Applegate Partnership;

What makes it work & What are the problems?

When a group of individuals come together with a common deep commitment to a place and community, incredible things can happen.

These bullets are intended to describe some of the factors of success and barriers of the Applegate Partnership.  These observations are collected from many people, recognizing such a compilation is neither all-inclusive or perfectly recorded.

What makes it work?

• Participants were asked to come with a willingness to solve-problems, "checking their agendas at the door."
• Vision & objectives are clear (written down) & used in tough times.
• Focus & action is directed initially to the "common ground"--what we can agree on. (Time, trust, some successes are needed before tackling the hot issues.) Common ground  is found more easily in the field than in meeting rooms.
• Leadership, access to information & responsibility is shared equally.  Roles are clear.
• The roles of visionaries, facilitators, implementers are not all tied up into one person. There are a number of people who fill these roles.
• Many of the principle players have experience in change movements--they came in from the beginning expecting to make changes.
• Facilitation and conflict resolution training was especially needed in the beginning (and still is from time to time).
• Time (lots of it!) is needed to gain understanding, develop relationships, & build trust.
• All key players are at the table.  Or at least as many as possible including timber industry (small & large, workers & owners), environmentalists, farmers, ranchers, residents, schools, and agencies.  Both land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management (BLM) & Forest Service (FS)) were active participants from the beginning.  Each of the many participants gets something out of the effort, e.g., timber sales have shifted from clear-cuts to selective thinning.  Timber sales are intended to be ecologically appropriate, economically viable, and socially acceptable.
• Over the last several years the Partnership has diversified beyond forestry issues to link the social with the biophysical.  We have learned that the community's health is tied to the health of the forests, water, fish, etc.  Diversification has also made the groups less vulnerable to changes (policies, funding, momentum) in other agencies or group.
• The Applegate River Watershed Council (subcommittee of the Applegate Partnership) has been highly effective in facilitating private land owners working together on watershed restoration as well as increasing integrated work with federal and state agencies.
• The Partnership continues to be a vehicle for increasing learning and skills of community members.
• The group serves as catalyst to numerous other groups across the Applegate.  These network among themselves (e.g., Applegate River Watershed Council, Community Forum, Strategic Plan Steering Committee, Applegate Core.)
• The Applegate Partnership is a great resource for information and has become a forum for working out problems that other agencies or groups have failed to address.  Residents know that the it gets things done, not just talk.
• Agency "bridges" help to increase communication and move on opportunities between communities and agencies.  Bridge people can communicate the concerns of one group in language another group can understand.
• Strong commitment on part of some agency units to genuinely engage communities in planning (e.g., BLM Ashland Resource Area Manager Rich Drehobl's motto, "We'll meet with anyone, anywhere, anytime, about almost anything.")
• Six years and the Applegate Partnership is still going meeting almost weekly!
• Significant blows occurred but did not stop the group:
• Local environmental group (Headwaters) withdrew from the board.  The Partnership tries to ensure interests are voiced by local environmentalists with ties to the group.
• Federal Advisory Committee Act interpretation forced agency board members to withdraw. Agency staff continue to actively participate but avoid "soliciting" advice from the group as a whole (rather individual ideas are sought) & opportunity is made available to all interested people.
• "Salvage Ride" passed by Congress.  Local agencies did not change the methods or timing of timber sale projects and thus did not break down trust any further.

Obstacles & challenges:

Organization & participants:

• Some success needed to happen early on.  Funding and organizational skills were a problem in the beginning for the Partnership.
• An all volunteer board is tough.  Many people are surprised that there are no paid staff.  This creates a lot of work for a few folks & burnout is real.
• Lots of work ends up on a few individual's shoulders.  In the past more work needs to shared.
• More community involvement is needed (though "community lethargy" is a common problem).
• Perception by some residents that the Partnership is a means of funding people.  Many people do not understand or value the work being done.
• Overall skills represented on the board is weaker now than in the beginning.  There are fewer facilitators, leaders, 'movers & shakers." How can we replace some of these leaders?
• It has been difficult to get as many timber industry, farming, and ranching participants in the last several years.
• Incorporating new players is problematic because of lack of history and commitment to vision.
• Diversity of participants is still not great enough for some people.  'There's lots of middle ground." Some feel alienated by bureaucracy, think the AP is "too close to the agencies," and see 'group think' occurring.

Meeting management:

• Four meetings per month is a major commitment for many.
• No structure exists for welcoming new people coming to meetings.
• Technical language and jargon are often used and may not be understood by newcomers.
• Better facilitation of meetings is needed.  The professional facilitators were effective in the first several years.  Facilitation now varies a great deal among volunteers and more skills are needed (through training, etc.) Some meetings do not feel respectful or safe and tend to discourage participation by others.

Relationship with agencies:

• High expectations are raised quickly, and in some cases these have not been met (some expectations could not be met.  Little understanding exists about the mitigation and compromises made by he agencies on the way to getting a final product.  Communities expect agencies to quickly produce flawless projects and for staff to be much more accessible and responsive.  Agencies expect community members to be move from an adversarial role to one of shared problem-solving.  Many people think the agencies are not changing fast enough.
• There are widely differing viewpoints about public involvement.  What is legally required?  What is adequate or desirable?
• Some community members promote goals or carry agendas that are unattainable by federal agencies.  The constraints agencies work under are often not understood.
• Agency culture limits innovation.  Within each agency are widely disparate personalities-some of whom are well-versed in sharing power and others less so.  Some units have highly successful public outreach efforts; others have not been as successful.  Inability to make fundamental policy changes (e.g., organizational changes in structures, contracting to local people, developing innovative stewardship contracts, etc.) has been a source of frustration.
• Limited agency funding for the vast watershed restoration work needed create a high level of frustration.
• Confusion and mistrust about timber volumes (how they are made & effects on projects, funding, and organizations) further complicate the issues surrounding ecosystem management.
• Many community members want to see more action by agencies in monitoring and watershed restoration projects.
• Complexity of ecosystem issues (social & biophysical) make it difficult to gain understanding and agreement.  There's a great need for "bridge" people--those who can communicate the concerns of one group to another and facilitate collaboration (between communities, managers, and scientists.)
• In some cases, conflict has occurred when an agency unit tried to "fast-track" projects before first developing relationships.
• Despite significant changes in managing federal lands over the last 5 years, there is still a lot of distrust among some working with the agencies.

Others:

• Lots of folks are waiting for mistakes to happen.  And they will.
• When crisis occurs, there's a powerful tendency is to resort to old adversarial roles.
• Engaging national interests in local efforts has been especially difficult.  Numerous efforts have failed.  There is increased tension occurring nationwide between national environmental groups and local grass-roots partnerships and that fallout is felt in the Partnership.
• Unincorporated communities don't have political clout to secure funding for projects.
• More work is needed understanding what is meant by collaboration, how to collaborate, and practicing it.  The honeymoon period for the Partnership is past-now we are working at maintaining, nurturing, and further developing this relationship.
• Sometimes having a national fame hinders progress.

This is about US (not THEY) and WE what want for our community.

Su Rolle, Interagency Liaison for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service 541-770-2248, srolle@or.blm.gov