 Simulation overview  Policy analysis  Analysis vs Advocacy  Talking: stakeholder engagement  Tutorial on Problem Definition Rod Charlesworth

3  meet in groups  required readings  consult "real world" versions of their groups  Tutorials  Brief due November 14  select a delegate (and an alternate) to speak and negotiate for them during the consultation.  evening, mock multistakeholder consultation attendance required for all participants :  EBM GBR Monday November 18  Area-based tenure Tuesday, November 19

4 Agenda-Setting Policy Formulation Decisionmaking Policy Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation

THINKING  Policy analysis of alternatives TALKING  Consultation with stakeholders 5

 Define problem  Criteria for evaluation  Identify multiple alternatives  Outcomes/consequences of alternatives  Compare/tradeoff  Recommended decision 6

 Policy formulation  Mid term timber supply case study  Policy analysis  Analysis vs Advocacy  Talking: stakeholder engagement

ANALYSIS  Neutral stance on Solutions, Problem framing  Careful, balanced use of evidence ADVOCACY  Position based on group’s interest  Strategic framing  More selective use of evidence Does effective analysis ignore other side’s argument, or engage it? The best argument explicitly addresses an opponents strongest claim and discredits it with evidence and reason

 Policy formulation  WFP case study  Policy analysis  Analysis vs Advocacy  Talking: stakeholder engagement

 Private consultations  Notice and comment  Web consultation  Public hearings  Establish a roundtable  Opinion polls  Referendum

 Collaborative planning:  Engage stakeholders  Interest-based  Consensus oriented  Two-tiered planning:  All stakeholders in consensus LRMP process  Gov and FN only: “government to government” G2G

FRST  Forest Practices Board, “Provincial Land Use Planning: Which Way from Here?” November 2008 Forest Practices Board, “Provincial Land Use Planning: Which Way from Here?” November 2008  26 CORE and LRMP plans completed, covers 85% of the provincial land base (together called SLUPs)  1 in G2G negotiations (Lillooet)  8 areas without plans

November 10, 2009FRST Forest Practices Board

November 10, 2009FRST Forest Practices Board

FRST  ILMB Report: A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC (December 06)A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC  full implementation April 2008  Brings end to provincial scale, comprehensive strategic land use planning  All ongoing SLUPs to be completed by March 2010  new planning will be undertaken only where business drivers demonstrate a need  New policy and legislative changes  FNs’ interests and values  major environmental changes such as Mountain Pine Beetle infestation

FRST  Process for new planning  Led by government(s)  FNs’ involvement on a G2G basis where interested  Interest groups and stakeholders serve in a meaningful advisory capacity  Clearly defined process, timelines and products  The end of multistakeholderism?

 Participatory  Transparent  Well-informed  Coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and overlaps  Timely 17 There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being timely requires adequately resourced processes

 The policy cycle consists of 5 stages: agenda setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring/evaluation  Issues get on the government agenda through a confluence of problem and politics streams  Policy formulation involves both “thinking” (analysis) and “talking” (consultation with stakeholders)  The best argument explicitly addresses an opponents’ strongest claim and addresses it with evidence and reason Sustainable Forest Policy 18

 Decision-making and policy design  Forest practices