Winter 2002 (Web Edition)

Updated: 28 February 2005

Table of contents:

The challenge of biodiversity conservation in Canada's boreal forests (Marian Weber) |

A new approach to forest management in Québec: the Québec Integration Project (Stephen Yamasaki, Dan Kneeshaw, Christian Messier, Marie-Josée Fortin, Andrew Fall, Alain Leduc, Pierre Drapeau, and Luc Bouthillier) |

Research strategy consolidation |

DeYoe to manage Network's KETE strategy |

Québec Province and Cree sign historic agreement (Marc Stevenson) |
Honour roll |

Improving public participation in SFM (Peter Duinker) |

So why do it? SFM Network student exchanges (Vern Peters and Ken Stadt) |

Advances in forest management: from knowledge to practice |

Building bridges among nations, disciplines, and generations

THE CHALLENGE OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN CANADA'S BOREAL FORESTS

Dr. Marian Weber

This article on "protected areas" represents the editorial opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of the SFM Network. Rather, it is intended to engender reflection, comment and debate. In the event you wish to correspond, please contact Dr. Weber directly.
Dr. Terry Veeman, Interim Program Leader

With its vast area and remote location, the boreal forest is one of the last frontiers for land development in Canada. While this forest may lack the charismatic appeal of mountain parks and rainforests, Canadians are often surprised by its remarkable biodiversity as well as the growing threat it faces from escalating human use. Commercial logging, mineral and petroleum exploration and extraction, agriculture, traditional hunting and trapping - these are just some of the activities that have left their footprint in the forest. Recently, new technology for utilizing hardwoods in pulp and paper production has resulted in large allocations of land to timber production, particularly in the western provinces. The increase in forest activity, in conjunction with recent increases in mineral and petroleum exploration, has led to an unprecedented rate of habitat loss and fragmentation over the last twenty years.

In 1999, the Senate Subcommittee on the Boreal Forest examined the status of the boreal forest. It recommended consideration be given to a "natural landscape-based" forest use regime that apportions the forest into three distinct categories, with up to 20 percent managed intensively for timber production, another 20% set aside to preserve ecologically and culturally significant areas, and the remainder managed less intensely with preservation of biodiversity as a primary objective.

The Senate committee's recommendations reflect a growing interest in using landscape design (i.e., the spatial and temporal arrangement of activities on the landscape) as a means of meeting conservation objectives within the context of a broader set of management goals. Within the SFM Network, members of the Boreal Ecological and Economic Synthesis Team (BEEST) have been developing tools to assess the potential economic and ecological tradeoffs from alternative landscape design strategies, particularly as they pertain to designating protected areas for the conservation of biodiversity. In our research, we have identified several key challenges in managing the boreal landscape for both economic and biodiversity objectives.

The greatest impediment to biodiversity protection in Canada is the lack of framework for integrated resource management on public lands. Approximately 93% of forest lands in Canada are publicly owned, with resource rights allocated by the provinces that have jurisdiction over public land use. As public land stewards, it is up to provincial governments to reconcile development objectives with biodiversity protection when allocating land resources. Overlapping rights for timber, mineral and energy, and recreational resources create conflicting demands. Furthermore, while the impacts of individual activities may be negligible, the cumulative environmental effects that result when they are considered with other past and future activities can be significant. Protection of biodiversity requires the coordination of all land use activities, particularly those that involve removal of trees. Unfortunately, planning for biodiversity protection is typically carried out after resource rights have already been entrenched, so planning often breaks down due to conflict between sectors and other stakeholders.

Both federal and provincial governments have legislation triggering environmental assessment and the consideration of cumulative effects for many development projects. The legislation, however, operates in an impossible policy vacuum - projects are considered on a case-by-case basis without regional land use objectives against which to measure their efficacy. In addition, efforts to mitigate cumulative effects can be meaningless when activities that result in substantial forest removal do not fall under the environmental assessment regime. The result is that environmental assessments have become forums for public debate on appropriate land use, and evolved into de facto land use planning tools beyond their statutory jurisdiction.

