Simple Authentic Sustainability

When individuals have an ownership stake in land, they generally are a stakeholder with more commitment to their land. Donating to a cause is different than owning, directing, governing, and having a direct community vote. We know the obvious reasons. But let's use and compare a real example.

A well known land trust - conservation easement organization in Maine raised a large amount of money to purchase 'development rights' to more than 6,000 acres in Maine. It is a non-profit which people donated money as well as all residents subsidize through tax impacts. And, the selling owner received considerable favorable tax benefits as well, again subsidized by all individuals. Most people think non-profit conservation organization AUTOMATICALLY means "all is good." And generally it is. But this organization like many non-profit conservation organizations makes its own decisions just through its various staff (in-house and outside subject matter experts). There may be a drastic gap between the conservation easement, the actual operating plan and day to day actions taken on a specific parcel of land.

In this real situation, the land has extensive well established dirt roads and trails throughout the land. It was a working forest and the local community used the area for recreation, hunting, fishing, and generally all inclusive active outdoor recreation. This included on-road ATV and, in winter, snowmobiling trail riding. The conservation intent was to "save the land" from aggressive harvesting and development of pristine views and shore frontage.

Well the scientist staff of the organization decided to 'put the roads to bed'. The roads now have 2-5 ft trenches cut through them, about every 500-1,500 feet, effectively preventing truck, 4x4, ATV, and snowmobiling. It also makes walking and cross country skiing difficult.

These roads were extensive, represent a real and significant investment, were well maintained and have now been rendered impassible simply based upon a decision a person or small group made. People who directly donated, people who subsidized the purchase through tax and the local community never were provided any direct input of this road action. The local community was not even brought into the process and informed.

This is just one factor individuals need to consider – do they have a direct input? Does the organization maintain an open and transparent operating procedure, or can they, through some one's predisposition, make these types of impacts, without public recourse?

While this action may be "desirable, good, needed and right", it also may not be. On the surface it goes way beyond simply "saving the land". For example, people who are handicap can no longer access this wonderful land. They have no access to their little trout pond. Only very healthy, fit and an outdoor hiker can access the land since the roads have been "put to bed". They get the advantage of the trout pond fishing.

The decision to "put the road to bed" and negate literally millions of dollars of previous investment needs a broader "stakeholder" review. If you had owned this land, had direct voting rights you would have been a more involved individual. The outcome may have been the same, but the process would have been open, transparent and authentically sustainable – you would have the right to vote on it.

So, know and understand the details of non-profit conservation organization AUTOMATICALLY being good. A good one involves you, the community and the public stakeholders. A good one may still be silently predisposed to "put roads to bed" based on single issue thinking. Many people "lost" by this decision made by a few to "put the road to bed".

Is "putting the roads to bed" the same as "saving the land"? Are internal decisions simply authentically sustainable? ..... AUTOMATICALLY? Obviously some one thinks so.