|
KEY LEARNINGS "...We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope."
In his famous "Wilderness Letter," Wallace Stegner reminded us that our nation's remaining wildlands--the "geography of hope"--play an irreplaceable role in supporting our national psyche. He argued that these vital areas are not simply recreational and tourism meccas but help to ground us as humans in our relationship to the environment and as citizens to the history of our forebears. The Wildlife Habitat Council's 1997 Wildlands Conference, "Exceeding Expectations," recognizing that these wildlands are vital to our ecological and economic health as well, provided participants with the tools to better understand, interpret and protect this geography. The 1997 Wildlands Conference was the place to get the message that wildlife habitat, from wildlands to corporate campuses to backyards, is tightly linked to other natural resource issues. Because the quality of wildlife habitat has a reciprocal effect on the overall health of the natural resource base of a given region, there is a growing understanding that it serves as a barometer for the robustness of the region's biodiversity. Where is this newfound recognition of wildlife resources? In government: Natural resource agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) are incorporating habitat conservation and enhancement supporting biodiversity and regional environmental quality into statutes. Recent legislation, such as the Farm Bill, elevates habitat enhancement and protection to the level of water quality and soil erosion as important measures of ecological health. The augmented focus on wildlife values within natural resource agencies is both timely and appropriate. For example, 70 percent of the nation's land base is privately owned and 80 percent of wildlife habitat is on private land. When one considers that USDA policies affect eighty-percent of this land, it is clear why the agency is increasing its involvement in wildlife habitat conservation activities such as the Conservation Buffer Initiative or Backyard Conservation. Meanwhile, the US EPA's new Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) approach establishes regional and community-level strategic, management, and evaluation goals for ecosystem protection that include wildlife habitat protection. Wildlife habitat quality is becoming an environmental benchmark in the same way as water or air quality and with that role a need to conserve, protect, mitigate, and restore. And the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Partners for Wildlife program has restored tens of thousands of acres of land and aquatic habitat. In business: In this busy world of rightsizing and global restructuring, what does corporate environmental policy have to do with the competitive marketplace? And what does wildlife habitat have to do with corporate environmental policy? The answer to both questions is a resounding "everything." Corporate environmental strategy is rapidly becoming more business-like, emphasizing value-added investments over simple cost and liability avoidance. Voluntary wildlife habitat projects, like those promoted by WHC, offer tangible, bottom-line contributions to business, improving employee morale, profitability, and community relationships in a positive, genuine way. In addition, wildlife habitat is a recognized part of the economic robustness of a region. It is valued for its contributions to the natural resource base, supporting productive uses for land and aquatic environments. It significantly contributes to an industry of recreational and educational activities built around non-game wildlife. In the general public: As demonstrated by the tremendous increase in non-game recreational and educational expenditures, the general public's awareness of the importance of wildlife resources has grown substantially, particularly over the past forty years. All of this adds up to a growing recognition of the value of wildlife habitat by the entire community--by a broad range of stakeholders. This acknowledgement that wildlife habitat is fully part of the environmental and economic web demonstrates a true shift in societal values or, as one speaker noted, "...Aldo Leopold's land ethic arising." Yet, in spite of the heightened awareness of wildlife resources, there is much room for improvement in how we manage them. Especially on agricultural or forested land, management options that provide a desired financial return still are seen as conflicting with conservation actions, reinforcing the old stereotype pitting economy against ecology. Recent controversy surrounding the renewal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives a snapshot of this problem. The ESA has come under fire, especially regarding its alleged insensitivity to the rights of property owners to manage their land in accordance with their goals. The problem is twofold--there is conflict over the perceived value of the resource, rooted in differing management goals; there is conflict over jurisdiction, rooted in differing opinions about where final decision-making authority should reside. Exceeding our expectations of environmental stewardship depends on our ability to reconcile these different perceptions, and on our ability to create a decision-making framework that removes perceived inequities in authority. Collaborations for ConservationSM Happily, a clarion call of the conference was that there are new opportunities to overcome these problems through natural resource partnerships. The capacity of natural resource partnerships to reduce conflict, share resources, and discover new visions and opportunities for environmental stewardship was a major theme of the 1997 Wildlands Conference. The various entities-business, government agencies, conservation and community organizations-which have a stake in the management and development of these areas are recognizing that they have the opportunity to provide long term, regional conservation and protection. Collaboration for wildlife habitat enhancement and protection requires the ability to see beyond the bounds of regulation; success is built upon voluntary efforts and enthusiasm for doing the right thing. Perhaps most important, these partnerships succeed best where we can broaden our own understanding of who our partners are, to have enough vision to convert potential enemies into real allies. Identifying what works Collaborative partnerships for resource management are gathering momentum. For example, there is a drive within natural resource agencies to move from a "top down" model of governance toward a more inclusive approach, where decisions concerning land management practices are taken with participation and input from private landowners and other stakeholders. Two trends in particular were lauded by agency personnel, corporate managers, and other participants as having particular positive impact: (a) the injection of flexibility, through an increase of resource management options, into the regulatory approach; and (b) the inclusion of landowners in the decision-making process. "Exceeding Expectations" participants evaluated three case studies based on these trends, using a facilitated group decision-making process. Top among their chosen criteria for successful collaborations were:
Elements identified as critical to success included the coupling of social and environmental issues, community and political support inspired by recognition of the value of the resource, strong leadership, adequate financial resources, and solid consensus-building and conflict resolution techniques. Overall, they emphasized that in collaborative decision-making the "four C's"-- cooperation, coordination, communication, commitment-- were necessary to move beyond controversies surrounding land-use issues. Participants also came away with a new appreciation for the willingness of agencies to involve landowners in their decisions, the increasing number of agencies and organizations providing technical and financial resources for land stewardship, and the process of cooperation which fosters change. Equally important, the facilitated discussion allowed conference participants to feel that they had been heard, had contributed significantly to the discussion, and were given opportunity to listen to differing viewpoints in an atmosphere devoid of rancor. They experienced first hand how such facilitation could be applied to any number of natural resource decisions. Conclusion As one Wildlands speaker noted, even though sometimes we may have a "bumper sticker understanding" of complex issues, most of us consider ourselves to be environmentalists. How we define "environmentalist" may be very different, however, and those differences reflect the environment's multiple links to so many other issues. The Wildlife Habitat Council's 1997 Wildlands Conference illustrated that "stakeholders"-- that sometimes overused, clinical word-- means all of us. It taught that "stakeholder participation" requires having a meaningful part in the decisions affecting our properties, jobs, and communities. And it showed, through many examples, that successful natural resource partnerships allow individuals to actively participate and to feel ownership for the projects. Wildlife habitat enhancement efforts, like those promoted by WHC, represent a new approach to resource conservation. Their success rests on the broad participation, pride and ownership that they inspire in achieving their environmental goals. They work because small actions--like planting a tree or building a nesting box--give people, in the words of one speaker, "that little warm feeling," and ultimately can result in more genuine change than large, complicated initiatives. Finally, wildlife habitat conservation, through common vision, action, and tangible and easily understood goals give us the opportunity, in Wallace Stegner's words "...to see ourselves single, separate, vertical and individual in the world, part of the environment of trees and rocks and soil, [kin] to the other animals, part of the natural world and competent to belong in it."
|
