|
|
|
An ecosystem approach to natural resource conservation in California
CIPA Publication No. 106, August 2001 © CIPA 2001
Note: This paper is based on a previously unpublished memorandum written in 1991. We have posted it here because it demonstrates CIPA's integrated approach to public policy and is a precursor to our international work on strategies for sustainability; and also because the problems the paper describes are still very much present, and not only in California.
In 1990, at the initiative of Ed Hastey, then California State Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management, several federal and state agencies asked CIPA to convene a policy dialogue to help design and build consensus on a new bioregional, collaborative approach to natural resource planning and management in California.
A clear need
A new approach was needed for three reasons:
-- Responsibility for resource management and environmental protection in California was fragmented among levels of government and single-purpose agencies. Each agency acted within its own framework of laws, purposes, political constituencies, and organizational culture. There were often conflicts and overlapping responsibilities among them; at the same time, critical problems fell into the cracks between jurisdictions. Boundaries of public and private land ownership were complex and usually arbitrary. No one was responsible for looking at a whole region as a system of interacting parts.
-- There was increasing conflict over use of natural resources in California. Government generally had not been very effective in reducing confrontation or involving a broad public in decision-making.
-- Increasingly, the missions of resource agencies were being shifted from their traditional goals to achieving sustainability and maintaining natural diversity. There was no framework for the integrated management these objectives require.
Time to act
Although concepts of regional resource planning had been discussed for decades in the United States, there were few successful attempts to carry them out on the ground.* The leaders and experts CIPA brought together to discuss this problem thought that a new ecosystem approach to resource management in California might have a good chance of succeeding because:
-- There was broad recognition of the shortcomings of the existing system and its ability to meet growing public expectations of long-term resource renewability;
-- Improved tools had become available to support decision-making, including methods for mediation and collaborative problem-solving that were widely accepted, and sophisticated geographic information systems that integrated data from many sources and showed the interrelationships in a region as never before possible;
-- There was a new state Administration receptive to exploring new approaches to environmental and resource management, and a recognition that state government leadership would be critical to the success of any regional planning effort.
Elements of a new approach
The group assembled by CIPA included representatives of federal and state agencies and public-interest and industry groups, as well as academics. It agreed that a continuing process of resource planning and management was needed at the level of large "bioregions," of which there would be about a dozen in the state.
CIPA suggested that this new approach should meet twelve requirements. Three of the requirements were broad objectives; the other nine related to the character of the process.
The objectives were:
Maintaining natural diversity, not only in parks and other protected areas but over the region as a whole.
Achieving sustainability. Planning and management should be for the indefinite future: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The regional planning process should take into account socioeconomic as well as environmental factors; its goals should include long-term stability of rural settlements and the well-being of the people who live in them.
Building community. Sustainability cannot be imposed from outside; it will depend on widely-shared values.
As for its character, the process would be:
Systematic. It should treat the regions as a system of interrelated parts that is, in turn, part of a statewide system of regions.
Strategic. It should focus on a few important objectives and establish a broad framework.
Inclusive. It should embrace the major governmental and nongovernmental groups responsible for, or affected by, resource decisions in the region.
Complementary. It should complement and enhance, rather than attempt to duplicate, existing programs of resource planning, regulation, and management.
Participatory. It should communicate openly with the public and strive to involve citizens representing diverse viewpoints in meaningful ways.
Collaborative. It should be non-adversarial, at least in structure and purpose, and operate by consensus whenever possible.
Adaptive. It should be able to adjust to changes in circumstances and new information.
Anticipatory. It should anticipate problems and work to avoid them.
Linked to information and ideas. It should have ready access to scientific knowledge needed for making decisions. It should encourage interaction between researchers and planners, and keep in touch with what people are thinking and doing elsewhere in resource management.
Epilogue
Through its conceptual work, convening of leaders at the state level, and informal discussions with citizens in a pilot bioregion, CIPA helped prepare the way for formation of an interagency group called the California Biodiversity Council. While the Council has not become the strong collaborative planning organization anticipated by some of those involved in CIPA's project, it has an important role in exchange of information, resolving conflicts, and developing regional conservation practices.
CIPA has applied what it learned in this project to its international work (see About us and Papers on line).
_______________ *This has been changing fast. Steven L. Yaffee and his colleagues at the University of Michigan have been chronicling progress. See, for example, Yaffee et al., Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience (Island Press, 1996).
California Institute of Public Affairs P.O. Box 189040 Sacramento, California 95818, USA Tel. (1 916) 442-2472
|
|
Home / Site map / About us / Print publications / Papers online InterEnvironment / Staff & associates / Governance & partners |
The Copyright & Caveats notice applies to the entire contents of this Web site. |
