This research was undertaken to understand the issues and events related to the failed effort to nominate the Ozarks region as a Man and the Biosphere Reserve. Our goals were to characterize the motives, arguments, and grievances of both proponents and opponents of the OMAB nomination and to discover what about the nomination process either contributed to or mitigated the conflict. Finally, based on the OMAB experience, we formulate recommendations for future MAB nominations.

About the OMAB Case Study

• Data were collected during May of 1997 through May of 1998; they were gathered via personal interviews, researcher observations, and document analysis.
• The OMAB nomination effort spanned nearly nine years, beginning in 1988 and ending amid public controversy in 1996.
• Public controversy erupted in late 1995, peaked in late 1996 through Winter 1997, and continued well into Spring of 1997. Much opponent activity occurred after the nomination process failed due to the withdrawal of support by agencies and organizations participating in the nomination.

The OMAB Steering Committee: Interest, Investment, and Choices

• The OMAB idea was externally rather than internally motivated. The initial idea to pursue a MAB in the Ozark Highlands came from US MAB sponsored meeting at Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky in 1988. After this meeting the nomination began to take shape, largely at the effort of one man.
• Agencies participating in the nomination effort were not interested in a MAB per se. Rather, they were interested in facilitating cooperative management among natural resource agencies and developing holistic management strategies. Some committee members said they participated because they thought it would enhance their ability to do their present jobs, while others indicated that their participation was essentially obligatory. As a result, agencies and representatives were not ideologically committed to the MAB concept and claimed no ownership over the nomination project. It was largely viewed as a National Park Service endeavor.
• The entire nomination process spanned from 1988 to 1996. The long duration of the nomination process led to problems associated with turnover of committee representatives and loss of a key leader. The nomination suffered from losses in organizational memory and experience as representatives withdrew or were reassigned from the OMAB project. The entire effort lulled when the first committee chairman, David Foster, de-intensified his role and then retired in 1995.
• Steering Committee members reported lack of agency resources to devote to the nomination process as a primary culprit in slowing down the process. Agencies and representatives had limited time and resources to devote to the nomination project.
• Given limitations on time and resources, as well as agency rivalry, steering committee participants had difficulty in working finer details of the nomination. Participants were uncomfortable with signing on to the agreement despite controversy.
• Once controversy erupted in the Ozarks, a majority of the participating agencies and organization withdrew their support of the nomination. Many cited the negative public sentiment as their reason for begging out of the project. The manner in which agencies dealt with the controversy differed. Some agencies attempted to address opponent claims, some tried to minimize or deny past involvement with the nomination, but most silently backed away from both the nomination and the controversy.
• Agencies experienced intense political pressure, particularly state agencies, to withdraw from the nomination effort. Arkansas agencies were explicitly ordered by Arkansas Governor Huckabee to refrain from further participation in the nomination. Congressional Representatives Jo Ann Emerson (MO) and Tim Hutchinson (AR) also demanded a halt to the already halted nomination.
• Before pursuing a nomination, it is important to make sure participating parties are "on board" ideologically and practically.
• One way to increase the efficiency of the nomination process and ensure that all issues are addressed is by adjusting the organizational structure of the nomination process. First, a facilitator might be included early in the process to aid a committee in identifying and addressing all stakeholders. Next, a nomination coordinator is necessary to ensure that all tasks are completed during the process, and in a timely manner. Further, a full-time coordinator would be able to ensure that the proper amount of community information and outreach are completed. Dividing the nominating committee into sub-committees is also desirable. This would ensure that all committee members participate and that all tasks are sufficiently addressed during the nomination process. Moreover, active participation will facilitate a sense of ownership, investment, and commitment among agencies and organizations involved in the process.
• Greater involvement from US MAB during the nomination process is recommended. US MAB has an interest in the success and reputation of US Biosphere Reserves. As a consequence, US MAB should participate during the nomination process. The implementation of formal nomination procedures and guidelines would enable US MAB to ensure that nominating committees have addressed all issues and components of the MAB program.

