Personal Perspectives on a New Model of Governance for Natural Resources Management
By Julianne Siegel
On March 13, 2007, Bruce McCloskey, Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, paid a visit to the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP). Mr. McCloskey presented as part of the Environmental Policy and Planning Group (EPP) Luncheon Series a talk on a new model of governance for natural resources management. His presentation resulted in a lively and informative discussion with EPP students and faculty about his new role in the exploration of alternative wildlife management through his involvement in the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative (CSI).
The sagebrush habitat of the American West presents a unique challenge to traditional wildlife management. This habitat spans state borders, agency governance and is a hot spot of exploration and development for the energy industry. The sagebrush is also home to the sage grouse, a species on the verge of endangered species listing.). The CSI is the major sagebrush ecosystem restoration and management initiative in the Department of the Interior (DOI). It is a unique partnership between government and non-governmental entities, led by the energy industry. Its goal is to recover sage grouse and other species of concern within the 11-state range of the greater sage grouse through habitat restoration in the sagebrush ecosystem by landowners, community and citizen groups, and conservation-minded individuals and organizations. This effort is being financed by the energy industry in partnership with government through a collaboratively governed conservation fund (that could involve hundreds of millions of dollars). Through his presentation, Mr. McCloskey highlighted the uniqueness of this regional approach, as well as the challenges to the government actors in relinquishing power in order to gain a better outcome for the wildlife involved. However, there is strong hope that the obstacles to relinquishing power will dissipate as positive results of a new form of collaborative or shared governance begins to emerge, which is more effective for reducing conflict and conserving the ecosystem while allowing continued economic development. Energy companies have a strong interest to continue to explore for oil and gas and develop production fields in the area encompassed by the sagebrush ecosystem, which in the past led to tension with the regulatory agencies and environmental groups. Through the collaborative approach offered by the CSI, the groups will ideally resolve their differences with a solution that is mutually beneficial.
At the heart of the plan put forward by the CSI, is a system of tradable conservation credits allowing industry, and perhaps one day, private landowners, to establish a market for credits with both monetary and ecological value. Though it may seem unpalatable to some to allow habitat degradation in exchange for conservation funds, the opportunity to collaboratively regulate development and conservation may in fact create an atmosphere of more rigorous preservation for both the habitat and the species within.
What became apparent through discussion between Mr. McCloskey, students and faculty is how crucial it is to capitalize on this particular moment in time with regards to the Sagebrush habitat, and the importance of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in this matter. Since its inception, the ESA has been a dividing factor between the partners of the CSI, frustrating industry, championed by environmentalists, and utilized as a tool by regulatory agencies. However, with the credit system proposed by the CSI, the ESA may actually be the factor, which finally brings harmony to these previously warring actors. If through working together, the Collaborative Sagebrush Initiative can preclude the listing of the sage grouse on the endangered species list, than all groups have an opportunity to achieve, at least most of, their goals.
At its heart, the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative is a very hopeful and bold experiment, and an attempt at regional-scale ecosystem based management, adaptive management, and overall a new model of collaborative governance. Important lessons will be learned from the CSI, whether it succeeds or fails. All involved with the CSI are working hard to make it a success and a model for a new form of governing natural resources, which could fundamentally change how natural resources are managed in the U.S.
A major contributor to the lack of success is the high number of interests involved in the process. Using the ag example, the number of land owners, commodity prices, supported or not, market forces resulting in high variability of product prices, coupled with the complexity of managing large tracts of land all conspire to bedevil attempts to reduce pollution levels. In addition, there are larger external interest groups interested in environmental improvement – proponents of open space, species at risk due to habitat loss and the groups interested in those species – add up to a bewildering array of interests, formal and informal, often at odds with one another with many pointing fingers in frustration and dismay at what seems to be the reluctance, even recalcitrance, of those ‘responsible’ to act in constructive ways.
It seems clear that the processes we’ve developed to address these problems are limited in ways we didn’t anticipate. One central question, then, is how to define the processes we use to address concerns we share in such a way so that we can collaborate in addressing issues of mutual concern.
The first step, perhaps, is to look at who has a stake in the process. Using our example, private landowners have the most at risk. Their livelihoods are at stake, their standing in their own community and the larger community as well, coupled with their justifiable pride in providing food and fiber for the rest us all come into play. Those with regulatory responsibility for addressing ‘violations,’ and environmental interest groups focuses on pollutant reduction and environmental restoration, look to the landowner for ‘responsible’ action. Note that everyone wants the best possible outcome, yet we often end up at odds with one another. The usual structures we use within which to address these problems seem inappropriate for the complexity of the issues.
One step that seems essential is to admit that we the citizenry are as or more responsible than those with formal regulatory responsibility for the problems we face. If environmentalists, for example, want the highest possible habitat values on land owned by others, it is incumbent on them, or us, to develop ways to compensate the land owner for the ‘products’ we want. Similarly, the landowner wants us to pay for products at a level commensurate with his or her investment, the land owner/producer has to be prepared to engage ‘outsiders’ in the land management planning process. The context within which these issues have to be addressed is one where the regulators who have formal standing in the process and the other interests must have equal standing in discussing and addressing the issues. Our common interest is one of sustainable ecological stewardship. That interest, or effort, must be coupled with a sustainable planning and implementation process based on broad equality and trust with a focused agreement on the best possible outcome. All parties must have an equal stake in the process and outcome and all parties must agree because if one constituent does not participate, the process will fail and the problems will continue unaddressed, as we all know to our sorrow. In sum, the process must be deeply democratic which, ironically, implies that planning groups should not vote; successful planning groups are best served by a carefully structured consensus process. Voting can very rapidly marginalize one or more stakeholders who, if marginalized, will leave the process and the problems will continue unchanged because the agreement of all stakeholders is required.
There are examples of successful collaborative environmental stewardship. The process appears to be cumbersome and slow, but only appears so. To incorporate all interests, a necessary condition of successful action, we must trust one another and have sufficient patience to work through the apparent conflicts to reach a point of common interest. We all want to be thought of as responsible; we all want others to see us as good citizens with a common interest in the world we leave for our grandchildren. The task is to use a structure suitable for that purpose. The traditional regulatory model if used for addressing process problems is bound to fail. The collaborative model of stakeholder equality has the best chance for success.