The Revolutionary Pen - beta

By Frank Schiavone

As an environmentalist and as a longtime proponent of an integrated, cooperative effort to preserve open space, I know firsthand that collaboration is easier said than done here in the West Valley. Long range and strategic planning, coalitions, and information sharing seems to be an abstraction to most people. When you ask a conservationist what they want to accomplish, there answer is generally very broad. Overarching goals are a start, but what are really needed are specific objectives, focus areas, prioritization, and specific and realistic strategies that can be practically applied.

That being said, the reality is that each group (whether its mission is purely advocacy or “non-political” land acquisition) has narrow self-interests and jealously guards its own projects. Yes, there is some interaction but it’s generally to tout “success stories”. After-the-fact status reporting and postmortems (“lessons learned”) do serve a legitimate purpose but do little to advance integrated, regional planning efforts.

The result: disjointed objectives and the occasional Pyrrhic victory.

It’s only natural. Money is tight and the competition for it is fierce. But a new way of thinking is needed to attract more money to the region for the purpose of conserving land. We need to stop thinking about our work as a competition pitting one group against another.

Of course real estate negotiations and property owner information are confidential. No question. But it’s often no secret what properties and areas we are targeting.

Historically, the lion’s share of State Resource Bond funds have gone to Central California or to jurisdictions with NCCPs (NCCPs or Natural Communities Conservation Plans are the State’s preferred approach to species and land conservation.). The counties of Riverside and Orange both have State-approved NCCPs. Unquestionably, money flows to jurisdictions and organizations that have demonstrated a genuine commitment to preserving their natural heritage and who think about land conservation strategically.

From where I sit, what’s needed here is a common vision that reflects our shared values. A vision that builds on the NCCP model but that takes an incremental approach to conservation planning instead of a sweeping, all-inclusive plan that no one can seem to agree upon. The end game must be a comprehensive system of dedicated open spaces and reserves with direct landscape linkages with one another (through established public lands). The benefits of a large, interconnected system are many, not the least of which are genetic mixing and unimpeded wildlife movement.

Articulation of this vision requires that we develop attainable high-level goals, well thought out conservation guidelines, equitable spending plans, and conceptualized protection areas that can be integrated into a larger system of lands and that are worthy of our limited resources - in other words, a regional plan. Let’s remember that most of our funding comes from resource bonds (i.e. the taxpayer) and that we are bound by a public trust to spend this money prudently and wisely.

Trust relationships and transparency are essential. We must also accept that we do not have to be in total accord to think regionally. All voices must be heard. Environmental advocacy groups can and should provide their particular expertise and should have a seat at the table. The wildlife agencies’ participation is absolutely critical. Almost nothing can be accomplished without them.

Given the paucity of funds available, a multi-pronged approach to land conservation is required that includes outright purchases, land donations utilizing Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credits, and environmental mitigation for project developments. Simply, we cannot buy our way out of this pressing resource issue. All established tools available to us should be considered and used including conservation banking, mitigation banking, and offsite environmental mitigation lands.

I can’t emphasize enough that impact compensation for environmentally destructive development should be viewed as another arrow in the quiver and should not be discounted. Offsetting donations of land that are commensurate with the environmental damage that project developments cause must be viewed as fundamental to a viable conservation strategy that seeks to save threatened habitat and open space. Conservationists, of all stripes, should be “educating” their local decision-makers about impact compensation and why it is necessary and justifiable.

Look, I do not consider myself some sort of visionary. What are needed are pragmatic solutions to the real and pressing problems associated with run-away urban sprawl. Coalitions and strategic planning can yield concrete results. Funny, builders and developers do not shy away from forming professional associations and blueprints for developing the region. Let’s learn from them.

Let’s also be real. We can’t save everything worth saving. But without a vision, without a plan, and without mutual cooperation, we’re easy marks.

Copyright © 2008 Frank Schiavone