The
messy middle
By John C. Whitehead
During the 20th century, the
conservation movement in America focused primarily on keeping nature
and people separate. And with considerable success: The
nation's parks and wilderness areas, all protected by stringent
restrictions on human use, reflect this prevailing view of how
humans should interact with nature.
But in the 21st century, the challenge
facing environmentalists is precisely the opposite. Instead of
figuring out how to keep people and nature apart, the question of
the hour is how best to bring them together — in short, how
to integrate human needs with the needs of the environment in a way
that benefits both.
The leading exponent of this new
approach to conservation is the Nature Conservancy. Over its
history, the Conservancy has prided itself on developing
conservation strategies that benefit human communities and
ecosystems. With a healthy willingness to take risks in pursuit of
real results, the Conservancy has reached out to many of the
traditional foes of environmentalists — ranchers, farmers,
corporations and rural communities, for example. As a result, the
organization finds itself firmly planted in the "messy
middle," — an unenviable spot on the conservation spectrum
located between fervent environmental hardliners on the left and the
extreme private property rights crowd on the right. Meanwhile, with
criticism and conspiracies theories being lobbed like grenades
around it, the Conservancy quietly continues going about its
conservation work.
Tellingly, the only people who benefit
from attacking organizations operating from the middle, such as the
Conservancy, are the obstructionists on both sides of the
environmental debate, who seem to prefer inaction to action based on
compromise.
For years, groups on the environmental
left have employed confrontational, all-or-nothing litigatory
tactics to block economic development projects and obfuscate
decisions over resource use. This approach, which descends directly
from old attitudes about separating people and nature, has had some
success, but while battles are being won, the war over the future of
our natural heritage is being lost.
The problem is that these groups are
fighting the wrong battles. The conservation wars of the next
century are going to focus not on pristine natural areas but instead
in the arena of what some have called "working
landscapes." These are the places — all over the country and
the world — where such human uses of the land as agriculture,
livestock grazing, logging and mining currently coexist, however
uneasily, with biologically important natural areas.
Wishing for these economic activities
to simply go away is not an option. Nor is it an option to regulate
them out of existence.
On the other side of the political
continuum, the fringe right also needs to take a less doctrinaire
approach to environmental issues. A clean, healthy environment
serves everyone's interest. Rather than automatically opposing any
and all conservation measures, they should be looking for models
that harness free-market principles to deliver positive results for
conservation while enabling economic growth. Until this side of the
spectrum can articulate its own coherent commitment to conservation,
it will always be playing catch-up to the skilled activists on the
other side.
Many elements of the corporate world
are well ahead of the political community in grasping the importance
of having a forward-oriented environmental policy. More and more
companies are taking preemptive measures to address their potential
environmental liabilities. Quite simply, it pays for business to get
out ahead of environmental regulations and issues. This trend plays
itself out in terms of changes in production practices,
overcompliance with regulations and the creation of partnerships
with environmental organizations.
Despite these signals of progress, a
considerable gulf still separates the two sides, fueled by long-held
suspicions and distrust. That's where the Nature Conservancy and its
moderate allies can make a tremendous difference. Time and again,
the Conservancy's non-confrontational, pragmatic approach has been
able to bridge the gap between the extremes and arrive at workable
compromises.
The Conservancy's bridge-building
skills will be needed more than ever in the future. If the old
strategy of trying to keep people out of the woods isn't working,
how do we shift the terms of the debate to focus on the best ways of
letting people in? And if not the Nature Conservancy, who else can
lead this conversation?
The corporate sector absolutely must
be part of that discussion, along with private landowners and other
resource users. Government officials and environmentalists must be
at the table, as well. And all sides must be willing to make
concessions.
But it's no longer a matter of choice.
The struggle for our natural heritage will not be won on the
extremes, but in the center. Wishing that things were otherwise is
more than a little naive — and more than a little dangerous.
John C. Whitehead is a director of the
Nature Conservancy.
[Non-text portions of this message
have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any
copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to
those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information
go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
