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

Home Browse Search

Land Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 management programs, and would direct the Land Entity to make changes consistent with adaptive management. The Land Entity would be responsible for drafting and proposing restoration and maintenance plans, for proposing changes consistent with adaptive management to the Governance Committee, for negotiating transactions within defined guidelines, for coordinating activities among Program lands, and for coordinating activities with neighbors. The Land Entity could recommend and negotiate contracts to carry out any of these activities, but would only enter into them after approval by the Governance Committee. The Land Entity could hold interests in land acquired for the Program. Figure 2 on the previous page shows Option 2's structure and allocation of decision - making and implementation authorities. Advantages • Significant decisions are in the hands of the signatories who provide the money, so more likely to pass muster on accountability. • Decision - making is retained by persons with the "big picture" of the Program • The Land Entity has scope and flexibility to coordinate planning and implementation activities throughout Program habitat areas. Disadvantages • There is some potential to create an unwieldy structure since the Governance Committee moves relatively slowly and activities or deals requiring quick action may not be accomplished through waiting for approval. • The Governance Committee may not include broad enough representation of local interests potentially affected by the Land Entity's actions. • The Land Entity's broad responsibilities for coordination and implementation under the oversight of a rarely meeting committee are subject to many of the same concerns about balancing flexibility and control as Option 1. • If a new entity is created to serve as Land Entity, federal legislation is needed. 3. Land Oversight Committee Created to Oversee a Contractor/ Land Entity Under this option the Governance Committee would create a committee, the Land Oversight Committee (LOC), to oversee the land component of the Program. The Governance Committee would retain the authority to approve criteria/guidelines for habitat selection, protection, restoration and management, but would oversee the LOC primarily through the budget/funding and general oversight process. This would be similar to the relationship between the Governance Committee and Land Entity in Option 1. Under this option, an annual budget and program prepared by the LOC would be reviewed by the Governance Committee which would also be kept informed of the 15