Community Role, Awareness, and Involvement

• Official literature from US MAB and UN MAB describe the program as inclusive of the human dimensions of natural resource conservation and management, specifically the cultural and economic dimensions. Communities should realize ‘tangible benefits’ from the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve. Moreover, a Biosphere Reserve should facilitate cooperative management among government, organizations, communities, and residents.
• Considerable ambiguity surrounds the community dimension of MABs in terms of the role citizens should play in the formation, designation, and implementation of a Biosphere Reserve. When and how should communities be asked to participate in the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve?
• Agencies participating in the nomination did not report involvement in the OMAB nomination as a means to increase opportunities to engage the public in participatory or collaborative efforts. They sought the designation to increase cooperative management opportunities among agencies, open new avenues for research funding opportunities, and to increase the exchange of scientific information.
• Benefits anticipated for Ozark communities tended to be indirect, ‘trickle-down’ benefits beginning with agency ability to more effectively manage natural resources. Such benefits were not readily visible to the public.
• The OMAB Steering Committee wanted to avoid difficulties arising from the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders early in the nomination process. Further, they anticipated local opposition to the nomination. As a result, they minimized the public’s role throughout the process and designed the feasibility research effort to circumvent the untimely rise of opposition.
• Steering Committee members reported that The Feasibility Study for an Ozark Man and the Biosphere Reserve was the primary avenue of community input during the nomination process. The community dimension findings were based on a sample of approximately 90 interviews with community leaders in the Ozarks region. The study proclaimed support for the Biosphere Reserve management concept, but strongly encouraged public outreach.
• OMAB opponents argued that the Feasibility Study was conducted in a manner so as to conceal the nomination from citizens, that the sample was not representative of all Ozark residents, and that interviewees were not actually interviewed.
• A second avenue for community inclusion and the sole source of information were a handful of talks given to select civic organizations and a conference held in Harrison, AR in 1993.
• Opponents criticized the outreach efforts of the Steering Committee in terms of public meetings arguing that not enough meetings were offered and that proper notification of the Harrison meeting was not given to the public.
• Some Committee members viewed public outreach efforts as adequate, while others were less satisfied. Opponents viewed the Committee’s outreach efforts as indicative of the Committee’s desire to exclude citizens and conceal the nomination effort.
• Efforts must be made to determine the role of local communities in MAB nominations, designations, and implementations. Communities should be included in the early stages of the nomination process in terms of participation and information.
• Nomination committees must be realistic when estimating the amount and type of community participation required, as well as the prospective benefits. Further, they should report both requirements and benefits to communities wherein a Biosphere Reserve is desired.
• Efforts must be made to seek out and engage all potential stakeholders, even those likely to oppose the nomination effort. A dialogue is critical so committees can anticipate and resolve conflict before it becomes a paralyzing factor in the process.
• General public outreach is critical to inform the public about MABs and the nomination effort, as well as to facilitate the growth of a support base within the community.

The Opposition: Who, How, and Why?

• OMAB proponents and bystanders believed that most protest activity came from a core group of local people, with sponsorship from organizations such as Missouri Farm Bureau and People for the West. The public at large was believed to be either apathetic to the effort and controversy, or supportive of the nomination. Our research indicates that most activism was concentrated among a few individuals, however, many citizens wrote letters and attended anti-OMAB meetings.
• The public controversy over the OMAB began sometime in early 1995, most probably in Missouri. Arkansas activists joined the protest in the Fall of 1996 and Winter of 1997, when the controversy seemed to peak in both states.
• There was no one anti-OMAB group or organization. Activism against the nomination was comprised of loosely networked individuals and organizations. Local activists enjoyed the support of organizations from outside of the Ozarks, namely the People for the West and Missouri Farm Bureau. However, many local folks were active opponents of the nomination. Several individuals took the lead in protest activities serving as speakers at anti-Biosphere Reserve meetings, writing letters to the editor, contacting officials and politicians, and intensively networking with other activists.
• The goals of opponents were to collect information and then inform local residents and politicians about the OMAB and MABs in general. Five central strategies were employed to accomplish this task:

  a) contacting Steering Committee and US MAB representatives;

  b) holding public and town meetings;

  c) writing letters to the editor;

  d) setting up information websites on the Internet;

  e) and contacting local, state, and federal politicians.

