comes about easily. That’s not surprising, given that as well that of other stakeholders many CBF collaborators — including some based outside of the local community — once Most natural resource-dependent com- may have been bitter adversaries embroiled munities are all-too-familiar with having in power struggles over the best use of local outsiders make crucial decisions about forest resources. In fact, more than a few how their local assets will be extracted, pro- successful CBF initiatives got their start only cessed, and sold. Even where local people because the warring parties eventually grew have wielded significant influence, that

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 9

decision-making power typically has been reserved for and shared among a relatively Participating in these meetings and workshops has few individuals. “made me realize what constitutes a community. It’s CBF, on the other hand, broadens the notion not just where I live and where my boundaries are of who genuinely is a stakeholder. At one marked. It’s people that reach out to me, level, CBF includes virtually anyone living within the local watershed or ecosystem and who interact with me. We help each other out, who is willing to express his or her viewpoint share ideas, interests, and benefits from the land. or contribute time and expertise to develop I’ve made a lot of good friends, people I feel a workable consensus about how best to manage and use the forest. Admittedly, it comfortable with calling at any time to ask questions.” can be challenging to ensure that these local voices are not by default those of the —Rosalind Peters, community member same, enduring, insider group of good old Alabama boys and good old girls who always have spoken up on its own behalf. How does a community learn to listen to its many voices and bring all of these stakeholders into the Enfranchisement, equity, circle of decision making about natural and benefit-sharing resource management? Within community-based forestry, enfran- Communities of place also must find ways chisement and equity often refer to the to listen thoughtfully to other voices beyond work that organizations and individuals their own boundaries — such as those belong- undertake to ensure members of the coming to national environmental organizations, munity, including groups traditionally under- or those speaking on behalf of the mobile represented or underserved, have ready workforce, who periodically may travel to access to information, resources, power, the community to work in the local forest — decision making, and economic opportuni- who also perceive themselves as having ties. In some cases, it may refer to a local a stake in local decision making. It can be community’s efforts to assert greater influ- challenging to decide how significantly to ence over its local economy. In other cases, weigh the active participation of all these it involves an effort to find a real voice for stakeholder groups. Having such access forest workers and harvesters. In still others, to an inherently local process at times will it is a project to purchase land that can be be complicated, especially where local owned and managed by local residents who residents themselves have affiliations with otherwise would not hold property. national groups. For all of the community-based organiza- Finally, communities must find ways to tions in the Demonstration Program, the encourage diverse constituencies not only to mandate to assure equity has meant a participate in decision making about natural willingness to work with select groups within resource management, but also to share in their communities that otherwise might CBF’s actual benefits. They must strive to continue to be excluded from meaningful ensure that emerging economic opportunities participation. For some of these groups, the be made more equitably accessible to all.

Introduction Chapter 1 10

task of helping them to achieve a sense of wealth or unspoiled topography, are finite enfranchisement, which includes the belief and therefore must be looked after if they that their participation actually could mat- are to serve the long-term interests of local ter, is a prerequisite to their active engage- people. Even renewable resources — healthy ment with CBF activities. forests, clean water, and fertile farmland — deserve careful stewardship if they are to Across the United States, individual remain productive assets. communities that are experimenting with community-based forestry have Once again, it’s important to emphasize — demonstrated both genuine progress and within the working framework of community- residual shortcomings toward attaining based forestry — that ecological well-being their goal of assuring equity for all. As is not valued simply in the abstract, nor such, despite some painful and continuing is it viewed in isolation from the health disappointments, CBF advocates still hold and well-being of human communities. forth the ideal that CBF, as a movement, Each one is mutually interdependent upon will continue to evolve toward being much the other. As such, local economies that more inclusive and equitable across a wide are dependent upon natural resources range of community participation. can enjoy vibrant good health only when they are based upon management practices that improve and sustain local Resource stewardship and regional ecosystems over time. and restoration A related challenge is to cultivate respect People from various walks of life are for local, community-based knowledge attracted to community-based forestry about how to care for the forest. Local for many diverse and compelling reasons. people long have felt that public agencies CBF’s most fundamental, enduring appeal, were not willing to listen to their ideas however, appears to be its pragmatic, about how to manage forestlands and holistic approach to resource stewardship other natural resources, turning instead to and restoration. That core attribute speaks so-called experts who brandish scientific directly to the deeply felt kinship that many approaches. Increasingly, CBF practitioners people have with their natural surroundings. are listening to what local people know It evokes their respect and appreciation for both the landscape and, within that larger context, the myriad plant and animal species that cohabit along with human beings. Ecological well-being is not valued

The related concepts of stewardship and simply in the abstract, nor is restoration also address an underlying, it viewed in isolation from the shared sense of responsibility that prompts people to be increasingly mindful about health and well-being of human how they make use of the valuable natural assets that constitute the basis of enduring communities. Each one is mutually community wealth. Many communities interdependent upon the other. today understand that their non-renewable resources, whether the land’s mineral

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 11

and building upon their cultural history with the land. In crafting workable strate- Experience from the Demonstration Program gies for resource stewardship, they work with local people to blend local knowledge proves that community-based organizations can with a thorough understanding of the basic ecology of a particular place, ranging from play a pivotal role in helping to establish the its smallest elements to the system as a physical infrastructure needed to support value- whole. adding enterprises. But the economic benefits that Economic vitality and result may not be sufficient to alleviate poverty. investment at the local level

A fundamental goal that many communities hope to achieve through CBF is to develop stewardship contracting opportunities for a diversified, resilient local economy based local workers, acting as intermediaries to upon the sustainable use of local forest- help rural value-adding producers connect lands. Most are well aware, however, that with distant urban markets that can afford global markets have a tremendous impact to pay a premium for their eco-friendly upon local economies, strongly affecting flooring and furniture, and developing what sorts of local economic development marketing and branding strategies to help strategies can be attempted and what likely small enterprises find an appropriate mar- can be accomplished. Where, then, is the ket niche. In many of these activities, com- best place to begin? munity-based organizations help absorb some of the risk that small pro ducers For many communities, the first step is to encounter as they attempt to break into make investments in restoration forestry. As established markets — or even to create journalist Jane Braxton-Little has described, new ones. restoration forestry offers an opportunity to repair damaged streams and return forests Even so, the small-scale economic benefits to their natural fire regime, goals generally that result may not be sufficient to allevi- embraced by both community practitioners ate poverty. In some instances, they may and national environmental groups. It also provide just enough supplemental income offers communities the opportunity to to help a family make ends meet, or to showcase early successes on the landscape, help elderly residents pay their rising while at the same time creating jobs for property taxes and hold onto their land. community residents. Indeed, many of the collateral benefits generated through CBF-related activities Experience from the Demonstration and enterprises do not lend themselves to Program vividly illustrates that community- being evaluated solely through traditional based organizations can play a pivotal economic measures. role in helping to establish the physical infrastructure needed to support value- adding enterprises. Across the nation, CBF practitioners also are experimenting with a range of other roles, including brokering

Introduction Chapter 1 12

Adaptive management/monitoring together a makeshift coalition of community and learning stakeholders — especially the naysayers — can prove to be a real challenge. As with any experimental or emergent approach to ecosystem management, it is For these and other reasons, CBF advocates essential that community-based forestry are developing innovative ways to moni- projects be thoroughly monitored and tor and learn from their ongoing projects carefully assessed. After all, the stakes are on both public and private land. These high — and the expectations, urgent — for both moni toring activities often are designed to the health of forests and the economic resil- encourage broadly based participation — iency of entire communities. Whatever their which not only engages stakeholders more predispositions about how best to manage deeply in what assuredly will be a long-term the forest, community stakeholders, as well process, it also facilitates building trust as interested third parties, are eager to find among team members with disparate points out whether CBF actually can deliver on its of view. Moreover, all-party monitoring widely trumpeted promise. programs encourage participants to offer suggestions for mid-course corrections and And yet, measuring CBF outcomes and other program improvements. determining their broader effects upon both ecosystems and communities inevitably Ultimately, CBF requires communities to require a lot of patience. Neither trees nor make a lasting commitment to monitoring new value-adding industry clusters mature and learning — as well as to taking what has overnight. Moreover, CBF practitioners been learned through monitoring and using must adapt their strategies to fit the unique that data to inform future decision making. Of circumstances of their particular communi- course, at that point, the whole cycle begins ties and bioregions. There’s absolutely no anew, as CBF is nothing if not an iterative, guarantee that any community can simply long-term process for creative adaptation. get it right the first time. More likely, they will find it necessary to tinker with and Networking for learning, building adapt both individual strategies and their the movement, and policy change overall mix of projects. Meanwhile, holding Natural resource-dependent communities — especially those in rural areas — long have felt isolated geographically, both from one Community-based forestry needs to be rooted in another and from urban population centers. “the proverb, ‘We must live our lives in ways that teach Even so, they know all too well how it feels our children about our humanity and our freedom for to be whipsawed again and again by the the next seven generations.’ So that anything we do actions of powerful agents, whether large corporations, national organizations, or has an impact for seven generations.” governmental bureaucracies, whose bases of operation are located far away. —Maria Morales-Lobel, community member New Mexico In the past, residents of these communities have felt alone and powerless. Today, they are far more likely to link up with their peers

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 13

in other communities, both to share what Opportunities to learn from one’s peers they are learning in the field as well as to undoubtedly help strengthen community- join forces in lobbying for mutually advanta- based efforts to design and implement geous changes in national policies that could effective CBF projects. Those opportuni- improve the outcomes of their CBF-related ties exist in myriad forms, ranging from activities. Moreover, communities increas- published case studies that document ingly are utilizing these evolving networks the experiences of a single community to to identify and tap into available sources of face-to-face, multicommunity gatherings technical expertise and financial support. like those sponsored by the Ford Foundation throughout the six-year tenure of its This emerging, loosely knit confederation of National CBF Demonstration Program. CBF practitioners and resource providers appears to be both self-organizing and gently guided by an informal network of visionary We are actually getting to be somewhat activists seeded throughout the emerging movement. Many of them work day-to-day “interchangeable. Sometimes there will be a in the forest or in value-adding enterprises. meeting or conference that one of us can attend. Others are in community-based organiza- It’s pretty odd to hear the hardcore environmentalist tions that support these workers. And most of the rest are drawn from the ranks of those say to the U.S. Forest Service guy, affiliated with public agencies, extension ‘You go ahead and speak for me.’” services, universities, and foundations. —Gordon West Taken all together, however ad hoc it may be Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition, New Mexico in the aggregate, community-based forestry has become a powerful instrument capable of leveraging significant results. For example, consider the annual pilgrimage known among long-time CBF practitioners as the Community-based Week in Washington. Co-sponsored by a forestry in the far-sighted quartet of nationally focused, forest-friendly organizations — the National United States Network of Forest Practitioners, American Forests, the Society of American Foresters, In the early 1990s, initial efforts to imple- and the Communities Committee of the ment community forestry in the United Seventh American Forest Congress — this States focused primarily upon providing a yearly event provides opportunities for local voice for local communities in the manage- practitioners to meet with key policymakers, ment of nearby forests, whether publicly or agency officials, and interest groups. They privately owned. Economic crises and envi- also learn how federal legislative and ronmental concerns among forest-depen- budget processes actually work. They lobby dent communities in the western states in favor of funding packages and for regula- had reached the boiling point, with the tory flexibility that could better support their result that many people began to search work. And they network with other people for new, creative approaches to manage involved in community-based forestry, forest ecosystems, especially on public sharing their ideas and experiences. lands, and to revitalize rural economies.

Introduction Chapter 1 14

Institute for Conservation, among others, dedicated increased time and resources to The belief in Trinity County support CBF. was“ that we would get over the crisis and be able to harvest old timber again. Community-based forestry has become increasingly attractive to many people who WRTC helped the community see that care deeply both about the natural environ- there could be viable work in the woods ment and the long-term sustainability of by doing forest management in certain sites human communities. Its practitioners and and setting aside the virgin areas advocates are drawn from many walks of life and diverse points of view, most often farther back in the woods.” because CBF offers a flexible, adaptable, and ultimately workable approach that —Stan Stetson nurtures healthy, sustainable outcomes U.S. Forest Service, northern California for both human communities and natural ecosystems.

Seen from a larger perspective, all of these Spurred by local activists, the Seventh CBF practitioners and advocates — including American Forest Congress, held in both individuals and organizations, whether Washington, D.C., during February 1996, local, regional, or national in their scope became a watershed event, with diverse of activity — are natural allies who together voices demanding that forest resource serve as a de facto CBF support network. management become more responsive to After all, collaboration lies close to the the decentralized, democratic strategies heart of effective community-based advocated by community-based forestry. forestry. Just as no single dimension of Then, in the summer of 2000, large-scale CBF can be an effective magic bullet or a wildfires raged throughout the West. panacea for the myriad challenges facing In response, the federal government forest-dependent communities, nor can authorized $240 million for hazardous any single community-based organization fuel reduction at the interface of human expect to fulfill CBF’s potential acting all by development and wildlands areas. itself. Networking is essential.

Suddenly, the possibilities for launching community-based restoration work seemed far more feasible. Across the country, more Community-based forestry is about communities began experimenting with change. It’s about working together CBF, and many, especially in the West, “ toward something that is different, formed regionally based associations to share information and leverage favorable something you might not even know yet.” changes in state and national policies. National organizations, such as the —Community member National Network of Forest Practitioners Wallowa County, northeastern Oregon (NNFP), American Forests, and the Pinchot

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 15

The mobile workforce multiparty monitoring seek to recognize and integrate this knowledge into land manage- Throughout discussions about CBF, including ment decision making. those in this publication, it is common to speak both of “communities of place” and “communities of interest.” Each of these Forest workers and harvesters are a particularly groups, broadly defined to acknowledge diverse variations, is an essential stake- important community of interest. They possess holder across several dimensions of community-based forestry. valuable knowledge—both traditional and experiential—

Given their dependence upon — and, in turn, that can lead to more ecologically sound land their essential contributions to — healthy management practices. forest ecosystems, forest workers and harvesters are a particularly important community of interest. Frequently referred to as “the mobile workforce,” these individuals, Beyond the purely utilitarian value of who often are people of color, travel from such knowledge, it also is important to job site to job site, typically among multiple highlight the needs and efforts of forest states. They generally are responsible for workers and harvesters because they are tree planting, pre-commercial thinning, and central to achieving CBF’s social equity other types of seasonal work. goals. If the CBF movement is truly committed to achieving improved outcomes Often they are poorly paid and have around equity, then it must engage all limited rights. The average labor-intensive of the people who are doing the work in forest worker in Oregon, for example, earns the woods, including both local residents less than $7,000 annually. Many workers and the mobile workforce. The movement and harvesters are exploited for the gain further must strive to ensure that the of others, so thoroughly stripped of their mobile workforce has access to improved voice that even when they speak, they are economic opportunities. For example, one not heard. They learn through experience promising strategy is to provide training that what they know and desire doesn’t and skills development so that workers are count and is not valued by others. They able to compete for and secure more jobs are denied options and alternatives about at higher pay, as well as have a positive how they do their work, and ultimately lack impact on the environment. the power to make any sort of meaningful choice. Within the emerging CBF movement, however, tension often exists between local com- Nonetheless, workers and harvesters pos- munities and the mobile workforce. When sess valuable knowledge — both traditional logging on national forests began to decline, ecological knowledge and the experiential associated activities such as tree planting knowledge of “the hands that touch the and thinning also declined. The listing of the land” — that can lead to more ecologically spotted owl as an endangered species sound land management practices. As discussed in Chapter 5, civic science and

Introduction Chapter 1 16

and the associated decline in timber harvest families. They desire year-round work. They and related activities, particularly in the also would like to work under fair labor prac- Northwest, resulted in significantly reduced tices and to earn respect. In short, members employment opportunities, both for loggers, of the mobile workforce want to have many who for the most part were local residents of the same rights as do members of com- and relatively highly paid, and for the munities of place. mobile workforce. New job opportunities, however, have not In some instances, the federal government followed upon those hopes. The immigrant has sought to support these unemployed for- labor market continues to support — even est workers. The Jobs-in-the-Woods program, require — a disenfranchised underclass of for example, had the intent of retraining for- workers. Federal agencies continue to use est workers to perform ecosystem manage- lowest-cost contracting, among other barri- ment activities. Program activities, however, ers. The net result is that both workforces are generally were more readily accessible to competing for the same jobs, and tensions out-of-work loggers than to unemployed have increased. members of the mobile workforce. As CBF attempts to build community, retain In another example, on-the-job training and expand local job opportunities, and involved Latino workers who were not address equity issues, what shape will necessarily forest workers or harvesters. the continued involvement of the mobile Rather, they were primarily farm workers. workforce take? As pressures increase on Although these farm workers are a huge the U.S. Forest Service — such as increasing mobile workforce, they did not necessarily annual fuels reduction targets and declining have a strong interest in continuing to work numbers of federal employees — that tend in forestry services. Services and training to force the agency toward designing larger opportunities targeting Latino populations contracts, how will small contractors be able do not necessarily reach forest workers or to access the work? As both local communi- address forestry service issues. As such, ties and the mobile workforce work to try to clear distinctions need to be made. create high-skilled, high-wage work in forest stewardship and watershed restoration, As they search for new job opportunities, what ways will they find to work together? many members of the mobile workforce would like to work closer to home and their The National CBF Demonstration Program As CBF attempts to build community,

expand local job opportunities, and address equity The primary goal of the Demonstration Program was to establish successful on-the- issues, what shape will the continued involvement of ground pilot projects throughout the United States. It was hoped that these pilots would the mobile workforce take? provide critical lessons learned to improve practice and ultimately act as catalysts for a broader movement. Initially developed by Ford Foundation Senior Program

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 17

Officer Michael Conroy, the initiative was implemented by Senior Program Officer Jeff The primary goal of the Demonstration Program was Campbell. Joining the New York office from Indonesia in 2000, Campbell’s experience to establish successful on-the-ground pilot projects with CBF in Asia made him an ideal candi- date to lead the initiative. throughout the United States and to harvest the lessons

that emerged as catalysts for a broader movement. Early in the planning stage, Conroy awarded a grant to the Aspen Institute and the Pinchot Institute for Conservation2 to act as managing partner for the initiative. and Colorado State University to undertake Experience with other programs had shown research. Over the six years, these compo- the value a managing partner could bring, nents used nearly $3.5 million (drawn from including more effective use of grant funds, the Foundation’s $12.5 million total invest- intentional learning and enhancement of ment) to support technical assistance, peer programs, and ultimately improved prac- learning, publications, overall management tice within the field. The managing partner of the portfolio during both the planning had four primary roles: 1) provide techni- and implementation phases, and research. cal assistance for the grantees; 2) design Colorado State University’s research effort and facilitate peer learning opportunities; will be completed in 2006. 3) distill and disseminate experiences from the Demonstration Program throughout A program Advisory Group was established the CBF field; and 4) facilitate communica- in 2002 to provide guidance to the program tion between the donor and the grantees, and facilitate communications with the including assisting with the management broader field. of the grants. CBF demonstration sites Ultimately, over the six years (including both planning and implementation phases), the The 13 community-based projects in the Ford Foundation invested over $12.5 million. Demonstration Program reflected some of Twenty groups received six-month planning the broad cultural, ethnic, and geographic grants ranging up to $40,000 each. The diversity of communities using forest Foundation subsequently awarded core resources. These pilot initiatives focused on grants of $75,000 to $150,000 per year to public, private, and tribal lands, and used each of 13 implementing organizations (see differing economic strategies for turning map on page 18 for location of grantees) for forest resources into sustainable livelihoods.3 a total of up to $750,000 over five years. Private lands. The Federation of Southern Moreover, grants were awarded to the Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund Natural Assets Program at the Aspen (Federation) and its Training Center in Epes, Institute as managing partner, as well as Alabama, works to assure that African- to the Institute for Policy Research and American and other historically underserved Evaluation at Pennsylvania State University,

3 More thorough descriptions of each site may be found 2 The Pinchot Institute for Conservation was co-manager in Appendix A at the end of this document. with the Aspen Institute from 1999–2001.

Introduction Chapter 1 18

individuals of the Southern Black Belt have Rural Action works to promote economic, every opportunity to own land, resources, social, and environmental justice in and businesses, and to live prosperously Appalachian Ohio. Rural Action’s Forestry and honorably. It also assists in the develop- Program focuses on research, cultivation, ment of cooperatives and credit unions as and marketing of medicinal plants and a collective strategy to create economic other non-timber and timber forest products; self-sufficiency. The Federation’s Forestry landowner education; and building local Program focuses on training and demon- organizational capacity to undertake these stration programs in goat production. and other activities.

North Quabbin Woods (NQW), a project Vermont Family Forests Partnership (VFFP) of the New England Forestry Foundation in Addison County, Vermont, is a working (NEFF), seeks to revitalize the North Quabbin partnership among three not-for-profit economy of central Massachusetts based on organizations: Vermont Family Forests (VFF), the sustainable use of local forest resources, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), and including recreation, tourism, woodworking, the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund (VSJF). and other value-adding manufacturing. The The purpose of the partnership is to develop project builds community skills and institu- replicable models and demonstration sites tions to address these and other issues. of ownership of forestland that are ecologically sound and financially inclusive, and The Penn Center strives to promote and that interact with socially responsible com- pre serve the history and culture of the Sea munity-based forest product industries. Islands of Georgia and South Carolina. The Land Use and Environmental Education Public lands. Most public lands sites are Program promotes a vision of self-sufficiency on national forest land managed by the and empowerment through education and U.S. Forest Service. To varying degrees, demonstration programs in goat produc- these organizations also supported work on tion, pine straw harvesting, and other non- private land as they worked across regional timber forest products, as well as supports landscapes. the development of local organizational capacity. The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition (JBC) in Silver City, New Mexico, brings together environmental groups, economic develop- Geographic distribution of the ment institutions, small local producers, and 13 demonstration sites the U.S. Forest Service to restore ecological processes in the local community’s public and private forested lands, while creating and supporting sustainable businesses, jobs, and livelihoods in the county.

The Public Lands Partnership (PLP) in west central Colorado formed in 1992 as an informal forum to address public lands issues. Members included citizens, local governments, land management agency personnel, businesses, loggers, ranchers,

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 19

The 13 CBF demonstration sites

Major Site Acronym Location focus

Alliance of Forest Workers AFWH Willow Creek, membership and Harvesters California organization

D.C. Greenworks — Washington, D.C. urban

Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ FSC/LAF Epes, Alabama private lands Land Assistance Fund

Grant County JBC Silver City, public lands Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition New Mexico

Healthy Forests, HFHC Portland, Oregon membership Healthy Communities organization

Makah Tribal Forestry — Neah Bay, Washington tribal lands

North Quabbin Woods NQW Central Massachusetts private lands (New England Forestry Foundation)

Penn Center — St. Helena Island, private lands South Carolina

Public Lands Partnership PLP Delta, Colorado public lands

Rural Action — Trimble, Ohio private lands

Vermont Family Forests VFFP Addison County, private lands Partnership* Vermont

Wallowa Resources — Enterprise, Oregon public lands

Watershed Research and WRTC Hayfork, California public lands Training Center

* This project was a working partnership among three not-for-proﬁ t organizations: Vermont Family Forests, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund.

and conservationists. PLP strives to test new that enhance and help maintain diverse, models of how to manage conflict and pro- healthy, and viable economies, environ- mote collaboration and works to influence ments, and communities. the management of public lands in ways

Introduction Chapter 1 20

The mission of Wallowa Resources in Urban settings. D.C. Greenworks in northeastern Oregon is to promote forest Washington, D.C., seeks to bring ideas, and watershed health and create family- experience, and tools to empower urban wage jobs and business opportunities from communities to improve their natural and natural resource stewardship. Wallowa built environment. D.C. Greenworks works Resources facilitates and promotes com- in partnership with community groups, munity planning processes, and designs and public agencies, businesses, and nonprofits manages stewardship contracting with the to develop community-based environmental U.S. Forest Service. Its for-profit subsidiary, programs that address the environmental, Community Solutions, Inc., manufactures social, and economic issues, including green- and markets products from forest restora- collar job training, low-impact development tion efforts. and environmental design, and community treekeepers. The Watershed Research and Training Center (WRTC) in Hayfork, California, Membership organizations. The Alliance seeks to promote healthy communities and of Forest Workers and Harvesters (AFWH) sustainable forests through research, educa- is a multicultural organization promoting tion, training, and economic development. social, environmental, and economic justice. The independent business incubator started It exists to share and provide information by WRTC is used by community members and education; encourage participation to create businesses, sustainable jobs, and in decision-making processes that affect local revenue. workers’ and harvesters’ lives; be mutually supportive and respectful of forest workers’ Tribal lands. The Makah Tribe’s Forestry and harvesters’ cultures, communities, and Department seeks to create and implement individuals; foster communication among all forest management practices that serve to its members; and promote the understand- restore and conserve forest, wildlife, fish, ing of its constituents’ struggles and issues and cultural resources. Its community-based throughout the Pacific West. forestry initiative promotes awareness and education about non-timber forest products Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities (NTFPs) in local elementary and middle (HFHC), a project of Sustainable Northwest schools. The Tribe also has completed an in Portland, Oregon, is a membership inventory of NTFPs and collated this infor- organization of businesses and nonprofits mation with that of timber stands to ensure that work to build market awareness and forests are managed for environmental, demand for regionally and responsibly cultural, and economic benefit. produced wood products, and to enhance rural capacity to serve those markets to the benefit of both entrepreneurs and forest ecosystems.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees CHAPTER Foundations of 2 Community-Based Forestry 22

his chapter begins a detailed CBF fundamentals discussion of the many lessons T learned during the National CBF LESSON 1 Every community-based Demon stration Program. All are drawn forestry program has to build community — directly from the experiences of the whether community of place, of interest, participating communities. Later chapters will look at lessons specific to one or another or both. These communities, however key aspect of CBF. defined, have to be organized, supported, and well understood before CBF The emphasis here, however, will be to programs can flourish. identify overarching lessons that are relevant across all of CBF’s interrelated core All communities, whether they embrace strategies — specifically, its social, economic, people who are rooted in a particular place and ecological strategies and their associ- or weave together more far-flung people who ated objectives. As such, they are essential to share similar interests, are fundamentally understanding how best to go about design- about connection. In some cases, communi- ing and implementing an integrated CBF pro- ties engage groups of people whose lives are gram. It will be helpful to review these broad connected with one another through their lessons carefully before reading the later ongoing interactions and through a shared chapters, if only to allow the reader to situate sense of identity. In other cases, they are those forthcoming specific lessons more groups of diverse stakeholders whose com- comfortably within this larger framework. mon concern is to manage natural resources in ways that enable or accommodate the continuation of their many ways of life. Lessons These communities then build relation- This section offers lessons about the under- ships and partnerships — of interest and/or lying fundamentals of CBF, some keys power — with other communities, notes to effective implementation, and critical Nils Christoffersen at Wallowa Resources. elements to ensuring broader, long-term “When successful, benefits may include impacts. public support, access to information and markets, etc. In addition, such partnerships may allow for a scaling up of the program to pursue integrated natural resource The emphasis here is to identify management across larger landscapes and overarching lessons that are relevant across all of CBF’s social orders.”

interrelated core strategies—specifically, The path toward building communities is seldom as straightforward as one might its social, economic, and ecological strategies and wish. Consider the word “community” itself, which in some discussions can evoke their associated objectives. images of a homogeneous, wholesome entity whose members inherently share the same values, forge easy agreements, and, once plans are set in motion, work together diligently as honeybees.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 23

Like most fables, this idealized portrait of community does contain an element of Resource-dependent communities—like most of those truth. It fails, however, to take into account two undeniable facts. First of all, human in the Demonstration Program—typically are held beings, wherever they may happen to live, are by nature multidimensional. They together by a widely shared commitment to the identify with and have allegiances to many common landscape and the livelihoods differing types of communities, usually all at the same time. Moreover, as researcher that depend on that landscape. Cecelia Danks has pointed out, even just one of those overlapping communities is, within itself, diverse, stratified, and politi- cally fractured — much like the larger society There are, of course, other types of com- in which it is embedded. munities that are more transitional. Once they too may have been more resource- In light of such observations, what does hold dependent, but today they likely sustain a community — or a group of individuals — their livelihoods through a variety of means. together? How can its members identify their Many are experiencing rapid development, shared interests and find common cause? with a substantial influx of newcomers. In these sorts of places, shared identity and Nearly all of the sites that participated in the commitment to place are far more complex. Demonstration Program actually did share People experience myriad relationships, both some underlying basic features. Most are with the region’s natural resources and with resource-dependent communities. These are one another. communities where the majority of people sustain their livelihoods by developing and Individuals in such communities also may using, at some level, the locally available feel committed to their place, but in differing natural resources. Often the residents of the ways, along differing paths and timelines. community are multigenerational. One is Some are just learning about the local eco- constantly reminded that there are elders system and the larger social context of their present who recall the community’s past and community, while others have been spending youngsters nearby who represent its future. vacations or other periods of time in the communities since they were young. The Such communities typically are held newly arrived are not likely to be connected together by a widely shared commitment to place in the same way that longer-term to their common landscape, their liveli- residents might be, or in the same way as hoods, and their people — in other words, those who depend on natural resources for their sense of place. This shared sense of their livelihood.4 Moreover, as they do begin identity and commitment to place make it to forge a shared sense of identity, it may be possible, through face-to-face interactions around other sorts of factors, such as what in a variety of settings, for even fractious communities to develop the capacity for 4 On a national level, 40 percent of all private forest- consensus decision making and collective landowners have owned their land for only 15 years action — especially where long-established or less. (Best, C., and L.A. Wayburn, America’s Private values and livelihoods are threatened. Forests: Status and Stewardship, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2001.)

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 24

Community in a private land context often is built from the ground up and is likely to Individuals in more transitional communities also may flourish wherever there is a strong, shared feel committed to place, but in differing ways, along sense of perceived benefit. The members of a group of landowners, businesses, or differing paths and timelines. A key challenge there is other individuals are connected through their need to unite to gain access to to create opportunities for shared experiences that can resources, markets, information, etc. help even seemingly disparate stakeholder groups to By sharing news of the benefits of being part of the community, these groups develop common knowledge and understanding. frequently are able then to broaden their reach and engage other local — and non- local — residents. kind of work they do, where their children go to school, or with whom they worship. A key Vermont Family Forests has found, for challenge in these transitional communities, example, that only a few landowners will then, is for CBF initiatives to create ongoing take economic risks simply because they opportunities for shared experiences that can are committed philosophically to the goal help even seemingly disparate stakeholder of a wood products industry based on groups to develop common knowledge and “what the forest wants to yield.” Most will understanding. not. In addition, many newer residents are unaware of the positive ecological benefits Another type of community involves people that sustainable forest management can who work together in the woods. Work provide. Expanding CBF’s base of support, crews often are tightly knit groups whose therefore, means that VFF has had to membership remains relatively constant articulate — or even better, demonstrate — over time. Typically, they are mobile, leaving the full range of benefits of its sustainable their respective homes in different commu- forest management approach to ever-wid- nities for extended periods of time for work ening circles of landowners. in the woods. Their sense of community arises from their shared experiences and In southeast Ohio, Rural Action built a common interests, including socially just community of landowners interested in cul- employment practices and sustainable for- tivating medicinal plants and other NTFPs est management. Similarly, many migrant by sharing information, facilitating learning harvesters — who range over an even wider opportunities, and helping individual area to gather non-timber forest products growers network among themselves and such as mushrooms and floral greens — develop a shared voice. Through the Roots revisit the same sites each year, often with of Appalachia Growers Association (RAGA), the same people. There is such a strong these landowners are weaving a strong sense of community among the mushroom social fabric that can support the com- harvesters at Crescent Lake in Oregon, munity as it faces new opportunities and for example, that they have been able to challenges. In fact, RAGA already has built organize two labor strikes to demand higher its capacity to the point where it is having prices for their harvest. an influence on state-level policies and the legal system.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 25

In north central Massachusetts, North Quabbin Woods builds community around I’ve seen the solidarity between cultures when place through a number of CBF-related activities. As one community member “you are working hard. In the woods, it doesn’t matter. reported, “NQW is generating a positive We are all grassroots, with our knees in the dirt. buzz and feeling within the community. It Focus on the person.” offers an opportunity for the community to come together, share ideas, and influence —Oshana Catranides what is going on in their community. This area is forgotten by the state [government], Lomakatsi Restoration Project, southwest Oregon but NQW is bringing it to their attention. Towns have tried to promote this region before, but nothing constructive came out is organizing workers and harvesters, one of it. This effort is different because it is group at a time. As part of this process, based on sound information, resources and outreach workers have conducted hun- funding, community-generated goals, and is dreds of interviews with workers and har- facilitated by a dedicated staff person.” vesters in order to understand fully what In west central Colorado, the Public Lands they want and need. Through leadership Partnership is testing new models of how training and mentoring, these outreach to manage conflict, promote collaboration, workers now have the skills and experience and build community. Having seen how to make presentations and facilitate discus- polarized other communities were becoming sions with forest workers, public agencies, over environmental issues, and knowing that and the general public. They also are the Wise Use Movement (e.g., the local con- networking on a national level. Moreover, trol movement) was gaining public support AFWH outreach workers have developed locally, a diverse group of citizens organized ideas and strategies for current and future PLP to encourage civic dialogue and address projects that support the aspirations of issues before they could escalate into even the workers. Then they have organized greater communitywide conflict. As is the individual groups to address some of these case with other CBF projects on public identified issues and pursue projects. lands, PLP understood that collaborative decision-making processes must empower LESSON 2 CBF efforts — whether of the full participation of local people. communities of place or interest — must Accordingly, PLP engaged a broad base of have access to the landscape’s natural stakeholders, including environmentalists assets, encompassing land, work in the and motorized recreationists, public land management agencies, local governments, woods, and the net resources available. and private citizens. It became a catalyst Perhaps the biggest single factor, besides and “idea incubator,” delegating to commit- the overpowering forces of global econo- tees or other groups the task of implement- mies, affecting the fulfillment of CBF’s ing the activities. potential is the ability of people to gain Across the Pacific West, including northern access to the landscape’s natural assets. California, Oregon, and Washing ton, the Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 26

EXAMPLELittle Hogback Community Forest Vermont Family Forests Partnership long had wanted to bring another conservation option

to the table—one that would offer opportunities to hold, steward, and enjoy forestland

to people who could not otherwise afford to buy land. As a result, the Little Hogback

Community Forest Limited Liability Corporation today owns and manages a 115-acre parcel

as a single unit. Community members buy shares that entitle them to recreation, firewood,

proceeds from timber sales, and the satisfaction of carefully stewarding a beautiful piece of

the world.

Implemented by Vermont Family Forests, roughly half of the shares are available to

households having incomes less than twice the county median. The rest have been reserved

for lower-income members, who will have access to loans provided by a VFF sponsor to cover

half of the share price. VFF holds public meetings to introduce community members to this

opportunity, as well as hiking tours to introduce them to the land and VFF’s style of forest

management. Although the marketing has been both low-key and local, the response has

been enthusiastic. Many people love the land, love VFF, and love the concept of being able

to share ownership and stewardship. VFF has found there is potential to do many similar

projects with community members who have enough money to meet their basic needs, yet

not enough money to buy a parcel of forestland on their own.

It is clear, however, that purchasing land, even with a favorable loan, is difficult for households

with incomes below the county median. In some cases, buying land is something they have

never thought about very seriously. VFF is finding that individual discussions—about how

the loan works, what the annual obligations would be, liquidity, and how this investment

compares with a bank account—help those making the decision become more comfortable.

When people are enthusiastic, it is often because they have a personal relationship with VFF

staff, and, as VFF builds up its track record, it anticipates more low-income residents will sign

up. Even so, many households making close to median income simply don’t have any extra

savings left over at the end of the year. VFF does not want to be in the position of tempting

people to invest in owning land before they even have health insurance, however good an

investment shared ownership of forestland might appear to be.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 27

PAccessingO LIcontract Cwork onY public lands Working with what was possible, the public land groups were able to access some contract

work and the byproducts of fuels reduction. Wallowa Resources in northeastern Oregon,

for example, assisted local contractors to access work through an indefinite quantity (IDIQ)

contract for fencing and weeds. The problem with the IDIQ contracts is that the money is not

obligated until a task order is completed. For the last three years, the Washington Office of

the U.S. Forest Service has taken back any non-obligated money from the field to pay for fire-

fighting expenses, which has meant that money has not been available to implement task

orders. For fuels reduction contracts, there are local contractors implementing work through

the Oregon Department of Forestry.

In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service awarded a stewardship contract for the Spooner Vegetation

and Road Project under the Categorical Exclusion Provision. This contract, which will

benefit both the community and the health of the forest, was made possible by years of

collaboration between Wallowa Resources, community members, the U.S. Forest Service,

local environmentalists, and other stakeholders. As former Wallowa Valley District Ranger

Meg Mitchell states, “It represents a lot of potential work in the community. I am very

pleased that our combined efforts with all of the interested parties during the planning of

this project paid off.”

If people are not able to access the forest, the forest is enhanced. Networks and other it is questionable whether it is really an collaboratives also are increasing access to asset at all. It may even be a liability. resources that individuals cannot reach on their own, either because they don’t have On private lands, access can be improved sufficient volume of either trees or products, through sharing knowledge about the or because they are people of color or resources in the forest, as well as about other historically underserved populations how to shape markets for forest products. who have not been recognized by technical Vermont Family Forests, for example, has assistance service providers. influenced the regional market to include character wood and underused tree species. For lower-income people who are not land- As a result, landowners are now managing owners but live in areas where land is avail- all of the forest. By shifting from a single able, Vermont Family Forests has initiated a to multiple-species marketing strategy, the strategy to create opportunities for shared diversity — and, ultimately, the health — of ownership of land.

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 28

Access to land is a huge issue for both the mobile harvesting communities and Native Access to land is a huge issue for both the mobile American peoples who seek access to their harvesting communities and Native American peoples ancestral territories. The federal permit system for harvesting is only getting more who seek access to their ancestral territories. onerous, with a current proposal to charge fees to everyone. Treaty tribes would be The federal permit system for harvesting is allowed subsistence harvesting, but tribes only getting more onerous. that are not federally recognized might not be given the same rights. The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters has worked with partners in seeking to improve an On public lands, communities gain access earlier ruling on this issue, but the struggle through developing broadly based collabora- continues. tives, partnerships, and other contracting mechanisms with public land management AFWH is providing training and skills agencies. At the outset of the Demonstration development in biophysical monitoring, Program, communities may have hoped ecologically sound restoration practices, that federal funds would become available, and other sustainable forestry skills so that sites for fuels reduction would be readily workers are able to compete for and secure approved, and the contracts for this work more jobs at higher pay and have a positive would go to local businesses. The unfolding impact on the environment. AFWH also is reality, however, has been a drastic and con- networking these newly trained individuals tinuing reduction in federal budgets and per- with work opportunities in the woods. sistent regulatory hurdles. These obstacles have severely limited the communities’ ability to undertake forest restoration work and LESSON 3 Consider and implement create and retain family-wage jobs. In many the three objectives of CBF — social, instances, families and individuals were economic, and ecological — as an forced to leave in search of work elsewhere. integrated, mutually dependent All too often, these obstacles also resulted in whole, rather than as three stand- a weakening of one or another community’s alone approaches being implemented overall CBF strategy. alongside one another. The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition in New Community-based forestry will be more Mexico was able to secure local contracts sustainable and have greater impact if strat- for work on national forest lands, but it took egies to bring about resilient communities, a Collaborative Forest Restoration Program sustainable economies, and healthy forest (CFRP) grant to implement the project. By ecosystems are addressed in an integrated October 2004, only 80 acres had been and synergistic manner, so that the whole is restored. CFRP is a U.S. Forest Service pro- greater than the sum of the parts. gram that is only available in New Mexico, and it may not be continued. Lynn Jungwirth states, “If the Watershed Research and Training Center [WRTC] just focused on economic impacts, then WRTC could bring in a call center to create jobs. If

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 29

WRTC just focused on forest health, then non- Using an integrated approach has locals could do the restoration work. And if important benefits. People in rural areas WRTC just focused on the community, WRTC increasingly are seeking economic vitality would spend lots of time talking and never and sustainability, which require access to get to job creation. WRTC needed to work on both natural and financial assets. The inte- all parts of this at once to be able to engage grated CBF approach brings more people the community in their exploration of job to the table and thus engages the broader opportunities that contribute to forest health.” range of stakeholders necessary to access and develop natural assets. An integrated In addition to helping achieve these three approach also is more efficient whenever, outcomes, successfully implemented CBF as in most small towns, there are limited can contribute to other objectives. An over- resources and people have to “wear many arching goal of the Federation of Southern hats.” Rather than requiring the resources Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund in to operate three stand-alone programs, Alabama was to promote and support land integration allows community organiza- retention by African Americans. As one tool tions to reach multiple objectives with the in that struggle, CBF provided the opportu- same carefully designed activity. Of course, nity for local landowners, in addition to rais- designing and implementing such an activ- ing goats, to take advantage of cost-sharing ity requires asking upfront, “How will we options,5 thereby helping them earn enough work toward all three objectives?” income to pay their taxes. In the long term, land retention does contribute to economic resilience and vitality, but in a less direct An integrated approach helps to engage a broader way than other CBF programs. Moreover, regardless of the targeted purpose of a range of stakeholders and allows small community particular initiative, CBF still must be implemented in an integrated way. organizations to reach multiple objectives with the

same carefully designed activity. Conversion of private forestland to development is a huge issue, and diverse and numerous strategies and incentives are all important for retention of forested For example, the Watershed Research and ecosystems. The Federation, for example, Training Center designed a training program designed their meat goat program so that for community members to undertake forest local residents could simultaneously address restoration work so that: their multiple needs to suppress the forest understory, earn short-term income, and ■ Potential employers described what job gain more equitable access to government skills would be needed to conduct the programs and other resources. work, the training responded to those skill requirements, and the training program identified likely job openings before the 5 By far the best-known and widely implemented option training began. is the agricultural-use tax exemption. If a landowner has at least ﬁ ve acres devoted to raising crops — in- ■ The training program paid trainees, so cluding forestry products — then she or he is eligible that anyone could afford to participate. for the exemption, potentially reducing an individual’s property tax burden by as much as 90 percent. It also recruited them from a broad

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 30

cross-section of the community, spreading although the relative importance of each benefits more widely and thereby building objective likely will wax and wane over community support for the program. time, depending on the opportunities and roadblocks that are presented along the ■ Training content reflected sustainable way. Moreover, making headway at the forestry best management practices. intersection of all three objectives is inevitably a long-term process. It can be difficult to show quick returns, primarily because While it is essential to integrate all three core multiple outside influences and barriers can affect outcomes at the community level for objectives—social, ecological, and economic—it is all three objectives.

important to understand that different communities While it is essential to integrate all three core objectives, it is important to understand may define these objectives differently. that different communities may define the objectives differently. In the case of the Makah Tribe, Olympic Peninsula, Washing- In the South Carolina Sea Islands, Penn ton, cultural perspectives prevented the tribe Center helped underserved landowners from pursuing the commercialization of gain access to technical assistance from the many of the non-timber forest products.6 South Carolina Forestry Commission and other service providers, so that: The Makah traditionally have not used non-timber forest products as a source ■ Landowners formed their own network, of income, but they do have a long tradi- the Lowcountry Landowners Association, tion of using them as an element in their to share this information, pool resources, economy, whether to engage community and provide mutual support. members in reciprocal relationships, for cultural purposes, or for their own personal ■ Penn Center staff conducted market use. The few who use these resources research on pine straw and connected the commercially typically have spent time off- Low country Landowners Association with reservation and, as one respondent stated, a resource person who understands that “Their value systems aren’t the same. They market. think more about the commercial than about the cultural.” ■ Penn Center staff educated forestry service providers on the importance of Interestingly, what tribal members wanted managing forest assets for diversity, instead of new product and market informa- including a range of species of timber and tion was more information on sustainable non-timber resources. harvesting practices and where to harvest materials for cultural uses — specifically, infor- In the longer term, simply asking the ques- mation on where to collect cedar bark for tion isn’t enough. Related CBF activities basket making before a logging operation is must evolve into integrated CBF programs implemented. Integrating harvesting needs that can demonstrate significant impacts in terms of each of the three core objectives. 6 Other factors were at play to explain why some other Not one of the three is truly dispensable, NTFPs also were not pursued as commodities.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 31

EXAMPLETaking a systems approach The integration of community, economic, and ecological objectives is the most important

and most difficult aspect of community-based forestry. It requires taking a systems

approach, which means looking at CBF as an integrated, whole system in which its

constituent parts operate together in some way to achieve an outcome or purpose, or, more

likely, a range of outcomes.

In this regard, the whole is much more than its parts. So, taking a systems approach to

understanding and implementing CBF also means looking at a community of place as a

whole system—comprising many mutually dependent, integrated parts, like people—that

itself interacts with larger systems, such as regional and global economies.

Here’s another way of describing a systems approach, taken from the realm of biology: A

living cell is far more than just an assortment of different molecules. Understanding how a

cell operates requires looking closely at all its various biological processes, including how

the cell relates to its larger environment. Although it is a whole system within itself, the cell

also belongs to larger systems, such as a particular organ like the heart. The heart, too, is

a whole in itself, but on another level, it too is a part of a larger system, like the circulatory

system or even the entire human body.

One advantage of looking at the world this way is that it helps one to identify patterns

of organization within and among systems, often revealed as dynamic processes.

Understanding the processes through which a system’s constituent parts interact to support

the whole can be very helpful, especially if one wishes to identify leverage points that might

help change the way that system works. Of course, one also would hope to become aware

of leverage points that, if not fully understood or tampered with irresponsibly, might lead to

undesirable system outcomes.

with the Makah Tribal Forest Management Regrettably, funding rarely is available to Plan was an important outcome of the CBF support integrated CBF approaches. Rather, initiative, as was a program in the schools there typically are specific programs to fund reconnecting youth to the forest. resource conservation and then others to

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 32

fund enterprise development. Ultimately, it implementing CBF for only about six years falls to the community-based organization at the start of the Demonstration Program. to weave all of the pieces together through One of the newly forming organizations their strategic plan. became a membership-based, nonprofit corporation seeking to serve forest workers and harvesters across a three-state region LESSON 4 The best organization to in the West. implement a CBF program is one where there is a sincere commitment to the The existing expertise of the implement- three long-term objectives of resilient ing organization at the outset of its CBF communities, vibrant economies, program seems to have limited bearing on and healthy forested ecosystems, as the program’s ultimate success. What is far well as to participatory, inclusive, more important is the organization’s ability to use a holistic, systems approach to focus and accountable processes. This on the integration of the three objectives commitment should be reflected in the and to analyze and understand the larger mission, values, practice, and intellectual context for CBF, including external factors underpinnings of the organization. and their influence on the community.

The Demonstration Program included a When established organizations, founded range of implementing arrangements, earlier around a different worldview and including community-based organizations, set of objectives, take on CBF, there needs programs within existing organizations, to be a process in place to ensure that the tribal agencies, and nonprofit partnerships. integration questions are asked — and that Some of these entities were created as CBF the program is implemented to support organizations, while others had expertise the whole, rather than just one objective in one or more elements of CBF and were and/or parallel program. Asking these adding the missing component. Some of the questions early can lead to more effective organizations were relatively young, while project design, help an organization get to others were well established but implement- where it is going faster, and foster a culture ing a CBF program for the first time. The of transparency. most experienced organization had been While it is not necessary to have in-depth expertise in all three core CBF areas — sustainable economics, community capacity, If you are going to bring this [CBF] in-house and and healthy forest ecosystems — there needs do it, look at everything you are doing and ask from to be some idea about how these skills will “ be obtained for the ultimate effectiveness of top to bottom, does it mirror the underlying truths of the program. In short, it is possible to enter the community-based movement?” CBF through any of its doors, but practitioners and organizations must make a sincere —Thomas Brendler, executive director commitment to embrace where opening National Network of Forest Practitioners those doors will take them. If CBF is a new project or program of an existing organization, and if the intention is that CBF is going to be widely adopted by the organization,

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 33

then it is important to ensure the activity is fully supported by the leadership of the Sometimes saying ‘no’ can lead later larger entity. “to a ‘yes’ on better terms.” While an integrated approach and paradigm shift are important thresholds toward fully —Dawn Gifford, executive director implementing community-based forestry, D.C. Greenworks accomplishing them is by no means a prerequisite for getting started. Many organizations begin simply by experimenting with a new activity or project, or perhaps with ecologically, by promoting sustainable the redesign of an existing project, evolving harvesting; and socially, by promoting the from there to a fully fledged program. What equity of African Americans retaining own- is important is that the organization learns ership. As this layered approach engages and adapts its activities along the way, being people who use the forest in differing transparent and accountable to the group of ways, it also can facilitate a more holistic individuals (or community) it serves. approach to forest management.

