Governing a Diverse Ecosystem – Lessons and Opportunities within Wisconsin's Wetlands

Considering the previous three topics covered, what role does the Wisconsin DNR, a WI Wetlands Permit, and The Wetlands Initiative have in the governance of Wisconsin Wetlands? Though each represents a niche-approach to controlling the use (and many times misuse) of these “kidneys” of our watersheds, all point to a concern and urgency shared across Wisconsin’s governmental, market-based, and public actors. The real question is, which of these approaches will function best for the protection of wetlands here in Wisconsin?

To answer this question, let’s take a closer look at the role each actor, regulation, and initiative has in the growing crisis of diminishing wetlands.

The first actor, no stranger to this blog page, is the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. To briefly recap, the DNR, established in 1967, functions as a state-based organization that partners with community organizations to enhance the overall health and functioning of our natural environment in Wisconsin. However, since the DNR holds such a strong role in this topic, it's important to consider how are they excelling and lacking in the protection of our now vanishing wetlands?

On one hand, the DNR displays strength in:

1. Partnerships with local nonprofits – As the DNR consults with organizations such as the Wisconsin Wetlands Association, Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, and Ducks Unlimited, key input is added from the community to the local governing board. In this way, public voices are included.

2. An ability to step in where markets may not reach the needs of communities across state in protection, restoration, and wetland education opportunities.

3. The stronger, authoritative power used to accept and reject wetland alteration proposals while expressing the needs and desires of local nonprofits and the general public.

On the other hand the DNR also holds weaknesses in:

1. Financial limitations as a government agency, which may affect their capability to carry out restoration or other projects.

2. An organizational focus directed towards a general use of the state's natural resources, producing a less-comprehensive focus on specific projects such as wetlands. One example of this possible lack of updating smaller programs is visible in the fairly outdated video tutorials located on the DNR website.

Second, the Wisconsin Wetlands Permit, is a regulatory measure now utilized by the DNR which also contains particular strengths and weaknesses in the proper governance of our local wetlands. Following a hierarchical mode of governance, these permits regulate wetland disturbance and restoration.

A few benefits of this regulatory approach towards responsible management of Wisconsin wetlands include:

1. A foundation of rules the permits establish for a protection and awareness of wetlands that did not exist merely 150 years ago.

2. The revision of permits from a local governmental perspective, since the entire permit process now lies in the hands of the DNR.

Yet, these permits also involve:

1. A potentially one-sided review process that may allow companies access to wetland filling/misuse, regardless of local organizational or public concern.

2. A bit of red tape, seeing as the decision process for the use of wetlands is ultimately decided in a trickle-down fashion—beginning at the US Army Corps of Engineers, spreading to the state government level, and finally coming to fruition through local municipalities.

3. More responsibility on the part of the applicant or permit holder to educate him/herself on the true role of wetlands in local contexts.

Finally, the third institution active in Wisconsin wetlands is The Wetlands Initiative (TWI) for the greater Midwestern region. This nonprofit community organization works to “restor[e] the wetland resources of the Midwest,…improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat and biodiversity, and reduce flood damage” (Wetlands Initiative).

Though the organization is still in its developing stages, The Wetlands Initiative excels in:

1. Direct collaboration with local community leaders and related actors

2. The integration of market trading schemes into the ecosystems services of wetlands. This also links landowners to the government in climate change reduction goals and, more importantly, to the natural environment.

However, even though the prospects placing a price tag on such diverse ecosystem services seem promising, this network-based approach is limited in:

1. The challenge to incentivize community and landlord involvement at both the local and larger business levels.

2. Its indirect provision of benefits through trading, as opposed to directly tangible benefits of growing a soy or corn crop.

Yet, considering all three of these methods, is there truly a 100% correct approach to the governance of wetlands in Wisconsin? Based on the performance of the DNR, state wetland permits, and the regional Wetlands Initiative institution, I believe the key to successfully addressing this crisis is through collaboration—blending these aspects into a multi-level and publicly accessible approach.

For this reason, out of the eight hypotheses proposed by Evans, only six seemed to align with these wetland findings. Although I didn’t quite agree that networks and markets are the “best thing that we have” for wetland governance in the future (since this may change!), or that a fixed “political vision” is critical to ensuring responsible governance, I agree that an ecosystem-services market, similar to that of The Wetland Initiative, will be key to protecting wetlands in the future (p. 215-216). By forming peer to peer incentives between companies and engaging local communities in educational opportunities, a newly empowered society may emerge, holding corporations and individuals accountable for responsible wetland management. In this way, Evans’ “Hybrid institutions” may be the most promising opportunity for the fate of Wisconsin's remaining wetlands.

Links!

The Wetlands Initiative-About Us

Restore, Enhance, and Manage Wetlands - DNR Affiliates

DNR Video Tutorial

Wetlands and governance | Where do we go from here?

