Back to SCB AWARD DESIGN IDEAS NEEDED!

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to NEOCONS

WE ARE NOT ALONE: A CASE STUDY IN PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Mitch Friedman and Dan Hagen

SCB honored us and about 5200 other donors with an award for helping to save the wildlands of Washington's Loomis State Forest. The astounding success of this campaign is testament to conservation biologists that we are not alone in our appreciation of the natural world, and that the efforts of natural scientists can often benefit from integration with the social sciences.

In an attempt to protect the Loomis wildlands, the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (NWEA) sued under the federal Endangered Species Act to halt the state's planned logging on roadless portions of the Loomis Forest. An alternative to litigation emerged, however, when NWEA was presented with the prospect of a settlement agreement that would protect the Loomis if NWEA could pay the value of the land and timber to a fund for public schools, which receives revenue from logging on state lands. The choice was between convincing a judge on the legal claims or convincing private donors that these wildlands are worth more standing than cut. Either presented a substantial challenge, but the latter offered the opportunity to prove how much people care about their natural heritage.

This opportunity was attractive to me (MF) because while I am a biologist, I had dabbled sufficiently in economics and sociology to firmly believe that the natural values of the Loomis could be translated into a market value that, while representing only a fraction of the value of conservation, would nonetheless exceed the value of logging the area.

The Loomis Forest Fund raised so many eyebrows, and spirits, precisely because it seemed so unlikely to succeed. In essence, conservationists were challenged by Washington State with rapidly raising $16.5 million to save 25,000 acres of roadless forest from aggressive road building and logging. The underdogs were the coalition of advocacy groups, led by NWEA, with no experience in raising sums anywhere near what was required to compensate the state for the market value of logging the forest. But all obstacles were overcome, the funds raised in spectacular fashion, and the forest has since been placed into a conservation designation managed by the state.

What are the lessons for conservation biologists, or for conservationists in general? It demonstrates that the value people place on conservation of biological diversity can allow conservation to prevail over narrow commercial interests when the game is well played--even when the game is played on the home turf of the commercial interests.

Perhaps most surprising was that neither Ted Turner nor any other recognized titan of conservation funding saved the land. And although the Seattle area now is full of billionaires, until the very last minute only Bill Gates had weighed in for the Loomis, and his gift of $250,000 was only our tenth largest. (Later, when the state shockingly raised the price by $3.54 million after the initial price of $13.1 million had been raised, Paul Allen quickly stepped in to cover the balance.)

The Loomis Forest was saved not primarily by billionaires, but rather by thousands of people of more modest means who gave until it hurt. Even disregarding the top seven gifts, our average contribution was around $1000. What this means is that a lot of people dug deeply and gave generously. They did so because they care. They care in spite of the fact that the Loomis is a little-known forest, far from western Washington or other population centers, with little recreational use from outside the local area. It lacks great stands of ancient trees or other "high profile" features. The argument for saving it was based not on grand imagery, but on scientific reasoning.

The Loomis comprises the eastern flank of the North Cascades range in remote north-central Washington. It adjoins the high country of the Pasayten Wilderness Area to the west, and drops off thousands of feet to arid steppe to the east. Between these extremes are the rounded peaks of the Loomis, covered with lodgepole pine forests at elevations mostly over 4500 feet. These conditions make the Loomis critical for connectivity between forest carnivore populations in British Columbia and Washington's Cascades.

Donors were delighted and thankful to have the opportunity to give their money to save wilderness and quality habitat. That people value the existence of wildlands and healthy ecosystems became manifest through thousands of generous donations. This "existence value" is becoming recognized as an important source of value, not only for campaigns such as the Loomis, but also in the legal arena where its use is increasingly accepted in benefit-cost analysis and natural resource damage assessment.

In spite of the substantial value provided by conservation, economists and others were concerned about our ability to convert the values into cash because of the "free rider" problem. We couldn't actually "sell" donors any piece of the Loomis. Donors are no more entitled to the air, water, wildlife, or experience of the Loomis than are nondonors. In a narrow sense, even a saintly conservationist would have been more rational not to give to the campaign but instead to let others pay his fare share. No doubt many people did choose to be free riders. But consider the implication of the fact that we still raised more money than logging would have generated. When the value of conservation greatly outweighs the value of logging, conservation can generate a sufficient cash flow to more than compensate for lost logging revenue, even when many beneficiaries choose to free ride. Of course, in some cases the free rider problem may prevent voluntarily funded conservation efforts from prevailing. For this reason, we do not advocate a strictly "free market" approach to conservation. There continues to be an important role for public-sector provision of wilderness and habitat.

Perhaps for conservation strategists the most immediate use of the Loomis success lies in communicating to elected officials and land managers the value of wildlands to the American people. Efforts to conserve wilderness and habitat always have adversaries. The local logging, ranching, and school communities wanted the Loomis wildlands logged. They would have preferred the meager local benefits from logging, even at the expense of degrading an area so obviously worth so much more to the broader public. In the face of pressure from special interests, public officials need to be continuously reminded that Americans treasure our wildlands and know that they are in ever-shorter supply. The Loomis experience proves to skeptics that we care enough even to sacrifice our own dollars for the public good of healthy ecosystems and our wilderness heritage.

Mitch Friedman is Executive Director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Bellingham, Washington, www.ecosystem.org. Daniel A. Hagen is Associate Professor of Economics, Western Washington University, Bellingham.

The 5200 contributors to the Loomis Forest received a 2000 Distinguished Service Award from SCB in recognition of their optimism and significant personal commitment to protecting Loomis Forest wildlands.

Back to SCB AWARD DESIGN IDEAS NEEDED!

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to NEOCONS