|
Why would a national environmental organization, a
charter member of The Green Group, based in Washington,
D.C., with 300,000 members, a staff of 250, and a storied
history of successful litigation, turn to collaboration
to achieve its goals?
Because it works.
For an organization that pioneered the lawsuit as a
tool of environmental protection, the metamorphosis
of Environmental Defense into
a charter member of the collaborative movement is both
remarkable and
illustrative of the changing times.
"The lawsuit is
– Michael Bean,
Environmental Defense lawyer
"For many years our unofficial motto was 'Sue
the Bastards,'" said Michael Bean, a lawyer and
chair of the Wildlife Program for Environmental Defense.
"Today our official motto is 'Finding the Ways
that Work.' It reflects an increasing pragmatism within
the organization."
In the mid-1960s, a group of scientists
concerned over the use of DDT on Long Island, NY,
decided on a novel
strategy to combat environmental degradation: They
hired a lawyer. They lost the battle, but won the war.
In
1972 the federal government banned DDT in the United
States (though it is still widely used across the
globe).
Emboldened, they formed Environmental Defense
Fund and set out to demonstrate the utility of the lawsuit
in achieving environmental protection. They were highly
successful. Today, some would argue, lawsuits are THE
tool of choice for environmental activists.
But not for Environmental Defense, anymore.
"The lawsuit is a great hammer if every problem
is a nail," said Bean. "However, we've come
to realize that lasting solutions to environmental problems
require a different approach. A lawsuit, for example,
isn't very useful for fixing global climate change.
To do that you need to work cooperatively with people."
This change within Environmental Defense,
formerly the Environmental Defense Fund, came as a
result of another innovation: adding economists to
their
teams of scientists and lawyers. A conservation strategy
based on positive economic incentives – as well
as removing disincentives for landowners – began
to take shape as an alternative to confrontation.
"It caused a significant cultural change within
the organization," said Bean.
Environmental Defense hasn't laid down
the tool of litigation entirely, preferring to use
it for specific
purposes, such as cleaning up dirty air. But far more
frequently, it employs the tool of collaboration –
and for good reason: It gets results.
Safe Harbor
Although Environmental Defense works across the spectrum
of conservation, one of its longstanding concerns has
been the protection and recovery of endangered species.
Unlike many other national organizations, however, it
chose to focus its efforts on private land – where,
in fact, the fate of many species hangs in the balance.
But working on private land in America meant devising
new conservation strategies, or else risk running into
the buzz saw of private property rights. Pragmatically,
Environmental Defense knew early that confrontation
wasn't the answer.
In the 1990s, Michael Bean led Environmental
Defense in developing an innovative, voluntary process
for the protection of endangered species on private
land called Safe Harbor agreements.
Working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (not
Congress), Bean and others created a legal document
by which landowners would be shielded from regulatory
action if they undertook voluntary action to assist
a species in crisis.
For example, if a baseline wildlife survey
determined that, let's say, five acres of suitable
habitat were occupied
by endangered, federally listed toads on a particular
property, then the landowner could enter into a formal
agreement with the Fish & Wildlife Service that
said if he or she created or restored additional habitat
for the toads over time, he or she would NOT be subjected
to a corresponding increase in federal regulation.
If the landowner reduced the amount of habitat to less
than five acres, however, there might be action. But
the point of Safe Harbor is to provide positive incentive
for positive action: do the right thing for the species
and you'll be protected.
When Safe Harbor officially came into existence,
many environmental organizations greeted it with a
mixture
of skepticism and hostility. Over time, resistance
has dwindled - and for a straightforward reason: It
works.
To date, nearly 300 landowners have Safe
Harbor agreements in place, representing more than
3 million acres of private
land. Most of the agreements are in the Southeast and
Texas, where a great deal of attention has been focused
on the red-cockaded woodpecker and the northern alpomado
falcon.
Safe Harbor agreements exist in less than half the
states, but more are on the way. They are employed by
organizations as diverse as The Nature Conservancy,
Ducks Unlimited, and The Peregrine Fund.
As a new tool of conservation, Safe Harbor demonstrates
what can be achieved when the incentives are voluntary,
positive and results-based.
Back From The Brink
In 2004, Environmental Defense launched another conservation
campaign aimed at endangered species and private land.
Called "Back From The Brink," its goal is to encourage
landowners to explore a wide range of incentive-based
tools, many of them provided by the federal government
through existing programs.
"The idea is
– Tim Sullivan,
Rocky Mountain director, Environmental Defense
Whereas the Safe Harbor program is opportunistic
in a sense, focusing on individual landowners, the
"Brink"
campaign focuses on the species themselves – 15,
to be specific, across the nation (three in the Southwest
are the northern alpomado falcon, the Utah prairie
dog, and the Southwestern willow flycatcher).
Environmental Defense understands the link
between conservation and sustainable agricultural
practices.
For example, one of the Brink species, the bog turtle,
which is found in the dairy country of the Northeast,
benefits from careful grazing by cattle, which keeps
the meadows open and relatively free of encroachment
by woody vegetation.
"The idea is to reward private landowners for
taking on public responsibilities," said Tim Sullivan,
Environmental Defense’s Rocky Mountain director.
"That means getting ranchers and farmers involved
in programs that literally put money in their pocket
for activities that benefit endangered species."
Many of these federal programs, Sullivan noted, are
agricultural, such as the Farm Bill, which has a major
title called the Conservation Security Program that
pays landowners for agricultural practices that restore
or maintain wildlife habitat.
"The Farm Bill has huge potential to help farmers
and ranchers achieve conservation goals," said
Sullivan, "but many aren't aware of its benefits.
That's what we are trying to do with this campaign,
make people aware of their options."
At the same time that Environmental Defense is trying
to steer money into the pockets of good land stewards,
it is also trying to bend agricultural policy to meet
conservation objectives.
"We're trying to divert more public money into
conservation while lowering the temperature overall
on endangered species," said Sullivan. "That's
why we've made such a big investment in the Farm Bill.
We feel it has the potential to have a huge impact on
conservation in this country."
Environmental Defense may be the only member of the
Green Group that feels this way about the Farm Bill
and other agricultural programs, though they may not
be the only ones for long. They may, in fact, be riding
the first wave of an emerging trend.
While Environmental Defense may not fit the stereotype
of a local, community-based, or watershed collaborative
group, its support of the collaborative process demonstrates
how diverse the movement has become in a short period
of time.
And Environmental Defense's commitment to cooperative
ventures with private landowners also demonstrates the
chief attraction of collaboration:
It works.
| 
Courtney White writes