The community dimension of the OMAB nomination effort was the Achilles’ heel of the Ozarks program. The OMAB experience underscores the importance of actively and aggressively including the residents of local communities in the formulation of management and conservation efforts. Two central problems with the community dimension of the OMAB nomination process emerged from this research. The first was the vagueness and ambiguity surrounding the role, responsibilities, and benefits of local communities and citizens in a Biosphere Reserve. The second and most important problem was the exclusion of local communities and citizens throughout the nomination process.
The Community Dimension
The official US and UN Man and Biosphere Reserve literature, as well as the OMAB Steering Committee representatives interviewed, described the Man and Biosphere Reserve Program as conceptually unique. In its ideal form, Biosphere Reserves are "firmly rooted in the social, cultural, and economic fabric of its associated communities (US MAB 1994:16)." As indicated in this statement released to a Fayetteville newspaper UNESCO believes that,
The human dimension of Biosphere Reserves makes them special, since the management essentially becomes a "pact" between the local community and society as a whole. Such an approach requires patience and imagination. But it will allow the local community to be better placed to respond to external political, economic and social pressures, which would affect the ecological and cultural values of the area. (Northwest Arkansas Times 1996:B5)
Unlike natural resource programs that exclude, ignore, or give little attention to human impacts and needs, the Biosphere Reserve program seeks to synthesize the ecological and cultural dimensions of resource management (Kellert 1986). This type of natural resource management, where the human dimension is reincorporated into management ideals, is promulgated as benefiting both the ecosystem and society (Kellert 1986).
A primary objective in establishing a Biosphere Reserve is for local communities to "derive tangible benefits" from participating in the program (US MAB 1994:16). US MAB literature offers a laundry list of tangible benefits that can be accrued by local communities, from employment opportunities to international recognition(11). However, most of the enumerated benefits are abstract possibilities and leave no assurances with local communities as to how they will be achieved or realized.
Community benefits reported by Steering Committee representatives were even more abstract and, in some cases, difficult to link to direct, positive impacts. Committee members discussed community benefits in terms of improved agency ability to manage resources. This improvement would arise as a result of increased access to research funding or through the enhanced ability of agencies to participate in cooperative management. A typical scenario presented by OMAB supporters was that as a consequence of improved resource management strategies, a corresponding improvement in the quality of Ozark natural resources, water for example, might be expected. An improvement in quality of natural resources was frequently reported as the most significant benefit Ozark communities would have realized from an OMAB designation.
In addition to improving the quality of Ozark natural resources, an OMAB designation would have also facilitated community education on improved strategies for natural resource use, management, and conservation. Participation in the MAB program meant new avenues of funding for agencies and, as a result, increased opportunities to consolidate and streamline research agendas. By coordinating and increasing research efforts resource managers could gather information which could then be transmitted to the public through education. A representative from the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission described this potential benefit saying,
I think the direct benefit we hoped we would find for the community was an improved quality of life for people. They’d have a better understanding of their environment, the environment that they live in and the impact they have on it and it has on their lives. So that they can make better decisions about how they relate to it and interact with it… and use… utilize the environment in which they live. (Mark Birk, personal interview)
Whether Steering Committee members envisioned community benefits springing from natural resource enhancement or dissemination of information, they undoubtedly expressed good intentions toward the public. However, such benefits were largely indirect and perhaps not obvious to the general public.
Agencies found the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program attractive because it facilitated intra-agency, cooperative management of Ozark resources. One Committee representative stated, "…far more can be accomplished in [the] area of conservation of our resources, wise utilization of resources, and informing and educating the public if diverse agencies work together (Mark Birk, personal interview)." Although cooperative management is undoubtedly a worthwhile goal, the OMAB cooperative was focused principally on natural resource agencies and, to a lesser degree, environmental organizations, to the virtual exclusion of private landowners and local communities.
It seems likely that Ozark citizens would have indirectly benefited from an OMAB designation as a result of enhanced agency ability to understand and manage natural resources. However, the idea that a Biosphere Reserve in the Ozarks would be the type of "pact" that would accommodate the views and needs of local citizens, as expressed by local citizens, was not borne out in this research. Rather, community benefits would be accrued principally through a type of ‘trickle down’ impact that starts with improved agency management. Consequently, the role of Ozark citizens in the nomination process was reduced to one of passive recipients, rather than active participants.
By and large, agencies did not pursue a Biosphere Reserve nomination in search of increased opportunities to engage communities in participatory or collaborative efforts. Instead, agencies sought the designation so that they could do their existing jobs more effectively. The resultant nomination process reflected this bias.
The role of local communities in the nomination effort was vaguely understood and ambiguously described by those on the Steering Committee. The clearest description of the expected community role in the OMAB nomination effort came from the 1991 Feasibility Study. According to this study, the seventh objective of the OMAB effort was to facilitate and promote "local participation in the management of biosphere reserves (Faulkner and White 1991:12)." In general, while it is evident that potential community benefits were expected from the establishment of a local Biosphere Reserve, it was equally evident that community participation and cooperation should have formed a necessary component of the plan.
