Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas; Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Mi experiencia al asistir a la conferencia “Who Owns America? II” [¿A quién pertenecen los Estados Unidos?] celebrada en Madison, Wisconsin en junio pasado fue como contemplar un panorama formado por ideas acerca de la tierra y la gente. Desde mi punto de vista, este panorama tenía cuatro características dominantes:

• la expansión de los derechos de propiedad;
• el desafío de la dicotomía de lo privado/lo público;
• la creciente complejidad del mundo físico, que constituye el ‘objeto’ de los derechos de propiedad;
• y el enfoque narrativo como herramienta metodológica para lograr una mayor comprensión de la propiedad como una relación social.

La característica más sobresaliente del pensamiento jurídico estadounidense con respecto a la tierra es la gran importancia de los derechos de propiedad. La tradición jurídica de América Latina, según la doctrina de la función social de la propiedad planteada por el jurista francés Leon Duguit, tiende a considerar los derechos de propiedad como una materia a ser limitada por el gobierno y las leyes a fin de satisfacer las necesidades sociales. Por lo tanto, para mí fue un choque cultural descubrir la popularidad de la teoría de Charles Reich sobre la propiedad, en la que se promueven las ideas igualitarias mediante la defensa de los derechos de propiedad individuales.

En la conferencia se plantearon numerosas maneras distintas de ampliar la noción de propiedad para dar cabida a nuevas demandas sociales. Un ejemplo de ello fue el planteamiento de Eric Freyfogle de que la propiedad debiera tener un lugar privilegiado en la sociedad. Por supuesto, no hace falta que una idea sea aceptada por unanimidad en el razonamiento jurídico estadounidense para que pase a ser un aspecto importante del panorama actual de ideas sobre la propiedad.

La segunda característica se refiere a la distinción entre lo público y lo privado –una distinción que resulta esencial para las sociedades modernas y que suele darse por descontada–. Estamos acostumbrados a reconocer la coexistencia de dos formas separadas de control social sobre la misma extensión de tierra: el del propietario privado y el de las entidades gubernamentales públicas. Sin embargo, debemos recordar que esta separación no es eterna ni universal; es producto de la historia.

Los estudios urbanos han demostrado repetidas veces que las regulaciones de la tierra afectan constantemente las relaciones entre el control privado y el público. Los poderes de planificación y los derechos de propiedad han venido reduciéndose y ampliándose desde los inicios de la gestión urbana moderna, y ese proceso ahora se presenta como normal. Un desafío más marcado para la separación de las categorías pública y privada fue planteado en la conferencia por los reclamos que hacen las poblaciones indígenas sobre sus territorios en los Estados Unidos.

Tales reclamos se refieren a una tercera forma, aún sin codificar del todo, de control sobre la tierra. En general, los pueblos indígenas no buscan controlar los gobiernos locales, es decir, gobernar un territorio por medios convencionales. Igualmente rechazan ser tratados meramente como corporaciones que poseen tierras. Hablan de derechos de índole distinta, con elementos antiguos y nuevos, y lo hacen cuestionando una serie de tratados entre el pueblo y el estado. Un tratado es la forma usual que toma la relación jurídica entre una nación-estado y una fuerza externa. Al parecer los tratados pasados debían ‘resolver’ el problema territorial. Hoy en día esos tratados están siendo cuestionados tanto en términos de la dicotomía de lo público/lo privado como por la formación de una nación-estado que no se concretó.

Asimismo debemos reconocer que el razonamiento jurídico clásico no cuenta con los mecanismos para darle sentido a estos desarrollos, puesto que son los fundamentos mismos de ese razonamiento lo que está en tela de juicio. Es obvio que estas inquietudes también se presentan en Canadá y México, aunque con formas y resultados diferentes. Los estudiosos y profesionales de la teoría jurídica, y especialmente de la teoría constitucional, de estos tres países norteamericanos pueden aprender mucho unos de otros en este proceso.

No debería sorprendernos que surjan nuevas formas de control territorial cuando ha habido tantos cambios en la tierra misma. Se han escrito miles de libros acerca de la transformación de la tierra, sobre todo desde el punto de vista que ahora llamamos perspectiva ambiental. La tierra como ‘objeto’ de las relaciones de la propiedad se ha convertido en un asunto bastante complejo y esa complejidad es la tercera característica que encuentro en este panorama de ideas. Los territorios han pasado a ser un concepto difícil de entender y tal vez el fenómeno más significativo es la disolución de la distinción entre lo urbano y lo rural. No tenemos ciudades en el sentido tradicional de la palabra, sino un conjunto de procesos urbanísticos.

Los mensajeros del ciberespacio nos dicen que las distancias se acortan gracias a las nuevas tecnologías; el espacio y la distancia han perdido relevancia. La verdad es que el cambio tecnológico, aunado al cambio demográfico y social, solamente ha hecho la tierra más compleja. Esto queda claro cuando vemos, como lo demostraron las ponencias presentadas en la conferencia, las numerosísimas disciplinas que describen, analizan y hasta alaban con cantos la tierra. No existe disciplina alguna que pueda englobar la tierra en una única forma de discurso.

Tal vez la más interesante de las nuevas maneras de ver la tierra sea el enfoque narrativo, la cuarta característica en nuestro panorama. El relato de historias acerca de la tierra aclara las relaciones de la propiedad mucho mejor de lo que lo hacen tantos otros métodos empíricos porque nos permite reconocer los aspectos subjetivos sin alejarnos demasiado de las ciencias sociales empíricas. En comparación con la rigidez de los enfoques jurídicos y económicos, los relatos personales nos transmiten la fluidez de la propiedad como una relación social, los cambios que suceden en esa relación como resultado de muchas interacciones y los diferentes significados que puede adquirir una parcela de tierra o un vecindario para sus moradores, habitantes nuevos, visitantes y demás.

