“Transnational approaches to forestry management and forest risk strategies” State-of-the-art-report of the project-team M (Dr. Ir. Luc Boerboom, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, The Netherlands) 02.09.2008 Koblenz, Germany, Rhein-Mosel-Halle 17:35 - 18:00 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ITC International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation Enschede The Netherlands www.itc.nl Mission Provide international education through knowledge exchange Capacity building Institutional development For and in economically and technologically less developed countries & Research and advisory services ITC’s organisation chart Supervisory 2010: Faculty in University Twente Board Scientific Employees Directorate Council Council Bureau Research Bureau Education Bureau Marketing and Coordination Affairs Project Services Scientific departments Support departments Earth Observation Science (EOS) Communication Geo-information Processing (GIP) Personnel Affairs and Organisation Urban and Regional Planning Financial and Economic Affairs and Geo-Information Management (PGM) Natural Resources (NRS) Information Technology Water Resources (WRS) Facility Management Earth Systems Analysis (ESA) Geochemical, Water and Soil Laboratory What’s ITC all about? 58 years of “Space here, space out there” Staff staff core activities: 140 fte support staff core activities: 45 fte general support staff: 55 fte 28 nationalities Students 600 p/year PhD researchers 110 Alumni 16,000 mid-career professionals 160 countries Adaptation Courtesy: Sibout Nooteboom Courtesy: Sibout Nooteboom Content Forest Adaptation 2008 Leveling of basic concepts Decisions, decision making Examples of DSS Critical understanding for Forestclim to get a.o. through decision makers Follow the decision makers and differentiate contexts Integrate scales and levels Relate to variable potentials and constraints in the forestry sector (and others?) Integrate with regular forest management and mitigation Develop from existing models Integrated modeling through management models Resolve level dilemma of adaptive (co-?) management vs forest adaptation Address uncertainty from decision maker’s perspective: avoiding the wrong decision more than making the right decision? Use and develop latest technology to cross scales and levels Forest Adaptation 2008 conference Forest adaptation options Some technical options for adaptive management of forests Phase Measure Regeneration Adjust silvicultural system and/or regeneration technique Prefer mixed stands Match species and provenance to present and future site and climate Consider proven introduced species Adapt natural regeneration to changing reproduction and competition patterns Rehabilitate degraded and eliminate off-site stands Consider nurse trees Consider artificial shading in planting dry, exposed sites Adjust planting densities Monitor competing vegetation Add nutrients likely to become deficient Under-plant high risk stand­s Treat for wind resistance starting systematically from establishment Reduce excessive game, rodent populations Tending of Adjust intensity and frequency of pre-commercial thinnings and stocking control stands Adjust stand structure and composition Phase out off-site stands Enhance monitoring for pathogens and insects Schöne, D. (2008). Adapting forests and forestry to Climate Change: A challenge to change paradigm. A background paper for the international Conference on Adaptation of Forests and Forest Management to Changing Climate with Emphasis on Forest Health. Forest Adaptation 2008. Umea, Sweden: 1-12. Some technical options for adaptive management of forests Phase Measure Harvesting Avoid large clearcuts, edge effects fragmentation Adjust harvest method and equipment, reduce impact of skidding Consider converting to uneven-aged stands Protecting Intensify monitoring of risk and damage forests Eliminate added stresses (acid rain, game) Adjust fire management, develop fire-smart landscapes Protect rare habitats and species, genetic stocks Management, Raise awareness and information of top and field staff. owners planning and Educate extension foresters administration Rewrite silvicultural and management guidelines Intensify or update site classification and mapping Provide adequate human resources; management and labour intensity likely to increase Plan and train for calamities and timber salvage, sales pools ?? Integrate climate change into management plans ? Reconsider rotations and allowable cut OW Reconsider species choice and introduced species H Update yield tables Carry out professional national and local vulnerability analysis Prioritize no-regret options Practice adaptive forest managementSchöne, D. (2008). Adapting forests and forestry to Climate Change: A Monitor for climate change impchallengeacts in protected to change areas paradigm. A background paper' for the international Conference on Adaptation of Forests and Forest Management to Changing Climate with Emphasis on Forest Health. Forest Adaptation 2008. Umea, Sweden: 1-12. Spatial and Temporal Change in Fire Risk III Current Risk 2080s Risk 2 parameter risk model – model of survival probability p(t) = survival prob. at age p 100 b = form= survival parameter prob. at age Parameter for Spruce: p 100 = 0,7 (70%); b = 2 t 100 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 surviving probability 0,5 0,4 tp 0,3 1)( Spruce −= 0 1 Pine − 10 Beech Oak 100 p 20 100 b 30 ⋅ t 40 b 50 60 70 80 age [years]90 100 110 (based on data by Knoke12 et0 al., 2008) 130 140 150 160 170 Staupendahl and Benrhard, 2008 180 190 200 British Columbia: Coast Mountains Elevation Shift of Subalpine Forests Climate Envelope Mbogga M. and Hamann A. What Influences Results of Bioclimate Envelope Models? A sensitivity analysis for five sources of uncertainty. Presentation at For14est Adaptation 2008 conference, Umea, Sweden Observations Forest Adaptation conference Umea, Sweden, Aug. 25-28 Most interesting was a discussion in special session on "Scenarios and modeling for forest management planning“: Vulnerability assessment and uncertainty receive special attention. Adaptation strategies less From discussion: Most if not all systems detached from real planning and decision processes. Poor understanding of who are decision makers, what is a decision, a decision problem, policy making process, a decision process, and the implications for decision support. Need to be closer. No understanding about how decision makers see and consider uncertainty and how they communicate uncertainty, nor how uncertainty can be communicated with them. Personal observation: Everything is decision support None look at conflicts, nor have good evaluation tools, more for plan development, but again not normatively. Preconceived notion that optimization methods can not handle stochasticity and dynamics, whereas they can. No consideration of uncertainty in the normative models decision makers carry around in their heads, but only on the biophysical uncertainties. Content Forest Adaptation 2008 Leveling of basic concepts Decisions, decision making Examples of DSS Critical understanding for Forestclim to get a.o. through decision makers Follow the decision makers and differentiate contexts Integrate scales and levels Relate to variable potentials and constraints in the forestry sector (and others?) Integrate with regular forest management and mitigation Develop from existing models Integrated modeling through management models Resolve level dilemma of adaptive (co-?) management vs forest adaptation Address uncertainty from decision maker’s perspective: avoiding the wrong decision more than making the right decision? Use and develop latest technology to cross scales and levels Pantanal: The largest continuous wetland. What does information consume? "What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it." Herbert A. Simon, Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World, in: Computers, Communications and the Public Interest, pages 40-41, Martin Greenberger, ed., The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971 The basis of evaluation: What is a “Decision Problem”? (Ackoff, 1981, The art and science of mess management, Interfaces 11(1) pp. 20-26) Decision problem is defined as a situation where an individual or a group perceives a difference between a present state and a desired state and where: The individual or group has alternative course of actions available The choice of action can have a significant effect on this perceived difference The individual or group is uncertain a priori as to which alternative should be selected Semantic confusion about scenarios Scenarios Scenarios Alternatives Exogenous Endogenous variables variables It is about control, which varies between decision makers Definitions of both sets can be found SET 1 SET 2 Scenarios are archetypal Scenarios focus on the analysis descriptions of alternative of uncertainties, drivers of images of the future, created change and causal relationships from mental maps or models associated with a potential that reflect different decision. Wollenberg, E. et al., 2000. Using scenarios to perspectives on past, present make decisions about the future: anticipatory and future developments. learning for the adaptive co-management of