In the year 2028, how will our public institutions and private owners shape decisions in northern Maine? What does “smart growth” in the large areas of northern Maine mean in the long term? How do we build long-term livelihoods without trashing the place?

Much attention has been focused on the Plum Creek hearings before the Land Use Regulation Commission. Unfortunately, the adversarial nature of LURC’s process forces parties to stake out positions, rather than looking at their long-term interests. There are divisions within the environmental community and also within the gateway towns of Greenville and Rockwood about whether Plum Creek’s proposal is “smart growth,” and what the alternatives should be. All parties agree that Plum Creek’s concept plan is a harbinger for future large-scale proposals for northern Maine. It is time to step back and look at everyone’s long-term interests.

Private owners control the majority of the lands in northern Maine. Maine’s northern forests are unlike other large open lands in the lower 48 states. With recent land divestitures by paper companies, the ownership map has become more fragmented. There is a major transition under way from vertically integrated paper companies to investor owners, and from large ownerships to smaller parcels. Towns such as Millinocket have lost large numbers of jobs and schoolchildren. Since the end of the log drives in the 1970s an extensive network of logging roads has blanketed the working forestlands.

State government plays a large role. Not only does LURC serve as land use regulator, but several state programs, such as the Tree Growth tax law, focus on northern Maine. With funding from Land for Maine’s Future, state land ownership and easements have increased substantially. Federal income tax changes affect new investors in northern Maine.

Conservation agreements between private landowners and environmental groups affect more than a million acres. Land trusts benefit from tax incentives that support conservation donations. Should land trust decisions be made more transparent and accountable to the public? If decisions are principally made by private landowners and nongovernmental organizations, will this lead to gentrification in northern Maine?

Regardless of how the Plum Creek proposal unfolds, it has stirred significant questions about long-term decision making in northern Maine. Is a contested regulatory proceeding the best way to balance the interests of southern-coastal Maine and the residents of gateway communities and the Unorganized Territory? Is it flexible enough to address the economic balance between working forests and ecotourism or other bases of long-term livelihood? What combination of public and private parties should be making these important decisions?

To begin to think about these long-term questions, the parties should consider some very basic principles of interest-based bargaining. Focus on interests, not positions. Listen very carefully, particularly to those with whom you generally disagree. Consider problems that are faced by all parties. Put a check on naive optimism, but don’t give up hope. And most of all start with the people.

None of this is novel or particularly revolutionary. It is a short form of a very short book, “Getting to Yes.”

Colby College will sponsor a conference on these long-term questions Thursday evening, March 13, and all day Friday, March 14. We seek active participation, not only by panelists on the podium, but also from a diverse audience. Discussions have begun on an electronic bulletin board available to those who register online. We encourage you to join in one of the most important discussions now under way in the state.

Peter Sly is the Mellon Fellow in Environment and Justice at Colby College. Colby’s Environmental Studies Program and the Goldfarb Center on Civic Engagement are sponsoring “Protecting Livelihoods and Landscapes in Northern Maine.” For more information on the conference, go to http://www.colby.edu/environ/Landscape

Conf/Landscapes.html