In 1992 a coalition of government and stakeholder groups known as the National Forest Strategy Coalition was formed to develop strategies for integrated forest management. Members of the coalition signed the 1992 Forest Accord, which committed provincial governments, by the year 2000, to set aside 12% of forest land for a network of ecological reserves representative of Canada's natural regions. This target has not yet been met. According to the World Wildlife Fund, 158 of Canada's 387 forested natural regions are still not represented. Also, while the Fund's definition of a protected area requires that no industrial activities be permitted, even areas designated as "protected" often continue to allow mineral, oil and gas exploration.

Given the opportunity to complete the ecological reserve network, it is useful to examine important design issues and knowledge gaps related to selecting sites for biodiversity protection. Lack of economic and ecological information is a major problem in designing reserve networks. One approach that has received a lot of attention is the development of "optimal" land use plans that maximize some ecological criterion. Under this approach, economic constraints such as potential land values and tenure arrangements are often ignored, limiting the political feasibility of the solution. Because of existing tenure arrangements, governments can end up in protracted negotiations to withdraw or rearrange resource rights in candidate sites. At the same time, governments are often uncertain about the actual costs of withdrawing resource rights. Since most resource rights are not traded in competitive markets, there are no price signals by which the actual costs to firms of a given land management plan can be assessed. Firms that know the true value of resource rights for a particular site have no incentive to reveal this information to the officials negotiating for the rights.

In addition to the lack of information on the economic costs of protected areas, we are constrained by our rudimentary understanding of underlying ecosystem processes. The purpose of a reserve network is to maintain the representation and persistence of organisms found naturally in the region, but mapping biodiversity is difficult because we do not have a complete list of species that actually exist. In addition, evaluating how known species in a network might persist requires detailed information, such as population abundance, fecundity, and regional dispersal patterns. This information is seldom available and therefore difficult to incorporate into protected area strategies. Some observers have argued that ecological processes which support biodiversity are expressed in "landscapes" that capture the full range of a region's ecological attributes. Given the difficulties inherent in implementing representation and persistence objectives on the basis of species counts, there is growing support for choosing representative landscape features in designing protected area networks.

The optimal spatial arrangement of habitat patches within a reserve network is another contentious issue. We do not seem to have any consistent criteria by which to evaluate the merits of a given spatial configuration of reserves. Principles of island biogeography suggest that larger circular reserves support larger populations for longer periods of time than smaller elongated reserves. In addition, geographic isolation of reserves is argued to have a negative impact on persistence, as the ability of populations to disperse between suitable habitat patches is reduced. This raises the question of how to choose between a few large reserves that may favor the persistence of a few species versus many smaller reserves that together might represent more species. As well, increased connectivity between reserves may actually increase biodiversity risk by making populations more vulnerable to environmental stresses, such as fire, extreme weather, and disease likely to affect neighboring sites. Land use activities in surrounding areas must be compatible with protected area goals, especially surrounding smaller sites. As protected areas are withdrawn from the productive land base, there will be pressure to increase productivity in remaining areas to maintain current levels of output. It may be necessary to adopt a TRIAD approach to land management, which calls for the creation of low intensity and high intensity management zones in areas slated for development in order to ensure the integrity of the overall protected area strategy.

Finally, protected areas must be designed to accommodate change without loss of biodiversity. The question arises as to how one might construct reserves in dynamic landscapes where random disturbances, such as wildfire, influence biodiversity. Disturbance in the boreal forest is characterized by infrequent but severe fire episodes that change the distribution of forest characteristics. There is evidence in the boreal mixedwood, for example, that attributes such as stand age and type are not stable over time. Thus any network designed to satisfy representation and persistence criteria would eventually fail, as its constituent elements evolved or were subject to infrequent but inevitable large fires. A dynamic strategy for maintaining reserve systems over time would require portions of the network to periodically be replaced in response to these changes.

Our research suggests the need for a flexible management strategy responsive to the underlying economic and ecological dynamics that ultimately determine the future for the creatures living in the forest. This probably means letting go of the idea that we can sit down in 2002 and set aside a network of protected areas to last for all time. It also requires recognition that incorporating economic criteria in reserve design is a good thing - if only because reducing the costs of the network may allow us to increase the total amount or utility of habitat set aside. Society must make choices between benefits from development and reducing the risk of species loss, while recognizing there may be no way to guarantee the persistence of all species, even in very large regions.

We still have a long way to go before we fully understand the implications of landscape design in the boreal forest. Current land use choices should reflect this uncertainty. There is a need for provincial governments, as public land stewards, to take a leadership role in providing land use objectives and setting land use thresholds for biodiversity protection. By integrating economic and ecological models, BEEST has begun to quantitatively explore the costs and benefits of biodiversity protection for a study area in northeastern Alberta. We hope that our research will provide guidance in assessing tradeoffs and assist the public in setting these objectives.

A NEW APPROACH TO FOREST MANAGEMENT IN QUÉBEC: THE QUÉBEC INTEGRATION PROJECT

Research Team: Drs. Stephen Yamasaki, Dan Kneeshaw, Christian Messier, Marie-Josée Fortin, Andrew Fall, Alain Leduc, Pierre Drapeau, and Luc Bouthillier

A new approach to forest management

Globally, there are increasing demands for our forests to provide a multitude of benefits, both marketable and non-marketable. International declarations, such as the Santiago declaration, have recognized an urgent need for sustainable forest management (SFM) based on the maintenance of multiple forest values and public participation for the definition of forestry objectives. In Québec, a revision of the Forest Act requires the forest industry to specify how it is managing the forest to maintain biodiversity and to involve the public in the development of management plans. While there appears to be some openness to these new requirements within the forest industry, there is also apprehension regarding new responsibilities.

The Québec Integration (QI) Project seeks to develop a framework and tools for decision-making that will facilitate the implementation of these new and challenging objectives. The research team seeks to integrate scientific knowledge and forestry constraints with a process for public participation. The framework proposed by the QI Group addresses biodiversity as well as other forest values. The research team is developing tools and procedures to facilitate exchanges among stakeholders in a way that allows for the continual improvement of decision-making.

Indicators of sustainability

While international initiatives have led to the development of national and provincial level criteria and indicators, there is a clear need for indicators that are relevant at the management area level. In order to facilitate the implementation of SFM in the field, the research team has proposed management-unit relevant indicators for biodiversity, soil and water quality, forest productivity, and socio-economic sustainability. Two distinct types of indicators have been identified: state and response.

State indicators measure the condition of the forest (e.g., stand age, species composition, woody debris). Researchers have developed these indicators to reflect the status of forest values, such as biodiversity, and verify if a criterion of sustainability is being respected. They help decision-making by expressing objectives as quantifiable forest conditions, in the terms traditionally used by natural resource managers.
Response indicators verify the effectiveness of management strategies implemented in the field, and test the assumptions made during planning about the links between forest conditions and forest values. Identifying incorrect assumptions and measuring the impact of management on forest landscapes feed back into the planning process and improve future management decisions. This is a key component of adaptive management.

Modelling forest landscapes

Ecosystems are complex and multi-faceted. Unaided, it would be difficult to project the implications of a given management strategy, as well as track the status of indicators over time. Even with standard forest management tools (GIS, AAC calculators, and block schedulers), the projection of landscape-level management impacts on multiple resources is difficult or impossible. The research team has developed a spatially explicit model to project how the landscape might change over time, under any given management strategy. This tool uses GIS layers (such as forest cover and soil type) as input, allows the modelling of complex interactions among management, wildfire, and succession, and tracks state indicators across spatial scales and over time. The ability to compare the outcome of different management decisions and sets of assumptions about natural processes (e.g., the duration of fire cycles) will contribute to the decision-making process by allowing stakeholders to consider the implications of management strategies in terms of landscape condition and state indicators. For example, with the use of the model the research team has demonstrated that extended rotations are necessary to yield a forest age-class structure (a state indicator for ecosystem diversity) comparable to that occurring under natural disturbance regimes in the area.

Developing a common vision: public participation

The QI Group has identified several obstacles to consensus building among stakeholders. For example, some widely held interests may not be represented at the discussion table while groups representing less common points of view may have a strong influence on the debate. Regardless, the management of public forests is a question that requires a political answer. The creation of a cohesive and socially acceptable vision for the forest will require discussion and learning among all stakeholders. By studying stakeholder interactions, the research team has identified abilities that lead to collaborative learning and the development of balanced integrated-resource objectives, as well as conditions that favour the development of such abilities.

Adaptive management for problem solving

Developing linkages among community members, industry foresters, government representatives and scientists will facilitate the processes of interdisciplinary collaboration and public participation essential for SFM. Scientists can contribute by developing tools, but also through exchanges of knowledge with other stakeholders. As our understanding develops and conditions change, such linkages will be necessary to ensure that new knowledge is incorporated into management strategies, that management tools remain useful, and that, ultimately, forest values are maintained for generations to come.

RESEARCH STRATEGY CONSOLIDATION

During its formative years, the SFM Network organized its research program around three Legacies: Understanding Disturbance, Strategies for Sustainable Forest Management, and Impact Minimization. However, as the work of the Network evolved and research groups focussed their attention on specific problems, the lines between Legacies became increasingly difficult to define.

Year Six (April 2000- March 2001) represented the last year in which Network research was based on the three Legacy research areas. Year Seven (April 2001- March 2002), the last year of the first funding cycle, is structured on thirteen research areas that have arisen out of the Legacies. In Year Eight (April 2002- March 2003), the first year of the second funding cycle, the result of NCE Renewal, the Network's research program will undergo further consolidation to reduce the research areas from thirteen to nine. This will focus efforts on two strategic aspects of forest sustainability: Strategies and Alternatives for Sustainable Forest Management and Criteria and Indicators for Monitoring Progress Toward Sustainability.

Strategies and Alternatives for Sustainable Forest Management involves five research areas, which are poised to provide a wide array of science-based, innovative strategies and alternatives. The five areas include Natural Disturbance Management (NDM), Intensive Forest Management (IFM), Integrated Resource Management (IRM), Policy and Institutional Analysis, and Value Added/Alternative Products.

The Network's efforts with respect to Criteria and Indicators (C&I) are based on the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) C&I framework, which is well established as a process for assessing the sustainability of forestry practices. Developing a science base for indicators is a critical element of understanding sustainability. Further, the analysis of new strategies and technologies for forest management requires a common set of indicators. The Network is focusing its efforts on four general C&I areas: Ecological, Water and Wetlands, Sustainable Aboriginal Communities, and Social and Economic.

Ecological and aquatic indicators will be evaluated and developed to assess the ecological sustainability of alternative forest management strategies. Identification of the needs of Aboriginal communities is required to develop innovative management institutions that best integrate Aboriginal knowledge, values, and institutions into sustainable forest management. Indicators related to Aboriginal rights and involvement will be used to assess forest management strategies and alternatives. Social and economic C&I will also be used to assess alternative management strategies relative to the performance of economies and communities at multiple scales.

DEYOE TO MANAGE NETWORK'S KETE STRATEGY

David DeYoe, PhD, General Manager of the Ontario Forest Research Institute in Sault Ste. Marie, has joined the SFM Network for a one-year secondment as manager of the KETE (Knowledge Exchange and Technology Exploitation) Strategy.

In his role as GM of the research institute, Dr. DeYoe provides strategic leadership in forest science to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. He is responsible for over 60 permanent and 20 to 40 contract staff, as well as oversight of the institute, the research arboretum and satellite facilities. Annual funding exceeds $5 million, with over 50% of project and capital funds coming through external partnerships and grants.

During his SFM Network secondment, Dr. DeYoe will help ensure the Network achieves the following objectives:

assist Network Partners in developing a Partner-specific Research, Development, and Extension strategy that aligns with corporate priorities and business objectives;
improve the adoption and use of Network research results in policy, resource planning, and field practices by Partners; and
work with Partners to assess the effectiveness and benefits of SFM Network extension products and services, based on the evaluation following adoption and use.

Dr. DeYoe will hire Partner Liaison Personnel to lead key initiatives relevant to the objectives. Each will have a science-based background in Forestry/Resource Management, with experience in four key areas:

industry/government experience, including policy development, resource planning, and/or field operations;
research or extension background involving application of research and development results;
collaborative project experience involving researchers, extension personnel, and clients in the planning, development, delivery, and implementation of research; and
strong skills base including facilitation, networking, public speaking, presentation, project management, strategic thinking/planning, applying results within and across department, and people skills.

The Network welcomes Dr. DeYoe and encourages SFM Network Partners to contact him directly to discuss their needs, as they relate to transferring SFM Network research for their organization's practical use.

