My question to the group is: Has anyone worked with developing effectiveIn the Puget Sound, planning mandated under the Endangered Species Act has required multiple local jurisdictions to develop meta-governmental organizations to plan and implement species recovery planning. While the ability of those plans to affect the underlying causes of salmon decline are easy to question, they are focused on major river watersheds, and could arguably be the nascent framework of bioregional governance. Salmon recovery planers both issues of land use, habitat management, and water management. Now there is some interest in Puget Sounds as a whole. The issues that are causing the systematic deterioration of our estuary are better defined by groups of watersheds that drain to a shared basin of our inland sea. In both cases a particular issue that has been able to create a tax-based revenue source creates a shared constituency. I'd suggest that the basis for constituency matters more than the boundary -- the boundary can either serve or undermine the purpose. The constituency urge is born of the 'godhead' of the people, not a designer... just as a permaculture designer captures the structures and processes of places, but does not create them.
organizational tools sets to move a specific bioregion in a sustainable
direction? Has anyone had experience with actually defining the
bioregional boundaries in a specific location?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.