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 One example of this possible lack of updating smaller programs is visible in the fairly outdated video tutorials located on the DNR website.
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!
