Manomet Partnerships Magazine Summer 2011

P A R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S T A I N A B I L I T YS U M M E R 2 0 1 1

M A N O M E TCOLLECTIVE IMPACT:A New Approach for Solving Complex Societal Problems

PLUS

WIND’S DILEMMAFinding Solutions to Siting Wind Projects

2 MANOMET PARTNERSHIPS • SUMMER 2011

Editor ............................................................. Bob Moore Design and Production .................................. Jason Fairchild, The Truesdale Group

Partnerships for Sustainability is published by Manomet, Inc. www.manomet.orgCorrespondence may be sent to: Editor, Partnerships for Sustainability, P.O. Box 1770, Manomet, MA 02345. 508-224-6521Maine Office: 14 Maine Street, Suite 305, Brunswick, ME 04011 207-721-9040©2011 Manomet, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in USA using soy-based inks on FSC-certified recycled paper containing post-consumer fiber.

Last March, reluctantly, I crammed myself into the back of a 757 for the six hour non-stop flight from Boston to San Francisco. The Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford was hosting a workshop on a “new” framework for solving tough societal problems called collective impact.

I was astonished to find the cavernous workshop room in the Stanford Alumni Center packed. The organizers had been turning away people for weeks. How could something as abstract and obtuse as “collective impact” draw such a crowd? What motivated me to drastically raise the annual “debt limit” on my allowable carbon emissions by getting on that plane?

First, the workshop was overflowing mostly with highly frustrated foundation program officers; non-profit execs like me were in the minority. The frustration derived from “How could we be giving away $700 billion each year for solving societal problems and yet the problems keep get-ting worse? Why are the BIG problems not getting solved?” The authors of the collective impact concept, published in the January issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, had an idea why.

The big problems are not getting solved, the authors proposed, because the problems are just too complex for any single organization to solve by working alone. Right now, the collective work of non-profits, and even for-profits and government trying to solve big problems, sounds like an orchestra warming up rather than Beethoven’s 9th, one of the longest and most challenging symphonies of all time. Climate change, renewable energy, species loss, and residential development patterns, are all some of the big-

gest and most complex “symphonies” humans have ever faced. These problems need to be tackled in the same way the piccolo players, the flutists, the violinists, the chorus, the percussionists, tackle the 9th—with surgical synchrony. And there had better be a really really good conductor.

The reason the collective impact framework is so interesting to me is because it describes more formally Manomet’s long-standing, fundamental approach to prob-lem solving. We don’t own much land. We don’t make poli-cy. We’re not an advocacy group. Our strength comes from our ability to bring people together, informed by science, to solve problems that would not get solved if they were working in isolation. It is what we are doing with shorebird conservation throughout the hemisphere, climate change adaptation in rural communities, and wind energy develop-ment in towns throughout New England. And frankly, we need to do what we do better.

The collective impact framework explains that “all cylin-ders must be firing” to “move the needle on the dashboard.” It provides a more disciplined approach to solving complex problems. It also explains why our society does not take this approach: it’s very difficult to pull off.

What I have tried to do in this issue of Partnerships is to summarize for you the essence of the collective impact framework for problem solving, especially in relation to natural resources, which of course is Manomet’s focus. See what you think. Kick the tires. And send me your feedback. My email address is below.

President’s Letter

P A R T N E R S H I P S F O R S U S T A I N A B I L I T YS U M M E R 2 0 1 1

M A N O M E TManomet Center for Conservation Sciences is dedicated to helping humans live in harmony with natural resources. We have led the way in bringing together stakeholders—communities, individuals, universities, government agencies, and businesses—to develop cooperative, science-based policies and management strategies that work in the real world.

Our programs focus on enabling people, communities, and businesses to measure, manage, and sustain natural systems and the wildlife and people dependent on them. We strive to develop new solutions for climate change and natural capital protection and to create conservation strategies for wildlife, working landscapes, and wetlands.

For more information, visit www.manomet.org

www.manomet.org

50%

Cert no. SCS-COC-001366

[email protected]

SUMMER 2011 • MANOMET PARTNERSHIPS 3

COLLECTIVE IMPACTA N E W APPROACH FOR SOLVING COM PLE X SOCIE TAL PROB LEMS by John Hagan

Complex problems seem to be growing more numerous. Whether your concern is the environment, health care, the debt, energy, education, poverty, human population, international relations—you name it—there is a palpable and growing sense in our society that we are not solving the important complex problems. We have better science about climate change than ever, but we seem to be less able to do anything about it. Our level of knowledge about a problem is often inversely related to our ability to solve it. Something is amiss. Why can’t we solve the complex problems?

The complex problems of our time are difficult to solve because when we solve one part of the problem, the problem essentially still exists, because we only solved one part of the problem. Or, we solve one part of the problem only to create two new ones. Humans, the ascendant “gifted and talented” species, have created such a complex world that you wonder if we can manage it.

COLLECTIVE IMPACT

One hypothesis is that our inability to solve complex prob-lems derives from our fractured approach to problem solv-ing. We pick away at pieces without a coordinated strategy to address the whole. For example, there is growing recogni-tion that to address climate change, more needs to be done than simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The devel-oped world also needs to be actively engaged in improving the lives of impoverished people in the undeveloped world. It is the disconnect between these two seemingly disparate and complex issues, which are in fact connected, that sty-mies our ability to solve the greater problem of global cli-mate change. What if supporters for greenhouse gas reduc-tions and anti-poverty advocates realized they were actually working on the same problem, and coordinated their work, and their messaging?

Two social scientists have proposed a framework for how to better tackle complex problems that imagines such

synergies. In a provocative paper published in the Winter 2011 edition of Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Collective Impact,” John Kania and Mark Kramer of FSG, a nonprofit social impact consultancy in Boston, argue that we are not solving today’s complex problems because society—for-profits, non-profits, government—is not structured to work collaboratively1. Collaboration, they say, is key to solving complex problems, precisely because such problems are to too complex for any single organiza-tion to solve alone.

Non-profits, just like for-profits, compete in the mar-ketplace of ideas. The long-standing funding model for non-profits pits one organization against another, each clamoring to demonstrate how they have the “best, biggest, or brightest” idea. No wonder, despite $700 billion spent in philanthropy each year in the U.S., complex problems just grow. While competition is great for spurring solutions to technological problems that can be solved by single entities, competition inhibits complex problems from getting solved.


Kania and Kramer use the example of improving the public education system in Cincinnati to illustrate how col-lective impact works. An appallingly low high school gradu-ation rate was resulting in unemployment, crime, drugs, health issues, escalating health costs, and high death rates among youth. Every non-profit and local government group in Cincinnati that had anything to do with childhood devel-opment and K-12 education, from cradle to graduation, got together and said to themselves “Let’s face it, we’re failing. We have to try something different.” The result, a collective effort launched in 2006 called Strive, has been focusing the collaborative efforts of 300 organizations, and agencies on improving public education.

The collective impact framework works like this. First, you have a clear compelling problem that needs solving. Then you identify and align the resources of for-profits, non-profits, government, and philanthropists—whoever and whatever is needed—to work in a coordinated way to solve the problem. It is not important that you don’t know how to solve the problem when you start (after all, its complex), but everyone must have the same common, clear, compelling description of the problem to be solved. Every organization brings their relevant skills to bear on the piece of the problem they can best address. By having a clear “big picture” defini-tion of the problem, everyone sees, understands, and adjusts their work plans to bring the full force of the collective to bear on solving the problem. Contrast this approach with 300 different agencies and non-profits in the Cincinnati area all working independently of each other, without any coordi-nation or communication, without any big-picture definition of the problem, and no common way to measure success, and you have a good picture of business as usual.

However, not every problem is right for the collective impact approach. The trick is to understand when a prob-lem is complex and when it is technical, and to apply the appropriate approach. Problems that are technical often do not require the alignment of many different organizations to solve. Technological problems can often be best solved by investing significant resources in single organizations (the venture capital model). But many complex problems can’t be solved this way because there are too many different parts of the problem. Large investments in single organizations to solve complex problems don’t work; every problem is not a “nail” to be pounded with a venture capital “hammer.” If the problem is one that no organization can likely solve alone, then collective impact is a framework to consider. Speaking at a Collective Impact conference at Stanford last March, John Kania told a packed house of foundation program offi-cers and senior management, “There is no silver bullet for complex problems. But there is silver buckshot.”

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR THE “SILVER BUCKSHOT” APPROACHEarly adopters of this collective impact approach have some cautionary and practical advice to report from their experi-ences so far. Their shared wisdom falls into four categories.

(1) The problem has to be clear, concise, and compelling, and it has to resonate with society—enough people have to actually care about the problem to want it solved. The

various organizations needed to solve the problem have to agree on a common definition of the problem, which can be challenging (the competition ‘gene’ is a formidable force). There must be a shared common vision by the participants, but clearly differentiated roles. That takes tremendous work, organizational skill, and leadership, and all you have so far is a clearly defined problem.

(2) There must be a common language for measuring success (or failure). Participants have to agree on a small but powerful and instruc-tive set of metrics, based on objective data. “You can lie with data, but you can lie a lot easier without data,”

explains Jeff Edmondson, President of the Strive partnership focusing on education in Cincinnati.

(3) The orchestra needs a con-ductor. There needs to be a “back-bone” organization that serves the problem-solving effort. The key word is serves. The backbone organization makes sure that the two previous cri-

teria are met, that communication and coordination is exceptional, and that all participants both provide value and receive value from the collective. This makes for hard, thank-less work. Few have the stomach for it, but it is nonetheless a critical component. As Strive’s Edmondson puts it, “Have a backbone, or go home.”

(4) It takes a long-term commit-ment. To unravel a problem that has been long in the making, participants in the solution need to make long-term commitments to sustaining the

effort. It can take one or two years just to assemble the rele-vant partners and reach a common, clear statement of the problem. Then it can take several more years for actions to be


implemented and begin to take effect, and several more years before the metrics of success start to budge. This seems painstakingly slow, but would you rather have a lasting solu-tion at the end of six years, or run six one-year projects and have nothing of real consequence at the end?

MANOMET AND COLLECTIVE IMPACTMany of the issues Manomet is tackling qualify as complex: species conservation, climate change adaptation, wind energy development, sustainable agriculture, developing new markets for ecosystem services. In fact, the collective impact framework is not new to Manomet. As a non-advo-cacy organization, we learned a long time ago that we had to work with others—non-profits, for-profits, and govern-ment—to get anything done. But there is still much room for improvement in our problem-solving approach, and the collective impact model has some lessons for us.

To make collective impact seem less abstract, here are some examples of how Manomet uses collaboration in the natural resource sector.

Manomet serves as the “backbone” organization in our Shorebird Recovery Project (SRP). The complex problem: shorebirds are declining at the fastest rate of any bird species

group in the Western Hemisphere. Manomet serves as the orchestra leader to dozens of participating partners across the Western Hemisphere. The problem is sufficiently com-plex that there is no way Manomet can solve it alone. For ten years Manomet has served as the “backbone” organization, including serving the network of 84 shorebird conservation sites from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego that comprise the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

But as good as SRP is, shorebird numbers are still declin-ing, and we still lack the communications and coordina-tion infrastructure characterized by the collective impact framework to turn the tide. The framework explains just how important building capacity (human capital and orga-nization) is to solving the problem. Capacity building is not often attractive to funders who are seeking short-term results. Complex problems are not amenable to 12-month or 18-month grant cycle solutions. The collective impact framework warns that a failure to build capacity will fail to deliver a solution to the problem.

Another example at Manomet is the American Oystercatcher Recovery project. At its core, the problem is that American Oystercatchers are few in number and

declining rapidly in eastern North America. The reasons are multiple and complex, and Manomet cannot solve the problem without partnering with stakeholders throughout the American Oystercatchers’ range.

Partners in tackling the problem include the state wild-life departments on the Atlantic coast, federal agencies responsible for wildlife science and conservation, academic institutions conducting research on the species, and non-governmental organizations working on implementing conservation measures for the species. The participants each assist the overall initiative, helping achieve the over-all goals by contributing their individual skills and focus. Manomet serves as the backbone organization, but solving the problem depends entirely on the work of the part-ners—on everyone’s unique but critical part of the solution. Participant organizations understand that each one is noth-ing without the others. It is an essential tenet of collective impact that everyone leave their ego behind—hard to do in a very highly competitive funding world.

Bringing renewable energy to scale is another example of a complex problem. After a decade of trying, New England has realized only about 0.4 percent of its potential for

renewable wind energy, largely due to social constraints and lack of science on human health impacts and wildlife impacts. Manomet’s wind energy program cannot solve this problem alone, but it is collaborating with partners in industry and communities to develop faster, more informed solutions to renewable energy development that are consistent with the interests and values of communi-ties (see accompanying article).

