Tuesday, December 1, 2015

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 One example of this possible lack of updating smaller programs is visible in the fairly outdated video tutorials located on the DNR website.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

2 comments:

  1. Very much enjoyed reading your post! Overall, it was so organized and answered everything in such detail! After finishing reading your post, I also strongly agree with your second to last paragraph. By merging all three of your methods into a “multi-level and publicly accessible approach” this crisis can have a highly successful result. When you were doing some of your research, did you by chance come across any projects the DNR wants to do but is struggling because of their financial limitations? I’m curious as to how often this problem occurs with this agency.

    Thank you for your post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Brittni, great question!
    I actually did come across one example. Earlier this year (Feb.) our Wisconsin governor proposed a hefty cut into the funding of the DNR which, if passed, would eliminate 80 senior scientist and research positions and cut the stewardship program by approximately $25 million (see link below). This is particularly unsettling since the DNR stewardship program functions to acquire land to protect our natural resources and expand recreation! (link also below)

    To help offset this injury though, the DNR has been partnering with outside organizations via a WI Wetlands Team to expand their reach year by year through local partnerships. Finally, the DNR also published an educational guide to inform individuals how to restore, protect, and monitor their own wetlands by themselves. In this sense, perhaps this is already the merging of the public, private, and governmental governance? I just hope a more upward trend continues!

    DNR Budget cut: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walkers-budget-steeply-cuts-dnrs-science-bureau-b99440503z1-291112181.html

    DNR Stewardship/Funding: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/realestate/Funding.html

    WI Wetlands Team "Reversing the Loss": http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/strategy.html

    DNR Wetland Restoration Guide: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wetlands/documents/esScience/WRHcover.pdf

    ReplyDelete