Another advantage to using a diversified Keys to effective implementation approach is that doing so makes it possible to be more responsive over time to the peaks LESSON 5 In order to have both the and valleys of group process, as well as to depth and breadth of impact needed the ebbs and flows of individual lives and for systemwide change, CBF requires economic cycles. Negotiating this “dance” is an approach that engages a range of critical to successful, long-term community empowerment. For example, the staff of different actors, working at different the D.C. Greenworks Treekeepers Program levels and on different activities. have developed program implementation standards requiring their neighborhood As a values-based approach, CBF seeks to partners to pledge both a minimum level of change hearts and minds, as well as the financial support and a minimum number of forest, at a systems level. As a result, a community volunteers. These standards are range of individuals and interests need to invaluable in assessing community readiness be engaged. Utilizing diversified strategies to ensure long-lasting impact. provides opportunities for working with many players — special interest groups, Moreover, using a multipronged approach public agencies, private landowners — and allowed D.C. Greenworks to shift its empha- for addressing the overlapping, core con- sis to its other CBF activities whenever a cerns within a community, which can be as particular community was not yet ready varied as the people. to come to the table. Staff also were better prepared to be responsive when the In the Southeast, for example, CBF is a community actually was ready. A key to good land retention strategy. It approaches using this approach is the ability to listen the value of the land across three dimen- to the community. D.C. Greenworks staff sions — economically, by promoting enterprise development for forest-based products;

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 34

developed their standards only after they consultants, part-time staff, or training. It is had worked with the community on these important to avoid becoming so diffuse that issues for three years. one’s programmatic impact also becomes limited. Furthermore, the groups in the A multilayered approach also allows an Demonstration Program found that the organization to experiment with a number market did not quickly pick up the innovative of strategies and see which ones actually ideas underlying their demonstration proj- take hold in the community. It then can be ects. The implementing organization had to selectively entrepreneurial about which focus on projects with the most economic ones it moves forward. North Quabbin potential and stay engaged through several Woods, for example, launched lots of small seasons, which also required substantial projects, including landowner workshops, staff resources. a community ecotourism planning process, organizing a group of local woodworkers, LESSON 6 Partnerships that are well marketing forest products in a number of structured and managed are essential outlets, ecotourism guide-training, and a regional branding effort involving local to ensuring access to the variety of skills, businesses. Clearly, when the possibilities of knowledge, perspectives, and finances failure are significant — as with all business required to implement an integrated development — a diversified portfolio can program. spread out the risk. The key to developing and implementing effective CBF strategies is to build partner- Utilizing diversified strategies provides many ships that function as true collaboratives. Collaboration among all interests can result advantages, but also can place a strain on staff in a significant impact, particularly when it is a continually evolving process shaped by resources—especially when they are limited. all involved.

Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, for Furthermore, having many irons in the fire example, has built a network of businesses enhances the possibility of creating and in the Pacific Northwest. Through HFHC’s celebrating short-term successes, while work, the businesses in this network have longer-term investments mature. This is been able to receive technical assistance particularly important in CBF, where it one-on-one and through workshops, to takes many years to achieve the long-term compete for small grants to develop new goals. Well-publicized early successes can products and explore new markets, to gain build and sustain interest in the longer- access to urban markets, to make connec- term options. tions that have led to sales between businesses in the network, and to meet others The challenge to a multipronged approach, who share their values. of course, is the strain it places on staff resources, especially when they are limited. Given the relative newness of community- It is necessary to analyze carefully the based forestry in most of the United States, skills that are needed and to evaluate how however, such partnerships only recently best to access them, whether through have been established or have yet fully to

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 35

emerge as new CBF programs are initiated. These groups will need the space to test out Partnerships bring new people and ideas into a their ability to work collaboratively and to determine the parameters governing their “process. You must adjust and modify expectations and relationships. They will need support in plans to integrate these new ideas and factors. clarifying expectations, ensuring equal rep- Keep your focus on maintaining positive relationships, resentation, and evaluating their processes. not solely on the outcomes.” Partnerships also need a lot of time to develop, as well as the financial resources to —Scott Maslansky, project director support people’s time. Fortunately, there is North Quabbin Woods/New England Forestry Foundation nothing like on-the-ground implementation North central Massachusetts to push a partnership to identify common ground, clarify expectations, negotiate operations, and “put their money where their mouth is.” policies on forest-dependent communities is the unique piece they can bring to policy discussions. On the other hand, each of LESSON 7 Recognize that large, these organizations has gained enhanced external forces — operating at the recognition and respect locally as their own regional, national, and global levels — communities realized their importance on significantly impact community options. the national level. Working through existing networks and The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ coalitions allows groups to influence Land Assistance Fund also discovered that change at multiple levels. having access to networks at the state and national levels was critical for program When working on CBF projects, there are success. Its state-level connections with the forces bigger than the local effort that Alabama Forestry Commission and nation- profoundly influence what can be accom- ally with U.S. Department of Agriculture plished. While the work itself needs to occur leveraged and brought in much-needed at the local level, the national and global resources and expertise to underserved levels need to stay “on the radar screen.” communities that otherwise wouldn’t have For example, communities need to be been able to access them. aware of global markets, the flow of wood through the region, policy impacts, and the The Alliance of Forest Workers and coalescence of a national movement for Harvesters also is working through a coali- systemwide change. tion at the policy level to address structural barriers to implementing environmentally To manage the risk that national policy sound and socially just practices. All of changes will eliminate local jobs, Wallowa these barriers limit the economic and other Resources, the Watershed Research and benefits that workers receive. To name Training Center, and Sustainable Northwest just a few, they include the structure of the all worked at the regional and national global economy including the bias against levels. On one hand, their direct experi- true accounting of environmental costs; the ence of the impact of forest management

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 36

lack of public investment in restoration; the ally focused or sustainably sourced brand structure of the immigrant labor market; and needs to have some volume of product lowest-cost contracting in the federal system. sales to support its development and promotion. In the struggle to surmount these structural barriers, it is important that CBF assert its ■ From an ecological point of view, land- position and function as an integral part scape (or watershed) issues are much of multiple, overlapping social movements, larger than a single tract belonging to a including those that focus on community single landowner. development, the environment, social justice, and sustainable development, among ■ From a community point of view, people others. To have far-reaching impact, as well have to be connected with one another as success at home, it is important to build through both their ongoing interactions active relationships and networks with all and a shared sense of identity, as well as of them. Ongoing participation in these to a particular place. different networks requires both getting up to speed on their core issues, as well as ■ From an efficiency point of view, start- educating other constituencies about CBF. ing small allows collaboratives to build trust, minimize risk, manage mistakes, and be successful sooner than later. And any success likely will create demand for There are forces bigger than the local effort that increased scale. profoundly influence what a CBF project can do. ■ From a legitimacy point of view, eventu- The work occurs at the local level, but the national ally operating at a larger scale — both in terms of impacting ecosystem function and global levels need to stay “on the radar screen.” and engaging a broader constituency — likely will translate into more respect for CBF from the public agencies and forest More than a drop in the bucket: products industry. Ensuring broader, long-term impact In actual practice, the appropriate scale for a community’s CBF activities, as viewed LESSON 8 Start small, but have a huge from each of these differing perspectives, vision. After proven success at a small may be subject to some debate or even conflict. Implementing organizations scale, create strategies to move toward may find they have to negotiate a careful increasingly larger scales in order to get bal ancing act. North Quabbin Woods, for to sustainability. example, found its target service area, called “North Quabbin,” to be much too Community-based forestry operates simulta- large, as it included at least seven different neously at a number of scales: communities, each with its own social and political dynamics, knowledge of the land ■ From a market point of view, it is neces- base, assets, and needs. In other respects, sary to have access to enough wood and however, North Quabbin actually was too NTFPs to be a player. Moreover, a region- small of an area, lacking the resources to

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 37

provide sustainably harvested wood products at a scale that could be competitive in With CBF, scale comes less from consolidating into one the marketplace. large organization than it does from networking and On public lands, the U.S. Forest Service often awards contracts at a large scale as leveraging individuals, organizations, and businesses so it seeks to find economies of scale and effi- ciencies. Small businesses in local communi- that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. ties, however, work with limited numbers of employees and often do not have the capacity to mobilize quickly the expanded consolidating into one large integrated orga- workforce needed to address larger-scale nization as much as it does from networking contracts. Community-based organiza- and leveraging individuals, organizations, tions (CBOs) can play a critical role in and businesses so that the whole is greater “repackaging” large contracts into smaller than the sum of the parts. subcontracts that are more appropriate at a local scale. Such a role may require these LESSON 9 There is a need for CBOs to take on a large amount of risk and assume some unfamiliar responsibilities, strategic investments in both the including quality control and safety issues. capacity of ecosystems to sustain ecological services and the capacity Inevitably, scale and sustainability are of communities — whether of place or linked. If a CBF program cannot get to the interest — to care for themselves and appropriate scale to compete in the mar- their land, and to work together toward ketplace or to impact broader ecosystems, then the effort will not be sustainable in the solutions. long term. In fact, all of the groups in the As the emphasis shifts from the short-term Demonstration Program started small, but, flow of market-based products to ecosystem within the five years, none of them reached restoration, a critical task facing communi- a scale that could support sustainability. ties is to figure out how to pay for the work Two inputs are critical. Starting small is one that will be required over the long haul. key, but having a plan for ramping up the Certainly environmental organizations, effort also is essential. philanthropic foundations, and other par- Going to scale, however, isn’t as simple as ties need to invest in the communities and just doing more of the same. At a larger scale, other actors who are attempting to fill the ecological, market, and social dynamics gaps left by the fiscally strapped public inevitably change and must be reconsidered land management agencies. With patience if they are to be understood. As a general and persistence, CBF practitioners can also rule, competing at a larger scale means collaborate with their diverse partners both expanding one’s operations and competing within and beyond their own geographic “with the big boys.” CBF, however, strives regions to develop investment mechanisms to go to scale not by becoming “one of the that link the restoration and maintenance of big boys,” but rather by supporting smaller, healthy forests with the economic vitality of community-based efforts and linking them local communities. together. With CBF, scale doesn’t come from

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 38

Financial analysis

1. Grantees raised over $12 million of leveraged funds through the end of 2004. Of this

total, Watershed Research and Training Center raised over $3.5 million, Wallowa

Resources over $2.2 million, Rural Action over $1.8 million, and Public Lands Partnership

over $1.6 million.

2. Forty percent of Ford Foundation funds were spent on salaries; 40 percent on soft

infrastructure such as staff and community training, convening and collaborating, and

office expenses; and 20 percent on implementation of projects.

3. Grantees raised over $8.8 million for implementation of projects on public lands.

4. The Ford Foundation’s funding eased cash flow difficulties for grantees that received

reimbursement payments for implementation projects.

5. Ford Foundation funding paid for staff time and demonstrations over five years; this

sustained funding gave the grantees breathing room in which to innovate and experiment.

—Based on data collected from each of the grantees

There are also real costs associated with challenge may appear daunting. Small establishing and maintaining effective collab- wonder, then, that some community-based oratives. Supporting these processes — and organizations are experimenting with people’s time engaged with them — is critical starting their own for-profit subsidiaries, to achieving changes in both ecosystems and often with the intent of helping to seed communities on the ground. These invest- or structure a thriving market niche for ments rarely are covered by either public or sustainably derived forest products. Thus private sources, which focus much more on far, however, these and other businesses “project costs,” such as seedlings planted or have discovered how difficult it is to secure acres thinned. Upfront investment is needed traditional investment for innovative, in capacity building, whether supporting relatively untested ideas. Low-interest loans organizational development — training, and small grants are needed for equip- creating management plans, learning how to ment, research and development, and the negotiate contracts, etc. — or strengthening fixed costs of marketing. Most importantly, other skills throughout the community. investors need to be patient in seeing their return. Such patience may be more In the current era, when government agen- forthcoming when investors actually are cies and private foundations alike are expe- from the community and thus can see their riencing fiscal constraints, this investment “return” in more than financial terms.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 39

Having created a for-profit subsidiary Healthy Communities provided funds for (called Community Solutions, Inc.), Wallowa product development and market exploration. Resources found that this mechanism made In addition, HFHC has designed a program it possible to develop and spin off other for- with Shorebank Pacific making it possible for profit businesses. The first of these businesses businesses to access funds for equipment by was Community Smallwood Solutions (CSS), using HFHC funds as loan guarantees. primarily a manufacturer of posts and poles. In 2004, Wallowa Resources secured LESSON 10 To achieve substantial, $150,000 in private capital for CSS. Among long-lasting impacts at a broader the 12 investors who provided this capital, nine were residents of Wallowa County. scale, whether in a region or across Their investment made it possible for the country, pursue two strategies. Wallowa Resources to register CSS as a First, saturate the landscape with limited liability corporation. successful local-level efforts, which then can be connected through a Throughout the Demonstration Program, national movement. And second, community organizations spent a significant amount of money in trying to help the U.S. create an enabling environment, Forest Service implement on-the-ground including supportive policies, positive projects that also could create work for incentives, investment, and research and local people. In many cases, this included information. direct payments for some agency expenses required to get those projects started. There is no question that CBF successes are Between 2001 and 2004, according to inter- occurring at small scales. Acres are being views with the grantees working on public restored, value-added products are being lands, five of the organizations spent over marketed and purchased, and communities $3 million on efforts to work with the U.S. are managing change. Over the past five Forest Service. In some cases, philanthropic years, the number of community-based foundations provided these funds. In other natural resource management programs instances, the implementing organizations has grown exponentially. used funds from grants, Resource Advisory Councils that work with each Bureau of Land Management district, or other sources A movement is a transcendent widespread feeling, to match federal funds, thereby making the federal dollars go farther. While investing in “visionary, fueled by many local organizational efforts— ecosystem stewardship is a critical issue for and in turn inspires many local efforts. To become a many public land communities, it is a lower bona fide movement, there absolutely has to be the priority for Congress. Sometimes, additional two-dimensional ethos [vision] and active life [day-to- money is needed to make up a shortfall in public investment. day implementation].”

Implementing organizations further rec- —Hunter Gray ognized that the lack of access to capital Community organizer severely limits the scope and profitability of community-owned businesses. Through its small grants program, Healthy Forests,

Foundations of Community-Based Forestry Chapter 2 40

The challenge remains, however, that as A large-scale commitment ultimately would long as public agencies view CBF primarily require the kinds of systemic changes that as these tiny little pilots and experiments, are necessary. Policy work takes longer than they won’t make a large-scale commitment one ever thinks at the outset. It’s difficult to it. If CBF is going to get the political sup- to build the necessary relationships, and port and system changes that are needed, it takes time to effect legislative change in there needs to be a larger strategy to satu- detail. It takes the work of many individuals, rate the landscape and link together these agencies, businesses, nonprofit organiza- fledgling community efforts. tions, and other collaborators. Even so, the Demonstration Program found that these investments are well worth it.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees CHAPTER Building Just and 3 Resilient Communities 42

of the word “resilient,” which the dictionary defines as “being able to recover readily, as Community-based forestry is about a meaningful from illness, change or misfortune.” “ role for a local voice, local knowledge, and local experience in both decision making and No one could dispute that rural communities — and some urban neighborhoods, implementation for natural resource management.” too — face increasingly daunting challenges — the loss of traditional jobs, shifting demo- —Lynn Jungwirth, executive director graphics, and tensions around land use and Watershed Research and Training Center, northern California natural resource management. Buffeted by wrenching change, local residents struggle to find new and better ways to earn a living, to provide for families and schools, to take care t its core, community-based forestry of aging parents. is about simultaneously improving both forest ecosystems and human A All of these challenges demand urgent communities.7 In so doing, CBF recognizes attention and yet defy easy solution. not only the mutual interdependence of forests and people, but emphasizes that While CBF is by no means an easy fix for each in its own way must exhibit diversity, these complex challenges, it does bring to resilience, and long-term sustainability. the table a much broader base of people who are willing to tackle them. Perhaps Every CBF project, then, encourages local it is successful because it appeals to the people to ask themselves probing questions abiding love of place that most people feel. about how their communities actually func- Moreover, it incorporates the wisdom and tion: Who actually participates in decision experience they have accrued in living and making about devising and implementing working close to the land. And over time these projects? How do they plan to make it vastly expands the menu of options and use of local traditions and local knowledge? tools that they can use to shape a better And, perhaps most importantly of all, who future. actually benefits, and who is left out? Pragmatically speaking, then, CBF strives Working through these sorts of questions is to offer human communities, loosely rarely easy. In fact, doing so likely will make defined here as groups of individuals more visible the ways that some within the and families, the same opportunity that community persistently have wielded power it affords local forests — to enhance their over others. Not surprisingly, it can take a diversity, resilience, and long-term sustain- great deal of effort to repair the damage ability. And to understand better how this and establish trust with groups long disen- all might actually work — on the ground, in franchised. Some might ask, then, why even real communities — the CBF Demonstration bother? The answer lies in the very meaning Program sought to explore, among others, the following questions:

7 In this Demonstration Program, as in the CBF movement ■ How do communities reach out to iden- overall, there was greater emphasis on communities tify and engage all of their potential of place than on forest-dependent peoples, such as the mobile workforce.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 43

stakeholders, including those traditionally disenfranchised? The more I understand CBF, the more I understand ■ How do community leaders know when to “that it’s about people. That’s the centerpiece of it. lead and when to follow? The program isn’t just about growing trees and harvesting them to make money. It’s about creating ■ How do communities sustain these ongoing inclusive processes over the long haul? a decent life and taking care of your business.”

Not surprisingly, nearly all of the sites —Amadou Diop, director participating in the Demonstration Program Forestry Program, Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ struggled to find effective ways to include a Land Assistance Fund, Alabama broader spectrum of community stakeholders in their ongoing deliberations and project implementation activities. Some were more successful than others in this effort. particular CBF projects, and how those benefits could be distributed more widely in In many cases, however, it appears that the community. people are most highly motivated to join with others to accomplish the goals of Moreover, when those key goals and community-based forestry when they fully expectations are clearly understood, then understand what those overarching goals individual projects appear far more likely to are, what benefits might be expected from evolve synergistically toward a sustainable,

TIPHow to build a resilient community “Wallowa Resources connects people to help the county be better,” explains one community

member. “When conflict is reduced, it is possible to work together. When you can work

together, you can change things and have hope things will get better. Wallowa Resources

has shown that it is possible to change and has inspired us all.”

Another resident adds, “Wallowa Resources has taken the leadership in creating a new

dialogue and the sense that if we all work together, we can get something done. This

community has successfully fought the decline of its schools and the closing of our hospital.

This is only possible when the community has a sense that we can work together.”

Ryan Temple from Healthy Forest, Healthy Communities, also in the Pacific Northwest, adds

that “resilient communities must also be engaged in the policy and economic world outside

of their immediate area.”

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 44

communitywide culture of stewardship — Communities organize one that promotes inclusive decision making, themselves around their natural collaborative relationships based on trust resources and across their differences — and reciprocity, and more equitable access language, history, race, and interests — to resources and benefits. to build trust and to identify solutions. According to Dave Schatz, a professional ■ The Alliance of Forest Workers and forester working with Rural Action, “Folks Harvesters built a community of “people are now involved who have never been whose hands touch the land,” one before. [The people participating] are get- person or small group at a time. Staff ting more involved in community meetings, and board members identified local even beyond forestry stuff. They are asking leadership and fostered dispersed but questions about their forests, even if it’s focused activities — and, in turn, empow- not in crisis. There is a shift toward more erment — through their support of over 25 proactive forest management. There is “Community-Based Organizing Project” recognition by landowners that forests are grants. AFWH has had to address lan- assets that they can invest in, and that liqui- guage, culture, and racial issues, as well dating them isn’t the only option. There is a as the inherent conflicts associated with lot of growing stock in the ground for future commercial vs. subsistence/traditional harvesting and marketing. People are more harvesting and those associated with empowered because they have choices.” mobile vs. place-based workforce.

■ D.C. Greenworks helped inner-city There’s nothing like standing on the ground dwellers build community around natural resource issues. It helped strengthen together to see what the other person sees.” “ their capacity to shape their environment, whether as residents, consumers, —Community member or students. D.C. Greenworks brought Public Lands Partnership, west central Colorado the forest to people through tree planting, something all could agree is a good thing. As people get to know each other, working together and sharing meals, they Impacts realize they can work together on other aspects of community development. At its outset, the Demonstration Program asked the question, “Can CBF contribute to ■ The Watershed Research and Training building resilient communities in ways that Center’s community monitoring program can help them weather uncertain futures?” brought people together on the land for The experience of the demonstration sites a common activity. It also educated com- suggests that the answer is yes. Evidence munity members about the risks of fire that resilient communities are being built and the overall sustainability of the forest. includes the following observations: In so doing, WRTC built a broad base of support for a more sophisticated model of land management.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 45

■ Through its junior high school wild in all by over 2,500 people, including crafter training, Makah Tribal Forestry members of the traditional forestry sector. sought to ensure that longstanding It also generated media attention and cultural connections to the land and its sparked public interest through joint publi- resources are sustained well into the cations with Ohio State University. future. In so doing, it brought together tribal youth and their elders. ■ Vermont Family Forests developed forest management and harvesting standards, created a monitoring protocol, offered workshops, contacted individual land- Three years ago, I’d look owners, maintained a website, prepared at the forest and just see written materials, and mailed a regular “ newsletter. These materials very clearly trees. Now I look and see the articulate VFF’s land management posi- total watershed and how it tion in ways deemed helpful by commu- benefits people who exist in it. nity members. I see the benefits it provides— aesthetically, environmentally, Greater public awareness has led to increased community socially, economically.” ownership of CBF.

—Frank Taylor ■ As a result of their hands-on work har- Winston County Self-Help Cooperative, vesting Spanish moss and pine straw on Mississippi St. Helena Island, South Carolina, youth affiliated with Penn Center appear to care more about their families’ retaining ownership of their land holdings. They express Understanding about, greater interest in the local ecosystem attitudes toward, and participation in and understand why it is important not to over-harvest non-timber forest products CBF have increased. (NTFPs) from a single tree. They also have learned how value-added products made ■ Penn Center found that the more landowners learn about CBF, the more eager from NTFPs might be marketed and sold. they are to attend additional learning opportunities with new presenters. As a result, when speakers conclude their 1,313 local people volunteered more than two remarks at Lowcountry Landowners hours to some aspect of this project during the Association meetings, they have a hard “ time leaving. Everyone has questions for first four years, according to sign-up sheets and them and they are not afraid to ask them! registration records.”

■ Rural Action promoted community aware- — Mary Chapman, coordinator ness about the benefits of medicinal herbs Public Lands Partnership, west central Colorado that grow in local forests through a number of different events that were attended

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 46

■ Over 300 people have been involved in trades, such as welding and woodwork- North Quabbin Woods program activities — ing. “I tend to do things in a certain way and interest is still growing, judging from because it’s how I’ve always done them,” attendance at public meetings. For exam- observed Jim Smigulec. “But each of us ple, 14 people attended an initial meeting can help one another do things better, to develop the region’s ecotourism strategy more efficiently, and more safely. It in 2001. Forty people attended the follow- nudges people out of their routines.” up meeting in April 2002.

Community organizations Strong local networks representing specific interests have been are being built. created and strengthened.

■ The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ ■ In 2001, Rural Action helped organize the Land Assistance Fund has played an Roots of Appalachia Growers Association instrumental role in catalyzing the creation (RAGA) to assist local residents with local of vibrant landowner networks. Farmers non- timber forest product production and and landowners independently organize marketing. RAGA serves as a place where and collaborate to get work done. As one they can access information, network landowner said, “If I have a problem, I ask among themselves and with service provid- Amadou [Diop], or I ask another farmer. ers, and learn as a group. RAGA has been We share information. Now we’re getting a valuable institution for these growers. together to buy equipment. We’re com- Previously, they had been difficult to bring ing together to help one another. We’ve together. Most had been very secretive learned that we’ve got to stick together, about their cultivation and harvesting and that we can learn from each other.” activities, out of their fear that their ginseng and other herbs might be stolen. ■ Peer-to-peer networking among small business entrepreneurs assisted by ■ Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities has the Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition has helped to build rural community capacity created opportunities for reintroducing, through a small grants program and has relearning, and upgrading traditional funded 23 projects. These grants fund research, product prototype development, and marketing support for small community businesses. It is beneficial that NQW is generating a positive“ buzz and feeling within the community. ■ Landowners on St. Helena Island, South It offers an opportunity for the community to Carolina, initially became interested in CBF through workshops and other activi- come together, share ideas, and influence ties sponsored by Penn Center. When what is going on in their community.” they needed additional information and technical assistance, they decided to —Community member organize the Lowcountry Landowners North Quabbin Woods, north central Massachusetts Association. Penn Center staff lent ongoing support to help establish the organization.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 47

Department of Forestry. We could not stay connected to the heart of the Holding a group together community without it.” “depends on each individual and their stage of growth. You are Communities have dealing with their complexity enhanced their capacity to and insecurities. You have to negotiate conflict, build trust, pull people together who are and build relationships. ready for this growth. You need ■ AFWH has long had reducing conflict as to realize and demonstrate how one of its objectives. Through building precious each human being cross-cultural awareness, identifying appro- is. If people trust you, you can priate representation of constituents, facilitating meetings of diverse groups, and facilitate a relationship where overcoming language differences, AFWH they trust each other.” has been able to foster understanding and respect, and reduce conflict. —Carol Kuhre ■ Rural Action, southeast Ohio Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition has built a “community of interest” among environmental, business, and governmental constituencies. The project helps these groups ■ Watershed Research and Training Center build and maintain relationships that tran- provided an organizational umbrella to scend the traditional, deeply entrenched shelter the early stage development of boundaries that once divided them. emerging nonprofits, committees, and informal teams that arose to address specific community issues in Hayfork, California. These groups included the An indirect benefit is that the Public Lands Hayfork Action Teams (HATS), the food “Partnership has built capacity in the community to bank, the Nor-El-Muk Tribe, the Senior address conflict. The coal working group [initially Citizens Center, Hayfork Swimming Pool, started by PLP] is an example of a group that averted and Adopt-A-Watershed. an appeal that would have affected the community. ■ Wallowa Resources acts as a self- We are better negotiators to protect the environment. described “docking station” for its There is a willingness and better capacity of community in eastern Oregon. The organization co-creates and disseminates community leaders to address these things.” seed ideas that local people can adapt and implement, and it also serves as a —Allan Belt, community member mechanism for bringing in resources and Public Lands Partnership, west central Colorado ideas from beyond its own rural service area. “Wallowa Resources provides a live-in contact for us in the community,” said a staff member with the Oregon

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 48

The capacity of nontraditional leaders to work with North Quabbin Woods helped us see government and other power structures the bigger picture. By broadening the base of “ has been increased. community support, NQW made it possible for us to see issues from different perspectives. This also ■ With support from the Federation of facilitates planning and builds human resources.” Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, small landowners are better prepared to work with loggers, some of —Tom Kussy whom previously have taken advantage North Quabbin Chamber of Commerce, north central Massachusetts them. “They [landowners] might never get a fair price for their resources,” said a Federation staff member, “but we want to at least find loggers whose main objec- ■ North Quabbin Woods helped estranged tive is not to take advantage of the land- community stakeholders get to know one owners, and we want for landowners to another and find common ground. For know how to negotiate with them.” example, NQW helped some environmentalists, who formerly saw business as ■ The Public Lands Partnership’s Living the enemy, to understand that the local History Project is helping local residents, business community also has a stake in particularly women, to document their the success of sustainable development. families’ history about living with the One local businessman recently reported land, to tell their own stories, and to that he now sees how the forest, through identify local knowledge that can affect its recreational uses, can benefit both public policy. the town and, indirectly, his business. Moreover, the fact that 40 local busi- ■ The Alliance of Forest Workers and nesses helped cover the costs of printing Harvesters helped a forest worker and NQW’s ecotourism brochure suggests a his wife to develop the skills necessary high level of buy-in. to make presentations to forest workers, agencies, and the public. They have ■ Wallowa Resources used the countywide listened to the workers, networked on a community planning process to build and strengthen community. The use of a col laborative process that employed principles of inclusion, transparency, and democ- With hope comes the belief racy enabled relationships to change and you can make a difference. Now trust to grow among land managers, “ I’m able to tackle other issues.” land owners, environmental organizations, community members, and other interests. As a result, the local community has —Todd Weed, community member gained greater access to the woods and to North Quabbin Woods, north central the work. The community planning process Massachusetts also has helped engage the participation of the Nez Perce Tribe, linking its concerns with other community interests.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 49

national level, and developed ideas for current and future projects that support The threefold goal of simultaneously fostering healthy the aspirations of the workers. forest ecosystems, creating sustainable economies, and ■ AFWH and its partners also have built the skills of and supported mushroom building more flexible, resilient communities requires a monitors to negotiate with the U.S. Forest Service and protect their harvest areas broad range of strategies. from timber sales and their impacts, to engage in policy dialogue regarding harvest permit rules, and to lead the mushroom-harvesting communities to Lessons strike against buyers in their demands for This section offers lessons for individuals, fair prices. informal groups, and community-based organizations that are interested in commu- ■ The Roots of Appalachia Growers nity-based forestry, including cultivating the Association (RAGA) in southeastern values of CBF, increasing the community’s Ohio, nurtured in its early development capacity to implement CBF, and developing by Rural Action, strengthened its ability roles and operating principles for the CBOs. to lobby on behalf of a unified position shared by its membership. Following a The threefold goal of simultaneously foster- workshop attended by 60 people, the ing healthy forest ecosystems, creating Ginseng Poaching Working Group suc- sustainable economies, and building more cessfully persuaded Ohio state agencies flexible, resilient communities requires a to delay the ginseng harvest in order to broad range of strategies, including: protect the time during which the plant reseeds itself. The state’s newly revised ■ building reciprocal, trusting relationships “Hunting Manual” also cites these new among diverse social groups; harvesting rules, which is important because game hunters and ginseng ■ including populations typically left out of harvesters are active in the woods at the natural resource deliberations; same time of the year. In fact, they often are the same people! ■ building the capacity of groups to participate in established structures; ■ RAGA has collaborated with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to edu- ■ innovating and catalyzing opportunities; cate judges about ginseng poaching and and its severity as a crime. RAGA advocates that poaching should not be classified ■ opening space for communities to create simply as a misdemeanor. Rural Action or respond to opportunities on their own. also helped a grower whose ginseng had been stolen to obtain pro bono legal Pursuing such an ambitious agenda has counsel and successfully convict the buyer required both an approach and leadership who received the stolen herbs. that is visionary, proactive, and responsive to and inclusive of the diversity within

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 50

any given community. CBF as an iterative time the notion of just who the community reciprocal process has both shaped and is — and to let that group identity evolve been shaped by groups of individuals within as those who engage in the ongoing work the community. On the one hand, CBF define it over time. offers a forum for defining the community that allows for continual examination and Even CBF organizations with long histories an evolving shared sense of who the com- found that they needed to make new efforts munity is and how it operates. On the other to understand the community and its hand, the interactions in the community diverse relationships to natural resources, catalyzed through CBF help to determine particularly the forest. Time spent listening the process, activities, and subsequent and learning helped them to understand measures of success. individual and group values, living strategies, and willingness to tolerate risk. Taken together, these observations made it possible to develop CBF strategies appropriate It is important to revisit periodically the notion of and relevant to the particular constituencies they sought to serve. just who the community is—and to let that

group identity evolve as those who engage in the LESSON 1 Engaging the broader community in CBF requires under- ongoing work define it over time. standing how its unique and multiple historical, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts shape its people, their Cultivating the values of CBF relationships to one another, and their relationships to the landscape and Building community is an iterative process. natural resources. It will never be possible to identify all the As Nancy Fishering of the Public Lands members of a community interested in a set Partnership observed, “We had to under- of activities, to ensure everyone is engaged stand ourselves first to be effective.” in planning, and then to move forward with implementation. However, any organization For the Makah, a Native American people that seeks to implement its CBF program in in the Pacific Northwest, it was essential isolation — without engaging the community to begin by thoroughly understanding just in its conceptualization and practice — will what is meant by the word “community.” find itself out on a limb and more or less In a tribal context, the word’s operative and alone. embedded layers of meaning are multiple. “Community” can refer just to the Tribal Just as interactions and, ultimately, shared Council, to the people using the forest identity evolve over time, so does the com- resources on an everyday basis, or to tribal munity. Similarly, as CBF programs evolve, members living both on and off the reser- innovate, and position themselves within the vation. The CBF process itself surfaced these community, new interactions and identities kinds of nuances. Everyone involved soon develop, allowing programs to tap into new realized that developing a program that constituencies. It is important to revisit over

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 51

TIPTools for community assessment Listening sessions are public forums you can use to learn about the community’s

perspectives on local issues and options. They are generally fairly small, with specific

questions asked of participants. They can help you get a sense of what community members

know and feel about the issue, as well as resources, barriers, and possible solutions.

Asset mapping focuses on the strengths of the community rather than the areas that need improvement. Focusing on assets gives the power back to the community members that directly experience the problem and already have the resources to change the status quo. If the changes are made by the community and for the community, it builds a sense of cohesiveness and commitment that makes initiatives easier to sustain.

Creating a community timeline gives the opportunity to all groups to tell their version

of the history of the community, the land, and the institutions that exist in it. In addition

to visually representing the unfolding life of a community, the timeline process creates the

opportunity for all groups to understand the historical perspective of others.

Conducting a power analysis allows groups to reflect upon where and how decisions are

made in their community in a range of different contexts. They help groups to understand

where power lies for different areas of the community’s life, and to understand how different

actors in the community might be powerful in different and unrecognized ways.

Well-designed surveys can be an effective method for gathering systematic and consistent

information across a broad range of individuals to learn about any number of topics — their

history, their practices, their challenges, and their needs. A well-designed survey is focused,

clear in intent, and user-friendly. It also is brief — or provides incentives for completion when

it is lengthy.

effectively reached community members Researching the history of forestry in who used the forest resources would require Alabama enabled the Federation of distinguishing between these different layers Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance of meaning. Fund to develop an effective CBF program.

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 52

Federation staff sought to understand to designing an economic development precisely how the rise of large-scale timber program that was relevant to their circum- management — including the sprawling pine stances and needs. plantations that replaced the cotton plantations — had excluded black tenant farmers For the Alliance of Forest Workers and and sharecroppers who formerly made their Harvesters, this approach meant learning living in the cotton economy. They also stud- about Latinos, Southeast Asians, Native ied persistent trends documenting dwindling Americans, and European-Americans who black ownership of land in the Southeast. live and work in Washington, California, and Oregon; who may be working for large contractors, landowners, or themselves; and who may engage in many different activities Listening to members of the local community is key over the year.

to designing an economic development program that is LESSON 2 Surfacing and documenting relevant to their circumstances and needs. a community’s history and culture help build community awareness, support, and pride — all important ingredients for All of this knowledge highlighted the strengthening community resilience. importance of developing CBF activities that resonate with black landowners on Focusing on community history helps to link historical and social — as well as economic a constructive vision of the future to the and ecological — levels. The choice to strengths and struggles of the past. It recog- introduce silvopasturing with goats, for nizes what was, and how this is important to example, was grounded in multiple factors. what can be. Animal husbandry is an activity familiar to local people. Goats also suppress the Early on in its CBF initiative, Penn Center understory in ways that offer a less expen- launched an indigo demonstration project. sive, ecological alternative to herbicide use. Landowners cultivated indigo plants and Finally, marketing the meat goats provides sold the leaves to a local artist who distilled a source of short-term income that can a bold blue dye from the leaves. She then be used to pay property taxes and help used the dye to make cloth featuring tradi- protect land ownership. tional West African designs that have with strong links to the Sea Islands’ Gullah heri- The history of black landownership in South tage and culture. Although ultimately this Carolina shares much in common with that project faltered because of lack of markets in Alabama. Penn Center found that while for the product, it was successful in fostering none of the proposed income-generating local understanding of natural resource activities they tested were sufficient to issues and renewed cultural pride. support an entire family, some of them nonetheless might provide enough income Through its Living History Project (LHP), to pay property taxes and hold onto the Public Lands Partnership sought to learn family-owned land. In the end, this outcome about the ways local people have shaped proved to be what a lot of the landowners the Uncompahgre Plateau — and vice versa. were seeking. Listening to them was a key The video/book project includes stories,

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 53

TIPCollaborative leadership Collaborative leaders can see core ideas clearly and communicate them in a language

stakeholders can understand. Collaborative leaders usually are not very visible, as they

prefer to put other people forward or to provide some tools or hints so that others will

discover their own way. A collaborative leader is one who understands how to bring people

together in a constructive way with good information to create authentic visions and

strategies for addressing the shared concerns of the community.

Collaborative operators are those who stitch together effective coalitions, task forces, and

working groups, and, above all, who understand group process. Collaborative operators have a

natural talent for teamwork, listening, and communicating.

local knowledge, and experiences shared by Building community capacity for individuals and families who have worked implementing CBF and lived on the Plateau. It also translates the findings from the LHP process into policy A community-based organization can development considerations. Like the Penn play an important role in guiding and Center indigo project, the LHP built com- orienting the entire community toward, munity awareness and pride, two essential into, and through the CBF process and ingredients for resilient communities. what emerges from it. The CBO must be willing to lead without being the leader; and, at the same time, to follow the lead of the community. This requires that at Wallowa Resources moves certain times the CBO be an innovator and good ideas, gifts, and passions implementer, and at others, a convener “ and facilitator or broker. One pair of into action that is appropriate related challenges, then, is to determine for that community. It is the key what role takes precedent when and how to holding these communities best to sequence the involvement of the community in the overall process. together, while others have become ghost towns.” LESSON 3 There is no clear answer

—Rick Wagner or formula for determining when to Oregon Department of Forestry lead the community and when to follow Northeastern Oregon the community’s lead. Most important was a clear awareness of the need for

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 54

the community to be brought into the Taking an “innovate first” approach also process sooner or later. To determine has some disadvantages. Some of the when, the CBO must have or develop demonstration sites found that the longer they waited, the harder it became to draw the capacity to listen consistently and people to the table. With CBF initiatives, listen well; to be alternatively proactive it is important to allow the community to and responsive as diverse situations challenge the assumptions upon which any demand; and to adjust, adapt, and be project is based. This kind of community ready to change strategies and roles in feedback, however, might be difficult to midstream. truly integrate if a project already is well advanced. After some initial trial and error, the Watershed Research and Training Center Even so, Penn Center CBF team felt they found that it was most effective to get might have raised false hopes by talking results first and then use the results to get too soon and bringing the community in people to the table — in other words, to be on the early side. Similarly, the Jobs and the innovator and attract the community Biodiversity Coalition sought to avoid rais- through its innovations. WRTC also found ing community expectations before it had that economic and environmental programs developed the capacity to meet them. “We should be designed in ways that will engage wanted to get something in place, get the and be integrated with the community, wood available, show we could get things rather than separate from it. To ensure done, and then include the community,” said community integration, WRTC’s training a JBC staff member. “We thought it best to programs included one member of every get some things on the ground before tak- local extended family. This deep level of par- ing on the community part of the project.” ticipation afforded WRTC the opportunity Now, five years later, it is proving difficult to to engage the broader community without engage diverse constituencies as the project having to create a separate, stand-alone is now seen as “European American.” initiative. CBOs likely can steer clear of both types of these adverse situations, however, by engaging the community early on and being An “innovate first” approach can provide results that clear and realistic about the role the CBO intends to play. Throughout the CBF process, help pull people in, but it also has some disadvantages. the CBO also must hold fast to principles It is important to allow the community to challenge the of accountability and transparency — i.e., delivering on promises or, if it appears that assumptions upon which any project is based— it will not be possible to fulfill them, communicating directly with all stakeholders about and this kind of community feedback can be any change in plans. difficult to integrate once a project is well advanced. Public Lands Partnership first engaged the community through extensive consensus- building, and then used this solid base of

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 55

shared understanding to develop collaborative projects. PLP cautioned, however, that this particular approach uses — and CBOs require flexible funding eventually uses up — people’s capacity to POLICY par ticipate. Wise and effective use of every- If CBOs are alternately to lead and “follow the one’s investments in time and human capital community,” as the situation requires, are critical to keeping people engaged and participating. An organization must be able they will need flexible funding that permits to demonstrate to its collaborators that it is them to do just that. accountable for their time and efforts in the same way that it is for funds. Collaboration does breed further collaboration if it take the lead when it lacks the technical amounts to something. If it doesn’t, people expertise, financial resources, and member- turn off from it. ship to provide volunteer time. A key strat- The notion of when it might be best to egy is to always be available and to know engage the community is actually not a when to push — and when to wait. situation of “either/or,” but rather one of “both/and.” Even when called upon to play LESSON 4 Taking part in community the role of innovator and implementer, efforts overall — and responding to many CBOs in the Demonstration Program community needs when they fall within still used a wide range of means for stay- your own strategic focus — increases ing in touch with the community, including newsletters (Vermont Family Forests and the likelihood of greater community D.C. Greenworks), trainings and workshops involvement in your own projects and (the Federation), and relationships with the programs. local media (North Quabbin Woods/New England Forestry Foundation). Although a CBO may have a particular agenda that it wants to introduce to the com- “Keep close contact with the community, munity, winning support for a new program so they understand what you’re doing is rarely as simple as saying, “We have a and why,” advises a staff member of one splendid CBF program, please sign up!” CBO. “You need all the allies you can get.” Maintaining this sort of constant contact After all, every community has its own and communication, even as the broader preexisting agendas and priorities. If the community builds its capacity to move into community is to take notice of and consider the driver’s seat, creates support for the committing itself to accomplishing a brand- CBF project, as well as the trust that sup- new initiative, it likely will view the sponsor- ports higher levels of engagement in the ing CBO more favorably if it has contributed future. substantially to that larger framework of ongoing community development. Part of Supporting emerging community groups being treated like an authentic community- and associations must be done on the based organization is genuinely to become community’s timeline. Taking the lead and a full-fledged member of the community. pushing too early won’t work, nor will standing back and waiting for the community to

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 56

to offer. Tourists and community members alike stop by to learn more about the local Although a CBO may have a particular agenda that it area and perhaps purchase a souvenir. wants to introduce to the community, winning support The fact is, CBOs in small towns and rural for a new program is rarely as simple as saying, “We communities often are asked to do many things and to take on many different roles. have a splendid CBF program, please sign up!” Playing multiple roles can create real tension for them, especially since many operate on a limited budget with a small staff. Wallowa Resources, for example, coordi- They simply don’t have the capacity to do nated the “Warm Hearts, Warm Homes” everything all by themselves. For Vermont program, conceived by the Oregon Family Forests, the temptation was great Department of Forestry, across three simply to not answer the phone when the counties. This program delivered more community came calling — or to just say than 60 cords of firewood to low-income no. Unfortunately, to do so risks having the families over two years. WRTC provided community begin to think that one’s priori- support for community organizations by ties lie elsewhere. offering grant-writing assistance, sharing its socioeconomic data and office space, LESSON 5 Merely asking communities and providing connections to technical and to engage diverse constituencies, financial resources. AFWH focused some of its activities on workers’ whole families, including people of color and poor engaging and providing opportunities for people, won’t necessarily result in women and children. The results of these lasting, sustainable change. Building efforts were multiple. Wallowa Resources, a truly diverse program inevitably WRTC, and AFWH, among others, helped demands self-reflection, thoughtful the local community enhance its own capac- action, and ongoing evaluation. It ity, thereby earning a measure of confidence further requires a range of strategies in themselves as dedicated, community- oriented service organizations. to reach across and engage the full breadth of the community. Sometimes a CBO’s actual physical presence and ready availability in the community While CBOs strive to achieve a broad base create an impression of actual rootedness. of representation and participation in their North Quabbin Woods, for example, found programs — as decision-makers, implement- that relocating their offices — from the base- ers, and beneficiaries — this objective must ment of a medical building on the outskirts be grounded in a clear understanding of of town to a prominent storefront located what inclusion means and why it is impor- at busy intersection right in the middle of tant for both the CBO and the community. town — proved far more engaging to the The desire for “social equity” must be general public. Now people stop by all of internalized through thoughtful reflection, the time to find out what is going on. Young understanding, and commitment to real people hang out in front of the door and inclusion. As one community member said wind up dropping in to hear what NQW has of the NQW process, “I learned that process

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 57

TIPWhy is diverse participation important? ■ Because if you can bring different types of members into your group, it will be more

representative of the full community; your group will stand to gain broader community

support.

■ Because with a multisector membership, more different opinions probably will be

expressed and discussed; that means better decisions may get made.

■ Because a diverse, multisector membership is usually also a larger membership. You will

then have more talent—and also more varied kinds of talent—at your disposal.

■ Because the contacts and connections made in a diverse, multisector group lead to new

community relationships. And these relationships can spark new community initiatives

that might never have otherwise existed.

Source: Community Tool Box, http://ctb.ku.edu

is as important as product, and we need sincere than just responding to funders’ to be as inclusive as possible. We’ll all get guidelines — and likely results in more sus- more done in the long term and efforts can tainable, equitable outcomes. be more lasting as there are less people on the sidelines.” The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters found there were a number of Some groups and communities already had barriers to engaging workers and harvesters operated in this open, equitable way. For from among people of color. To participate others, the concept of truly reaching out to on AFWH’s board, for example, many had and sharing decision making across racial to forego a day or more of work. Aspects and ethnic boundaries was new. of AFWH’s organizational process were unfamiliar to them, including conference To address important issues around diver- calls, set agendas, and time limitations for sity, Public Lands Partnership needed first discussion. During conference calls, some to ask some key questions, such as: “What were uncomfortable with not being able to do these terms actually mean? How com- see one another. For others, prior experi- mitted are we? Can we do this and how?” ences with being disempowered hindered A PLP workgroup explored different opinions their willingness to speak up. through readings and monthly discussions on-and-off for over a year. This sort of patient, reflective process may be a bit more

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 58

EXAMPLEWomen in the Living History Project Throughout the Demonstration Program, the strong leadership provided by women often

was the key factor that made productive community collaboration possible. They bridged

differences, found solutions, and found innovative ways to act entrepreneurially. And yet,

while women actually led the CBF initiatives at seven of the 13 demonstration sites, only a

few of those sites developed programs specifically aimed at reaching out to and engaging

women in their respective communities.

An exception was the Public Lands Partnership’s Living History Project (LHP), which

encourages people who live on the land, particularly women, to share their own stories and

identify local knowledge that can affect policy. Moreover, through this innovative effort,

PLP is finding that documenting local and traditional knowledge about the community is an

effective way to surface the contributions that women and others are making to the fields of

CBF and community development.

PLP initiated the Living History Project to learn about the myriad ways that people living

and working close to the land over several generations have shaped the Uncompaghre

Plateau—and vice versa. Starting out, the LHP made a short video that profiled their multiple-

use history of the Plateau. PLP later expanded this initial effort into a full-length book project

that documents stories, local knowledge, and experiences shared by individuals and families

who have worked and lived on the Plateau. Perhaps most importantly, the LHP work group

recently developed a new “reflections and considerations” section that translates the book’s

testimonies into policy development considerations that can assist ongoing community

processes, such as the Forest Plan revision process.

The Living History Project has become an effective alternative to public meetings and

has diversified public involvement in the overall CBF process, particularly among women.

Participants are able to see more clearly the roles they can play and how their knowledge will

contribute to the understanding of the connection between the people and the land, which,

in turn, informs better decisions about current and future resource uses. The project also may

become an important tool for providing newcomers, of which there are many, with greater

understanding about the important cultural and social values of the Uncompahgre Plateau.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 59

(continued)

Perhaps this shared knowledge will help to reduce potential conflicts over resource use and

management. As Mary Chapman, PLP’s coordinator, writes, “It is a different way of creating

civic dialogue, exploring and sharing information and concerns about the land. People

who may be less inclined or comfortable with today’s public policy processes, which tend

to exclude knowledge that comes from personal experiences, seem comfortable doing so

through this project.”