Literature on the MAB program and the Feasibility Study indicate that local communities must bear at least some of the responsibility, albeit voluntary, if Biosphere Reserve goals are to be achieved, particularly in the transition area. US MAB operationalizes the general MAB goals of conservation, development, and cooperation (logistic support) in very local ways. A 1996(12) US MAB publication identified the three purposes of the program:
These goals are inclusive of the local community. Further, from these goals, it appears that a MAB intends to encourage citizens to take an active role in the program. Through this participation, they become benefactors of the program.
The 1994 draft of the Biosphere Reserve Nomination Form indicated that some 13,545,576 hectares of largely private land was to be included in the transition area or the zone of cooperation. While no regulations or laws would have mandated landowner participation in the Biosphere Reserve, the Feasibility Study indicated that this area would emphasize "…education, training, and application of sustainable, conservation-minded resource development and use (Faulkner and White 1991:15)." Such activities planned to apply "directly to the needs of local communities (Faulkner and White 1991:15)."
Although US MAB and OMAB rhetoric obviously indicates a place for local communities in the OMAB program, it remains unclear what role citizens and communities are actually supposed to take in the formation, designation, or implementation of a Biosphere Reserve or how they will be asked to participate. Moreover, it is not clear when communities are supposed to become an important component of the Biosphere Reserve, whether their voices are to be heard before or after the establishment of the Biosphere Reserve.
Community Dimensions of the OMAB Nomination Process
The Steering Committee had the task of deciding if, when, and how local communities were to be included in the Ozark nomination effort. One committee member explained the complexity of such a decision and the rationale of agencies,
The government agencies basically did not want to make the MAB program inclusive because it was a hot potato. You get a bunch of citizens on this main steering committee who had votes [and] who knows what issues might come up. [The] government agencies may have issues with each other, but they’re rather civil about [it]. They know each other's territory [and] only really deal with those issues when they’re having direct confrontations. The citizens are not nearly so disciplined as this. They say whatever the hell they want. [If] the MAB committee [were] made of citizens and non-profits, you have [a] property rights person and a hard-core environmental activist sitting here and a governmental agency here, and they are both yelling at the agency. One [says] you should do this and the other saying you should do the opposite. [The agencies] didn’t want to be in that position. So, they did want to run MAB the way it was designed, but they were going to do it very slowly, get comfortable with each other [first]. (Ben Johnson, personal interview)
The difficulties of working with stakeholders to achieve a MAB in the Ozarks did not escape the Steering Committee. As a result, they wanted to postpone community and citizen involvement until after the designation. The Committee’s desire to keep the process running smoothly served to deny to Ozark citizens accessible opportunities to participate in or become informed about the nomination effort throughout the tenure of the nomination process.
OMAB opponents became aware of the scantiness of Steering Committee public outreach efforts and viewed efforts made to inform and include the public as feeble and not in good faith. Opponents expressed the belief that they had been ignored and disenfranchised by those pursuing the nomination, claiming they had been purposely excluded from the process. One opponent wrote, "Mr. Linahan and MAB supporters tried to slip this program in without the knowledge or consent of the citizens or elected officials of the state of Arkansas. We were never given the opportunity to volunteer or cooperate (Middleton 1996c:4A)."
Ozark citizens who voiced opposition to the OMAB were angry at having been ignored and excluded from what seemed to opponents to be a rather substantial natural resource program. One representative of Take Back Arkansas remarked that opponents of environmental programs are not anti-environmental or anti-government. Rather, they resent being excluded from decisions on if and how environmental programs are implemented in their communities. Such top down policy is particularly provoking if new programs or initiatives are believed to carry regulations or mandates for property owners and resource users.
The OMAB nominating committee did solicit some public comment. From the perspective of the agencies on the steering committee, the initial feasibility study and the 1993 Harrison conference were the major vehicles for community inclusion during the nomination process. The Feasibility Study for an Ozark Man and the Biosphere Reserve was viewed as the primary avenue of incorporating community interests and needs during the nomination process. The decision to continue with the nomination was based on study findings.
Early in the nomination process Committee members expressed concern about the possibility of opposition to what might be perceived as "another government program" in the Ozarks (White and Faulkner 1991:42). They anticipated opposition from Ozark locals who harbored anti-government sentiment. The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission representative stated, "we were concerned that before we got very far along that opposition to the project would develop. Uninformed, but early opposition (John Hunt, personal interview)." In spite of these obstacles, the Committee was desirous of gauging community support of the MAB program and its concepts. However, they wanted to do it in a way that avoided the untimely expression of opposition sentiments and conflict over a program that may or may not be pursued. The Feasibility Study was designed to accomplish both goals, to gauge the possibility of establishing a Biosphere Reserve, while minimizing the risk of early opposition.
The research was conducted by Ecological Services, a private research and assessment organization located in Urbana, Illinois. In relation to community linkages, the Feasibility Study was to accomplish two tasks. The first task was to determine the needs of local communities, and assess the ability of an OMAB to fulfill those needs. Second, it was deemed necessary to determine the receptivity of Ozark citizens to the OMAB concept.
The Feasibility Study indicates that 90 community leaders were interviewed in Missouri and Arkansas, although the study lists the names of only 86 interviewees (Faulkner and White 1991:43). The study sample was compiled by the OMAB steering committee and supplemented by the researcher. It was considered representative of the various community interests in the Ozarks including: political, conservation and development, private landowners, business, and recreation and environmental protection interests (White and Faulkner 1991:42.) The interviewer met face-to-face with fifty-two individuals and interviewed another thirty-four by telephone(13).
The research strategy was to discover attitudes toward the ‘components’ of the MAB program concept. That is, the interviewer’s primary goal was to record respondents’ opinions toward the general concepts "embodied" in the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program rather than impressions of the program itself (White and Faulkner 1991). Unfortunately, it is unclear from the Feasibility Study which MAB concepts were described to which respondents and how they were presented.
The interviewer asked questions centered on the general philosophy of MAB, but only named the program or an intention to nominate the Ozarks if she believed the respondent would not "overreact to the program (White and Faulkner 1991:42)." This strategy was considered necessary by the Steering Committee to get an unbiased sense of potential public support of the program. One Committee representative stated:
We tried to devise a way to identify the public’s views on what we were proposing to do without tagging a name on it. Instead of going in and biasing someone automatically by saying, ‘We are considering a Man and Biosphere Project, what do you think of it?’ (Mark Birk, personal interview)
Therefore, Ecological Services personnel were asked to generally address program intentions and possible accomplishments, while trying to "get feedback from people, citizens, businesspeople, politicians, and community leaders about the communities and what should be done to help [them] (Mark Birk, personal interview)."
In addition to not labeling the MAB program in interviews with unreceptive respondents, Ecological Services, in conjunction with the Steering Committee, opted to not hold public meetings during the period of the Feasibility Study. Public meetings were avoided because they "tend to polarize views of the public and may capture negative attention from the press (White and Faulkner 1991:43)." Again, this precaution was taken to avoid arousal of anticipated local opposition while trying to assess the possibility of pursuing the MAB designation in terms of appropriateness and general public receptivity.
The Feasibility Study findings were considered indicative of positive community sentiments toward an OMAB. The study concluded that there was "almost universal acceptance of the concepts embodied in the Man and Biosphere Program (Faulkner and White 1991:6)." Many people had expressed support for MAB concepts, and the name of the program had even been disclosed to some individuals interviewed. Because the program had not necessarily been disclosed during the study, researchers recommended that the Steering Committee immediately begin public outreach, soliciting public support (Faulkner and White 1991).
Efforts to avoid or postpone the rise of early and uninformed opposition worked against the nomination in the Ozarks. While it may have hindered opposition in the early stages of the nomination, it complicated matters when citizens finally came out against the proposal. Opponents’ claimed that strategies employed by the Committee were evidence of intentions to conceal the program and deceive the public.
OMAB opponents attacked the Feasibility Study on three fronts. First, opponents viewed the Committee decision to not conduct public hearings as indicative of the agencies’ desire to keep the public unaware of the nomination project. In a letter to the editor in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Ed Manor (1997:8B), a fairly visible OMAB opponent, indicated that Committee efforts were secretive and calculated and he used as evidence the fact that public meetings were intentionally avoided during the period of the Feasibility Study. The nomination process was seen by Manor as taking place in the "back room" while citizens were kept in the dark (Manor 1997:8B).
David Bright, another OMAB critic cited text from the Feasibility Study accusing the Steering Committee of intentionally avoiding notification of local citizens. He called on agencies to "hold public meetings to answer questions about MAB in each of the counties targeted in the "Feasibility Study" (Bright 1996:2)." The Committee’s effort to avoid large public forums in the course of the nomination served as proof of intentional non-disclosure of the OMAB plan by the Steering Committee.
The second front OMAB opponents attacked the program on was more than likely born out of the Committee’s research strategy of not naming the MAB program specifically in interviews unless the respondent was considered receptive to the idea. OMAB opponents claimed that a number of county officials allegedly interviewed for the Feasibility Study had denied participation in such an interview or did not remember supporting the OMAB when confronted by opponents. In a letter to the editor, Everett Middleton (1996a:2) stated,
The effort to place our lands under MAB designation was characterized by dishonesty. An interview of 90 persons supposedly took place and resulted in a near unanimous approval by the interviewed. While it has been impossible to contact many of those interviewed, many persons contacted state they were never interviewed and that, indeed, they would not be in favor of such a designation. I enclose a letter from Kenneth Jefferson, county judge, whose name appears on the list of interviewed people. He states he was not interviewed. He certainly does not favor such a program.
There are several possible explanations for interviewees’ denying knowledge of the Feasibility Study interview. It is possible that these respondents were among those who were not informed of the OMAB program proposal during the interview. As a representative of Buffalo River indicated,
[F]or them ( local judges) to say, ‘no we were never in contact with them specifically about Man and the Biosphere,’ may have been the truth. Because if they were one of those judges that professed animosity towards any kind of big government, the interview did not go on and say, ‘well, we need to know this is Man in the Biosphere.’ So, it’s very possible that they don’t ever remember ever being contacted. What you have to do is you need to take the judge’s name and go to the Feasibility Study and see if they were interviewed and if they were told about Man and the Biosphere. (George Oviatt, personal interview)
The consequence of this strategy is that some interviewees claimed they were never aware that they had provided input into the OMAB nomination effort. If the project was never disclosed to them, they would have no recollection of ever having contributed to the OMAB feasibility study.
