A Proposal for a Park Institute of America Bringing the Best Ideas to the Best Places A collaboration with Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment located on Duke’s Campus, Durham, NC March 3, 2016 Crafted by the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks – Voices of Experience Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 The Need ........................................................................................................................................ 4 The Solution .................................................................................................................................... 5 Vision .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Mission ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Strategy and Implementation ......................................................................................................... 6 Stimulate Public Discourse and Understanding .......................................................................... 6 Boost the Exchange of Ideas and Research ................................................................................ 6 Fuel Innovative Management Practices ..................................................................................... 6 Management and Operation .......................................................................................................... 7 Financial Plan .................................................................................................................................. 8 Potential Partners ........................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix: ..................................................................................................................................... 10 What do we mean by “protected areas”? ................................................................................ 10 Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Approach to Specific Issues ...................................................................................................... 12 Example 1 – Improving our Nation’s “History Literacy” ........................................................ 12 Example 2 – Knowledge Exchange on a Landscape Scale ..................................................... 13 Example 3 -­‐ Corridors and Conservation at Scale .................................................................. 13 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 15 1 Executive Summary Need: Protected areas are critical repositories of natural and cultural resources, providing recreation and enjoyment to millions of individuals while contributing significant natural, ecological, cultural, scientific, recreational, and economic benefits to our society. Retaining these benefits requires ensuring their long-­‐term existence, integrity, and vibrancy. Solution: The Park Institute of America will work to ensure that concern for protected areas remains a driver of national and international discourse, policy, and action. The Institute will synergize efforts of organizations working in support of protected areas so as to create an enhanced, collective impact. Vision: To ensure that protected areas are widely recognized as vital components of human society. Mission: To advocate for protected areas by stimulating public discourse and understanding, boosting the exchange of ideas and research, and fueling innovative management practices. Strategy and Implementation •
•
•
Central to the Institute’s success will be forming and maintaining partnerships with a wide array of public, private, non-­‐profit, and individual partners. The Institute will function as an operating foundation that will use re-­‐granting to strategically leverage the existing capacity of organizations working to sustain and promote the values of protected areas. Grants will be awarded to applicants based on their capacity to bolster one or more elements of the Institute’s mission. The Institute will sponsor research and analysis, host forums, publish reports, stimulate dialogue, and get information into the hands of decision-­‐makers that need it. Management and Operation •
•
•
The day to day operation of the Institute will be handled by a small professional staff comprised of an executive director, a grants manager, and an administrative assistant. The Institute will operate on a three-­‐year budget of $2.1M, raised via a combination of private contributions and grants. By year three, a full 50% ($400,000) of the Institute’s operating budget will be reserved for re-­‐granting. 2 Introduction Protected areas are homes to a great many resources that benefit human society. These places are vignettes of our heritage, representing the character of humankind. They are harbingers of our future, serving as global indicators of ecological and cultural change and reflecting the health of our civilization and planet. The healthy future of these places, including both their intrinsic and extrinsic value, is of paramount importance to our world. While numerous groups currently work in support of protected areas, their individual efforts are not guided by a collective or cohesive strategy. If leveraged by a collaborative initiative, their hard work could be made substantially more potent. The Park Institute of America will focus its attention on facilitating the development of a common agenda in support of protected areas and foster more effective collective action. Functioning as an operating foundation, the Institute will work with leaders of existing conservation organizations to develop and support an array of mutually reinforcing initiatives. By sponsoring research and analysis, facilitating dialogue, promoting public awareness and understanding, serving as a hub for communication, supporting education, and strengthening networks and partnerships within and among the many groups working in the conservation field, the Institute will bolster present efforts in support of protected areas and unleash synergies that now lie dormant. 