White Paper: Options for Managing the Land Protection Component of the PRRIP

Home Browse Search

Land Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 addition, Appendices B through F present options for other choices to be made that may shape the Land Entity. They include alternative types of land protection transactions, options for conducting land protection negotiations, land management structure options, options for holding the interests in land, and options on dissolution of a Program. A. Overall Structure for Managing the Program's Land Component While it is clear that the Governance Committee will need to create an implementing arm (Land Entity) to carry out portions of the land component of the Program, a major unanswered question is how responsibilities and decision - making (or discretion) will be shared between the Land Entity and the Governance Committee. All of the options discussed in this paper assume that ultimate decision - making authority will continue to lie with a Governance Committee consisting of government and stakeholder representatives. As a practical matter, not all decisions can rise to the level of Governance Committee votes; some level of discretion will need to be given to the entity or entities carrying out Program tasks. The Governance Committee has options ranging from assigning broad tasks with substantial discretion to a relatively strong Land Entity, to retaining substantial involvement in and control over a more narrowly defined Land Entity with much more limited discretion in its actions. The three options presented are examples in a spectrum of options. The allocation of responsibilities among committees and entities could be adjusted to create many other variations. 1. Strong, Independent Land Entity The Governance Committee could create a strong, independent Land Entity with substantial of discretion or decision - making authority as set forth in a charter or contract. Under this option, after the initial approval of criteria/guidelines for habitat selection, protection, restoration and management, the Governance Committee would oversee the Land Entity primarily through the budget/funding and general oversight process. Information and recommendations from other Program committees would be referred to the Land Entity to incorporate into its adaptive management of Program lands, as appropriate. The Land Entity, under the direction of its Board of Directors or Trustees, would negotiate deals, carry out transactions, develop detailed restoration and management plans for individual parcels, modify them consistent with adaptive management results, coordinate activities among Program lands, coordinate activities with neighbors, and implement restoration and management plans. Some (or most) of these tasks could be carried out through contracts between the Land Entity and appropriate parties. The Land Entity could also hold the interests in land acquired for the Program. Although the Land Entity would need to satisfy the Governance Committee to obtain budget approval and funding, it would otherwise determine how to carry out responsibilities articulated in its bylaws, trust instrument or charter. How much real independence the Land Entity would 1.1