QUÉBEC PROVINCE AND CREE SIGN HISTORIC AGREEMENT

Dr. Marc Stevenson, Aboriginal Research and Networking Manager

During the fall of 2001, the Government of Québec and the Grand Council of the Crees signed a "Nation-to-Nation" Agreement-in-Principle that will "strengthen social, economic and political relations" between the province and Québec Cree. In exchange for a discontinuance of the legal proceedings against the province concerning forestry and the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (1975), and their consent to the Eastmain Hydroelectric project, the Québec Cree will assume a much greater role in managing their future. In order for this to occur, the province has committed to the transfer of at least $3.5 billion over the next 50 years for various social and economic development initiatives.

With respect to forestry on Cree traditional lands, the Québec Government will implement its forestry regime in such a manner as to better:

reflect the Cree traditional way of life;
integrate Cree concerns into sustainable development; and
facilitate Cree participation in various forestry operations, planning, and management processes.

In particular, Cree traplines will become the basis for delimiting new management units. Cree trapline managers, or "tallymen," through the creation of joint regional committees and the Cree-Québec Forestry Board, will assume greater management authority of their traditional lands. Sites of interest to the Cree, special wildlife areas, and protection of riparian habitat are accorded special attention in the context of this treaty.

Cree political leaders and their advisors realize that the Agreement-in-Principle is not perfect; numerous concessions had to be made. Nonetheless, they feel, given present circumstances, it is the best deal for the Québec Cree. Now that the Cree have ratified the final Agreement, it is anticipated it will have profound implications on the way forestry is conducted on Aboriginal lands, not only in Québec, but across the whole country.

HONOUR ROLL

Last October, John Spence, PhD, and Stan Boutin, PhD, each received prestigious scientific awards in their respective fields.

Dr. Spence received the Entomological Society of Canada's Gold Medal for being an outstanding researcher and teacher. He has been a biological sciences and entomology professor at the University of Alberta since 1978 and is now chair of the Department of Renewable Resources at the University. To date, he has supervised 43 graduate students who have gone on to faculty positions in places around the world, including Finland, Indonesia, and Kenya. Dr. Spence says of the award, "It is the nicest thing that has ever happened to me in my career."

Dr. Spence is the Principal Investigator responsible for the unique EMEND project, of which the SFM Network is a partner. In addition to having several other research projects funded by the SFM Network, he is also a member of the SFM Network's Board of Directors. At the 1000 hectare EMEND site located near Peace River, Alberta, Dr. Spence and his students have pioneered the use of ground beetles for a better understanding of the impacts of forest practices on arthropods.

Dr. Stan Boutin is the first recipient of the Al-Pac/ASTech Innovation in Integrated Landscape Management Award. In 1989, the Alberta Science and Technology (ASTech) Leadership Awards Foundation created an awards program to celebrate the successes of science and technology in the province of Alberta. The prize is awarded to recognize outstanding achievement in advancing science or technology that improves integrated landscape management.

Dr. Boutin, who headed a team of researchers, played an important role in understanding the impact of industrial development on boreal caribou in Alberta's northern forests. Seismic lines, it turns out, help wolves hunt caribou more efficiently, so much so that boreal caribou are being killed at a high rate. Dr. Boutin's findings are providing the energy sector with another option for considering new methods of exploration, setting new guidelines and developing new ways to conduct integrated landscape management. While not for this particular project, Dr. Boutin, a professor at the University of Alberta, also has several other projects funded by the Network and is one of the Network's Program and Research Area Leaders.

IMPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SFM

Dr. Peter Duinker, Dalhousie University

A few years ago, SFM Network partners identified public participation as a high-priority research area. Why? Because there are increasing demands for more and better opportunities for public involvement in forest decision-making. One need only check the requirements of certification schemes such as the CSA-SFM Standard, provincial forest-planning manuals, and national policy documents like the National Forest Strategy to see the attention paid today to public participation in the forest sector. The SFM Network listened and early in 2001 formed the Public Participation Research Group.

Five new projects are being supported by Network funding. A particular focus in our studies is the effectiveness of public advisory committees. The new projects include case studies in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. Additional projects are planned for other provinces.

The Public Participation Research Group held its inaugural workshop in Halifax in October 2001. The Network welcomes inquiries and expressions of interest. The Group, with the Network's approval, intends to add new projects in this important area of sustainable forest management.