AFWH found that the culture of the Wallowa Resources recognizes the need to organization is more important than simply engage and partner with all members of the counting up the number of board, staff, and community, including the Nez Perce Tribe. members according to their ethnicity, which “Wallowa Resources spent the time to learn would accomplish little more than tokenism. what was the best approach and channels In order to build a genuinely multicultural to work with the Tribe,” observed one tribal organization, AFWH has created a culture member. “Wallowa Resources has always viewed by many as humble, cooperative, operated correctly with the Tribe. The com- open-minded, diplomatic, transparent, and munity planning process has been a key to inclusive. engaging the Tribe and bridging the Tribe with other community interests. Nothing D.C. Greenworks also actively engages was rushed through and there were no side diverse constituents. To do so, they focus deals.” upon doing good work and building credibility in communities of color and poor In addition to race, ethnicity, income, and communities. Often, they seek to develop wealth, diversity also encompasses age and allies in the communities and then use these gender. Within the Demonstration Program, relationships to draw forth neighbors and several CBF projects attempted to connect friends. As Dawn Gifford, D.C. Greenworks’ young people to community history, the executive director, points out, “Community land, and its enduring importance. PLP’s people trust people they know.” Living History Project sought to showcase the quiet yet nonetheless powerful voices of D.C. Greenworks also practiced patience women ranchers who described in their own and persistence. It painstakingly learned words the roles that their forebears played about and cultivated values similar to those during the frontier period. In a similar vein, held by people in the community. In other AFWH encouraged women to take leader- words, D.C. Greenworks has developed ship roles both in addition to and alongside cultural competence — a set of practices, men. This emphasis offered women the behaviors, and attitudes that allows them to opportunity to contribute to their commu- work and engage effectively across different nity’s well-being while men were off working cultures. in the forest.

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 60

EXAMPLEMakah Elementary and Junior High School NTFP Program The Makah community-based forestry initiative collaborated with the Neah Bay middle

school to introduce students to the cultural, economic, and environmental value of locally

available non-timber forest products (NTFPs). For example, the Makah CBFI program staff

and teachers jointly developed a curriculum in forest management for the grade seven

science class. They also offered classes in fashioning creative crafts from NTFPs to students

in grades seven and eight. Students made an evergreen wreath during the holiday season, a

traditional cedar bark mat and deerskin drum wall hanging, a decorated flower press with

pressed flowers, and other materials suitable for card-making.

In these sessions and through field trips into the woods, students also studied various

ways in which NTFPs are culturally significant to the Makah people, sustainable harvesting

practices, the economic significance of NTFPs, and how their value can be enhanced through

value-adding processing and marketing.

To date, 68 students have participated in five wild crafting sessions. These students feel

pride in their accomplishments. Parents and other community members also have expressed

how pleased they are that the Makah CBFI decided to conduct these workshops with Neah

Bay students. In response to interest expressed by elementary school teachers for similar

workshops, the Makah CBFI plans to arrange for junior high school students who attended

the wild crafting sessions to assist in teaching wild crafting to elementary school students.

The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition gener- LESSON 6 A decision and ated employment and employment oppor- commitment to work with traditionally tunities for youth by creating jobs in forest disenfranchised communities — i.e., restoration, and through training at the communities of color and poor people — Mill Project site and for the Southwest Fire must be made many times in an Fighters program. Similarly, D.C. Greenworks has developed and provided hands-on organization’s life. training for inner-city youth in skilled “green industry” jobs. Continually renewing a commitment to diversity and inclusion requires intention, reflection, time, and resources. As such, the transaction costs of this continuing

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 61

TIPFraming the bigger picture The first steps are to decipher the social and institutional context of the proposed CBF

activities, identify the first layer of obvious stakeholders, provide information—and keep

providing information—to all interested parties, and engage early adopters. Take a

position of “do no harm” in the community. Ask the questions:

■ What will this look like after we finish our work?

■ Will there be people who will be left out?

■ Will there be tensions within the community that have been aggravated by our

efforts?

■ Will people be frustrated by unmet expectations?

■ What can we do differently to avoid having these negative impacts?

There will always be some people who do not embrace a shared identity with

others, and they may chose to not get involved. But by defining issues more broadly,

engaging in a range of activities, and keeping everyone informed through a number

of mechanisms, a greater number of people will have the opportunity to participate in

the community’s ongoing development.

commitment can be significant. Rural times I had to show a real preference for Action’s decision to focus on low-income serving the poor,” Kuhre says, “even though residents living in its service area drove other interests in the community were doing the organization’s decision to move its good work and effecting ecological change.” offices to a small rural community. As Colin Donohue, director of conservation- Carol Kuhre, who formerly was Rural Action’s executive director, observes, “If you want to work with the poor, you have to go where the poor are.” PFundingO forLI diversityCY Rural Action’s decision to focus its work upon a multigenerational, typically low-income Funders may need to subsidize the costs to population also has at times required the do things differently, if that’s what it takes to organization to take policy positions that achieve inclusion and diversity goals. were contrary to the perceived interests of other community groups. “There were a few

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 62

based development at Rural Action, adds, essential to ensuring that otherwise well- “We deliberately created space for local intentioned CBF initiatives do not inadver- poor folks.” For example, when it became tently perpetuate long-standing community clear that primarily middle-class recent arriv- injustices. als were engaged in mushroom cultivation and marketing, and the “local folks” weren’t LESSON 7 If the goal is broad- the ones who wanted to pursue this option, based participation, benefits must Rural Action shifted its focus away from these workshops. be articulated to all and support for participation provided to some. In light of all of these (and more) equity- related concerns, CBF advocates have People are most likely to get involved with learned to examine virtually every aspect of community projects when they see how CBF their proposed and existing projects, care- can help them accomplish their own objec- fully pondering the overarching question, tives. As such, it is important for advocates “Who really benefits?” However, there is to articulate clearly how this can happen. still an equally important question that is all-too-frequently overlooked: “Who loses?” Benefits can be defined in a range of Thinking about both sorts of trade-offs is ways. Sometimes they are tangible, like financial rewards. Sometimes they are less so, like the feeling of belonging to a community or owning a parcel of forested Bethie [Miller, with D.C. Greenworks] land. And sometimes they combine “knocked on doors with community members. elements of both. Ginseng growers in She got information translated so that Hispanics Appalachian Ohio, for example, sought involvement in RAGA because they saw in the neighborhood knew what was going on. They opportunities for fellowship, mutual sup- even joined us in the second tree planting that fall. port, and marketing. We know everyone on our street now. The Public Lands Partnership, on the other We are less isolated. It almost feels like living in a hand, found that until public agencies over- small town. It is different than moving haul stewardship contracting systems, and into a neighborhood where everything is already done. they begin to hire workers from the local Here we know that we have made a difference that area — instead of from neighboring states like Arizona — there will continue to be fewer will be there for years. Planting trees along the street opportunities for local Hispanic residents gives people an incentive to think about the to get jobs. As things stand, those workers plantings in their own yards.” are far less inclined to participate in CBF activities.

—Mathew Ruest and Tanya Shand Through its new Community Equity Project, East Enders Group, Washington, D.C. Vermont Family Forests Partnership will offer opportunities to hold, steward, and enjoy land to people of limited incomes who could not otherwise afford to buy land. Among the benefits will be increased

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 63

Roles and operating principles for PStart-upO LIcapital aidsC diversityY community-based organizations LESSON 8 For underserved Demonstrations alone are not sufficient. communities to access services and There is a need for start-up capital in resources that are not generally low-wealth/low-income communities. available within the community, there often is a need for a “bridge” or broker to bring outside service providers and opportunities for poor people to own community members together, and to income-producing assets and long-term provide “translation” of technical jargon. investments. The communities with which the VFFP conducted public information ses- Federation works often do not connect sions (including walks on the sites), posted with technical services and funding that information in a variety of forums, and ran otherwise ought to be available to them. articles in the local newspapers, but they Either they don’t have the necessary found that was not sufficient to reach the information to take advantage of those target audience that matters most. Now services, or they experience discrimination they will attempt to use more targeted when trying to access them. The Federation approaches to solicit interest from low- plays a critical role in providing information income residents and answer their ques- about government services, brokering tions about the program, including how to relationships with government agencies on evaluate the investment value of this sort behalf of community people, and advocat- of shared ownership. ing for them. Many community members questioned what they would do if it were Many of the CBF sites work in communities not for the role played by the Federation, where resources for risk and experimenta- because there are no other institutions tion are limited. In those areas, people that advocate as directly and effectively for are inclined to see how new initiatives limited-resource landowners of color. work for their neighbors before jumping in themselves. The Federation of Southern Penn Center played an important bridging Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund has pro- role for agencies and funders who were inter- vided funds for demonstrations that other ested in working with communities but did community members observe, and it also not know how to access them. Because Penn has provided technical assistance to all who Center staff spoke the language of both the are interested. To involve a critical mass of communities and the agencies, they could do landowners in goat production, however, the the translation necessary to help each side Federation recognizes it will need to provide see the value of partnership and help the more resources for start-up, just as it has for partnerships operate effectively by leverag- the demonstrations. And for those farmers ing what each partner had to offer. already involved, at some point access to investment capital will become critical to bring their activities to scale.

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 64

An example of this kind of brokering was in Finally, AFWH worked with partners to the partnerships Penn created with Clemson integrate forest workers and harvesters University Extension Service, South Carolina with practitioner organizations and forest Forestry Commission, and community mem- managers/planners to create multisector bers to form the ecological component of dialogue, understanding, and learning, its CBF program. In particular, Penn Center where each knowledge base is respected staff worked closely with these technical and valued. As an intermediary, AFWH was resource partners to help them incorporate able to get the agencies to pay more atten- traditional knowledge into their consulta- tion to worker and harvester issues. tions with Gullah land owners. Without Penn, the traditional wisdom of the Gullah people, who have lived for several centuries in close Most of the demonstration sites harmony with the Lowcountry ecosystem, might not have been integrated with the found it was a good idea to more typically used “scientific” or professional knowledge. start small and minimize risks

Penn Center also was able to increase of failure. Even small successes access to service providers by bringing helped to get the community landowners to the table. The agencies had little interest in working with just one small involved in the effort. landowner, but their mandate did include working with larger numbers of minority landowners. When Penn Center staff could bring larger groups together, the state LESSON 9 Implementing projects forestry commission was able to meet helps promote community pride and its objectives, and the small landowners cohesion, and it builds organizational received technical assistance. credibility. Another example of bridging is the role that CBOs have occasionally played in If CBF is to bring genuine hope to com- building relationships and working with munities, its CBO advocates must build government officials, which often are nec- community confidence in both their own essary steps to creating a successful CBF and the community’s capacity to implement program. D.C. Greenworks knows that its beneficial projects. community volunteers often cannot go to The community needs to see tangible the city offices during the day. In fact, they projects to demonstrate the possibilities may not know exactly whom to call. Since and keep them engaged. In other words, D.C. Greenworks understands these con- they need even small successes to get nections, they are able to make the calls. them started and involved. Communities D.C. Greenworks also understands the also want to see projects that respond to impact that a letter with lots of signatures their everyday needs and challenges. Most has on an elected official, so they provide of the demonstration sites found it was a this service as well. good idea to start small and minimize risks of failure. Most importantly, they found it

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 65

necessary to move forward and definitely LESSON 10 The ability to influence do something that could clearly show the state and local politics and policies organization was not all talk and no action. that will impact CBF work requires access to the political process. Gaining The Watershed Research and Training access depends upon patiently building Center sought to build community support through devising practical solutions for relationships with political leaders. community needs. For example, they created Throughout this process, community a small business incubator. This 10,000- support is essential. square-foot building houses much-needed wood products processing equipment. Community support is essential to facilitat- While only one major business works there, ing access to the political process. Political employing 30 people, the incubator staff access is vitally important, because it have provided assistance and access to affords CBF advocates the opportunity to equipment to several other businesses. negotiate regarding local- and state-level policies with their elected and appointed Through its incubator, WRTC also has part- representatives, who need to be included in nered with the local community college and any collaborative effort. small business development center to offer courses that can help Hayfork residents to The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition recog- begin developing viable businesses, focusing nized the importance of a community on literacy skills, computer skills, financial engagement strategy for garnering com- training, and business plan development. munity support for its work and CBF when it faced challenges in working with the Fort When implementing CBF projects, high Bayard biomass plant. “One of our gaps is profile and high quality definitely matter. figuring out how to formalize membership D.C. Greenworks found that even just one and relationships with the community lead- well-publicized demonstration project can ers,” said Todd Schulke, forest policy director put one’s name on the map. at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s a glaring thing. We have scientific “We knew that the 1425 K Street greenroof expertise, legal and administrative expertise, would be our best marketing tool, both for experience in the woods, and knowledge us and the technology itself,” said Dawn about product development. We work fine Gifford, D.C. Greenworks’ executive director. together. Now we need to learn as a group “I carefully strategized [about] this three to engage in the political processes.” years ago as part of the long-term plan for D.C. Greenworks and greenroofing. I knew where market forces were going and Community support is essential to facilitating political wanted to be a first mover. That’s why I chose K Street and Casey Trees, despite the access—and political access is vitally important hard sell I knew I’d face. Over 600 people have toured that roof since July 2004. Call it because it affords CBF advocates the opportunity to lazy marketing! It took a careful three years, but now I can sit back as they are almost negotiate regarding local- and state-level policies. selling themselves.”

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 66

EXAMPLEHayfork mobilizes in support of its business incubator When the Planning Department staff in Hayfork recommended to the Planning Commission

that the special-use permit for WRTC’s business incubator be denied, the town mobilized.

People called the planning department. They called their county supervisors. They called

the Planning Commissioners. Sixty people showed up at the Planning Commission meeting

and in a very civilized and informed way, championed this project. The incubator project

changed during that meeting from WRTC’s incubator to Hayfork’s incubator. Workers, school

teachers, business people, U.S. Forest Service folks, moms, dads, kids…everyone explained

to the Commission how important the project is, how much they support it, and how much

the town needs it. Even an old detractor of the project read a prepared statement voicing his

support, burying a hatchet that needed burying, allowing the town not to feel divided.

For the first time since 1990 and the Dwyer decision to close the forest, Hayfork is a

community feeling hope and voicing it — a community realizing its own power.

—Excerpted from WRTC Annual Report to the Ford Foundation

Wallowa Resources, too, found it was coordination between the local government, critical to have the support of the county other community-based nonprofits, and the government and leadership, especially of organization itself. the County Commissioners, in ensuring the success of the planning process. “They have LESSON 11 Engaging a broad base brought their power and influence in sup- of the community requires a sustained, port of this effort,” said one staff member. “Their engagement was essential to engage multifaceted effort that includes a the community and develop confidence and diversity of approaches, options, and trust in the organization.” opportunities.

In 1997, the Wallowa County Board of Rural Action found that having several Commissioners passed a formal resolution “irons in the fire” allowed them to empha- designating Wallowa Resources as an size certain activities when the community implementing body of the county’s strategic was ready for them — and to not feel the plan for economic development, which need to push a certain activity when the seeks to promote a natural resource-based community was not. For North Quabbin economy. This designation gave Wallowa Woods, multiple strategies for reaching the Resources added legitimacy and reinforced

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 67

community facilitated getting community munity and on those of the larger ecological feedback and obtaining support from systems that characterize the surrounding different constituents. watershed. In addition, a CBO may be the best partner to take on the facilitation and Similarly, the Watershed Research and leadership role specifically because it can Training Center’s broad range of projects ensure continuity in the process. “Wallowa has brought in different parts of the commu- Resources has carried the torch through the nity. The non-timber forest product project whole process,” said one observer. “It is the brought in the wildcrafters, training brought relationship-building arm for the county.” In in some of the former loggers, working fact, the lead staff at Wallowa Resources on the fire plan brought in the emergency did not change throughout the more than response team and homeowners, and the five-year implementation phase of the youth camp brought in parents and chil- Demonstration Program. dren. Another advantage of a multipronged approach, WRTC found, is that projects mature at different rates, thereby enabling the organization to work with different D.C. Greenworks has found that successful groups at different stages. After all, it is not community organizing depends upon getting out and possible to involve everybody all the time, in “ knocking on doors, listening, behaving consistently, everything. keeping promises, and sticking around.”

LESSON 12 Communicate frequently, —D.C. Greenworks staff be available, and follow through. Washington, D.C.

A community-based organization can add real value to any long-term project by staying with things when the going gets tough. This The Alliance of Forest Workers and persistence is particularly critical in marginal- Harvesters emphasizes the importance of ized communities that persistently have seen keeping in close contact with members so promises made and promises broken. Many that they understand what one’s organi- feel jaded and need tangible proof that new zation is doing and why. Communicating initiatives can play out differently than they and sharing information go a long way have in the past. Other marginalized commu- toward forming and strengthening relation- nities have never had anyone promise any- ships and trust. When people understand thing. If there is no follow-through, their trust what exactly is being done and why, they also risks being broken. Over the long haul, are more inclined to participate in and the coalition of community members who support an effort. When there is no com- are implementing a particular project is likely munication, an information vacuum likely to change. As personnel come and go, a will be filled with misperceptions and suspi- CBO can provide continuity, offer new ideas, cions that erode trust and credibility — and and impart an enduring sense of purpose. that will take considerable staff time and energy to rebuild. When a CBO takes the lead in a community planning process, it can help focus the exer- cise both on the long-term needs of the com-

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3 68

LESSON 13 Learning from mistakes due to increased import subsidies, limita- made along the way and leveraging the tions on supply from the surrounding public benefits from those lessons can earn lands, and insufficient working capital. greater respect from your constituency, Although Wallowa Resources was not as well as enhance their willingness for able to keep that sawmill operating, there further involvement. were several positive outcomes. “Their efforts helped strengthen community Throughout the Demonstration Program, trust in Wallowa Resources’ work,” said CBOs found they needed to share with one community observer. “It showed their the community the lessons learned from strong commitment to the community and projects that did not work out as well as had businesses — that they weren’t just ‘green’.” been hoped. In so doing, the CBOs discov- Wallowa Resources fully disclosed their ered that community members themselves motives for buying the sawmill and commu- became more willing to talk openly about nicated regularly with the community about their own situations. the project’s progress. This transparency ensured that the community continued to “A lot of times people don’t want to see Wallowa Resources as responding to admit their failures,” observed a staff community needs, rather than as operating member with the Federation of Southern on its own and undermining the community. Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund. “We noticed that no one wanted to talk about timber theft when the issue first came up, LESSON 14 Effective working until we [the Federation] told the story of relationships between CBOs and the how we had been victims of timber theft community depend upon having the ourselves. Then people were willing to tell patience and persistence to build and their stories and we could talk about strate- sustain them, as well as upon having gies for avoiding theft.” the technical expertise to do the job required, whether that capacity exists in-house or is procured elsewhere. Lessons learned from projects that did not work out as Community members need to feel comfort- well as had been hoped sometimes had able with a CBO, as well as to know that an unexpected silver lining in facilitating they can rely on an organization to have the capacity or find the necessary expertise to new input from the community. get the job done.

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ One of Wallowa Resources’ early CBF Land Assistance Fund found that a mix of efforts was an attempt to help a marginally relationship building and providing techni- successful sawmill become more profitable. cal expertise engaged local residents in a The venture failed for a number of reasons, genuine way, helping them feel comfortable all of them outside of Wallowa Resources’ enough to ask the organization for help. The control, including depressed lumber prices Penn Center staff already had credibility on land retention issues, but it could not — and

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 69

did not — go into the community presenting The Federation has been sensitive to the fact themselves as experts on CBF. Staff worked that for some people, this sensitivity creates one-on-one with individuals or with groups in critical space for participation. workshops, placing paramount importance upon establishing a genuine dialogue. D.C. Common language also creates a space for Greenworks established credibility by know- participation, and sometimes it falls to the ing and doing. It worked alongside commu- CBO to find that bridging language. While nity members to plant trees, and community Grant County community members rarely members appreciated that D.C. Greenworks communicated their interests in terms of staff were not afraid to get their hands dirty. environmental degradation, conservation, and restoration, many of their areas of inter- The Federation also has been attentive est overlapped with those of the Jobs and to who might foster a conducive learning Biodiversity Coalition. In order to engage atmosphere for the people with whom it with these community members, however, works. “The Federation puts people in front JBC needed to find a common language to of me that look like me — women, and peo- communicate with them. ple of color,” said one community member.

Building Just and Resilient Communities Chapter 3

CHAPTER Fostering 4 Sustainable Economies 72

arly on, the Ford Foundation Many of these communities have witnessed Demonstration Program asked the failure of the one sawmill in the town E the question, “Can community-based and the devastation that wrought. Most forestry produce economically viable local of them don’t want to be that vulnerable jobs with good wages or otherwise augment again. They want to create an economic local income and reduce poverty?” diversity that matches the varied resources of the forest, not economic dependency At the end of five years, it certainly can that leads to extraction and over-harvesting. be said that CBF created some jobs and They love the place where they live, and they augmented local income. It is not possible, want to leave the forest in better shape for however, to claim that CBF has become a the next generation. driver for the local economy. With those observations in mind, this chapter will Not surprisingly, most of the CBF demon- explore what has been learned about build- stration sites began with the assumption ing an economic strategy based on natural that they needed to find and nurture local resources and how that work can be more entrepreneurs. They were looking for the accurately assessed. classic entrepreneur — an ambitious person willing to take on the financial risk of the initiation, operation, and management of While it is not possible to claim that CBF a given business or undertaking with the expectation that the business will grow and has become a driver for the local economy, become profitable. In most instances, they didn’t find them, both because dramatic the economic dimension of CBF cannot growth was not necessarily what small business owners or other individuals really be measured solely by jobs and income. wanted, and because community-based forestry itself is more often small-scale, with limited access to public lands or, alterna- This economic dimension of CBF cannot tively, with goals to earn only supplemental be measured solely by jobs and income. income on private lands. People who live in forest-dependent communities typically are looking for an endur- In this context, entrepreneurism needed to ing sense of economic resiliency. They want be redefined. So the communities set out to retain ownership of their land. They want to find new ways to develop small-scale, sustainable opportunities so that their sustainable livelihoods from the forest. Local children and grandchildren have a choice entrepreneurs identified innovative uses of about staying or returning after college. small-diameter wood or underutilized forest Most are very resourceful, having grown resources and began to develop them into accustomed to having multiple income an income stream. In rural communities, streams. They are used to collaborating small-scale entrepreneurs typically have with their neighbors, and they are willing to multiple sources of income, most often support strategies that foster equity rather in the informal sector. A few will form than competition. businesses and hire community members, but most are more comfortable with a one- person enterprise. It suits the way they want

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 73

to work, and it lowers their risk when the resource flow — whether sustainably sourced wood or other non-timber forest resources, It is amazing when you start looking at all such as herbs — isn’t there. “their strategies. We have people that work on my restoration crew during the season and then run Within the Demonstration Program, the role of the community-based organizations that their own firewood business in the wintertime. We anchored the CBF efforts typically centered have people that use non-timber forest products as around mitigating risks for individual part of their multiple income strategy and create a entrepreneurs, creating and strengthening business around that. We have the non-taxable income community assets, and accessing opportunities for individuals, grassroots associations, entrepreneur — the cash entrepreneur. They don’t and the community as a whole. The focus have a business license, they don’t file to become has been on cooperation and collaboration, a Subchapter S corporation, but they use business rather than competition. principles — and they do use their assets to go out All of these CBOs have faced persistent bar- and make things or get things they can sell. At first I riers. Often, they — or the entrepreneurs they was very discouraged that I could not offer full-time sought to serve — could not access sustain- employment. They said they were very grateful for the ably harvested wood and other non-timber resources in any reliable, steady flow. Like seasonal work, because it makes it possible for them all natural resource-based businesses, they to stay in their hometown.” also struggled to gain access to financial capital, because banks are leery about lend- — Lynn Jungwirth, executive director ing to businesses faced with an intermittent Watershed Research and Training Center, northern California or otherwise problematic supply of raw materials. Most operated at a distance from robust urban markets, and nearly all felt threatened by the vicissitudes of global a little more than five years. It is plausible markets. to think that the communities’ shorter-term Adapting to the realities of their circum- strategies are moving them toward their stances, these resourceful CBOs focused longer-term goal, but it is simply too soon on having many irons in the fire, rather to know that for sure. than attempting to create just one or two Meanwhile, from all the evidence gathered businesses that could hire a lot of people. thus far, it is possible to say with confidence Their multipronged approach may have that traditional economic development moved forward slowly, with many ups and policies based on old, industrial models of downs, but over the long term, it likely has natural resource management are not work- a much better chance of being sustainable. ing for many rural communities. It clearly is Even so, it will take many years to know time to try another approach. with any certainty whether or not CBF is going to have a truly substantial impact. After all, communities are working toward the goal of long-term economic vitality. The Demonstration Program itself covered just

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 74

Getting the market to cover From the evidence gathered thus far, it is clear that the cost of good forestland management traditional economic development policies based on

old, industrial models of natural resource management ■ In search of a way for the market to cover the costs of good management, are not working for many rural communities. Vermont Family Forests Partnership shepherded sustainably harvested It is time to try another approach. timber from the forest to the final product. Significantly, the landowners received on average twice the standard amount for their wood. To date, however, Impacts VFFP has not been able to replicate this process in the marketplace without grant Across the breadth and scope of the subsidy. CBF Demonstration Program, significant short-term impacts toward diversifying ■ Vermont Family Forests also has local economies based on sustainable developed a brand identity that helps natural resource management have been landowners earn a premium for their documented on public, private, and tribal sustainably managed and harvested lands. Most of the grantees are place-based. timber. VFF is exploring how to license its Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, brand. as a regional market intermediary, is a very different model. Growing the market for local, certified wood Land retention

■ Aiming to expand the market for local, ■ Aiming toward African-American land certified wood, VFFP provided techni- retention, both Penn Center and the cal and financial support to develop Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Cornerstone, a network of large Vermont Assistance Fund demonstrated ways to institutions that has written purchasing generate at least some income on small procedures that allow these institutions to forested landholdings in the Southeast. consider placing a top priority upon buying The most successful demonstration con- certified wood products that are sourced ducted by the Federation is harvesting in-state. meat goats. In this effort, 20 landowners have earned an average of $1,000 per ■ VFFP provided technical, financial, and year. This income can make the difference marketing support to Vermont WoodNet, between being able to pay one’s property a group of Vermont woodworkers that taxes and losing one’s land. share a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 75

chain-of-custody certification8 among two Quabbin Woods (NQW) designed and dozen members. This support helped exhibited a woodworkers’ display, ran Vermont WoodNet to open a gallery in two field tours for a total of 35 architects, Stowe, Vermont. submitted articles to local newspapers, made referrals of over $80,000 worth of projects to local businesses, and had Utilizing small-diameter wood direct sales in 2004 totaling $6,600. NQW’s regional branding program con- ■ To develop businesses that utilize small- tinues this process. NQW is making local diameter wood, the Jobs and Biodiversity people more consciously aware of their Coalition nurtured five businesses that region for its forests and its small-wood use wood from forest restoration projects products businesses.9 in Gila National Forest. The craftspeople who run these businesses are experiment- ■ HFHC constructed a portable display ing with using different materials and booth to take to tradeshows. With this developing the new technologies needed booth, HFHC has been able to educate to use more of the material coming from consumers about the many rural local a restoration project. businesses in the Northwest and has introduced new customers to their prod- ■ Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities ucts. HFHC and its partner businesses began with a clear focus on marketing. have attended U.S. Green Building In the course of linking businesses to the Council, Home & Garden, Remodel, San market, it became clear that they needed Francisco Gourmet Products, and Log technical assistance in several areas, Home tradeshows. including small-diameter wood product development and production improvements. To assist these small businesses, Restoring the forest and HFHC linked with other service providers. stimulating the local economy HFHC helped these technical support providers understand the realities of these ■ In order to restore the forest and small wood businesses, and they helped stimulate the local economy, Public Lands the businesses be open to learning a new Partnership (PLP) made possible a salvage approach. sale of four million board feet of timber. The timber was sold to two local mills, Educating the consumer and the resulting byproducts provide raw material for a three-person Hispanic fire- ■ In order to educate potential consumers wood business. of sustainable forest products, North ■ PLP also pioneered an innovative approach to pooling and leveraging

8 FSC requires that a “chain of custody” be established agency resources, creating a nonprofit from the FSC-certifi ed harvest site to the customer to fiscal agent called Unc/Com. This ensure that what they purchase is truly certifi ed product. Any value-adding business along this chain must be certifi ed that it has a means of separating and tracking certifi ed from non-certifi ed product, among 9 NQW’s Regional Identity Guide is included on the CD other factors. that accompanies this report (see Appendix B).

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 76

mechanism has enabled over $1 million ■ HFHC supported a flooring broker who to be brought into the Uncompahgre has linked small rural businesses to Plateau. regional and national markets. He also has offered technical support to these businesses so that they can meet the Supporting local entrepreneurs quality and customer service require- and businesses ments of the marketplace.

■ To support local entrepreneurs, Rural ■ HFHC conducted market analyses on Action sold over 700 pounds of ginseng regionally sourced wood and lumber. rootstock through its planting stock pro- It also attended and then assessed the gram. At harvest, in about six years, the benefit of tradeshows for various market ginseng is expected to yield $2 million in sectors. anticipated revenue for over 300 growers. ■ Responding to businesses’ struggles with ■ Rural Action also provides much-needed access to capital, HFHC will make some market connections for a growers’ asso- revolving funds available as loan security ciation by attending tradeshows that so that it is possible for businesses to get promote natural products. The growers equipment loans at reasonable rates. thereby gain access to niche markets, where they can sell directly to the retailer. ■ To support local businesses, Wallowa While there have been some limited sales Resources has assisted local businesses to date, most growers are still planting through market research and demonstra- non-timber forest products in anticipation tion trials on a range of small-diameter of future income. products including post and pole, new small-log building kits, flooring, paneling, ■ Rural Action supports a pine cooperative and furniture. as its members develop better marketing outlets for white pine. ■ Wallowa Resources acts as a contract administrator. This role has proven inval- ■ To support local entrepreneurs, HFHC uable in matching the size of the U.S. offers workshops to its 52 members — Forest Service contracts and type of work including wood manufacturers, retailers, more closely with the small scale of the landowners, and nonprofits — so they can businesses and skills available in the learn from each other and from service community. providers. Through these shared experiences, HFHC members build ongoing ■ To support local businesses, Watershed relationships and then start to buy and Resource and Training Center established sell from each other. an incubator that houses two locally owned, forest-related small businesses. ■ Through developing its own brand, HFHC Thirty-five employees work there. is both raising awareness in the urban marketplace about sustainable, rural ■ WRTC’s small business incubator businesses and selling their products. offered flexible terms for raw materials, bought equipment, and let businesses lease space by the hour. It also linked

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 77

businesses to HFHC and the U.S. Forest ■ Providing jobs in the community, WRTC Service Forest Products Lab. trained 48 people for jobs in the forest products industry. Twenty have seasonal ■ To support local entrepreneurs, Gila full-time work on WRTC’s fuels reduction Woodnet (GWN), a member of the Jobs crews. and Biodiversity Coalition, provided emerging wood products businesses and ■ Eighty percent of Healthy Forests, Healthy entrepreneurs with physical and virtual Communities’ business members reported incubation services such as website assis- increased levels of employment after tance, direct and indirect marketing sup- joining HFHC. port, and use of equipment. ■ In order to increase environmental knowl- ■ GWN also encouraged collaboration edge and access to jobs in the horticul- among businesses. Local entrepreneurs tural field, D.C. Greenworks offered hor- cited networking as one of the most sig- ticultural training to 80 young men and nificant forms of non-technical support women in Washington, D.C. Since only 40 they received from GWN. percent retained their jobs for six months, D.C. Greenworks is developing a Low ■ To support local entrepreneurs, the Impact Development business that will Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land offer full-time seasonal work opportunities Assistance Fund provided training, work- as transitional employment. shops, and brochures in budgeting and management for goat businesses. ■ In order to increase environmental knowledge and access to jobs in the ■ The Alliance of Forest Workers and eco-friendly green sector, NQW ran two Harvesters created the opportunity for North Quabbin Woods Ecotourism Guide restoration byproducts — i.e., boughs from Programs. Seventeen people graduated, small trees thinned for fuels reduction — three have earned income in this field to be used by forest workers and their since the training, and four are using their families to make “restoration wreaths” newly acquired skills as volunteers for for the 2004 holiday season. local organizations.

■ The GWN sort yard employs four full-time Creating and retaining jobs and one part-time workers. These employ- in the community ees do sorting, hand peeling, machine peeling, firewood processing, marketing, ■ Providing jobs in the community, Wallowa sales, and general management. All of Resources offers employment to 34 full- the GWN sort yard employees currently time equivalents, which represents over are trained to work at the Mill Project site. 1 percent of the county’s non-farm work- At any given time, two of them are likely force. This is through its nonprofit office, to be present at the site. its for-profit arm Community Smallwood Solutions, and restoration contracting. ■ To enable forest workers to access more local jobs, AFWH facilitated connections between forest workers, environmentally sound contractors, landowners, and land

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 78

managers with the result that employ- the producer is more insulated from price ment in these cases has been more con- fluctuations, if the product is seen as unique sistent, of longer duration, and at higher and special. In this context, flooring and levels of compensation. cabinetry made with local wood by local producers have an edge in the marketplace that cannot be taken away by global com- Building economic diversity petitors. Smaller production levels limit the size of the market and type of product, but ■ To build economic diversity that matches add to the uniqueness of the product. the diverse resources of the forest, WRTC is planning a Small Diameter Utilization Value-adding mechanisms include superior Facility that will use all of the material service, creating a unique product, the abil- coming from fuels reduction and restora- ity to change quickly in response to markets, tion projects. WRTC plans to employ 30 and a “story,” among other strategies. people. Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities and its members, for example, found that, after ■ Wallowa Resources, its for-profit sub- considerations about quality, the personal sidiary, and local investors are build- stories behind their brand identity (about the ing an Integrated Wood Center with people who actually harvest or create their similar goals and objectives as the facility products) gave them an edge in the market. planned by WRTC. A key future compo- These stories proved the most valuable nent of this center will be the generation when the product itself could be displayed of various forms of renewable energy. or seen, and where the customer easily could share the story with friends.

Lessons Obtaining loans or attracting the direct investment necessary to set up a manufac- This section offers lessons about asset turing facility, however, can be daunting. management, small business networks, Banks are hesitant to loan money to business basics, markets, and the role of the unproven small ventures, especially when community-based organization. their raw material flow is uncertain. Public agencies and philanthropic organizations Asset management usually have restrictions regarding how their grant allocations can be used. Sites in the Demonstration Program often found it LESSON 1 Value-adding is the way to make the smaller scale work, because raw commodities directly reflect prices While value-adding manufacturing typically is on the global market. preferred over trading in raw commodities, Although there are times when value-adding production and sales of raw commodities obtaining the funds necessary to set up a can be mutually supporting, the former is typically preferred over the latter. After all, manufacturing facility can be daunting. profit margins typically are greater, and

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 79

TIPConsider a rural business incubator If funders do not want to provide direct assistance to rural businesses, they can support

rural business incubators. The incubator becomes a community asset with an income stream

from leasing.

The businesses that transition through the incubator are able to get access to the equipment

that is needed for their production and that they could not afford otherwise. After several

years in the incubator where they can lease equipment, the businesses may have built up

enough of a customer and sales base to encourage a bank to lend to them. Without this

capital, a small business usually will not be able to purchase or access the equipment

needed for value-adding manufacturing.

difficult for small businesses to grow past A more diverse economy emphasizing local “one-person shops” to a level of production production also enhances the multiplier that could employ more people. effect, which refers to the benefits accrued when a single dollar circulates repeatedly WRTC founded a rural business incubator through the local economy. Furthermore, that provides value-adding manufacturers value-adding wood manufacturing jobs, with equipment and manufacturing space when they are located in new start-up busi- at a leased rate. For businesses that cannot nesses, result from strategies that create get access to loans, this rural business and build local wealth. Over the long run, incubator gives them a place to start their this outcome is much to be preferred over business and build up the sales history short-term strategies that merely redistrib- that might make a bank more interested in ute federal and foundation dollars. them.

LESSON 2 Forest restoration work and Consequently, it often is desirable to couple value-adding wood manufacturing jobs with harvesting non-timber forest products other economic strategies, especially forest are most likely to offer benefits to restoration contracts. As Diane Snyder at the local community when they are Wallowa Resources has pointed out, “More integrated with value-adding strategies. robust economic conditions are experienced [by adding] wood manufacturing jobs than Demonstration Program sites located near with just restoration contract jobs. A healthy public lands led collaborative processes for mix of both provides unique diversity and restoration projects so community members economic return for the community.” could get access to the woods. Wallowa Resources and the Watershed Resources

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 80

Training Center, for example, designed and successful in growing indigo on a few sites managed restoration projects that provided and ultimately had a lot more indigo on its seasonal full-time forest work to community hands than the one textile artist in the local members. Both organizations also nurtured community could use. Even given this local local businesses that took the material from surplus, however, there still was not enough these restoration projects and turned it into indigo to justify efforts to reach a wider marketable products. market. Balancing the scale of the harvest with the available market always will be a The Alliance of Forest Workers and critical factor. Harvesters and partners supported and provided connections and training in LESSON 3 A small community-based biophysical monitoring and other skills to workers to ensure that they are able to business should focus its marketing compete for and secure higher-paying jobs, efforts at a manageable scale, as well as improve the forest. As a result, addressing a particular segment of the several members successfully competed for larger marketplace. new work under improved conditions. This needs to be a scale that small busi- On private lands, forest restoration work is a nesses can meet in terms of wood supply niche market, generally for affluent landown- and production capacity. Figuring out the ers. Vermont Family Forests members work appropriate scale and particular market closely with loggers who focus on the overall segment can present a major challenge health of the forest rather than the most to community-based organizations — par- lucrative harvest. The loggers and the land- ticularly those establishing new CBF owners face a problem of scale, however, programs — that needs to be addressed whenever a particular landowner only has early on and revisited periodically. The scale a few trees that are ready to cut. In such likely will need to offer a higher price point, instances, VFF coordinates bringing together although not the highest prices. Individual groups of their members to achieve better businesses must refine and clarify their economies of scale and to make the overall story, so that it can be told to the customer. harvest more interesting, and thus more The most important points to convey valuable, to the sawmills. concern how one’s products are unique and why they are worth paying for. Penn Center ran several demonstration projects with indigo, a culturally and historically significant NTFP in the region. Penn was Small business networks

LESSON 4 Facilitating business-to- business commerce can strengthen local Balancing the scale of production with the available and regional economic capacity and market — and seeking to benefit from economies of resilience.

scale — always will be critically important. From their unique vantage point, nonprofit CBOs often have a bird’s-eye view of emerging opportunities. This favored

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 81

position enables them to more effectively strive to manage natural resources and draw upon local assets, develop new eco systems sustainably, to outsource their products, and tap new markets. In the labor costs. Demonstration Program, CBOs often took a second look at the raw commodities pro- If these businesses are forced to compete duced by their communities and searched solely on the basis of the cheapest, bot- for ways to use them in local value-adding tom-line manufacturing costs, they may not manufacturing. be able to survive. However, they may be able to stay profitable if they can cut some The key to making things happen, however, of their costs through strategically collab- lies in bringing together local entrepreneurs, orating with other businesses and other whether formally or informally. These are community stakeholders. the people who actually start businesses and sell products. Healthy Forests, Healthy In the Demonstration Program, for example, Communities brought its partners together restoration projects usually went forward at workshops. As business owners started when local stakeholders agreed not to talking to each other about their enterprises, use judicial appeals to prevent U.S. Forest they soon realized they could work together Service projects. Negotiating these multi- or sell services to one another. The potential party agreements significantly lowered benefits became obvious. One local supplier the transaction costs associated with the or manufacturer, for example, could help restoration projects. another with an overflow order. Such cooperation vastly increases the stability of small businesses. Small, rural wood products manufacturers may not be Before North Quabbin Woods formed its able to compete solely on the basis of the cheapest woodworkers advisory group, most business owners simply turned down jobs they manufacturing costs, but they can minimize their costs couldn’t handle. Now they are likely to refer the customer to someone else in their local through strategic collaborations. network. After all, doing so keeps the business, and the economic benefit, within the community. Small businesses are discovering that this sort of informal collaboration Moreover, the projects were designed to works better for all of them. feed the sustainably harvested wood into local businesses, who themselves were part of the overall collaborative effort. Wood LESSON 5 Small business networks that is processed locally significantly low- can lower costs and increase overall ers transportation costs, thereby offering market share. a further competitive advantage to local businesses. Small, rural wood products manufacturers rarely do the volume of business that would allow them to reduce costs through running three shifts a day. Nor are they positioned, especially in sectors that

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 82

Business basics LESSON 7 Small businesses cannot sell their product effectively unless they offer LESSON 6 A social enterprise needs high-quality customer service and a fair to track its costs carefully. The costs to price. operate the business itself should be in line with other similar businesses Small businesses clearly benefit when they whether they have a social mission have a compelling story and a brand identity behind them, but they also must have a solid or not. Social costs, such as training product. Finding out what urban customers traditionally disenfranchised workers, want and developing that insight into a cannot be passed on to the customer in profitable product, however, can be tough a competitive market. for a one-person business. Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities helped business D.C. Greenworks’ low-impact development owners learn more about urban consumer business includes its labor and materials preferences by bringing them to tradeshows costs when it bids on jobs. The additional and by engaging a flooring broker. training and oversight costs for its inex- perienced workers are covered by profits HFHC also worked closely with its rural busi- from the business and by government and ness partners to help them determine how foundation funding. to handle problems with their customers. Producers typically are not also effective salespeople. They like to make things, and Sales skills and knowledge of urban consumer they certainly hope to have customers. In fact, they understand very well that they preferences are essential assets to develop or acquire. need to sell their product to stay in business. HFHC staff have taught effective sales skills and sometimes even identified sales leads The Alliance of Forest Workers and for their business partners. The organization Harvesters works with contractors to con- is adamant, however, that making and duct its training programs. The trainees’ sustaining sales are the responsibilities of salaries are covered by the job itself, but the individual business. the training costs cannot be passed along to the customer and must be covered with To sell at a fair price, a business needs to foundation funding. This strategy gives understand both its own costs and the selling the trainees a fair wage for their work prices for comparable products in the market- hours and on-the-job training. The cost place. HFHC has developed a pricing tool10 per trainee is lower than more traditional to help businesses capture their costs for training programs, however, because the each item produced. This tool allows them to contract with the customer is covering their compare unit costs at different levels of pro- wages. duction, using different pieces of equipment, and in different marketing situations, whether to end-users or retailers or distributors.

10 This HFHC pricing tool is included on the CD that accompanies this report (see Appendix B).

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 83

Markets Communities found that they needed to pursue LESSON 8 Multiproduct and multimarket economic and marketing multiple paths and to take a long view of each. strategies offer a higher likelihood However innovative their business plans, of achieving economic vitality and supporting increased forest restoration. the market just did not materialize immediately.

As the communities in the Demonstration Program surveyed their economic oppor- next building. However, both this building tunities, they began to see a diverse menu and later construction projects did not of options that might be built upon the offer forest landowners as valuable a price resources of their local forests. These premium as they had hoped. choices ranged from timber to non-timber forest products, from ecotourism to value- Penn Center conducted initial research on adding manufacturing. They looked at several possible products and then followed starting small bed-and-breakfasts, restora- through with demonstrations featuring tion contracting, designing equipment for two of them — indigo and meat goats. restoration work, monitoring and scientific Landowners viewed these demonstrations analysis, running sawmills, setting up bio- as potential options they could consider. mass plants, and offering GIS services. As landowner Walter Mack said, “The land can be a liability without money, if you have Before long, however, each community nothing to do with it. Now I am utilizing found that it could not choose just one path. what I have been taught by Penn Center and Local residents needed to have multiple the Lowcountry Landowners Association. irons in the fire, often because of limited The different ideas they present allow me to access to the forest, to wholesale and retail choose. If it helps me keep the land in good markets, or to start-up and working capital. condition and get some money then I will They also found they needed to dig in use that idea.” deeply and stick around for the long haul with anything they did. However innovative Making a living in rural America usually their business plans might be, the market means developing many different skills. just did not embrace their ideas and pull Specialization seldom works in a small projects forward easily. community. “When policymakers or funders look at our communities, they don’t see the Even so, there were a few exceptions. In specific skills that our society demands,” the LaForce Project, Vermont Family Forests says Lynn Jungwirth of the Watershed worked with Middlebury College on a very Resources and Training Center. “They high-profile demonstration project using push for focus and training. We are all for local wood that had been harvested sustain- training, but we see this diversification as ably. VFF expected the market to pick up this a strength. When you have the harvester idea — and from the point of view of using join the monitoring team, everyone learns. certified wood, it did. Middlebury College When schoolteachers bring the children into had several vendors for certified wood to choose from when it accepted bids for its

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 84

EXAMPLEWallowa Resources’ business ventures Wallowa Resources in northeastern Oregon invested in a local mill that complemented

its interests in small-diameter processing and niche marketing. In fact, the Joseph Timber

Company became the only FSC-certified timber mill in the region. The small business was

able to reach the market and write advantageous agreements with customers because it

could back up its story about rural community, local jobs, and good forest management.

Wallowa Resources’ willingness to take a risk that would create jobs encouraged many

people in the local community. After all, consultants had assisted the organization in writing

a business plan that would improve the mill’s profitability and sustain cash over the winter

months. Everyone expected that the mill would be operating profitability by spring.

When Wallowa Resources’ business partners proved unwilling to fulfill their investment

agreement, however, the mill had to be shut down. Even given an uneven supply of raw

material, the Joseph Timber Company closed with a full woodlot. In the end, Wallowa

Resources learned the importance of conducting better due diligence about outstanding

debts and binding investment agreements.

Nonetheless, Wallowa Resources recognized that both a more diversified economy and more

value-adding manufacturing jobs still were needed in the community. Staff knew they would

need to try again. By the time Wallowa Resources opened a new venture, called Community

Smallwood Solutions, it had learned a lot about mill economics and financing. Staff knew the

best people to fabricate and maintain machinery, and they better understood the cash flow

needs that a small enterprise faces across the business cycle.

the woods for monitoring project, they learn months, the forest is often shut down for a skill, and they get closer to the beauty of thinning — and even for surveys — as the the place in which they live.” threat of fire looms large. Similarly, mushroom harvesting times are narrow windows Nowhere is this more important than for of seasonal opportunity. Diversification of the mobile workforce. Forest workers and skills and connections are key to gaining harvesters are especially tied to seasonal employment on a year-round basis. work. For example, during the dry summer

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 85

PU.S.O ForestLI ServiceC recommendationY Smaller-scale, community-sized operations fill a much-needed niche that is too often ignored.

Emphasizing them will require the U.S. Forest Service, when developing restoration projects,

to improve its ability to consider how the forest materials that are cleared or harvested

might be used to create viable products. It also will mean the agency needs to synchronize

forest project timelines and scale to assist in getting past start-up problems and other

costs associated with launching new businesses and products. For small, rural businesses,

predictability of supply is much more important than overall volume.

LESSON 9 The appropriate scale for risk and affords opportunities to enhance community economic development community cohesion. Moreover, it usually balances the costs of getting to market makes better sense to work a familiar, well-known landscape. Operating at small with the product volume that small scale, however, drives the costs of getting businesses can reliably produce. to market much higher. Orders from Networking small businesses both regional or national distributors can be too locally and regionally is one way to get large for local businesses to handle. It also to this appropriate scale. can be a problem to procure the working capital that is needed to cover the costs of Communities work on a small scale pri- raw material and value-adding manufac- marily out of necessity. Doing so minimizes turing before the customer actually pays. Moreover, retailers typically are looking for lines of products that they can order from one source. Include training in proposals TIP Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities has found two answers to these seemingly When developing proposals, CBOs daunting challenges. One solution is to should design their CBF projects to retain a broker. The other is to introduce include training for community members business owners to one another. Once such connections can be made, the business wherever it is needed. When assessing owners inevitably will find ways to buy from these proposals, funders should support and sell to each other.

this training and recognize that in small

communities, people must build multiple

skills rather than focus on specialization.

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 86

EXAMPLEWorking with the middleman Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities viewed the middleman as an opportunity rather than

an added cost. After all, retailers were accustomed to buying flooring products from brokers

and were quite resistant to buying directly from the manufacturer. The manufacturers, on

the other hand, were busy at their plants and did not have time or interest in cultivating

customers.

For several years, HFHC offered financial support to a local entrepreneur who was building

a wood flooring brokerage business. With this financial support, the broker was able to

provide technical assistance to manufacturers so that their products would be better suited

for the market. These manufacturers became part of the group of businesses that the broker

represented to the retailers. Today, this brokerage system works entirely without subsidy. The

percentage of the overall sales that the broker takes turns out to be money well spent, for

rural businesses gain vastly improved access to urban customers.

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ like the Watershed Resources and Training Land Assistance Fund credits an indepen- Center and asking, “You wrote that dent network that has arisen among meat biomass grant. Would you send a copy of goat producers with contributing a substan- it to us?” As one result of this cooperative tial economic impact. The goat producers information-sharing, the next wave of are now coordinating their marketing biomass grants that goes to the federal efforts, as well as sharing information, government likely will feature some well- equipment, and labor. integrated youth programming.

Networking simply to share information LESSON 10 Branding helps build a works well, too. Communities in the West, for example, have begun to exchange market for small businesses that are information about small-scale gasification rooted in the community and committed biomass plants and are beginning to to sustainability. work together toward designing projects. One community procured cutting-edge Effective branding can help create a dis- information from a community in Austria. tinctive identity for products derived from a Another community worked with a parti cular local area or region. It also can company in Sweden. Today, these two help consumers readily discern whether or communities are exchanging information. not forest products have been harvested People are getting in touch with groups

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 87

TIPSupporting the brand over the long haul A nonprofit organization needs to be a stable long-term player in the marketplace if its

brand is to offer sustained value for forestry products. One question that landowners ask

is whether Vermont Family Forests will still be supporting its brand in 20 years, when the

landowner is ready to harvest their trees.

and manufactured in ways that support LESSON 11 Verifying the claims healthy ecosystems, healthy communities, made by their brands was a challenge or, ideally, both. for CBOs participating in the Demonstration Program. Different Among businesses affiliated with the Demonstration Program, however, the partners used different strategies to marketing story that seemed to resonate accomplish this task. best with customers had mostly to do with local people and their small businesses. Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Trumpeting a product’s environmental started out with a plan to set up monitoring benefits appeared to arouse less interest, and verification for all the products sold with although it’s possible that consumers its label. It soon found this was impractical may presume there is some degree of and not even demanded by the market. environmental stewardship when they think Consumers simply wanted to know that the about local people and small businesses, products were made locally, which HFHC especially in rural areas. actually could claim. One of HFHC’s chief goals is to encourage its business partners It is important to have high-quality (and the network’s customers) to think about materials promoting the brand. As busi- where their wood comes from. To do this, nesses grow and expand their marketing HFHC has implemented a relatively simple efforts, the producer likely will not be Wood Tracking System. selling directly to the customer. As such, the marketing materials, logo, tag line, and North Quabbin Woods sought to establish story all have to carry the full impact of the a label that focused customers’ attention branding story by themselves. Producers on the local region and its natural resource and their distributors certainly can work dil- assets. To use this brand, businesses are igently to educate the sales force at retail required to follow clear guidelines. outlets, but they cannot be certain that retailers will tell their story effectively — or With its small group of landowners, Vermont at all — to prospective customers unless the Family Forests developed a brand that goes product provides higher margins for them beyond green certification to embrace a or expands their market share. larger vision of sustainable forestry that involves local communities and individuals. VFF also offers a group FSC certification.

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 88

but for many producers, a brand that says “local” (or a combination of local and The distinction is local first, FSC) is more important in their local and then“ character, and then certification. regional markets. I see benefits of all the different brands for different reasons and different markets.” LESSON 12 Communities may localize and regionalize their target markets, — Jeff Parsons, woodworker/entrepreneur especially for high-end products, but Vermont global markets will still impact them.

Many communities in the Demonstration Program chose not to compete at the global The stringency of its branding standards level and focused instead on value-added appeals to local landowners, most of products that they sold at the local and whom do not need to harvest for economic regional levels. For the Federation of reasons and have other primary forest man- Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance agement goals, such as preserving wildlife Fund, this meant selling goats on the hoof habitat and biodiversity. For some, in fact, rather than trying to bring its small number VFF forest management guidelines may be of goats to more distant slaughterhouses. the only reason they would consider cutting down any trees. Although VFF is still working All of the community partners realized on ways to deploy and effectively use its that this marketing strategy is self-limiting. brand, demonstration projects indicate that They further realized that global markets the regional market appears willing to pay a affect prices in their regional and local premium for VFF-certified products. markets. The local market often is quite small, especially for higher-end, value- Whenever verification involved making added products. Yet, if businesses chose to a statement about the way the wood supply raw commodities, they faced severe was harvested, communities in the price competition and price fluctuation, Demonstration Program used FSC’s cer- chiefly as a result of global market forces. tification system. HFHC and VFF worked with FSC to offer group custody and chain- of-custody procedures. This made FSC Think locally more cost-effective for small businesses and think globally and landowners. TIP If you care about communities, Businesses have found that FSC can help with market penetration, but it usually does design your subsidies and not offer a price premium. Moreover, FSC investments so that they protect has been marketed and widely accepted communities’ interests as they as an environmental label. Some feel that it does not have strong social standards, engage in the global market. although FSC is trying to address this. Some businesses consider FSC important,

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 89

They did not discover viable strategies to LESSON 13 Helping rural producers get around these market forces, and most build a bridge to the urban consumer look with some worry upon emerging can benefit both constituencies. trends toward further market consolidation and less regulation. Sites participating in the Demonstration Program soon learned to broaden their At least one sector within community-based market reach to incorporate urban or forestry, however, does stay local — forest metropolitan areas. Healthy Forests, Healthy ecosystem restoration. Local residents Communities, for example, works closely sometimes must compete for jobs with with rural producers but actually is based in migrant workers, but the forest itself cannot Portland, Oregon — a large city — and involves be sent overseas to be restored. In rural partners who are urban retailers. These ties northern California, Watershed Resources to the urban marketplace are invaluable and Training Center trains and runs crews, for HFHC’s rural business partners. In turn, because forest ecosystem restoration is products from rural areas provide urban very labor-intensive work. In metropolitan dwellers with a valuable link to rural places Washington, D.C. Greenworks can feel and rural values. assured that neighborhoods will need to care for their street trees more or less in perpetuity. There are 18–20 variables with pricing in the As small, chiefly rural businesses take the wood products industry. Wood can sell for three times leap and attempt to access global markets, “ more in the southern part of Vermont, because it goes they need a great deal of information about how those markets actually work. That into different markets. Seasonal variations are also information can be hard to come by. Most significant. The most reliable way to get more money forestry schools no longer have economists for certified wood is with character woods.” on staff who conduct research about how wood flows through global value chains, — Mark Lorenzo including ongoing monitoring and analysis of supply and demand. Northeast Natural Resources Center, Vermont

Large companies have access to this sort of information and know how to work in Even so, an important challenge remains: the global marketplace — including leaving How do rural producers reach beyond the the United States to set up shop elsewhere. existing market niche of relatively wealthy They also operate at a scale that affords a urban consumers and develop products measure of resilience in the face of changing that can be sold to poor or middle-class conditions. Smaller businesses, on the other people — and still make a profit? Are there hand, are at a decided disadvantage. They products that could be developed that can are extremely vulnerable to market fluctua- be profitable and reach a broader market? tions, as they do not work at a scale that Ultimately, doing so will be important to easily can absorb the impact. achieve both small business sustainability

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 90

KeepingTIP the door open to global One Portland, Oregon, wood products retailer, a partner with Healthy Forests, Healthy

Communities, says that businesses like HFHC members have to be open to the wider, global

market. They need to cultivate an awareness of the tastes and preferences of potential

customers who live in other regions of the world.

Trading company representatives from Japan and China have come through Portland

wood products showrooms. Local wood species are of interest to them, says Ed Mays of

Eudora Wood Products. In fact, Oregon has a good reputation in those overseas markets.

Small is seen as a plus, because Japan and China also have networks of tiny businesses.

Opportunities indeed may arise, but the research that is needed for small businesses to

expand to a global market can be daunting.

and to fulfill expectations about CBF’s role Moreover, it can attract both technical in helping to bring about greater social expertise and financial resources that likely justice. are not available to individuals.

From this unique vantage point, the CBO The role of the CBO may be able to assess and take steps not only to fortify each element within the LESSON 14 To build a sustainable larger entrepreneurial puzzle, but also to forest-based economy, it is necessary to operate at the intersection of the three coordinate all the pieces of the entrepre- elements: materials, manufacturing, and neurial puzzle — resource flow, product markets. development, production capacity, and ■ Material/resource flow depends upon effective marketing. Often, a community- availability and access. Reliably sourcing based organization can be well posi- raw materials is essential to the success tioned to play this coordinating role. of any venture, whether for a single business or for a network of producers who An individual entrepreneur or landowner seek to establish their product in a larger may not be able to see all of the pieces market. Even so, the CBO can assist in that must come together to complete the assessing whether local harvesters and entrepreneurial puzzle, but sometimes a entrepreneurs can gain access to suf- nonprofit community-based organization ficient quantities of a given resource for (CBO) is better positioned to do so. It often their businesses to be viable. has more developed networks that extend both across and beyond its service area.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 91

EXAMPLEFinding a good use for all of the wood The Watershed Resources and Training Center has spent 10 years trying to gain better

access to the woods and finding uses for the small-diameter wood that comes off these

restoration projects. Through this experience Lynn Jungwirth, WRTC’s executive director, has

seen that, for any one component of the value-adding enterprises that it helps develop to be

profitable, all the harvested wood needs to have a productive use.

The schematic that follows illustrates how the wood travels through this system. WRTC does

not own each element. Rather, WRTC does a lot of research and development and pays for

prototypes and alpha testing. Then staff members assist local entrepreneurs who are ready

to take over businesses.

Material In Small-diameter trees Brush chips Hardwoods Small Diameter Utilization Facility Sources Fuels reduction Restoration forestry Plantation thins Private/public lands Hardwood mill Pole SORT YARD building kits

Small log To market processor Kiln Flooring Commercial logs Post and pole to local mills peeler Furniture

Electricity to Co-Generation yard and plant processors Steam, heat, and electricity to value-added center

Electricity to grid

Watershed Resources and Training Center—Fall 2004

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 92

PRural businessesOLI have specialC marketingY assistance needs Resources need to be dedicated to providing training to traditional small business service

providers, as well as to supporting new organizations that can offer the kind of marketing

assistance needed by CBF businesses. In the Demonstration Program, traditional service

providers either did not understand the special needs of rural businesses, or did not fully

understand the product flow associated with small-wood manufacturing. Healthy Forests,

Healthy Communities designed its technical assistance workshops to bridge this gap but felt

like the workshops achieved only mixed success.

Just as importantly, the CBO may be able because wood manufacturing jobs create to assess whether sustainable harvests and build new wealth. New value-adding can be maintained as demand increases. manufacturing jobs do much more than Rural Action took steps to provide root- just redistribute existing resources, such stock at a low price to local growers, so as federal and foundation dollars. One that landowners could increase their of Gila WoodNet’s goals was to get more yields of non-timber forest products, such local wood into building construction. as ginseng. Its staff assembled construction kits so that contractors would find it easier and In some instances, CBOs may negoti- cheaper to use local hardwood when ate with other players — such as public building porches. agencies or landowner associations — to gain access to forest resources on behalf Even so, product development can be of constituencies that might otherwise risky. The Watershed Resources and be excluded. Slow-moving U.S. Forest Training Center worked with a local Service procedures and legal appeals, business and the U.S. Forest Service for example, can delay harvesting, Forest Products Lab to develop a produc- leaving small businesses without a tion process for madrone veneer. By the reliable supply of wood. Public Lands time the process was ready, however, Partnership spearheaded a collabora- the prospective customer already had tive process that led to expanded local found an alternative through an overseas access to public lands and increased source. timber sales to local mills. Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities ■ Manufacturing/product development also recognized that its small business part- benefits when CBOs provide entrepre- ners often struggled with issues related neurs with better information, technical to their production capacity. Its staff assistance, and access to equipment and then organized workshops on produc- incubator facilities. Wallowa Resources tion techniques such as lean manu- works with community businesses facturing. When one HFHC partner

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 93

EXAMPLEMore than a matter of taste: Ecology and architecture An important part of Vermont Family Forests’ work has been its ongoing collaboration with

architects to suggest alternative wood specifications that are both aesthetically pleasing and

ecologically sustainable for Vermont’s forests.

The Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) ranks wood quality using such criteria as color,

grain pattern, and the presence and size of knots. AWI ranking requires uniformity of color

and grain pattern in Grade I wood, and allows more ”flaw” and “characteristics” in the wood

as the grade ranking increases.

Clear-grained, evenly colored wood, however, comes predominantly from large-diameter

trees, which have the most heartwood and the fewest knot-forming side branches. Removing

only large-diameter trees from a forest is called high-grading, a practice that has deprived

large tracts of Vermont’s forests of their largest, most vigorous members, leaving the

smaller, weaker trees behind. Over time, high grading undermines the vigor and health of

entire forest ecosystems.

There’s no denying that clear-grained, Grade I timber is structurally stronger than Grade II

or III wood. Not all of the wood procured for the recent construction of Middlebury College’s

new Bicentennial Hall, however, needed to be allocated for structural, load-bearing purposes.

Some of the wood simply needed to look beautiful.

Architects originally specified that 125,000 board feet of clear-grained red oak be

designated for Bicentennial Hall’s interior paneling. Because central Vermont’s forests could

not sustainably yield this wood, however, VFF recommended that the building showcase

seven hardwood species common to local forests. VFF also suggested using character-grade

wood.

Once College trustees and officials had a chance to see samples of the indigenous wood, the

beauty of its character was obvious — not just tolerable, but well worth featuring. The finished

(continued on next page)

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 94

(continued from preceding page)

Hall bears testament to that beauty, offering an unexpected, eye-pleasing streak of creamy

tan through the burnt sienna of cherry wood, a splash of chocolate staining the honey-

colored ash, a subtle palette of pastel variations in a wall of red maple.

Carpenters on the project, accustomed to handling Grade I lumber, initially were taken

aback by the variability in the character-grade lumber. However, Mark McElroy of Barr

and Barr, general contractors for Bicentennial Hall, said that attitudes soon changed as

carpenters got to know the wood. “By the end of the process, they realized that it takes a

better eye, more creativity, and a higher level of craftsmanship to make the most of the

wood,” he said. “And they came away with a sense of pride in what they had done.”

—Adapted from Vermont Family Forests’ website, www.familyforests.org

contracted with the workshop presenters In many instances, the CBO also can serve to visit his shop and analyze his produc- a brokering role, connecting entrepreneurs tion process, they were able to make with complementary business partners. suggestions that ultimately made his Because its parent organization, Sustainable production process twice as effective. Northwest, works on a regional level, HFHC is well positioned to hear about a possible ■ Small businesses, especially those located harvest and thus can link the landowner, a in remote, rural areas, often have dif- logging firm, a sawmill, and a value-adding ficulty with learning about and gaining manufacturer. To reach a scale of produc- access to distant markets. CBOs offer a tion that is of interest to sawmill operators, great service when they are able to help Vermont Family Forests coordinates timber make that connection. HFHC conducted harvests and sales on several member well-planned campaigns to educate woodlots. This brokering role appears to consumers about sustainably harvested provide greater income to the landowner at and value-added wood products. It also little cost to VFF. worked with rural businesses to help develop marketing materials designed LESSON 15 In order to build greater to appeal to urban markets. Currently, HFHC is establishing a brand identity economic resiliency for the community, that further will assist regional small busi- nonprofit CBOs took risks, mitigated nesses in taking their products to a wider risks for entrepreneurs, and structured market. investments that shared risks with the community.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 95

The risks involved with starting a business ■ The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition and with poor, rural, and/or marginalized people WRTC designed and built equipment for are substantial. These constituencies have better harvesting. limited access to credit and limited access to public or private lands. If they are to access ■ Vermont Family Forests Partnership and the opportunities and share the benefits HFHC networked businesses to others in of community-based forestry, communities their respective regions. must identify and attempt to mitigate the risks they face. ■ HFHC supported a flooring broker.

Across the Demonstration Program, CBOs Mitigating risks for the adopted various strategies related to risk. They took risks themselves, they mitigated entrepreneur risks for the entrepreneurs, and they shared ■ Almost all sites conducted demonstrations. risks among community members and stakeholders. Some strategies encompassed ■ WRTC built an incubator. all of these, while others touched just one. Consider the following examples: ■ WRTC purchased equipment and leased it by the hour. Taking risks themselves ■ To assist harvesters, WRTC bought their ■ Almost all sites conducted demonstra- licenses and paid for materials when they tions. brought them in.

■ Wallowa Resources formed a social enter- ■ HFHC offered extended terms for wood prise as a vehicle to fulfill the nonprofit’s until manufacturers had sold finished mission. product.

■ Wallowa Resources became a contract ■ HFHC connected entrepreneurs with administrator. service providers.

■ Watershed Resources and Training Center ■ VFFP and HFHC networked businesses to built an incubator. others in their respective regions.

■ WRTC purchased equipment and leased it by the hour. If poor, rural, and/or marginalized people are to access

■ To assist harvesters, WRTC bought their the opportunities and share the benefits of community- licenses and paid for materials when they brought them in. based forestry, communities must identify and attempt

■ Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities to mitigate the risks they face. offered extended terms for wood until manufacturers had sold finished product.

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 96

PDo nonprofitO enterprisesLIC enjoyY an unfair advantage? Some for-profit businesses may feel that demonstration projects and social

enterprise ventures are simply ways for nonprofits to enter the marketplace with an

unfair advantage.

Even though the Middlebury College demonstration projects generated profitable work

for many local businesses, Vermont Family Forests nonetheless encountered criticism that

charged unfair advantage. Had VFF been able to make its costs more transparent, perhaps

some of this criticism might have been tempered or avoided altogether. After all, in hindsight

it was plain that the demonstrations could not have succeeded had VFF not contributed an

enormous amount of staff time to the projects. At the time, however, these costs were not

completely clear to local businesses.

Following a lot of community discussion, Wallowa Resources bought into the existing Joseph

Timber Company, the only FSC-certified sawmill in the region. The business eventually

failed, but people in the community did not criticize the nonprofit. They understood that

Wallowa Resources was trying to create jobs in the community, and they understood why

the enterprise failed. This obviously speaks to the importance of timely communication and

operational transparency.

■ HFHC made referrals and gave leads. ■ HFHC ran a small grants program so businesses could develop prototypes and ■ HFHC supported a flooring broker. explore markets.

■ Sites near public lands led collaborative ■ All sites brought money into the commu- processes for restoration projects so com- nity from outside sources. munity members could gain access to the woods. ■ All sites designed workshops and trainings. ■ Sites near public lands designed restoration projects so local people could get ■ Most sites trained community members in work. forestry and business skills.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 97

Sharing risks among community irrelevant if community members cannot members and stakeholders easily make the connection between what they see and how they (with their limited ■ WRTC built an incubator. resources) might implement a similar project on their own property. ■ WRTC purchased equipment and leased it by the hour. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ Land Assistance Fund chose to run parallel ■ JBC and WRTC designed and built equip- demonstrations on its own land and with ment for better harvesting. local landowners. These parallel demonstrations assured community members that the ■ Sites near public lands led collaborative Federation was willing to place itself on their processes for restoration projects so com- level, assuming similar risks. As such, local munity members could gain access to the people were much more open to learning woods. from the Federation.

■ Sites near public lands designed restora- Vermont Family Forests ran demonstration projects so local people could get tions that included local businesses and work. landowners. In fact, over 30 individuals and businesses benefited from the Middlebury ■ All sites brought money into the commu- College projects. However, the projects were nity from outside sources. large enough — and went through enough changes along the way — that community members (and even Middlebury College) LESSON 16 Demonstration projects were not always sure about the costs at are an important way to test the viability each stage. This ambiguity left some people of a specific economic strategy, provided leery about who actually was receiving the they are conducted in ways that can be economic benefit. replicated by community members. Across the five-year tenure of the Demonstration projects can be important Demonstration Program, communities tools, albeit with certain caveats. learned there are some key questions to ask before initiating a demonstration project, in Community members can be skeptical about order to qualify whether or not the endeavor demonstration projects, especially if the is genuinely worthwhile. (See Checklist for demonstration appears to be designed more Demonstration Projects on the following for the benefit of the nonprofit than for the page.) community itself. They also are likely to be skeptical if they have questions about the knowledge and skill of the demonstrator. They are sure to be wary if the funds supporting the demonstration are not used transpar- ently, or if they don’t understand why some community members have been included in the demonstration while others were left out. Finally, demonstrations risk being deemed

Fostering Sustainable Economies Chapter 4 98

ChecklistTIP for Demonstration Projects ■ Does the product or service draw on the community’s history, traditions, skills, and assets?

■ Are community members interested in the project?

■ How will you let the community know about how your funds were used?

■ Will community members see this demonstration as something “people like us” can do?

■ Is it possible to run the demonstrations together with landowners and businesses?

■ By what standards will these partners be selected?

■ How will the process and the results be documented and disseminated?

■ What role will you play in supporting community members to follow-up and continue the

work based on your demonstration projects?

■ Does the demonstration have the potential secondary benefit of catalyzing networking

and information exchange among entrepreneurs?

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees CHAPTER Restoring and Maintaining 5 Forest Ecosystems 100

t the heart of community-based emphasis on forest restoration. These forest forestry, particularly in the restoration efforts are ongoing, long-term, A United States, lies a deeply felt and uniquely adapted to address the com- desire among landowners and the public plex needs of their specific environments. to take better care of the nation’s forests. Most are today just in their beginning In fact, as North America grows more stages. As such, their vision of comprehen- and more urbanized, this need to kindle sive, sustainable restoration will take many and practice a viable stewardship ethic is years to fulfill. becoming increasingly urgent and more important. Moreover, this approach to forest restoration represents a dramatic shift away from Stewardship embraces multiple, interrelated previous forest management models that goals. It is about caring for and healing the sought to achieve more immediate gains land, so that forests may thrive and provide through maximizing a sustained yield of the goods, services, and other benefits that just one high-value product — timber. CBF, people need. It is about protecting and on the other hand, seeks both to diversify restoring biological diversity so that native the sustainable uses of the forest — including plant and animal species can contribute non-timber forest products and ecotourism, to the overall well-being of forests. And it for example — and to ensure those products also is about pledging to pass along to and services are regarded primarily as the future generations restored and maintained byproducts of good forest management. As ecosystems. professional forester David Brynn, founder of Vermont Family Forests, likes to say, CBF As it has evolved among contemporary CBF seeks to harvest “what the forest is ready practitioners, this stewardship ethic most and willing to yield.” often focuses upon how best to implement an integrated, whole system approach to In the ecological component of community- ecosystem management, with a particular based forestry, then, communities enhance and restore forest ecosystems for the full range of social, ecological, and economic values. In so doing, stakeholders typically For me, CBF is fundamentally a humble approach. use science as a guide, but they also build “ We don’t necessarily know what the right answer upon and incorporate local knowledge into is, but we’re making efforts to understand how to their forest management practices. mitigate risks, learn from one another, and As they experiment with both old and new continually adapt approaches. As we are trying to approaches, however, CBF practitioners build support for CBF, we don’t want to close doors by would be the first to admit that they don’t have all the answers. If anything, they are giving the impression that everyone else the first to point out that CBF essentially has been wrong and we are right.” is about the ongoing need to learn and adapt — both to particular communities —CBF practitioner in particular locations, and over time, as Western United States communities go through cycles of action, reflection, and adaptation.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 101

Hands-on ecosystem management vs. no management at all A rigidly hands-off approach to forest management,

As significantly different as CBF may whatever its inherent popular appeal may be, be from timber management, generally ultimately presents a formidable challenge to speaking, its fundamental approach, which carefully balances the long-term needs of genuine forest restoration. forest ecosystems and human communities, nonetheless draws criticism from some traditional environmentalists, who may insist that To move beyond such limiting beliefs, CBF any sort of human intervention in the forest practitioners, some of whom started out as likely leads to destructive consequences. classic environmentalists themselves, seek From their perspective, forested ecosystems to educate themselves and others about are at their best only when one simply the natural history and cultural uses of their leaves the forest alone to take care of itself. local watershed. Understanding changes This “nature knows best” point of view in their local forest over time, they are bet- typically finds support among people who ter prepared to assess the effects of past have lived most of their lives in urban areas. forest management practices. Blending a And it sometimes gains strength in rural solid awareness of scientific information areas where there has been an influx of with local knowledge gained from a long- people moving away from crowded cities standing, intimate relationship with the and suburbs in order to live closer to what land, they become skilled at customizing they perceive as wilderness. Examples can hybrid strategies for actively restoring their be found throughout rural New England, forests as healthy, functioning ecosystems. where substantial tracts of land no longer Of course, no one group can accomplish all are actively managed. of this learning all by itself. Along the way, What people often do not realize, however, CBF practitioners do well to share their is that their apparently undisturbed parcel findings with a diverse mix of community of forestland or favorite wilderness area partners — including landowners, technical likely has been heavily impacted by past service providers, government officials, and management practices. The forest may even apparent adversaries. As Carol Daly, have become progressively vulnerable to a CBF practitioner who lives in Columbia invasive plants, blight, or fire. Native wildlife, Falls, Montana, has said, “One thing that too, may be dwindling, as its once resilient most people have in common is their con- habitat becomes less accommodating. cern for the land itself, however divergent As such, a rigidly “hands-off” approach to their views about managing its resources forest management, whatever its inherent may appear to be.” popular appeal may be, ultimately presents That’s indeed fortunate, because commu- a formidable challenge to genuine forest nity-based forestry demands that everyone restoration. be willing to learn together. CBF practitioners can help nudge everyone along the learning curve by carefully monitoring and documenting the outcomes that their

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 102

much greater awareness — or perhaps, urgency — about the need for holistic eco- CBF practitioners who own their land and those who system restoration. work on public lands may have somewhat different Even so, subtle but real differences exist priorities, but both are likely to seek a more between the CBF perspective and the strong emphasis public agencies place comprehensive, holistic approach than public agencies. upon fire prevention, including fuels reduction. Fuels reduction is critical to restoring the forest, but other investments also are projects accomplish in the ecosystem. In most needed. Communities often advocate for cases, few are likely to argue when they see more comprehensive forest treatments, positive results. CBF depends therefore upon but typically to little avail. In fact, they a widely accessible, ongoing education generally have to secure outside sources effort — as well as a host of other factors, of funding — beyond what is available from most requiring significant investment of time the U.S. Forest Service — to make any sort and skills, such as utilizing selective harvest- of forest restoration possible, beyond just ing, controlling invasive plants, reforesting what can be achieved through fuels reduc- with underrepresented species, and reducing tion projects. the threat of fire, among others. These limitations ought not imply that public agencies aren’t evolving and changing. In Restoration on private actual fact, they are. Although some public and public lands agency employees still focus exclusively on timber management, increasingly there are Low-income landowners often need a more and more who want to help restore steady flow of income to pay the taxes or healthy ecosystems. Even so, while common management expenses required to retain ground with CBF advocates can be found in ownership of their properties. Because “cleaning up the damage,” the underlying they typically have off-farm employment challenge will be to move from restoration and other sources of income, the actual to longer-term adaptive management and revenues they need to generate from their stewardship. forest holdings may be quite modest. Nonetheless this income is essential for both land retention and sustaining the integrity The emergence of civic science of their local community. And while CBF may give the edge in such situations to Fortunately, across multiple dimensions revenue over restoration, it still represents a of practice, the formerly dominant timber significant shift away from the priority that management paradigm is giving way to an timber management places upon wholesale emerging, alternative approach that favors commodity resource production. greater collaboration in the objectives of resources management, the structure of CBF practitioners working on public lands, decision making, and the actual work on the such as the forests managed by the U.S. ground. Forest Service, appear to demonstrate

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 103

As the paradigm shifts, so, too, must the and sustainable management happen practice of science. As this report has noted, as a result of CBF? And second, did this CBF practitioners are blending scientific management lead to healthier ecosystems? approaches with the local and experiential knowledge that often is embedded in a com- As highlighted in the sections that follow, munity’s cultural traditions. Communities, the answer to the first question is a defini- too, are embracing adaptive learning tive yes. On both public and private lands, and management — i.e., ongoing, iterative more active management and restoration processes of planning, implementing, moni- are taking place than if CBF had not toring outcomes, and making adjustments been implemented. On public lands, the based on what has been learned — so that collaborative and participatory processes they can move forward even in the face of characteristic of CBF have been able to uncertainty. lay a foundation for new and enhanced forest restoration efforts, often avoiding Civic science recognizes the importance of litigation and leveraging additional financial engaging local practitioners. It insists that resources and expertise. On private lands, complex development challenges require landowners enjoyed increased access to a careful interdisciplinary assessment of information, management strategies, techni- possible solutions. This type of research and cal assistance, and funding. A significant analysis involves well-placed stakeholder number of these landowners went on to committees who incorporate and integrate implement best management practices. community perspectives and goals as they advise all assessment actions. It is an approach, says Ajit Krishnaswamy of the On both public and private lands, CBF has National Network of Forest Practitioners, that effectively counters a deeply entrenched resulted in more active management and restoration. tendency for communities to rely primarily upon specialists and outside experts to Whether that has led to healthier ecosystems is more assess their own needs. Communities initially difficult to ascertain over this short a time. may need technical assistance and facilitation to help them seek out answers, but, as a general rule, they already know the questions that are important to them. The answer to the second question is more complicated and difficult (if not impossible) to answer over the limited time span of the Does CBF make a Demonstration Program. Given the shift to genuine difference? what are presumed to be more integrated and sustainable practices, it is likely that In order to assess whether community-based the ecosystems are healthier. On public forestry, as implemented by the sites partici- lands, the shift away from focusing solely on pating in the National CBF Demonstration resource extraction to including forest resto- Program, resulted in more sustainable ration activities probably is leading to health- solutions, two fundamental questions must ier forests. Only a few of the demonstration be asked. First, did more forest restoration sites were able to put monitoring programs in place that satisfactorily could answer this

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 104

question. In practice, monitoring is labor- riparian species has improved. Critical to intensive, expensive, and takes a long time. long-term impact, WRTC and others are Five-to-six years is a relatively short period changing the conversation from extraction to see significant change. Nonetheless, to restoration and ecosystem health. the monitoring that did occur showed the CBF practices that were implemented are ■ By bringing diverse interests to the beginning to have a positive impact. table —particularly local-, regional-, and state-level environmental groups — the Public Lands Partnership (PLP) in western Colorado has been able to move forward Because of the collaboration and bringing a number of ecosystem restoration different“ expertise and the agencies in, and working projects on both U.S. Forest Service and as a team, we’re getting better results on the land. Bureau of Land Management lands. More treatments are done in a better way and more As of January 2005, for example, the people are seeing them and are willing to change Uncompahgre Plateau Project had imple- strategies if the monitoring shows it works better” mented habitat restoration treatments over more than 3,000 acres of publicly —Dave Kaufman managed land. PLP is a key player in that Bureau of Land Management, west central Colorado project, representing both local communities and other interests. With its support, the agencies have developed and implemented a habitat mosaic model that more fully describes the dynamic, com- Impacts plex patterns of bioresources and ecological niches within any given geographical Across the breadth and scope of the National area. All the ecosystem treatments of the CBF Demonstration Program, significant Uncompahgre Plateau Project are deter- impacts toward restoring the integrity and mined by this model, regardless of public sustainability of forest ecosystems have lands jurisdictional boundaries. been documented on public, private, and tribal lands. ■ PLP also established multiparty monitoring protocols at both Burn Canyon and Restoring public lands the Western Area Power Administration power line restoration sites, both of which ■ As of July 2004, the Watershed Research had favorable outcomes, allowing restora- and Training Center in northern California tion treatments to go forward. Following a had treated over 1,500 acres on public field trip to Sims Mesa, which included all land for fuels reduction and 100 acres on interested parties, the participants agreed private land. WRTC also completed the not to appeal the Categorical Exclusion Trinity County Fire Plan, as well as plan- provision. As a result, the U.S. Forest ning for fuels reduction on an additional Service was able to implement the pro- 3,000 acres in the Post Mountain Road posed habitat restoration project. Today, system. Monitoring of these areas shows there is consensus that the treatment was that habitat for old-growth forest and both appropriate and effective.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 105

■ Although the U.S. Forest Service’s fund- restored. This U.S. Forest Service program ing priorities largely have shifted from is only available in New Mexico, and it timber extraction to fire prevention and may not be continued. Multiparty moni- fire fighting, Wallowa Resources still has toring is underway with steps being taken been able to leverage money and carry to ensure this work can be integrated at out several substantial on-the-ground res- the broader landscape level. For example, toration projects. Local residents involved the extent to which and how the Mill in these collaborative projects have Project site affects adjacent areas will be demonstrated they are motivated to do a examined. good job in the woods. Monitoring shows they have completed thinning and forest ■ The Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities restoration with minimum impacts on soil partnership works with its 40 member compaction. businesses to monitor the sources of the wood they use and to find buyers for With facilitation by Wallowa Resources in wood harvested from eight different res- northeastern Oregon, a communitywide toration sites.11 HFHC assisted nine enter- planning process sponsored by the County prises to get chain-of-custody certification Commissioners made it possible for widely from the Forest Stewardship Council. divergent interests to come together and find common ground. Watershed Stewardship Principles jointly developed by the community, environmental groups If we didn’t have Wallowa Resources, (the Nature Conservancy, Hell’s Canyon we wouldn’t have a forest restoration program.” Preservation Council, and Defenders of “ Wildlife), and the U.S. Forest Service are —Ken Bronec now in place. Building upon this founda- U.S. Forest Service, northeastern Oregon tion, restoration work in the national forests is moving ahead, where it previously had been appealed and stopped. For example, the 47,000-acre Spooner Vegetation and Road Project — including Educating landowners aspen restoration, prescribed burning, and implementing road decommissioning and maintenance, best management practices and non-commercial thinning — was released as a stewardship contract. ■ Vermont Family Forests successfully promoted the message that it is possible to ■ The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition in manage a healthy forest whether or not New Mexico secured the 1,400-acre Mill one chooses to cut wood from it. Today, Project site after two years of endless over 8,064 forested acres are protected meetings, delays in completing the NEPA under VFF management standards, which requirements, and other contractual and include a careful monitoring and Forest bureaucratic hurdles. A Collaborative Forest Restoration Program grant finally enabled JBC to implement the project. 11 See Appendix B and the CD accompanying this book As of October 2004, 80 acres have been for the tool that HFHC uses to keep track of sustainably sourced wood.

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 106

Stewardship Council certification process. knowledge of sustainable forestry options. Where such plans are implemented, The Lowcountry Landowners Association, erosion and sedimentation have been which has about 50 members, has been measurably reduced, leading to improved involved in many of these events. Several water quality. Moreover, an additional members have planted long-leaf pine, 183,074 acres in Vermont are FSC-certi- a native species typically absent from fied, largely thanks to VFF’s partner, today’s ecosystem. They anticipate har- Northeast Resource Center/National vesting pine straw that can be used as Wildlife Federation. mulch by professional landscapers.

■ North Quabbin Woods in Massachusetts sponsored 18 workshops and tours for Significant impacts toward restoring the integrity landowners, drawing a total of 249 participants. Six of the 18 participants in the and sustainability of forest ecosystems have been “Coverts Workshop” jointly sponsored by documented on public, private, and tribal lands. NQW and the Massachusetts Extension Service have taken their newly acquired knowledge of the local ecosystem and, with support from NQW, sponsored their ■ Over 550 participants have visited dem- own workshops and projects in local onstration sites or attended workshops neighborhoods. sponsored and co-sponsored by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ ■ With assistance from D.C. Greenworks, Land Assistance Fund in Alabama and inner-city residents in Washington, D.C., Mississippi to increase awareness about have planted more than 160 street trees. forestland management options and Ninety-nine percent of these trees are practices. Sixty percent of the landowners still living and being cared for today. involved in the Federation’s meat goat Moreover, 300 participants in the D.C. program are implementing new best man- TreeKeepers program have adopted an agement practices on their lands, includ- additional 100 trees. D.C. Greenworks ing cultivating meat goats as an alterna- has presented 36 TreeCare Workshops, tive to using herbicides to suppress weeds. helped community members build five Twelve landowners, with the Federation’s rain gardens, and constructed green- assistance, have received government roofs that taken together would cover support to implement improved forest almost 4,000 square feet. Moreover, as management practices, including develop- of February 2005, D.C. Greenworks had ing a management plan. Hunters recently secured contracts to build additional have noted that local wildlife populations, greenroofs totaling 2,500 square feet. including some thought to be dwindling, appear to be returning to forest areas that ■ With assistance from Rural Action in are under improved management. Appalachian Ohio, landowners are investing in their forests by reintroducing non- ■ In South Carolina, Penn Center has held timber forest products and implementing numerous workshops and demonstra- ecosystem improvement activities, often tion projects to build awareness and guided by forest management plans. They have planted over 700 pounds of ginseng

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 107

EXAMPLETrees forestall a loss of open space in Washington, D.C. A neighborhood group planted 25 trees in a schoolyard in the Shaw neighborhood,

accompanying other neighborhood improvements and a rise in property values. Later, a

developer came in and offered to build a new school for free, provided the neighborhood

agreed to deed over half of the school property so that he could build condos. The neighbors

protested and thus protected the open greenspace as a community resource. The trees today

stand as a symbol of the community’s ownership and commitment to be good stewards of

that open space. Recently, the same developer proposed moving the children’s playground

to the roof of the school, hoping yet again to make room for his condos. Once more, protests

by local residents successfully prevented this transfer of property from taking place.

seed as well as thousands of goldenseal a thorough inventory of the commercially and black cohosh roots. They increasingly viable NTFPs found on its reservation, recognize the threat of exotic invasives sketching them across one layer on GIS and therefore are seeking and implement- forest maps. These maps will serve as a ing solutions. Well over 2,000 people basis for the tribe’s overall forest manage- have participated in one or more of the ment decisions. educational activities sponsored by Rural Action’s forestry program. ■ The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters supported 25 community- based organizing projects designed to Changing forest management enable localized small-scale projects led policy on tribal lands by communities of place and/or interest. Outcomes included: 1) mushroom har- ■ The Makah Tribe in northwest Washington vesters use less destructive tools in central State has begun to integrate non-timber and southwest Oregon; 2) there is less forest products as part of its efforts to poaching and illegal harvest on public land implement more holistic forest manage- in the Klamath River corridor; 3) forestry ment. For the first time, the Makah Tribe practitioners and workers consider ecosys- plans to include NTFPs in its next 10-year tem restoration and traditional ecological Forest Management Plan. As a result knowledge when performing thinning of interactions with the National CBF and restoration contracts; and 4) there Demonstration Program, the tribal fish- is less violence in the woods, thanks to eries department already includes NTFPs cross- cultural communication, both at the in its restoration work on the reserva- harvest sites and in the communities from tion, and the tribal forestry department which the harvesters come. nursery is propagating NTFPs to assist in that effort. The tribe recently completed

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 108

Lessons In fact, there are many ways to know and understand a landscape. Longtime commu- This section offers lessons about ecosystem nity residents often possess deep knowledge monitoring, tools and approaches for pro- based on historic interactions, personal moting forest restoration and ecologically observations, and practical on-the-ground sound practices, and taking projects to a learning. Civic science, therefore, requires landscape scale. community practitioners to create mutual learning systems that involve local people and respect their local and experiential Ecosystem monitoring understanding.

A key component of Rural Action’s work in LESSON 1 It is critical to monitor the southeastern Ohio is ensuring that local ecological conditions of the forest and knowledge is heard and fully integrated into use that information for management community decision making. A recent meet- decisions. This requires ongoing ing between scientists, agency personnel, investment and the full engagement of and local landowners is one example. “The the community. scientists were surprised at how many of us attended and how much we knew,” remarked Community-based forestry goes beyond one participant. A key to the meeting’s purely science-driven forest management success was that all the participants’ approaches. Too often the science is various realms of expertise were recognized conflicting and perceived as interest-based. and viewed as valuable. Such an inclusive Experience demonstrates that integrating approach stands in stark comparison established scientific approaches with local to many other rural communities where knowledge can lead to a more robust under- longtime residents continue to struggle for standing of resources and ecosystems within recognition of their local knowledge. the local context. Rural Action also has engaged a few herb growers as researchers. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education It was a strategic decision to focus on (SARE) “producer grant,” funded by the “non-timber forest products. It was an area U.S. Department of Agriculture and the where the community had expertise and the Environmental Protection Agency, provided interest to develop more. They were further along funds for growers to run rigorous field tests on their land and to collect and analyze the than the agency and other official folks. data. These and other efforts are working The scientists would have to listen to the community.” to shift forestry practices from relying solely upon so-called “experts” to developing and —Colin Donohue, director of conservation-based development relying more upon local expertise. Rural Action, southeast Ohio The Alliance of Forest Workers and Har vesters and its partners supported mush room harvesters to conduct monitoring of the harvests, practices, and biophysical aspects of the mushroom-producing sites. This low-cost

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 109

approach is empowering of the monitors and harvesters, as they are trusted by their communities and able to represent Investing in methodology their concerns to the U.S. Forest Service. POLICY Additional effort is needed to collaborate There is a need for more cost-effective, with the Forest Service staff so that they easy-to-implement methodologies acknowledge, value, and support the mushroom monitors and the data they are to increase understanding of long- collecting. term impacts of agency and other

A major challenge in helping public agencies organizations’ actions on the ecosystem. (which long have focused on resource pro- Investment is needed for developing and duction) shift to a forest restoration ecology implementing these protocols, as well as model is that baseline scientific information often doesn’t exist at the community level, for ensuring the results are acceptable although a considerable amount of effort to all parties, especially the science and has been invested into research for timber research establishment. management. In an effort to broaden everyone’s perspectives, some of the demonstration sites brought in federal landscape ecologists to learn about their forests using Research also suggests that while monitor- a holistic ecosystem approach. Regrettably, ing is an essential first step to establishing the transaction costs for this sort of learning, long-term adaptive management, it is not as with any research, are significant and it complete in itself. CBF practitioners also is difficult at best for communities to secure must create appropriate reporting mecha- these large amounts of funds. Public Lands nisms and processes that, as the need Partnership, for example, spent $55,000 to arises, can promptly devise and implement pull together baseline data and GIS infor- corrective strategies. mation about their region. As a concept, all-party or multiparty moni toring is sound. The reality, as the LESSON 2 Invest in community-based Demonstration Program discovered, multiparty monitoring. appears somewhat more problematic. The trust-building potential of multiparty moni- Working together to monitor restoration toring tends to break down, for example, projects allows stakeholders with diverse when only a few interests are involved. interests to have equal access to informa- Many of the demonstration sites also tion and thus to participate more equitably discovered there is rarely such a thing as in shared decision making about the forest. “absolute science” upon which everyone can Moreover, multiparty monitoring actually agree. Each interest group, at least at the provides a face-to-face opportunity for them outset, likely prefers to rely upon their own to find common ground. As stakeholders scientists and their own data. gather data, they build working relationships. In that process, they are more likely to To resolve this tension among competing discover zones of agreement where they can points of view, many sites elected to take support one another. people into the woods. There, they could see

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 110

EXAMPLEMultiparty monitoring in Burn Canyon, Colorado In Summer 2002, roaring forest fires swept through much of Colorado, including the Grand

Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). By the following spring, the

U.S. Forest Service had proposed salvage timber sales on the GMUG as part of its plan to

restore the forest’s burned areas.

Realizing that leadership and timing were critical, the Public Lands Partnership invited

all concerned parties on a field trip to the GMUG to view the proposed salvage logging

sites. During this site visit, representatives of diverse groups—including national, state, and

local environmental organizations, the timber industry, U.S. Forest Service personnel, and

PLP members—were able to get to know one another and find common ground. Instead of

moving forward with legal appeals, these stakeholders agreed to participate in long-term

monitoring of the ecological and economic impacts of the salvage logging effort on the

forest and on the local community.

The willingness of national and state environmental groups to participate in the field trip

and talk over their concerns was essential to launching the project. While no one knows

for sure, some hypothesize that the presence within the PLP of local environmentalists, who

assured the state and national groups that they would be respected and listened to, paved

the way for their participation. The timber sale of approximately four million board feet went

forward successfully, and the U.S. Forest Service awarded contracts to two locally owned

and operated sawmills, providing them with paid work for several years. In addition to these

significant economic benefits, it is hypothesized that the removal of salvaged wood also will

benefit the health of the forest in the long run.

To coordinate multiparty monitoring, local stakeholders established the Burn Canyon

Workgroup, co-chaired by Art Goodtimes, a respected county commissioner and

environmental advocate. The Workgroup includes community members and representatives

of local and state environmental groups, the timber industry, and the U.S. Forest Service. It

is looking at a range of socioeconomic impacts, including the benefits (jobs, products, and

local economic outcomes) and costs of fire containment, suppression, and rehabilitation.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 111

(continued)

The Workgroup has decided upon its indicators and protocols. It also is sponsoring a

professionally accredited curriculum-training program for high school science teachers,

as a means of involving faculty and students to help collect data over the years to come.

The Workgroup also will ensure that monitoring results are disseminated throughout the

community through workshops, signboards, and other distribution outlets. This outreach

effort further provides a mechanism for community members to contribute local knowledge

and data to the sustainable management of public lands.

for themselves what had been done, as well shared process inevitably leads to a much as the effects that project work was having clearer understanding of what all of the part- over time. Moreover, as they trekked about ners are trying to accomplish. It also can help the terrain, observing and discussing, diverse all concerned parties to identify and discuss interests began to find common ground. whatever assumptions are being made.

Out in the woods, many stakeholders realize It is essential that multiparty monitoring that formal science is not the only criteria does not stop with data collection. Collab- for making good management decisions. In orative data analysis and interpre tation are actual practice, the complexity of implement- critical to ensuring that all parties are on ing “pure science” is beyond the capabilities the same page and able to see each other’s and requirements of most collaborative perspectives before making land manage- groups. In fact, as one-time adversaries ment decisions. It also is important that the become newfound allies, they often are results of any monitoring process are shared willing to give less weight to their previously with the broader community through meet- held beliefs and opinions, however well sup- ings, newspaper articles, and other public ported by their preferred brand of scientific communications. data. This does not mean that CBF advocates “sloppy science.” Rather, it asks collabora- Collaborative groups also need to consider tive groups to design and blend alternative how their monitoring efforts will be sustained indicators and monitoring methods. over the long term. Schools and teachers, for example, can engage youth in ecosystem While there are well-established guidelines for monitoring as part of their education. multiparty monitoring, it is critically important Involving young people in civic science-based to build knowledge and skills in understand- activities can help ensure that monitoring ing ecosystem processes before one begins efforts are carried out over the long term. the complex task of ecosystem monitoring. It is also an essential prerequisite to jointly Citizen involvement in monitoring is develop indicators and legitimize them essential to long-term success, but it is among all of the monitoring partners. This certainly not cost-free. Too often, community

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 112

stakeholders are asked to invest hundreds of within their forests. Historically, they rarely hours of volunteer time, while agency staff had viewed forestlands as an integrated and other special interests are able to stay system to be managed for the long term. In involved as part of their employment. Even fact, many referred to their forestlands as modest remuneration for dedicated com- their “bank account.” They either cultivated munity volunteers can go a long way toward loblolly pine as an eight- to ten-year mono- establishing a level playing field. crop, or they simply left the forest alone until such time that they needed an influx of cash. It had never been difficult to find log- Tools and approaches for gers willing to pay a flat fee for all of their promoting forest restoration and timber — especially since the sale price often ecologically sound practices was well below market value.