Wisconsin Wetlands Association has been highlighted time and again throughout my blog project.  This association works within a network of actors to help educate the public of the importance of wetlands through multiple different programs.  However, the WWA doesn't stop there; check out the goals they strive to accomplish:

• Promote and support wetland friendly legislation and prevent legislation that harms wetlands
• Expand and improve government-sponsored wetland work in Wisconsin
• Ensure wetland laws are implemented and enforced
• Promote and support local government wetland conservation efforts

Starting at a grassroots level and pushing to steer government for wetland protection certainly has strengths and limitations.  Taking into consideration Evans first hypothesis: "networks and markets are the best thing we have"; he assesses networks and markets at the global level. The WWA mainly focuses on local and state issues, but has been involved with an international (again, network) organization: Ramsar.

The WWA network allows for wider representation and deliberation but lacks political power.  They have greater flexibility than the government and tend to have strong local knowledge of specific issues which allows them to attack problems head-on.  That said, the actors involved are not accountable if their proposed solutions are put into action then run amok or have unintended consequences.  Given these limitations, networks are not the best we've got, but merely a piece to a larger puzzle. 

Wetlands of International Importance - Ramsar was part of the program or initiative I researched (see former post or check out this link for more info: Ramsar: Wetlands of International Importance) Their website outlines 9 criterion for identifying wetlands to be considered as international importance.(The Ramsar Sites Criteria)  The significance of this list cannot be debated, however; I find myself feeling all wetlands should have protection given the "ecological services" they provide to all living creatures on Earth.  It frustrates me that protection takes so long to put into place. Please don't take this as me discrediting what Ramsar does because the more I learned about Ramsar the more I was inspired by what they are accomplishing worldwide. 

Moving forward on Evans hypotheses: "Governance is about evolution, not revolution" where he highlights, arguably, the most frustrating fact of how issues are currently handled: how freaking long it takes! This is where I would disagree AGAINST revolution.  Governance has been evolving and it always will - that is the nature of life and existence.  If real change is going to happen and on a faster scale, then I personally vote for revolution.  An argument towards revolution is how my actor can circumvent bureaucratic red tape and expedite their goals. 

I'd also like to tie in another of his hypotheses to this: "governance is about learning" mainly because I feel that learning is how evolution occurs. Maybe a disastrous event needs to occur for this capitalistic society to wake up?  What a sad and traumatic thing to think of or even suggest!  It is clear my actor(s) have been learning methods to steer government for wetland protection and suspect they will continue to evolve as issues continue to arise. 

The interconnection of two more hypotheses: "governance requires political vision" and "governments matter" allows me to re-introduce the governmental policy I investigated: Wisconsin Act 118.  Under this act the Wisconsin DNR is also involved along with state legislatures.  Feel free to take a look at my former post that detailed the changes under this Act. 

I am not thrilled about the wetland changes made since I felt it offered easier destruction of our wetlands. However, given the structure of both U.S. and global governments, I agree that the public should steer political vision and that governments matter.  The public also needs to make educated, informed choices when it comes to voting on environmental matters by the candidates they support. The government needs to stop this gridlock and the science community must repair their credibility.  I truly feel that provided accurate, scientific information the voting society would vote in environmentally progressive leaders and these leaders can enter the global sphere of positive environmental change.   Traditional government is limited by ignorant voters and the hoops that need to be jumped before real change happens, but can be strengthened if our general public were to understand these issues more clearly. Many other countries can do this, so why can't we?    

I agree with Evans the last three hypotheses: "getting the mix of approaches right is critical", "duality of structure is critical", and "hybrid institutions are critical in coordinating action across sectors".  There should be more accountability and stronger progression to move towards a greener and sustainable society. WWA has been able to push towards wetland reform while our Governor, Scott Walker, worked with special interest groups to undermine wetland protection in Act 118.  The mix of approaches were clearly different, and there was no duality.  Although, I do feel as though a quasi-hybrid institution was sort of formed including local government, the peoples being impacted, and environmental agencies working against Walker and his interest groups.  

Shifting gears - here is a brief video on wetland importance provided by Ramsar.

Wetlands need to be protected because of the services they provide to all living creatures, flora and fauna:

• Wetlands are a natural defense mechanism when dealing with floodwaters
• Wetlands are a natural filtration system and help restore underground water levels
• Wetlands act as natural buffers for rivers and help maintain the overall health of the river system
• Wetlands are integral to migrating birds and are home to many endangered species
• Wetlands store carbon and help mitigate climate change
• Wetlands also impact global weather patterns

I suspect the issue we face in Wisconsin regarding wetlands is most of this land is privately owned.  Landowners must be educated of the importance of wetlands.  When I was conducting ALTA survey review in my former career, I always made an exception regarding wetlands on both the commitment and policy unless the underwriter allowed it to be insured over.  I don't think it should be insured over.  Wetlands should be documented as endangered landscapes.  Protective laws and regulations must be put in place and more importantly - enforced.  I was really hoping I'd have an epiphany and come up with the best way to manage wetlands, but sadly, I haven't.  It all circles back to environmental issues being wicked problems.  Reform is needed in all aspects of governance. Educating the young on environmental issues in primary school would aid with better understanding of the importance of our ecosystems, including wetlands! 