3 The Need An assortment of non-­‐governmental groups, academic centers, public agencies, and private individuals focus their efforts on supporting and preserving protected areas. Indeed, our society is fortunate to have a strong network of conservation entities working to sustain protected areas. These organizations focus their individual efforts on various aspects of the challenge, including but not limited to conducting policy analysis on key issues, improving leadership capacity, restoring natural and cultural resources, disseminating knowledge to improve management practices, purchasing resources for preservation, lobbying to influence public policy, defending protected areas via our legal system, supporting peer-­‐to-­‐peer exchange through social media, and providing funds for specific protected area programs and projects. Current efforts are considerable and commendable. But, a piece of the puzzle is missing. It is a piece focused on collaboration and cross pollination, a piece aimed at facilitating a collective and cohesive strategy among organizations working toward the same end. In the absence of an organization focused on such efforts, an opportunity is being missed to harness and enhance all of the good work that is already being done. Interviews with eighteen regional and national organizations working to support protected areas (Listed under “Potential Partners” in the Appendix) revealed that an entity focused on understanding, aligning, integrating, and expanding their individual efforts would help create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Some suggested that what is most needed is a broker to enhance the flow of information and build and sustain collaboration within the field. Others expressed concern that our society is in critical need of a heightened public awareness of protected areas and the challenges facing them. We heard common recognition that filling this void would provide a catalyst for public engagement focused on topics vital for the preservation of our protected areas. It is particularly instructive to note that the organizations we interviewed expressed great interest in the prospect of an initiative dedicated to enhancing the collaboration of disparate current efforts to support protected areas. This type of initiative, one that enhances collaboration and creates a shared agenda among active players in the conservation arena, is distinct from anything that currently exists. Protected areas are pivotal to a national conversation on conservation and the environment. They reflect, engage, and help educate an ever changing face of our populace. We need to ensure that protected areas are not only recognized as a vital component of human society, but are actively considered in public policy and decision-­‐making that affects our environmental, economic and social well-­‐being. 4 The Solution The Park Institute of America will synergize efforts of organizations working in support of protected areas so as to create an enhanced, collective impact. By facilitating collaboration and creating a shared agenda, the Institute will harness and capitalize on all of the good work that is already being done. The Institute will not communicate for all organizations. Instead, it will provide a forum for them to expand both their individual and collective reach. The Institute will connect and convene leading thinkers and actors to build relationships and support for protected areas, it will engage the public in thoughtful consideration of the role of protected areas in human affairs, and it will propagate innovative recommendations for the managers of protected areas. As an active, non-­‐partisan voice, the Institute will promote high-­‐quality independent research and policy analysis, sponsor the synthesis and publication of research findings, and support the development and communication of policy recommendations on significant issues. In its earliest years, the Institute will pursue modest ventures. Over time, as it grows, it will broaden its focus and increase its reach, all the while striving to ensure that concern for our natural and cultural heritage remains a driver of national and international discourse, policy, and action. What are protected areas? Vision We use the term “protected areas” to represent a broad array of places throughout the world, embodying both natural and cultural values, from parks and preserves to living landscapes and vital urban districts. While each protected area has its unique qualities, we group them here under a common term to recognize their interconnectedness and collective importance. To ensure that protected areas are widely recognized as vital components of human society. Mission To advocate for protected areas by stimulating public discourse and understanding, boosting the exchange of ideas and research, and fueling innovative management practices. Please see the appendix for further clarification 5 Strategy and Implementation The Institute will accomplish its mission through a combination of internal operations and external grant-­‐giving. Central to the Institute’s success will be forming and maintaining partnerships with a wide array of public, private, non-­‐profit, and individual partners. Partners will help the Institute establish a collective strategy, and awarding grants will allow the Institute to fund initiatives that reinforce this shared agenda. The Institute will strive to be highly inclusive: the larger the network of partners, the greater the benefit. Grants will be awarded to applicants based on their capacity to bolster one or more elements of the Institute’s mission and initial focus on the interrelatedness of natural and cultural resources. Through symbiotic relationships, grantees will help the Institute achieve the following: Stimulate Public Discourse and Understanding Using cutting edge technology and media, the Institute will disseminate information broadly and strategically in order to engage with a wide array of audiences. The Institute will host, facilitate, and engage civic leaders, park scholars, academics, the business community, media, and members of the public to expand the conservation dialogue. Combining virtual interchange and physical gatherings, it will stimulate a national conversation within which protected areas are a centerpiece of national and international environmental strategy. In doing so, the Institute will work to broaden awareness of protected areas and to strengthen our society’s understanding of their collective importance. Boost the Exchange of Ideas and Research The Institute will sponsor high quality, objective, independent, non-­‐partisan and impeccably professional research and policy analysis to assist in the management and conservation of protected areas. In addition, the Institute will host forums and sponsor sessions at professional meetings and conferences on policy topics. Such forums will create a space for creative minds to come together to identify the most important current topics, challenges, and opportunities essential to the long-­‐term success of protected areas. Fuel Innovative Management Practices The Institute will publish and broadcast the products of its forums and sponsored research, and get information into the hands of decision-­‐makers that need it. The Institute will focus on broad topics essential for the management of protected areas (see “Scope” in the Appendix for 6 a list of potential topics). By serving as a distributor of research findings, and facilitating communication and dialogue within and surrounding the conservation field, the Institute will encourage successful management practices to spread and flourish. Management and Operation The day to day operation of the Institute will be handled by a small professional staff comprised of an executive director, a grants manager, and an administrative assistant. Some services -­‐ such as legal, accounting, and editorial assistance -­‐ will be contracted out. Because much of the Institute’s work will be carried out by grantees, a small staff will be sufficient. The Institute’s management and policy direction will be guided by a Board of Directors. The Board of Directors will also be responsible for setting priorities, budgeting, and raising funds in support of the Institute, and will provide general guidance for the executive director. This non-­‐
partisan committee will be comprised of leaders from the fields of conservation, academia, The Role of the CPANP business, communications, social media, and The Park Institute of America is the philanthropy, and will function as a board of brainchild of the Coalition to Protect directors. America’s National Parks (CPANP), which is responsible for the production of this proposal. In existence since 2003, the CPANP is comprised of over 1,100 former employees of the National Park Service. Its members represent management and staff positions in all disciplines. While some members of the CPANP will be on the Institute’s Advisory Board, the Institute will operate independently of the CPANP and will have no legal connection. The institute will also have an Advisory Board comprised of practitioners and scholars from the conservation field, and including representatives from existing institutes. This group will identify critical priorities and help establish a shared agenda for the preservation of protected areas. Meetings will provide Advisory Board members with an ongoing forum for discussion and collaboration with other leaders in their field. The Institute will have both a virtual and a residential component, which will enable it to serve as a hub for partnership with numerous entities, representing many sectors. Institute programs will be held at various locations in alliance with others who have an interest in the goals of the Institute. Those partners will be from the public (federal, state, local), non-­‐governmental, international, private and university arenas – all entities interested in or involved with protected areas. 7 As previously noted, the Institute will function as an operating foundation that will use re-­‐
granting as a strategic approach to leverage the existing capacity of organizations with common purpose -­‐ the conservation of protected areas -­‐ focusing on the priorities established by the Institute and its partners. The Institute will have 501(c)(3) status and will be incorporated in the state of North Carolina. Financial Plan Year 1 REVENUE AND SUPPORT Contributions Year 3 100,000 100,000 100,000 Grants 490,000 590,000 690,000 590,000 690,000 790,000 REVENUE AND SUPPORT TOTAL EXPENSES Compensation and related expenses Compensation Executive Director 100,000 103,000 106,090 Grants/Program Manager 50,000 51,500 53,045 Administrative Assistant 35,000 36,050 37,132 Employee benefits 38,850 40,016 41,216 Payroll taxes 14,153 14,577 15,014 Contract services Accounting Communications 15,000 9,000 9,270 Editorial 4,000 6,000 6,180 Information Technology 20,000 15,000 10,000 Conferences and forums Grants Disbursed Insurance Directors/Officers Policy Worker’s compensation Occupancy Office Expenses 1,200 1,236 1,273 15,000 30,000 30,900 200,000 300,000 400,000 800 824 849 2,405 2,477 2,551 5,000 5,150 5,305 10,500 6,695 6,896 Marketing Travel 30,000 30,900 31,827 Contingencies TOTAL EXPENSES 5,592 2,060 1,922 40,000 35,000 30,000 590,000 690,000 790,000 Year 2 8 Potential Partners In preparing this blueprint, CPANP consulted with representatives from numerous organizations, representing a variety of sectors and concerns, all interested in the preservation of protected areas. At the conclusion of our consultations, many individuals expressed a desire to partner with the Institute. It is our hope that they will all form a foundation of partnerships upon which the Institute can build. Thank you to the following organizations for their invaluable input: Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center National Park Institute, UC Merced Center for Park Management, National Parks Conservation Association Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands, Indiana University Conservation Study Institute, National Park Service Restoration Ecology Lab, in Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University George Wright Society Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University Pinchot Institute for Conservation International Council on Monuments and Sites Gulf Coast Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Texas A&M University Institute at Golden Gate Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Science, Texas A&M University Turner Foundation Park Studies Lab, University of Vermont Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, University of Washington