Alternatively, it may simply be that the interviewees did not recall being interviewed. The Feasibility Study was completed in 1991 and the controversy was not in full swing until approximately 1995 or 1996. In this gap of time it is possible that interviewees forgot about being interviewed or could not recall specifics about the interview session. Contact was not maintained between the OMAB Steering Committee and interviewees after the completion of the Feasibility Study research. The extensive time period between study completion and the emergence of controversy, coupled with a failure to maintain contact with respondents would explain their inability to recall interview details or, perhaps, the entire interview.
A third possibility is that these community leaders were practicing a political survivalist strategy by denying knowledge and support of a program that was reeking havoc on the political stability of officials and agencies throughout the Ozarks. Finally, the possibility remains that perhaps not all listed individuals were interviewed.
The third allegation leveled at the Feasibility Study by opponents was the sample, that it was too small and biased. A Northwest Arkansas Times article that shared "a woman’s" discovery of the OMAB nomination reported that officials at Buffalo National River told the woman that "residents from across the region expressed support for the program (Garret 1996:A1+)." The article went on to say, however, that only 86 persons were actually interviewed in Missouri and Arkansas. Discrepancies within the Feasibility Study regarding the sample size notwithstanding, the point of opponents regarding the sample was that 86 or 90 people hardly represented the attitudes of a majority of Ozarks residents. Feasibility Study conclusions were further criticized as being biased because some interviewees were associated with natural resource, environmental, or government agencies and organizations.
Committee members we spoke with universally cited the Feasibility Study itself as the major avenue of community involvement and participation. Most perceived the study itself as a legitimate effort to include the community, despite the fact that the research was designed primarily to gather information on community needs and gauge attitudes toward a sometimes unidentified Biosphere Reserve concept.
While some Committee members were satisfied with the level of community inclusion required for the completion of the study, some believed that more outreach was needed. Some representatives agreed that study findings merely suggested that the public was receptive to the Biosphere Reserve concept and, though such findings were encouraging, they believed there was a need to make a concerted effort to explain the program clearly to citizens and communities.
The belief that more outreach was needed seemed to be consistent with the findings of the Feasibility Study. Throughout the report the authors discussed the sentiments, beliefs, and feelings of local people with regards to past, present, and future government efforts. In the document summary, the authors indicate that,
Attitudes toward government agencies in the Ozarks vary widely. Private citizens and civic leaders in some counties report all-round good cooperation, but many people are upset about government regulations and land condemnation, especially for federal scenic river corridors and reservoirs. (Faulkner and White 1991:5)
The Feasibility Study alluded to lingering feelings of ill will still existing toward the National Park Service due to past land takings issues and government programs. Festering anger rooted deep in Ozark history and lingering fears of future government takings were themes visible in the Feasibility Study findings and, later, echoed by opponents of the nomination.
In addition to local concerns about past violations, the study found that residents continually felt ignored and discounted by government agencies in program planning, development, and implementation. The report warned,
People are angry when they perceive the agency to be taking away their freedoms, traditional uses of certain areas, or traditional activities. If an agency appears to have made a decision before asking for input, the local citizens feel powerless and feel that the agency has not listened to them. (Faulkner and White 1991:71)
At several points in the conclusion of the Feasibility Study, the authors recommended the immediate involvement and inclusion of the public in the OMAB process (see Faulkner and White 1991: 89, 95, and 96)." The gist of the recommendations made with regards to the public was that the Committee should immediately begin meaningful community outreach by personally informing and communicating with citizens and local groups. Specifically, study authors encouraged the immediate inclusion of the public via small group meetings and presentations about the MAB. The Study stated,
[T]he purpose of these meetings is to begin informing the public about the MAB program. There should be NO press conferences or large public meetings because they encouraged polarized views before the story can be told in an objective, non-threatening manner [emphasis original]. (Faulkner and White 1991:100)
Organized presentations were a second avenue for community contribution and the primary conduit for public information during the nomination process. Two Committee representatives indicated that Committee members talked at a few small group meetings of various groups in the region. In 1993, Foster reportedly began to give some small group talks to regional tourism groups. After the nomination was abandoned, representatives at Buffalo National River gave talks to such organizations as the Lions Club and Rotary Club.
According to some Committee members, more community-oriented meetings were desired and anticipated after the completion of the Feasibility Study. Unfortunately, intentions to inform or include the public were largely unrealized. Committee members frequently cited a single conference held in Harrison, Arkansas as the primary attempt to inform and include the community after completion of the Feasibility Study.
The Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Regional Conference was held in November of 1993. Ozark Regional Land Trust and Winrock International officially sponsored the two-day conference; sponsorship by these non-governmental organizations was by design. The federal and state agencies involved in the nomination enlisted the help of these organizations in an effort to distance the OMAB nomination effort from appearances of being a government program. The Buffalo River representative stated,
[T]he agencies tried to stay away. We tried not to make the appearance that it was a Park Service meeting. And that’s why we had the Land Trust because that was a pretty innocuous group of people. They weren’t threatening to the public, so we could get as much public input as we [could]. (George Oviatt, personal interview)
From personal interviews conducted with Steering Committee members, we were not able to get a good sense of the amount or nature of publicity prior to the 1993 meeting. However, it appeared that the public was notified of the conference in one of two ways. First, press releases announcing the upcoming meeting were reportedly published in local newspapers. In a local newspaper article written about the OMAB controversy, Committee representative George Oviatt was quoted as saying that the meeting was "advertised in the Harrison Daily Times in a large ad (Mountain Wave 1997:1)." In fact, an article entitled "Ozarks Nominated for Biosphere Reserve" did appear in the November 4, 1993 edition of the Harrison Daily Times on page B3. The article did not provide registration information to readers, although it did announce plans to nominate the Ozarks, discussed the upcoming conference, and named the agencies and organizations that were participating in the nomination. In addition to published announcements, specific invitations were sent to a handful of Ozark citizens and various local interest groups.
Unfortunately, if the Steering Committee’s goal was to encourage the attendance of ordinary local citizens representing a variety of stakeholders, they were unsuccessful. The 1993 public meeting drew between 60 and 70 interested individuals, according to Steering Committee members. An article published about the conference in The Rackensack Monthly placed attendance at "about 40 persons from the agricultural, environmental, political, and social fields (Modeland 1993:16)." According to Steering Committee representatives, most individuals attending the conference represented government or environmental-oriented interests. Further, some Committee members indicated that attendees were often already familiar with MAB and the nomination effort.
Conference attendees paid a base registration fee of $12 or $30 with meals, to hear various speakers describe the MAB program and the proposed nomination. The conference featured presentations from individuals familiar with the MAB programs in other regions of the United States. Talks were also given by individuals familiar with sundry features of the Ozarks, including presentations on the social and economic aspects of the region. Finally, conference attendees were given the opportunity to discuss the benefits and implication of a MAB in the Ozarks during small group discussion sessions.
Most Committee members viewed the conference as a success. Moreover, public notification of the nomination proposal failed to generate public dissention in 1993. George Oviatt of Buffalo National River indicated that he browsed newspapers several months after the 1993 conference and found no negative responses from the public. Oviatt recalled,
That next day (after the Harrison conference) there was a full 1/3 page article in the front of the Harrison paper. And as I have told you, I followed up on those papers for about four months reading letters to the editor columns. There was not a single letter to the editor pro or con regarding that article. The article was very favorable and talked about the UN connection [and] about what MAB was. (personal interview)
While the Harrison conference was probably a reliable source of information for citizens that attended the meeting, overall the meeting was not effective in meeting the goal of informing the general public of the Biosphere Reserve plan. Many citizens did not ‘discover’ the proposal until years after the Harrison conference. Among other issues, opponents critiqued the Committee’s community outreach efforts through public meetings.
Opponents cited both the insufficient notice of the 1993 meeting and the lack of other public meeting opportunities as evidence of the Committee’s desire to keep the public in the dark. In relation to the Harrison meeting, anti-Biosphere Reserve activists contested both the nature and amount of public notice provided by the OMAB Steering Committee. They disputed Committee claims that notice of the Harrison conference was published in multiple papers. Most opponents, like Everett Middleton of Arkansas, stated that the Steering Committee was operating in secrecy because there was no effective public notification of the 1993 conference. He wrote,
Mr. Oviatt states they publicized their meetings. When pressed to produce such publications, the only one produced was an article in "The Rackensack Monthly" (no, I'm not kidding) a tiny newspaper which had a life span of about four months. To put it mildly, this was not a good faith effort. [parenthetical statement original] (Middleton 1996b:4A)
Opponents clearly perceived Committee efforts as token and consistent with a plan to keep the general public unaware of the nomination effort. By and large, opponents saw the 1993 conference as little more than a Steering Committee ruse aimed at fulfilling some bureaucratic public notification requirement in the most non-public way possible.
Another problem with this effort to include citizens was pragmatic. Regardless of disputes over good faith efforts to notify Ozark citizens of the Harrison meeting, the 1993 conference came late in the nomination process and arguably too late for meaningful inclusion of local citizens and community interests. The conference came only as the nomination was nearing completion. In fact, a draft of the nomination proposal was completed in March of 1994, just five months after the Harrison conference. The limited number of meetings accessible to the general public, in addition to the rather short period of time between the Harrison meeting and a completed nomination proposal left little opportunity for the public to participate in the process or become meaningfully informed about the nomination.
Most likely, the community aspect of the Harrison conference was geared toward informing the public of an intended proposal, rather than providing citizens with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the nomination process. Opponents rightfully noted that for a program founded on the notion of including communities in cooperatives, the nomination process had not proven to be open to citizen input and participation. One letter writer criticized a Steering Committee Representative, John Linahan, Superintendent of Buffalo National River, writing:
If MAB is a voluntary, cooperative program, when were you, Mr. Linahan, going to let us know about it? Being asked after the fact is never voluntary. You had the feasibility study in your hands in 1991. You have had five years to seek our cooperation. We never heard from you. (Bright 1996:2)
Perceptions of Public Inclusion Efforts
While opponents viewed the extent of community inclusion as unsatisfactory, some Steering Committee representatives viewed this meeting, in conjunction with the Feasibility Study, as sufficient and good-faith efforts to inform and involve community interests. Those who expressed satisfaction with the extent of community inclusion and information oftentimes expressed the belief that it was adequate given the positive findings of the 1991 Feasibility Study, coupled with the fact that there were no laws or regulations associated with the program.
