Lessons from Case Studies of Collaborative Watershed Management

Transcription

1 Lessons from Case Studies of Collaborative Watershed Management Maggie Clary Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University With Lydia Olander and Dean Urban Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions ACES 2010

2 The Service-Boundary Mismatch Ecosystem services are provided on a variety of spatial scales Provision areas rarely align with political and jurisdictional boundaries This situation creates management conflicts and inequities in the costs and benefits of resource protection Management solutions must often involve collaboration

3

4 Study Purpose Use case studies of watershed management to study the efficacy of collaborative policy interventions Ask: 1. What drives collaborative efforts? 2. What are the financial and/or regulatory enabling conditions? 3. Who are the members and how are they chosen? 4. What policy intervention was developed? 5. What authority does the collaboration have? Identify exportable elements

5 Case Studies The New Jersey Pinelands The Upper San Pedro Partnership The Willamette Ecosystem Marketplace The Ohio Balanced Growth Program

6 Arizona s Upper San Pedro Partnership Initiated in 1998 as part of AZ s Rural Watershed Initiative Driver: San Pedro ran dry in 2005, federal mandate to reach sustainable use by 2011 or face army base closure Enabled by: $35 million over 5 years from federal earmarks thanks to Congressman Jim Kolbe Membership: 21 agencies that must own or control land, make policy, or contribute resources in the watershed Source: zona/features/art26621.html

7 Upper San Pedro Partnership Policy Tool: Developed the Decision Support System, a computer program that allows decision-makers to see the potential impacts of water management scenarios. Authority: Research intended to influence decision makers. New legislation granting increased authority to rural municipalities may be due to USPP efforts. Source:

8 Ohio s Balanced Growth Program Initiated in 2001 by Task Force of Ohio Lake Erie Commission Driver: Sediment pollution and bacterial contamination in Lake Erie Enabled by: Emphasis on no new legislation or finance, pilot received grant from Ohio Water Development Authority Membership: OLEC is directors of 6 state agencies, Task Force was composed of stakeholders Source: er_or_mudpuppy.html

9 Balanced Growth Program Policy Tool: Local governments designate priority conservation and development areas, these areas get higher priority access to state financing programs and expedited permit review processes Authority: Local governments retain land use authority but forfeit incentives if they don t participate Source: nners.aspx

10 Initiated in 1979 New Jersey Pinelands Commission Driver: Development pressure from Philadelphia, New York, and Atlantic City Enabled by: Governor established Commission to write Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). Pinelands Protection Act required county and municipal plans and ordinances to conform. Membership: 15 Commissioners appointed by the NJ Governor, counties, and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Source:

11 Pinelands Commission Policy Tool: CMP s tools to affect land use include land acquisition, environmental standards, zoning, development review, and development credits. Authority: Local municipalities must conform their land use plans and ordinances to the CMP, Commission has power to disapprove projects. Source:

12 Oregon s Willamette Partnership Initiated in 2004 Driver: Increased river temperature, unsafe levels of toxic chemicals in fish tissue Enabled by: Governor appointed Willamette task force in 1996, Willamette temperature TMDL adopted 2006, 2 Federal grants Membership: Coalition of >30 conservation, city, business, farm, and scientific leaders Source:

13 Willamette Partnership Policy Tool: Developing an ecosystem marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade four types of ecosystem credits: wetlands, salmonid habitat, prairie habitat, and riparian habitat Authority: 2009 law encourages state agencies to consider ecosystem services markets to meet mitigation needs Source: Are/Watersheds

14 Lessons Learned Collaborations tend to be reactionary, driven by ecological damage Collaborations were established through legislative or other government action Collaboration is necessary but not sufficient authority over local land use decisions is needed to overcome self-interest Incentives can be used to bring in actors outside of local government control, e.g. agriculture, septic

15 Exportable Elements Examine planning institutions and culture to identify what strategies for land use management will be effective Integrate scientific research and involve stakeholders throughout the process to generate buy-in and adaptive capacity Create accessible tools for decision-makers Seek unified authority in order to have the greatest influence

16 Thank You! Thanks to Lydia Olander, Dean Urban, and the Ecosystem Services Working Group at Duke University Source: