A front-page story in Sunday's
Arizona Republic titled "Green Ranchers" describes a $4.5 million sale of a huge parcel of land near the Grand Canyon to two conservation groups.
In one of the largest deals of its kind, Two Mile Ranch and neighboring Kane Ranch were sold last year to Grand Canyon Trust and the Conservation Fund, environmental groups trying to position themselves on the leading edge of the so-called green ranch movement.
The story is just one example of how ranchers, environmentalists, and communities are re-thinking the economics of the land. But it's not just about ranchers and cattlemen; their struggles, successes, and failures have implications for all of us.
If projects like this can succeed in conservative places like Arizona, Wyoming, and Montana, and they are, they hold out hope that other regions can get out of "the environment or jobs" box in which so many remain trapped. As these and other approaches demonstrate, it can be "the environment
and jobs."
"We still think we're the best option out there," said Rick Moore, director of the Kane and Two Mile ranch program for the trust. "For a traditional permit holder, the tendency might be to graze more cows. We can do the opposite. We're driven by ecological needs, not economic."
But the point is, the two go hand-in-hand, and there are many examples of how environmental protectionism can foster economic development, and, more importantly, how financial incentives can serve conservation. As noted environmentalist Paul Hawken famously said:
Business is the only mechanism on the planet today powerful enough to produce the changes necessary to reverse global environmental and social degradation.
This selling-the-farm approach is documented in many recent studies; just Google words like "nature," "market," or "sell," and you'll stumble onto more than a few consultants and organizations that help communities frame nature as a financial asset. Describing the trend, Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison write:
[This] would require a willingness to look at the world's economy in an entirely different way, starting with the assumption that ecosystems are assets whose output has concrete financial worth. ... We still think of conservation basically as something to do for moral or aesthetic reasons - not for survival and certainly not for profit. Nevertheless, the record clearly shows that conservation can't succeed by charity alone. It has a fighting chance, however, with well-designed appeals to self-interest.
Daily and Ellison's book, The New Economy of Nature, is among several that document a new breed of ecological entrepreneurs who are experimenting with programs that will help save disappearing nature and make money at the same time. The idea behind many of these programs is that the century-long appeals to people and governments to preserve the environment because it's "the right thing to do" are not working, as devastation of flora and fauna continues unchecked around the world. "Healthy Forest" initiative? Give me a break. "Clear Skies"? Right, as one comedian said (I forget who), it's main goal is to clear the sky of birds.
Bush talks "the economics of nature," but it's a win-lose. Others believe in tapping into the economic benefits of land and air in a win-win fashion, through conservation not just use. They want to convince governments, corporations, and people to conserve nature, if for no other reason than it's good for the bottom line. They argue that nature has been providing benefits to societies for generations, such as that stand of trees near your house that absorbs poisonous carbon dioxide, or the family of bees pollinating plants that become our food, but nature or the people who manage that slice of nature have generally not been compensated for these benefits. For the most part, in BushWorld trees only become economic assets when they are cut town for wood or paper; animals only assume some economic status when they, their eggs, or their pelts are "used" in some way; vacant land is considered valueless unless its grown on, built on, traveled through, or exploited in some other sense.
The new "economy for nature" argues that forests, rivers, insects, and nearly every other part of the ecosystem holds economic worth, if it can only be recognized, quantified, and explained. Most of the actors in this venture begin with strong environmental credentials, and many have worked in the usual nonprofit or national park arena. Most are frustrated with the habitat destruction that continues unabated, and so they have turned to think tanks, foundations, governments, and even corporations to re-imagine our approach to conservation. The Arizona conservationists in the story above, for example, relied on Wal-Mart for a portion of the $4.5 million they needed to buy the property.
It's no surprise that many of their suggestions - the principal one being that nature has "market" value - or some of the partnerships they have formed (i.e., Wal-Mart) do not have universal support among the traditional environmental lobby. What many land trust groups say, though, is that current policies are not working (have we ever had a worse administration?), and the market, which is not going to disappear, might be part of the solution, as opposed to the problem it's often been with respect to environmental issues.
An example: New York City was ordered by the EPA to build a water filtration plant that would cost billions. Instead, the city purchased the land around the reservoirs and streams, removed what development there was, and prohibited new building (the cause of contaminants). Trees and plants now filter the water naturally, open space that would've been subdivisions was preserved, and the strategy cost a fraction of a new plant. A win-win for the economy and the land - the strategy many land trusts use.
Another common tactic is trading CO2 rights to businesses that pollute, if they help preserve forests that remove the gas. While controversial and still difficult to quantify, the trading of these and other rights may someday take place on the stock exchange, allowing investors to earn a profit while supporting conservation.
I get nervous about some of this stuff because of the underlying corporatism, and we've seen instances where the tail does wag the dog (don't get me started on ecotourism), but creative approaches like the example in Arizona are attracting a growing number of people outside the usual environmental sphere, who understand that current levels of resource extraction and use are not sustainable, and that new solutions demand new thinking. Today's debate seems to center on whether these conservationists are using the market to save nature, or whether corporations are using the environment to turn a profit.
Some argue the end justifies the means, while others say the emphasis on profit will eventually compromise even worthy conservation efforts. While remaining skeptical, I do believe we can use these developments to demonstrate that it's not "jobs or the spotted owl." Whenever some yahoo says that (and you still see bumper stickers to that effect all over the West) explain how these programs are serving the economy and the environment. Or show them a recent study confirming what many have long argued - that communities with the strongest environmental policies also have the healthiest economies. Duh. The "jobs or environment" argument, the black or white approach, serves the corporate structure, which is why it continues. Don't let it. Attack it with its own justification - economics.