My family and I at Cedarburg Bog | Fall 2015

Sources:

Environmental Governance by J.P. Evans

Wisconsin Wetlands Association

WI DNR - Wetlands

Ramsar

'Caught Up in Nature’s Business' – The Wetlands Initiative’s Ecosystem Market

After surviving the thick policy and history surrounding Wisconsin Wetlands, you might now wonder: how is the local community becoming involved in the protection of these free ecological filters?

Firstly, the DNR does offer a “Wetland delineation professional assessment initiative” for individuals to keep tabs on the status of these Wisconsin policies. However, this week I stumbled upon another actor who seems to exemplify the power individuals can have in the Midwest wetland restoration effort.

Although originally developed in 1994 to function within Illinois, The Wetlands Initiative (TWI) is an organization that has since spread their efforts of wetlands reintegration across the greater Midwest region. Like the actors we’ve previously introduced, TWI is “dedicated to restoring the wetland resources of the Midwest to improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat and biodiversity, and reduce flood damage” (About Us). As a nonprofit, the organization has strong links to both philanthropic and governmental support. However, one curious aspect makes this actor stand out among the others: their work and funding doesn’t stop here!

Take a look at their organization’s introductory video to get a better idea of what this might be:

                                                       (Hint! Listen up around 3:05)

Yes, you heard right; The Wetlands Initiative not only works to restore more wetlands, but is working to create innovative changes in how environmental restoration is financed!

After completing two successful restoration projects at the Hennepin &Hopper Lakes (Ramsar site!) and the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in the 90s, TWI decided to expand their reach. Working past the financial limitations of a nonprofit, The Wetlands Initiative began to seek new strategies and partnerships—a “new economic roadmap for restoration.” On this revitalized roadmap, the organization works as “conservation entrepreneurs” to “advocate, develop, and test innovative strategies to jumpstart restoration on a grand scale.” 

These new strategies include:

            -Developing ecosystem service markets that compensate landowners for
              restoring wetlands 
            -Reimbursement for the beneficial services that natural infrastructure 

             can provide

(For all who may not remember from the 1^st post, this includes: naturally removing nutrient pollution, reducing soil erosion, storing sediment, holding floodwaters, sequestering carbon, and facilitating recreation.)

So what does this approach mean when translated into the reality of business and economy? The Wetlands Initiative is utilizing a market-based system, partnering with the local farmers, government, and natural environment to privatize a common (yet scarce) natural resource (Evans 124).

To help understand how this commodification of “ecosystem services” can function realistically in the dynamic U.S. market, let’s take a look at a case study Wetlands Initiative highlights.

Growing Wetlands for Clean Water (Big Bureau Creek)

This project, piloted by the Wetlands Initiative, formed an active response effort to the nutrient pollution of the Mississippi River system—known as one of the biggest issues for the watershed. This nutrient pollution “is not just a ‘down the Mississippi’ problem”, but degrades water quality throughout the Midwest.  Although many state and federal work to produce rules and strategies to address this problem, the Wetlands Initiative “believe[s] on-the-ground steps don’t have to wait” (Growing Wetlands for Clean Water).

So, as a leader for agricultural communities and farmers, TWI used the Big Bureau Creek area as a key site for their target of Mississippi nutrient reduction. When conducting initial outreach, the Wetland Initiative discovered that many farmers were unfamiliar with the benefits of wetlands on agricultural land. For this reason, TWI promoted the adoption of small wetlands located within or near ditches or small tributaries on active farms in the upper Midwest (GWCW).

Within this system, farmers who managed wetlands on their land could obtain over $500 net profit per acre through nutrient credits. These credits are valued and produced when:

-A ton of nitrogen or phosphorus is removed from a river or stream

-Carbon is removed from the air

-Flood prevention is successfully utilized

-Recreational use is present

This visual further breaks down the potential profit that local farmers can make under this market-based trading system:

                                               (Finding Value in Wetlands)

Here, TWI demonstrates how creating a wetland along a natural floodplain, instead of growing corn or soybeans, can have a much more profitable result for local farmers in the long run. 

Once these nutrient credits are obtained, farmers can then exchange them with cities or industries to help our government comply with national standards and preserve a “resilient” landscape for the future generations. 

In summary, although this organization seems like yet another nonprofit working to reverse the degradation of Midwestern wetlands, TWI is blazing the trail to fuse economic interest and trade with responsible management of local ecosystems. Yes, the contributions of wetlands may never truly be quantified. Yet even so, this newly incentivized market has already motivated landowners to voluntarily restore numerous wetlands across the region.

Interested in reading more? Find their valuing methods and more at these links!

• EcosystemService Markets – The Wetlands Initiative
• Finding Value in Wetlands.pdf
• GrowingWetlands for Clean Water (Big Bureau Creek) – Wetlands Initiative
• The Wetlands Initiative: About Us
• DNR Wetland Delineation Professional Assessment Initiative