Federation staff sought to identify and LESSON 3 Make stewardship relevant explore options that would both respond to to the everyday lives of landowners and landowners’ short-term needs and contrib- other community stakeholders. ute to longer-term forest sustainability. They determined that raising meat goats could Some communities, while very committed do just that. Grazing goats in the forest to maintaining the ecological viability and understory permits landowners to control productivity of the land for the long term, weeds without resorting to expensive, are not willing to give immediate attention damaging pesticides. Selling the increas- to engaging in ecosystem management. In ingly popular goat meat provides an income the short term, they face far more pressing supplement large enough to pay taxes and needs. retain their land.

For limited resource landowners working Accordingly, goat production quickly became with the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ the platform from which the Federation could Land Assistance Fund, earning enough rev- advocate for broader forest management. enue to retain ownership of their land was The Federation even reframed its ongoing far more critical than increasing biodiversity work as land and forest management for goat production, as opposed to ecosystem management, because this approach speaks the language that landowners are most Forest ecology and ecological change interested in, tying stewardship directly to the are important“ pieces of the work, but when you just economic benefits. talk about trees, it’s hard to get people to come out. The Federation provided education — through Goats and the income they generate are workshops, demonstration programs, and the organizational center for other topics.” direct technical assistance — on ecosystem management, economic opportunities, and —Amadou Diop, director estate planning, among other topics. In Forestry Program, Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ many cases, the Federation was the only local entity providing training in ecosystem Land Assistance Fund, Alabama stewardship skills in a relevant way and in language landowners can understand.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 113

D.C. Greenworks also connects environ- groups — sometimes miss this point entirely. In mental activism to what people care about. this light, community-based monitoring, as a Their inner-city audience may not lose sleep context-based management approach, may worrying about the Amazon rainforest, but be one of the only alternatives that ultimately most care deeply about the neighborhoods benefit both the health of the forest and the where they live. They definitely want the tree community. CBF advocates who understand in front of their house to look healthy. D.C. the value of biodiversity across the landscape Greenworks makes ecosystem management will do well to foster diverse management relevant and accessible to urban residents and evaluation approaches as they scale-up by using language and metaphors that are their own ecosystem restoration efforts. familiar to them. They provide templates and pictures that people can use to custom- design neighborhood tree plantings or Within the existing regulatory framework of choose specific trees, shrubs, and flowers. They encourage each person to contribute “public land grazing, what makes the system work suggestions and then bring everyone’s is the relationship built between people on the ideas together to complete the design. In ground. Through open and direct communication, so doing, D.C. Greenworks promotes more than tree planting; they are fostering a understanding is reached about how best to achieve culture of stewardship. improved range conditions and herd production. Without this on-the-ground relationship, LESSON 4 Foster diverse, formal rules and guidelines—even if well intended— site-specific approaches to local seem inflexible and are resented.” ecosystem management.

—Public Lands Partnership Living History Project One size definitely does not fit all. Is there West central Colorado a place, then, for developing a set of standards or guidelines for implementing and evaluating community-based ecosystem management? LESSON 5 Before seeking to CBF practitioners have yet to come to any persuade landowners that stewardship, firm agreement about whether such stan- including cutting down trees, is a dards would ultimately prove useful. Even so, most natural resource management good idea, demonstrate first that it can decisions must address unique and complex be done efficiently and well. ecological and social conditions as they Then they’ll gain the trust to already exist — on the ground, in specific loca- comprehensively manage their land. tions. As such, overarching scientific principles, broad-brush policies, and even best Public and private landowners manage their practices cannot be applied unilaterally. land for a variety of reasons — to provide habitat for wildlife, to maintain open space, National organizations — whether govern- to preserve biodiversity and ecological ment agencies that manage public lands, processes, and, finally, to earn income. the timber industry, or environmental Landowners who do not require income

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 114

with each action — to develop site-specific best practices. Accordingly, the New England The Professional Development Program was Forestry Foundation found it useful to offer a “a great way to get the information and messages broad range of workshops that appealed to regarding NTFPs into the hands of the professional the multiple objectives held by landowners. foresters. It also had the secondary benefit of building LESSON 6 Leverage the extension respect for Rural Action and forging relationships and and technical resources available partnership that will last into the future.” through universities and government to promote and support community-based —Dave Schatz, retired service forester forestry, even though it likely will be Forestry Action Board, Rural Action, necessary first to provide them with new southeast Ohio information and effective tools.

One strategy for multiplying the impact of from the sale of their wood typically will not community-based forestry is to engage both harvest unless they trust that logging will be state and private forestry professionals. done sustainably. In Vermont, David Brynn, The inherent challenge, however, given who is both the Addison County Forester the newness of the CBF approach, is that and one of the founders of Vermont Family these service providers will interpret this Forests, is well known within the community new information as a challenge and threat for his integrity and high-quality forest to their existing position in the community. management skills. His sterling repu tation Some may question whether CBF partisans greatly helped VFF in recruiting land owners are in fact expressing a lack of confidence to develop management plans that included in the forester’s existing approach. In fact, the cutting of trees.12 any change is difficult. CBF practitioners can help everyone along the learning curve On private lands, landowners rarely have all by good-naturedly sharing information and the skills necessary to put together a thor- demonstrating a patient, inclusive attitude ough Forest Management Plan that can be toward such partnerships. implemented in its totality over time. Instead, they tend to pick up scraps of information Rural Action, operating in southeastern here and there, implementing the strategies Appalachian Ohio, pursued several avenues that make the most sense to them. They take for ensuring that non-timber forest products inspiration from what has worked locally and such as ginseng, goldenseal, and other try out bits and pieces of those plans on their herbs became one of the options offered own land. If bottom-line economics is not by professional foresters and the state the most important driver, they will embrace extension service. By implementing the adaptive management — which views every NTFP Professional Development Program management action as an experiment and for both state and private forestry profes- acknowledges the uncertainty associated sionals, Rural Action leveraged the outreach capacity of these agencies and individuals to increase the awareness and practice of

12 VFF’s Forest Management Checklist is included on the growing NTFPs. CD that accompanies this report (see Appendix B).

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 115

Rural Action also has partnered with Ohio financial support to Cornerstone, a network State University Extension Service on a num- of large Vermont institutions, that devel- ber of activities, all of which have increased oped purchasing procedures for procuring the Extension’s understanding and commit- Vermont-certified wood products. The goal ment to NTFPs. As one consulting forester was to have people consider buying in-state notes, “Extension laughed in 1997. Now they certified wood first and having procedures are writing and distributing fact sheets.” that made those purchases easy to accomplish. When the Vermont Law School used The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters these procedures to procure wood products, collaborated with other practitioners to facil i- nine additional manufacturing shops chose tate cross-sector exchange of information and to join Vermont WoodNet’s FSC group cer- approaches to restoration forestry. The train- tificate in order to supply certified wood. ing included professional foresters, agency resource managers, forest workers, Native Americans, contractors, and community- Things have changed at the S.C. Forestry based groups. Everyone learned something new and gained greater understanding of “Commission, U.S. Forest Service, and Clemson the other perspectives. Extension Service. Joint workshops with service providers and landowners, facilitated by Penn Center Another significant challenge in leveraging public extension and other technical staff, have helped to build capacity, whether among resources is their dependence on state the resource providers, who learned a lot about how and federal budgets. The past few years to work with a previously underserved clientele, or have seen cutbacks in everyone’s budgets. Within the Alabama Forestry Commission, among the landowners themselves.” for example, two of the four outreach forester positions targeted to work with —Barbara Edwards, consultant to Penn Center underserved landowners in the state have St. Helena Island, South Carolina remained vacant due to budget constraints. Consequently, building resilient communities with secure access to resource management information requires reaching beyond state Restoration on federal lands is more and federal resources. Communities must economically viable if manufacturers and enhance skills at the local level, as well as jobs are located in local areas near where help build the peer-to-peer networks and the restoration work is done. Since many associations needed to support landowners. of these manufacturers are quite small, it can be hard for them to connect with the restoration work that will be taking place. LESSON 7 Economic opportunity and Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities has market positioning can be effective made those connections and found buyers tools for encouraging and rewarding for wood that is sourced from eight restora- sustainable forest management. tion projects.

Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, one of the partners in the Vermont Family Forests Partnership, provided technical and

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5 116

Taking projects Wallowa Resources found that small-scale to a landscape scale demonstration projects were key to making their community’s long-term vision a reality. Through those projects, it discovered nearly LESSON 8 Design, test, and learn from everyone held — but had not previously small-scale projects before moving up to acknowledged — hidden assumptions and the watershed or landscape level. differing perspectives. The demonstration projects made it possible to feel, touch, and A smaller-scale approach allows stakeholders look more closely at what genuinely would and practitioners more opportunities to find be required to accomplish their community common ground and to learn together about vision. Without those small-scale projects, good science and best practices. Indeed, participants believed there would have been sustainable ecosystem management takes a lot more conflict down the road. place within a social process where multiple interests and perspectives must be negoti- In almost every situation, Wallowa ated. Cultivating that shared understanding, Resources has learned, it is important to trust, and creative adaptability is best pur- start at a smaller scale. The Community sued first at smaller scale. Once success has Planning Process, for example, originally been accomplished at that level, it should had been designed to encompass the be easier to move on to tackle and work entire county. This proved to be too big an through larger issues at the landscape level. area for participants to work on effectively, However, it is only easier if the time is taken raising too many points of conflict all at to learn from the smaller-scale approaches once. Instead, the collaborative group in and design appropriate methods, based on Wallowa County scaled back and chose to that learning, for managing at the larger work instead with the Upper Joseph Creek scale. Finally, starting at a smaller scale also watershed. lessens the risk for all involved. In northern California, Watershed Resource and Training Center staff and partners helped develop Hayfork’s community fire A smaller-scale approach allows stakeholders plan. Following meetings with residents, and practitioners more opportunities to absentee landowners, the fire department, and the road supervisor, WRTC was able find common ground and to learn together about to facilitate a widely accepted community fire plan for Post Mountain. The community good science and best practices. looked first at the wild-urban interface where local residents easily could get involved. By starting with what needed to be The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition, for treated first — the ridgelines and the perim- example, found that it was more success- eter areas around towns — WRTC was able ful to begin with managing a single tree to build support for a broader approach species — the ponderosa pine — where there to land management. Not a lot of acreage was already agreement about the science. It initially was treated, but it was the right can be far more difficult to build trust when acreage. conflict is present right from the start.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 117

LESSON 9 Ecologically significant restoration projects require CBF Community-based organizations practitioners to work effectively with multiple types of land ownership. can help bring together private

landowners and public land Fearing increased regulation and other interventions, private landowners may be managers to address landscape reluctant to share information about the state of their land and resources with public effects and data that can be agencies and other groups. Even so, without their participation, it can be impossible to very difficult to collect and manage the land and its forest resources as consolidate. a continuous ecosystem.

With support from the County Commis- sioners and other local partners, Wallowa Community-based organizations can help Resources slowly has earned the trust bring together private landowners and required to work with these independent public land managers to address landscape land managers. Wallowa Resources takes effects and data that can be very difficult their concerns to heart, advising them when to collect and consolidate. To protect the it is in their best interest to collaborate. private landowners’ confidentiality, Wallowa As a result, over 100 landowners in both Resources has elected to present any data Wallowa and Baker counties participated in that it gathers only as an aggregate. To community projects ranging from fire reduc- affirm that pledge, the organization worked tion and aspen restoration to manufacturing with Oregon State University’s Extension small-diameter wood products. Service to develop and maintain a confidentiality agreement with each landowner. Without these successful partnerships across diverse ownerships, people likely would make assumptions about the cumula- tive effects of ecosystem management efforts that might not be sound. Moreover, flawed data inevitably would serve to limit the restoration opportunities within any particular area.

Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems Chapter 5

CHAPTER Collaborating 6 for CBF Action 120

ollaboration lies at the very In the 1990s, responding to former core of the community-based President Clinton’s Forest Plan, some rural C forestry approach. It’s what gets communities organized collaborative the work done. dialogues for the purpose of encouraging civic debate and collaboration, resolving In fact, CBF’s ability to bridge seemingly conflicts, and addressing issues before they intractable differences among stakeholders escalated. The U.S. Forest Service funded and forge innovative, productive new collab- redevelopment strategies that required orative partnerships has been perhaps the collaboration and communication (i.e., the strongest impetus for its recent emergence Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative in the United States. and the Jobs-in-the-Woods programs). Over time, these dialogues helped to set the table CBF first took root in the western United for the emerging CBF movement. States, where much of the land is publicly owned. In the early 1990s, when the More than a decade later, CBF has helped federal government decided to greatly to heal some of the divisiveness that exists curtail logging in many coastal forests in across the United States regarding forest the West, whole communities suddenly management issues on federal lands. It found themselves without their traditional also has helped to create landscape-scale livelihood. Inevitably, they questioned what approaches to managing forests on private their future would be. They also found them- lands. Just as importantly, communities more selves at the center of conflict and deep widely are using collaborative approaches divisiveness among various natural resource to redefine the economic benefits from the stake holders — environmentalists, loggers, forests, as well as to widen the circle of stake- ranchers, public land management agen- holders who have access to these benefits. cies, and virtually everyone in-between. On privately owned forestlands, collaboration has become an essential means for landowners to gain economies of scale, especially I get very frustrated being in terms of producing various types of forest whipsawed“ between the users of forests products. In fact, it is virtually impossible to who want to use it for economic purposes practice watershed-scale ecosystem manage- and the recreational users of the forest, ment unless private landowners actually do collaborate. Collaboration also is recognized and the environmentalists on the other side. as a means for matching technical assistance The only way you can get rational providers and funders with communities public policy in an area like the forest to whom they otherwise might not have access. It can be used to leverage additional is to sit down and work out compromises.” resources as well as extend the impact of any one of the partners. —U.S. Congressman David Obey (Democrat-Wisconsin) In southeastern Ohio, the Roots of Appalachia Growers Association (RAGA) developed out of workshops held by Rural Action staff in which forest herb and ginseng growers learned about new production and

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 121

PCollaborationOLI and partnership,CY defined by the U.S. Forest Service Collaboration: A process for addressing a problem in which people who see different

aspects of a problem constructively and voluntarily explore their differences and search for

solutions that reach beyond what any one of them could accomplish alone.

Partnership: People associated with a specific agreement. A voluntary legal relationship for

sharing resources to accomplish mutually beneficial projects and programs.

An integral part of some partnerships is a collaborative process. In natural resource

management, collaboration increasingly refers to a process where groups with different

interests come together to address management issues at some agreed-upon scale. Through

collaboration, groups that usually disagree explore their differences, identify common

interests, and seek common-ground solutions. The goal of collaborative groups is to build

and promote a collective vision for how to manage the land. Such relationships can lead to

one or many partnership projects.

—U.S. Forest Service National Partnership Program (www.PartnershipResourceCenter.org)

marketing options. RAGA has since proved Three different indispensable for growers, who slowly have examples of collaboration overcome their traditional reluctance as individuals to share any information about Looking back across the experiences of the their crops, especially their whereabouts, Demonstration Program, there were three out of fear those crops might be poached. general types of collaboration: 1) those that developed among diverse individuals “I was really eager to get in contact with the and institutions; 2) those that took place pri- folks at RAGA because I knew they knew marily upon private lands; and 3) those that something I needed,” one grower remarked. occurred upon public lands. Today, with their slowly developing ginseng seedlings finally starting to mature, RAGA is First, in collaborative activities based more ready to go to market. As individuals, most on a business model, people, organiza- of these growers do not have a significant tions, churches, and enterprises are joining volume of product to influence the market- together for specific periods of time to place. Together, however, they will have the accomplish specific projects. These partner- volume needed to negotiate better prices ships generally are opportunistic by nature. and reliably fill larger orders. By collaborating, the individual entities

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 122

key players in the Vermont Family Forests Partnership, for example, shared a common Extension is more focused on agriculture vision but didn’t work out some important than“ on natural resources. Rural Action fills the void details, such as the definition of good land of what extension can’t do. It has helped me reach a management or how stringently to set criteria for inclusion in program activity. whole different group of people I wouldn’t Lacking agreement on such practical mat- have been able to reach on my own. ters, groups may be more likely to look for Different levels of outreach are a positive. funds to support strategies and activities Rural Action is helping to fill in for declining state and they already have planned than to develop shared objectives and plans. federal programs. As a result of collaborating with Rural Action, we have broadened our own views and Second, on private lands, collaborations approaches to these issues. Through this interaction, most often are groups of individuals who come together to access information, Rural Action has also broadened their views.” resources, and, sometimes, markets. They are tied together by their interest in a specific —David Apsley resource or range of opportunities. This type Ohio State University Extension, southeast Ohio of collaboration often includes service providers. Such relationships typically are reciprocal: Community organizations gain access to needed expertise, while technical partners are able to leverage the diverse skills and gain valuable hands-on experience, as well as resources required to implement CBF the trust and confidence of the landowners effectively and efficiently. Sharing power associated with the community organization. with other groups over a short-term project The challenge in this example often becomes can lead to stronger relationships as well as how to connect individual landowners and wider community buy-in to the larger vision. their properties — which may likely exist as As a result, diverse groups may find it easier parcels that are not geographically con- to work together on larger initiatives later nected — into a more contiguous land base on. Members of the Woodworkers Group of capable of significant ecological impact. the North Quabbin Woods CBF project, for example, have collaborated for marketing, The Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities completing orders, participating in trade- partnership is a network for building aware- shows, and learning. ness of and demand for regionally and responsibly produced wood products, and to Not all short-term activities, however, lead enhance rural capacity to produce and mar- to enhanced capacity for shared work. ket goods that benefit both entrepreneurs Partnerships devised solely to access grant and forest ecosystems. The partnership is monies and other funds rarely serve the developing its own unique brand as well as community well, as they may lack the com- other marketing tools and materials. Service mon vision and shared definitions needed providers and member businesses provide to sustain the collaboration over time — technical assistance through site visits, peer especially as external conditions, implemen- learning, and workshops so that multiple tation strategies, and even the participants members can benefit. themselves all evolve and change. The

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 123

Third, on public lands, participants typically process to put in place mechanisms for hold- come together to collaborate regarding ing individuals accountable to a specified what happens to their closest neighbor — the constituency. Transparency and disclosure forest. It is a public convening of political also are essential. Only then could an indi- and social interests for finding common- vidual be viewed as authentically “represent- ground solutions on decision making over ing” that constituency. public resources. It is place-based and interest-based. As such, it must strive to engage The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, all members of the community. for example, has supported outreach staff, who are forest workers themselves, to People typically will engage in a shared pro- conduct hundreds of interviews in order fully cess only when they see that their interests to understand what workers and harvesters can be addressed. As such, the partnership want and need. They have listened to the must work to keep all groups informed and workers, networked on a national level, even broaden or diversify the issues as a and developed ideas for current and future way to engage everyone. By meeting or projects that support the aspirations of the even exceeding all relevant national environ- workers. Representing forest workers and mental laws, for example, the partnership harvesters, they have carried this informa- may be able to address the concerns of tion and the priorities identified to broader even those national interests that are not conversations, including partnerships formally represented at the table. addressing control of invasive plant species, collaborations with the U.S. Forest Service, This sort of shared activity is called “multi- and to broader issues of policy education. party collaboration,” wherein individual participants frequently are representing institutions. When this is the case, it is essential to clarify that their objectives — their reasons Whether you do salvage work on a burn for collaborating — are indeed shared by “is primarily a social question, although there are their affiliated institution and do not reside some ecological aspects of it. They [PLP staff] have solely with the individual. Partnerships been able to bring people together socially and work also must ensure individuals have buy-in and/or the mandate to make binding through the ecological question.” agreements from their whole organization. Representatives themselves need to be —Sam Burns careful and not make decisions/agreements Four Corners Partnership, southwest Colorado that later on cannot be kept. Accordingly, at certain times, it also will be important to involve higher-level decision-makers. It also is possible to keep the collaborative In the Demonstration Program, some of conversation informal, as the Public Lands the implementing groups needed first to Partnership has done. PLP sets no formal organize a particular constituency so that membership requirements and encourages they could engage in multiparty collabora- people to speak only for themselves, so tion. The larger objective was to change anyone could participate. This approach the power dynamics among the various stakeholder groups. It was necessary to this

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 124

also helps keep the focus on the com- stakeholders still feel the need to see that munity and what is best for it, rather their own interests are being served, even than trying to manage specific conflicts if it is only “to make sure the other person between groups. Trying to engage people at the table isn’t going to [negatively affect] who care only about one issue and not the me or my self-interests.” broader community is almost useless, PLP discovered, because it takes a long time to Through providing information, especially find common ground if there is no unifying in communities where CBF was a relatively connection to place. new concept, implementing organizations in the Demonstration Program found they could help people identify their In Wallowa County, Oregon, they are more willing self-interests and develop appropriate responses. Workshops, field tours, and to work things out than in other places. I’ve got to “ peer exchanges all helped local residents think that Wallowa Resources has been a key enabler, to assess those interests relative to emerg- if not the driver, in making that happen.” ing opportunities. In fact, many of the networks formed during the Demonstration Program first organized around being able —A representative from Governor Kitzhaber’s office to access more information and resources Oregon for their members, whether simply from each other or from outside sources. However, merely seeing the potential to Why collaborate? meet one’s needs is not enough. There also must be the sense that collaboration is the People organize and form institutional best, and perhaps the only, way to achieve mechanisms for collaboration when there the desired outcomes. is a genuine need for them. Regardless of where they live, their specific concerns Finally, many geographically isolated com- (whether defined in the short or longer munities, particularly those adjacent to term), or their ultimate objectives, people public lands, over time seem to have devel- work together because they believe their oped a “culture of cooperation.” Perhaps as interests will be better served by engaging the result of frequent face-to-face interac- than by not engaging. Moreover, as self- tions, ongoing reciprocal relationships, and interests, opportunities, challenges, and a general lack of government services, the even the people involved change over community itself simply stepped in to fill time, so does the nature of their collabo- the gap. Lynn Jungwirth at the Watershed ration. Research and Training Center put it this way: “It is culturally appropriate to work Everyone has a right to engage in decision cooperatively. What was new [to CBF] was making over public lands. Public lands thinking that we could do that and ask the collaboratives typically are organized less communities of interest and the federal around accessing services and market government to behave as a member of our opportunities than are those formed among community.” private landowners. Even so, public lands

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 125

Some benefits to collaboration

Working together allows us to raise the bar. On both public and private lands, collaboration often is a response either to dwindling “With declining budgets and staff, the only option public investment in forest resources or to is to collaborate. The only way to reach our a perceived threat to livelihood, such as objectives is through collaboration.” the listing of an endangered species or a prolonged drought. Collaboration offers a —Alicia Glassford mechanism for leveraging the resources and U.S. Forest Service, northeastern Oregon expertise of diverse partners in order to find solutions and get the work done.

In western Colorado, PLP’s formation of I see a lot of collaboration—on Burn Canyon, Unc/Com, a nonprofit organization, provided the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, and the native the formal mechanism needed to leverage “ seed project, among others. I think there is and pool federal, state, and private funds. Those monies were then made available to far more conflict resolution than there is conflict.” address issues and needs common to all partners involved in the local collaborative —Alan Staehle, community member and effort. Unc/Com further provides a way to PLP participant, west central Colorado better secure funds that otherwise might be lost at the end of agencies’ annual funding cycles. It also offers the means to coordinate the receipt and administration of funds from Collaboration often fosters a process where federal, state, and local agencies that do not public lands management agencies more necessarily share the same funding cycles. readily can consult the community about its Finally, pooling resources in a locally man- proposed plans, because the agencies and aged nonprofit such as Unc/Com makes it the community have built improved relation- possible to ensure that as many benefits as ships and greater trust through undertaking possible stay close to home. shared projects. In such cases, differences and potential conflicts are often surfaced and Collaboration also offers benefits for the fed- dealt with before implementation, in part eral agencies. In each of the four sites where because there is more broadly derived public community-based organizations have worked input, guidance, and direction. Moreover, directly with federal land managers and agencies also cite the significant benefits that environmentalists, the litigation and appeals some collaborative activities — such as hands- process — with its associated delays in imple- on, on-the-ground field trips — can provide mentation of forest restoration work — has simply through educating everyone involved. been avoided at critical times. In the case of Hells Canyon Preservation Council (OR) Some community members, however, are and the Center for Biological Diversity (NM), skeptical about this role. It is one thing for representatives of both organizations have communities to be consulted, they say, argued in favor of stewardship contracting and quite another actually to be heard. and further collaboration with the communi- “Too often, if there is this kind of group, it ties and agencies based on their experiences becomes another box that the agency can in the Demonstration Program. check off,” one community member reports.

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 126

Design considerations Cooperation and collaboration add value and Collaborative CBF programs inevitably benefits in several dimensions in terms of relationship “ reflect the realities of community history. building, fair and open processes in decision making, and better decisions at the project level and in If a relationship between individuals or groups has been strained, then it takes strategic plans and future goals. If we can make time to repair it. Conversely, a positive past progress and achieve those benefits, ultimately the history can make it easy to come together. decisions are more durable. People support them; For example, the preexisting relationships they withstand appeals. They are sustained.” between state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance —Carmine Lockwood Fund helped bring about truly effective U.S. Forest Service, west central Colorado collaboration around forestry during the Demonstration Program. As one partner summarized, “We have a past history together, which makes it easy to come “It can let the agencies off the hook in terms together.” As a result, it has never been of their need to be collaborative, without necessary to force anyone to join or stay. really being collaborative. A partnership “People are involved because it’s the right shouldn’t be that. The input should be seri- thing to do,” explained another partner. ously considered.” “They feel that they are part of the process, and their involvement is characterized by At its outset, the Demonstration Program deep levels of commitment.” posed the question, “Can CBF help heal the divisiveness that currently exists nation- Just as past conflicts among prospective ally regarding forest management issues, collaborators cause tensions, differing levels particularly on federal lands?” Five years of organizational maturity and resources later, the answer is a qualified “yes.” With can lead to power struggles and challenges. that said, there are many challenges that Relatively young organizations may lack remain toward working effectively with the the staff time to dedicate the many hours diverse members of any partnership. There of effort required to manage collaboration needs to be a common understanding of successfully. Furthermore, these young orga- the partnership’s vision, structure, authority, nizations often rely upon volunteer staff, and accountability. There need to be clearly which can create a double standard regard- articulated ground rules, well-defined expec- ing who is reimbursed for their time and tations, and reliable communication mecha- who is not. Within a fledgling partnership, nisms. The legitimacy of the community staff from more mature organizations some- needs to be recognized by all parties, and times can take a condescending attitude, as everyone needs new skills. The pressing ques- younger organizations struggle to find their tion is whether collaboration is even possible, place. Getting into partnerships where there given each member’s history, policies, and is a lot of tension, or that are weak from the personnel. If not, the next question is whether start, inevitably means that more work will enough objectives can be met to make some be required over time. sort of shared initiative worth the effort.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 127

EXAMPLEPublic Lands Partnership: Principles of collaborative conservation As it brought together a broad range of individuals and interests, the Public Lands

Partnership (PLP) learned that it is necessary to clarify language and meaning. PLP

developed the following principles as a means to ensure that everyone involved shared a

common understanding and vision.

1. All people have a right to participate in decisions affecting our public lands.

2. There is value in every voice added to the dialogue—each should be honored and given

the opportunity to be heard.

3. The best and longest-lasting decisions incorporate the common values and needs of as

many people as possible.

4. While public lands management decisions may legitimately reflect national priorities,

these decisions should incorporate the unique character of the area under consideration,

including geography, climate, biology, culture, history, and local values.

5. The voices of those who possess a clear and personal understanding of local conditions

should be granted the maximum level of deference possible in making public lands

management decisions.

6. Decisions should be based on the very best scientifically credible information available.

When information is lacking, flexibility should be incorporated into the land management

plan that will allow for new information when it becomes available.

7. Decisions reached during the collaborative effort deserve the respect of all the

participants and should be defended by them from outside pressure.

8. Local, state, and federal legislative bodies have a responsibility to ensure that standing

bureaucracies do not invalidate the fruits of collaborative efforts.

9. Public lands management is a dynamic process—all the land management decisions

should be flexible enough to incorporate change.

10. The ultimate success of collaborative efforts rests on the willingness of the group to stay

with the process over time (and adversity).

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 128

StructuringTIP the collaborative process Tips learned by the demonstration sites:

1. Leave assumptions and agendas at the door.

2. Have clear objectives, be practical, and stay focused. Take action and celebrate success

early in the process. Remain open to varied ways of organizing the collaboration and

accomplishing the work.

3. Ensure the ground rules of the process are clear with everyone, including agreeing when

not to agree. It gets easier each time. Members of the group need to feel “ownership” of

both the way the group works and of the result or product.

4. One ground rule is “no surprises.” The members of the partnership should hear from

a member first if he or she is going to take a public action seemingly in opposition to

another member or the partnership itself.

5. It isn’t necessary to get everyone together all of the time. Focus on reaching out to those

specific interests that will be vested in the outcome, while making information available

to all.

6. When stakeholder groups are not present, partnerships should table any decisions

relevant to their interests until such time when they can be present. Doing so builds trust

among all parties that everyone’s interests will be fully considered. Establish a protocol:

“If we are talking about an issue and the interest group who cares about that issue isn’t

there, then we don’t have that discussion until the right people are present.”

7. Ensure the most affected stakeholders are deeply involved in discussions and the

decision-making process—for example, by participating in a subcommittee. Others can

8. Use both formal and informal communication mechanisms. Time spent with stakeholders

in between meetings is just as important as the time spent in meetings. For example,

Hells Canyon Preservation Council didn’t always attend every meeting, but Wallowa

Resources staff kept the Council advised and made sure it was on the same page.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 129

(continued)

9. To attract and include multiple levels of an organization in the effort, vary the mechanisms

you use. For example, Public Lands Partnership is implementing a new quarterly meeting

structure that includes: one meeting of general information and education on a resource

management issue; one meeting on committee reports on progress in implementation; and

one meeting attended by upper-level agency staff to keep both the agency and community

informed of policy-level issues and to allow for community input.

10. Partnerships do not run by volunteers alone. There has to be someone whose job it is to

keep things moving. All partnerships need sufficient funds, staff, materials, time, and

skilled leadership.

In the Demonstration Program, the the partnership’s original goals often is bet- Vermont Family Forests Partnership had ter than attempting to force progress toward three primary partners. Vermont Family what you thought was going to happen when Forests was a very young organi zation with you entered the partnership. Collaboration very little staff whose scope of work cov- continually draws new people and new ered a single county. The Demonstration ideas into the process, and it is necessary to Program was its primary focus, as well adjust and modify one’s expectations and as its major source of funds. The second plans to integrate these emergent factors. partner, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, Ultimately, the initiative’s long-term outcome worked statewide developing business will be shaped by this shared process and clusters in sustainable industries, includ- its dynamic relationships, certainly at least ing wood products. The third partner, the as much as by the content of the group’s Northeast Natural Resource Center of the dis cussions. Formal agreements between National Wildlife Federation (NWF) was an organizations are no doubt relevant, but established, older organization with a lot of when it gets right down to it, personalities staff, working on several national initiatives. are what make collaboration work — or not. These differences in the scale at which each organization worked, each organization’s Collaboration isn’t always the best approach maturity, and their ability to access to in every situation. When one of the partners resources outside of the Demonstration is not willing to relinquish authority or to Program contributed to imbalances of negotiate its position, real collaboration will power and tensions between the three not be appropriate. On Native American partners. land, for example, federally recognized tribes are seen as sovereign governments. As such, As other CBOs in the Demonstration negotiating land management with the U.S. Program soon discovered, simply taking one government would more than likely result positive step toward fulfilling even a hint of in the tribes losing rights and authority.

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 130

Similarly, if a collaborative process has been recognized. Most importantly, however, the tried but one or more issues have resulted group needs to establish ways to commu- in a breakdown in the dialogue, then other nicate clearly and effectively, so that it can approaches might be necessary. address changes in these roles and expectations, as they come up. Lessons In many partnerships, there is strength in having a proficiency that no one else has and This section offers lessons about essential in being willing to share that knowledge. D.C. ingredients for successful collaboration, Greenworks, for example, is both a nonprofit strategic roles different organizations can organization and one of the few businesses play, and institutional barriers within the in Washington, D.C., that is able to build U.S. Forest Service. green roofs. As a result, it would be difficult to move ahead with any collaborative activity organized around low-impact development Essential ingredients for without D.C. Greenworks’ participation. successful collaboration Dawn Gifford, executive director, has clearly defined the expertise of her organization, as well as the role it expects to play in its service LESSON 1 To get started, do an area. She delivers on her commitments, inventory of the players, the resources she knows D.C. Greenworks’ strengths and they can bring, the interests they limitations, and she loves to educate people represent, and the mission overlap. Look about low-impact development. for common ground but also build mutual dependence on each partner’s unique During the six-year Demonstration Program, community-based organizations that work resources and skills. Know the roles and with the U.S. Forest Service soon learned that responsibilities of the different actors in a it is not enough simply to collaborate with partner organization to be sure you are the local ranger assigned to their district. focusing your efforts in the right place. Rather, it is essential to engage the institution itself at different levels. Addressing the As partners join the partnership and roles forest supervisor level, for example, is essen- are discussed, the group needs to make tial, for that is where allocations of human explicit what the benefits will be for each and financial resources are made, decisions partner. In any event, organizational affecting policy consistency across districts self-interest is appropriate and must be can be implemented, and support for a collaborative approach can be conveyed as a value to the rest of the organization. As partners join the partnership and roles are It also would be beneficial to have the discussed, the group needs to make explicit what the U.S. Forest Service grants and agreements coordinator and/or the contracting officer benefits will be for each partner. Organizational involved from the beginning of the design and negotiation of collaborative projects. self-interest is appropriate and must be recognized. The Demonstration Program participants recommended engaging at least two

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 131

TIPWhom to engage? Basically, the answer is: “Anyone with an interest in the resources—and then some.” CBOs

in the Demonstration Program learned that it is critical to work simultaneously with several

public agencies, as well as with private landowners, so all the community’s eggs are not

in one basket. It is important to engage county governments, particularly in the western

United States, as they provide legitimacy, authority, and access to resources. Moreover,

they are accountable to all of the people in a particular area. It also may be important to

engage people who do not live in the immediate area, but who have historical and cultural

connections and rights to the resources. Public Lands Partnership included the Northern Ute

Tribe, Wallowa Resources, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Watershed Research and Training Center,

and the Nor El Muk. It’s best to find people within interest groups who also care about other

issues, as well as about the community as a whole. Those are the people one can engage

first; then perhaps they will bring others along with them.

representatives from the same federal peer-review process nested within the larger agency. Exactly who is involved will differ Community Planning process. This approach between regions and over time as dynamics can help to diffuse potential issues with the internal to the agencies change. national levels of their organizations and avoid surprises. When engaging regional, state, and national environmental organizations and LESSON 2 Membership in the their respective offices, there are several things to remember. First, start with the partnership will change over time. It is local representatives. Engage individuals important periodically to assess whether who are able to represent their interests all of the critical parties are still at the through the lens of conditions in the local table, and if the right organizational community. Even so, while involving local levels of the member organizations are representatives is essential, they often are engaged at the right time. It also is unable to take positions on behalf of the important to rebuild credibility with new larger body. Help these local representatives communicate with the national level. This constituents and individuals. engagement may be managed through As players at all levels will inevitably email or even providing resources to change, especially for partnerships involving support staff travel to local meetings. For public lands, continual investments must example, Hells Canyon Preservation Council be made in getting to know new partners. and Wallowa Resources co-hosted a tour Often these transitions are the result of of the environmental groups as part of a

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 132

TheTIP elements of coordination and collaboration Elements Cooperation Coordination Collaboration “Informing others of “Linking our “Co-creating the future” our related activities” complementary agendas”

Vision and Basis for cooperation Individual relationships Commitment of the relationships is usually between are supported by the organizations and their individuals but may organizations they leaders is fully behind be mandated by a represent. their representatives. third party. Each organization’s Common, new mission Organizational mission/goals are and goals are created. missions and goals reviewed for compatibility. are not taken into One or more projects account. Interaction is usually are undertaken for around one or more longer-term results. Interaction is on an specific project or task “as-needed” basis, of definable length. may last indefinitely.

Structure, Relationships are Organizations involved New organizational responsibilities, informal; each take on needed role, structure and/or clearly and organization but function relatively defined interrelated communication functions separately. independently of each roles that constitute a other. formal division of labor No joint planning are created. is required. Some project specific planning is required. More comprehensive Information is planning is required conveyed as Communication roles that includes developing needed. are established and joint strategies and definite channels are measuring success in created for interaction. terms of impacts on those served.

Beyond communication roles and channels for interaction, many “levels” of communication on other topics are created as clear information is critical to success.

Adapted from the works of Martin Blank, Sharon Kagan, Atelia Melaville, and Karen Ray in Mattessich, Paul PhD, Marta Murray-Close, Barbara Monsey, Collaboration: What Makes it Work? Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 2001.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 133

(continued)

Elements Cooperation Coordination Collaboration “Informing others of “Linking our “Co-creating the future” our related activities” complementary agendas”

Authority and Authority rests Authority rests with the Authority is determined accountability solely with indi vidual individual organizations, by the collaboration organizations. but there is coordination to balance ownership among participants. between organizations Leadership is and accomplish purpose. unilateral and Some sharing of control is central. leadership and control. Leadership and control are dispersed and are Authority and Some shared risk, shared and mutual. accountability but each organization rest with each assumes most authority Equal risk is shared by organization, which and accountability. all organizations in the acts independently. collaboration.

Resources and Resources (staff Resources are Resources are pooled rewards time, dollars, and acknowledged and can or jointly secured for a capabilities) are be made available to longer-term effort separate, serving others for a specific managed by the each organization’s project. partnership. own needs. Rewards are mutually Organizations share acknowledged. in the products; more is accomplished jointly than could be individually.

shifting national priorities and agency staff could then better inform the newly arrived reassignments. Over the five-year implemen- staff. A tool to help communities understand tation phase of the Demonstration Program, why, when, and how to collaborate with Wallowa Resources worked with no less than the multiple entities within the U.S. Forest eight different U.S. Forest Service district Service is included on the CD that accom- rangers (including interim rangers). During panies this report. (See Appendix B.) such staff transitions, a key to working with the U.S. Forest Service was to have a few Local communities need to locate them- of the “long-termers” assigned as the key selves at the hub of long-term collaborative agency contact for Wallowa Resources, processes. They are the stakeholders most thereby providing a measure of consistency likely to remain constant; moreover, they and organizational memory. This person hold some of the most vested interests

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 134

in the outcomes. It takes time to build In that light, it will be useful to draw distinc- trust, individual by individual, requiring tions among and clarify expectations about consistency and continuity. This all takes cooperation, coordination, and collaboration: long-term investments of resources, both financial and human. ■ Cooperation is characterized by informal relationships that exist without any commonly defined mission, structure, or planning effort. It takes time to build trust, individual by individual,

■ Coordination is characterized by more requiring consistency and continuity. formal relationships and an understand- This all takes long-term investments of resources, ing of compatible missions. Some planning and division of roles are required, and both financial and human. communication channels are established.

■ Collaboration connotes a more durable and pervasive relationship. Collaborations LESSON 3 Clarify expectations — bring previously separated organizations cooperation, coordination, or into a new structure with full commitment collaboration. to a common mission.14

Inconsistent and unrealistic expectations of The lesson learned here is, as a first step, to collaboration, as well as a lack of criteria for check assumptions at the door and clarify measuring the effectiveness of shared activ- meaning and definitions of the relationship. ity, can lead to unfair criticism of collabora- Only then can members work together out tive efforts, accusations of failure, and both of the same framework. It is not that one participant and agency burnout.13 framework is better or worse, rather that it is necessary to know which framework the Over and over again, in both private and group is using and to base the selection of public lands settings, the partner organi- the best framework on what the group is zations emphasized the importance of trying to accomplish. Often, defining joint clarifying expectations, roles, and capaci- responsibilities in practical terms is the best ties. Differences in understanding, which way to clarify what the word “collaboration” occurred often, created many challenges, really means. As parties and relationships some misunderstandings, and a few resent- change over time, it is necessary periodically ments. This issue is further confounded to revisit this issue. by the use of language, as the choice of words can be seen as implying certain When players find themselves in different agreements. Defining collaboration is made places on the cooperation-coordination- complex by ambiguities in practical usage. collaboration continuum, which often is the case between communities and the public lands management agencies, they can pursue a number of different strategies. First, 13 Workshop: September 17–19, 2003, Hart Prairie, Flagstaff, Arizona. Sponsors: Ecological Restoration In- stitute, Society of American Foresters, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, American Forests. 14 Ibid.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 135

they can work to get to the same place. If the the trust and respect of the other players. It parties involved are shifting from cooperation is better to not make a commitment at all, to coordination to collaboration, then this than to make it and break it. takes significant time and effort, and requires recognition of the existing differences, as Members of a partnership need to be trans- well as changes in each entity’s culture, skills, parent about their limitations. If not, time and regulations, and behaviors. The question is trust are wasted as participants work toward whether this is possible within each partner’s a solution that ultimately is impossible. This history, policies, and personnel. means that an organization must take the time to know itself, its plans, and its operating Second, parties can jointly examine the costs, and then take the time to share this issues they wish to address; in so doing, information. Having limited staff resources can they may find that there are some issues prevent an organization from being able to that present options for collaboration, while do this. The facilitator plays a role in keeping others may not. It may be easier to collabo- the partners transparent and accountable. rate on an issue or project that is new for everyone and where there is less ownership over a certain position or activity. If not, the This is an innovative approach. next question is whether enough objectives can be met through coordination to make “I have seen opposing sides come together— shared activity worth the effort. and different sciences coming together. People have to be willing to listen. LESSON 4 Trust — the partnership will People are learning to listen and only be successful if there is trust among taking the time to listen. all of the players. Transparency, time, It takes a long time to lay a foundation.” success, and celebration are all keys to building that trust. —Joe McCormick Nez Perce tribal member, Idaho Partnerships are about relationships. Devel- oping good relationships with key people is essential. Find them and support them within their agencies and organizations. “Those LESSON 5 Find common ground in people [federal agency employees] are frustrated, too, because there are roadblocks order to take action. within the agencies,” reports one community All parties need to come to the table ready member. Many of the parties found the to collaborate — not to try and convince time they spent working through the specific everyone of their own position. They must issues together, even talking about specific be willing to invest energy in striving for the trees in the field, was painstaking, but it built shared common ground, if they actually a lot of trust and gave the partners a chance want to get something done and not fall to see where each of them was coming from. into extreme, polarized positions. All par- Recognize that all parties to a partnership ties also need to operate with respect and are mutually accountable to each other. willingness to acknowledge what each other When one member cannot deliver, they lose is saying, even if they don’t agree.

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 136

EXAMPLEBringing together environmentalists, agencies, and small business The fact that the Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition partners — particularly governmental

(U.S. Forest Service), environmental (Center for Biological Diversity), and industry (Gila

WoodNet)—chose to collaborate already was a significant step, given their contentious

history with one another. The partnership began with an assumption that there was

something they could do to improve the ecosystem and then proceeded with the long and

deliberate process of building trust.

“I kind of jokingly say we spent a lot of hours talking about individual trees, but the reality

is we did spend a lot of hours talking about individual trees,” recalls Gerry Engel of the U.S.

Forest Service. “I think that was something that had to happen. It made it agonizingly slow

in some ways, but it was all about that trust-building process and understanding where the

other folks were coming from.”

JBC today is characterized by deep levels of trust and respect among its members, Engel

says, making it somewhat of a model. “We had trust in terms of where we were going, and

we had people within the environmental community…basically saying to [other environmental

groups], ‘We think this is good, and we would just as soon you guys didn’t ruffle the waters

on this.’ It meant that we could move forward without having to do as much i-dotting and

t-crossing. We could focus on the real work.

“People look at what we did and how we did it, and they say, ‘Wow, that’s pretty cool, they

didn’t get any appeals.’ We were able to work through this process and not have to have a

project workbook that’s three feet thick. But there are still some people that just feel like we’re

collaborating with the enemy.”

Another key factor in the Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition’s success as a partnership was

the involvement early on of people with decision-making authority—for example, the local

Forest Supervisor. Perhaps most important, however, has been the willingness and ability

of coalition members to keep their “professional egos” in check and to let go of opinions or

beliefs that block consensus. Members were willing to do this in part because of the small

scale of the project—meaning, there was less at risk for all of the different participants.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 137

There will be conflict in any partnership, but this conflict can be a valuable ingredient to Collaboration means having to share decisions creative decision making. While it takes time to understand the rationale behind differing “and, by definition, giving up some control. beliefs and opinions and genuinely to work At times, it is even necessary to let go of ideas through these different points of view, it is and plans that you thought were really important. the “working through” that creates new approaches and solutions, and builds trust. The focus is: What can we agree on?” Rick Wagner of the Oregon Department of Forestry advises his colleagues, “Don’t —Sophia Millar ask, ‘What can communities give us?’ U.S. Forest Service, northeastern Oregon Ask instead, ‘How can we work together so everyone meets their objectives?’” Furthermore, the public agencies need to The zone of agreement concept is to design a be risk-takers. As one agency staff member project by listening to all the participants’ issues, emphasized, “We need to be willing to listen “ and change our minds, too.” addressing them all, and carrying out that project, no matter how small. In the process, language, It may be necessary to broaden the defini- education, and trust all develop, thereby tion of an issue to find more accessible common ground. Likewise, narrowing the making more things possible.” issue can avoid unnecessary conflicts. Start as small as necessary, but be sure to strive —Gordon West for and celebrate even modest successes Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition, southern New Mexico together as a way to build trust.

Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition In the , If an organization chooses to be both the relationships across the different stakeholder interests represented were based upon each “convener/facilitator and implementer group, then partner’s commitment to find and operate you create a tension in that organization, because within a “zone of agreement” — the area the facilitator leader/community organizing piece in which the partner’s individual interests is, ‘The bus doesn’t leave until everyone is on.’ The overlapped with shared objectives. With multiple agendas to manage and balance, the implementer is, ‘Get that bus going, go down the road, context of the partnership will change, and and people will come later.’ This is the opportunity. the “target point” for the zones of agreement The entrepreneurial impulse is always at odds with the must be revisited and renegotiated from time to time. If that does not happen, what was idea, ‘Is everybody there yet.’” at one point considered relatively successful later may be considered a failure. —Lynn Jungwirth, executive director Watershed Research and Training Center, northern California There is a fine line between working to find common ground and ensuring that the par ties, particularly the public lands management agencies, keep to their word and meet their commitments. Having grown accustomed to

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 138

As such, the convener/facilitator focuses on broadening partner engagement around a Now the Public Lands Partnership has two faces: diverse set of issues, coordinating group activ- “the homespun, sit-around-and-talk-about-the-issues, ities, promoting shared learning, and acting good solid citizen discussion; and the business part. as a catalyst. It needs some clarity on a few Both are critical, but if you try to combine them “rules of the road” related to group values, communications, ground rules, and a clear too much, you hurt both of them.” statement of expectations. It may encourage working groups to address specific opportu- —Allen Belt, community member nities and challenges, but these should be West central Colorado ad hoc. The community planning processes facilitated by both Wallowa Resources and the Public Lands Partnership provide examples of this convener/facilitator role. delays, reallocation of funding, and commitments not being kept, communities some- Collaborative processes also need the times put themselves in the role of watchdog capacity to implement the day-to-day details to hold the agencies’ accountable. When this of activities that emerge from the idea sort of vigilance defines the relationship, it incubator — specifically for those led by the is difficult to view each party as equal and community, although other stakeholders mutually accountable. also may be involved. Wallowa Resources frequently performs this role, receiving grant Strategic roles funds from multiple sources, contracting out work, and implementing projects. This implementing organization needs to be LESSON 6 For effective collaboration accountable to the community, even as it on public lands issues, three different upholds the larger vision and value of col- managerial roles are needed: convener/ laboration with all the partners. facilitator, implementer, and fiscal manager. While a single organization There also may be a need for an entity able can play more than one role, it is to coordinate and implement projects specifi- important to be clear about who is cally rooted in interagency collaboration and partnership initiatives. In such efforts, it is assuming which role and when. It also is best to establish clear leadership authority important to make sure the organization over the implementation of activities, rather is comfortable with its role(s). than managing by committee. If multiple agency funds are involved, there needs to The convener/facilitator “sets the table” and be an entity capable of receiving, managing, creates the platform for “civic dialogue,” an and coordinating public agency funds. This “idea incubator,” and a “table of trust.” This fiscal agent also can be an effective way for role creates a neutral space to discuss and the agencies to co-fund and leverage addi- debate natural resource issues facing all of tional resources for activities. Moreover, in an the stakeholders. It must be inclusive and environment where the capacity to manage bring together individuals and organizations private funds is lacking, this entity might able to look at their interests through the manage those resources as well. lens of the community.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 139

Obviously, different skills are needed for time and resources, there has been no these roles. The convener/facilitator needs apparent effort within the U.S. Forest skills in structuring dialogue, conflict man- Service to reduce the other responsi- agement, community organizing, and listen- bilities of selected staff to allow them ing to all perspectives. The implementer to participate fully in collaboration. The likely needs skills in specific technical areas, expectation is that support in this context planning, and evaluation. means both allocating money, time, and staffing and establishing relevant per- It is important to clarify why the group is col - formance measures. There needs to be laborating. Is it to find common ground and strategic investment in collaboration. In agree on priorities, or to implement projects, addition, within local U.S. Forest Service or both? When there is confusion among budgets, there needs to be a designated these roles, it can be difficult for stake- and dedicated fund for financial and holders to know where and how to engage. human resources for community-based collaborative efforts.

Institutional 2. The State and Private Forestry Economic barriers within the Action Programs (EAP) continue to be the most effective federal capacity-building U.S. Forest Service tool at the local, rural level. Continued support from the agency and the admin- The following institutional barriers and istration for this program is essential. recommendations were identified by Mary The National Fire Plan, while effective Mitsos, National Forest Foundation, during for getting fuels reduction work done on interviews with Demonstration Program private lands, has not been as useful as partners that were working on public lands: expected for either small, locally based contractors or for getting work done on 1. Put collaboration rhetoric into actual federal lands. Agency support for appro- practice. This requires committing money, priately sized contracts for community time, and staff resources to community- benefit and tool development to improve level collaboration projects. Communities this aspect of the National Fire Plan also in the Demonstration Program report is essential. that U.S. Forest Service employees who are interested and parti cipate in collaborative activities still do not receive much support from their own institution. While As an agency staff, we need to look at each most believe that the forward-thinking activity that we want to do and find the appropriate leadership exists in the Washington “ implementation mechanism to match each situation. office of the U.S. Forest Ser vice and that more field personnel are committed to It takes longer, but is worth it. Streamlining this collaborative approaches, it appears process would be a big improvement.” there is little to no support coming from the regional offices and very little sup- —Judy Wing port from the Forest Supervisors’ offices. U.S. Forest Service, northeastern Oregon While everyone recognizes that collaboration takes significant investments of

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 140

3. One of the biggest barriers experienced 5. Collaboration with communities — and in CBF projects around the West involves all of the time it takes — is not specified the difficulties rural communities and in the formal objectives, job descrip- small contractors confront in accessing tions, or performance standards of restoration or fuels reduction work on federal employees, so staff are neither federal lands. While there is support held accountable nor rewarded for their for access to the work and “best-value efforts to work with communities. Work contracting,” the existing contracting plans, job descriptions, and other per- mechanisms — as well as the lengthy formance criteria need to be modified to amount of time it takes to negotiate include community collaboration as an them — often present significant barriers explicit goal. to accessing the work. Even when there are appropriate mechanisms, they often 6. Implementing landscape-level change are not used. There need to be focused without the necessary resources is efforts at using appropriate contract- impossible. While the long-term benefits ing processes and mechanisms, and are clear, public and private investment contracting officers need to be trained levels in ecological restoration are and required to use them. In addition, inadequate. Additional funds need to be the agencies need to finalize a proposed authorized for forest restoration work policy change that would allow projects on public lands that require ecosystem implemented through cooperative management — and not just for fuel load agreements to have a mechanism to reductions. permit poor communities to be exempt from the 20 percent match requirement. 7. Performance targets emphasizing acres of treatment per year jeopardize local 4. Some rural communities lack an in-depth community benefits and undermine understanding about contemporary local investment in small log harvesting, requirements and opportunities pre- processing, and manufacturing. They sented by the National Environmental shift the focus from areas most in need Policy Act (NEPA). They also lack access of restoration to those that are easiest to readily available U.S. Forest Service to treat. Local U.S. Forest Service staff staff who are needed to complete the experience pressure to implement large- NEPA process. U.S. Forest Service staff scale contracts, which may be inap- felt it would be beneficial if communi- propriate for local contractors and likely ties could broaden their understanding use techniques (such as widespread of NEPA, stating that “when you don’t burning) that reduce the amount of understand the process, you have dif- small-diameter timber available as ferent expectations of what is possible byproduct. The U.S. Forest Service needs and when.” Training in the NEPA process to separate forest restoration from its needs to be provided to local commu- fire and timber programs — as well as nities, and local contractors must be give forest restoration a priority status recognized and used to undertake NEPA and its own budget. Performance tar- activities. gets and techniques need to be set that address the needs of local conditions as well as national-level goals.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 141

TIPNEPA’s Categorical Exclusion provision Facilitate up-front collaborative processes that can shorten the time and

investment required for environmental analysis under the National Environmental

Policy Act to get to the implementation stage of ecosystem restoration projects on

public lands.

The Categorical Exclusion (CE) provision of NEPA permits forest management projects that

are deemed to have no significant environmental impacts to be exempted from the more

lengthy and rigorous analysis, evaluation, and public input process mandated by NEPA.

Among the Ford Foundation demonstration sites that worked most closely with publicly

managed forests, upfront collaboration processes, transparency, and trust among all parties

allowed appropriate use of categorical exclusions for some proposed restoration projects. This

sometimes broke a logjam that had held back project proposals for months or even years.

In Spring 2003, for example, the Public Lands Partnership facilitated a field trip and

stakeholder discussion to consider a proposed categorical exclusion for a project to

use a mechanical hydro ax to improve habitat, reduce wildfire risks, and protect power

transmission lines at Sims Mesa. Representatives from local environmental organizations,

the timber industry, public agencies, and the community inspected the site. Largely as a

result of their visit, the categorical exclusion option was supported by all and the treatment

implemented. Since the hydro ax treatment, the stakeholders have revisited Sims Mesa at

least twice. Today, they concur that the treatment was both effective and appropriate.

On the other hand, one observer who is familiar with a number of U.S. Forest Service

Districts has noted that at least one district tends to recommend the CE provision for nearly

every proposed action that might be difficult to get approved. If the CE is used in this way, it

inevitably will result in increased community suspicions and lingering questions. Therefore, it

is vitally important to have a collaborative process in place that can facilitate broadly based

agreement before the CE provision is invoked.

Collaborating for CBF Action Chapter 6 142

8. The federal budgeting and funding cycle often are reluctant to take necessary makes it difficult to plan multiyear proj- risks in decision making, nor do they ects and to implement them with part- easily develop collaborative and recipro- ners. Community-based nonprofits, such cal relationships. Even when employees as Unc/Com or Wallowa Resources, can do engage with the local community, help iron out some of the difficulties. The they typically move on to their next federal agencies need to recognize that assignment well before projects or organizations such as Unc/Com are pro- initiatives have been completed. More viding services that require both human than likely, the newly arriving employee and financial resources. Therefore, the that replaces them may not have the agencies should provide compensation same level of buy-in for existing projects. for these services. The U.S. Forest Service culture of “you must move out to move up” needs to be reconsidered. Rewarding employees for staying in place needs to be incorpo- We have been able to implement projects rated into the current system. designated through the community planning process “ 10. From the community’s perspective, local that fall under the categorical exclusion provision knowledge is too often dismissed as because we had already gotten input and worked not good enough or unreliable. For the through the issues with the various stakeholders, agencies, the lack of “good science” including the community, environmentalists, can become the reason for not moving ahead with implementation of a collab- the U.S. Forest Service, and others.” orative project. Often, there are different, competing scientific viewpoints on —Diane Snyder, executive director what ought to be done within an ecosys- Wallowa Resources, northeastern Oregon tem. As one community member states, “It is hard to get [the agencies] to quit playing the science game. It’s so easy for them to hide behind it.” Agencies need 9. There is a disservice to both the agen- to further support multiparty monitor- cies and the communities when U.S. ing with financial and human resources. Forest Service staff constantly are relo- This approach, where all stakeholders cated. Relatively brief tenures in a par- have agreed upon what information is ticular place deprive U.S. Forest Service most important and are jointly collect- staff of the continuity necessary to have ing and analyzing it, is one successful an intimate knowledge of the woods and example of how to address this issue. the community itself. As a result, they

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees CHAPTER Implementing CBF through 7 Community-Based Organizations 144

he CBF Demonstration Program ■ Unincorporated CBOs (at least at made grants to community-based the beginning of the Demonstration T organizations in almost every region Program). of the country. Obviously, each type of organization Some of these organizations were well enjoys specific advantages with regard to established, while others were newly emerg- implementing community-based forestry; ing. Organizations with existing missions each also faces particular challenges. that served private landowners saw CBF The chart that follows below summarizes as another possible tool for their clients, some of those strengths and challenges, so they developed CBF programs within as experienced by sites participating in the their organizations to serve them. These Demonstration Program. organizations learned about CBF as they introduced the concepts to the community. To help individual sites meet those chal- For other groups, CBF was their heart and lenges successfully, the Ford Foundation soul, having emerged in response to the contracted with the Natural Assets threats posed by changing forest manage- Program of the Aspen Institute to provide ment practices on neighboring public lands. technical assistance focused on organiza- Still others evolved as membership-based tional development throughout the six-year organizations. overall tenure of the Demonstration Program.

In providing that support, resource person- The Demonstration Program worked with four basic nel had the opportunity to work closely with staff and board members from each types of CBOs. Each type of organization had specific of the CBOs in a variety of settings, includ- advantages in implementing community-based forestry; ing one-on-one discussions during site visits, telephone and email consultations, each also faced particular challenges. workshops, and peer-to-peer strategy discussions.

Across the board, then, the Demonstration From those rich conversations, a set of Program worked with four basic types of lessons emerged that reflects the full CBOs. Each category reflects both the spectrum of organizational approaches to organization’s structure and its degree of implementing CBF in widely different envi- commitment to CBF. Those four categories ronments. This chapter documents many of included: those lessons, paying particular attention to those that transcend organizational ■ CBF organizations; differences.

■ CBF programs within a CBO that did not After all, the means may vary, but for all of have a CBF-specific mission; these organizational structures, there need to be a sustained commitment to mission ■ Partnerships for the purpose of accom- and vision, a provision to meet the continu- plishing a shared CBF-related goal; and ing need for basic skill sets, and a clear accountability to the community.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 145

TIPFour types of organizational design: Advantages and challenges The Demonstration Program offers richness in the lessons related to organizational design in part because

the grants were made to four different organizational structures. Each structure presented key advantages

and distinct challenges.

Structure Examples Advantages Challenges

CBF ■ D.C. Greenworks ■ When hard ■ Must find ways to build organizational organization ■ Wallowa Resources times came, it structure in field where funds are ■ Watershed Research was possible to project-based. and Training Center shift funds from one CBF area to another.

Program ■ Federation of Southern ■ Program ■ Board and management of the within CBO Cooperatives/Land can build on parent need to honor the program’s with non-CBF- Assistance Fund reputation commitment to CBF aims. specific ■ Penn Center and network ■ Parent needs to allow experimentation mission ■ Rural Action of parent and flexibility. ■ Makah Tribe organization ■ Parent needs to keep funds dedicated ■ Healthy Forests, Healthy beyond CBF to the program within the program and Communities/SNW field. give the program manager substantial ■ North Quabbin Woods/ control over the program fund NEFF

Partnership ■ Vermont Family Forests ■ Resources ■ Lack of clarity about CBF led to Partnership and networks conflict within partnership, or no ■ Jobs and Biodiversity of several work on one leg of CBF. Coalition organizations ■ Partnership cannot manage staff; working toward staff must work for one of CBF goals. participating organizations. ■ Division of funds among the partners can create tensions.

Unincorporated ■ Alliance of Forest Workers ■ Informality ■ Informality left partners confused CBO at the and Harvesters (which offered about what they could expect. start of the is a formal membership flexibility. ■ A lot of time was spent on systems Demonstration organization) and procedures that had already Program ■ Public Lands Partnership been determined in incorporated (did not incorporate, but organizations (this also applies to formed and incorporated a VFF, one of the VFFP partners). fiscal entity, Unc/Com) ■ With unincorporated CBOs, ■ Jobs and Biodiversity Coali- accountability and tracking of funds tion (never incorporated) can be more difficult.

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7 146

Lessons Some of the CBF efforts also became accountable and more transparent by This section includes lessons on governance, being part of the community. This means structure, operations, and staffing and skills. not only responding to community needs but also engaging regularly with other community organizations and efforts. For Governance example, Dawn Gifford (D.C. Greenworks) attends most of the Area Neighborhood LESSON 1 CBF programs, Commission meetings in her target neigh- organizations, and collaborative borhoods, and Scott Maslansky (North processes are community assets. They Quabbin Woods) is a member of the North Quabbin Economic Development Group. need to find appropriate mechanisms

for ensuring accountability and Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities used transparency to their communities. both formal and informal mechanisms to stay attuned to its partners’ needs. HFHC CBOs in the Demonstration Program used conducted an annual survey and then held both formal and informal means to stay a partners’ meeting. Staff members talked connected with their communities. North to partners regularly and visited many Quabbin Woods has a community advisory of them during the course of a year. For council, but it was not terribly effective. HFHC, the partners are the community to When the organization moved its office to whom they respond. HFHC is responsive Main Street, however, people started to to its members, but it must continue to ask drop by informally and ask about its work. some important questions. Do the members This more immediate, accessible presence reflect the wider community? As HFHC connected NQW to the community in a way develops a brand identity for its partners’ that its formal structure had not.

EXAMPLEHFHC governance structure When Sustainable Northwest first started Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, it

organized a governance group that worked on vision and values and was very engaged in

the workings of the project. Now, an advisory committee of HFHC partners works to set

strategic direction. This is submitted to the full partnership at the annual meeting and via

email for feedback. Following review by the advisory committee, the final version is then

submitted to the board of directors of SNW for approval. Staff then design subsequent

workplans with input from the SNW staff and advisory committee. The governance group is

most relevant at the strategy and evaluation levels, and less so at the project implementation

level.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 147

products, will this brand provide benefits broadly to the community or to a relatively small number of businesses? TIPOpen board meetings How a CBO is governed and managed Hold your board meetings in the also matters to the community. Some of community—and include members of the CBOs in the Demonstration Program defined their accountability in terms of the community—in order to broaden place. They brought community members understanding and ensure accountability. onto their boards and advisory committees. Other CBOs defined their accountability in terms of a community of interest. As a D.C. Greenworks includes strategic partners result, they formed membership structures on its board to foster collaboration and that could accommodate that approach. accountability. These board members also But, if CBOs are to be true community have the potential to engage at the political assets, there is a need for flexible, new and policy levels in order to support the structures that ensure organizations stay organization’s efforts. accountable to broader interests than just their board or their active members. Many of the Demonstration Program sites struggled with being fully responsive or The Alliance of Forest Workers and accountable to the broader community. Harvesters found that decentralizing its Vermont Family Forests had only five board governance structure, sharing program members. They cannot represent all of the implementation with members through different constituencies in Addison County. Community-Based Organizing Project Unfortunately, at times this helped create subgrants, keeping regular communications the impression that VFF was an exclusive through diverse mechanisms, delivering on club rather than a responsive community- commitments, and maintaining a consistent based organization. presence are all ways to maintain accountability to the organization’s constituency. While the Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters initially structured its board to LESSON 2 Find and recruit board include workers and harvesters, most forest members who have significant and workers did not identify with that structure active links to the community and can or the rhetoric. Furthermore, they were provide governance. struggling to make a living and often missed valuable employment opportunities while The Watershed Research and Training they were attending board meetings. Most Center’s board represents all the different importantly, without the broader community constituencies in Hayfork. Each board of workers and harvesters being organized member also is active in other organizations and without mechanisms in place for ongo- in town and routinely is asked to explain to ing communication with them, the question those respective constituencies what WRTC remains whether those workers and harvest- is doing. This helped keep WRTC responsive ers selected to serve on the board were truly and accountable to the community. representing their constituencies or simply speaking as individuals.

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7 148

The New England Forestry Foundation held informal gatherings around a meal allowed its annual board meeting at NQW’s office in for equitable participation and engagement downtown Orange, Massachusetts. Thirteen of all interests. Other benefits to informal community members attended, including structures included being able to be flexible two state representatives, one state senator, and responsive. and Congressman Oliver’s aide. Staff gave a presentation, led a tour of the showroom, As these informally structured entities grew, and then everyone walked through down- however, their day-to-day operations began town to the river. Board members and to require greater and greater amounts community members alike offered positive of funds. The very fact that they now were comments about how this meeting increased in the Demonstration Program led most their understanding of NQW’s CBF projects. of them to seek and obtain their 501(c)(3) status. In some cases, this resulted in a level of formalization at the expense of their informal process. Often the structure of the orga- Many of the participating CBOs were relatively new nization balanced what leadership thought organizations emerging from—or still the community would find acceptable with requirements for financial accountability engaged in—an informal structure. As they grew, and transparency.

they had to determine how much of that informality AFWH, for example, initially structured its board to include only workers and harvest- they should—and could—maintain. ers. However, the need for a more formalized structure to receive funding (especially funding as substantial as the Ford Foundation Structure grant), as well as the resulting new responsibilities to their funders, wrought unforeseen changes. Individuals who were more comfort- LESSON 3 There is tension between able and familiar with such matters gained informal and formal structures. more control over the organization. Today, the AFWH board is a mixture of people who At the outset of the Demonstration Program, are directly engaged with the work in the many of the participating CBOs were rela- woods and other individuals who bring in an tively new organizations emerging from — outside perspective. or still engaged in — an informal structure. The Public Lands Partnership incorporated These groups cited several key benefits of an Unc/Com as a parallel organization to act informal structure. First, without strict mem- as the necessary formal fiscal entity, so that bership criteria, people were able to engage PLP could stay informal. The organizational as individuals and not feel obligated to mission of Unc/Com is “to provide efficient represent specific policy positions or institu- and effective fiscal administration for tions. This flexibility created space to “speak greater community good.” A five-person from the heart.” People felt comfortable, as board, elected by PLP members, provides they didn’t have to give up their personal financial administration to organization(s) power to an organization. In the case of the working on issues related to public lands. Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, It does not provide any programmatic or

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 149

policy direction, rather taking its lead from JBC’s informality has raised the question the various committees — specifically, the PLP whether its decision to hire paid staff really executive committee and the technical com- made sense. Instead, as Gordon West has mittee of the Uncompaghre Plateau Project. suggested, JBC could have approached bringing on a leader for its community The advantage of this arrangement is that development efforts in the same way it the technical input comes chiefly from those would have approached bringing on a new partners with specific expertise — principally, member of the coalition. This person, as a the public agency and PLP representatives coalition member, could have developed who serve on the committees. However, this a proposal that the coalition could have also means that implementation is left pri- funded. Although JBC would have provided marily to the committees, which may lack the advice and input to such a project, it would time, human resources, and/or accountabil- not have wielded supervisory responsibilities ity for carrying out these activities. Another that in reality have been difficult to fulfill. disadvantage is that Unc/Com runs the risk of becoming a “pass-through” for grant funds for which, legally speaking, it is assuming Operations responsibility and liability, but over which, in actual practice, it has little say regarding LESSON 4 Organizations actual use. As a pass-through/fiscal agent, it implementing CBF need to be clear is almost impossible to raise funds from pri- about their mission and vision and use it vate sources and Unc/Com must rely on the to set the parameters for when and how agencies to pay an administrative fee. This to respond to community needs. situation is compounded by the willingness of funders to support on-the-ground projects, The most effective implementing organiza- but not the staff time and infrastructure to tions balanced clarity of vision with flex- make them work. ibility. They could explain their purpose to the community and to their partners. Within The Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition decided this framework, they were able to respond not to incorporate, because the group felt the flexibly to community needs. coalition’s strength derived from the informal bonds of sharing a stake in the work, as The Watershed Research and Training opposed to a formally binding structure. Center responded to requests by the com- JBC’s informality means it has no authority munity to run a summer camp for youth over what individual partners do and do not by getting a camp started. Keeping true do. In fact, just two partners, Gila WoodNet to WRTC’s mission, programming at the and the Silver City-Grant County Economic camp offered environmental education and Development Corporation, carried out actual experiences in monitoring CBF projects. implementation of the coalition’s CBF project Without this direction from the community, work. “We’re like a club, and it’s worked well,” said Gordon West, a logger and master woodworker. “When we meet, we don’t have a formal way we do business and The most effective implementing organizations we haven’t needed it. JBC actually doesn’t balanced clarity of vision with flexibility. exist except when we come to the table and sit down.”

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7 150

At Penn Center, CBF staff were clear about their goals. Board and management, When we first interacted with Wallowa Resources however, did not have the same priorities. “as a grantee in 1999, it was clear that they were a They were focused on the survival of their nascent organization struggling to define their niche organization. While one cannot deny they in Wallowa County. But now the sophistication had a fiduciary responsibility, their decisions limited the success of Penn’s CBF program they have is tremendous. This shows me they have and resulted in funding cutbacks. done some very thoughtful strategic planning to be aware of what they can do and , Early on, Healthy Forests, Healthy Com munities spent months clarifying its vision and more importantly, what they cannot do.” values. Over the course of the Demonstration Program, the focus of staff activities shifted —Ken Bierly often in response to the needs of the overall Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Oregon partnership, but the enduring vision and values provided solid ground for staff as they made these adjustments.

WRTC would have put jobs for community members at the top of its to-do list, but it LESSON 5 Whatever their was able to adjust to community needs and organizational structure, community- still stay within its mission. based entities need to keep an equal focus on getting the work done, building With all the opportunities that CBF offers, it staff and systems, and fundraising. can be easy to lose one’s grounding. At first, Wallowa Resources responded to nearly It is easy for a small organization or pro- every community request. It tried to be gram to stay focused on the needs of the everything to everyone. Over time, however, grant, especially when it is project-focused. the organization has learned to sort out While the long-term funding provided by the and manage these competing priorities. Ford Foundation offered some longer-term “Strategic planning and keeping our focus security and created the space to focus were critical to managing our growth,” said on project implementation, many groups Diane Snyder, Wallowa Resources’ executive focused on this implementation to the director. “Our greatest strength is staying detriment of their own core fundraising. focused on our mission.” The Public Lands Partnership, on the Vermont Family Forests articulated a clear other hand, worked hard to maintain an vision and upheld strict land manage- informal organizational structure while still ment standards. The community largely developing the systems it required to get understood this commitment, but some felt its work done and respond to the needs of excluded by the implicit statement that VFF its partners. For example, when PLP found has the only good approach to taking care that it needed a formal structure to receive of the trees. Clarity of vision was there, but and administer funds allocated from various this vision lacked the flexibility to bring oth- agencies, it created a separate nonprofit ers into the fold. entity, called Unc/Com, to be that fiscal administrator.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 151

At the end of Demonstration Program, PLP when staff was not available. They also is asking what kind of an organization it were concerned about potential conflicts- ought be. It would like to preserve its infor- of-interest. With all the different roles that mal table for civic dialogue, but recognizes an individual staff member might seek to this informal conversation also needs to fulfill during the week, it was not always lead to implementation. The implementing clear which particular hat he or she might organization would have to be more for- be wearing — VFF staff member, business mally structured, although still accountable owner, or state forester. to the community.

PLP may very well decide to continue to serve Decisions about staffing priorities can make the as the informal entity that would listen to and respect diverse opinions, find common difference between progress and stalled efforts. ground, educate and broaden understanding, garner public input, and incubate ideas. Out of PLP, then, would flow the ideas to be implemented. Unc/Com could be the fiscal LESSON 7 Organizations should make administrator and, as such, it would continue the investment in continuous learning to be closely aligned with the agencies. and an ethic of adaptive management.

LESSON 6 With limited resources The staff at D.C. Greenworks recognize that and staff, implementing organizations it is Dawn Gifford’s interest and investment had to focus their activities, and they in learning that affords them flexibility in had to keep asking, “How does this how they do their jobs. Although they can get a little nervous about this discretionary particular activity impact the forest, the freedom, they understand that Gifford community, and the economy?” wants them to learn from their creative experiments, rather than be judged for Throughout much of the Demonstration failure. As such, Gifford has created a Program, Penn Center dedicated only one learning organization. staff person to implementing its CBF objectives. She chiefly focused on the community Diane Snyder has created an organization capacity-building aspect of CBF by nurturing that is responsive to community needs the Lowcountry Landowners Association. through ever-improving project design and With its limited staffing, Penn was not able implementation. When the Joseph Timber to take its initial marketing research to the Company sawmill went bankrupt, Wallowa next step and thus was not able to reach its Resources’ board and management took CBF-related economic objectives. what they had learned and started another business venture. They understood that the Vermont Family Forests, on the other hand, community still needed manufacturing jobs. tried to work across all dimensions at once. Snyder, her board, and her staff were willing It chose to hire three individuals for a few to take another, this time better-informed, hours a week who each were very skilled risk in the business world. in their areas of expertise. Community members and customers became frustrated

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7 152

Public Lands Partnership found that a moni- There are myriad reasons for staff turnover toring plan was essential to keeping the at the Federation, but a critical one may organization focused on the big picture and be that there are few leadership roles for desired outcomes, especially while it was staff to grow into. One step toward creating trying out different strategies to reach those such roles might include providing program outcomes. Each year, PLP reviews the impact directors the resources and power necessary its programs are having. It also assesses to do their work. Another step might involve how its different strategies are working. PLP including new leadership in the strategic and then adapts its programs to respond to this decision-making levels of the organization. learning and to adjust to changes in the organization’s external context. The Watershed Research and Training Center has a very dynamic executive director. She has built a very horizontal organizational structure. This approach The varying skill sets that CBF requires pose a number demands a lot from the staff, and WRTC of staffing challenges: how to attract and keep offers training opportunities so that staff can meet these challenges. There people who have the needed technical expertise, will always be limited opportunities for advancement in a small organization, but how to train local community members, and how to each job can be designed to stretch skills and offer expanding responsibilities. forge partnerships that can supplement staff abilities.

LESSON 9 Forging synergies with partners and other organizations is a Staffing and skills great way to expand the scope of work when an organization has a small staff, LESSON 8 CBOs must find ways but it still needs core staff. to retain younger staff by devolving authority and creating new opportunities. Public Lands Partnership had one staff person who kept an eye on the organization’s One of the Federation of Southern Coopera- overall schedule and commitments. Without tive’s greatest assets is the long-term com- her, PLP’s partnerships, committees, and mitment of its leadership, some of whom consultants would not have been able to have been with the organization since the move from discussion to action. founding. However, the true challenge has been in retaining staff that often go on to The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ work for other organizations, agencies, and Lans Assistence Fund works in close partner- businesses — many of which partner with the ship with the Alabama Forestry Commission Federation in one way or another. While on (for outreach and management plan develop- the one hand the Federation can feel pride ment), the U.S. Forest Service (for accessing in serving as a training ground, on the other resources, particularly for small farmers), hand the Federation could retain and con- and universities (for veterinarian services tinue benefiting from the contributions of and additional demonstration sites). The these same people if greater opportunities Federation staff keep these connections existed within the organization. up-to-date and vibrant.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 153

LESSON 10 Look for the skills that are needed to capitalize on opportunities. In the beginning, we couldn’t conceive of Don’t expect to build the full-spectrum doing it ourselves. Now that is all we can conceive of. skill base right away. Instead, develop “ skills organically, depending on what the When other people don’t think you have the skills, on-the-ground practice requires. you don’t think you have those skills. We wouldn’t have said that we could do it, Much of what was learned about staffing but through our struggles we saw that CBF initiatives derived from the challenges that staff actually faced. Judging from the we were the only ones that could.” Demonstration Program, CBF had a significant impact only where staff stuck around —Cece Headley, founding member for the longer term. CBF requires a lot of Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, Pacific West different skill sets and few of the participating sites had all those skills on staff. Even so, they were learning by doing. And, given the Similarly, members of the Roots of fact that it is usually difficult to get people Appalachia Growers Association who have the needed technical expertise to emphasized how important it has been move to and stay in rural areas, several sites to have continuity among their dedi- were able to identify and effectively train cated support staff, all of whom were local community members to meet the need. provided through Rural Action. One of the added values of a community- Credibility in the community comes from based organi zation is that it more likely keeping one’s commitments and knowing remains committed for the long haul, how to do one’s chosen work well. In that even when other organizations and light, then, the following appear essential to individuals have moved on. long-term success: The lone staff person at North Quabbin 1. It is necessary to have at least one Woods was able to accomplish more full-time staff person. Because Ford than most single-person offices, because Foundation funding was divided among he tapped into the skills and expertise the three partners who actively par- of community members and marketing ticipated in the Vermont Family Forests consultants. Partnership, VFFP itself could not afford to retain even one full-time staff person. 2. Project directors, whatever their title, It tried to get everything done by hiring need to be self-reflective, systems several part-time people. One focused thinkers. They also need to be risk- takers on education, another on business, and and early adopters. They need to be another on forestry. When community able to identify resources and know how members or potential customers called to interact with them. They need to be the VFFP office, they typically felt dis- “collaborative leaders” and to be willing couraged by — and often resented — the when necessary to adopt a low profile, lack of response. No one was in the offering good information and providing office every day to answer the phones tools so that others can discover their and follow up on requests. own way. Project directors and staff

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7 154

need to be competent, willing to get 5. A mix of outsiders and local people is their hands dirty, and people- oriented. healthy for a CBO. Local people gener- As one community member said, “When ally understand the larger context and I’m in a bind with something and bring a long-term commitment to place, Amadou [Diop, with the Federation of while outsiders can bring new perspec- Southern Cooperatives] gives me some tives. For those who come in from the advice, I can be sure that he’s done outside, organizations need to make some of the things himself. You don’t just an investment in building a bridge for have to take his word for it. You can look them to the community. Diane Snyder, at the demonstration he’s established executive director of Wallowa Resources here at Epes.” and a fourth-generation resident of eastern Oregon, made an important 3. Women play key roles in the leadership investment early on in newcomer Nils of CBF organizations. Forestry histori- Christofferson’s tenure. “She had me cally has been a man’s field. When CBF spend time creating and building programs are located in larger, male- relationships and getting to know the dominated organizations, men tend to history, issues, and personalities,” he staff these programs. More recently, explained. however, women have stepped in, chiefly because the old systems have not been The Watershed Research and Training working for their communities. They are Center looks first to its own community the executive directors of CBF commu- and then goes outside for the added nity-based organizations and the back- skills it needs. Young people often leave bone of informal collaborative groups. the community to seek education and Experience demonstrates that women other life experiences, yet eventually tend to be less limited by history and want to return. They provide an excellent more interested in finding new answers. pool from which to recruit staff. Their commitment to place and experience 4. When hiring additional staff, find people with bridging diverse cultures typically who think in different ways. Just one prepare them well for the work of CBF. person ran D.C. Greenworks for an interim period. When she finally was An AFWH board member suggested able to hire others, Dawn Gifford was that one way to strengthen the orga- amazed by how much more quickly nization’s board training would be to everyone could learn and adapt to new have a mentoring program that allows challenges and changing conditions. grassroots members to spend a year “learning the trade” as non-voting board members before they become full-voting Demonstrations sites found that it was essential to board members.

have at least one full-time staff member, but that it 6. An organization implementing CBF cannot get far without a grant proposal was equally essential to bring to the table a mix of writer. However, this position must be matched with effective program devel- people, backgrounds, and ideas. opment. Every site in the Demonstration Program found this out. It is equally

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 155

important, however, to diversify the CBO’s funding base. Several of the Consultants can supplement staff resources, groups now include both fundraising from individual donors and earned but it is up to staff to structure the consultancy so income as key ways to generate unre- stricted, core funding. For example, in that the scope of work is clear and the consultant order to raise funds from a wider pool understands the specific community setting. of donors, Wallowa Resources clarified its message (about the importance of its work in eastern Oregon) to reach potential contributors who live in cities across clearly explain what participatory the Northwest, especially Portland. research actually is and the roles the community can play. 7. CBF organizations need to know how collaborators think, speak in their lan- AFWH, for example, partnered with guage, and be recognized as legitimate the Ecosystem Workforce Program by them. Private lands groups need for- (EWP) of the University of Oregon to estry expertise, and public lands groups undertake a participatory assessment. need to know how the agencies work. EWP provided rigorous sampling and Rural Action brought a retired forester survey protocols, while AFWH staff into its CBF program. Doing so earned it conducted the actual interviews of low- credibility with both public agency part- wage forestry contract laborers. AFWH ners and community members. Wallowa then used the information to guide its Resources learned how the U.S. Forest outreach and services. Together, AFWH Service has worked with communities and EWP disseminate the results within and how other regions were making the CBF movement, and to broader their own CBF programs work. This policy and agency audiences. knowledge kept its collaborative projects 9. Consultants can provide needed skills, moving forward. The Alliance of Forest if their scope of work is clear. Staff likely Workers and Harvesters hired as execu- better understand the community and tive director an individual who previously its needs. Consultants may provide the had been both a worker and a harvester. expertise needed to take advantage of AFWH also translated its newsletter an emerging opportunity, but they are into Spanish to reach more of the forest not likely fully to understand the local workers, many of whom are Latino. context. It is up to staff to structure the 8. Rigor is necessary for multiparty consultancy so that the scope of work is monitoring and participatory research clear and to orient the consultant well projects. Successful multiparty monitor- enough that their work is useful in the ing requires careful design and thor- specific community setting. ough analysis in which all stakeholders 10. All CBF organizations need commu- engage. CBOs find that it takes a lot of nity-organizing skills. It is possible for time to do this monitoring effectively. a CBO to develop a CBF program by Not all communities are prepared for adding forestry to its community participatory approaches. CBOs must capacity-building and -organizing skills.

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7 156

WhatTIP makes a good community organizer? by Hunter Gray, community organizer (www.hunterbear.org)

■ Be bright, alert, and sparky. And, hopefully, be intelligent about theory and content.

■ Formal academic training can certainly be useful to any organizer, but it isn’t absolutely

necessary.

■ Be a person who is thoroughly ethical and honorable. Set a good personal example.

■ Race and social class are not usually critical for a good organizer, rather the ability to

bridge between diverse groups. In other words, be sensitive—but be yourself.

■ Be able to communicate clearly and well.

■ The good organizer will have some sort of altruistic ideology couched as an integrated,

cogent set of beliefs embodying goals and tactics. The organizer can convey a general

perspective, which the grassroots people can take or not. They will certainly want some

time—and should have it—to think it all over. And soon enough, together the organizer

and the grassroots people can develop solid goals and effective tactics. The organizer

brings gifts—and the grassroots people provide at least most of the reality.

■ The organizer must have a genuinely powerful and enduring commitment. This involves a

very real and deep belief in both the people and the cause.

■ The organizer has to have a healthy but controllable ego—and be willing to let go of

control.

■ An organizer has to be a person with a tough hide.

■ A good organizer has a vision—one that is two-dimensional: “over the mountain yonder”

and the “day-to-day needs.” Something with vision only can easily wind up a small, in-

grown sect, and something that is only day-to-day can become a tired service program.

And when an organizer has lost her/his way, people will leave.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 157

It may not be quite as feasible the other On the other hand, the Jobs and Biodiversity way around. The Federation, which had Coalition chose to hire someone strictly a decades-long history of effective com- focused on the community and did not inte- munity development, organizing, and grate his work with the forest restoration and stewardship, was able to effectively add business development initiatives. While some forestry to its skill base; CBF provided good community organizing has taken place, yet another tool for building community it is not necessarily connecting people with capacity. the principles and activities of CBF.

Implementing CBF through Community-Based Organizations Chapter 7

CHAPTER Designing and 8 Supporting CBF Programs 160

n 1999, as the Ford Foundation ini- Ultimately, over the six years (including both tially designed what would become its planning and implementation phases), the I National CBF Demonstration Program, Ford Foundation invested a total of more the community-based forestry movement in than $12.5 million. Twenty groups received the United States was still relatively young. six-month planning grants ranging up to CBF practitioners and communities were $40,000 each. The Foundation subsequently negotiating to establish their place at vari- awarded core grants of $75,000 to ous tables where decisions about natural $150,000 per year to each of 13 implement- resource man agement were being made. ing organizations (see map on page 18 for They sought to advocate community-based location of grantees) for a total of up to approaches that could improve the forests $750,000 over five years. while generating sustainable jobs and strengthening local economies. The usual Moreover, grants were awarded to the response to such assertions was, predict- Natural Assets Program at the Aspen ably, “Show me.” Institute as managing partner, as well as to the Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation at Pennsylvania State University, There are benefits and disadvantages to and Colorado State University to undertake research. Over the six years, these compo- awarding larger, longer-term grants to a nents used nearly $3.5 million (drawn from the Foundation’s $12.5 million total invest- small number of applicants. Such awards allowed ment) to support technical assistance, peer learning, publications, overall management for stability, risk-taking, and experimentation. of the portfolio during both the planning However, 180 applicant groups were disappointed, and implementation phases, and research. Colorado State University’s research effort and some of the more recently established groups is still ongoing.

have since closed their doors. A multilayered initiative such as the Demonstration Program — with active roles played by the managing partner and research team — requires additional commit- Following consultations with emerging ments on the part of the grant recipients, leaders and organizations in the fledgling including managing relationships, attending CBF field, the Ford Foundation program workshops and completing assignments, officer at the time responded to the and participating in research. challenge. He agreed to invest about $15 million over five years in on-the-ground This chapter closely examines three projects that could demonstrate CBF as a components of designing and supporting viable management alternative capable CBF programs — grantmaking; use of a of meeting the interrelated objectives of managing partner, including peer learning healthy forests, sustainable economies, and and technical assistance; and conducting resilient communities. research to test assumptions, build knowledge, and advance the understanding and practice of CBF more broadly in the United States.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 161

Grantmaking The Demonstration Program was intended to meet at least three objectives: First, it would In response to an open national compe- provide the evidence that CBF was a viable tition held in 1999, the Ford Foundation alternative to the continuing jobs versus the received 193 proposals for Phase I environment debate on public lands and that planning grants. All of these groups it could generate sustainable livelihoods. were included on a mailing list receiving Second, the program was to be national in periodic publications, and several have scope, reflecting the diverse practices and been engaged in peer learning and other forms that CBF takes in different regions of program activities. Even so, 180 groups the country. And third, given the mission of were disappointed, and some of the newer the Ford Foundation to “reduce poverty and groups have since closed their doors. injustice,” it would promote CBF practice by minority communities and in regions of per- In the fall of that year, the Natural Assets sistent poverty on public, private, and tribal Program of the Aspen Institute established lands. Given CBF’s historical track record in a project selection committee to review both the United States, however, it was apparent the planning grant proposals and the final that these three objectives do not always proposals, and to provide guidance to the work in tandem. Accordingly, the project Ford Foundation program officer in his selec- selection committee used multiple sets of tion of the grantees. When considering such criteria to evaluate the pending proposals. a large number of applicants and using a selection committee, there may need to Across the country, the applicants them- be a compromise between the committee selves differed dramatically, whether and the foundation program officer who, in assessed by their prior experiences or this case, ultimately had the decision over simply by their level of organizational selection of the grants in order to ensure the development. Several communities adja- Ford Foundation’s investments were made cent to public lands in the Northwest, for in support of its goals. example, already had been struggling with CBF issues for several years. Communities Twenty groups received a six-month, in other parts of the country, however, were $40,000 planning grant and were invited just starting their CBF programs. Even to submit a Phase II full proposal. The given these differences, the selection com- Foundation also invited an additional mittee sought to ensure that communities five groups to submit a full proposal, from every region of the country would be but they did not receive planning grants. included in the Demonstration Program. Representatives from most of the applicants Moreover, the committee selected CBF attended a three-day workshop highlighting programs that represented differing stages the program elements, including the roles of of organizational maturity, level of staff the managing partner and evaluation team, skills and knowledge, and levels of commu- project design, methods of monitoring, and nity awareness, interest, and involvement, partnerships between for-profits and non- among other factors. As a demonstration profits, among others. No other technical program, however, there were still expecta- assistance was provided. tions that by the end of the full six years, all of the sites would illustrate the successes and challenges of implementing CBF.

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 162

Ford Foundation awarded and administered these 13 core grants, with all of the deci- Planning grants proved useful but perhaps sions on proposals and final awards made might have focused more broadly upon by the senior program officer. Shortly after the grants were awarded, however, a new building capacity or skills useful for the future, person took over this position.

regardless of whether the proposal itself

was successful or not. Lessons learned

LESSON 1 Planning grants can The selection committee further believed be an effective means of enabling it would be critical to award grants to all communities to begin to think through of the demonstration sites under the same terms. Nonetheless, there was a lot of new ideas, build community around debate within the committee whether the natural resource issues, and establish approach of “one size fits all” was the most new partnerships. appropriate. Some members argued that it was difficult to judge an organization’s In general, implementing groups — all of potential when it had no track record and which were community-based organiza- had never before implemented a CBF tions — found the Demonstration Program program. Some suggested, then, that planning grants useful, with a couple of perhaps the grant period for some of the caveats: groups initially should be shorter. Others expressed concern that $750,000 would ■ Some grantees believed the planning be too much money for the newer orga- grants could have been designated for nizations. Some committee members felt a longer time period, allowing them to that the funds would have greater impact more deeply learn about and engage supporting a total of more projects, but for the community. Given the relatively short lower amounts. Still more voiced concern time frame of about six months, several that if a two-tiered approach were used to of the newer sites found it necessary to separate established programs from newer continue this work through the first year ones, a “second class” of grantees would be of the core grant. As a result, the antici- created. Prior experience had demonstrated pated partnerships and project activities that such tiered systems require a high level changed for some groups after the initial of familiarity with the grantees in order to grant award, creating tensions in the place them correctly. community as some organizations felt “dropped” when they were not engaged In the end, given the experience of past in the modified activities. Other grantees, programs and the inherent complexity who did not receive planning grants, felt of implementing CBF, it was agreed that it would have been beneficial for all of all 13 demonstration sites would receive the Demonstration Program sites to have funding for five years in amounts ranging received them. up to $750,000 per grantee, generally awarded in equal yearly installments. The

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 163

■ The planning grants provided the LESSON 3 Differentials in power — such resources necessary to write the proposal. as access to resources, information, and While this subsidy was essential, espe- decisions — exist between donors and cially for newer organizations, the plan- grantees and need to be recognized and ning grant activity sometimes became addressed. Clarity about expectations narrowly focused upon just competing for the grant. The planning grants might and objectives, transparency, and have focused more broadly upon build- honesty are required to negotiate power ing capacity or skills useful for the future, imbalances. regardless of whether the proposal itself was successful or not. Awarding a grant can alter the power relationship between donors and grantees, no matter how hard one may try not to let LESSON 2 Some groups could have that happen. One group wants the funds; benefited from technical assistance the other group has the power to decide during the planning grant phase, whether or not it receives them. Rather including assistance in community than ignore these dynamics, it is more ben- organizing, business planning, eficial to discuss them openly. Admittedly, developing and structuring partnerships, funders face the dilemma of working and designing CBF programs. toward their specific objectives on the one hand, and remaining hands-off and A missed opportunity during the planning respecting the autonomy of the grantee on grant stage would have been to work much the other. In the Demonstration Program, more closely with the recipients in under- this trade-off further was complicated standing CBF and designing their programs. by the complexity of CBF, the flexibility As discussed in Chapter 2, the best organi- of funding, and the longer-term commit- zation is one where there is a sincere comment, which allowed for significantly more mitment to the integrated approach. Not all evolution and change in organizations and organizations have had the opportunity to programs over the funding cycle. explore this aspect of their work. They likely need assistance in asking the questions necessary to ensure that their planned activities Awarding a grant can alter the power relationship integrate the three core CBF components of resilient communities, sustainable econo- between donors and grantees. Rather than mies, and healthy forest ecosystems. During ignoring these dynamics, it is more beneficial this process, a third party can better gauge the capacity and needs of the organization, to discuss them openly. and where and how to focus funding, as discussed below. Additional support in other technical areas also may be necessary. To avoid a conflict of interest, the assistance provider should not be part of the selection process of the final awards.

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 164

For example, the implementing groups found it much easier to raise funds for implementa- If a funder is going to fund a partnership of tion of specific, on-the-ground projects — such groups,“ make sure they have worked together before as planting trees — than for the networking and have established trust and transparency. and collaboration needed to identify the on- the-ground work in the first place. If not, there will be a lot of suspicion.” Flexibility in the use of funds also meant —Renee Stauffer, board member grantees sometimes unilaterally made Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, Pacific West changes that the funder was not fully aware of — or might not have agreed with, had these activities been outlined in the original proposal. For groups to enjoy all CBF programs frequently involve new rela- of its benefits, such discretionary flexibility tionships with diverse and unfamiliar part- requires that the funder, too, become more ners. Funders inadvertently may add to the flexible. Where this is a new or less familiar inherent challenges and shift the balance approach to grantmaking, such flexibility of power among the parties when they fund may require building greater awareness one or more particular organizations within and transparency around project activities, a larger partnership. When funders award as well as ensuring that systems are in a number of grants to competing organiza- place so that all parties are accountable tions addressing similar issues, often in the for the use of funds. same place, this can increase conflict and place the funder in the position of possibly having to choose sides. Trust and transparency LESSON 4 When supporting TIP innovation, implementation, Trust and transparency are critical and learning about complex, for any partnership. To explore new multidisciplinary, and integrated partnerships and build trust, donors programs, funders need to support core operations and infrastructure. could award small grants during the early stages for joint implementation Funds designated for general or core support of small activities. This would allow organizations to be more entrepreneurial and responsive to opportunities and provide the group the opportunity to to community needs. In the Demonstration really learn more about each other Program, flexibility allowed the evolution and how best to work together, as of ideas within the parameters of project goals. Flexibility also increased the potential well as have a small success. Then for leveraging additional resources. General the group may be ready to move support funds could be used as a match to other sources, as well as reallocated where into implementation of larger and they were most needed to complement and longer-term CBF projects. increase the effectiveness of other resources.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 165

LESSON 5 A longer time frame for grants is essential to successfully Donors always want something new and innovative, implementing a complex program [but] staying for the long haul is important.” seeking systemic and sustainable change, “ although this can create challenges for —Dawn Gifford, executive director newer organizations and the funder. D.C. Greenworks The five-year funding commitment by the Ford Foundation offered security and reli- ability, thereby allowing groups to embark The five-year funding commitment also pre- on implementing complex CBF programs, sented pros and cons for the funder. On the hiring staff, and making their own long-term one hand, it can help create the opportunity commitments to partners. It relieved staff for a genuine sense of partnership with from the all-consuming and seemingly the grantees — one that promotes honesty endless task of writing grant proposals and and transparency, as the grantees do not reports for numerous, short-term, small censure their comments out of worry about grants. This commitment also provided the next year’s grant. With this commitment, the opportunity to put in place a learning both parties seem more willing to work and adaptive management cycle. For together on reaching outcomes acceptable groups that had several “cost reimbursable to all — including, when this is not possible, grants” from the federal government (which adjusting funding levels. only releases funding after funds have been spent and accounted for), the Ford On the other hand, when an organization Foundation awards made it possible for is not performing to standard and no new groups to deliver on commitments to the agreement can be reached, it can be dif- community and get the work done even ficult for the donor to withdraw support for while waiting for reimbursement. upcoming funding cycles. As a corollary, grant recipients may feel that they must Most importantly, the first round of Ford report that they are being and doing what Foundation funding, albeit reduced from the donor wants, when, in fact, they are not. original expectations, was firmly committed through the period immediately following LESSON 6 Several years in advance, the events of September 11, 2001 — a time prepare organizations for the time when when many donors and government sources reduced or eliminated their grantmaking. long-term funding will end, including Without the long-term support received assistance in developing alternative through the Demonstration Program, some fundraising strategies. of the implementing groups may have had to close their doors. In addition, for CBF At the outset of the Demonstration organizations (as distinguished from CBF Program, one of the important criteria used programs within organizations), the flexibility by the selection committee was the antici- of the Ford Foundation funds contributed to pated financial sustainability of the project/ their overall financial solvency, as these funds program at the end of the six-year program. could be moved to where they were needed The committee thought that perhaps, after most and still support the CBF objectives. five years of the implementation phase,

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 166

the economic “leg” would help provide that LESSON 7 Community-based forestry financial sustainability. Furthermore, the requires varying amounts of funding committee believed other donors would join that can be allocated to different the Ford Foundation in their support of CBF. uses over the lifecycle of an individual Looking back today, these may have been program. Funders may be entering at overly optimistic assumptions. Regardless, even though each implementing group any point in this cycle. Consequently, knew that the length of the implementation funders require the skills to discern phase was five years, the managing partner where the organization is along that could have stressed this point more often. cycle, and then the flexibility to respond to that point. In fact, while there were many benefits of the long-term flexible funds provided While there is certainly no formal guideline, by the Ford Foundation, there also were groups at different stages of both organi- some drawbacks. Particularly for newer zational development and project imple- organizations less familiar with the shorter mentation require different types and levels time frames used by the majority of the of investments. funding world, the five-year duration of the grants provided a false sense of security. For In the beginning, CBF groups need several of the groups, the grants were large resources for building community around enough to fully support the organization natural resource issues and engaging the and its work, so that it was not motivated to community in priority setting and project seek additional sources of funds. As a result, planning. As described throughout this many did not make fundraising a priority report, accomplishing these objectives until the last year of the Demonstration requires significant investments in train- Program — which was almost too late. ing, outreach, demonstration, technical During the Demonstration Program’s last assistance, networking, collaboration, and year, groups attended a peer learning work- community planning processes. As the CBF shop on fundraising, which they described program grows, groups will identify new as helpful and effective. Some of the imple- products and develop appropriate tech- menting groups, however, commented that nologies, and landowners will adopt best it would have been more beneficial if it had management practices. They then will need been offered earlier. investments in land management, business development, marketing, and, ultimately, in production capacity, including capital and While there were many benefits of the machinery. For many projects, there also is a time when the local workforce needs long-term flexible funds provided by the Ford training in sustainable forestry practices for ecosystem restoration and other skills. Foundation, there also were some drawbacks.

