Big
Green Blues (washingtonpost.com)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43226-2003May11.html
Big Green Blues
Monday, May 12, 2003; Page A18
IN ITS 52 YEARS, the Nature Conservancy has been
a force for good in protecting the global
environment. With its "bucks and acres" program
to buy land and thereby promote biodiversity,
the Conservancy -- with $3 billion in assets the
world's richest environmental group -- has
acquired millions of acres, and it manages
millions more. Those good works notwithstanding,
a series last week by Post reporters David B.
Ottaway and Joe Stephens revealed a number of
disturbing aspects about the Arlington-based
group's operations.
One is the tricky position the organization has
put itself in by taking contributions from
corporations, many of which have sorry
environmental records at best. The Conservancy's
corporate donations, which include donations
from The Washington Post Co., have soared in the
past decade, and that money comes with a price:
the opening of the Conservancy to accusations
that corporate polluters are using its name to "greenwash"
their activities and that it remains largely
silent on issues such as drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and global warming to
avoid antagonizing corporate sponsors.
That appearance is only heightened by the
presence on the Conservancy's governing board of
executives from companies such as American
Electric Power Co. (named top air polluter among
U.S. power companies by the Natural Resources
Defense Council) and General Motors (named
"Global Warmer Number One" by Environmental
Defense). The Nature Conservancy argues that it
occupies a particular niche in the ecosystem of
environmental organizations -- that is,
preserving biodiversity -- that keeps it pretty
well out of the policy arena and therefore
dissipates the potential conflicts it faces.
What's more, it contends, corporate money that
would not otherwise go to the environmental
movement is used toward a worthy end. Whether
that tradeoff is worth the cost and whether the
Conservancy has drawn the line in the right
place is a matter best left to the group's
members.
The more troubling issues raised in the series
concern questions of corporate governance
similar to those that have faced for-profit
corporations in recent years. To its credit, the
Conservancy says it is taking steps to address
some of these matters. For example, it will no
longer make loans to officials; the group's
president had obtained a $1.55 million home
loan. It's taking another look at whether it
will again engage in "resource extraction"
activities on its land; the group was criticized
when, practicing its theory of "compatible
development," it simultaneously sought to
protect the endangered Attwater's prairie
chicken and drill for oil under its nesting
grounds. The Conservancy is also reexamining its
"conservation buyers" program (in which it buys
ecologically sensitive parcels, puts on
development restrictions and sells the land at a
discount) and the insider nature of some of its
transactions with Conservancy trustees. That's
fine. If, as the Conservancy asserts, its goal
is simply to "find a suitable buyer," there are
better ways to structure that process than one
in which charity insiders appear to get the
first shot at pristine parcels on which to build
their vacation homes.
© 2003 The Washington Post
Company
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit
or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
