9358 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1002 Consensus-BasedManagement Brower et aI, disminuir el despropordonado poder de Ios grupos con intereses utilltarlos. Incorporando estas recomenda- ciones, los programas de conservaci6n comprenderan mejor los benefkios de un enfoque basado en el con- senso sin sacrlficar la recuperaci6n de especies. Introduction Consensus-based management has been lauded as an ef- fective way to integrate the full spectrum of opinion into regional environmental decision making (paulson 1998). Although a valuable tool in natural-resource protection and in implementation of the u.s. Endangered Species Act (ESA), consensus-based management has its flaws. In fact, our research suggests that the emphasis consensus- based management places on cooperation and agree- ment may actually harm the protected resource. The compromise required for consensus often demands par- ticipants to forego habitat protection; instead, the fate of the species becomes secondary to the political process itself. Given this tradeoff, consensus-based management might not be the most effective approach to resolving complex conservation issues. We examined these problems using the Upper Colo- rado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as a case study. The Colorado River Recovery Program is a particularly interesting backdrop for examining consen- sus-based management because it crystallizes the con- flict between economic development and wildlife viabil- ity. Since the creation of the Colorado River Compact in 1922, countless irrigation projects, dams, and other wa- ter depletions have tamed the river and diminished its native fish populations (Behnke & Benson 1980; Minck- ley et al. 1991; Martinez et al. 1994; Stanford & Nelson 1994). Together with fish poisonings and the introduc- tion of exotic sportfish to the Colorado River, water de- velopment has all but eradicated native fishes (Holden 1973; Holden 1991). The recovery program was estab- lished to recover native fish species while maintaining or increasing the amount of water diverted from the river (Colorado River Recovery Implementation Pro- gram 1987). Methods -;'...--: We based our analysis on careful examination of the pro- gram's history, implementation, and progress. First, we gathered and reviewed secondary information about the fishes' habitat requirements from the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service (USFWS), general coverage about the river and recovery-program history from local newspapers, and legal issues related to the program addressed in law review articles and case law. In addition, we examined the USFWS's detailed appraisals of the program's prog- ,ej ~l' ~;"', ' ~.\. Conservation Biology Volume 15. No.4. August 2001 ress (in the form of progress reports and annual status reports) to assess its achievements and setbacks. Sec- ond, we identified diverse constituent groups involved in the program, targeted representatives from each group, and conducted in-depth telephone and email in- terviews with 22 informants representing environmental groups, state agencies, federal agencies, water users, fish biologists, hydrologists, and academics (Table 1). We asked interviewees about their involvement in the program and their perceptions of its scientific foundation, imple- mentation progress, bureaucratic difficulties, and needed improvements. Although the results of the interviews were transcribed and are incorporated into this paper, sources remain anonymous by request. Background The Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program was initiated in a 1987 Cooperative Agreement as an at- tempt to allow continued development of water re- sources of the Upper Colorado River while still protect- ing its rare fishes (Colorado pikeminnow [Ptycbocbeilus lucius]; humpback chub [Gila elegans]; razorback sucker [Xyraucben texanus]; and bonytail chub [Gila cypba]) (Shields 1998). Recovery-program participants included representatives from the USFWS; the U.S. Bureau of Rec- lamation; the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; water users; and environmental groups. Given this wide array of interested parties, the recovery program was ini- tiated to create a model of consensus-based decision making which would allow for increased nonfederal par- ticipation in the planning and implementation process. Table 1. Contacts for interviews of participants in the Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. Contact type Environmentalist State agency representative Federal agency representative Water user representative Fish biologist and hydrologist Law professor No. contacted No. contacted through phone that seroe on interview or email program committees 5 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 2 o