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

Home Browse Search

Land Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 established as a legal entity such as a state or federal corporation, if desired. At that point, however; federal legislative approval would likely be needed. The JLP would function under an operating agreement developed and approved by the Governance Committee to manage the land activities of the Program. That operating agreement would establish lines of responsibility for carrying out land protection, management and restoration functions, which could include being responsive to an oversight group consisting of a broad set of stakeholders. Substantive tasks assumed by state agencies would be credited toward that government's contributions to the Program. Contracts for services and acquisition of interests in lands could be with individual governments or jointly with one or all others to accommodate "fair share" division of costs. Within this option is flexibility to either commit staff from each of the governments to carry out some tasks, particularly planning and coordinating activities, or contracting out most tasks. The JLP model could use either nonprofit or private contractors, to negotiate transactions, manage and restore lands. Assuming that the JLP is not established as a legal entity, the governments could hold the interests in land acquired with their funds, either solely or jointly, or leave them in the hands of contractors. Advantages: • Assuming the JLP is not legally established, no new legislative authority would be needed, so it could be implemented relatively simply and quickly. • The players with the money are responsible for getting actions carried out. • Accountability to signatories is direct. • Requires signatories to agree before acting, but allows actions to be carried out by one government instead of a group or hybrid. • Accommodates stakeholder input but leaves action in the hands of a relatively small group that could act fairly quickly. Disadvantages • JMP is four - headed, with no single entity bringing continuity or decisiveness to the process. • Unbalanced structure heavily weighted toward federal /state government presence, with particularly highly active roles for the federal government and foreign states. It could be perceived as unrepresentative to local interests and stakeholders because it will be under the "control" of its four member governments. • Limited role for outside entities may result in less flexibility and creativity in developing land protection options. • High government presence may lead to trouble interesting individual landowners in entering into deals. iLM