This is a very ambitious, if not misleading, title for the following discussion. It is ambitious due to the very nature of bioregional planning and misleading because it implies that I know how to overcome the obtacles. Actually, I am at the point in the process of implementing bioregional planning that simply identifies the obtacles. I believe that in order for bioregional planning to be successful, obstacles are a healthy component in the process. However I was asked to write on this subject matter, and retained this title because it exemplifies healthy optimism regarding a successful end result.
In September, 1991 ten state and federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the need to preserve California's biological diversity. This MOU established several bioregions within the state of California, mapped these general areas and identified the Klamath bioregion as the initial area to begin implementation of this process. Since that time several changes have occurred, including expansion of the State Executive Council to include seventeen (17) state and federal signatory agencies, as well as representatives from local government (see box on top of page 7). Other changes include more commitment to a "grassroots" approach to bioregional planning, rather than the "top down" approach witnessed to date. The obstacles to bioregional planning include:
Recently, the Forest Landowners of California held their annual meeting in Fort Bragg and discussed the concerns private timberland owners have regarding the MOU and its implementation. A review of these concerns, and the responses of California's Secretary of the Resources Agency, Douglas Wheeler, are a good perspecitive on overcoming obstacles.
1) The MOU among signatory state and federal agencies constitutes another layer of government and bureaucracy superimposed upon existing layers. This is probably the most common complaint voiced by the general public and indicates both a structure and function problem with the MOU. How can these bioregions be structured to avoid another layer of bureaucracy and what is their function (and authority)? Responses to these questions include: The goal of the MOU is to encourage cooperation between state and federal agencies to reduce duplication of effort, improve communication and information sharing, improve technology transfer and encourage active participation from local citizens. This is an opportunity to make the agencies work for the people by allowing the people to identify the issues of concern and request specific support from the signatory agencies.
2) The MOU is yet another attempt by state and federal agencies to further erode private property rights in California. This might be better addressed as "What is in it for the landowner?" The current legislative and regulatory processes are resulting in chaos for the landowner. Examples of the failure of the current system to address rural community needs and concerns are easily found in Sacramento and Washington. "There's got to be a better way" is the motto of some bioregional planning groups.
The list of threatened and endangered species is growing and with the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet, landowners can no longer ignore the issue. It may be possible that through pro-active participation in long term resource planning that private landowners can minimize the impacts of such listings, especially when emphasis is given to state and federal resources inventories first.
Other incentives for participation should be simply to have a voice rather than allowing agencies to speak for private landowners. Other public participation processes have failed to address local needs, perhaps this will work from the ground up. It should be possible for landowners to ensure that incentives are provided rather than regulatory "hammers." For example, it was suggested that tax breaks and other monetary incentives be provided to ensure good stewardship related to road planning, building and maintenance, as well as other management concerns.
3) What kind of jurisdiction or authority would these "bioregional councils" have? A related concern is, who can/or should be represented on these councils? The issue of jurisidction is probably best answered as "none.' Yet the power of consensus between diverse interest groups directly affected by resource management issues can be quite powerful. The State Executive Council has pledged to support the local bioregional councils within the given mandates of their respective agencies. In answer to the second concern is an appropriate quote: "The world is run by those who show up!"
4) What makes this effort different from other similar efforts, such as the Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMPs)? The biggest difference is in the scale of the effort, since bioregional planning efforts focus on large areas with more diversity, both biologically and socially. In terms of what might make this process more effective than other public input procedures, only time and the testing of real issues may tell if the State Executive Council actually acts on public advice or not. It's worth a try.
