|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||
|
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||||
 |
 Steve McCormick, President and Chief Executive Officer © Sam Kittner |
Balancing The Story
Published in The Washington Post on May 13, 2003.
The Nature Conservancy takes seriously the issues of oversight, judgment and integrity raised by The Washington Post in the series ‘Big Green’ [front page, May 4-6]. We have already taken vigorous measures to respond, reported in a Washington Post editorial and repeated below, and we are committed to changing any of our practices that do not live up to our mission and values.
However, we feel that the series painted a distorted picture of our organization. It misrepresented our motives and methods, took quotations out of context and omitted key details (such as our mission) and differing points of view. And lacking any broader context, it simplified complex issues and dismissed our accomplishments for the environment.
In fact, since The Washington Post began its inquiry two years ago, The Nature Conservancy has protected more than 2 million acres — an area the size of Yellowstone National Park.
These projects range from a 10,000-acre ranch in Big Sur to a 23,000-acre island in Mexico's Sea of Cortez. We put together an innovative project to protect 250,000 acres of forest in northern Maine. Closer to home, we acquired 9,000 acres in southwestern Virginia and 3,500 acres along Nassawango Creek on the Eastern Shore.
Coverage of The Nature Conservancy's partnerships with the private sector created the impression that we are financed largely by corporations. This is not true. On average, corporations account for less than 10 percent of cash donations to the Conservancy.
The public benefits from these partnerships as well. Look no farther than the Billy Goat Trail at Great Falls — a Conservancy project on land donated by Pepco.
We occupy a unique niche in the conservation movement — what some have called "the radical center." Our long history of working with business is no secret. Most environmentalists recognize and applaud the role we play. Only The Nature Conservancy could and does enjoy the support of both the chairman of General Motors and a founder of Earth First.
Regarding compatible development projects, The Nature Conservancy is and should be willing to try new things in pursuit of our mission. Some of those efforts will succeed; others will not — that's the nature of innovation. And, as we shared with The Washington Post, we have learned some painful lessons in the process of trying some of these new approaches.
But readers also deserve to know that we have acted on these lessons. In the case of Texas City Prairie Preserve, for example, we have new leadership in place at the preserve and are implementing the recommendations of a scientific review by University of Wisconsin conservation biologist Stan Temple. The Virginia Coast Reserve, also under new leadership, has experienced a similar turnaround. These changes long predate the publication of The Washington Post series.
Because of the complexities of tax law, meanwhile, we recognize that one might easily misinterpret the conservation buyer program. Yet The Washington Post has a responsibility to characterize these transactions accurately.
It is misleading in the extreme, for example, to suggest that The Nature Conservancy sells these properties at a "loss." Court after court has affirmed that development restrictions have monetary value. These restrictions are real and binding, in perpetuity, and designed for a distinct conservation purpose. Hundreds of land trusts around the country rely on this mechanism as an effective, efficient way of protecting open space.
Finally, I feel compelled to restate The Nature Conservancy's commitment to science. The implication that the Conservancy is moving away from its roots as a science-based organization could not be further from the truth. Good science has always been and will remain our hallmark.
Despite our disappointment over the lack of balance in the series, I am the first to acknowledge that it raises valid questions for our institution. The Conservancy's Board of Directors will therefore dedicate its entire June meeting to a frank discussion of The Nature Conservancy's practices, policies and procedures.
We will certainly focus on The Washington Post's specific charges. But our intent is to conduct a thoughtful and wide-ranging review to ensure that the Conservancy's actions are in every case consistent with our mission. We will pay close attention to how we engage and work with our board and chapter trustees.
We are committed to making permanent and substantive changes where they are justified. Until that board review in June, we will suspend the following practices:
- All new conservation buyer transactions.
- All new resource-extraction activities at Conservancy preserves.
- All new cause-related marketing partnerships.
- Any new loans to current or prospective employees.
The confusion about my compensation has been particularly embarrassing and is something for which I take full responsibility.
We will do what it takes to leave the Conservancy a stronger organization. Our reputation relies on our record of accomplishment and the trust placed in us by our donors, members, partners and the public. We recognize our responsibility to earn that trust every day, through all of our actions.
Steve McCormick
President and Chief Executive Officer
