National symposium on conservation Photo: Barbara Slaiby

A National Symposium Gathers Insights
What does the future look like for conservation? What is our legacy from previous generations? Where is the field of conservation headed? What do academics who study the movement say? What about conservation practitioners?

Those were the essential questions posed and explored during “Reconstructing Conservation: History, Values, and Practice,” an ambitious national symposium co-sponsored by CSI in November 2001. The program attracted 50 scholars and practitioners for five days of presentations and dialogue—first in an academic setting, at the University of Vermont (UVM), then at CSI in Woodstock. The discussions and reflections that participants shared have since given birth to both a book and an Institute report on the symposium.

Several participants said that for them, the benefits of stepping away from day-to-day challenges and reaching for a wider, deeper, more expansive view have had lasting benefits.

“We’re all busy with conservation work and the forum gave us a chance to put our work down and reflect on where we’ve been, where we are, and where we might be going,” said J. Glenn Eugster, NPS assistant regional director, Partnerships Office, National Capital Region. “I think it was very appropriate that the program was held in New England, because of the history of the conservation movement there. The context enriched the discussions.

“It took you to a higher plane,” he added of the symposium, which was co-sponsored by The Woodstock Foundation, UVM’s Rubenstein School of the Environment and Natural Resources, the NPS CSI, the Trust for Public Land, and the Marsh-Billings- Rockefeller National Historical Park. “… It was an honor to be in the company of all those scholars and practitioners; it was an inspiration. But also, asking large number of people to share their thoughts challenges you to reflect on your own experience and to distill what works and what doesn’t.”

Pushing for a Fresh Perspective
"W hat we wanted to do with the symposium was bring the leading academic scholars together and ask them to focus on the future—and, perhaps more important, to translate their academic perspective into a set of principles that would be relevant to people and communities grappling with issues around conservation,” said Donald DeHayes, dean of the UVM Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources.

The second stage of the program, in Woodstock, he added, “was aimed at dialogue between the academics and community-based professionals and organizations, and I think it was very successful.”

“The main theme was community-based conservation,” said participant Susan Flader, a professor of history at the University of Missouri–Columbia. “This is not new; there’s been local-level activity all along, but ... now we’re realizing that what happens at the local level is really the most important thing—and that it can be assisted by other levels of organizations and government.”

Flader said she has looked into the history of American conservation and found a legacy of vital community-based work reaching back to the era of the American Revolution. In scholarly interpretation today, she added, “the whole tendency is to look at the grass roots, from the bottom up.

“The conference organizers invited people to the program who are alert to what is happening in conservation today and at the community level,” she added. “It was a very, very stimulating conference for me. I was at several others, right at about the same time; but this was the most concentrated look at what is happening with the conservation movement—and I got a lot of insight from this experience.”

Commitment to Place and Community over Time
“There’s a pretty widely held view that the conservation movement, and certain ways of thinking about conservation, need to be rethought,” said John Elder, a participant and author on conservation who is a professor at Middlebury College. Along with Flader, Eugster, and others, Elder contributed an essay to the CSI symposium report Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on Conservation.

Reflecting on the symposium, Elder—whose next book will examine the career and influence of George Perkins Marsh—said, “for me, it’s trying to put conservation of resources and places in a richer social context. We’re moving beyond simplistic dichotomies. That’s finally what it’s about.

“People are talking about the relationship between conservation and citizenship,” he explained.

“Basically the reason we have conservation is both to sustain the resources that we need, and to explore what it means to be a citizen and to live in a society … ‘Stewardship’ is a critical word from the lineage of George Perkins Marsh— and stewardship implies a special personal commitment to a particular place and a particular community over time.”

Added Eugster of NPS, “that’s one of the exciting things about this change to a more community- or place-based philosophy: you recognize that we’re all experts in something. We’ve gotten away from this notion that government agencies or nonprofits are the sole answer and actor for conservation. Rather, the solutions are in the communities. Some of them are still to be discovered; but the refreshing thing that came out in Vermont was that by working with people at the community level in an equitable way, you create an opportunity for people to help solve problems and identify opportunities.”

Said Dean DeHayes of UVM, “we had voices at the table from land trusts, and people talking about multiculturalism in conservation, as well as people talking about the history of the movement, and about communities and parks from a national and international perspective. That was a very moving experience …”

For both the National Park Service and the broader conservation community, said John Elder, CSI “is creating settings where people can think about these broader issues. This is a very important role and it’s a good time for it."

(Above text by Doug Wilhelm)

Sharing National Symposium Findings through Two Publications
Fifty prominent academicians in environmental philosophy and history, as well as leading conservation practitioners from the public and private sectors, participated in a national symposium. Two publications based on this symposium critically examine long-held conservation tenets and envision principles for conservation in the twenty-first century.

In 2003, the Institute edited and published a report, Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on Conservation, that included nine papers presented at the symposium describing lessons learned and insights gained from conservation practice. Also included were a summary of key themes that emerged from the symposium dialogue and reflective essays by four symposium participants that create a broad vision for the future of conservation. Professor David Lowenthal’s epilogue provides a historical context for re-envisioning conservation and concludes with a challenge: to find a future path that intentionally embeds stewardship in the fabric of society and in our daily lives.

Twenty-three leading scholars and practitioners contributed to Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common Ground, a 2003 Island Press book that explores the conceptual foundations and contemporary vitality of the American conservation tradition. One chapter, “Reinventing Conservation: A Practitioner’s View,” was co-authored by Rolf Diamant (superintendent, Marsh- Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park), Glenn Eugster (assistant regional director, Partnership Office, National Capital Region), and CSI director Nora Mitchell. The book was edited by Ben A. Minteer (Arizona State University) and Robert E. Manning (University of Vermont).

Twelve Principles for Reconstructing Conservation
from Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common Ground,
edited by Ben A. Minteer and Robert E. Manning

A “reconstructed conservation” will:

1.	adopt an integrative understanding of nature and culture;
2.	be concerned with working and cultural landscapes as well as more “pristine” environments;
3.	rely on a wider and more contextual reading of the conservation tradition;
4.	require long-range landscape stewardship and restoration efforts;
5.	have “land health” as one of its primary socio-ecological goals;
6.	be adaptive and open to multiple practices and objectives;
7.	. embrace value pluralism;
8.	promote community-based conservation strategies;
9.	rely on an engaged citizenry;
10.	engage questions of social justice;
11.	be politically inclusive and partnership driven; and
12.	embrace its democratic traditions.