Dairy agriculture is another example. Dairy is one of agricul-ture’s largest emitters of green-house gases and nutrient runoff. Manomet can’t solve this giant problem alone; our approach is to engage partnerships with

industry innovators like Cabot Creamery and Ben & Jerry’s, with whom we can develop models of sustainability that are transferable and replicable. A collaborative does not need to focus only on non-profit partners. In fact, cen-tral to collective impact is identifying collaborators who have leverage—critical pieces of the solution you can’t live without. For-profits and non-profits, both small and large organizations, including government, all may have critical pieces of the solution.


Water is fast becoming one of the world’s most complex prob-lems. The cost to local commu-nities for maintaining drinking water supplies and managing storm water are projected to skyrocket. Stormwater manage-

ment costs already exceed $100/household/year in some developed areas. Manomet is coordinating with land trusts, water districts, state regulatory agencies, the U.S. EPA, landowners, other scientists, and even marketing firms to develop a collective solution to protect water supplies for the long term. The program involves developing a payment mechanism to compensate landowners for keeping their land in natural vegetation cover. The problem cannot be solved by any one of these entities alone.

These are just some examples of complex problems that Manomet is working on. We know we cannot solve any of them by acting alone. We have long embraced a col-laborative approach to problem solving. So really, why all the talk about collective impact as if it is some new bolt from the blue?

What Kania and Kramer did was formalize collab-orative problem solving in a clear, concise, and powerful framework. They made a compelling case for why society is not solving many of the really complex problems that plague us. They made a strong case that, if we really want to solve these complex problems, collaboration will be essential—not an afterthought or a liberal’s worldview, but a highly strategic, disciplined, structured, and non-linear problem solving approach, and we had better give it the attention it needs.

REALITYBut there are at least two huge challenges inhibiting prac-tical, widespread implementation of the collective impact framework. First, our society is not well structured to work collaboratively. In the U.S. we have grown strong through self-sufficiency and independent thinking. In

short, we compete, and competition is a powerful force and strategy for problem solving.

Yet many complex problems will not be solved by com-petition alone. So how we balance our innovative, competi-tive “DNA” with collaboration will be a challenge. Can we work together—for-profits, non-profits, government—to solve problems without giving up our creative, competitive spirit? Could collaborative “group think” even stifle our creativity? Maybe. There must be room in the collective impact approach for creative thinking.

The second big challenge to collective impact is phil-anthropic funding—the “fuel” that runs the social sector. Foundations tend to give one or two year grants. They want results—problems solved—in that time scale. But the big problems can’t be solved in that time frame. NGOs are forced to come up with short-term, “flashy” projects that sound good, but perhaps don’t really strike at the heart of the big complex problem, or that even fail to articulate the bigger problem at hand.

Instead of favoring short-term outcomes, what if foun-dations started to fund, and reward, long-term collab-orative problem solving that focused on developing a clear and precise articulation of the problem to be solved and a clear vision of what success would look like, then building capacity and leadership within society that can implement stepwise, strategic problem solving over the long term? At a minimum, this approach warrants some pioneer invest-ing to see what it can yield. It might require five or even ten years of funding commitment, not just to one organization, but to many. Funding collaboratives among foundations could bring sufficient resources to bear on whatever prob-lem they choose to tackle.

It is time we confess that today’s big problems aren’t getting solved. The collective impact approach boils down to hard, very hard work—work that depends on building strong human relationships based on trust, respect, and commitment. There is no “silver bullet.” Technology will play a role, but is not going to save us from ourselves. We need to change the game on how we solve problems. If this basic framework for problem solving isn’t it, someone needs to explain what is. Time is short. •

1 Kania, J., and M. Kramer. 2011. Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. Winter 2011:36-41.


THERE ARE SOME HARD FACTS TO KNOW ABOUT climate change. The U.S. comprises 4.5 percent of the world population, yet we are responsible for about 20 percent of the world’s energy use. Much of that energy is generated by burning fossil fuels, which sends tons of CO2 and other polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. At the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the earth’s atmosphere is projected to warm 2º to 4ºC in the coming century. That may not sound a lot warmer, but consider that the Earth’s atmosphere today is only five degrees warmer than during the last ice age when a mile-deep glacier sat atop our continent. Global climate change is and always has been a social, economic, and environmental challenge—one that requires a commensurate universal response. Developing clean energy is a challenge for the whole world to try and meet. We all benefit by solving this problem, or together we all lose.

WIND’S DILEMMAFinding Solutions to Siting Wind Projectsby Bob Moore


In much of the United States, wind power is the most abundant renew-able energy resource. The National Academy of Sciences reports that there is enough potential wind power in the lower 48 states to satisfy our nation’s energy appetite 16 times over. A study completed last year by the New England electric grid operator indicated that the region has the tech-nical ability to draw 24 percent of its electricity from wind power by the year 2024. Yet currently, less than half of one percent of New England’s elec-tricity comes from wind.

The resource is there, engineers know how to harness it, and politicians have set ambitious goals. Seventeen states have goals of switching away from fossil technologies and deriving 20 percent or more of their electricity from renewable energy sources within the next decade. In Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick has the state aim-ing for 2,000 megawatts of installed wind power capacity by 2020. But at the end of last year, Massachusetts had only 18 megawatts of installed wind power capacity.

The same story—and the same shortfall—is playing in many states that have set renewable energy goals. The inability to act on the available wind resource and build this clean

energy generation reveals a much larger, more complex problem: with wind energy, the benefits spread throughout society, but the impacts stay local. Siting wind energy goes far beyond engineering how and where to build wind turbines. In fact, siting embodies many problems rolled into one complex roadblock.

Commercial wind turbines are large machines, reaching as high as 400 feet. When new projects are proposed, neighbors become concerned about environmental and visual impacts, property devaluation, and noise. The conversation becomes polarized and unproductive. The list of frustrated communities, individuals, developers, and regulators speaks to a broken process—one that often yields to mis-trust and results in failed projects and untold waste of time and money. Last year, one developer conducted a study that showed 95 percent of wind energy projects are abandoned or rejected. For every delay in transitioning to clean, renewable power, it means more greenhouse gases are entering into the atmosphere. And the atmosphere knows no political boundaries

“Finding socially appropriate sites for wind turbines is not easy, and it’s why we’re doing what we’re doing,” says Dave McGlinchey, Manomet’s

Senior Program Leader for Energy & the Environment. “If we want to tran-sition to clean renewable energy, it will have to include wind. We under-stand how to measure wind, and how to engineer and build turbines. But we have not figured out how to have a civil conversation about where to site them or how to permit them.”

Sudden ReactionsThe solution, according to

McGlinchey, is to bring key stakehold-ers together, early in the process, to work toward the common goal of find-ing appropriate sites for wind energy. Manomet has been using this collab-orative approach for years in other nat-ural resource disciplines, and the need for a coordinated strategy is just as pressing in the renewable energy field.

Currently, wind developers pro-pose projects and then engage the community. Smart companies recog-nize the value of collaboration on individual projects, but there is no parallel effort to tackle the larger com-plex social problem.

“What we look at is, where is the first permit” that’s required, says Kurt Adams, Executive Vice President and Chief Development Officer of First Wind, a national wind power devel-oper based in Boston. As a veteran of wind development, Adams sees community acceptance as key to a successful outcome for his company. “The community has to own its own process in developing its ordinances, and there has to be a transparent, open, fact-based flow of information,” says Adams. “People take this stuff seriously, and they want to hear from developers, citizens and consultants. What does the community want, and what’s acceptable? Then we try to meet their standards and needs.”

The predominant model for sit-ing wind power projects is reactive: suddenly the questions are “How many, how tall, how far away, and how loud?” Opposition often arises. The same concerns are raised each time, and unbiased science is usually the first casualty of the increasingly


heated debate. That process, where each site selection process is fought anew, needs to be turned on its head, says McGlinchey.

A better model is to collaborate early and regionally, identify key ques-tions and direct scientific resources for answering them, and develop scientifically rigorous regulations that are strong and more defensible. Proactive, not reactive. “It’s important to get the right people in the conver-sation early,” says McGlinchey.

Manomet is working on a wind turbine bylaw project, designed to help communities develop land use regulations that effectively and effi-ciently identify appropriate sites based on their values. “We see too many local bylaws and ordinances that are not based on science, or don’t have early-stage buy-in from the com-munity. When the rubber hits road and an actual project is proposed, local bylaws often don’t accommo-date or integrate public values and concerns through informed civil con-versation,” McGlinchey says.

