The OMAB Legacy
Under pressure from citizens and politicians, the idea to establish an Ozarks Man and the Biosphere Reserve sank meekly into the Ozarks hills. Remembrances of the Biosphere Reserve controversy now add to the already rich history of social disagreements over environmental concerns in the region. As the conspiracy dust continues to settle, agencies and organizations that participated in the OMAB have returned their daily routines, though perhaps a little wiser. Proponents agree that nothing short of a grass-roots, community effort to resurrect the MAB idea would entice former participants to ever try again. Unfortunately, given the events and circumstances surrounding the failed nomination attempt, it would be unwise for any person to hold their breath while waiting for community action to rise out of the OMAB ashes.
On the upshot, one of the wonderful benefits of remembering the past is that it may improve our understanding of the present and, in turn, help guide us in our choices and actions as we move on to future endeavors. While this report comes too late to assist the OMAB Steering Committee, it may be timely enough to aid future committees interested in pursuing a MAB designation in the United States. In fact, any individual or group may find the wisdom born out of the Ozarks fire beneficial as they necessarily move, conceptually and practically, toward more socially and culturally accessible environmental management strategies. The goal of this chapter is to summarize the wider implications and consequences of the OMAB experience and, more importantly, to note the advantages such hindsight affords the future.
Throughout this report, we have described the events, circumstances, and situations that, in combination, made the OMAB experience what it was-a sometimes outrageous dispute over who makes what decisions about which resources. Arguments of this nature are familiar thorns to every seasoned natural resource manager. However, the Ozarks experience highlights a new dimension to an otherwise vintage predicament. Citizens are demanding inclusion in the decision making process. They demand the right to define social problems, as well as solutions. They are no longer content to bend to the will of scientists, academics, and politicians who purportedly act in the interest of all, even if such action is legitimate. In essence, the question is becoming one of who decides who decides.
In opposition to traditional voices of authority, Ozark activists have proven that disgruntled citizens are now willing to take to the arenas of influence to fight for the right to define social problems and, more importantly, dictate acceptable solutions. The Ozark activists successfully cast the MAB program as a threat to property rights and local control, thereby winning the support of fellow citizens and politicians. The social problem was no longer water quality or exotic species, but property rights and political process.
Another important outgrowth of the OMAB experience stems from the oppositions’ victory in the Ozarks and how they viewed the withdrawal of the nomination. This conquest left Ozark activists, and quite possibly anti-MAB activists beyond the region, empowered and champing at the bit, eager to take on any agency, law, individual, or organization that smacked of bureaucratic environmental protection. The OMAB experience has proven to those who disagree with post-1970s environmental values, assessments, and policy that they can re-define issues forged from decades of institutional environmentalism. They can again change the rules of the environmental game and in so doing successfully dictate both state and federal environmental policy.
Although the OMAB ultimately failed, this phenomenon of citizen activism against environmental programs need not become an insurmountable impediment to natural resource managers and environmental programs. It is not an obstacle, but an opportunity to progress toward more socially defined and culturally compatible natural resource and wildlife management efforts. The legacy of the OMAB nomination attempt is that people matter now more than ever and, if programs are to be successful, they must be included in practice as well as in theory.
Natural resource managers implementing a Biosphere Reserve are not just taking managerial steps toward protecting a river or an endangered species because science has dictated they do so. It is not so simple. Resource managers are looking for solutions to problems born out of and encapsulated within human society and culture. They are trying to address problems that are politically, socially, and culturally defined—even if problem definitions are hidden behind the many masks of the so-called hard sciences. Solutions to environmental problems, therefore, must reflect those human dimensions. More importantly, incorporation of those human dimensions must be practical and not just theoretical. In other words, communities and citizens must be given a voice to define their own place in the ecosystem. Resource management should not be the province of scientists, managers, and politicians alone.
Efforts must be made to discover, understand, respect, and incorporate social factors pertinent to natural resource management endeavors. On this count OMAB remembrances offer sound guidance. Admittedly, the MAB program in theory attempts to address the human dimensions of natural resource management and environmental protection. Given the latitude nominating committees have in proposing, designing, and implementing a MAB, however, it appears that some aspects of the human dimension still get lost in the quest to address the scientific and bureaucratic considerations. If no other lesson is learned from the OMAB nomination effort, this lesson must be heeded. If citizens and communities are to benefit from a MAB and if a MAB is to benefit natural resources, citizens and communities must be a part of the program from beginning to end.
To get off to a good start, a nominating committee must know what important human issues are relevant to the area under consideration. A wildlife manager would never set a harvest limit on a population of organisms without first understanding all there is to know about the species’ biology, life history, and environment. Doing so might jeopardize the population or, conversely, the habitat. Either way the result is undesirable and is avoidable if the manager takes the time to familiarize her or himself with the species and its biological and ecological characteristics. The concept is similar when implementing a MAB, or any environmental program for that matter. Research on the social and cultural characteristics of community and its citizens will go a long way. However, gathering information is not enough. Knowledge of communities and citizens must be understood and incorporated into any decision to pursue a MAB nomination.
Understanding the political, social, and cultural history and characteristics of a region would greatly improve the chances of successfully establishing a MAB. If US MAB or the OMAB nominating committee had known of and appreciated the intense anti-government, anti-UN, and anti-environmental program sentiments in the Ozarks region, perhaps the nomination would have succeeded in spite of controversy. Or perhaps the nomination would have been abandoned long before 1996. Without pondering hypothetical outcomes, the fact remains that the Ozarks was chosen as a potential MAB site because of its unique ecological and geographical features, not for its cultural, economic, and social features. It is quite possible that if all the social and cultural features were identified and understood, the Ozarks would not have been so attractive to US MAB and agency officials looking for possible MAB locations.