Reconocer la riqueza e intensidad de las historias de la gente y contrastar esta riqueza con la rigidez de las categorías jurídicas no implica abandonar estas últimas. Tan es así que este enfoque más subjetivo puede constituir una nueva forma de tomar la ley con seriedad. Apenas si existe un discurso social sobre la tierra, ni siquiera en la modalidad más vernácula, que no tenga una connotación normativa. Cuando alguien dice ‘esta tierra me pertenece (me pertenecía o debiera pertenecerme)’, está haciendo un reclamo legal. Las categorías jurídicas son importantes fuera de los círculos profesionales de los abogados, jueces y agentes inmobiliarios porque son parte de las historias personales; más aún, su función es darle significado a las experiencias de la gente.

Cuando las categorías jurídicas no logran abarcar las representaciones normativas que hace un pueblo de la tierra, la ley pierde su significado. Si el razonamiento jurídico tradicional define la propiedad como un cúmulo de derechos, el enfoque narrativo puede enseñarnos a ver la propiedad como cúmulos de representaciones que permitirían ayudar a la gente a darle significado a su relación con la tierra. Quizás es esta la mayor lección que he aprendido de la conferencia “Who owns America?”: usar muchos lentes para observar el panorama y explorar las ideas comparativas acerca del carácter individual y comunitario de la propiedad, de los asentamientos informales y de los marcos jurídicos en todos los Estados Unidos.

Antonio Azuela es el Procurador Federal de Protección al Ambiente del gobierno de México. Es egresado de la Universidad Iberoamericana (Ciudad de México) y la Escuela de Leyes de la Universidad de Warwick (Inglaterra) y se ha desempeñado como asesor jurídico de varios gobiernos estatales y dependencias del gobierno federal en materia de legislación de la planificación urbana. El Dr. Azuela es autor del libro La ciudad, la propiedad y el derecho (El Colegio de México, 1989) y muchas otras publicaciones sobre legislación urbana y ambiental desde una perspectiva sociológica.

My experience in attending the “Who Owns America? II” conference in Madison, Wisconsin, last June was like contemplating a landscape of ideas about land and people. From my perspective, this landscape had four salient features:

• the expansion of property rights;
• the challenge of the private/public dichotomy;
• the growing complexity of the physical world, which constitutes the ‘object’ of property rights;
• and the narrative approach as a methodological tool for better understanding property as a social relationship.

The most noticeable feature in U.S. legal thinking about land is the great importance of property rights. Latin American legal tradition, following French jurist Leon Duguit’s doctrine of the social function of property, tends to see property rights as something to be limited by government and law in order to meet social needs. So, it was a cultural shock for me to discover the popularity of Charles Reich’s theory about property, where egalitarian ideas are advanced by means of asserting individual property rights.

At the conference, one could see many different ways in which the notion of property rights was expanded to accommodate new social demands. Eric Freyfogle’s contention that property should have an honored place in society is one example. Of course, an idea does not have to be accepted unanimously in American legal thinking for it to be an important aspect of today’s landscape of ideas about property.

The second feature refers to the distinction between public and private-a distinction that is so essential to modern societies that it is usually taken for granted. We are used to recognizing the coexistence of two separate forms of social control over the same piece of land: that of private landowners and that of public government organizations. However, one has to remember that this separation is not eternal or universal; it is a historical product.

Urban studies have long shown that land use regulations constantly affect the relationships between public and private control. Planning powers and development rights have been shrinking and expanding since the inception of modern urban management, and that process is now seen as normal. A more profound challenge to the separation of public and private categories was raised at the conference by indigenous peoples’ claims to their territories in the United States.

Those claims refer to a third, not yet fully codified, form of social control over land. In general, indigenous peoples do not aim at controlling local governments, i.e. governing a territory through conventional means. They also reject being treated simply as private corporations who own land. They talk about rights of a different nature, with old and new elements, and they do so by challenging a series of treaties between the people and the state. A treaty is the typical form of legal relationship between a nation-state and an external force. Apparently, past treaties were supposed to ‘settle’ the territorial question. But those treaties are now being questioned both in terms of the public/private dichotomy and because the formation of a nation-state was not completed.

We must also recognize that classical legal thinking does not have the tools to give meaning to these developments, because it is the very foundation of that thinking that is being shaken. Clearly, these concerns are also being raised in Canada and Mexico, although under different forms and with different outcomes. Scholars and practitioners in legal theory, and particularly constitutional theory, in all three countries of North America can learn a lot from each other in this process.

We should not be surprised to see new forms of territorial control when there have been so many changes in the land itself. Thousands of books have been written about the transformation of the land, mainly from what we now call an environmental perspective. Land as the ‘object’ of property relations has become extremely complex, and this complexity is the third feature I see in this landscape of ideas. Territories have become very difficult to understand, and perhaps the most relevant development is the blurring of the urban/rural distinction. We do not have cities in the traditional sense of the word; what we have is a set of urbanization processes.

The heralds of cyberspace tell us that as distances are shortened through new technologies, space and distance have become irrelevant. The truth is that technological change, combined with demographic and social change, has only made land more complex. This is clear when we see, as in the papers presented at the conference, the great number of disciplines that describe, analyze and even sing about land. There is not a single discipline that can embrace land into one form of discourse.

