06 October 2017

More Than The Trees Are Worth? Intangibles, Decision-Making, and the Meares Island Logging Conflict

Oxford Insights invites its staff to blog on topics they are passionate about. This week, André Petheram writes about how governments treat value, and what that says about their values. 

‘The loggers for MacMillan Bloedel boast that the company has already spent nearly three million dollars to “protect their rights to Meares,” and will spend whatever it takes to win, even if it costs more than the trees are worth.

The Indians (sic) and environmentalists have spent an estimate of $100,000 to save Meares. Donations from concerned citizens continue to pour in.

They are equally determined to win.’

Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Meares Island News, Summer 1985

Photograph by André Petheram. All rights reserved. 

Photograph by André Petheram. All rights reserved.

For MacMillan Bloedel, a Canadian forestry company, three million dollars, but this was paying over the odds. For the Tla’o’qui’aht and Ahousaht First Nations and environmentalists, just one hundred thousand dollars, but making up the shortfall with determination. How much are the trees really worth?

For my part, I paid about $30 to see Meares Island in British Columbia (BC), Canada, for the water taxi from the small town of Tofino. The boat races through Clayoquot Sound until a tiny jetty emerges from the unbreaking wall of western red cedars. Ducking under branches, the transition from sea to deep rainforest is immediate. Soon you see the biggest trees, up to 1,500 years old, crooked, huge and humbling. The island has never been logged, and it must be one of the most remarkable places on earth.

Paying $30 was certainly worth it for the visit, but I started wondering what was the most I’d pay. $50? $100? And from the perspective of those who blockaded Meares in the 1980s, when the forestry company MacMillan Bloedel held logging permits for the island, how much would they have accepted to see the trees chopped down? In any reasonable guess, there would have been no possible price.

These seem like crude, even cold, questions, but they can still be useful. The theory goes like this: for individuals and policy-makers, resources are limited, and this forces us to make trade-offs. Our expenditure in terms of time, money or calories will reveal what we love as well as what we need.

We do not always need to reflect on these trade-offs in a rational manner, and my own belief is that MacMillan-Bloedel should have been nowhere near Meares Island. Arguably, however, policy choices about how to manage natural resources should be made as rigorously as possible, balancing sectors such as conservation, forestry and tourism. Given that money is our most common way to measure time and effort, it is therefore most convenient to apply it to happiness and values. To do this, the preferred option tends to be ‘willingness-to-pay’ (WTP) or ‘willingness-to-accept’ (WTA) analysis of the sort imagined above. This captures a price for ‘intangible’ or ‘non-market’ values.

Curiously, it seems that WTP was not included in the analysis of the different logging options for Meares Island. As Jeremy Wilson writes in his account of the Meares Island conflict, ‘qualitative discussion of impacts on values such as recreation [were] juxtaposed against cost-benefit estimates’. The idea that you could include values within a cost-benefit analysis itself does not seem to have been considered.

Could this have made the Meares decision easier for the BC Environment and Land Use Committee, perhaps showing that the economic benefits of an unlogged island to local communities would vastly outweigh MacMillan Bloedel’s profits? I don’t think it would have been so simple: quantifying values in this way has social and psychological effects.

When asked to value things in WTP research, people often offer ‘protest zeros’. They rebel against the form of the question, effectively saying that some things simply cannot be described in economic terms. Of course, the likelihood of this response hugely increases when a place is a community’s ancestral homeland, as in the case of Meares Island.

This doesn’t just make valuation more difficult. It also raises the question of how governments and managers communicate with communities about issues – and places – involved in resource and development decisions. It is an issue of how to get people speaking the same language.

As I pointed out, the Meares Island process did include a ‘qualitative discussion’. However, the decision to log Meares was in fact made on the basis of a late, privately-submitted proposal from Macmillan Bloedel that prioritised ‘economic considerations’, as related by Jeremy Wilson. This not only disregarded the local consultation process, causing widespread anger, but apparently closed off the opportunity to count people’s values in the overall decision.

Indeed, by relying on measurement in dollar values, governments might be contributing to a moral framework which primes societies to value rationalisation above other crucial things: empathy, public duty and connection to place, for example.

As my colleague Emma Martinho-Truswell has reflected elsewhere, morality and emotion are crucial parts of the operations of government. By using non-economic methods of measuring impacts, asking people to reflect on their most deeply-held values without resorting to quantification, governments can enable a more empathetic style of governing more closely attuned to citizens’ needs. This is especially true if such methods are co-designed with communities. Of course, this works both ways: people are arguably more likely to trust their governments if, when decisions are made, they are allowed to express what they cherish in the way that is most natural to them.

How, then, might this have worked in the conflict over Meares Island? It would not have been a case of simply holding a wider consultation. The planning committee might have selected a representative group of locals and asked them to narrate their likely reactions to different logging plans. Then, the committee could have analysed the results to unearth the values expressed within, and chosen the action most commonly associated with ‘employment’ or ‘economic growth’ over ‘spirituality’ or ‘sustainability’, or the other way round.

Deciding the future of Meares Island on this basis would have made clear what the BC government itself valued most. This would have made it harder to defer the decision to what, in this case, was a relatively opaque cost-benefit analysis. Effectively, this would have provided communities with more direct input into the decision. Depending on its choice, the planning committee would have had a better sense of the risks to its legitimacy.

