Transcript Slides - e-Participation in Environmental Decision Making

E-participation Requires
Systems Intelligence
Conservation of the Atlantic
Forests in Northeast Brazil
Paula Siitonen and Raimo P. Hämäläinen
Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory
Marcelo Tabarelli, Pernambuco Federal University
Emotions as well as Facts are
Important in Participation
• Every participation process is systemic
• People react to the way the process is initially
framed and carried out
• These reactions and feedbacks have an impact
in the outcomes of the process
• A successfull participation process requires the
consideration of the facts and goals as well as
peoples relationships and interactions with
Systems Intelligence
Systems Intelligence (SI)
• Intelligent and active behaviour of an individual in
the context of systems with interactions and
feedbacks (Saarinen & Hämäläinen 2004)
• Systems intelligence: A person sees the situation
as a system, herself in it, her own impact on the
system and the impact of the other components
(people, organizations) of the system on her. She
behaves creativily concerning these feedbacks.
Understanding the System
• Interaction and
feedbacks between
people and between
human system and
forest ecosystem
• Includes facts and
hidden values and
emotions such as
trust and fear
SI Participation Process
1. Bring the participants into a dialogue to build positive trust and to give
people a voice
2. Frame the situation as a collaborative process to learn more together to
reach mutual benefits instead of conflict management
3. Using dialogue work towards shared understanding of the situation as a
system with intercations and feedbacks between the people and between
the human and natural system.
4. Work together to define a common goal; the desired benefits and a process
to produce them. Structure the objectives. Consider also unmeasurable
invisible objectives such as trust.
5. Create and evaluate different ways to change the existing system to a
desired one. These are strategy alternatives.
6. Monitor and evaluate the process. Consider what was created and also
what was not yet created. See this as a possibility and a challenge for the
future collaboration.
Case:
Design a process for the sustainable conservation of
the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil using SI
Policy Issues
• Forests fragmented (3% remains), more large
continuos areas needed for species survival:
restoration and agroforestry
• Hunting and illegal cuttings
• People are poor and level of education is low
• Most of remaining forests are on private lands
• Law requires conservation of remaining forests
and reforestation of river corridors. Law is not
conformed
• Suger mills started reforestation of the river
corridors to ensure water supply and to improve
competitiveness
How to improve species survival
and economic and social
wellfare?
Methods and Participation
in Brazil Case
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dialogue
Internet page
Facilitated meetings
Systems description
Field excursions
GIS
MCDA-programs
Evaluating feelings
Starting
•
•
•
•
•
Dialogue to create positive trust
Framing the situation as a collaborative process:
To learn more
To reach mutual benefits
To create sustainable development in the region
rather than just conservation
Seeing the Situation as a System
• Who are the decision makers and other
interested parties in Atlantic Forests?
• Why? Benefits? Goals?
• See interactions between the parties involved
• See interactions between parties and forest
ecosystem
• Working towards a shared vision of the present
situation
create markest for rural
products
society is better aware of
environmental issues
improve capacity
environmental
education
practical
society
markets of products regulates guidelines for
agroforestry,
what is produced
create markets, capacity and
tourism etc.
infrastructure for ecotourism
agroforestry
local people
diversity of
rural products
less dependent of
fluctuation of price
of just one product
no money for
investements
for toxidies and
fertilizers
Bird toursim?
Scientists knows what species, where
and how should be planted to support
maintenance of biodiversity
Need for collaboration
to achieve mutual
benefits
”We have biggest
atlantic forest of the
region”
”Wehave most
bird species of
the region”
Proudness about
conservation actions
Usinas plant also native species not
just increase forest accoring to law:
doing more than law requires
Improve
competivity of
usinas
Usinas has infrastructure to
produce and plant seedlings
of native plants
Usinas produce
seedlings
Usinas better
prepared for new
cetrificates
”Usinas owns most of land they
are responsible for conservation
Landreform ?
Market for seedlings
and water protection!”
