Southeastern Alaska enironmentalists share a vision of conserving ecologically important places. “How we get there is what everyone is trying to figure out,” said one Roundtable observer. “Everyone is tired of fighting the battles.” Photo © Amy Gulick
Independence is a given in the southeastern Alaska culture, and the area’s conservation community is no exception. The groups share a commitment to protecting the Tongass but differ—sometimes dramatically—on how to best secure that protection. The Tongass Futures Roundtable has brought those differences out in the open, creating what some call a “split” but others dub “growing pains.” Members embrace the collaborative approach to protecting the Tongass while others, mostly non-members, remain skeptical.
Five southeastern Alaska environmental groups are official members of the Roundtable, but non-member groups and individuals can participate in committee meetings and can speak—but not vote—at the Roundtable itself. Some non-member groups fear the Roundtable’s focus on collaboration might lead to environmental protection measures being bargained away to achieve an accord with the timber industry.
“The role of environmental organizations should be as Tongass advocates, not to compromise up front,” says non-member Larry Edwards, a longtime veteran of the Tongass wars and a member of Greenpeace. “It’s OK to compromise much later in the process, but if you start up front, you’re undercutting the environment and the future of the communities that depend on the environment.”
Russell Heath, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council and a Roundtable member, says he doesn’t see the environmental community as split, so much as having different takes on how to deal with Tongass issues. If there is a divide, he says, “it is between those who are willing to talk with those who think differently, and those who aren’t.”
Back when the timber industry had the upper hand, the environmental movement needed warriors who wouldn’t back down in the face of corporate intimidation. But times have changed, Heath says. “The reason we can be collaborative is because the fighters did their work well,” he says, “But it’s time to adapt to a different time and requirements.”
Groups also disagree about which areas to protect on the Tongass. Many, including the Sierra Club, which is not a Roundtable member, are adamant about protecting roadless areas. But John Schoen, a senior scientist with the Audubon Society and a Roundtable member, says the conservation focus should be on preserving areas with the highest biological value, no matter where they are located, “so we get the biggest ecological bang for our buck,” he says. Roadless areas provide high scenic value but little in the way of habitat for bear, deer or salmon, he says. “We need to be as strategic as we can in our conservation.”
Trish Rolfe, with the Sierra Club’s Anchorage office, says that won’t fly with her organization. “We will never give up roadless areas,” she says. “It’s not something we are willing to put on the table.”
Another concern shared by some non-members is that the Roundtable could pass a legislative package that would circumvent the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has been the most effective tool environmentalists have had to protect forests. The flames of that fear were fanned earlier this year when Heath made a comment to a reporter suggesting that NEPA was problematic. He has since rescinded the comment.
“NEPA is one of the bedrocks of America’s conservation laws and nothing coming out of Southeast Alaska would be powerful enough to change it,” he says. “It’s part of the Holy Grail here. It’s just not on the agenda.”
Some non-members also wonder if member groups might feel constrained sitting alongside individuals who represent funding institutions the groups depend on for their operation. Since April 2006, funders—including the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Forest Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, the Rasmuson Foundation, the Wilburforce Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation—have awarded $916,000 in grants to either jumpstart or support the ongoing Roundtable effort.
For grant-dependent groups, the situation could be sticky, says Mark Rorick, chair of the Sierra Club’s Juneau group. “Instead of the groups going to the foundations with a campaign, the funders are saying, ‘this is the campaign you have to do, or you’re not going to get any more money.’”
Several non-members share the belief that funders are driving the environmental groups’ agenda. “[Funders] are acting as policy makers,” says Gregory Vickery, director of the Ketchikan-based Tongass Conservation Society, which is not a member of the Roundtable.
But Aileen Lee, program director for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s wild salmon ecosystem initiative, says it makes sense for funders to have a clear sense of which solutions they believe would be the most beneficial, and to support groups that align with that vision. Lee, who has attended all of the Roundtable meetings, says being a participant allows her to be a more effective partner with groups, whether grantees or not, trying to find a solution to protecting habitat on the Tongass.
“We work hard to make sure groups aren’t trying to bend their agenda to try and fit into some mold of what they think we want from them,” she says, “because those kinds of partnerships never work.”
David Secord, Wilburforce program officer for British Columbia and Alaska, says when money is involved there’s always a risk that it could have “inappropriate influences.” But at the same time, the environmental representatives at the Roundtable “are pretty smart and fearless people who are not afraid to speak their minds, and not afraid to disagree with anybody. They are committed to the work they are doing and are not going to be cowed,” he says.
Over the past several months, some people’s fears about the Roundtable have eased. Early on, Vickery says, he felt his community wasn’t being adequately represented. But being able to attend committee meetings and having the ear of folks who represent his concerns has made a difference. Now, he says, “I feel I have a voice at the Roundtable.”
But Rorick still fears that collaboration may lead to bad decisions for the Tongass. “What we’re worried about is they’ll legislate a plan saying we can’t oppose timber sales, or that will relax standards and guidelines,” he says. “If we think [the Forest Service] is violating the law and there’s merit, we should have the right to litigate.”