Some Committee members expressed surprise at the nature and amount of public discontent expressed in the final stages of the OMAB nomination. After the Feasibility Study, lack of opposition at the 1993 public meeting and over the following months served as a litmus test for the degree of public opposition to the program. Because no opposition surfaced immediately after the 1993 conference, committee members felt they had at least secured public apathy toward their proposal and continued with the nomination process. The second committee chairman stated that,
I [have] been asked many times, "Do you think now, being able to look back on it, that you should have done more public outreach?" But you have to remember in 1993 [public reaction to the Harrison meeting] that told us that the public knew about it [and] was supportive or were apathetic. We saw no opposition. (George Oviatt, personal interview)
Most committee members perceived the nomination process as a coordination-type effort that would be non-regulatory in nature. As a consequence, little emphasis was placed on community outreach during the early stages of the process. Public participation was excluded early in the nomination process in part because agencies were deeply entrenched in planning and did not have time or resources to spare for attention to public outreach.
As is often the case with other state and federal programs, participating agencies managed the nomination project’s design until it was practically finalized. Only after they worked out the details was the nomination proposal presented to citizens in a public forum. This strategy was described by one non-agency, committee representative who observed,
It was only natural that they [the agencies] spent all this time trying to determine their own willingness to participate. Once they thought they pretty much had a chance of getting [the agencies] on board, …they had a meeting [and] opened it up to the public. They had talks and so forth with various groups. They were trying to show people what could be done through co-operative [efforts, and] not through regulatory things. (Ben Johnson, personal interview)
While some steering committee members were comfortable with the nature and degree of public outreach, in hindsight some representatives were less satisfied with the amount and quality of community outreach efforts made. Foster, the first committee chairman, stated,
We had planned to have a number of public workshops. We ended up having one, and that was embarrassing. We had a pretty good attendance at that, but we really didn’t get a number of people there from a wide spectrum that we hoped we would. (personal interview)
When asked why they had not sponsored more public meetings, Foster indicated several reasons including the time and effort it takes to plan such meetings, the desire to keep the program from appearing to be a governmental program, and the committee’s lack of effort in finding groups or individuals to sponsor other meetings. He remarked:
My feeling and the feeling of most on the steering committee and other agencies [was] that it would be better if we didn’t set up those meetings. …We felt as though we wanted to sit back and let someone else do that. We were willing and able to help them if they wanted our help, but we didn’t want to push our way into and play the lead role. (David Foster, personal interview)
Another committee member from the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission stated that there was little effort made to provide explanation of the program to local communities, and attributed this to limited resources. He said,
We all felt that there was a need to have a staff, someone who could, full-time, speak for the project. Someone who could conduct public hearings, meetings, and answer the phone and talk with people. We understood that we weren’t reaching out at this point, we hadn’t really begun to reach out and explain to anyone what we hoped to do. (Mark Birk, personal interview)
The lack of communication or inclusion of local communities early in the nomination process paved the way for OMAB opponents’ onslaught of criticism, accusation, and innuendo directed toward the Steering Committee and OMAB. Regardless of Committee perceptions about if and why their community outreach efforts were satisfactory or unsatisfactory, opponents of the OMAB nomination effort perceived community outreach efforts as grossly lacking, and even deceitful. Further, not only did they perceive themselves as being excluded from the process, but they also pointed to the exclusion of local governments and elected officials (local, regional, and national) from the planning process as well.
Opponents irritated about the OMAB nomination process aggressively analyzed and scrutinized the Steering Committee’s public outreach efforts and attributed subversive motivations to, speaking candidly, such lame and ineffective community outreach efforts. They believed state and federal agencies had ignored their rights and concerns. Moreover, they believed agency officials were dishonest and had betrayed them. A member of Take Back Arkansas raised the specter of suspicion in a letter to the editor in a local newspaper: "For the Ozark Highlands MAB program to be so benign and beneficial it has certainly been well hidden [from] public and official scrutiny for over seven years in Arkansas (Denham 1997:2)."
Most anti-OMAB activists were disillusioned by the type and extent of public outreach and angered by the idea that a group of agencies and organizations were implementing a program that would have, from their perspective, brought changes to the Ozarks and increased environmental regulations for property owners and land users.
Conclusions and Recommendations
During the OMAB nomination process, from inception in 1988 to withdrawal of support by most Committee members in 1996, Committee energy was focused primarily on trying to coordinate the nomination proposal among the participating agencies and organizations. Outreach tasks and obstacles, such as aggressively pursuing community participation and addressing anticipated concerns of local opposition, were not adequately addressed by the Committee. Efforts to engage local communities were not made until relatively late in the process, some taking place after the OMAB nomination was dropped when Ozark citizens became worried, began to ask questions, and started to publicly express their concerns. In short, the inclusion of Ozark communities in the OMAB effort was nominal in both quality and quantity.