• Opponents effectively involved local residents. They encouraged citizens to seek out information and become involved in protest activities. Local opponents were convincing and successful in that they elicited concern among fellow residents. Their intensive outreach activities served to put Steering Committee members and US MAB officials on the defensive.
• There were some very extraordinary claims associated with the OMAB controversy including connections to a UN/environmental world conspiracy, military invasion of the Ozarks, forced evacuation of Ozark residents, and the destruction of community infrastructure to return areas to wilderness.
• In general, opponents claimed that the OMAB would have had far-reaching, negative implications for property owners and resources users in the Ozarks. Opponents feared that the Biosphere Reserve would bring increased regulation and laws for private property and natural resource use. Also, opponents feared eminent domain land seizures as a consequence of a Biosphere Reserve.
• Ozark citizens have a distinct individual and cultural identity linked to place. They believe themselves to be independent and more capable of managing natural resources on an individual basis without outside intervention. Place is also an important factor in terms of site history. Opponent fears of increased regulation and land seizures were rooted in the social and political history of the Ozarks. Opponents often cited historical eminent domain takings and past resource management efforts as proof of negative consequences of a Biosphere Reserve in the Ozarks. This was an ominous historical foundation for the OMAB nomination effort.
• Opponents relied on a variety of sources as evidence of the negative implications of a local MAB, as well as MABs place in the wider UN/environmental globalist conspiracy. They relied on national conspiracy experts, secondary documents such as Earth in the Balance by Al Gore, and primary sources such as UN and US MAB documents and publications. Opponents also relied on information contained in the OMAB Feasibility Study. This was likely a source of confusion for concerned citizens because both opponents and proponents often recommended the same sources of information to citizens trying to investigate the issue.
• Opponents often quoted sources out of context and in tandem with a variety of other source documents. They read between the lines for latent and hidden meanings contained in primary sources and made sweeping conclusions about the meaning of terms, phrases, and passages within those documents. Opponents saw links between MAB and other programs, projects, and publications because of shared scientific jargon. MAB was equated to the Wildlands Project because both use the concentric circle reserve design. Opponents consolidated all information regardless of what entity published it and where. No distinctions were made between programs, agencies, or policies. This made it very difficult for Steering Committee members to address opponent claims and concerns.
• US MAB and future nominating committees should note the insurmountable confusion and angst that scientific jargon and other terminology could lead to during a nomination effort. Efforts should be made to understand the vernacular usage of terms used. Further, it may be helpful for US MAB to include new or additional terms that better communicate the multidisciplinary goals of the program.
• Future nominating committees should take care to do extensive outreach and education regarding the MAB concept and the local nomination effort. Given the tactics of anti-MAB activists, effort must be made to explain the program early in the nomination process, in a manner that effectively communicates the goals of MAB and the local nomination effort. Personal attention to citizens concerns will ensure that they are given an opportunity to hear and understand proponent views of the MAB program, rather than relying on opponents for information.
• Efforts should be made to identify and understand any local or regional historical events that might impact contemporary efforts. Such knowledge can inform nominating committees on the need to distance contemporary efforts from this legacy and be suggestive of how new efforts should be organizationally structured. Also understanding the cultural and political history of an area will help committees to identify issues of local concern, as well as individuals and groups most likely to hold those concerns.

The OMAB Legacy

• The OMAB case study highlights the fact that citizens are demanding inclusion in the decision making process. They are no longer content to bend to the will of scientific experts and politicians. The question of who decides who decides about environmental policy is becoming important.
• In the Ozarks, OMAB opponents successfully recast the focus of public and political discourse over environmental issues from concerns for natural resources and sustainability, to concerns for individual rights and political process. Moreover, the perceived victory in the Ozarks has proven to those who disagree with institutional environmentalism that ordinary people can successfully dictate both state and federal environmental policy through grass-roots activism and organized political lobbying.
• Because of these developments in the social, political, and cultural contexts of natural resource management, increasing efforts must be made to understand and incorporate the human dimensions of natural resource management. This incorporation must be practical as well as theoretical. Communities and citizens must be given a voice to define their own place in the ecosystem.
• MAB nominating committees must explain the risks and benefits of a MAB clearly to the public and political leaders to avoid widespread confusion and, further, should provide meaningful opportunities for interested citizens to participate in the process. Providing opportunities to understand and participate in the formation and implementation of a MAB will foster a sense of community and citizen ownership over the program. Or, conversely, it will serve as an early indicator that citizens are not receptive to the program thereby saving time and resources in pursuing a program that will not enjoy public support.
• Future nominating committees will likely find themselves up against creative opponents. Therefore, efforts must be made to understand source and nature of opponent claims, no matter how fantastic. Committees must be proactive in soliciting public opinion throughout the process. This is necessary to ensure the timely notice of public concern and conflict, which will enable the committee to immediately address such issues.

Return to Table of Contents

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