To see what works and what hasn’t worked, McGlinchey is research-ing the gamut of existing bylaws. Manomet has brought together a panel of experts to represent the spec-trum of interests in the wind turbine site selection process. The panel iden-tifies issues that need to be addressed. Manomet staff are synthesizing and distilling all this knowledge into a guidebook for local officials.

“The guidebook will walk them step by step through the issues. We report science in an unbiased, rigor-ous, and respectful way. Manomet has a history of bringing partners together to focus on a problem, and an ability to lead groups in an objective, non-advocacy process,” says McGlinchey. “This guidebook won’t advocate any particular outcome, like setback dis-tances or even whether to build a wind project. Instead, it will give local offi-cials and their communities the infor-mation and process tools they need to make well-informed decisions.”

The wind turbine bylaw guide-book is an example of how Manomet is turning its experience in collab-oration toward wind energy. The problem is clear and undeniable. Everyone involved in wind turbine site selection agrees that better regu-lations will help communities find appropriate sites more efficiently. Success will come with the develop-ment of more appropriately sited wind power; there is little disagree-ment with the various wind energy goals set out by political leaders. Manomet’s interest is in expedit-ing the development of wind energy where socially appropriate, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But while many different agencies and organizations want to find a solu-tion, there has been very little effort to coordinate all of the interested groups. The process requires over-arching coordination and leadership

—a backbone organization to bring together a variety of stakeholders and keep the process moving and focused on a clear target. With an issue as controversial as wind power develop-ment, some of the stakeholders will be natural adversaries. But to find an effective and accepted solution, they all must be brought together to consider and evaluate unbiased sci-ence. This is the role that Manomet has taken on.

The road ahead has many pot-holes, and history shows that univer-sal acceptance of wind power is not a realistic goal. Problems arise even in situations where a community choos-es to develop wind power proactively through a locally-owned cooperative and does extensive outreach ahead of time. Larger, unresolved questions filter into the local process. Segments of the population oppose projects because they feel that environmental, aesthetic or even health impacts out-weigh the benefits.

A good example is in Falmouth, MA, where the town commissioned a wind turbine last year at its wastewa-ter treatment plant. The town built a second—which is not yet operation-al—earlier this year. A third turbine, privately owned, was built nearby at the town’s technology park.

Megan Amsler, the chair of the town’s Energy Committee, promotes the economic and environmental benefits of the project. When both turbines are operational, 60 percent of the town’s municipal electricity will come from wind power, offsetting a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The first machine has saved the town $200,000 just through avoided electricity purchases at the treatment facility. “That is equiva-lent to between four and five full-time jobs—like teachers or police officers—in the Town of Falmouth,” Amsler said.

Still, some neighbors are con-cerned about potential impact on property values and the noise from the turbines. Several say that the turbines are making them sick. Neil Andersen, who lives about 1,300 feet


from the first turbine, says that he is considering moving.

“You’re never going to get 100 percent agreement on any project this large,” McGlinchey said. “But communities need to have a very inclusive conversation about how to develop wind energy, and the ben-efits and impacts.”

Not in My ViewResistance to wind projects often

arises when advocates for a certain seashore, mountain, or neighborhood fear that the project will disturb or alter their special place, impair their quality of life or reduce property value. They ask why they should bear the burden of dealing with a problem that is, after all, of society’s making—that is, the need for clean electricity.

Balancing those issues with the broader societal goal of developing clean energy is where people like McGlinchey specialize. The challenge is all the more compelling because with wind power (as with all energy generation), someone will always have to host the project. Wind turbines have to be developed where the wind resource is, whether that’s the north-ern mountains of Maine, Texas scrub

country, or the coast of Massachusetts. Wind developers are routinely

asked during the siting process to sit-uate turbines to minimize the impact to wildlife and people. The challenge for McGlinchey and others is to ele-vate the debate, so that when oppo-nents raise concerns about a wind project’s impact, the resulting con-versation can focus on regional and global context with a strong scientific foundation. Concerns about a wind project near Bicknell’s Thrush breed-ing habitat, for example, can be juxta-posed with equally valid questions of which poses the greater threat—wind turbines generating clean electricity at this site, or the disappearance of its alpine fir forest breeding habitat alto-gether due to warming temperatures.

