|
GOOGLE for the terms "public/private partnership forest-service" -- and you get 90,000 hits, the first of which takes you to an exceptionally important document on the Wild Wilderness website.
What I provided is the agreement between the American Recreation Coalition --a lobby group which, since 1979, has strived to dominate and control access to outdoor recreation-- and the USDA Forest Service, the nation's second most important provider of recreational access. The document details the Public/Private Partnership (P3) which radically, and potentially forever, changed the very nature of outdoor recreation. It transformed how citizens are treated by land managers and it is responsible for undercutting the ability of the US Forest Service to manage recreation as a public resource.
The stated purpose of this P3 is expressed as follows:
[The purpose of this Agreement is to cooperatively implement the recreation user fee demonstration project, authorized by the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations measure, in order to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities on Federal public lands.]
Today, as a result of this and similar partnerships between public agencies and special interest entities, citizens are treated as mere customers/consumers and land managers have become lackeys who take orders from, and pander to, their "partners". Today, managers manage partnerships and privatization contracts.
The Canadians got here before us. Canadians were early adapters who, when they realized their mistake, attempted to pull back. Yet in spite of their efforts, they continue to slip toward the brink. Appended is an article published today in the Canadian press titled "Why are we revisiting P3s?"
Whenever you hear the words Public Private Partnership - stop and think.
Knowing how frequently you will be hearing those words, I've made quite a demand upon you. Then again, this is EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT.
Scott
PS... The USFS is the second most important provider of outdoor recreation. CLICK HERE to see what the ARC is currently (RIGHT NOW) doing with the most important provider.
--- begin quoted ---
Why are we revisiting P3s?
By CHRISTINE SAULNIER
Feb 27, 2008
Perhaps the only thing that is clear from the newest attempt to enter
into more P3 partnerships in this province is that public policy
decisions are made despite the lack of evidence to support them.
The evidence against this kind of privatization is overwhelmingly
negative – the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has published
numerous reports examining experiences in British Columbia, Nova Scotia
and Britain.
For communities, these projects have resulted in less access to spaces
that can be used for recreational activities, for example. This seems
to go against the government’s own health promotion message.
For health care, they have meant higher user fees and longer waiting
lists in the public system. This seems to go against the government’s
attempts to address access issues.
These P3 projects raise concerns about public accountability. In the
last round of "partnership building," the schools’ lease details were
not disclosed for reasons of "proprietary corporate information." Past
experience tells us that the "devil was in the details." In the
meantime, the government is locked into a contract for 25 to 30 years
that allows for no flexibility to respond to community needs.
The government’s motivations for spending the money to look into P3
projects have not been made clear. We are continually being told that
the government has to pay down the debt and continue to balance the
budget. However, in his examination of P3s, economics professor John
Loxley has concluded that "governments end up actually paying more for
these leases than if they borrowed the money directly themselves." This
was confirmed by our own provincial auditor.
The only motivation seems to be the money being offered by the Harper
government for such P3 projects. Is this federal bribe sufficient
reason for this kind of public policy decision?
We should also be asking why the government has waited this long to
deal with our aging infrastructure and is now faced with an
overwhelming number of projects that need to be addressed all at once.
The age of our infrastructure should not be a surprise, but here we are
at nothing less than a crisis point. Statistics Canada recently
released a report showing that Nova Scotia has the oldest
infrastructure in the country. Renovations are sometimes more
cost-effective than new construction, and spreading out the costs over
many years also would have made more sense.
It is hard not to be cynical and suggest that waiting for a crisis is
the best way to convince Nova Scotians that the government has no
choice and there is only one way to solve the problem.
As the government embarks on the road to investigating the costs and
benefits of these partnerships, it must ensure that its decision is
based on all the information, which is then provided to the electorate.
The citizens of this province deserve all the complicated details,
including evidence of the higher costs and lower benefits if the public
sector was to build and operate the infrastructure instead. Previously,
these costs were exaggerated by the private companies that were asked
to submit this information.
P3 "partnerships" are presented as if the private sector is acting
altruistically to help our government improve its infrastructure. The
only way that the private sector can be involved is if there is profit
to be made. P3s have not been proven to be in the public interest. They
have, however, been rather profitable for private companies choosing to
hire cheaper labour and cut costs and corners without being held
publicly accountable.
Christine Saulnier is director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-Nova Scotia.
|
BLOG 
