9358 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. /\1)1) J/-.( {)"Upr. it" If,{' _ , ,d v\"(,, v . "t f ii\. II. Conservation in Practice Consensus versus Conservation in the Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program ANN BROWER: CHANEL REEDY,t AND JENNIFER YEUN-KEFER$ .University of California-Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, 135 Giannini Hall, Berkeley, CA. 94720-3312, U.S.A., email abrower@nature.berkeley.edu t 1200 West Avenue #704, Miami Beach, FL 33139, U.S.A. $23682 Sandalwood Street, West Hills, CA. 91307, U.S.A. Abstract: We examined consensus-based management through the lens of the Colorado River Recovery Im- plementation Program, a consensus-based plan that attempts to develop the Colorado River's water while pro- tecting its endangered fishes. Because this management model has been touted as a preferred substitute to government-imposed regulation, we analyzed the recovery implementation program to determine its strengths and weaknesses. By reviewing secondary information and interviewing members of the diverse groups in- volved in the program, we gathered detailed information about the program's history, implementation, and progress. Our investigation revealed that the recovery implementation program has allowed development of the Colorado River's water and incorporated more voices into the decision-making process. But the program circumvented federal authority over endangered species conservation, which has proved detrimental to the FtShes. Furthermore, we learned that the consensus-based model is vulnerable to control by special-interests and may be driven by bureaucratic procedural goals rather than species recovery. To ameliorate these con- cerns, (1) program success should be judged by species recovery, rather than political achievements, (2) the federal government should retain the power of issuing statutory sanctions in the event of continued popula- tion decline, and (3) funding should be provided by an agency with a clear species-protection agenda to re- duce the disproportionate power of utilitarian interest groups. By incorporating these recommendations, con- servation programs can better realize the benefits of a consensus-based approach without sacrificing species recovery. Consenso versus Conservacion en el Programa de Implementacion de la Recuperadon de la Cuenca Alta del Rio Colorado Resumen: Examinamos el manejo basado en consenso tomando como ejemplo el programa de Implemen- taci6n de la Recuperaci6n del R{o Colorado, un plan basado en consenso que intenta desarrollar /as aguas del R{o Colorado y al mismo tiempo proteger a $US peces en peligro. Debido a que este modelo de manejo ha sido elogiado como el sustituto preferido de la regulaci6n gubernamental impuesta, analizamos el programa de implementaci6n de la recuperaci6n para determinar $US fortalezas y debilidades. Reunimos informaci6n de- tallada de la historia, implementaci6n y progreso del programa mediante la revisi6n de informaci6n se- cundarla y entrevistas con Ios diversos grupos involucrados en el programa. Nuestra investigaci6n revel6 que el programa de implementaci6n de la recuperaci6n ha permitido el desarrollo de /as aguas del R{o Colo- rado y la incorporaci6n de mas voces en la toma de dectsiones. Sin embargo, el programa evadi6 a la autori- dad federal sobre la conservaci6n de especies en peligro y fue perjudicial para los peces. Mas aun, el modelo basado en consenso fue vulnerable al dominio de intereses especiales, y pudo haber sido conducido por me- tas de procedimientos burocraticos y no de recuperaci6n de especies. Para reducir estas inquietudes: (1) el extto del programa debe juzgarse por la recuperaci6n de especies, no por logros polfticos, (2) el gobierno fed- eral debiera mantener la atribuci6n de fijar sanciones estatutarias en caso de declinaci6n poblacional con- tinua, y (3) una agencia con una visi6n clara de protecci6n de especies debe asignar el financiamiento para Paper submitted February 15, 2000; revised manuscript accepted October 4, 2000. Conservation Biology, Pages 1001-1007 Volume 15. No, 4. August 2001 ~ Y3S[ 1001