Maybe the most interesting new way of looking at land is the narrative approach, the fourth feature in our landscape. Listening to stories about land throws more light on property relationships than many other empirical methods because it allows us to recognize the subjective aspects without getting too far from empirical social sciences. Compared to the rigidity of legal and economic approaches, personal accounts give us the fluidity of property as a social relationship, the changes that occur in that relationship as a result of many interactions, and the different meanings that a piece of land or a neighborhood can have for its dwellers, new settlers, visitors or others.

Recognizing the richness and vividness of people’s stories and contrasting this richness against the rigidity of legal categories does not require neglecting those categories. Indeed, this more subjective approach can be another way of taking the law seriously. There is hardly any social discourse about land, even in its most vernacular form, which does not have a normative connotation. When someone says ‘this land is (was or should be) mine,’ he or she is making a legal claim. Legal categories are important outside the professional circles of lawyers, judges and realtors precisely because they are part of people’s stories; moreover, their function is to give meaning to people’s experiences.

When legal categories are not able to embrace a people’s normative representations about land, the law has lost its meaning. If traditional legal thinking defines property as a bundle of rights, the narrative approach can teach us to see property rights as bundles of representations that can be used to help people give meaning to their relationship to the land. Maybe this is the main lesson I have learned from “Who Owns America?”: to use many lenses to look at the landscape and to explore comparative ideas about individual and community ownership, informal settlements and legal systems throughout North America.

Antonio Azuela is the Attorney General for Environmental Protection in the federal government of Mexico. A graduate of Universidad Iberoamericana (Mexico City) and the School of Law, University of Warwick (England), he has been the legal advisor to several state governments and federal government agencies on planning law. Mr. Azuela is author of La Ciudad la Propiedad. Privada y el Derecho-The City: Private Property and the Law (El Colegio de Mexico, 1989) and numerous other publications on urban and environmental law from a sociological perspective.

Editor’s Note: The “Who Owns America? II” conference in June 1998 was cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute and the North American Program of the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The University of Wisconsin Press has recently published Who Owns America? Social Conflict over Property Rights, edited by Harvey M. Jacobs, and based on the first conference in 1995. Contact: www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 1 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

En el marco de una reestructuración económica, la privatización y la globalización, el problema de las tierras urbanas y los conflictos sobre su uso representan una prioridad fundamental para El Salvador. Son muchos los factores que contribuyen al estado crítico de la administración de la tierra en el país:

• Lo pequeñez del tamaño geográfico del país y su extenso y creciente número de habitantes.
• La extraordinaria concentración de la propiedad de tierras rurales en pocas manos. Esta tendencia histórica ha sido la causa de un levantamiento campesino (1932), una guerra civil (1981-1992) y dos reformas agrarias de importancia (1980 y 1992), la última llevó a la realización del Programa de Transferencia de Tierras supervisado por las Naciones Unidas.
• Un sistema fiscal y legal débil que ha favorecido los desalojos y la generación de numerosos conflictos. Por ejemplo, los impuestos sobre la tierra no existen.
• Un proceso serio de degradación del medio ambiente que presenta condiciones fuertes y restricciones al funcionamiento de los mercados inmobiliarios.
• Un proceso acentuado de migración interna que ha hecho que un tercio de la población se concentre en la región metropolitana de El Salvador.
• La gran cantidad de inmigrantes salvadoreños en los Estados Unidos, quienes transfieren un importante recurso de capital a su país de origen. Esta influencia de dinero en efectivo a través de transacciones informales ha acelerado el auge del mercado inmobiliario.

El Instituto Lincoln trabaja junto con el Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA) para lograr la presentación de una serie de seminarios para funcionarios de alto nivel en el gobierno nacional y municipal, así como agentes de la industria de desarrollo privada y representantes de organizaciones no gubernamentales. Los dos grupos patrocinaron un curso sobre el funcionamiento de los mercados de tierra urbanos durante la primavera pasada, y durante este otoño proseguirán con un curso sobre “Los instrumentos de regulación para el uso de las tierras urbanas”.

Este programa se enfoca en la necesidad urgente de crear instrumentos económicos y de regulación para promover la administración estratégica de las tierras urbanas, para contribuir con el proceso de democratización en curso y apoyar el desarrollo sustentable. El curso es particularmente oportuno porque El Salvador está en el proceso de establecer un ministerio del ambiente y redactar una legislación para encargarse de problemas de organización territorial.

Mario Lugo Ucles es investigador afiliado de PRISMA (Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación y Medio Ambiente) en El Salvador.

Within the framework of economic restructuring, privatization and globalization, the issue of urban land and conflicts over its use is a top priority for El Salvador. Numerous factors contribute to the critical status of land management in the country:

• The small geographical size of the country and its large and growing number of inhabitants.
• The extraordinary concentration of rural land ownership in a few hands. This historical trend has been the source of a peasant uprising (1932), a civil war (1981-1992) and two important agricultural reforms (1980 and 1992), the latter leading to the Program for Transfer of Land supervised by the United Nations for ex-combatants and those affected by the civil war.
• A weak legal and fiscal system that has favored eviction and the generation of numerous conflicts; for example, a land tax does not exist.
• A serious process of degradation of the environment that introduces strong conditions and restrictions to the functioning of the land markets.
• An accentuated process of internal migration that has concentrated a third of the population in the metropolitan region of El Salvador.
• The large number of El Salvadoran migrants in the United States who transfer a major source of capital to their native country. This influx of cash through largely informal transactions has accelerated a booming property market.

The Lincoln Institute is working with the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research (PRISMA) to present a series of seminars for high-level municipal and national government officials, private development agents and representatives of non-governmental organizations. Last spring the two groups cosponsored a course on the functioning of the urban land markets and this fall will follow up with a course on “Regulatory Instruments for the Use of Urban Land.”

This program addresses the urgent need to create economic and regulatory instruments to promote strategic urban land management, contribute to the ongoing process of democratization and support sustainable development. The course is particularly timely because El Salvador is in the process of establishing a Ministry of the Environment and drafting legislation to address issues of territorial organization.

Mario Lungo Ucles is a researcher affiliated with PRISMA, the Salvadoran Program for Development and Environmental Research, in San Salvador.

As sprawling, low-density development patterns consume thousands of acres of natural habitat, the force of urban growth is increasingly bumping up against the need to protect biodiversity. The fastest growing states and regions in the South and West are also those with high numbers of endemic species, and species endangered or threatened with extinction.

One tool that has emerged for reconciling species-development conflicts is the habitat conservation plan (HCP). Authorized under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), HCPs allow for limited “take” of listed species in exchange for certain measures to protect and restore habitat. These plans vary in their geographical scope from a single parcel or landowner to large areas involving many landowners and multiple governmental jurisdictions.

The HCP mechanism grew out of a controversy over development plans on San Bruno Mountain in the Bay Area of California that threatened several species of butterflies, including the federally listed mission blue. A collaborative planning process generated a biological study of the butterflies’ habitat needs and a conservation plan that allowed some development in designated nodes while setting aside about 87 percent of the butterfly habitat as permanent open space. The HCP also included a funding component, procedures for carefully monitoring development and minimizing its impact, and a long-term program of habitat restoration.

The positive experience of San Bruno led to a 1982 amendment to the ESA specifically allowing HCPs. Since then, their use has grown slowly but steadily. About 40 plans have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and another 150 are in progress, most of them initiated in the last five years.

The Typical HCP Process

Regional habitat conservation plans usually follow a similar process. They start with the formation of a steering committee with representation from the environmental community, landowners and developers, local governments, and state and federal resource management agencies, among others. Frequently, consultants are hired to prepare background biological and land use studies as well as the actual plan and accompanying environmental documentation. The content of these plans can vary substantially depending on the species and potential threats at issue, but most create habitat preserves through fee-simple acquisition or land dedication. Plans also include provisions for habitat management, ecological restoration, and research and monitoring. Much of the deliberation in preparing a plan centers on how much habitat must be preserved, the boundaries and configuration of proposed preserves, how funds will be generated to finance the plan, and which entities or organizations will have management responsibility for the protected habitat once secured.

While the HCP process has encountered problems, the experience to date suggests it can be a viable and constructive mechanism for resolving species-development conflicts. For the development community, the stick of ESA brings them to the table and keeps them there, realizing that without a strong plan any development might be jeopardized. For the environmental community, the plan represents a way to generate funds to acquire habitat that would be difficult to raise otherwise. The HCP process, thus, provides a useful pressure valve under the ESA–a tool to provide flexibility in what is frequently criticized as being an overly rigid and inflexible law.

Successes and Concerns

From the perspective of preserving biodiversity, the plans, even those not officially adopted or approved, have lead to the acquisition of important habitat. The Coachella Valley HCP in California sets aside three preserves totaling nearly 17,000 acres of desert habitat to protect the fringe-toed lizard. Other plans preserve biologically rich hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys, desert tortoise habitat in Nevada, and forested habitat for the northern spotted owl in California. The ambitious Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan in Austin, Texas, would protect more than 75,000 acres of land, including a newly created 46,000 acre national wildlife refuge. Though this plan has encountered political and financial obstacles, more than 20,000 acres have already been secured.

One of the key concerns about HCPs is the effectiveness of their conservation strategies, especially whether the amount of habitat set aside is sufficient to ensure the survival of threatened species. The long-term ecological viability of preserves is another problem, because many will become mere “postage stamps” surrounded by development. These concerns suggest that more habitat should be protected, that preserves should be configured in larger, regional blocks, and that plans should seek to protect multiple rather than single species within broad ecosystem functions. The Balcones example suggests a positive direction for future HCPs in its emphasis on a regional, multi-species approach, including endangered migratory songbirds, cave-adapted invertebrates and plant species.

Another criticism of HCPs is that they have failed to change the ways we allow development to occur because they generally accept the current pattern of low-density sprawl and wasteful land consumption. In addition, it often takes four or five years before a plan can be prepared and approved. Even given that seemingly long timeframe, plans are often based on limited biological knowledge.

One of the most difficult issues in the HCP process is funding. Habitat acquisition in fast-urbanizing areas is extremely expensive. The Coachella Valley plan cost $25 million; the Balcones plan could cost more than $200 million. Most plans are funded through a combination of federal, state and local funds, with some private funding. At the local level the plans usually impose a mitigation fee assessed on new development in habitat areas ranging from a few hundred dollars per acre to the $1950 per acre in the case of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP in Southern California.

Ideas for future funding sources include the creation of habitat acquisition revolving funds (similar to state revolving funds for financing local sewage treatment plant construction) and the use of special taxing districts designed to capture land value increases of property located adjacent to habitat preserves. Greater reliance needs to be placed on less expensive alternatives than fee-simple acquisition, such as transfers of development rights, tradable conservation credits, mandatory clustering and other development controls.

The Future of HCPs

The considerable progress in habitat conservation made through this mechanism to balance development and conservation could be halted if current proposals in Congress to substantially weaken ESA prevail. Clearly it is the “teeth” of ESA that gets opposing parties to the bargaining table. Without a strong ESA, there will be little reason to expect this form of collaborative habitat conservation to occur.

The experience to date suggests that flexibility does exist under current law, and that the problems encountered with HCPs do require some fine tuning. The challenge is to make the HCP process an even more effective tool for conserving biodiversity. At the same time, if habitat conservation is incorporated into local comprehensive plans, then new development can be steered away from important habitat areas and public investment decisions can minimize potential species-development conflicts.

Timothy Beatley is chair of the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning in the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia and the author of Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth, University of Texas Press, 1994. He spoke at the Institute’s May 1995 meeting of the Land Conservation in New England Study Group.

Additional information in printed newletter:
Map: Balcones Canyonlands, Austin, Texas. Source: Adapted from maps by Butler/EH&A Team, City of Austin Environmental and Conservation Services, Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan, Preapplication Draft, Austin, 1992

Lawrence Susskind is the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and president of the Consensus Building Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He graduated from Columbia University and received his Masters of City Planning and his Ph.D. in Urban Planning from MIT. As current head of the Environmental Policy Group in MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning, he teaches courses on international environmental treaty negotiation, public sector dispute resolution and environmental planning. He also holds a joint appointment at Harvard University as visiting professor of Law and director of the Public Disputes Program at the interuniversity Program on Negotiation, which he helped to found. Susskind has published many books and reports and held many visiting appointments and guest lectureships. He is a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute.

Land Lines: How did you become interested in land use mediation?

Lawrence Susskind: Land use planners are supposed to ensure that the public is involved in all growth management decisions. Yet, most efforts to ensure such public participation lead to protracted political battles. Within the planning profession it is not clear how competing conceptions of appropriate land uses ought to be reconciled. Since the early 1970s I have been trying to introduce the concept of mediation as well as other conflict management tools into the lexicon of professional planners. In my view, in the absence of consensus building strategies of some kind, most communities are doomed to use resources inefficiently, unfairly and unwisely. I got interested in land use mediation as a way of helping the planning profession do a better job.

LL: What types of land use disputes are most difficult to resolve?

LS: Land use disputes that revolve around values or identity are the most difficult to resolve. When values (as opposed to economic interests) are at stake, people often feel that their identity is threatened and in such situations they are rarely open to considering the views of others. For example, proposed changes in land use that would eliminate agriculture as a way of life are not likely to be accepted, even if financial compensation is offered to the landowners involved.

LL: When did you start collaborating with the Lincoln Institute?

LS: My ties to the Lincoln Institute go back a long time. When Arlo Woolery was executive director in the late 1970s, we worked together on a multiyear effort to analyze the impacts of the Property Tax Limitation Law (Proposition 2 1/2) in Massachusetts and on the state’s Growth Policy Development Act. Two decades later, in 1997, I began working with Rosalind Greenstein and later Armando Carbonell, co-chairs of the Institute’s Department of Planning and Development, on a series of research projects that evolved into the training programs on land use mediation that we (LILP and CBI) currently offer together.

LL: Explain a little more about CBI.

LS: The Consensus Building Institute is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1993 to provide consensus building services to clients involved in complex disputes. Building on the “mutual gains” approach to negotiation developed at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, CBI offers conflict management assistance, negotiation training, dispute system design services and evaluative research to public agencies, corporate clients and nongovernmental agencies on five continents.

Our staff now includes a dozen full-time professionals, mostly based in Cambridge, and a network of more than 30 experienced affiliates around the world. We have become known as expert public and environmental dispute mediators and have helped to resolve complex disputes related to the siting of controversial facilities, the setting of public health and safety standards, the formulation and implementation of development plans and projects, and conflicts among racial and ethnic groups.

LL: When did the joint Lincoln and CBI training programs begin?

LS: After several years of careful analysis of land use mediation efforts throughout the United States, CBI developed a curriculum with Lincoln Institute for public officials and planners, and that course has been offered since 1999 at a number of locations. During the first few years we offered only a basic course designed to familiarize participants with assisted negotiation as a method to resolve land use disputes, and then we expanded our offerings to include more detailed skill building for experienced mediators and practitioners. Today we offer a full range of courses at multiple locations around the country.

LL: Who are the primary participants in these introductory and advanced courses?

LS: We are trying to reach three different audiences. First, we have identified and invited local elected and appointed officials who preside over land development disputes and administer land use regulatory systems at the local, regional and state levels. They need to know that there are techniques they can use to help resolve land use disputes before they escalate.

Second, we are trying to attract real estate developers and their attorneys so they know how to participate effectively in dispute resolution efforts when they are offered or suggested by public officials. Third, we have a special interest in attracting professionals of all kinds who want to learn how to be better facilitators, particularly of multiparty land use dialogues that involve complex technical dilemmas.

LL: What are the key goals and lessons of these programs?

LS: The introductory course offers a quick overview of the reasons that land use disputes seem to escalate so quickly and often end up in court. We then introduce the basic principles and tools of dispute resolution and show how they can head off such escalation. They are presented in a very interactive way using gaming and simulations. Participants are given a number of hands-on opportunities to apply what they are learning in hypothetical situations and to bring their own cases before the group. We spend some time talking about techniques for overcoming resistance to the use of mediation and other consensus building strategies.

The advanced course is aimed at experienced mediators or planners and lawyers who think they might want to become mediators. It assumes that the participants have mastered the material presented in the introductory course and moves to a set of dilemmas at the next level, including methods of handling science-intensive disputes through the use of joint fact finding. We also review key theoretical debates, such as managing unequal power relationships in a mediation context.

LL: How do you incorporate both theory and practice into the curriculum?

LS: We expect many of the participants to bring their own stories about land use disputes in which they have been intimately involved. We model in real time how the theory we are teaching can be applied in their cases. We also try to ground all of our theoretical presentations in detailed case accounts of actual practice. Finally, as mentioned above, we use role playing simulations. Students can’t just sit back and take notes. They have to wrestle with the application of the ideas we are presenting.

LL: What other projects have you undertaken with the Institute?

LS: About a year ago, in May 2004, I joined Institute President Jim Brown at a Lincoln-sponsored seminar in Cuba on the problems of restoring and redeveloping Havana Harbor. Energy production and inadequate attention to pollution control have spoiled one of the most beautiful harbors in this hemisphere. Some of the many different committees and groups concerned with economic development, environmental cleanup, restoration of the harbor ecology, historic preservation of Old Havana, and enhanced tourism are seeking advice on strategies for balancing these (sometimes) competing objectives.

CBI is beginning to develop a new joint course with the Lincoln Institute and some of its partners involved in local economic development efforts around the country. We believe conflict resolution tools and negotiation skills can be of great use in neighborhood development disputes, not just growth management conflicts in the suburbs. With Roz Greenstein CBI is creating a new set of training programs for community-based organizations that we plan to offer for the first time next summer.

Another new initiative is a collaborative Web site that highlights recent research by the Lincoln Institute and CBI, as well as timely news articles, background material on consensus building, and links to related programs and publications. One section of the site will provide an interactive platform that will permit hundreds of alumni of our joint courses to remain in touch with each other and share their mediation experiences. This “virtual learning community” will be a valuable resource for public- and private-sector stakeholders involved in land use disputes (even if they haven’t taken the course).

LL: What is the outlook for future joint programs?

LS: I believe our ongoing CBI–Lincoln Institute partnership holds incredible promise. We have conducted an Institute-sponsored study on the use of consensus building to resolve land reform disputes in Latin America and hope to expand on that work, as well as to address land issues facing China and the newly independent states of Eastern Europe. The Institute is already involved in research and training programs in these regions, and land use disputes are at the core of many of the challenges facing national and local policy makers.

The Lincoln Institute is an ideal partner for CBI. We both care about applied research, theory building and sharing new knowledge through educational programs of all kinds. We both measure our success in terms of real improvements on the ground, and we share interests in both domestic and international arenas.

The Pawcatuck Borderlands illustrates what is fast becoming one of the major puzzles in land use policy—how to plan across boundaries. Countless examples across the country (and arguably the world) demonstrate two fundamental points (Foster 2001; Porter and Wallis 2002; McKinney et al. 2002). First, the territory of many land use problems transcends the legal and geographic reach of existing jurisdictions and institutions (public, private, and other). In the Borderlands area, the spatial dimension of the problems created by increasing population growth and demand for municipal services cuts across multiple jurisdictions.

This mismatch between the geography of the problem and the geography of existing institutions leads to the second point: the people affected by such problems have interdependent interests, which means that none of them have sufficient power or authority to adequately address the problems on their own, yet self-interest often impedes cooperation.

These observations are not new. The history of regionalism in America dates back to at least the mid-nineteenth century and the writing of John Wesley Powell (McKinney et al. 2004). As we move into the twenty-first century, there seem to be two basic responses to this planning puzzle. The first is to create new regional institutions or realign existing institutions to correspond to the territory of the problem, and the second is to start with more informal, ad hoc regional forums.

Some of the more notable examples of regional land use institutions include the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (1969), Adirondack Park Agency (1971), New Jersey Pinelands Commission (1979), and the Cape Cod Commission (1990). The impetus to establish such entities requires a significant amount of political commitment upfront, or sometimes legal pressure from influential court cases. Once the regional organizations are established, they tend to require a great deal of effort to sustain. This largely explains why there have been so few proposals to create such institutions in the past few decades (see Jensen 1965; Derthick 1974; Robbins et al. 1983; and Calthorpe and Fulton 2001).

Rather than create new institutions, leaders in more than 450 regions across the country have realigned existing institutions to form regional councils, which generally do not have the authority to make and impose decisions per se, but are designed to foster regional cooperation and the delivery of services. In New England, these organizations have evolved to fill the vacuum left by weak county government, and their boundaries often follow county boundaries, which may or may not correspond to the territory of the problem.

The second response, which is more common these days, is to bring together the “right” people with the best available information in tailor-made, ad hoc forums. This approach, which might be termed “regional network governance,” is more bottom-up than top-down, and depends largely on the ability of the participants to build and sustain informal networks to get things done. In some cases these ad hoc forums lay the groundwork to create more formal regional institutions in the future.

Obstacles to Regional Networks

Of course, building and sustaining regional networks is easier said than done. Our research and experience suggest there are four primary obstacles to planning across boundaries. First, the very nature of thinking and acting like a region raises questions about the participants and scope of the problem: Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations, and who else should be involved? What issues should be on the agenda? How should the region be defined? How can multiple parties—public, private, and nonprofit—share the responsibilities and costs to achieve identified goals? Even where regional planning councils exist, the rules governing or guiding such efforts are not clear.

Second, the value of working together is not always apparent or shared. As with other forms of multiparty negotiation, it is difficult to mobilize and engage people unless and until they believe that they are more likely to achieve their objectives through regional collaboration than by acting independently. Public officials may be reluctant to engage for fear that such efforts will undermine their authority, and business leaders and real estate developers may view collaboration as something not worth their time. Local citizens often cringe at the idea of regional planning, thinking that someone who does not live in the local area will be making decisions about their land. Other stakeholders may simply have different priorities or a better alternative to satisfy their interests.

Third, many people are unfamiliar with the process of regional collaboration, and that uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable and reluctant. In addition, people may lack the skills to organize and represent their constituency, deal with scientifically complex issues, and negotiate effectively in a multiparty setting. Others may be uneasy with the organic nature of ad hoc regional forums, and how they should be linked to formal decision-making processes.

Even if participants can overcome these obstacles, their effectiveness at regional collaboration is often limited by a fourth factor: lack of resources. In an assessment of about 75 established regional initiatives in the West, nearly all participants said that “limited resources” was the primary obstacle to more effective collaboration (McKinney 2002). Among the resources cited were time, money, information, and knowledge. People trying to initiate and support regional land use projects in three recent projects (in the San Luis Valley in south-central Colorado, the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana, and the Upper Delaware River Basin) reported struggling due to a lack of financial resources and staffing capabilities.

In sum, the challenge of addressing multijurisdictional land use issues is not primarily a scientific or technical challenge, nor is it simply about managing land use more effectively and efficiently. At its core, regional land use is a sociopolitical challenge. It is a question of whether we can integrate the needs, interests, and visions of multiple jurisdictions, sectors, and interests. It is also a question of how society addresses shared and competing interests—in this case, land use.

An Emerging Framework

During the past few years, the Lincoln Institute has taken a leadership role in studying and evaluating regional collaboration on land use issues through policy and research reports, educational programs, and regional land use clinics. This collective body of work suggests at least three overarching lessons.

First, regional initiatives vary greatly in terms of who leads the project, as well as its scale, purpose, issues, activities, and structure, including funding and time frame. While some initiatives augment existing government institutions, others are more ad hoc in nature, filling gaps in governance at different levels. Whether formal or ad hoc, regional initiatives create public opportunities that would not otherwise exist to address land use issues that cut across multiple jurisdictions.

Second, regional collaboration includes both a procedural element (how to plan across boundaries) and a substantive element (policies, programs, activities, and other outcomes to address a particular regional land use issue). The Lincoln Institute’s work on the procedural aspects of regional collaboration complements and builds on its land use dispute resolution program, although it is different in two fundamental ways: regional collaboration deals primarily with multiple jurisdictions, which raises the key question of convening diverse stakeholders; and it has more to do with designing new systems of governance (both formal and informal) than with resolving disputes per se.

Third, there is no single model for planning across boundaries, but rather a set of principles to guide regional collaboration (see Figure 1). This “theory of change” posits that the implementation of something like this set of principles leads to better informed, more widely supported, and more effective solutions to multijurisdictional land use issues (see www.umtpri.org).

Guiding Principles for Regional Collaboration

• Focus on a compelling purpose
• Mobilize and engage the “right” people
• Define regional boundaries based on people’s interests
• Jointly name and frame issues
• Deliberate and make collaborative decisions
• Take strategic action
• Be flexible and adaptive to sustain regional collaboration

Some Outstanding Questions

Who should take the lead in organizing and convening regional conversations?

In many professional circles there is an ongoing debate about the role and ability of government to convene effective collaborative processes. Many people argue that government cannot successfully organize and convene such efforts given its built-in institutional resistance and lack of responsiveness. Citizens, by contrast, often can provide more effective forums through organic, grassroots initiatives. Throughout the West, there is a growing movement where citizens, frustrated by government’s lack of responsiveness, are convening place-based groups to address a variety of land use issues—ranging from growth management to endangered species to water allocation (Kemmis 2001). In the Northeast, citizens in adjacent towns and states are recognizing their shared resources, values, threats, and opportunities. They are committing to joint planning projects, regional economic development campaigns, and applications for official designation for their regions.

Recent studies indicate, however, that participation by one or more levels of government is essential to the effectiveness of the more ad hoc, citizen-driven processes (Kenney 2000; Susskind et al. 1999; Susskind et al. 2000). Governments not only provide financial and technical assistance, but also become critically important if the intent of a regional initiative is to shape or influence land use policy. Official government institutions, after all, constitute the formal public decision-making processes in our society.

Neither top-down nor bottom-up approaches are inherently superior, and in the final analysis the two ends of the spectrum need to come together to facilitate positive change. Whether a regional initiative is catalyzed and convened by citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, or public officials, it is most effective when the people initiating the process exercise collaborative leadership. Such leaders facilitate development of a shared vision by crossing jurisdictional and cultural boundaries; forging coalitions among people with diverse interests and viewpoints; mobilizing the people, ideas, and resources needed to move in the desired direction; and sustaining networks of relationships. In this respect, regional collaboration is more like organizing a political campaign than preparing a regional plan.

Three vignettes—the first two based on regional clinics sponsored by the Lincoln Institute—illustrate the need to have the right convener and to employ the characteristics of collaborative leadership. In the Upper Delaware River Basin, two government agencies initiated a regional conversation, but they framed the problems and solutions prior to consulting with other stakeholders or citizens. Not surprisingly, many people who were not part of the initial process criticized both the definition of the region and the scope of the project.

In the San Luis Valley in Colorado, citizens and interest groups tried to organize a regional land use planning effort, but the local elected officials dragged their feet and characterized the participants as “rabble rousers.” This experience shows what can happen when citizens get ahead of decision makers, that is, when civic will outpaces political and institutional will.

On a more encouraging note, leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, as well as academics, the media, and others, have jointly convened Billings on the Move—a conversation on what is needed to promote and sustain the economic vitality of the region in and around Billings, Montana. One of the primary reasons for this project’s success is that all of the key stakeholders bought into the project from the beginning, and they jointly identified problems and framed solutions.

Is it possible to mobilize and engage people “upstream” in a proactive, preventive way, rather than “downstream” after a crisis, threat, or regional land use dispute has emerged?

In the San Luis Valley, citizens and leaders from all walks of life came together some years ago to fight and defeat a proposal to export precious groundwater out of the valley. This effort clearly demonstrated sufficient civic will and political capacity to organize regionally in response to a real external threat. However, the same people are now struggling to organize around land use issues when there is no immediate crisis. Some observers believe that if they do not act soon, however, the valley will eventually become another expensive tourist destination like Aspen, Sun Valley, or Jackson Hole.

In response to this concern, we are working with the Orton Foundation to determine if the use of technology—in particular the visualization and scenario-building software known as Community Viz—may provide the necessary leverage to mobilize and engage people, to help them see what is at stake, and to evaluate how regional collaboration can help to address issues of common interest. The challenge here is not only to focus on a tangible problem, but also to build the social and political capacity of the region to think and act more proactively.

How do we measure the success of regional collaboration?

The question of what criteria or metrics should be used to evaluate efforts to plan across boundaries takes us back to the distinction between the procedural and substantive aspects of regional collaboration. If one agrees with this distinction, then any framework to evaluate success should include metrics that focus on both process and outcomes.

A recent study evaluated the success of 50 community-based collaborative initiatives in the Rocky Mountain West that were regional in nature, encompassing two or more jurisdictions (McKinney and Field 2005). Twenty-seven indicators measured participants’ satisfaction with the substantive outcome of the effort, its effect on working relationships, and the quality of the process itself. The evaluation framework also allowed participants to reflect on the value of community-based collaboration relative to other alternatives.

The people who responded to the survey were generally satisfied with the use of community-based collaboration to address issues related to federal lands and resources. Seventy percent of the respondents said that all 27 indicators were important contributors to their satisfaction with both the process and its outcomes. Eighty-six percent of participants stated they would recommend a community or regional process to address a similar issue in the future.

Participants tended to rank “working relationships” and “quality of the process” as more important than “outcomes,” suggesting that people are at least as interested in opportunities for meaningful civic engagement and deliberative dialogue as in achieving a preconceived outcome. These results also support the value of community-based or regional collaboration—particularly when compared to other forums to shape land use policy and resolve land use disputes. Future evaluation research is necessary to affirm or refine these findings, and to clarify the impact of regional collaboration on various social, economic, and environmental objectives.

Conclusion

Planning across boundaries—or regional collaboration—is slowly emerging as an essential component of land policy and planning in the twenty-first century. For example, the 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation—only the fourth White House conference ever held on conservation—convened several sessions on reaching across boundaries to promote shared governance. Whether the issues to be addressed in such forums focus on rapid growth and its consequences or the need to retain and expand the local economic base, these problems are often best addressed by planning across the boundaries created by government jurisdictions, economic sectors, and academic disciplines. Indeed, in many cases, this is the only way these problems will be resolved effectively.

The Pawcatuck Borderlands

The Pawcatuck Borderlands on the Connecticut and Rhode Island state line is part of a largely undeveloped region within the megalopolis that stretches from Boston to Washington, DC. This landscape is one of the largest intact, forested areas in southern New England, and its abundant wildlife ranges from bears to songbirds. The remarkable diversity of the Borderlands includes hardwood forests, pitch-pine woodlands, wetlands, lakes, and rivers, as well as numerous small, rural communities where people have lived and worked for centuries.

Nearly 40 percent of the Borderlands is protected by the Pachaug State Forest and the Arcadia Management Area, and the relatively undisturbed natural character of the region creates a high quality of life for its residents. However, this open space in the heart of the northeastern megalopolis is also popular with visitors for its recreational opportunities and world-class tourist attractions. Located between Providence and Hartford, the Borderlands faces increasing demands for housing, roads, and shopping centers. Unlike many other rural areas, the opportunities for employment and investment are good, making this a financially attractive location for families and businesses.

Between 1960 and 2000, the population of Borderlands towns grew by more than 95 percent. Traffic is escalating on local roads and highways, and finite water resources are being overused, impacting both the quality and quantity of water in local watersheds. This increasing activity is eroding the existing infrastructure and requiring local residents to pay for additional roads, schools, and other essential services. All of these trends threaten longstanding social, historic, and environmental values.

Choices about the rate and pattern of future land conservation and development in the Borderlands must be addressed by decision makers in two states and ten towns. As in much of New England, each town retains land use authority and is governed through town meetings and the decisions of numerous local commissions and boards. Each of these jurisdictions has historically tackled land use issues independently, but the nature of existing trends and emerging challenges calls out for a different approach.

About the Authors

Matthew McKinney is director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana, Helena. He was founding director of the Montana Consensus Council and has taught many courses for the Lincoln Institute on both regional collaboration and land use dispute resolution.

Kevin Essington is director of the Pawcatuck Borderlands Program for the The Nature Conservancy in Connecticut and Rhode Island. He works on land acquisition, land and watershed restoration, planning, and consensus building.

References

Calthorpe, Peter, and William Fulton. 2001. The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Derthick, Martha.1974. Between state and nation: Regional organizations of the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Foster, Kathryn A. 2001. Regionalism on purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Jensen, Merrill. 1965. Regionalism in America. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Kemmis, Daniel. 2001. This sovereign land: A new vision for governing the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kenney, Doug. 2000. The new watershed sourcebook. Boulder: The University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.

McKinney, Matthew, et al. 2002. Regionalism in the west: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review: 101–191www.ars.org.