Although, in principle, this should lead to more efficient use of limited resources, a wider view suggests that it can come at the expense of co-operation, sharing resources, undertaking joint initiatives, learning and sharing common lessons.
The funding is also only for a limited time, but the work that must be done goes on. If groups struggle because of lack of funding or other support, not only are they at risk but so is the biodiversity they are working to conserve.
How sustainable then is the current community-based conservation model? What individual and collective challenges do such groups face?
How can they be encouraged to work more co-operatively, but without sacrificing their own characters? How can they work more effectively? There are many questions but not many answers. That needs to change.
There are also other questions. What do community-led initiatives contribute to achieving national conservation goals?
Looking across the activities of many groups strongly suggests that their contributions are positive, but demonstrating this is not straightforward.
Not only do we need to assess individual and collective community achievements, but these must be seen against national conservation gains and losses.
A recent review by the Environmental Defence Society, Vanishing Nature, suggests that conditions are worsening nationally.
Around 85 per cent of our native lizards, 74 per cent of indigenous fish species and nearly 40 per cent of our plant and bird species are threatened or at risk.
What constrains community groups from doing more or working more effectively?
Funding is clearly a major issue. Most groups rely on the generosity of wider society, and their own pockets, to sustain their work. Is this reliance on charity sustainable?
People's generosity cannot be taken for granted. A change in economic circumstances or a shift in focus can see support fall away.
Consider the Government's recently announced initiative to seek to eradicate possums, rats, stoats and feral cats in New Zealand by 2050. What does this imply for community groups, given that the initiative envisions funding through public-private partnerships?
Isn't there a danger that small, local initiatives will become sidelined in our enthusiasm to pursue this grand vision? That would surely be an undesirable, unintended consequence.
Support can also drop off if community groups can't show ongoing progress in achieving their goals. But showing progress in a credible way requires monitoring, something that is technical, costly and takes time to do properly. It receives low priority in the larger scheme of things.
Given that the Department of Conservation and Ministry of Environment seem to be driving the move towards more community-led conservation, or at least are tacitly supporting the shift, we need their visions for the future.
Do they have a coherent vision and plan to achieve it, or are we just muddling along, making up the rules as we go? If so, why? What needs to change?
- Peter Frost is an environmental scientist working as a volunteer at Bushy Park to help conserve our native biodiversity.