In the end, the BC Court of Appeal ruled that the Tla’o’qui’aht and Ahousaht First Nations had a potentially valid land claim to Meares, and that logging should be delayed. Its red cedars remain, and the next fight is to have Meares Island officially recognised as a Tribal Park.

How much are the trees really worth? More than the timber, I’m certain. And we don’t need to count the dollars to know that.


More insights

21 April 2017

Why Government is ready for AI

12 July 2017

Five levels of AI in public service

26 July 2017

Making it personal: civil service and morality

10 August 2017

AI: Is a robot assistant going to steal your job?

19 September 2017

AI and legitimacy: government in the age of the machine

16 October 2017

The UK Government’s AI review: what’s missing?

23 October 2017

Why unconference? #Reimagine2017

03 November 2017

AI: the ultimate intern

09 November 2017

Motherboard knows best?

23 November 2017

Beyond driverless cars: our take on the UK’s Autumn Budget 2017

05 December 2017

Why Black people don’t start businesses (and how more inclusive innovation could make a difference)

06 December 2017

“The things that make me interesting cannot be digitised”: leadership lessons from the Drucker Forum

23 January 2018

Want to get serious about artificial intelligence? You’ll need an AI strategy

15 February 2018

Economic disruption and runaway AI: what can governments do?

26 April 2018

Ranking governments on AI – it’s time to act

08 May 2018

AI in the UK: are we ‘ready, willing and able’?

24 May 2018

Mexico leads Latin America as one of the first ten countries in the world to launch an artificial intelligence strategy

05 July 2018

Beyond borders: talking at TEDxLondon

13 July 2018

Is the UK ready, willing and able for AI? The Government responds to the Lords’ report

17 July 2018

Suspending or shaping the AI policy frontier: has Germany become part of the AI strategy fallacy?

27 July 2018

From open data to artificial intelligence: the next frontier in anti-corruption

01 August 2018

Why every city needs to take action on AI

09 August 2018

When good intentions go bad: the role of technology in terrorist content online

26 September 2018

Actions speak louder than words: the role of technology in combating terrorist content online

08 February 2019

More than STEM: how teaching human specialties will help prepare kids for AI

02 May 2019

Should we be scared of artificial intelligence?

04 June 2019

Ethics and AI: a crash course

25 July 2019

Dear Boris

01 August 2019

AI: more than human?

06 August 2019

Towards Synthetic Reality: When DeepFakes meet AR/VR

19 September 2019

Predictive Analytics, Public Services and Poverty

10 January 2020

To tackle regional inequality, AI strategies need to go local

20 April 2020

Workshops in an age of COVID and lockdown

10 September 2020

Will automation accelerate what coronavirus started?

10 September 2020

Promoting gender equality and social inclusion through public procurement

21 September 2020

The Social Dilemma: A failed attempt to land a punch on Big Tech

20 October 2020

Data and Power: AI and Development in the Global South

23 December 2020

The ‘Creepiness Test’: When should we worry that AI is making decisions for us?

13 June 2022

Data promises to support climate action. Is it a double-edged sword?

30 September 2022

Towards a human-centred vision for public services: Human-Centred Public Services Index

06 October 2022

Why You Should Know and Care About Algorithmic Transparency

26 October 2022

Harnessing data for the public good: What can governments do?

09 December 2022

Behind the scenes of the Government AI Readiness Index

06 February 2023

Reflections on the Intel® AI for Youth Program

01 May 2023

Canada’s AI Policy: Leading the way in ethics, innovation, and talent

15 May 2023

Day in the life series: Giulia, Consultant

15 May 2023

Day in the life series: Emma, Consultant

17 May 2023

Day in the life series: Kirsty, Head of Programmes

18 May 2023

Day in the life series: Sully, Partnerships Associate/Consultant

19 May 2023

LLMs in Government: Brainstorming Applications

23 May 2023

Bahrain: Becoming a regional R&D Hub

30 May 2023

Driving AI adoption in the public sector: Uruguay’s efforts on capacity-building, trust, and AI ethics

07 June 2023

Jordan’s AI policy journey: Bridging vision and implementation

12 June 2023

Response to the UK’s Global Summit on AI Safety

20 June 2023

 Unlocking the economic potential of AI: Tajikistan’s plans to become more AI-ready

11 July 2023

Government transparency and anti-corruption standards: Reflections from the EITI Global Conference in Dakar, Senegal

31 August 2023

What is quantum technology and why should policymakers care about it?

21 September 2023

Practical tools for designers in government looking to avoid ethical AI nightmares

23 October 2023

Collective Intelligence: exploring ‘wicked problems’ in National Security

23 October 2023

Exploring the concepts of digital twin, digital shadow, and digital model

30 October 2023

How to hire privileged white men

09 November 2023

Inclusive consensus building: Reflections from day 4 of AI Fringe

13 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Can AI help us improve our home’s energy efficiency?

14 November 2023

Navigating the AI summit boom: Initial reflections

20 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Improving home energy efficiency by retrofitting

24 November 2023

Will AI kill us all?

27 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Preventing and predicting wildfires 

28 November 2023

Service Design in Government 2023: conference reflections

04 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: Using artificial and indigenous Intelligence to fight climate change

06 December 2023

Release: 2023 Government AI Readiness Index reveals which governments are most prepared to use AI

11 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: AI for flood adaptation plans and disaster relief

18 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: Managing floods using AI Early Warning Systems