Prerogative

     The waves from last November's political sea-change are lapping about the
Adirondacks.  Devolution, or surrendering power to local authorities, is the
new approach Republicans in Congress and state capitols across the nation are
emphasizing.  Whether good or bad it certainly is different from the past
thirty or more years.  Such dramatic change is always difficult but it
sometimes makes possible ideas that were unthinkable before.  For example, the
mountain between advocates of ecological integrity and home rule in the
Adirondacks seems lower now that economic constraints and political
necessities have been raised.  Perhaps, in this climate of change, some kind
of "bottom-up" process can be imagined and initiated to promote the four
components of sustainable development:  ecological integrity, local
empowerment, social equity, and sustainable economies.
     The motive force propelling devolution is economic, of course.  Large
structural deficits incurred by both the federal and state governments imply
that government may be trying to do more than it can or, some would argue,
should be doing.  The key idea behind devolution is that more can be done with
less -- if it doesn't all have to be done the same.  Local authorities, closer to
the actual problems people experience, can recognize and apply a variety of
solutions to achieve their goals more efficiently and effectively.  One reason
suggested for reduced costs and increased effectiveness at the local level is
that charitable and civic-minded citizens can be expected to step in as
volunteers with their time, energy, and imagination. 
     Here in the Adirondacks, while Republicans and Democrats struggle in Albany
over increasingly difficult budget cuts, we need to remember that the
problems we face in the Park are not going to be front-burner concerns for
people in the rest of the State.  This is the perennial problem for the
Adirondacks.  The State's deep fiscal crisis only makes it more poignant now.
So despite potential tragedies, it is unlikely that sufficient funds will be
found to purchase all the ecologically important lands needed to protect the
ecological integrity of the Adirondacks. Nor is it likely that the State will
adequately staff its regional administrative and regulatory agencies to the
level necessary to repair and/or control the damage wrought by swarms of
visitors.
     Local government must, therefore, cope with the pernicious economic 
development that threatens the park.  But local empowerment raises the 
inevitable specter of local economic values clashing with regional, even 
international, ecological values; the former are easily measured, with a 
dollar value ascribed, while the latter are impossible to gauge, their values 
all priceless.  Can local authorities, buffeted by the normal economic 
aspirations of their neighbors, friends, and families, assume the full re-
sponsibility of protecting the Park's ecological integrity?
     How far local authorities can actually go in protecting the
Adirondack's ecological integrity depends, in part, on the effectiveness of
the institutional structure created to meld regional and local values.  But
also, as we have seen in the history of the Adirondack Park Agency, on the
structure's acceptability.  Acceptability, in turn, depends on a complex and 
constantly changing blend of perceptions about the extent of local em-
powerment, the equitable distribution of costs and benefits, and the range
 of available economic opportunities.
     The equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of having this 
Park must be addressed because many residents believe they need to sig-
nificantly expand their tax base to help slow their sky-rocketing taxes.
As Pasquarello, et. al., pointed out in AJES 1994 1(1): 21, "...the 
revenues generated by private lands allow the New Yorker to have a park
 on the cheap in the Adirondacks."  So what proportion of the costs of
 properly running a Park should the residents cover?  The Adirondacks 
are an economically depressed region yet several million richer-than-
average visitors come to the Park each year and their fluctuating loads 
require expanded utilities, roads, landfills, hospitals, and other govern-
mental support services.  The current government revenue system seems 
to reward communities that encourage second home development along
 their economically as well as ecologically valuable shorelines. 
     Ecologically conscious local empowerment will also require a significantly
improved perception of the range of alternative economic opportunities
available and the regulatory climate for further economic development.
Frankly, a reasonable level of affluence is a necessary precondition for
appreciating and protecting ecological values -- a lesson with significant
 international implications.  Fortunately, there is work that needs to be 
done to help make this Park not only a tourist's showcase and an ecolo-
gical treasure but also a self-reliant economic entity capable of govern-
ing itself.
     More infrastructure needs to be built and maintained if we are to
 properly locate economic development and protect the Park's environ-
ment.  Incorporating infrastructure needs within sustainable develop-
ment goals could also encourage the local production of many of the
 basic items sold within the Park, including some food (like wild game,
 range-fed meat products, fresh fruits and vegetables in season), building 
materials, and a significant proportion of the energy to heat and power 
our homes and businesses.
     Thus, if New Yorkers hope that devolution will protect the Adirondack's 
ecological integrity then a "bottom-up" approach to sustainable 
development will have to be instituted.  To be successful, a process 
of sustainable development promoting local empowerment will have 
to include equity concerns as well as a significant range of ecologically
-economic opportunities.
     This issue of AJES, like those before it, addresses a variety of topics
related to the Adirondack Park as an international model of sustainable 
development.  In our new "Letters" department, readers' comments help 
encourage a two-way exchange of ideas.  In the "Forum," George Nagle of 
Saranac Lake offers us a vision statement for the Adirondacks and
 challenges readers to improve it.  Claire Barnett, who developed a 
regional venture capital program for the Adirondacks, adds substance to 
several areas of concern in any practical vision for the Park.  Lee 
Wasserman, Executive Director of Environmental Advocates in Albany, 
points out that "no one likes the current regulatory framework" and
with that as the first point of agreement, proposes that all Adirondack 
perspectives be brought to a negotiating table to start afresh.  G. Gordon 
Davis, President of Ecologically Sustainable Development, Inc. of
Elizabethtown, describes how lessons learned in the Adirondacks have been
used to help protect Russia's Lake Baikal.  And Alan Hicks, Senior Wildlife
Biologist at DEC's Wildlife Resources Center in Delmar, tells of the return
of the moose, formerly an extirpated species and one of the reasons for
working so hard at protecting the Adirondacks.  Finally, in the "Penultimate,"
Tom Rumney (SUNY-Plattsburgh) previews the Adirondack Research
Consortium's Second Annual Conference.

Gary Chilson
Paul Smith's College