Nature Conservancy Revises Several Policies in Wake of Criticism

The Nature Conservancy is altering several of its policies that have drawn criticism recently on Capitol Hill and in the news media, and is enlisting a group of outside advisers to recommend additional changes.

A series of articles last month in The Washington Post focused attention on several controversial practices at the nation’s wealthiest conservation group, which has one million members and $3.3-billion in assets, much of it in conservation land. As a result, the charity’s board of directors this month adopted several new policies.

The Nature Conservancy says it will no longer buy or sell land in transactions involving its board members, trustees, staff members, or their immediate families, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such sales had created the impression of favoritism, in that some of those people were able to purchase home sites from the Nature Conservancy at prices discounted steeply to reflect the imposition of conservation easements that may not have been rigorously enforced.

The organization says it also will tighten its policies on the use of such conservation easements, in which property owners agree not to undertake certain specified types of development on their land. By donating development rights to the Nature Conservancy, they are eligible for charitable tax deductions. But to ensure that landowners live up to their part of the deal, the Nature Conservancy says that all such gifts of development rights will now be made explicit in legally enforceable documents, and will be monitored to ensure compliance.

Loans to Staff Members

The organization will no longer lend money to staff members. In about a dozen cases in the past decade, it made low-interest loans to help staff members buy homes when they relocated.

“The reaction from our members seemed to be that this was an opportunity cost, this was capital that could otherwise go into conservation,” said Steven J. McCormick, the Nature Conservancy’s president. He himself has now repaid a $1.5-million loan he received from the organization to help him buy a house. The two other loans outstanding are to be repaid within 90 days.

The Nature Conservancy also decided to bar drilling for oil or gas or mining for coal or other minerals on its own land. “There are some activities that simply on their face, at first glance, appear to be inappropriate” for the Nature Conservancy to engage in, said Mr. McCormick. “One of those things is drilling for oil or gas or hard-rock minerals on property we own.” The organization has done so only twice in 52 years, he said, but the public-relations fallout is too big a price to pay even in the rare cases where the charity feels such activities can be justified. “Given enough time to explain why we did it, people will come to accept it,” he said, “but we don’t have enough time in every case.”

The charity has taken steps to defuse the impact of criticism in the press: It has called major donors to discuss any concerns they might have, and has held four open houses with members near its headquarters in Arlington, Va., to solicit their opinions.

“It’s too soon to see if we’re going to have a dropoff in support, particularly among our rank-and-file members,” Mr. McCormick said.

The organization received $391-million in donations last year, but a survey of members the charity conducted shortly after The Post series ran showed some erosion in support, which Mr. McCormick declined to quantify.

Meanwhile, a panel of independent advisers who will be named shortly will help the organization “continue to strengthen its governance, transparency, and accountability” in moving toward its goal of demonstrating best practices and integrity beyond reproach, he said.

Senate Inquiry

The recent policy changes may not forestall an inquiry by two key U.S. senators. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Max Baucus of Montana, the committee’s ranking Democrat, have expressed an interest in seeing an accounting of the Nature Conservancy’s transactions, particularly ones involving land sales to some of its 1,500 local trustees, who serve as unpaid advisers at Conservancy chapters (The Chronicle, May 29).

The American Institute of Philanthropy had previously awarded the Nature Conservancy a grade of A- for its management and fund-raising practices. Daniel Borochoff, who runs the charity watchdog, expressed concern at some of the practices brought to light recently, such as potential conflicts between the interests of trustee landowners and the organization’s charitable mission.

“I’m impressed that the Nature Conservancy is taking steps to try to improve,” Mr. Borochoff said. “That’s really important. If they weren’t doing that, there would be great cause for concern.”