SO WHY DO IT? SFM NETWORK STUDENT EXCHANGES

Vern Peters and Ken Stadt

Unparalleled opportunities exist for SFM Network student researchers to collaborate with researchers in different universities. The Network has access to a diverse level of scientific expertise that can enrich students' work. For graduate students who feel constrained by telephone, e-mail, or having to arrange for work to be done elsewhere, student exchanges through the SFM Network offer a welcome alternative.

Last summer, Vernon Peters, PhD candidate in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alberta, spent a month visiting Dr. Christian Messier's lab in Montréal (UQAM). "My intent was to learn a new approach to my research, as well as to investigate future post-doctoral opportunities," Peters says. "Having previously met Professor Messier at SFM Network workshops and conferences, I was comfortable working with him, which helped me get the answers and gain the skills I needed. In addition, a number of unexpected opportunities arose for future research and collaboration with other researchers. Surprisingly, I benefited most from philosophical exchanges on what priorities to have during a career in research, rather than specific techniques. I think these exchanges are incredible for broadening our perspective and reducing the insular nature of research."

Kenneth Stadt, PhD candidate in the Department of Renewable Resources at the University of Alberta, says, "Dr. Messier was my host for several weeks in 1999 when I visited research sites around Lac Duparquet in western Québec. The student exchange was an excellent opportunity to experience a different boreal forest landscape. While the tree species were similar, the successional dynamics were different than Alberta. Dr. Messier's hospitable research group helped me adapt my measurement techniques to Québec's climate and terrain. We talked a great deal about processes and management in eastern versus western boreal forests. The experience enriched my research project and pushed me to think more broadly about forest ecology."

So why do it? The SFM Network places a high priority on graduate student training and encourages researchers to create exciting opportunities that make student exchanges worthwhile. Besides, who would pass up the opportunity for an educational cross-country experience.

ADVANCES IN FOREST MANAGEMENT: FROM KNOWLEDGE TO PRACTICE

Forest research conference set for November 13-15, 2002 in Edmonton

Mark November 13-15, 2002 on your calendars - Canada's premier forest-research conference is coming to the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton, Alberta! The 2002 conference, Advances in forest management: from knowledge to practice, has a twofold purpose. First, to share with forest stakeholders and other interested parties the latest advances in sustainable forest management (SFM) knowledge developed by Network researchers, and second, to show how the new knowledge is being used in practice to guide SFM decision-making by Network Partners.

The conference will feature a wide range of speakers, with invited keynote speakers from outside the Network to set the context for SFM in plenary talks. Following the plenaries, participants will assemble in roundtable discussions, where they will be challenged to exchange thoughts on the issues and develop new ways of thinking about sustainability.

A call for papers has been issued. Abstracts of proposed papers are due May 2002; manuscripts for accepted papers are due October 2002. Up-to-date conference information will be available on the Network's web site.

Conference schedule

Tuesday, 12 November 2002

registration, evening reception

Wednesday, 13 November 2002

morning - plenary
afternoon - concurrent sessions, posters
evening - public session

Thursday, 14 November 2002

morning - plenary
afternoon - concurrent sessions, posters
evening - banquet

Friday, 15 November 2002

morning - plenary
afternoon - SFM Network AGM

Conference Co-Chairs

Peter Duinker, Dalhousie University
Jim Lopez, Tembec Inc.

BUILDING BRIDGES AMONG NATIONS, DISCIPLINES, AND GENERATIONS

BorNet, a project supported by the SFM Network, is an international network of researchers and resource managers that focuses on biodiversity conservation in boreal forest countries. Although parks and protected areas are key to the conservation of biological diversity, they are inadequate on their own. It is critical that the greatest amount of biodiversity possible be conserved outside of protected areas.

Researchers have posed the following questions:

How much and where should forested areas be fully protected in reserves?
How can management effectively restore/recreate/ maintain important features required to conserve biodiversity outside of reserves?
How can we determine the effectiveness of measures to conserve biodiversity?

BorNet involves three phases:

As part of phase one, National Syntheses are underway in those countries that have secured funding (Sweden, Finland and Canada). These projects will synthesize existing information and identify areas where further research is required;
Phase two, an International Conference scheduled for Stockholm in May 2002, will include an international comparison of results among countries. The conference will also provide a venue to identify research gaps and develop international collaboration projects to address them; and
Phase three, International Implementation, will include communication and extension of results to managers and development of funding for collaborative research.