9 Appendix: What do we mean by “protected areas”? Simply put, the Park Institute of America views a protected area as any area designated for long-­‐term conservation or managed to limit the exploitation of natural and cultural resources. These areas have received protection because their natural, ecological, cultural, scientific, recreational, and/or economic values have been embraced by the powers that control them. That this list is not exhaustive, that there are more examples of protected areas, reflects how great our society’s recognition is of the importance of these places. They span many cultures, ecosystems, and eras. They embody our past and herald our future. Safeguarding them is of paramount importance, and is a driving force behind the Park Institute. Examples of Protected Areas Parks -­‐ international, n ational, state/provincial, regional, county, or city parks Designated wilderness Cultural landscapes, including indigenous cultural landscapes National monuments Marine protected areas Historic, archaeological, architectural, engineering, and other historically significant cultural sites Community-­‐conserved areas Protected landscapes and seascapes Heritage areas Estuarine, freshwater, and other aquatic sanctuaries Wildlife refuges Private reserves, land trusts, and structures being managed for long-­‐
term conservation Areas managed under safe harbor or candidate conservation agreements Key Biodiversity Areas Mitigation banks Sacred natural sites 10 Scope The Institute will engage with a wide variety of partners and topics linked to the long-­‐term viability of protected areas, focusing on priorities determined through collaboration. Below is a list of potential topics. Leadership & Strategy ⋅ Alternate governance models for protected areas ⋅ Private uses on public lands ⋅ International park leadership ⋅ Protected areas as models for future living ⋅ Innovative approaches to public land management ⋅ The future of park interpretation ⋅ Enhancing social and public involvement in protected areas ⋅ Promoting social and political diversity in the conservation arena ⋅ Exploring the interplay of protected areas and their larger landscapes ⋅ Constituency-­‐building ⋅ Scientific adaptive management ⋅ Negotiation and dispute resolution ⋅ Building a 21st Century conservation and preservation ethic ⋅ The role of technology in the conservation arena ⋅ Ecosystem management ⋅ Adjacent land use ⋅ Park managers’ roles in cities ⋅ Private use of protected areas ⋅ What qualifies as “Wilderness” ⋅ Global sustainability ⋅ Interface between natural and cultural resources Finance ⋅ Tax credits to benefit rehabilitation ⋅ Economics of historic preservation ⋅ Privatization and philanthropy ⋅ Economic drivers and benefits of parks ⋅ Emerging funding models ⋅ Budgeting for the future Environmental Factors ⋅ Effects of climate change ⋅ Biodiversity and ecosystem losses ⋅ Fisheries depletion ⋅ Animal migration routes ⋅ Water deficits ⋅ Pollution ⋅ Natural disaster prevention ⋅ National energy availability Cultural Factors ⋅ The role of ethnography in cultural landscapes ⋅ Alternative energy and the preservation of historic structures ⋅ New technology and building sciences ⋅ Landscape protection ⋅ Living landscapes ⋅ Historic resource conservation 11 Approach to Specific Issues Example 1 – Improving our Nation’s “History Literacy” Issue The U.S. Department of Education released a troubling 2010 Assessment of Educational Progress reporting that only 12% of high school seniors have “a firm grasp” of our nation’s history. History literacy is fundamental to our nation’s continued wellbeing and the bedrock of national polity. History illiteracy threatens many things, including the preservation of protected areas. More than two thirds of the over 400 units of the U.S. National Park System preserve important chapters of the American story. An even larger number of such sites are preserved and managed by other federal agencies, State and local park systems, and the private sector. The percentage of our nation’s young who visit these places is small and dwindling. Without exposure to these places, future generations may be less motivated to preserve and protect our national treasures. Approach The rapidly-­‐evolving and burgeoning distance learning market presents a remarkable and exciting joint-­‐venture opportunity for the public and private sector. The Institute will champion an initiative to “Restore American History to Core Curriculum” in elementary and secondary schools by developing a national place-­‐based, American history, distance learning initiative. This must be a national class initiative, and as such, will require the support of our nation’s politicians. Charged with a Congressional directive or Presidential Order and guided by a select panel of luminaries, the effort would engage the nation’s best minds to develop a remarkable and engaging place-­‐based, distance learning curriculum telling the American story through the country’s parks and historic sites. The panel would be comprised of members of Congress, governors, educators, historians, experts in distance learning, private sector figures and luminaries who have shown devotion to American History. Outcome The distance learning curriculum would include the production of high-­‐quality videos, not unlike the acclaimed National Geographic specials. Noted figures (actors, politicians, scholars and historians) would narrate segments produced at the actual sites. Students from around the country will hear the story of John and Abigail Adams directly from the Adams home in Braintree, Massachusetts. The story of the Mandan peoples at Slant Village in North