For some groups, the five-year duration of the It is often very difficult for community-based organizations to obtain capital from tradi- implementation grants provided a false sense of tional sources, such as banks and federal loan funds. CBF is viewed as “high risk” and security that delayed efforts to seek other funding. offers slow returns. In fact, CBF requires

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 167

“patient capital” that typically is best provided by a foundation. Too often, however, donors limit their support to the soft costs of Investing in infrastructure salaries, training, and technical assistance. POLICY They are less willing to make hard invest- Foundations need to invest, through a mix of ments in equipment, infrastructure, and financial instruments, in the infrastructure operating capital. needed for adding value to the resources.

Flexibility also is needed in the flow of funds. Within the constraints of the foundations’ Some of the groups stated it was best to receive fewer funds in the first years, allow- funding cycles, they also need to allow for ing the amount to increase as project activi- flexibility in the flow of funds. ties moved along into on-the-ground land management and enterprise development. For other groups, generally further along in that “just started” to older, more-established their project implementation, receiving more organizations, some of which have never funds up front, followed by reduced funding before practiced community-based forestry. in later years, actually strengthened both Clearly, it is necessary to start where orga- their motivation and capacity to conduct nizations are and recognize that for some fundraising efforts. And for some groups, groups it will be nearly impossible to foresee the relatively large amounts of grant funds where they might evolve. “Success,” then, pushed them into an administrative morass is measured from this initial vantage point, they were ill-equipped to handle, with the upon which all parties need to agree. result that their early efforts focused on learning and creating bureaucratic systems, Although the starting point for measuring meeting reporting requirements, and success of the individual programs may generally pleasing the donor, rather than on differ, it is important that the implementing serving the constituent group. groups hold themselves accountable for deliverables against annual targets, even LESSON 8 The diversity of the when the measurement cannot be quantita- implementing groups may require that tive. There must be a balance between the need for accountability and results to justify the starting point for measuring success continued investment in the short term, and of the individual projects be different for the need for flexibility and dedicated funds each one. At the same time, especially in the longer term. Even so, many of the in the case of new organizations, implementing groups were seeking stronger funders need to be willing to accept less internal accountability. “forseeability” and more risk. Monitoring, then, starting where a CBF is situation-specific; there is no single group is and including annual reviews, prescribed model or list of required com- is a critical element of the relationship ponents that must be in place. Rather, it between the funder and the grantee. In the adapts to and builds on the local ecological Demonstration Program, the managing and social context. CBF today is being imple- partner worked with each group to develop mented by organizations ranging from those a “self-monitoring plan.” This step, including

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 168

StrategiesTIP donors can use to foster capacity building ■ General operating support grants

■ Grants specifically to increase organizational effectiveness

■ Capital financing for nonprofits and intermediaries

■ Grant support for monitoring and evaluating projects/programs and organizations

■ Direct management assistance by the donor

■ Grant support to a full-time, dedicated, and consistent managing partner focusing on

organizational development

■ Networking grantees and promoting peer learning

Adapted from: Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, Funding Effectiveness: Lessons in Building Non-Proﬁ t Capacity, San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2004.

the technical assistance that was provided, While there are several different strate- was critical to helping the implementing gies for accomplishing this objective, the groups develop their CBF programs. Demonstration Program found that a Implementation of these plans can be an managing partner, described below, was effective tool for managing risk, although effective. Several individuals stated that if partners may need encouragement to carry the funds for organizational development them out in light of other pressing priorities. had been disbursed to them directly, it would have been difficult to use them for the intended purpose. More likely, they LESSON 9 Provide support for building would have used the funds to respond to organizational capacity. immediate needs in the community.

There is no doubt that strengthening the organizational capacity of community-based LESSON 10 Multidisciplinary, groups increases the effectiveness of grant integrated sustainable development funds and, ultimately, the resiliency of the programs such as CBF require a similar community itself. Support is needed in shift within the donor community — strategic planning, monitoring, leadership including both private and public development, board and staff training, operating systems, and financial management, funders — to integrated programming among other areas. and grantmaking, as an alternative to the current “stovepipe” approach.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 169

An effective community-based forestry program is one that integrates CBF’s inter- An effective community-based forestry program is one related ecological, social, and economic components. As long as donors are willing to only that integrates CBF’s interrelated ecological, social, fund one of these CBF “legs,” the implementing organization must identify — no doubt and economic components. When any one of the core with varying success — additional, often very CBF components is not funded, the effectiveness of the different, sources of funding. When any one of the core CBF components is not funded, overall program—and that of the grants—is reduced. this reduces the effectiveness of the overall program — as well as that of the grants.

Demonstration Program, these roles were combined and implemented by five individu- The managing partner als working part-time.15 This working group, then, served as the managing partner. To ensure that funds allocated to the com- Combining these functions ensured coordi- munity grantees had the maximum impact nation between all of the elements and that possible and that lessons applicable to the they were mutually reinforcing. By working broader field were analyzed and captured, on several components simultaneously, the Ford Foundation awarded a grant to the the managing partner was able to interact Aspen Institute and the Pinchot Institute for with a number of individuals within the Conservation to act as managing partner implementing group on different elements. for the overall initiative. Experience with As a result, the managing partner was other programs had shown the value a man- able to take a more holistic and integrated aging partner could bring, including more approach to the support it provided. These effective use of grant funds, intentional multiple levels of interaction also resulted learning and enhancement of programs, in the managing partner gaining a deeper and, ultimately, improved practice. understanding of the implementing group in a shorter amount of time. As co-manager, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation was essential to developing It is not always necessary to put all of these the design of the CBF Demonstration support components in place. Similarly, Program and in providing support from these elements could be implemented by 1999 until mid-2001. When a key staff a number of different organizations. As person left the Pinchot Institute in 2001, discussed in the pages that follow, learning the Aspen Institute assumed full leadership from the Demonstration Program seemed to of the managing partner role. However, the indicate that splitting out the fourth function staff person was able to continue to be a is beneficial and potentially can improve the member of the resources team, providing effectiveness of the first three. valuable assistance and a longer-term perspective.

15 A total of about 1.7 full-time equivalents, including There are four primary roles a managing Robert Donnan, Mary Mitsos, Danyelle O’Hara, Mary partner can provide (as described in the Virtue, and Barbara Wyckoff-Baird. In addition, Kelly box on page 172). For the National CBF Malone served as a full-time program coordinator until Fall 2004.

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 170

OrganizationalTIP coaching Increasingly, funders seek to pair their grantees with organizational coaches—individuals

trained in areas such as organizational development, team-building, and leadership

development—to help them hone their strategic direction, build more sustainable and vital

institutions, and create the kinds of partnerships that will ensure greater impact over the

long term. Unlike in the sports context, this approach to coaching involves the active and

collaborative participation of both the coach and the client.

■ Effective coaches have a level of expertise and knowledge that makes a difference in the

quality of the service they offer.

■ Effective coaches are always learning, formally and informally.

■ Effective coaches have, and use, a network to refer clients.

■ Effective coaches are proactive and continually touch base with organizations and

communities to ascertain what kinds of assistance they need.

These outside consultants provide a host of possible supporting roles for the staff within an

organization. A few of the most common include:

Guide/mentor. Coaches most commonly act in a one-on-one capacity with organizational

leaders, helping them to think through strategy and complex interpersonal relationships as

well as providing them with moral support.

Skills developer. Coaches can train individuals within an institution in specific skills ranging

from fundraising to brand development to time management.

Facilitator. Coaches can facilitate board and staff retreats to hone vision and strategic

direction, build more effective teams, or enhance board capacity.

Bridge. Coaches can act as a bridge between different partner organizations, helping each

to understand the needs of the other and thus work together more effectively.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 171

TIP(continued) Networker. Coaches can open doors to help grantees make vital connections with public

agencies, foundations, or other potential partner organizations.

Korten, Alicia, with Barbara Wyckoff-Baird. Staying Power: Using Technical Assistance and Peer Learning to Enhance Donor Investments. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, (forthcoming).

The Aspen Institute hired Barbara Wyckoff- ing with the funder. With its “bird’s eye Baird to act as director and lead coach for view,” external to the implementing groups, the initiative. In an effort to ensure each site yet integral to them, the managing partner felt comfortable with their coach and to cre- was able to aggregate learning in a way ate a safe place for grantees to discuss their that might not have emerged from any one strengths and weaknesses and to solve prob- individual group’s perceptions. The manag- lems, Wyckoff-Baird then identified a team of ing partner had more interactions with each four additional resource people. In addition of the grantees than any of the implement- to organizational coaching, these resource ing groups had with one another. The man- people also provided support to grantees in aging partner captured this knowledge by areas such as branding, marketing, commu- periodically bringing together the resource nity organizing, collaborating with public land team and the funder in a series of facilitated management agencies, and communications. dialogues. As a result, there was a continual distilling of the groups’ individual learning Several of the implementing groups stated toward a higher level of knowledge-build- that it was useful to have access to the ing. This level of strategic thinking helps broader range of skills that was avail- the donor to see the overall impact and able by having multiple resource people. relevance of the work on the ground to the Collaboration and communication within national-level CBF movement. the resource team, as well as their long-term commitment to the program, meant that the consultants generally knew the history and context of the implementing organization For me, distilling the grantees’ individual and its CBF program. This resulted in more learning toward a higher level of knowledge-building effective technical assistance and avoided “ the repeated briefings by project staff often is very critical…because it sets the Demonstration required to bring new or short-term consul- Program in my broader portfolio of working in the tants up to date. Getting the right person community-based forestry movement.” on board for each site is one of the biggest challenges facing a managing partner. —Jeff Campbell, senior program officer While the managing partner had a signifi- The Ford Foundation, New York City cant role in supporting the implementing groups, it also had a crucial role in interfac-

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 172

FourTIP roles of a managing partner 1. Identify technical assistance for the grantees, including providing ongoing coaching from

a resource team;

2. Provide peer learning opportunities, foster the interconnectivity of the group, and

maintain continuity;

3. Distill and disseminate experiences from the Demonstration Program throughout the CBF

field; and

4. Facilitate communication between the donor and grantees, including assisting with the

management of the grants.

Obviously, designating a managing partner ties. The amount of support any one requires financial resources that otherwise grantee received varied over time as the could be allocated to communities and organization’s needs changed. projects on the ground. A foundation program officer has to consider carefully the challenges facing the grantees and decide Lessons learned whether organizational capacity building, technical assistance, and peer learning are critical to their success. Foundation staff LESSON 11 Relationships that are also need to consider the need and best built on trust, respect, and a willingness strategy for distilling lessons learned and to learn are at the heart of a managing building knowledge in the field. partner’s work, making it largely personality-driven. At the same time, the Grantees took advantage of the coaching managing partner needs solid skills in opportunities to varying degrees. In some cases, the coaches spent hundreds of both CBF and institutional development. hours with grantees, visiting project sites as In other words, he or she must be a often as three times a year, and speaking good generalist. with grantees by phone as often as once a week. In other cases, the coaches played One of the biggest challenges of using more of a background role, scheduling a managing partner to provide ongoing visits only about once a year and talking capacity building is selecting the right orga- by phone with grantees closer to once a nization, and, ultimately, the right person. month. The amount of attention a grantee How, then, does a funder identify the right received depended largely on its needs individual for the job? What skills are impor- and how often the grantees themselves tant? How does one know that the manag- initiated contact and encouraged strong ing partner’s staff will be consistent over

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 173

the long term? As a corollary, the success each resource person’s experience with an of a managing partner also depends on implementing organization was comple- the personality of the foundation program mentary and built on previous interactions. officer and his or her willingness to work in Convening the resource team for “learning partnership. As a result, this is not a model meetings” provided a forum for sharing and appropriate for all situations. distilling lessons learned across sites.

Some of the characteristics essential to a LESSON 12 The managing partner’s managing partner’s success include: a holistic and integrated approach to community relationship with the implementing development, skills in organizational and organization is a dance, sometimes community capacity building, a commitment leading and sometimes following. The to ongoing learning and personal growth, key is to have the skills to know when to humility, cultural competency, and shared do either. core values and trust with the grantees (e.g., commitment and ties to land and commu- For the Demonstration Program, the manag- nity), among others. The managing partner ing partner used an approach of highlight- also has to have legitimacy and respect ing and offering services, but in no way within the broader field, but be able to stay insisted that any group use them. In this neutral and outside of movement politics. way, the decision to engage or not was in This can be challenging as with growing the hands of the implementing organization. legitimacy comes increased engagement in However, differences in power among the the movement and the likelihood of being implementing groups played into whether, drawn more into the politics how, and to what extent they tapped into support for organizational development. Given the diversity of implementing organizations and their changing needs over Consequently, it was important to be proac- time, as well as the principle of starting and tive — and persistent, to a certain extent — in building wherever each organization is, a asking the groups if they needed or wanted team approach was effective. This allowed assistance. It also was critical that the man- the managing partner to engage the most aging partner continue to offer these ser- appropriate individuals for each implement- vices throughout the Demonstration Program ing group. Collaboration and communica- to all levels of the organization. While an tion among team members ensured that implementing group might not be ready for assistance at one point in time — and therefore might not even be able to hear those One of the biggest challenges offers — it likely will be ready at another. of using a managing partner to As the larger context changes, so does the leadership role the managing partner provide ongoing capacity building plays. At times it is most appropriate to follow the lead of the implementing orga- is selecting the right organization, nization, while at other times it is critical and, ultimately, the right person. to take on a leadership role. Some of the implementing groups stated they wished

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 174

the managing partner had been more LESSON 13 The managing partner proactive and had pushed certain reforms may need to work with both the funder more adamantly, particularly after trust and the implementing organization and respect had been established. In any to address the impacts of significant case, it is important that leadership and external events. the roles each partner plays periodically be questioned and assessed together. Inevitably, external events will impact both the funder and the implementing organiza- Some groups found it beneficial to conduct tions. During the Demonstration Program, the an organizational self-assessment16 as a events of September 11, 2001, had significant way to identify a capacity-building plan impacts on fundraising from both public and and opportunities for assistance from the private sources, with some donors at best managing partner. Conducted annually, awarding grants at much lower levels, and, this assessment also served as a monitor- at worst, canceling grants outright. While ing tool. By involving all of the staff and the Demonstration Program never talked as some board members, the self-assessment a group about the impact of September 11 captured a range of perceptions at differ- on fundraising, it is obvious in retrospect that ent times. transparency about these issues and hard- ships, sharing ideas, and offering encouragement would have helped both experienced Some groups found it beneficial to conduct an and less-experienced grantees.

organizational self-assessment as a way to identify a LESSON 14 Regardless of whether CBF capacity-building plan and opportunities for assistance is the core mission of the organization or from the managing partner. Conducted annually, this just one of its programs, the managing partner needs to foster capacity building assessment also served as a monitoring tool. within the entire organization. A program is only as strong and sustainable as the organization in which it exists. Finally, the lesson of starting where an organization actually is, culturally and Generally speaking, when CBF operated as a developmentally, is equally important for program within the larger organization, the the managing partner as it is for the donor. managing partner worked primarily with the This may necessitate the use of different program director. This proved invaluable in outreach strategies, changes in the design many cases, especially when these individuals of technical assistance delivery, a range were relatively new to the CBF field. However, of communication mechanisms, or other there were occasions when issues central to similarly flexible approaches. The managing the whole organization impacted the CBF partner needs to be open to nurturing such program. These situations included changes alternative structures and processes. in leadership; decreased funding levels; across-the-board reductions in staff, financial systems, and procedures; and reorganization, 16 A sample Organizational Assessment Tool is included among other areas. In such cases, it was nec- with the Toolbox on the CD that accompanies this report (see Appendix B). essary to work with the entire organization.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 175

When working with a program that is part of a larger organization, the technical assis- Peer learning and networking have multilayered tance provider should know the whole organization, both programmatically and insti- benefits: an opportunity to learn new skills; a way to tutionally. It is also beneficial to maintain communication with the person who knows jump-start an idea and avoid recreating the wheel; and the history of the program. This creates the a chance to share pitfalls and receive moral support. ability to straddle relationships when there is organizational and programmatic turnover. Such versatility enables the technical assistance provider to identify opportunities For the first 18 months of the program, two for strengthening the organization in ways individuals from each site (always including that also will improve the CBF program. one person who had attended a previous It also can help the managing partner to meeting) came together every six months. maintain consistency and continuity when This provided everyone with an opportunity there are staff changes. to understand fully the components of the Demonstration Program, really learn about each other’s work through site visits, give LESSON 15 Peer learning and and receive peer advice, identify some of the networking are essential for many emerging lessons, and build relationships of things, ranging from moral support to trust and honesty with one another and the political action to swapping good ideas. funder. The opportunity to get to know each other on a personal level — undergirded The implementing groups repeatedly by the continuity between meetings and emphasized the multilayered benefits of through informal events — further created peer learning and networking. For some possibilities for deeper understanding, open- groups it was the opportunity to learn new ness, and different kinds of collaboration. skills, for others it was to jump-start an idea These relationships, which take time to and avoid recreating the wheel, and for still build, then formed the foundation for the others it was to share trials and tribulations entire peer learning effort. and receive moral support. Some of the most beneficial meeting sessions were those For the following two years, peer learning where partners were able to pose a question included a mixture of a programwide annual or challenge to their colleagues and then meetings, skills workshops, and cluster give and receive peer advice. meetings around specific topics. The cluster meetings allowed the groups in attendance The Demonstration Program’s formal to bring many more of their constituents meetings laid the groundwork for continued with them to the meeting and to go into networking between meetings, as individuals greater depth on specific topics. A key to contacted each other to follow-up. For the the success of the peer learning component funder, who attended most meetings, the was an annual questionnaire to ascertain gatherings provided an opportunity to learn the most critical issues the implementing alongside the implementing groups, rather groups were facing and to ensure that the than in the more removed style of the tradi- peer learning responded to these needs. tional donor-grantee relationship. The fourth year of peer learning focused on putting systems in place for the sustainability

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 176

PeerTIP learning The philanthropic community uses peer learning as a means to help grantees build

relationships with colleagues and reflect together on ways to develop high-impact strategies

to achieve common goals.

Peer learning forums are events that bring together clusters of people working on common

issues so that they can share experiences and coach one another. These events can last a

couple of hours to many days and can be a one-time activity or an ongoing commitment.

Peer learning builds on the well-documented fact that adults learn best when they are both

working on real-life problems and engaging in feedback and analysis with others in similar

situations.

Korten, Alicia, with Barbara Wyckoff-Baird. Staying Power: Using Technical Assistance and Peer Learning to Enhance Donor Investments. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, (forthcoming).

of the organizations, primarily environmental with assistance from the managing partner, monitoring and fundraising. The final peer although more assistance in using the plans learning meeting in September 2005 focused would have been beneficial. on lessons learned and implications for policymakers, funders, and the public. There also was a need, however, for a process to capture the learning that was not foreseen — for which no data have LESSON 16 Organizational learning been collected. Several of the implement- systems can contribute to more effective ing groups stated that the formal annual implementation as people assess their learning meetings17 facilitated by the activities, learn what works and what managing partner were effective in pro- doesn’t, and adapt their programs moting reflection that probably wouldn’t accordingly. have happened otherwise. A set of formal conditions — that the managing partner A participatory approach to this overall learning process requires some level of 17 internal monitoring, including collecting The objectives of the learning meetings were to: 1) document the progress to date, through a review of and analyzing data, whether quantitative or quantitative and qualitative results compared to the qualitative. As discussed above, each of the targets set in the self-monitoring plans; 2) analyze this groups developed a self-monitoring plan, work and reﬂ ect on what has been learned; 3) discuss key issues and make recommendations for the ongoing work; and 4) sharpen and improve the indicators being used to show impact.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 177

regularly visited the sites, the implementing One of the biggest challenges facing the groups were required to gather and pres- managing partner was the potential confu- ent data against their indicators, partners sion of accountability and roles. In short, were invited to participate, and everyone did the managing partner primarily work was asked to share the lessons they had for the Ford Foundation or on behalf of learned — made this reflection possible. In the grantees? The role of technical service addition, the managing partner — with its provider, for example, was at the request knowledge of the organizations and their and service of the grantees. Distilling and individual contexts, team approaches, and aggregating lessons learned, on the other continuity — was able to highlight possible hand, was at the service of the collective, lessons and potential changes to the including the implementing groups and the program. funder.

Across the six-year Demonstration Program, LESSON 17 There were advantages the managing partner also needed to be and disadvantages to having the clear with all parties about any shift in managing partner work closely with the emphasis among its respective roles. For funder, although the managing partner example, when the managing partner maintained distance on certain issues. facilitated the performance of an external review about one of the grantees, it was no According to the implementing groups, the longer clear to whom the managing partner chief benefit of having a partnership rela- was accountable. tionship between the managing partner and funder was that communications on issues related to the grant were made easier. We credit the fact that our original goals There were many questions the managing partner could answer. When the managing “and objectives are as viable today as they were three partner could not, they were referred to the years ago to the continued influence of the Aspen foundation program officer. The managing Institute. They have been sticklers on things like partner also could add context and understanding to some of the responses from the clear goals, objectives, ongoing self-evaluation and funder, as well as provide advice in writing strategic adaptation. Without their help in establishing proposals. this kind of structural support, we would have fallen

For the funder, the managing partner was off our proverbial pumpkin truck long ago.” able to provide background information and updates on progress at a detailed — Grant proposal to the Ford Foundation level the program officer never could have Public Lands Partnership, west central Colorado reached, given the number of grants for which he was responsible. This partnership further ensured that the program officer actually received ongoing reports about learning derived from the Demonstration Program.

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 178

LESSON 18 While the managing

The agreement we developed is [that] I am partner did not work explicitly for the funder (although its funding also trusting [the managing partner] not to tell me things “ came from this donor), it was closely that will unnecessarily jeopardize the relationship associated with it, with the result that with the grantees, but to tell me things which will the imbalances of power between the jeopardize the Ford Foundation’s program. funder and the implementing group There is a bit of a judgment call there. I am trusting may have complicated the relationship her not to share my off-the-cuff comments.” between the managing partner and the organizations. —Jeff Campbell, senior program officer Just as the funder and the implement- The Ford Foundation, New York City ing groups need to discuss these issues openly, so does the managing partner. It is important to recognize that it most likely The roles of the funder and managing will not be the grant recipient who raises partner sometimes may be conflated. If such issues, meaning that the managing they are, it is helpful to separate the tech- partner needs to take the lead. The manag- nical assistance services from the donor ing partner also may be in the position to liaison services that the managing partner support the implementing group in raising provides. This division of tasks clarifies the issues with the funder, and, as one that the technical assistance provider is participant suggested, to explore ways “to accountable to the organization, not the speak truth to power.” funder, and may allow for a more trusting relationship.

As is the case with any intermediary, a Maintain confidentiality managing partner can potentially become TIP a “gatekeeper” of information, resources, Develop clear expectations and skills, with the end result that grantees regarding confidentiality and are disempowered. In addition to having the right person for the job, it is critical for communication and be transparent the foundation program officer to maintain with the implementing groups about some direct interactions with grantees, these agreements. Any report to the especially the review and approval of proposals and budgets. This also is essential to funder from the managing partner ensuring that the learning occurring within should be in some restricted or the program is translated and shared within the broader donor organization. summary form, without revealing confidential information about

the nonprofit implementing

organization.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 179

TIPThe managing partner, funder, and implementing group While there clearly are benefits to having the managing partner act as a liaison between

the implementing group and the funder, there are also disadvantages, especially where

there are significant differences in power. In these cases, it is more effective to separate

the managing partner—including the provision of technical assistance, peer learning, and

documentation of best practices—from the funder and the grantmaking and management

function.

The managing partner also needs to be 1. Can CBF lead to improvement in the understanding of the power relations within sustainable management of U.S. forests? the partnerships implementing a particular CBF program. It is all too easy inadvertently 2. Can CBF produce economically viable to take sides — or be perceived as taking local jobs with good wages or other- sides — and thereby fall into the midst of wise augment local income and reduce internal power struggles. A managing poverty? partner needs to be aggressive in ensuring information is available and widely shared 3. Can CBF help heal the divisiveness that among everyone, and not just with the currently exists nationally regarding for- primary point of contact. est management issues, particularly on federal lands but also on private lands? The research 4. Can CBF provide a viable process to build the social capital of communities component and help them weather uncertain social, ecological, and economic futures? In addition to the grantees and the managing partner, the Ford Foundation program Active from 2000–2002, the Penn State officer selected the Institute for Policy team established a baseline of economic Research and Evaluation at Pennsylvania indicators, drafted ethnographic case State University to undertake research for studies of three of the sites, provided the evaluation of the CBF approach as assistance in conducting opinion surveys, demonstrated by the national program. The and published a number of papers. Demonstration Program’s initial research component, as developed by Penn State with In 2003, the Ford Foundation program input from the Ford program officer, sought officer, the implementing groups, and an to gather data and provide analysis around advisory team worked together to redesign the following four questions: the research component — specifically, to be more participatory in its approach. In

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 180

collected from the 13 projects participating in the Demonstration Program. The Research questions must be appropriate to the scale of Demonstration Program selected projects the program. Objectives such as institutional change that represented different regions, CBF approaches, ethnicities, levels of experience, and the promotion of new business enterprises and organizational models. They presented a diverse pool from which to ask questions take time for even the most-seasoned organizations— about the conditions under which CBF can clearly more than five years. impact the community, the economy, and the environment. But these very differences made it nearly impossible to use cross-site, quantitative data to answer questions about 2004, Colorado State University18 received programmatic impacts. a grant to lead a diverse team to research the impacts and learning from the CBF Not only did it become increasingly evident Demonstration Program. It is focusing on to researchers that this “sample” of cases questions derived from discussion sessions was ill suited to answer these research with the grantees. This research component questions, but the grantees themselves did will be completed in 2006. not feel that these questions alone were a fair test of whether or not they succeeded in achieving their goals. The size of the projects Lessons learned undertaken by most groups could not be expected to show results at the scales being measured. While groups were seeking to LESSON 19 Research questions make change at the community level, most of and methodologies applied to a the secondary economic indicators assessed demonstration program must be were collected at a larger geographic scale. appropriate for the participating projects in terms of scale and time frame. Objectives such as institutional change and the promotion of new business enterprises The four broad questions that Penn State take time for even the most-seasoned asked about CBF (detailed on the previous organizations — clearly more than five years. page) are important ones. They represent Many of the groups that were newly embrac- four of the principal claims of CBF, and the ing CBF were just getting up to speed in their ability of CBF to deliver on those claims first few years. Moreover, the time needed is of interest to funders and practitioners to effect desirable ecological impact clearly alike. Such questions cannot, however, be exceeded the Demonstration Program time answered in five years with quantitative data frame. And while all agreed that landscape- scale ecological change was the desired

18 The Research Team includes: Tony Cheng and Maria goal, most projects that were implemented Fernandez-Gimenez, Colorado State University, affected relatively small, discrete areas. Coordinators; Heidi Ballard, University of California- Berkeley; Shorna Broussard, Purdue University; Steve While the time frame, scale, and selection of Daniels, Utah State University; Cecilia Danks, Univer- projects were not well suited to answering sity of Vermont; Melanie Hughes McDermott, Rutgers University; Andy Seidl, Colorado State University; and the outcomes-oriented research questions Vicky Sturtevant, Southern Oregon University. that were originally posed, they were quite

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 181

appropriate for answering process-oriented strategy to deliver on its claims, grantees questions and case study analyses. In the often felt that they were being evaluated redesigned research component, the CSU- on their ability to deliver on the promises led team developed a new set of research set forth in their grant proposals. Efforts questions based on topics identified through to collect research data early on were at iterative discussions with the grantees. times interpreted as premature efforts to These questions, which include both determine the success or failure of a given outcomes and process elements, can be project. This issue was compounded by sev- synthesized as follows: eral factors including the annual nature of the grants, terminology such as “evaluation” 1. What is the role of ecological knowl- that was initially used for the research com- edge, monitoring, and outcomes in component, and the “arms length” approach munity-based forest stewardship? pursued by the Penn State team.

2. Who benefits and who loses from these Penn State fundamentally respected the CBF efforts, and how are those benefits grantees as partners in the Demonstration distributed? Program. However, by attempting to conduct “objective” research for an external 3. How does a full-cost accounting of the audience that might be critical of CBF, the costs and benefits of CBF activities con- Penn State team set up a research relation- tribute to understanding the economic ship in which grantees felt they were being viability of CBF and its ability to achieve judged by outsiders. Grantees valued pro- its multiple objectives? gram evaluation as a way to improve their own efforts, and they wanted assistance 4. In what ways do CBF organizations act in self-evaluation. However, as discussed as intermediary institutions and what in Lesson 19, the frequent accounting does that suggest about the policies, to researchers about outcomes did not practices, and capacities needed to sus- contribute to self-learning; instead, it fueled tain these efforts? concerns that grantees were being held to unrealistic expectations, given the scope of Most notable about these questions is that their projects. grantees played a key role in shaping them. For example, the researchers and grantees Several changes helped to alleviate those kept their questions open-ended in order to concerns. Over time, it became clear to avoid evoking simplistic “yes, it can” or “no, the grantees that the Ford Foundation was it can’t” responses. not using the research data to determine whether or not a given project would con- LESSON 20 Conducting research that tinue to receive funding for another year. In evaluates a particular CBF strategy the redesigned research effort headed up by Colorado State University, there was a may be misinterpreted by grantees in a conscious effort to use the terms “research demonstration program as an attempt component” rather than “evaluation.” Most to evaluate their project performance. importantly, the shift in research strategy to a participatory approach allowed While the Penn State team was trying to grantees to contribute their knowledge evaluate the ability of CBF as a national as co-learners about CBF, rather than as

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8 182

research subjects. The managing partner in the United States and abroad, academic played a key role by offering resources researchers have been heavily involved to help groups with self-evaluation. The in community-based forestry programs. researchers and managing partner worked As part of the sustainable development together to make the difference between community, those researchers have been the research component and the self- steeped in the practices of participatory assessments clear to all. processes and generally have employed participatory research methods. These methods include practitioners as co-producers of LESSON 21 Due in part to CBF’s knowledge, while maintaining rigorous history and scale of activities, academic standards. The Ford Foundation participatory research approaches has considered participatory research a are well suited to advance learning on cornerstone of their community-based significant issues in CBF. forestry work abroad. In the United States, many of the grantees had come to expect a At the beginning of the Demonstration participatory, peer-to-peer relationship with Program, the Ford Foundation made a academic researchers. conscious decision to engage an external research team that was not an active part The lack of true participation in the initial of the CBF movement, so that the research- research design made grantees feel as ers could speak to an audience not already though they were sources of data rather familiar with (or persuaded by) CBF’s goals than sources of knowledge. The Penn State and strategies. This team designed its research team’s methodology provided for methodology to answer the core research limited sharing of information or consulta- questions (described earlier) with credibility tion with the managing partner and the and validity for a general and perhaps grantees. Filling requests for information skeptical audience. As discussed previously, took much of the grantees’ time and made this led researchers to design a research them nervous, because they did not know program that kept the role of the researcher how the data were going to be used. very separate from that of the grantees. Moreover, it felt as though information While the researchers strove to show profes- was flowing mostly one way — toward the sional respect and provide ancillary benefits researchers. The grantees had expected more to the grantees, they also made it clear that of a partnership relationship to evolve as the they were in charge of the research agenda, researchers led a learning process that could including questions asked, methods used, help everyone better tell their stories. With data sought, interpretations given, and these stories in hand, the grantees antici- publications produced. It was thought that pated being able to affect public policy and maintaining this separateness was neces- garner resources. This significant difference sary for maintaining the academic integrity in expectations made it very difficult for the of the results. research to proceed effectively.

This approach, however, did not achieve the A redesigned research component — that desired outcomes and in fact compounded recognized the roles of the implement- the other problems discussed earlier. Both ers as theorizers, experimenters, and

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 183

interpreters — was well suited to address the issues of scale and scope of research Research on these 13 projects may not provide a appropriate to the groups involved in the program. There is a great deal to be yes or no answer on the ability of CBF to achieve its learned from these 13 cases, much of which is presented in this book. In addition long-term goals, but it may provide insight into the to the lessons learned from implementing conditions under which people can live sustainably of their projects, participants have gained insights by grappling with issues that and peaceably with their neighbors and the natural extend beyond the reach of their projects. While these projects may be ill suited to environment. some quantitative, cross-site analyses, they are well suited to case studies and participatory research methodologies that being in the context of a global economy get at questions about why and under and public policies that extend well beyond what conditions certain CBF strategies are forest communities. Research on these 13 successful. projects may not provide a yes or no answer Moreover, the collective learning of this on the ability of CBF to achieve its long-term group of projects has implications that go goals, but it may provide insight into the beyond CBF. CBF groups are dealing with conditions under which people can live sus- issues of integrating sustainable livelihoods, tainably and peaceably with their neighbors ecological integrity, and community well- and the natural environment.

Designing and Supporting CBF Programs Chapter 8

CHAPTER Building on the Past, 9 Creating the Future 186

brink of violence has given way to a newfound willingness to engage in productive The proper business of a human economy is to discussions about the ongoing and future “make one whole thing of ourselves and this world.” management of forested ecosystems. Often, community- based organizations —Wendell Berry (CBOs) play an essential, catalytic role In Distrust of Movements by helping diverse stakeholders lay aside their differences, find common ground, and implement and monitor projects ranging from ecosystem restoration to ore than ﬁ ve years have value-adding manufacturing businesses. passed since the beginning M of the Demonstration Program. ■ Small private landowners and commu- As it draws to a close, it is timely to ask nity- based businesses in the Northeast, whether the community-based forestry Appalachia, Southeast, and elsewhere are strategies the program explored are making working together — whether by organizing a significant difference. Have these pilot formal associations or through informal experiments lived up to early expectations networks — to share information and real- about their likely outcomes? What has been ize economies of scale. Especially in areas learned that might encourage or instruct where local residents have not had easy other communities as they proceed with access to technical assistance from tradi- their own CBF initiatives? What can be said tional service providers, such as university about CBF’s prospects over the long term? extension services or government agencies, this emerging willingness to collabo- As the preceding chapters vividly attest, rate has opened doors to much-needed there is indeed a great deal about which resources and to new opportunities. to feel encouraged. After all, when the Demonstration Program began in 2000, a ■ New working partnerships are developing number of communities in the United States between forest-dependent communities already had been working with CBF and and public agencies, such as the U.S. adapting its basic strategies for about 10 Forest Service and the Bureau of Land years. Moreover, the 13 sites participating Management, in ways that scarcely in the Demonstration Program were chosen could have been imagined a decade ago. from among the more than 100 community- While much remains to be accomplished, based organizations that had applied for the CBF practitioners and the agencies are grant. So, in fact, the gains that have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue, allowing accomplished over the past five years not some communities greater access to public only have been accomplished by this cohort lands and paving the way for substantive of 13 grantees, but by hundreds of others negotiations and implementation of more as well. Some of those overall achievements effective ecosystem restoration projects. include the following: ■ Communities are becoming far more ■ Communities, especially in the western adept at bringing more diverse stake- United States, are far less polarized holders to the table during their decision- around natural resource management. making processes about natural resource Controversy that once teetered on the management. Again, most communities

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 187

acknowledge that they have a long way to Some may feel frustrated that accomplish- go, but, increasingly, they understand that ing this larger arc of progress can take such a more inclusive, equitable community ulti- a long, long time. In that light, it will be mately is a far more resilient community. worthwhile to ask, “But what would have happened without CBF?” ■ CBOs are proving to be remarkably capable at providing the flexible, resourceful Admittedly, CBF has not yet succeeded at leadership that is needed to launch CBF reviving entire local or regional economies. Its initiatives and to sustain these efforts as fledgling value-adding, sustainable businesses they develop and mature over time. In so barely have begun to reach beyond their local doing, CBOs play a wide range of roles, markets. Nonetheless, CBF is making a signifi- including convener, facilitator, neighbor- cant difference at the margins — for example, hood organizer, business incubator, tech- providing supplemental income that enables nical assistance provider, project admin- local residents to retain ownership of their istrator, field monitor, funding prospector, land or perhaps to stay in the community fiscal administrator, and policy advocate, rather than looking for work elsewhere. In so among others. Along the way, they are doing, these microenterprises serve to secure helping their communities acquire and other sorts of benefits that are not reflected strengthen needed skills and capacity. in simple measures of profit and loss.

■ Networks of individuals and organizations As yet, nearly all CBF restoration projects are emerging across the country, both remain relatively small-scale; none have within and reaching out beyond the fledg- transformed entire landscapes. Even so, ling CBF movement, which augur well for CBF projects have found tangible, hands-on the future of sustainability efforts in the ways to demonstrate the viability of alterna- United States. These formal and informal tive approaches to assuring ecological networks increasingly are well positioned sustainability, especially for ecosystems that to provide both peer-to-peer support and must find ways to thrive in close proximity to lobby state and federal governments to human communities. Moreover, these on behalf of shared policy goals. It also alternatives often draw upon and integrate appears that CBF is attracting interest community traditions and local knowledge and participation from among some in ways that energize individuals and groups environmentalists who today see CBF as to become more involved in long-term, a workable alternative to their previously patient stewardship of the land. favored, “hands-off-the-landscape” point of view.

CBF has not yet succeeded at reviving entire local All of these early accomplishments are important milestones in a much longer or regional economies, but it is making a significant journey of progress. After all, CBF’s modest gains thus far have unfolded within a difference at the margins. And it is accruing relatively short period of time. As such, they serve as promising indicators of a more other types of benefits that are not reflected in substantive transformation — a paradigm simple measures of profit and loss. shift, as it was called earlier — that likely will take years to come to fruition.

Building on the Past, Creating the Future Chapter 9 188

At times CBF practitioners have fallen short It can be far more challenging to assess of their goal of reaching out to include and other sorts of outcomes — such as the num- involve all potential stakeholders in the com- ber of home mortgage payments that were munity, at least in the early stages of their met through supplemental income, or the work. Often it has seemed more expedient intrinsic value of a healthy, thriving ecosys- just to get started with whomever was ready tem. Although less tangible, these types of and willing to join at the time. In many outcomes make essential contributions to instances, this has provided the early success a community’s overall quality of life. As this necessary to show all community members report has emphasized, developing and that there are tangible benefits to their implementing meaningful ways to monitor engagement with the project. Even so, many and evaluate project outcomes, including communities are managing to become more exploring new approaches to participatory inclusive of diverse constituencies and even research, are an emerging priority for to integrate some members of traditionally many communities. underrepresented groups into positions of leadership. From there, they often are able Whatever its inherent strengths and to widen the circle of participation to include weaknesses, its successes and limitations, more and more individuals and groups. it is important to remember that CBF by itself is not a magic bullet for all the possible challenges that confront the CBF appears to work best where it serves as just nation’s forest-dependent communities. Indeed, CBF appears to work best where it one element within a larger, even more comprehensive serves as just one element within a larger, even more comprehensive approach to approach to community development. community development. As some of the Demonstration Program sites began to build this well-rounded approach, their CBF project outcomes also began to suggest One challenge in reporting upon CBF’s intimations of something larger, perhaps accomplishments across all three of its the first stirrings of a forthcoming paradigm interrelated core components — the social, shift in the way that communities and their economic, and ecological dimensions — is strategic partners approach forest ecosys- that there is still much to learn about how tem management. best to monitor and evaluate CBF projects. Often it is not clear precisely what the most meaningful measures of progress ought to Supporting CBF be. Governments, for example, often give more emphasis to economic measures, tak- over the long term ing stock of how many new jobs have been created or how many new businesses have Throughout the Demonstration Program, started up. Such indicators are attractive in well-managed, resourceful CBOs offered many ways, not the least being that they are high-quality leadership and targeted techni- relatively easy to quantify. cal assistance to their community partners. In so doing, these CBOs often required targeted assistance themselves, especially to facilitate the organizational development

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 189

needed to undergird and enhance their own community itself to do the work of govern- capacity to play multiple, overlapping roles. ment, such as the preparation needed for They further benefited when they were able NEPA clearance and fire planning. They also to network with their peers, exchanging ideas are developing the means for communities and information, as well as engaging in peer and agencies to work together in ways that critiques about their ongoing activities. recognize and value the wider scope of benefits, beyond purely economic returns, The larger question, then, is, over the long provided by the forest. term, where will the money come from to support these and other CBOs as they continue to shoulder the enduring task of Where will the money come from to support CBOs helping their communities to devise and implement CBF initiatives? And beyond that, as they continue to shoulder the enduring task where will the money come from to pay for the actual work in the woods, whether of helping their communities to devise and labor-intensive forest restoration projects or implement CBF initiatives? value-adding new businesses?

These are, in fact, extremely important questions, especially at a time when public Still other community-based groups are budgets are shrinking and philanthropic organizing regional coalitions to influence subsidies all too often are short-lived. Early national policy and attract greater federal on in the Demonstration Program, some investment. The Rural Voices for Conser- had hoped that federal funds for restoration vation, which represents 24 organizations and fuels reduction would become more from six western states, is an emerging readily available, but that money proved coalition among rural leaders, forest workers, to be limited. Communities discovered rural business people, and environmental that their access to the woods, particularly activists. In 2004, its members traveled to for restoration contracts on public lands, Washington, D.C., to unveil their proposed increasingly was becoming contingent on Community-Based Restoration Funding their ability to subsidize at least some por- Package. This proposed budget amendment tion of the work themselves. They also found would allocate substantially more federal that sustained, multiyear funding like that dollars to help rural communities restore provided by the Ford Foundation more often western forests and create rural jobs. Its is the exception rather than the rule. recommendations focus on programs that foster public-private cooperation through Resilient CBOs seek to counter these daunt- the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and ing financial challenges in various ways. Interior, and suggest how scarce public Some are incubating value-adding enter- dollars can be leveraged to achieve the prises that they hope will earn returns that interdependent goals of forest restoration help defray the costs of restoration forestry. and rural economic development. Others are becoming far more sophisticated at understanding the workings of the Most often these and other rural voices federal forest bureaucracy. As a result, they are heard in Washington through the are developing important innovations — for annual community-based forestry Week in example, strengthening the capacity of the

Building on the Past, Creating the Future Chapter 9 190

Washington, organized by American Forests, ■ As the position of a single contingent the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, the worker is vulnerable given the strength of Communities Committee of the Seventh the forces that work against him or her, so American Forest Congress, and the National also is community forestry vulnerable if it Network of Forest Practitioners (NNFP). This is conceived of as an isolated movement. event provides an opportunity for delegates from forest-dependent communities to meet ■ However, when the community forestry key policymakers and interest groups, learn practitioners and supporters use networks how the federal government works, and bring of common interest to scan the broader home the tools they need to get involved. political and social landscape in which they are positioned, an astonishing array of risk-reducing and success-enhancing opportunities come into focus. CBF increasingly is taking on the challenge of going

to scale. Little will be accomplished, though, if ■ The network nodes, in addition to the CBF movement, include the environmental jus- CBF operates in isolation from other ongoing social tice movement; other community-based movements that embrace community- movements that seek to foster sustainable ecosystems scale processes, such as civic environmen- talism and the sustainable communities and sustainable communities. movement; community-based economic development; organizations advancing participatory research and civic science; Through such efforts, CBF increasingly is tak- conservation organizations; labor unions; ing on the challenge of going to scale. Little and organizations working to advance will be accomplished, though, if CBF, however the interests of contingent workers. When appealing in its own right, operates in isola- viewed from this perspective, the objec- tion from other ongoing social movements tives of the CBF movement are seen for that seek to foster sustainable ecosystems what they are: nested calls for social and sustainable communities. In the days change that resonate with other transfor- ahead, CBF advocates will do well to identify mative processes across the country. and find common cause with those groups. In the closing chapter of their recent book, As grassroots communities join forces to Community Forestry in the United States: lobby on behalf of policy changes, however, Learning from the Past, Crafting the Future, they are discovering how important it is Baker and Kusel eloquently sum up the chal- that they carefully define and painstakingly lenge, noting the following observations: position their business-oriented, economic development strategies, such as value-add- ■ For many workers, communities, and ing processing, within the larger framework landowners, community forestry is one of core values that CBF embraces. At of a variety of risk-reducing strategies nearly every turn, the possibility exists that that people engage with to maintain the terms and concepts used to describe their economic viability in a context of authentic, holistically integrated CBF will be dynamic change. coopted, whether intentionally by its adversaries or by default among those whose training or background predisposes them

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 191

to see the world differently. To counter such tendencies, CBF advocates can cultivate The worst danger may be patience and persistence in describing both what CBF seeks to achieve and how it “that a movement will lose its language, strives to do so. Moreover, it will be helpful either to its own confusion about meaning and to share stories grounded in their own practice, or to preemption by its enemies.” experiences about what already has been accomplished. —Wendell Berry In Distrust of Movements Anticipating a paradigm shift Before CBF came along, the challenge for At its outset, this report set forth the argu- many communities, as they perceived it, was ment that the remarkable innovations to balance creating jobs and taking care of documented across the five-year implemen- the environment. Over time, seeking that sort tation phase of the Demonstration Program of balance proved not to be a workable solu- represent an emerging paradigm shift away tion. CBF, however, provided the means to from previously dominant practices of forest integrate jobs and the environment in ways management. A paradigm shift, in this that recognize that they are co-dependent. sense, implies a reframed way of looking at the future. This reframing of the discussion, so often evident during the Demonstration Program, While it would be premature to say that a represents a tremendous step forward. Taken new paradigm anchored at least in part together with the obvious successes and by CBF is now firmly rooted across the constructive lessons that emerged over the contemporary landscape, it is safe to say past five years, it is obvious there are many that over the past five years, the nature of reasons to feel encouraged. The stage clearly the conversation about natural resource has been set for continued experimentation, management has changed significantly at renewed reflection, and further creative virtually all levels of that discussion, whether adaptation. Even so, it behooves all who among forest landowners, between rural would welcome a widespread, popular shift stakeholders who are concerned about the in favor of CBF to cultivate patience and sustainable management of public lands, or persistence. Formidable challenges remain to within state and federal public agencies. be resolved. Along the way, however, forest- dependent communities likely will find much to celebrate, even when the path is arduous and the victories are modest.

