Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft

Home Browse Search

keep them there. Moderates and Rejectionists "The enduring challenge for. American en`iironmental policy, in short, is to build and maintain public support for effective governance of the environment: for managing the environment by managing ourselves" (Andrews 1999) Babbit's attempt to push a collaborative approach to demonstrate that the ESA could be wielded with sensitivity and openness to local creative solutions in ways the drew people together would prove to split environmentalist and commodity producer constituencies alike. In the environmentalist camp, some would want the ESA to be employed as an uncompromising legal hammer, not an invitation to negotiation with despoiling devils. Collaboration would allow developers, industrialists, and extractive industries to construct a path around tougher ESA requirements. Environmentalists had to confront their big strategic choice: 1. work within Babbit's framework of negotiations, which would mean making compromise with coalition partners, an acceptance of certain things as given, and working solutions out within the parameters established by the coalition; or 2. work outside the framework of negotiations, staying "pure" and being prepared to challenge any given negotiated outcome in court. This means a sacrifice of local knowledge that comes with getting to know your opponents and allies, and a sacrifice of getting something positive done on the ground sooner rather than later, if at all. The question became: "When is it time for environmentalists to be divisive holdouts, and when is it time to enter the fray, cut deals, and help get something done on the ground even if it is not perfect?" From the perspective of the environmental community, the Platte river recovery plan was a new type of negotiation. Denver's Two Forks project proposal had been a case where environmentalists and their allies were closely aligned-they were unequivocally against it. Fighting the devil embodied in the form of a large storage project was a money raiser for them, and their task was simple-oppose it forthrightly. However, in the case of Platte basin negotiations, the issues were less clear-cut, and positions, depending upon constituencies and organizational mission, were much more complex. Many actors with various agendas yielded no clear opponent, and each interest h:ad to be considered as at least somewhat legitimate. This meant the all parties had to seek a middle ground of tradeoffs and work with opponents in order to accomplish anything. Some environmentalists saw the FWS as too willing to compromise, thereby weakening the intent of the ESA and unduly ri.sking species survival. They noted what they considered the infrequency of jeopardy findings, and declared that compromise and negotiated settlements that 53