Convince other
Buyers/market of
Jobs for
companies
provide environmental
Improve public image of
sugarindustry products
people
education
usinas
environmental
Market for
National society
education
restoration
Potential for carbon
Create positive models:
sink increases
Hunters
Atlantic
Forest
Serra Grande company 43
Potential use value Value itself
Rural workers
Usinas
bird species!
need
Ngos of rural workers Small farmers
sell sugarcane
Water energy to
produce sugar
Maintain biodiversity
Conservationist
Fazendeiros
Sindicates of usinas
Usinas plant forest
Governmental agencies
in river corridors
Scientists
Water protection
Fazendeiros
Maintain key
Maintain species: no extinctions
Munincipal
Gallery forests maintain water
no big need
Maintain genetic
Soil
ecological
of globally and regionally
government
and soil
for water monitor implementaion of
diversity
protection
processes
endangered spcies
energy
law
Stamp for
Substitutes from
”Restore 1 km gallery
usinas
maintain regionally
maintain 28 globally endangered
Law to restore?
government to
forest/year”
endagered trees
birds
usinas were stopped
indicators
Law to protect gallery forests
endagered species
Need to compete with south by other means
key processes:
mature forest
pollination, predation,
Usinas in NE can not use
Green suger industry
FLEXFUEL
Certification
dispersal
machines at the steep slopes
may increase
suitable habitat configuration to maintain
competitivity
species in each 12 habitat type
(lowland)
Lowland and tabuleiros
secundary forest
undisturbed forest
pay production costs at
Price
Restoration?
Buyers want
Price low
hills and slopes
increase
certified products
representativeness
persitence
Convince society
income more segure
year around
Decrease
10 000 ha total
area of each
habitat needed
quality= edge/core
area relationship
Conservation of
existing fragments
from illegal cuttings
environmental
education to
change hunting and
cutting tradition
10 units >1000 ha 10 units >1000 ha
continuous core
core area clusters
area/habitat type for habitat type
Conservation of
fragments from
hunting and cutting of
valuable trees
reintroduction of
species:primates, trees,
birds to existing mature
forests
Agroforestry to create restoration of galleryforest
stepping stones and with native tree
dispersal corridors
specis:guidelines for usinas
restoration of
new areas
Increase
Feasibility to plant
steep slopes and
hilltops
Usinas plant
someting to
hills to avoid
invasion of land
Markets of
sugarcane
products
Defining a Common Goal
• Focus on the desired benefits
instead of conflicts !
• What kind of system or process
produces these benefits?
• Structure benefits as fundamental
objectives such as maintenance of
species, and means objectives,
such as habitat area, and ways to
reach them such as restoration.
”Water, Food,
Species, Money...”
Evaluating Policy Alternatives
• Law: reforestation of river corridors
• Jointly improving: using native species,
connecting fragments, environmental
education and economic alternatives...
• Aims to improve mutual understanding
of the situation and to create innovative
strategy alternatives
Conclusion
• The way the process is started and framed is
crucial
• Goals and facts are just one part
• Sustainable conservation is an outcome of a
systems intelligent collaborative learning
process
• E-participation requires this all: a systems
intelligenent approach
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Daniels, S. E., Walker, G.B. (2001).Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative
learning approach. Praeger, London.
Hämäläinen, R.P. (1988). Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland.
Interfaces 18:12-23.
Hämäläinen, R. P, Kettunen E., Marttunen M., Ehtamo H. (2001). Evaluating a framework for
multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and
Negotiation 10:331-353.
Hämäläinen, R.P. 2003. Decisionarium - Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on
the Web. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12(2-3): 101-110.
Marttunen, M., Hämäläinen, R. P. (1995). Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact
assessments. European Journal of Operational Research 87:551-563.
Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Marttunen, M. (2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis
with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling and Software. 19:537547.
Saarinen E., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In
Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life,
R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:937.
Siitonen, P., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). From conflict management to systems intelligence in forest
conservation decision making. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human
actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis
Laboratory Research Reports A88:199-214.
Siitonen, P., Tanskanen, A., Lehtinen, A. (2002). Method for selection old-forest reserves.
Conservation Biology 16:1398-1408.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Siitonen, P., Lehtinen, A., Siitonen, M. (2005). Effects of edges on distribution, abundance and
regional persistence of wood-rotting fungi. Conservation Biology 19:250-260.
Silva, J. M. C., Tabarelli, M. (2000). Tree species impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic
forest of northeast Brazil. Nature 404: 72-74.
Sinkko, K., Hämäläinen, R.P., Hänninen R. (2004). Experiences in methods to involve key players in
planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident. Radiation Protection Dosimetry
109:127-132.
Slotte, S., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2003). Decision structuring dialogue. Systems Analysis Laboratory
Research Reports E13.
Tabarelli, M., Silva, J. M. C. , Cascon C. (2004). Forest fragmentation, synergism and the
impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1419-1425.
Väntänen A., Marttunen, M. (2005). Public involvement in multiobjective water level regulation
projects –Evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 25:281-304.
Wondellock, J. M., Yaffee S. (2000). Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural
resource management. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Project Web pages:
Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil:
http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi/brazil
SAL – Environmental Decision Making and Participation:
http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi