Is it time for integrated solutions to environmental, social and economic health in the West’s rural communities to get “institutional”?

I'm just back from three interesting and inspiring days at the Center for Collaborative Conservation’s “Bridging the Gap” conference, held at the Center’s parent institution, the Warner College of Natural Resources at Colorado State University. It is certainly exciting to see “collaborative conservation” grow to the point where there are dedicated centers researching and promoting the best practices in a field or movement that is only 15 to 20 years old. CSU should be proud to be the first university to recognize broadly the trends on the landscape and give them broader institutional backing.

Sustainable Northwest's “Western Stewardship Summit” (September 2008) also sought to advance the collaborative conservation movement with dialogue and learning among practitioners -- mostly from the Pacific Northwest. But for that one, I was an organizer and wasn't afforded the mental space to reflect on ideas and innovations presented. In Ft Collins, I had time to think about the work we are doing at Sustainable Northwest, and engage in thoughtful discussions with other leaders (good conversations were had with colleagues from the Blackfoot Challenge, the Quivira Coalition, The Nature Conservancy’s Fire Learning Network, the Rancher Stewardship Alliance, the Watershed Research & Training Center and Wallowa Resoruces).

A smattering of observations and thoughts from my time east of the Continental Divide:

• The movement keeps growing and getting more diverse.  Especially interesting to see more ranchers and rancher-based coalitions getting engaged (like the Ranchers Stewardship Alliance, which I've had the honor to advise).
  
• Sustainable Northwest has a lot to be proud of – we have been among the “granddaddies” in this effort and we’re recognized even in Colorado (and we’re celebrating our 15th year!)
• There are big questions as to how to serve the burgeoning “class” of emerging collaboratives and community-based groups. We need to grow institutions that aggregate the knowledge of established practitioners and provide relatively easy access (and low cost delivery) for the new efforts -- "trade schools" of sorts. That will require shared strategies among organizations like ours that have been doing this for a long time. We have some intra-institutional collaboration ahead of us to make it happen.
• Is it “collaborative conservation” or something bigger? Coming from Sustainable Northwest, I think it’s something bigger. I’ll call it “community health” or in the words of my friend Doug Frank “a culture of caring” in and about our rural communities. Yes, we need to address significant conservation challenges, but I think what provides the energy and diversity in this movement is the opportunity to tackle economic and social issues that are just as (or more) pressing than environmental ones.
  
• Finally, what are the appropriate lines between collaboration, consensus and coalition? Presentations at the conference showed quite a spectrum – some achieving success and some failing – because of their varying approaches to working with diverse interests. Can our society afford the time it takes to build consensus on natural resource issues? Can it afford not to? When do we move from consensus to coalitions? How broad and wide must a collaborative coalition be to succeed in implementing change in the natural resource arena? This is a question that challenges us daily at Sustainable Northwest as we engage in work at different scales (from the Klamath Basin to demonstration projects in Grant County) to achieve thriving human and natural communities.

Those are just some of the questions and thoughts that emerged from "Bridging the Gap." Thanks to the Center for Collaborative Conservation and its staff for a very successful conference!