In retrospect, Steering Committee members recognized a need to include the public in the OMAB nomination process. However, the OMAB nomination experience appears to have been fraught with ambiguities about if, how, and when this was to be accomplished. Where some Committee members saw efforts to include and inform the community as adequate, those in opposition to the OMAB perceived Committee efforts as grossly lacking and, in some cases, outright deceitful. These dramatic differences in the perceptions of community role, awareness, and involvement uncover core problems with the OMAB effort.
The MAB program seeks to incorporate the needs of humans and the needs of the environment into natural resource management. However, much work remains in defining what a MAB really means for local communities and individual property owners. Moreover, critical questions are raised about how much community involvement is necessary to have a successful MAB and, to complicate matters further, what constitutes community involvement and benefits.
US MAB and nominating committees must decide how to best achieve goals oriented toward inclusion of communities and realization of community benefits. MAB hopefuls should be realistic when estimating the amount and type of community participation required and when determining what kind of tangible benefits local citizens are likely to realize. Moreover, they should be clear in reporting such requirements and benefits to the community early in the nomination process so citizens can judge for themselves if a Biosphere Reserve will be beneficial to the community and local residents.
An important question US MAB and nominating committees should ask is what constitutes community involvement and benefit in the spirit of the MAB program? The US and UN MAB literature seems to emphasize the social, economic, and cultural dimensions of a MAB, as well as the biological and ecological. If this is so, one might expect more consideration given to community interests and wishes, along with greater efforts to create avenues of input for local residents throughout the nomination process, rather than waiting to include citizens after the designation has been awarded.
Inclusion of local communities and residents from the onset of the nomination process and continuing throughout the implementation of a successfully designated Biosphere Reserve would likely engender citizen ownership and commitment for the Biosphere Reserve and its objectives. Such inclusion would increase the opportunity for greater, meaningful citizen participation, while fostering an understanding among local residents about the goals and objectives of a Biosphere Reserve. In addition, because a Biosphere Reserve seeks to create such links between communities, managers, and the environment, the goals of a MAB are essentially only realized if such alliances are effectively secured. Finally, if committee members find that citizens are not receptive to the prospect of a Biosphere Reserve, they may save time and money by discovering this fact before the final stages of a nomination.
One of the most important lessons learned from the OMAB case study is that communities and citizens must be informed and, ideally, included in the nomination process from a point soon after its inception. While it is important for those seeking a nomination to be aware of and address all potential stakeholders, it is critical to detect and establish a public dialogue with those who are most likely to oppose the effort. The goal of this dialogue is to help anticipate and resolve conflict before it becomes a paralyzing factor.
As recommended in the previous chapter, all stakeholders should be identified, addressed and, hopefully, represented in all stages of the process(14). Given the Ozarks experience, however, it becomes extremely important to note that there may be varying opinions on who is and who is not a stakeholder. For example, as we will see in the next chapter, OMAB opponents believed that private landowners in the Ozarks were stakeholders. This assessment was based on their understanding of MABs and the proposed nomination.
The Steering Committee, on the other hand, may not have regarded such small landholders as an important stakeholder group because the OMAB was focused, in terms of core areas and buffer zones, only on government land holdings along with private lands voluntarily included in the program(15). The Committee may not have recognized a need to include certain private landowners or interests groups that were, from their perspective, likely to be unaffected by the proposed Biosphere Reserve. As a result, such groups were bypassed in community outreach efforts. Differences in perceptions of who was and was not a stakeholder in the Ozarks resulted in hard feelings, distrust, and other insurmountable obstacles in the homestretch of the nomination process.
To guard against exclusion of groups that should be addressed in the process it is critical that nominating committees quickly identify local groups and individuals who are likely to oppose the effort and then establish a public dialogue with them. Such communication could be established by direct contacts with interest group leaders and by giving presentations to potentially hostile groups. In the OMAB case, groups known to oppose natural resource programs, like Citizens for Private Property Rights and Take Back Arkansas in the Ozarks, should have been discovered and addressed. Efforts to engage opposition groups would, of course, have enabled OMAB proponents to address contentious issues directly with opponents in a forum where other citizens could listen and benefit from the discussion. At the very least, knowledge of and contact with citizens and groups that might support and oppose a nomination may help committee members decide if a MAB would be welcome and under what circumstances.
More general public outreach might have vastly improved the chance of a successful nomination. Although officials could not have easily alleviated the concerns or answered the accusations of hard core anti-OMAB activists, they could have tried to develop community support among the majority of citizens by reaching out to local communities early in the process. Given that most residents had no knowledge of MABs, addressing opponent concerns in a public venue would have informed citizens that may have otherwise been persuaded by opponent interpretations of what a MAB was and what it meant for the Ozarks. If a support base had developed along with the opposition, there may have been just as many calls to politicians in support of the Biosphere Reserve as in opposition to it. Citizens were not given a chance to support the program, but they were given many reasons and opportunities to reject it.
While it is impossible to say if more public outreach and inclusion would have ultimately paved the way for a successful nomination, we do believe such efforts would have paid off in terms of broadening community support by involving citizens likely to agree with such management efforts. Moreover, involving local communities and citizens would have been consistent with in the overall goals of a MAB. Regarding the core anti-OMAB activists, however, it is unlikely that inclusion would have made a significant difference in terms of efforts at compromise and cooperation.
