A Collaborative Approach to Rangeland Management · A Collaborative Approach to Rangeland Management NTRES 314 Policy Brief April 26, 2004 Chris Baxter Sarah Bellos ... • Compliance

Grassbanking:

A Collaborative Approach to Rangeland Management

NTRES 314Policy BriefApril 26, 2004

Chris BaxterSarah BellosGosia BereziewiczAllie BeyerShannon Brescher

Environmental Problems

• Vegetative Impacts– Grazing on native grasses

• Decreases species diversity and abundance• Increases exotic species• Increases weeds and herbicide use

– Fire suppression– Changing grassland structure

• Riparian zones – Streambank erosion

• Decreased water quality and quantity

Environmental Problems

• Impacts of subdivision– Most productive range lands often under

greatest pressure from urban sprawl – Habitat loss and fragmentation

• Species Loss– Loss of open space

• Preservation of water and wildlife quality• Aesthetic value

Socio-economic Problems

• Increased social opposition to ranching– Due to subsidy system, environmental problems

• Increased regulation heightens economic pressure

• Socio-economic pressure and environmental problems compromise long term viability– Sustainability depends on healthy grassland and

improved forage production

How can ranchers address these problems?

Ranchers’ Perceived Options to Pressure

• Liquidate or reduce livestock• Conduct prescribed forest fires• Other conservation and restoration

measures– Lack of capital– Lack of Knowledge– Lack of Technology

Ranchers’ Perceived Options to Pressure

• Subdivide and Sell– Leads to decreased opens space and vanishing

rural landscape

• … how can livestock grazing in the West operate sustainably?

Origins & Agencies

• Homestead Act 1862

• Forest Service (FS)• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)• National Park Service (NPS)• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Top Down Governance

• Wild Life Act (1964)• Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1964)• National Environmental Environmental

Policy Act (1970)• Endangered Species Act (1978)• Public Rangeland Improvement Act (1978)

Governance Problems

• Lack of communication between agencies

• Distinct missions and responsibilities

• Federal, State and Local Mandates

NRDC v. MortonNRDC v. Morton

• Suit forced the BLM to conduct EIS and EA before reissuing leases to ranchers

• Current lease term is 10 years

Grassbanking

• Voluntary program• Partnerships between different actors

– Ranchers, Public Land Managers, Private Foundations, NGOs, Scientists, Environmentalists, Academic Institutions

• Exchange of conservation easements and environmental measures for temporary grazing land

• Ecological rehabilitation without economic loss

The Formation of a Grassbank

• Partnerships amongst ranchers OR• Partnerships between ranchers and nonprofit

organizations – Nature Conservancy

• Overseen by federal/state/regional infrastructure, academic institutions

• Purchase/set aside land specifically to use as a grassbank

• Establish regular meetings to foster dialogue between actors

Types of Land• Both private and public land can be used• Public land must be evaluated through an EA or

EIS under NEPA• Compliance with federal, state, regional

regulations– Grazing practices– Adherence to wildlife and habitat protection

legislation• Grassbank land must be of high quality and

able to sustain livestock

The Cost of Grassbanking

• Landowners must assist in paying– Conservation and restoration projects– Administrative costs– Capital cost of land, if purchased for a

grassbank• Foundation grants and government funds

How Does Land Exchange Work?

• Conservation easements and environmental program implementation for temporary grazing land

• (Value of land being subdivided and developed)-(Value of grazing land) = AUM

• Exchange can last from one month to several years

Grazing Land Rehabilitation• Ecological Restoration• Protecting Open Space• Native Habitat Rehabilitation (removal of

invasive species)• Improving Water Quality (Stream Stabilization)• Woodland Thinning• Prescribed Burns

Political Implications

• Reduces bureaucratic delays• Brings together traditionally conflicting key

players• Focus on voluntary collaboration• Compromise:

– Conservation and economic stability– Grazing control and right of private land usage

Case Study: Malpai Borderlands Project

• Malpai Borderlands covers over 1 million acres arid land between Arizona and New Mexico– 57% private lands, 20% state land trusts, 11 %

National Forest, 7% BLM• 1994 drought limited forage and available land

– Ranchers faced with selling off their herds• Malpai Borderlands Group formed as

collaboration between the ranchers

Case Study: Malpai Borderlands Project

• NGOs exchanged access to the Animas Foundation’s ranch for an easement– Three to five year agreements – Conservation plans developed on participants ranches

• Partnerships: – Nature Conservancy NRCS The Animas Foundation– US Forest Service BLM FWS– Arizona State Land Office U Arizona Arizona Game and Fish– NM State Land Office U New Mexico New Mexico State U– NM of Game and Fish Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Case Study: Malpai Borderlands Project

• Critical role of private sector – Nature Conservancy and Animas Foundation

provided land• Collaboration across jurisdictions and agency

mandates– Providing expertise and regulatory support

• Public-private collaboration created synergy• Resource management can perhaps be a win-win-

win situation

Grassbanking Analysis• Redefining the problem as multi-faceted• Epoch 1

– Top down regulation– Contentious relationship

• Epoch III– Devolution of control to local level– Use of collaboration – Use of tools such as conservation easements and

information-rich landscape management

Grassbanking Analysis• Encourages stakeholders to utilize, trade and save

the value of the grasslands by redefining property rights

• Coordination across a variety of institutions • Role of NGOs, extension, and government agencies

– Facilitate emergence of local governance– Provide expertise

• Contains elements for successful community based resource management

Can it be successful?Strengths

• Ecological protection– Prevents subdivision– Allows for restoration of land– Farmers learn about sustainable grazing

techniques• Economic incentives for sustainable grazing• Politically appealing

Can it be successful?Criticisms

• Voluntary– Many ranchers will not participate– No guarantee of restoration even when do

participate• No such thing as “sustainable grazing?”• Could suffer from Tragedy of the Commons• Is subdivision that large of a problem?

Alternatives/Complements

• Eliminate ranching from public lands– Unlikely

• Reduce number of cattle on land• Purchase areas for strict preservation

– Corridors, buffers, and sensitive ecological areas

• Using only private land for grassbanks

Conclusion

• Complexity of problem makes solution difficult

• Grassbanking provides collaborative forum for diverse stakeholders– Flexible solutions adapted to local context can

prove successful• Need to involve more ranchers

– Best in combination with other policies

Thank You!

• Screen image copyrighted Dixon Photography, 2003