Building on the Past, Creating the Future Chapter 9

Participating APPENDIX A Sites

195

The Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters

Mission — The Alliance of Forest Workers and in economic benefits and having healthy for- Harvesters is a multicultural organization pro- ests; it requires a fundamental change in how moting social, environmental, and economic those in positions of power view, respect, and justice. It exists to share and provide informa- interact with them. tion and education; encourage participation in decision-making processes that affect workers’ and harvesters’ lives; be mutually supportive Contact: and respectful of forest workers’ and harvesters’ cultures, communities, and individuals; Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters foster communication among all its members; and promote the understanding of its con- PO Box 1257 stituents’ struggles and issues throughout the Willow Creek, California 95573 Pacific West. Telephone: 530.629.3353 Organizational capacity — First organized Email: [email protected] in 1996, AFWH is a multicultural nonprofit membership organization with a staff of seven people working full-time or part-time, an active board of directors, and a rapidly growing AFWH stands in solidarity with workers and membership. It is a networking and imple- harvesters, supporting their collective efforts menting organization, and it also influences to change the status quo. It works with com- policy. munities of interest, in communities of place, between communities, and with agencies. Location — The Pacific West, with particular AFWH strives to be open and transparent emphasis upon northern California and in all its activities and to advocate workers’ southern Oregon. AFWH is headquartered in and harvesters’ rights above all others. This Willow Creek, California. requires shifting and sharing power within the organization, developing genuine partner- Background — Forest workers and harvesters ships, sharing financial reports, and engaging perform physically demanding, hands-on work the board of directors in day-to-day manage- in the woods — for example, restoration work ment. It also means representing workers’ and including planting trees, thinning and piling, harvesters’ issues in the broader CBF arena, burning, weeding out invasive species, and with potential partners and collaborators, as gathering non-timber forest products such well as in policy venues. as mushrooms, medicinal herbs, and floral greens. Without their labor, long-term restora- Challenge at the outset of the tion of forest ecosystems would not be possi- Demonstration Program — Forest managers ble. Even so, many workers and harvesters are typically failed to appreciate either the cultural exploited for the gain of others and stripped of or economic value of NTFPs, often spraying their voice so thoroughly that even when they them with pesticides or heedlessly thinning speak they are not heard. The path to their full them from alongside timber roads. Few empowerment involves far more than sharing attempts were made to inventory or monitor

Participating Sites Appendix A 196

them scientifically. Moreover, forest lease Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program (EWP) systems typically favored large businesses to conduct workforce assessments of low-wage and excluded independent harvesters and forest contract laborers. The organization also small businesses. There also were significant implemented a small grants program called barriers to engaging and organizing workers CBOPs, or Community-Based Organizing and harvesters, especially those from minority Projects, to provide opportunities for forest groups, including scheduling difficulties, differ- workers and harvesters to work on issues/ ences in communication styles, and inhibitions trainings/monitoring that they (the communi- about speaking up at meetings resulting from ties) identified. Finally, AFWH implemented six a long history of being disempowered. Little primary economic development strategies: understanding (by non-forest workers) of how 1) networking workers with employment forest work is accessed and the systems affect- possibilities; 2) building connections among ing forest workers also has been a huge chal- members; 3) providing hands-on learning lenge. Forest work is different than farm labor; opportunities; 4) experimenting with NTFP for the most part, it is seasonal and mobile. marketing strategies; 5) providing workers with information on their rights; and 6) with Highlights from the Demonstration partners, developing skill-building and train- Program — AFWH outreach workers con- ing programs — the most current being the ducted hundreds of interviews in order to fully Community-Based Alliance for Training and understand what workers and harvesters want Sustainable Stewardship, which is in part- and need. AFWH staff then organized individ- nership with Lomakatsi, the Collaborative ual groups to address some of the identified Learning Circle, Redwood Community Action issues and pursue projects. For three years Agency, and EWP. now, AFWH has partnered with University of

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 197

D.C. Greenworks

Mission — To bring ideas, experience, and tools across all of these activities, D.C. Greenworks to empower urban communities to improve offers urban youth hands-on job skills training their natural and built environment. D.C. and/or entry-level employment. Greenworks works in partnership with community groups, public agencies, businesses, Background — Many urban dwellers are unfa- and nonprofits to develop community-based miliar with the impact healthy trees can have environmental programs that address the on their urban landscape. D.C. Greenworks environmental, social, and economic issues initially found ways to make it easy for neigh- facing urban Washington. borhood associations to plant and maintain these trees. Then its staff identified emerging Organizational capacity — D.C. Greenworks job opportunities in the green industries and is the Washington, D.C., subsidiary of developed training for inner-city youth to have Community Resources Chesapeake, a a chance at skilled employment in that field. regional, urban, environmental nonprofit This training was designed to provide hands- founded in 1994. In late 2003, Community on learning and to deliver a product to the Resources closed its offices in Baltimore community in terms of pruned trees, clean and Philadelphia in order to consolidate its parks, and storm water management. As resources in Washington, D.C. Emerging from D.C. Greenworks surveyed the graduates of this transition as a stronger, more entrepre- its trainings and assessed the emerging Low neurial organization, D.C. Greenworks today Impact Development (LID) marketplace, it saw has a board of directors whose members a niche in designing and building greenroofs live and work in Washington. It also has four and rain gardens. full-time and one part-time staff members. D.C. Greenworks leverages partnerships with government agencies, community institutions, Contact: business enterprises, and local residents to expand its capacity to provide pragmatic solu- D.C. Greenworks tions for increasing environmental knowledge and income opportunities in D.C.’s inner-city 1706 6th Street NW neighborhoods. Washington, D.C. 20001

Location — The Washington, D.C., metro area. Telephone: 202.518.6195 D.C. Greenworks works closely with two urban Email: [email protected] neighborhoods, Shaw and Anacostia. It has Website: www.dcgreenworks.org provided both neighborhoods with free “street tree” plantings and stewardship education. D.C. Greenworks also provides the entire Washington metro area with competitive Challenge at the outset of the greenroof and rain garden installation ser- Demonstration Program — D.C. Greenworks vices, as well as helping residents build parks was in the early stages of becoming a fully and restore riparian areas, forests, stream entrepreneurial organization. It wanted banks, and wetlands. Wherever feasible, to learn how better to respond to market

Participating Sites Appendix A 198

opportunities, nurture market demand for orchard. D.C. Greenworks also helped young LID technologies, and manage its financials entrepreneurs at Shaw set up a business to so that projects cover costs plus contribute to make and sell rain barrels, and train local training expenses. Another key challenge was residents and students to disconnect their to ensure that its job-training graduates could gutters from the combined sewer system. Last find employment in green industries or related year, D.C. Greenworks built the first greenroof fields. in downtown D.C., hiring graduates of its Green Collar Training Program. Today D.C. Highlights from the Demonstration Greenworks is leveraging its role as one of Program — D.C. Greenworks and its local three qualified greenroof contractors in the partners collaborated with youth at Shaw D.C. area and developing a steady flow of EcoVillage to design and construct a green- contracts. With these projects in hand, D.C. roof on a utility shed, design a rain garden Greenworks has been able to offer full-time for city permitting, and design, build, and seasonal work to graduates of its training maintain a half-acre organic food garden and programs.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 199

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ Land Assistance Fund

Mission — To assure that African-American Challenge at the outset of the and other historically underserved individuals Demonstration Program — In 1920, nearly and families of the Southern Black Belt have one in seven farms was African-American every opportunity and option to own land, owned. Blacks owned at least 15 million acres, resources, and businesses, and henceforth, to nearly all of which was in the South, largely live prosperously and honorably. It also assists Mississippi, Alabama, and the Carolinas. in the development of cooperatives and credit Today, African Americans own only 1.1 million unions as a collective strategy to create eco- of the country’s more than 1 billion acres of nomic self-sufficiency. arable land. They are part owners of another 1.07 million acres. While the number of white Organizational capacity — The Federation farmers also has declined over the last cen- of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance tury — as economic trends have concentrated Fund is a nonprofit, membership organization land in fewer, often corporate, hands — black that, since 1967, has sustained a grassroots ownership has declined three times faster cooperative economic development movement than white ownership. among 25,000 traditionally disadvantaged families in over 100 communities throughout the southern United States. Overall, the Contact: Federation has a staff of 38.

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/ Location — The southern United States. The Federation operates its programs from offices Land Assistance Fund in Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Rural Training and Research Center Alabama. Its Rural Training and Research Center, which is headquarters for its Black Belt PO Box 95 Legacy Forestry Program, is located in Epes, Epes, Alabama 35460 Alabama. Telephone: 205.652.9676 Background — The three major themes of the Email: [email protected] Federation’s mission and its work are to: Website: www.federationsoutherncoop.com 1) develop cooperatives and credit unions as a means for people to enhance the quality of their lives and improve their communities; 2) save, protect, and expand the landholdings This oppressive dynamic also can be seen in of black family farmers across the South; and government programs intended to provide 3) develop, advocate, and support public support for private forestland owners. In policies to benefit Federation members, who Mississippi, black farmers own more than 33 are black and other family farmers, and low- percent of all of the forestland, yet they receive income rural communities. less than two percent of the services through the Mississippi Forestry Commission or USDA to help implement management plans or best practices.

Participating Sites Appendix A 200

Highlights from the Demonstration In collaboration with partner organizations, Program — The three components of the the Federation implemented agroforestry Federation’s Black Belt Legacy Forestry demonstrations of silvopasturing with goats; Program have been to: 1) conduct forestry developed cooperatives centered on agro- information, education, and training programs forestry opportunities; provided forestry and both on-site and field-based demonstra- education and training focused on forestry tions; 2) provide outreach, technical assis- and forest-related issues related to goat tance, and information to limited-resource production; and offered technical assistance landowners and farmers about silvopasture, to landowners and farmers to develop forest forest management planning, and govern- management plans and identify and access ment programs and resources; and 3) help government programs and funds. identify meat goat markets through cooperative development and/or other means.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 201

Grant County Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition

Mission — To restore ecological processes in Challenge at the outset of the [the local] community’s public and private Demonstration Program — As a result of log- forested lands, while creating and supporting ging, fire suppression, and overgrazing, forest sustainable, local livelihoods in Grant County. conditions posed a high danger of unnatural, stand-replacing fires and a lack of resiliency Organizational capacity — The Grant to other natural disturbances. Concern for the County Jobs and Biodiversity Coalition is a preservation and restoration of high desert partnership-based coalition with no formal and alpine ecosystems, however, had led to organization. That this diverse set of partners — conflicts between environmentally conscious including governmental, environmental, and citizens, local small producers, and larger industry representatives — chose to collaborate nationally based users. Conflicts over grazing was a significant accomplishment, given their and timbre removal further had divided the contentious history. JBC had a single full-time region’s forest-dependent communities. Some staff member for 14 months to work on com- residents recognized, however, that there was munity development. an opening for new cooperation among local small producers, the environmental commu- Location — Grant County, located in the south- nity, and area universities. west corner of New Mexico. The county includes both the Gila National Forest and the semi-arid Chihuahuan desert. The Gila National Forest, Contact: encompassing 3.5 million acres of mountains and forest, is home to diverse wildlife and forest Gordon West cover, including ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, spruce, oak, and cottonwood trees. Gila WoodNet PO Box 530 Background — The Jobs and Biodiversity Santa Clara, New Mexico 88026 Coalition grew out of the recognition that a collaboratively developed and implemented Telephone: 505.537.3250 forest restoration and thinning prescription Email: [email protected] could help restore the Gila National Forest’s ecosystem, which had been subjected to years Website: www.gcjbc.org of neglect. In addition to a healthier forest, the JBC project also created opportunities for jobs and small businesses using the restoration Highlights from the Demonstration byproducts. Such opportunities are particularly Program — The four components of the Jobs critical in the context of economic challenges and Biodiversity CBF project were to: 1) form in Grant County, New Mexico, where the collaborative relationships among U.S. Forest unemployment rate, exacerbated by a signifi- Service, environmental groups, and local cant loss of jobs in mining, recently has risen forestry businesses to extract small-diameter to more than 14 percent. Even though many wood and restore the forest ecosystem; of the mining jobs have now been restored, 2) utilize the small-diameter wood from the JBC feels they must continue to diversify the demonstration site to create wood products economy through such opportunities. to be marketed and sold in Grant County;

Participating Sites Appendix A 202

3) use the restoration and wood products JBC chose to focus on forest restoration and initiatives to generate employment among to limit project involvement to people with a a broad range of people in Grant County; direct stake and interest in restoration. The and 4) raise awareness and provide educa- results of the forest restoration project have tion throughout Grant County about forest included bridging divided relationships among restoration and related economic benefits. environ mental, business, and governmental constituencies; the demonstration of success- For various reasons, including the early ful collaboration and effective forest restora- departure of one of its founding partners, tion; and some job and business creation.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 203

Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership

Mission — To build market awareness and HFHC brand identity — including its marketing demand for regionally and responsibly pro- label as well as the story behind the products duced wood products and enhance rural and their manufacturers — depicts a commit- capacity to serve those markets to the benefit ment to both environment and community, of both entrepreneurs and forest ecosystems. empowering consumers to make a choice that makes a difference. Organizational capacity — The Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership is a nonprofit, membership-driven network Contact: of locally owned businesses in the Pacific Northwest that manufacture and market Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities quality wood products originating from certified, reclaimed, and forest restoration project 620 SW Main, Suite 112 sources. It is headquartered in Portland, Portland, Oregon 97205 Oregon. Telephone: 503.221.6911 ext. 112 HFHC is a regional project of Sustainable Email: [email protected] Northwest (SNW), a nonprofit organization Website: www.hfhcp.org dedicated to environmentally sound economic development across the Pacific Northwest. A 10-person board of directors governs SNW. It also has a 10-person full-time staff, one Challenge at the outset of the of whom is program director for the HFHC Demonstration Program — Many people Partnership. In-house SNW staff, other HFHC were becoming aware that human actions partners, and outside contractors provide and behaviors had been eroding both social the expertise needed to support the HFHC and natural systems. Symptoms of this erosion partnership. included a growing schism between rural and urban communities, divisive battles among Location — Pacific Northwest, characterized by interest groups, and declines in the quality of thousands of acres of private and public forest- many natural resources. Failure to recognize lands suitable for CBF management. Adjacent the interdependence of a healthy environment communities have experienced high rates of and a healthy economy threatened both the poverty and unemployment due to lost jobs in natural environment and long-term economic the woods and forest products sector. prospects for Northwest communities.

Background — Organized in 1999, HFHC con- Highlights from the Demonstration nects rural wood products manufacturers with Program — HFHC worked simultaneously in raw material suppliers, other like-minded busi- the marketplace and in communities. Its dual nesses, and urban markets. The network mem- strategy has been to: 1) identify and access bers’ products include sustainably harvested urban markets for the byproducts of eco- and manufactured flooring and paneling, fur- system management and forest restoration niture, building materials, gifts, and logs. The including small-diameter wood and

Participating Sites Appendix A 204

under-utilized species; and 2) build rural organization’s Small Grants Program, partners community capacity for sustainable natural were awarded funding to implement projects resource-based jobs through ecosystem that further business development and forest management and the manufacturing of mar- restoration, as well as outreach and educa- ketable, value-added products of wood from tion. HFHC’s marketing activities helped build verifiable sound forest management. partner knowledge of market opportunity and expand entry to those markets. In response to HFHC’s capacity-building services to its partner requests for help in seeking sustain- partners have included technical workshops ably harvested wood, HFHC is creating a log and peer-to-peer exchanges. Through the and lumber purchasing network.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 205

Makah Tribal Forestry

Mission — To create and implement forest harvesting operations, and began the long, management practices that serve to restore slow process of rejuvenating the forest. Today, and conserve forest, wildlife, fish, and cultural about 7 to 10 percent of the tribe’s annual resources. income is derived from timber. The primary value-added timber products consist of items Organizational capacity — The five-member made of western red cedar, including totems, Makah Tribal Council, whose constitution and canoes, masks, wall carvings, and many other charter date back to the mid-1930s, governs items. In terms of value-added, commercially the Makah Indian Tribal Reservation. Its traded NTFPs, the most prevalent are baskets, members are elected from among the Makah although tribal members also have sought to General Council, comprising about 2,300 market floral greens and edible mushrooms. enrolled tribal members. Makah Forestry Other NTFPs harvested on the reservation Enterprises is a commercial forest products have important, non-commercial subsistence company chartered by the Makah Tribal and cultural uses. Council in 1984.

Location — The Makah Native American Reservation comprises about 48 square miles Contact: of land. Located on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, it includes the fishing Makah Tribal Forestry village of Neah Bay. The reservation consists PO Box 116 of Tribal Trust Land and Allotment Trust Land Neah Bay, Washington 98357 where the allotment land may have multiple ownership due to heirship. Ninety percent is Telephone: 360.645.3036 forested, with a high percentage located in Email: [email protected] the hills on moderate to steep slopes. More than 25,000 acres are managed forestlands; Website: www.makah.com or 1,213 acres are set aside for wilderness area. www.northolympic.com/makah/index.html As a result of an oil tanker spill, 284 acres at Educket Habitat and 290 acres for Anderson Point also have been set aside. The forest itself is dominated by western hemlock, along with Challenge at the outset of the mixed Sitka spruce, western red cedar, and Demonstration Program — In recent years, red alder. forestry revenues, once a mainstay of support for the Makah, have declined as a percent- Background — As they have for centuries, the age of the Makah Tribal Council’s budget. Makah Tribe depends both upon commercial This has been due both to low stumpage fees fishing and trading in timber, value-added and an overall increase in tribal expenses. timber products, and non-timber forest prod- Employment opportunities in forestry based ucts. Industrial clear-cut logging began on on the reservation are both seasonal and the reservation in 1924. In the mid-1980s, the limited. Significantly, the Makah’s fishing rev- tribe took over forestry operations, moderated enues also had been declining. Taken together,

Participating Sites Appendix A 206

these shrinkages had led to decreases in both 2) value-adding enterprises; and 3) develop- household and per capita income. In 2001, 49 ment of inventory and GIS tools for the inte- percent of the Makah living on the reservation gration of NTFPs and understory ecological had incomes below the national poverty level. dynamics into forest management decisions. The most significant progress was made on Highlights from the Demonstration the last component, with the results from Program — The Makah’s CBF initiative initially both timber stand and NTFP inventories included plans to design and implement making it possible for the tribe to address the 1) outreach and education to community reservation’s forest management needs more members, as well as their input on the project, holistically. NTFPs, and forest management policies;

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 207

North Quabbin Woods (New England Forestry Foundation)

Mission — To revitalize the North Quabbin and resource-based economic development. In economy based on the sustainable use of local so doing, it laid a strong foundation for moving forest resources. ahead with its economic development efforts.

Organizational capacity — North Quabbin Woods is a project of the New England Contact: Forestry Foundation (NEFF). Even so, NQW’s offices in downtown Orange, Massachusetts, North Quabbin Woods are physically separated from NEFF’s headquarters in Littleton, Massachusetts. NEFF is a PO Box 27 non-profit organization dedicated to promot- Orange, Massachusetts 01364 ing the conservation and sustainable manage- Telephone: 978.544.3332 ment of the private and municipal forestlands of New England. Although NEFF has 50 years Email: [email protected] experience in forestry issues, building commu- Website: www.northquabbinwoods.org nity capacity and economic development are relatively new territory.

Location — The North Quabbin area, located Challenge at the outset of the in north-central Massachusetts, includes nine Demonstration Program — Many landowners small towns. Hills, ponds, lakes, streams, and were relatively affluent and did not need to rivers are common features in the landscape. earn significant income from their forested Over 80 percent of the region is blanketed landholdings. Many also were recent trans- with forests. Private landowners — including plants from urban areas who wanted simply individuals, nonprofits, and businesses — own to live in their forests, not cut them down. As 59 percent of North Quabbin land. Public such, the area was not facing any perceived entities own 38 percent, while municipalities ecological disaster, making it difficult to mobi- and the federal government own 3 percent. lize local residents for change. There was a Private parcels average about 40 acres in size, desire within the local community for a vibrant creating a checkerboard of ownerships. Two- economy, but, at least initially, there was no thirds of private landowners (67 percent) live strong community leadership for that agenda. in the region, so they are more accessible to outreach efforts. Highlights from the Demonstration Program — The three components of this Background — As a brand-new program, work- project were to: 1) increase community ing in a community where it had never worked awareness and pride in local forests as assets, before, in a field in which it had no previous and increase participation in community experience, with a small (two-person) energetic decision making around natural resource staff relatively new to the profession, NQW issues; 2) contribute to a vibrant forest-based had to start out right at the beginning — build- economy by developing ecotourism, including ing community around forest management

Participating Sites Appendix A 208

providing ecotourism guide training and pro- efforts and building its NQW brand; markets moting recreational enterprises, expanding have been identified; new relationships have value-adding wood enterprises, and building been built or strengthened between new and and promoting a local brand; and 3) foster existing organizations; access to resources sustainable forest management through and outside funds has increased; consumers/ landowner outreach, education, and FSC- architects have been educated; and state-level certification. actors have been influenced to enable practical solutions. Much of the community is aware The community has used an inclusive process and proud of its forest resources and sees for charting and implementing its ecotourism their potential as economic assets.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 209

The Penn Center

Mission — To promote and preserve the Sea development escalated, displacing entire Island’s history and culture. African-American communities, Penn also has emphasized land retention and planning Organizational capacity — Penn Center is programs. a community-based nonprofit organization governed by a board of trustees. It promotes a vision of self-sufficiency and empowerment Contact: through education and action. Its 11 full-time and six part-time professional staff members Penn School National Historic Landmark District are supplemented by dozens of community volunteers. Staff expertise is grounded in PO Box 126 community organizing and action, while St. Helena Island, South Carolina 29920 paralleling Penn’s four programmatic areas: Telephone: 843.838.2432 the History and Culture Program, the Land Use and Environmental Education Program, Email: [email protected] the Program for Academic and Cultural Website: www.penncenter.com Enrichment, and, in partnership with the University of South Carolina-Beaufort, the Early Childhood At Risk Initiative. Challenge at the outset of the Location — Beaufort County, South Carolina. Demonstration Program — In addition to Slightly more than half of Beaufort County’s increased land values, higher property taxes, nearly half-million acres are tidal wetlands, and a rising cost-of-living, longtime Sea estuaries, and open water. Nine percent is Islanders were facing limited access to the developed; 7 percent is forested wetlands. water and natural resources needed to pursue Forest management and production is the traditional occupations. Although Penn has major agricultural activity. Beaufort County is prevented hundreds of parcels of African- the fastest growing county in the state, with American-owned land from being lost, Gullah much of the new development gated commu- communities were still at risk. Moreover, nities, resorts, and golf courses occurring on continuing development threatened further Hilton Head Island. environmental damage to the ecosystems of these fragile barrier islands. Background — Since its founding in 1862 as a school for newly freed African-American Highlights from the Demonstration slaves, Penn has provided comprehensive Program — Penn’s community-based forestry education, technical training, and community initiative sought to: 1) empower rural families development services for the inhabitants of and communities to develop long-term eco- the South Carolina Lowcountry. By the early nomic revitalization based on the sustainable 1980s, the school became Penn Center, management and development of their forest supporting community self-reliance through assets; 2) support the development of the for- organizing cooperatives and providing assis- est products sector through product, market, tance to farmers and landowners. As new and enterprise development; and 3) identify

Participating Sites Appendix A 210

and promote sectoral networks to enhance catalyst for the formation of the Lowcountry and sustain community conservation and Landowners Association, which has been forest-based product, market, and enterprise a major success. Penn also worked with its development efforts. technical resource partners to help them incorporate traditional knowledge into their consul- Penn conducted research and staged demon- tations with Gullah landowners. It further has stration projects around potential non-timber promoted education and awareness about forest products. Its ongoing efforts were a sustainability.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 211

Public Lands Partnership

Mission — To influence the management of Wildlife, and PLP — plus a host of other part- public lands in ways that enhance and help ners. The project’s goal is to restore habitat in maintain diverse, healthy, and viable econo- the Uncompaghre forest — an area involving mies, environments, and communities in west 1.5 million acres on both public and private central Colorado. lands — for the benefit of wildlife, people, and local communities. Organizational capacity — The Public Lands Partnership formed in 1992 as an informal forum to address public lands issues. Early on, Contact: PLP decided not to become a formal nonprofit organization, fearing that it would become Public Lands Partnership too bureaucratic, formal, inflexible, and unre- sponsive to opportunities and interests in the PO Box 1027 community. Consequently, leadership and Delta, Colorado 81416 day-to-day management of PLP activities have come from a seven-person executive commit- Telephone: 970.874.5023 tee, and from numerous steering groups. To Email: [email protected] receive funds, PLP established Unc/Com Inc. Website: www:publiclandspartnership.com as its nonprofit fiscal management agent. In fact, Unc/Com has evolved into an innovative way to pool and leverage resources, bringing over $1 million of new money annually into the Background — One of the first partnerships local economy. of its kind in the western United States, PLP started out as a loosely confederated orga- Location — West central Colorado. The region’s nization of citizens, businesses, local govern- overall rugged terrain is exemplified by the ments, and land management agencies. From Uncompahgre Plateau, a high domed upland the beginning, the group has sought to test rising from the Colorado River, peaking near new models for managing conflict and pro- 10,000 feet in elevation, and running approxi- moting collaboration. PLP has sought to create mately 90 miles southeast to the base of the civic discussion and catalyze local action on San Juan Mountains. The Plateau is bisected by natural resource issues that affect the region’s steep walled canyons and surrounded by the economy, ecology, and sense of place. It spe- Uncompahgre, Gunnison, San Miguel, Dolores, cifically has worked to demonstrate different and Colorado Rivers. It features several life ecologically and economically sustainable zones, scattered across prairie, riparian, foot- approaches that contribute to the health and hills, canyons, and mountain regions. biodiversity of public lands in the area.

PLP has played a vitally important role in the Challenge at the outset of the ongoing Uncompahgre Project (UP), a major Demonstration Program — Early on, PLP collaboration among four organizations — the realized that in order to defuse conflict and U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land promote genuine collaboration, the various Management, the Colorado Division of partners would need to develop a shared

Participating Sites Appendix A 212

framework for understanding a number of be sold to local mills, instead of rotting from elements, including expectations, objectives, bug kill. This project is called the Burn Canyon responsibilities, communications, authority, Salvage Timber Sale monitoring project. PLP and resource allocations. Developing this has also developed an effective mechanism framework required the establishment of new for involving new voices in the dialogue institutional arrangements at the outset of this about the appropriate use of public lands project. in the region. This mechanism is called the Living History Project, and includes Native Highlights from the Demonstration Americans and people who work and live on Program — PLP has been effective in using the land. The UP has become a highly visible community-based monitoring to diffuse con- project, garnering state and national acclaim. flict and enable the implementation of forestry Hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone projects on public lands. For example, the to the local labor force for treatments subcon- group developed a monitoring effort which tracted as part of the UP project. enabled four million board feet of wood to

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 213

Rural Action

Mission — To promote economic, social, and Challenge at the outset of the environmental justice in Appalachian Ohio. Demonstration Program — Real estate developers had been subdividing the land Organizational capacity — Rural Action is into smaller and smaller pieces, increasing a membership-based nonprofit with a staff both land prices and the tax burdens for the of more than two dozen full- and part-time region’s already challenged small landowners. employees, as well as about 15 Americorps With over a quarter of the population in the VISTA volunteers. Rural Action places a region living below the poverty line, continued priority upon encouraging and cultivating ownership of family land often depends upon leadership by lower-income, traditionally the ability of landowners to pay property marginalized community members. Its taxes. The fragmentation of the forestland Sustainable Forestry Program is just one of works against the viability of commercial for- the organization’s major programs, which also estry and severely diminishes habitat for inte- include initiatives in sustainable agriculture, rior-dependent wildlife species. Moreover, non- entrepreneurial development, watershed timber forest products were being harvested restoration, job skills training programs, pest in the wild with little regard for the long-term control, environmental learning, rural schools, effect on the overall ecosystem. and arts and cultural heritage.

Location — Rural Appalachian Ohio, in the southeastern region of the state. One hundred Contact: years ago, nearly all of this steep, hilly terrain was wholly deforested. Today, however, the Sustainable Forestry Program area’s maturing forests rank among the most Rural Action arboreally diverse temperate forests in the PO Box 157 world. Nearly all of these woodlands are privately owned, with an average parcel size of Trimble, Ohio 45782 just over 20 acres. Telephone: 740.767.4938

Background — Rural Action’s roots reach Email: [email protected] back to 1982, when its predecessor, the Website: www.ruralaction.org Appalachian Ohio Public Interest Campaign (AOPIC) began working with local residents to build healthy, sustainable communities. Evolving out of that foundation, Rural Action Highlights from the Demonstration formally was established in 1994 in Athens, Program — The four CBF objectives of Rural Ohio. It later opened offices in several nearby Action’s Sustainable Forestry Program were to: small towns, however, in order to be closer 1) help landowners and members to network, to the people it seeks to serve — multigenera- jointly undertake activities promoting sustain- tional, low-income landowners and families. able forestry, gain access and participate in the decision-making and policy arenas, and provide guidance to the work of Rural Action;

Participating Sites Appendix A 214

2) train landowners about NTFPs, holistic establishment of a Forest Advisory Board to forest management, and generating income; gather input from community members and 3) help landowners to earn income from forest other strategic partners; its early incubation assets through enterprise development, mar- and support of the Rural Appalachia Growers keting, and feasibility studies; and Association, the only herb growers association 4) promote a regionally based (Appalachian in Ohio; and its role in making planting stock Ohio) discussion on key issues — such as forest available to growers at a below-market price. assets and incentives — to gather support from As more sustainable forest products become diverse interests. available, Rural Action will focus more heavily upon providing assistance with marketing. Some highlights of Rural Action’s strategies and accomplishments included its

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 215

Vermont Family Forests Partnership

Mission — To develop replicable models of previously, collaborating on multiple work- ownership of forestland that are ecologically shops and funding efforts that led to providing sound and financially inclusive, and that inter- local, certified wood for Middlebury College’s act with socially responsible community-based Bicentennial Hall. The partnership was attrac- forest product industries. tive to the NWF’S Vermont office, because they wanted to engage in the economic side Organizational capacity — This project was of the forest products industry to support their a working partnership among three not-for- ecological aims. VSJF wanted to expand their profit organizations: Vermont Family Forests, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. The partners Contact: joined together because each had a key attribute — VFF with its community base, NWF with Vermont Family Forests its FSC-certification experience, and VSJF with its skills in developing business clusters — that PO Box 254 made a CBF project viable. At the outset, Bristol, Vermont 05443 however, VFF, the land-based partner, did Telephone: 802.453.7728 not have a physical office, full-time staff, or a clear sense of its mission. One component of Email: [email protected] the project was to establish a nonprofit family Website: www.familyforests.org forest conservation organization; VFF now has become a 501(c)(3) organization. By design, National Wildlife Federation VFF has a part-time staff. The VFF-certified land base includes over 50 landowners in four Northeast Natural Resource Center of Vermont’s 14 counties. 58 State Street

Location — Chiefly, Addison County, Vermont, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 but also including, to some extent, other Telephone: 802.229.0650 forested areas within the state. Forests cover Email: [email protected] about 78 percent of the state as whole, and about 83 percent of that forestland is Website: www.nwf.org non-industrial and privately owned. Vermont depends upon its forests for timber supplies, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund wood energy, non-timber forest products (such 61 Elm Street as maple syrup), and recreation. It also asks forests to provide high-quality water supplies, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 beautiful views, wildlife habitat, solitude, and Telephone: 802.223.2336 spiritual renewal. Email: [email protected] Background — National Wildlife Federation, www.vsjf.org Vermont Family Forests, and Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund had worked together

Participating Sites Appendix A 216

capacity in the wood products industry. VFF and would prefer to keep it productive cannot wanted to link its landowners to economic afford to buy it. opportunities based on sound forestry management. Highlights from the Demonstration Program — The project’s three components Challenge at the outset of the were to: 1) establish a nonprofit family forest Demonstration Program — Making a living conservation organization; 2) forge market in rural Vermont has become increasing linkages for “green-certified” products; and difficult. The average wage in farming, fish- 3) research and develop a community equity- ing, and forestry is about 68 percent of the ownership prototype. overall average wage in the state. Wages in the wood manufacturing industry are higher, By late 2005, VFF had become a nonprofit but there are simply no manufacturing jobs family forest conservation organization in in many rural communities. The ownership Addison County. VFF, NWF, and VSJF have and stewardship of Vermont’s forests also are all participated in forging a variety of market changing. Private land rapidly is being sub- linkages for “green-certified” wood products. divided, developed, and sold for prices that VFF developed a community equity-ownership exceed its monetized productive value. Thus, model and was working to implement it on many local people who depend on the land Hogback Mountain in Addison County.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 217

Wallowa Resources

Mission — To promote forest and watershed Challenge at the outset of the health and create family-wage jobs and busi- Demonstration Program — Years of declin- ness opportunities from natural resource ing forest health had increased risks from stewardship. drought, insects, and wild fires. Local forests were overstocked with small-diameter trees, Organizational capacity — A nonprofit organi- resulting in degraded habitat conditions and zation with 6.5 full-time employees, an active increased fire hazards. Degraded forest condi- board of directors, an annual budget of over tions (and other macroeconomic factors) led to $1 million, and the infrastructure to support widespread mill closings, as well as substantial the organization. Community leaders have losses of forest jobs, and jobs in wood process- been involved with its work since the very ing. Moreover, extensive staffing cuts at fed- beginning. eral agencies curtailed resource management efforts on public lands. Location — Wallowa County, in northeastern Oregon. The landscape is diverse, including mountains, deep canyons, plateaus, prairie Contact: grasslands, and river valleys, as well as mountain lakes, forests, and meadows. The Wallowa Resources region is sparsely settled; over half the people live among four small towns in the major val- PO Box 274 leys. About 59 percent of the land is publicly Enterprise, Oregon 97828 owned, most of which is federally managed. Timber and grazing are the dominant uses of Telephone: 541.426.8053 the land; nearly half of the total land base is Email: [email protected] forested. Website: www.wallowaresources.org Background — Wallowa Resources began in 1996, growing out of informal community meetings convened by community leaders with Highlights from the Demonstration the goal of alleviating highly polarized con- Program — Wallowa Resources’ four program flicts over natural resource management and objectives were to: 1) develop and sustain a fostering sustainable land stewardship. Shortly Community Planning and Assessment Process; after these meetings began, Sustainable 2) improve local understanding and aware- Northwest was invited to facilitate the discus- ness of the socioeconomic benefits generated sions and subsequently provided develop- from stewardship of the natural resources ment support to the new nonprofit. Wallowa base; 3) improve the condition of the forest Resources immediately set out to empower ecosystem in Wallowa County; and 4) main- local people in decision-making processes, to tain and generate new socioeconomic benefits generate economic benefits from restoration from the natural resource base. projects, and to influence the costs and benefits of private landowner conservation. The four-year planning process identified at least seven years of restoration and

Participating Sites Appendix A 218

stewardship work in the approximately and decommissioning, and non-commercial 174,000-acre Upper Joseph Creek watershed. thinning. Wallowa Resources has implemented Wallowa Resources worked with the U.S. many other restoration demonstration proj- Forest Service and county partners to develop ects through multiple partnerships. It also the 47,000-acre Spooner Vegetation and Road developed a for-profit arm, called Community Project as a stewardship contract release, Solutions Inc., which has made it possible which will result in the production of about five to develop and spin off other for-profit busi- million board feet of timber suitable for mill- nesses, the first being Community Smallwood ing. Additional activities include aspen restora- Solutions, primarily a manufacturer of posts tion, prescribed burning, road maintenance and poles.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 219

Watershed Research and Training Center

Mission — To promote healthy communities needed a business incubator to nurture the and sustainable forests through research, edu- early development of value-adding manufac- cation, training, and economic development. turing businesses that process small-diameter trees and underutilized hardwoods such as Organizational capacity — The Watershed madrone and tan oak. WRTC also provides an Research and Training Center is a community- umbrella for emerging nonprofits, committees, based nonprofit organization. It has an and teams that form to address specific com- eight-member board of directors and 10 munity issues in Hayfork. full-time and part-time staff members. From the beginning, WRTC has worked collaboratively with the U.S. Forest Service, academic Contact: institutions, local and regional governments, community businesses, and other partners to Watershed Research and Training Center accomplish its goals. For example, WRTC relies heavily upon the Healthy Forests, Healthy 8080 Highway 3, Unit A Communities Partnership to provide market- Hayfork, California 96041 ing assistance. Telephone: 530.628.4206 Location — Hayfork, California. Hayfork is Email: [email protected] located at the center of Trinity County and Website: www.thewatershedcenter.org the Trinity National Forest in northwestern California. Trinity County is a rural county whose rugged mountains are covered with rich, mixed coniferous forests as well as some Challenge at the outset of the oak woodlands and grasslands. The timber Demonstration Program — In 1990, a federal and recreation industries are the core sectors court placed an injunction on all public timber of the economy, making it one of the most for- sales in the range of the northern spotted owl. est-dependent areas in the Pacific Northwest. This widespread “forest closure” on public Hayfork is typical of many small, remote, lands affected over 30 logging families in public-land communities. Between 1990 and Hayfork, and the subsequent sawmill closure 2000, its population dropped from 2,200 to in 1996 affected over 150 families. In a few 1,800 people. short years, over 40 percent of the payroll in Hayfork, a town with only about 2,000 people, Background — Despite the economic and had disappeared. These changes affected social distress of the 1990s, Hayfork and not only the loggers and the sawmill workers, Trinity County still have abundant natural but also tree planters and other reforestation resources and human resourcefulness on crews. At the same time, the Forest Service which to build a new sustainable economy. downsized its workforce, and 30 government The Watershed Resource and Training Center, jobs were lost. In the wake of these events, founded in 1993, has worked since 1996 to WRTC’s biggest challenge has been to carve develop a small-diameter wood utilization pro- out a sustainable option for Hayfork and other gram. For example, it understood that Hayfork small, forest-dependent communities.

Participating Sites Appendix A 220

Highlights from the Demonstration socioeconomic research through multiparty Program — Today, WRTC is helping Hayfork monitoring. This process has engaged citizens residents make a living from the forest. To in exploring sustainable ways to link healthy do this, it has provided training to over 100 forests and healthy communities. It further has residents so they are equipped to do the thin- educated residents about options for work in ning and restoration work that are permitted sustainable forests. The statistics WRTC has under the National Fire Plan. It runs an annual gathered have been used by other county in-house restoration crew of 20 people. WRTC organizations to write grant proposals for opened an incubator that currently houses everything from ambulances to cell phone a business with 30 employees, up from six towers. employees in 2002. It also has conducted

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees Digital Archive and Toolbox APPENDIXB on Accompanying Compact Disk 222

hroughout the Demonstration 3 Wood Source Tracking Sheet Program, the managing partner (Microsoft Word document, referenced in Chapter and the sites developed support T 5: Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems) materials that document and discuss practical issues and concerns relevant to the Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities works ongoing work. Much of this digital archive with its 40 member businesses to monitor the is included on the compact disk (CD) that sources of the wood they use and to find buy- accompanies this report. ers for wood harvested from eight different restoration sites. This tracking sheet is useful for their record-keeping. Toolbox 4 Forest Management Checklist The toolbox section of the CD presents a com- (Microsoft Word document, referenced in Chapter pendium of helpful tools referenced in earlier 5: Restoring and Maintaining Forest Ecosystems) chapters of this report. This checklist developed by Vermont Family Forests sets forth a set of voluntary forestry 1 Cost Analysis Worksheet practices designed for forest stewards who are (Excel spreadsheet, referenced in Chapter 4: interested in practicing ecological forestry. Fostering Sustainable Economies)

To sell its products at a fair price, a business 5 Laying the Groundwork for needs to understand both its own costs and Collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service the selling prices for comparable products in the marketplace. Healthy Forests, Healthy (Microsoft Word document, referenced in Communities Partnership developed a pricing Chapter 6: Collaborating for CBF Action) tool to help businesses capture their costs for This diagram will be useful for communities each item produced. This tool allows them to that wish to understand why, when, and how compare unit costs at different levels of pro- to collaborate with the multiple departments duction, using different pieces of equipment, within the U.S. Forest Service. and in different marketing situations, whether to sell to end-users or retailers or distributors. 6 Organizational Assessment Tool

(referenced in Chapter 8: Designing and Supporting 2 Regional Branding and Identity Guide CBF Programs) (PDF, referenced in Chapter 4: Fostering Sustainable Some community-based organizations in the Economies) Demonstration Program found it beneficial In order to help make local people more to conduct an organizational self-assessment consciously aware of their region’s forest as a way to identify a capacity-building plan resources and its small-wood products busi- and opportunities for assistance from the nesses, North Quabbin Woods developed a managing partner. Conducted annually, this regional branding and identity campaign. This assessment also served as a monitoring tool. guide explains how businesses most effectively By involving all of the staff and some board can use the North Quabbin Woods logo to members, the self-assessment captured a promote their sustainable enterprises. range of perceptions at different times.

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 223

Eleven useful websites collaborative forest restoration projects. There are six handbooks in this series:

There are a number of useful websites and ■ Handbook 1—What is multiparty monitor- other online resources for CBF practitioners. ing? Those listed below are just a few! ■ Handbook 2—Developing a multiparty monitoring plan 1 Capaciteria ■ Handbook 3—Budgeting for monitoring projects Capaciteria is a comprehensive, search- ■ Handbook 4—Monitoring ecological effects able database directory of capacity-building ■ Handbook 5—Monitoring social and eco- resources for nonprofits. It promotes peer nomic effects of forest restoration review, because members can comment on ■ Handbook 6—Analyzing and interpreting and rate individual resource links, as well as monitoring data add useful new links. Capaciteria was developed by Jonathan Peizer, chief technology Each guide may be downloaded—free-of- officer of the Open Society Institute. www. charge in a .pdf format—at the following capaciteria.org Internet address: www.fs.fed.us/r3/spf/cfrp/ monitoring/

2 Collaborative Learning Circle (CLC) 4 Communities Committee of the CLC is a network of groups, individuals, and Seventh American Forest Congress tribes engaged in community-based forestry, watershed restoration, forest work, natural The purpose of the Communities Committee resource management, harvesting, and is to focus attention on the interdependence of value-added product development, primarily America’s forests and the vitality of our rural in Southern Oregon and Northern California. and urban communities. The site includes CLC members have been meeting since information on publications, conferences, and 1994 for peer learning, collective innova- other resources. www.communitiescommittee. tion, and increased community capacity. The org website includes a calendar of events; search- able directory of participants and network 5 Community Forestry Research resources; a library of maps, documents, and Fellowships (CFRF) resources; and a newsletter with all past edi- tions available. www.communityforestry.net The CFRF program provides fellowships to or www.clcircle.org graduate students to support their field work in communities in the United States. The fellowship program is open to all students 3 Collaborative Forest Restoration enrolled in degree-granting programs in the Program of the U.S. Forest Service social sciences or related natural resource The website of the U.S. Forest Service includes sciences at any institution of higher learning. a number of very useful resources. The mul- In addition to application information, this tiparty monitoring handbooks listed below site includes bibliographies on Participatory describe much of the knowledge and expertise Action Research and Community Forestry. It needed to guide communities as they monitor also has links to other internship and fellowship programs, as well as to advice on writing

Digital Archive and Toolbox on Compact Disk Appendix B 224

research proposals. www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ problems, experiment with new approaches, community_forestry/ work with unconventional partners, and compete in the marketplace. Moreover, NNFP is also the U.S. liaison to the Global Caucus 6 The Forest Policy Center on Community-Based Forestry. Many of the of American Forests resources on this site are also available in The Forest Policy Center advocates for the Spanish. www.nnfp.org restoration and maintenance of healthy forest ecosystems, serving as a voice of moderation 9 The Partnership Resource Center on forest policy issues, and encouraging civil dialogue, open inclusive process, and collab- The Partnership Resource Center provides orative action. Center staff help local partners online resources for building vibrant part- throughout the country build capacity to par- nerships and effective collaboration on the ticipate in policy decision making and imple- nation’s forests, grasslands, and other special ment innovative projects on the land. This site places. www.partnershipresourcecenter.org includes information on urban forestry, ways to take action, and a host of publications and 10 Pinchot Institute for Conservation resources on community forestry and ecosystem management. www.americanforests.org The community-based forest stewardship program of the Pinchot Institute works collaboratively with policymakers, federal and 7 National Forest Foundation (NFF) state land management agencies, and local The National Forest Foundation brings people practitioners to identify, address, and develop together to protect our national forests and strategies on specific initiatives that sustain grasslands. As the nonprofit partner of the and improve the stewardship of multiple- U.S. Forest Service, it engages America in objective ecosystems, and to enable them to community-based and national programs that serve as a basis for stable employment and promote the health and public enjoyment of generate income in rural communities. The the National Forest System. NFF believes that program offers technical assistance programs communities should play a leading role in and training sessions. The site includes several determining the future of the 192 million acres resources and useful links. www.pinchot.org that make up our national forests and grasslands. This website includes grant application 11 Sand County Foundation guidelines, useful resources, and information on the national forests. www.natlforests.org Sand County Foundation programs seek to learn from, encourage, and where appropriate, assist community-based natural resource 8 National Network of management (CBNRM) projects that incorpo- Forest Practitioners (NNFP) rate multiple landowners, a commitment to NNFP is an alliance of rural people working on ethics and incentives, monitoring, independent the ground to build a forest economy that is review, and a willingness to share the social, ecologically sound and socially just. The orga- economic, and environmental outcomes with nization acts as a clearinghouse for informa- others. Programs include: The Community tion and technical assistance, and as a place Based Conservation Network®, Landholder for people to meet, learn, and make their Leaders, and Grant Making, among others. voices heard. NNFP also helps people solve The website includes a downloadable copy of

The Aspen Institute Growth Rings: Communities and Trees 225

the recent publication, Natural Resources as ■ Legal Structure Issues in the Community Assets, including detailed case Development of Business Ventures, which studies of CBNRM programs in both North addresses questions about the tax, corpo- America and Africa. www.sandcounty.net rate and other considerations in the legal structuring of business ventures. His paper is a general overview and is not intended Demonstration as legal advice.

Program publications ■ Branding and Marketing Toolkit, which provides an online step-by-step guide to ■ The Demonstration Program brochure identifying potential forest products, con- and other materials that provide general ducting market research, and building a information about the Demonstration brand. Program, its various partners, and a mid- program assessment of lessons learned. ■ Branding and Marketing Community Forestry Products, a CD-ROM that ■ Planting Seeds, a periodic update to the presents highlights of an October 2002 broader CBF field, providing summaries Community-Based Forestry Demonstration about current trends useful to practitioners Program learning cluster meeting in and the general public. Addison County, Vermont. Designed to promote peer-to-peer and business-to-business ■ Occasional Report series, offering in- learning, the CD captures the collected depth case studies and meeting proceed- wisdom of practitioners and experimenters ings that offer more in-depth analysis that in the field of community-based forestry. will be useful to practitioners of both CBF and, more broadly, rural economic develop- ■ Staying Power: Using Technical ment. Assistance and Peer Learning to Enhance Donor Investments, which offers donors ■ Branding and Marketing Strategies: more in-depth learning on the use and Becoming a David to Compete with the effectiveness of having a managing partner Goliaths in the Marketplace, which offers and the roles it can undertake. practical ideas for developing a brand to small businesses that are rooted in the community and committed to sustainability.

Digital Archive and Toolbox on Compact Disk Appendix B

The National Community-Based

Forestry Demonstration Program was

This publication was made possible by Design:

funding from the Ford Foundation. Betsy Rubinstein, InForm Growth Rings:Communitiesand Trees

Growth Rings:

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE Communities and Trees

Lessons from the Ford Foundation Community-Based Forestry Demonstration Program, 2000–2 H APN INSTITUTE ASPEN THE

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE

One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 www.aspeninstitute.org