Those Ozarkers who came out in opposition to the OMAB expressed ideas and beliefs rooted in the property rights movement. Over the past ten months, we have spent a good deal of time becoming familiar with the premises, rhetoric, claims, and positions of this movement. More than likely, nothing really could have been done to alleviate concerns of property rights activists ideologically immersed in opposition to public environmental programs. The conspiracy orientation of the movement leaves little room for efforts to explain or provide information to rectify misunderstandings or to alleviate concerns. Further, inviting them to the table as potential steering committee members would doubtless have proven fruitless as well, and this may have been more disruptive than helpful. Those in the movement are, mildly speaking, suspicious and distrustful of any government officials or organization representatives who are involved with or support environmental programs. The most radical appear to be against environmental protection efforts facilitated by any environmental organization or government agency.
One premise of the private property movement, from which some OMAB opposition was rooted, springs from a belief that most environmental problems are fictitious. Claims of environmental woes are merely Trojan horses constructed by those who wish to usurp private property and individual freedom. For environmental problems that do exist, environmental protection efforts should be left up to the discretion of individual property owners, and not the government. The anti-OMAB movement really had no agenda to negotiate with OMAB Steering Committee members; they had no desire to participate in the nomination effort. Instead, their mission was to block the OMAB nomination.
Although we believe that little headway could have been made in alleviating the concerns of core OMAB opponents’ in the Ozarks, we do believe extensive, immediate, and formal efforts should have been made to publicly address and respond to their claims and questions. Agency silence and the frantic distancing by some of the participating agencies and organizations served only to promote the opponents’ cause. Quite frankly, much of the response of the participating agencies could easily have been interpreted as evidence of guilt and wrongdoing. At least two agencies went so far as to deny participation in the OMAB effort, after they had clearly been involved to some extent.
Most of the agencies fielded phone calls from opponents and concerned citizens. Two agencies, Missouri Department of Conservation and Buffalo National River, published official statements in local newspapers. Only one agency, Buffalo National River, took initiative to publicly address opponent claims after the onset of the controversy. Unfortunately, such outreach was too little, too late.
It is clear from conversations with Steering Committee members and reading the Feasibility Study that the nominators believed early on that strong opposition would likely creep up in response to the OMAB effort. It also appears that the Committee was unsure how to best deal with this possibility, but chose to keep a low profile. The nature of the Feasibility Study methodology leads us to believe that they wanted to keep the MAB effort under wraps until the last possible moment, when it was ready to go to the US MAB nominating committee. Although this strategy helped avoid early public opposition to the program, the more critical mistake was that it also served to negate chances of developing allies in the general public as well. During the period of controversy, several citizen letters published in local newspapers tried to address and contradict opponent claims while advocating the OMAB effort. It is very likely that there were other citizens in the Ozarks that would have agreed with and, perhaps, actively supported the OMAB if they had known about it sooner or had been invited to have some role in the effort.
Those citizens who were scared and concerned about the program were likely so in part because they had no knowledge of the program or effort. All they had to base their ideas and conclusions on were the allegations, claims, and views of the very organized and vocal opponents. Some citizens may have been swayed by these arguments because the OMAB opponents were the only people who made information available and held frequent public meetings. In short, the opponents did what the OMAB Steering Committee should have been doing from the beginning, at least after the Feasibility Study.
OMAB opponents were doing extensive outreach, actively trying to educate and inform Ozark citizens with their version of the OMAB effort. Because the opponents were more aggressive and, yes, effective at community outreach, the OMAB committee was forced into a damage control, defensive stance. Failure to reach out to the general public early on left them defending a dead program before a silent, but watching, Ozark audience in the end.
There are several things that could be done in the future to ensure that communities are given the sufficient information and opportunity to make their own decision about the desirability of a MAB. One of the best ways to reach communities is by hosting free public meetings where committee members present the program along with their ideas for establishing a local MAB. At such events, local residents or groups could be given the opportunity to comment directly about the proposal or be encouraged to send written comments to the committee members or coordinator. Such public forums would enable citizens to meet proponents and hear first hand about a proposed nomination. Further, such public gatherings would enable committee members to directly address citizen concerns and questions, rather than sending interested citizens an untimely packet of complicated information.
In doing community outreach, a steering committee might consider a nomination Webpage that provides easily accessed and detailed information about the program, the nomination, and its implications for the region and communities. The use of the Internet proved effective in the Ozarks for opponents and could have been an effective tool for OMAB supporters. Such a resource could provide information to a large number of citizens quickly. More importantly, a Webpage would enable citizens to directly contact nomination supporters to get information and ask questions throughout the process.
Finally, a great way to inform and include local communities is through local media. Nominating committees can utilize local media to notify residents of meetings, keep them updated on the progress of the nomination, and to answer common questions posed through correspondence. Steering committees might consider establishment of guest columns in local papers and even publication of their own newsletter or status report to be distributed to interested citizens and groups or made available at local libraries and civic offices. Although local interest and participation in natural resource programs can be quite apathetic, the delicate nature of the MAB programs and its reputation in recent years suggest that all efforts to include, represent, and inform the public would be beneficial.
To contact authors direct correspondence to: Theresa L. Goedeke, Department of Rural Sociology, 5 Sociology Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, Telephone (573) 882-7264, E-Mail: c677194@showme.missouri.edu