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