Dakota can be told by their own representative, person to person, place to place. Cesar Chavez’s importance would become real to students who are able to visualize the places in California where Chavez lived and worked. Done well, this curriculum will transport students all over the country and permeate their memory. Example 2 – Knowledge Exchange on a Landscape Scale Issue Our nation’s protected areas conserve natural and cultural resources and offer recreation and enjoyment for millions of residents and visitors. How can we extend these benefits by more effectively aligning protected areas with the emerging movement to conserve resources at a landscape scale? Working on a landscape scale is now recognized as critical to protect habitat, preserve the context of cultural landmarks, conserve viewsheds, and address the challenge of a changing climate. Recent research has catalogued hundreds of large regional collaborative initiatives across the country. Every Federal land managing agency and many states have established landscape scale conservation programs as an important dimension to their work. Interweaving these programs would make their impact even more meaningful. Approach The Institute will host an online forum for the exchange of best practices in the emerging field of regional collaboration. The forum will help moderate knowledge exchange between disciplines and multiple government agencies to identify the opportunities to maximize the effectiveness of this rapidly expanding area of stewardship. This is an unprecedented opportunity to connect the many grassroots and state supported large landscape initiatives with comparable federal programs and to build a larger base of knowledge and support to conserve protected area values on a much greater scale than in the past. Outcome An important product will be the establishment of metrics (outcomes) to evaluate the success of these nontraditional approaches to conserving natural and cultural resources. For example, there is a critical need to better understand and assess governance of projects in large transboundary landscapes. Another product will be a determination of geographic points of connection between programs and places to meet the demands of regional landscape efforts. Example 3 -­‐ Corridors and Conservation at Scale Issue
National parks are not big enough to conserve some species especially during this time of climate change as species are shifting through space and time. Yet increasing human activities and development adjacent to and between parks threatens to isolate national parks, impair 13 movements and ultimately is leading to loss of species within parks and beyond. Our world needs a strategy to focus on maintaining the ecological integrity and resilience beyond the bounds of national parks. In order to maintain healthy ecosystems -­‐ including natural processes such as fire and predator prey dynamics -­‐ and to sustain viable populations of wildlife, it is imperative to coordinate a cohesive conservation approach at scale. This requires thinking about core areas, often beyond any single park or protected area, and connectivity between core areas and ultimately conserving both cores and corridors. Approach
Achieving conservation at scale requires: clear science guiding on-­‐the-­‐ground action, building awareness and partnerships, pursuing targeted habitat protection, developing compatible stewardship plans for wildlife, mitigating the impact of existing human activities and developments, and anticipating change in both the ecological and socio-­‐economic arena. The Institute will work with partners to develop a model landscape that can serve as an exemplar for how we should achieve connectivity between parks and conservation at scale is a first step. One iconic region is in the Northern Rocky Mountains where the full complement of carnivores and ungulates still persist. However, rural sprawl and other human activities threatens to isolate Northern Rockies parks, and thus threatens the persistence of animals such grizzly bears and wolverines in the region. The so-­‐called “High Divide” region of the northern US Rockies (that area between Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks and the Salmon Selway wilderness complex) is composed of a mosaic of both public and private land, and a variety of competing interests seek to use the land. By awarding grants to partners with expertise in this area, the Institute will work to identify key corridors where wildlife, including large carnivores, can safely live and pass through. Long-­‐term protection of these corridors will be achieved through the engagement of a broad stakeholder community. This region is a great model and point of national pride as the only place still maintaining its full complement of carnivores and ungulates, and other landscapes can be subsequently chosen. Outcome
A successful effort to achieve conservation at scale in the northern US Rockies would not only conserve our nation’s natural heritage including iconic animals such as grizzly bears and wolverines but would offer a model of how the country should move forward with conservation in the 21st Century to include lands beyond protected areas in a vision, a plan, and actions for conservation. It is only through such an approach that we can stem the loss of species from national parks and our country. 14 Acknowledgments Special thanks to Maureen Finnerty, Don Field, and Katherine Stevenson for guiding the production of this proposal and for their frequent assistance. Thanks also to Brenda Barrett, Don Baur, Walt Dabney, Rolf Diamant, Dominic Dottavio, Michael Finley, Deny Galvin, Dave Harmon, Michael Heaney, Nora Mitchell, John Reynolds, Jerry Rogers, Molly Ross, Al Sample, Pat Tiller and Peter Zimmerman for offering their comments, insights, and suggestions along the way. This proposal was crafted by Steve Bruner, an independent business consultant based in Amherst, Massachusetts. Steve has national and international experience helping private businesses, not-­‐for-­‐profits, and national parks with strategic planning and implementation. 15