The failure to appreciate the social and cultural features of the region led to the almost complete exclusion of anyone who was not scientifically or environmentally oriented throughout the nomination process. While lip service was paid to social and cultural issues in the Feasibility Study, these dimensions were mistakenly marginalized in the process and planning of the OMAB. And, though the OMAB nomination was paved with good intentions toward citizens and communities such a track record did not bode well for the real prospect of their eventual inclusion after the implementation of the MAB.
Once the historical social, cultural, and ecological legwork is done, questions of how to pursue a nomination become pertinent. Of course the nomination process for each MAB will vary due to, among other things, differences in locale, participants, and goals. However, the OMAB experience indicates that a MAB nomination may not be an easy sell with some Americans. Therefore, it becomes critical for MAB hopefuls to take extra care in courting and nurturing public and political support.
An analysis of the cultural and social features of a region should illuminate the various interests, opinions, and motivations of local communities. Knowledge of such important regional features will guide MAB hopefuls in assessing where, when, and with whom public outreach and inclusion should begin. Committees should strive to be as inclusive as possible in terms of informing and building support within the community. While it may be impractical to invite all stakeholders to sit on a steering committee, it is certainly possible to offer information and open avenues for public comment. Efforts to be inclusive throughout the process will pay off in terms of building local understanding and, hopefully, support for the nomination.
It is important that citizens have an opportunity to develop a sense of ownership over the program. At the very least, it is necessary that a nominating committee avoid a process that may be perceived by citizens as exclusive or, worse, secretive. It is not surprising that citizens in the Ozarks were suspicious of an effort that they had never heard about. The greater proportion of the population had never heard of the program and, more than likely, were somewhat surprised to learn that a nomination had been in the works for several years. They never had the opportunity to learn about and participate in the formulation of the program.
Citizens should understand what the MAB program is all about and what it will and will not do for them. It is a reasonable expectation that committees let communities and residents know what a MAB is and is not before the nomination is awarded. Moreover, it is critical for committees to spell out what the establishment of a MAB could mean for the region. Communicating with communities and citizens will give them the opportunity to decide for themselves if a MAB is desirable, benign, or odious. For example, if there is a possibility that a MAB designation may induce agencies or politicians to seek more environmental protection regulations for the area in the future, indicate this to citizens. Likewise, if there is no possibility that a MAB designation will result in the invasion of the United States by foreign military troops let the people know. Communication is critical.
Undeniably, future MAB hopefuls will find themselves up against some very creative and extraordinarily resourceful opponents. In our experience with the hard core conspiracy theorists, compromise is often not possible because rudimentary communication barriers exist. Those campaigning against the UN/environmental conspiracy often work outside the bounds of mundane logic and reasoning. Academics, scientists, and managers, on the other hand, find mundane logic and reasoning complicated enough without muddying the waters with conspiracy. Politicians, apparently, are opportunists and can easily go both ways. At any rate, the Ozarks teaches us that ignoring the outrageous and extraordinary opposition is not advisable. A concerted effort must be made to understand and address all claims and concerns, not just the thinkable ones.
The most effective way to alleviate such outrageous claims as a MAB leading to the complete exclusion of humans and the ultimate ‘re-wilding’ of the United States, is to answer such accusations promptly and clearly. Avoiding vague, confusing, or deceptive explanations is absolutely necessary. For example, if a citizen asks how the UN is involved, it should be explained to them carefully and thoroughly. Although the individual may be bored with the realities of MAB organizational structure, they will most likely appreciate the time taken to share the information. However, committee members should not wait until citizens come to them for information and clarification on the program or nomination. If they wait, opponents may well fill their shoes and answer citizen questions in ways not flattering to the program or nomination.
Instead, MAB hopefuls should stay in touch with the public, politicians, and stakeholders throughout the process. Being proactive in monitoring criticism and support for the program will pay off if adversity should arise. Proponents should solicit opinions, particularly if there is reason to suspect the public will not support the nomination or the program. By doing this, a nominating committee can more readily address citizen concerns and evaluate the nomination process. When word of community confusion and concern reaches committee members, proponents should be proactive and immediately engage the public in addressing accusations and concerns.
Finally, if MAB hopefuls find that some citizens in their region are against the MAB as a consequence of understandings gained through conspiracy sources, they should take pains to become familiar with the arguments and objections. Understanding the UN/environmental conspiracy belief system would enable MAB proponents to more effectively address specific concerns born from it. Attending a local property rights seminar or conference may be helpful, in addition to reading literature produced by renowned conspiracy experts. If this belief system is part of the community wherein the Biosphere Reserve is proposed, then it must be acknowledged, understood, and confronted.
It is very possible that the MAB Program will never escape the cloak and dagger reputation attributed to it by those who continue to fear the ghost of communism or the threat of an ecological, one-world order. The anti-UN/environmental rhetoric has worked far too well for anti-MAB activists to suspect they will change their strategy and attack the program on more mundane plan planks. Therefore, US MAB and future nominating committees, as well as those associated with existing MABs, must learn to deal with such opposition. To accomplish this, the process of seeking a MAB nomination and implementing a Biosphere Reserve may be adapted to better integrate the human dimension of Biosphere Reserves. If controversy should arise, how a steering committee chooses to address and accommodate such opposition is material.
There is a difference between short term and long term solutions to community conflict over natural resource programs. While it may be possible to sneak in a MAB without communities or residents’ full awareness and understanding of the designation, the fact remains that such a MAB may never achieve the admirable goals that embody the program. If the spirit of the program is to be satisfactorily incorporated into US Biosphere Reserves, the human dimension must be weighted as a component at least as important as environmental components. If it is not, MAB designations in the United States will be no more than dusty plaques mounted on the crowded walls of some government offices.
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