Proponents for wind power in a region would gain substantial ground by doing a little proactive legwork. By leading with discussions about sustainable and renewable energy and where to site a project so it doesn’t impact community values, the wider social, economic, and environmental benefits of the project might not be as disruptive. Concerns about aesthetics and noise may not be diminished, but the community will at least have a clearer view of the overall goal, and

even be more willing to compromise. And compromise is going to be nec-essary if society is to reach even mod-est renewable energy targets.

“When people say, ‘Not in my view, not in my vista,’ they implicitly say it has to be in someone else’s vista. We can’t say that anymore,” says Chris Powicki, president of Water, Energy, & Ecology Information Services in Brewster, Massachusetts. “If we buy power from Canada, the problems are shifted to there, because there they flood huge quantities of land and displace populations. What’s worse, disrupting a view, or that?” There is no right answer to that question, but it is one that ethically should be asked.

Growing StrongIn the span of a decade, generating

electricity from the wind has grown considerably. “We’re adolescent now,” says First Wind’s Adams. “We’ve built a lot of projects in the U.S. But we’re not at a place where people feel like they have facility with issues around wind power.”

Still, the future looks strong for wind power. Adams says First Wind successfully weathered the financial crisis, raising $2 billion in the past two years, and their $400 million project in Milford, Utah was the first wind power project to be financed after the 2008-2009 credit crisis. Massachusetts officials have said they hope for 90 megawatts of wind power capacity in the development pipeline by the end of this year.

But if the underlying problem of social acceptance of wind farms is not addressed, these efforts will hit the same rough patches that their prede-cessors did. As with complex issues surrounding sustainable forestry, dairy farming, and climate change, the problems are not scientific as much as social. This is what compels Manomet to lead informed and civil conversa-tion that puts science to use. In that context, appropriate siting of wind power can win the local acceptance it has so often gone without. •

Megan Amsler, chair of the Falmouth, MA Energy Committee, and Dave McGlinchey meet at the site where two town-commissioned wind turbines will soon generate 60 percent of the town’s electricity. McGlinchey says communities need to hold inclusive conversations about how they would develop wind power before embarking on a project.

Mar

k Wils

on


She did Christmas Bird Counts and kept detailed logs of her sightings over the years. That was what first brought her to Manomet, and as her appreciation of Manomet’s work grew, she urged her children to become involved. Two children went into outdoor science professions.

Janet’s son Dave Bryan worked in the corporate sector, and was surprised to find himself volunteering for an environmental science organization. “Science is a big part of the answer to preserving what we have. I admire Manomet scientists—they have a passion for the real work that needs to get done,” says Dave. A trustee since 2005, Dave lends Manomet his expertise in strategic planning and organizational performance. “I like being involved with Manomet because I have seen that this small organization can have a big influence in so many areas, and I like figuring out how organizations work—and helping them work better,” says Dave.

Dave introduced his daughter, Lisa Schibley, to Manomet. Like her grandmother, birding is a passion for Lisa. Lisa brings her organizational and data management skills to Manomet, helping the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network find future shorebird sites. “I love the scope of the projects, the work to save shorebirds across the hemisphere, and the variety of projects in Maine and Massachusetts,” says Lisa. She speaks for all of the generations that have found purpose at Manomet: “It is easy in the day-to-day rhythm of life to not think about complex issues. Knowing that Manomet is here, working on those issues, is reassuring and I am proud to be a part.”

Please consider leaving a legacy for your family’s next generations by considering a bequest or planned gift to Manomet and our legacy of using unbiased science and collaborative skills to solve the complex environmental problems of today and tomorrow. Contact Sue Chamberlain at [email protected] or call (508) 224-6521.

“I like being outside and learning more about nature and science when I visit Manomet

where my mom works. Nature gives people and animals the things they need to live and

I want to help protect it.”—James Schibley, age 8

Janet Bryan had a lifelong love of birding.

Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage

P A I DPermit No. 430 Brockton, MA

P.O. Box 1770 Manomet, Massachusetts 02345 USA

Address Service RequestedE Printed on recycled paper

When you have finished reading this magazine, please pass it along to a friend.

We can create a sustainable world even while holding diverse opinions about our most cherished values.

Manomet Partnerships Magazine Summer 2011

Documents

Transcript of Manomet Partnerships Magazine Summer 2011