Death by 1000 projects?

2015-08-29 16.15.57

Death by 1000 projects. That quote came from the recent Environmental Defense Society conference, though apologies, I’m not sure who to attribute it to. The point relates to the inefficiency of having such a large number conservation projects underway around New Zealand that often work independently from one another.

Generally, the meta-objective of most community groups is to fix up a degraded part of the landscape. Poor land management policies may have started the inexorable decline, hastened by the arrival of pest animals and weeds. It doesn’t take much for a small remnant piece of bush or wetland to loose it’s ecological integrity, or mauri – it’s essential life force. It’s a huge bonus that there are so many volunteers who are motivated to come together either formally or informally to stop further declines and to bring back what used to occur in these places. Native birds. Rare plants. Eels and whitebait.

The challenge is the lack of cohesion between groups, as in many cases groups work independently on their project site. In addition, the data they collect is typically used to support funding applications and their own project management. However, there are some excellent models in Northland where the groups with shared objectives, namely protecting kiwi, collaborate and pool resources, with overall coordination provided by partners from the Dept. of Conservation/DOC, NGOs and others. Data are used by researchers to measure whether kiwi numbers are growing using this approach – and slowly, they are!

While applying this model results in various efficiencies (bulk buying of traps and trees; coordinated pest control operations and more opportunities for research), as well as useful data, making it work in other parts of the country is a challenge. It takes time to keep a single group operational let alone coordinate with others. In addition, the interests, capabilities and objectives of groups may differ – the debate around toxins vs. trapping can easily divide communities. Because objectives differ, monitoring needs also differ. I suspect independence, ownership and identity would also surface as important factors for consideration as grass-roots initiatives, the whole point of groups being to tackle work that e.g., agencies would otherwise not carry out.

Across ‘the ditch’ is a different model. The ambitious Gondwana Link project covers a 1000 km swathe of south-western Australia, one of the world’s biodiversity hot spots. Rather than being perceived as one giant project, Gondwana Link Ltd seeks to fit smaller area programs together in order to effect landscape change. Interestingly, this approach doesn’t actually imply that the programs and groups work closely together, “…but that their results fit closely together”. This poses multiple challenges for measuring success – which is still a work in progress. Although Gondwana Link Ltd aims to improve ‘fitting together’, ultimately it is the groups’ responsibility for achieving on ground change in their localities.

For the New Zealand context, I had a quick think about what a future model might look like compared to the current scenario and came up with the following diagrams.

Synthesis_Implications CURRENT

Figure 1. Currently, community groups are individually supported by project partners (white arrows) Community-generated data are self-used (circular black arrows), while data use by partners is weak (dotted black arrows). In contrast, partners are both coordinators and end-users of crowd-sourced citizen science data, so the links there are strong.

Synthesis_Implications FUTURE

Figure 2. A future scenario shows a collaborative model of groups – using the idea of Kiwi Coast. As well as quantifying project objectives, data are shared with project partners (black arrows) and between groups and citizen science projects where research objectives align (black arrows). Community generated data are eventually fed into evidence-based policy-making (black arrow) – this is an area that hasn’t been discussed in NZ though is gaining considerable momentum overseas. An independent organisation supports data integration among groups, citizen science projects, partners and policy-makers. To date, there’s a European, American and Australian Citizen Science Association. NZ should definitely be next!

Advertisements

4 responses to “Death by 1000 projects?

  1. hi- suprised you did not mention Nature Space (www.naturespace.org.nz). Few countries have such a coordinating collaborative structure in place. If a community group wants to restore a stream I don’t think anyone should prevent them but through Nature Space they can find out who is doing the same work nationwide, share experiences, learn from everyone, obtain strategic support from agencies, and store data and images and documents. This is a major opportunity to creat a “stadium of 4 million” (as Anne Salmond suggested we should at least for streams and rivers) focused on restoration or rewilding.

    Would you rather not have 1000 projects to start with?

    Like

  2. HI – I thoroughly agree that Nature Space is a really useful resource and yes, it is pretty unique. NZ is also unique in that so many restoration-centered groups have self-mobilized in response to local environmental issues. We definitely need networks to draw groups together – to provide information to groups on which activities are underway nearby; to build momentum; to provide some evidence (although largely unquantified) to funders of groups’ contributions to conservation. However the onus is still on groups to coordinate among themselves – a lot of extra work for volunteer group members. A more effective model is having an external coordinator, specifically funded for this purpose as in the Kiwi Coast project. The external coordinator’s job covers liaison with and between groups; they organise workshops and training (e.g., predator trapping, monitoring) and act as a bridge between groups and agencies. Agreed that coordinator component isn’t included in my diagrams and so should be! NZ really does need a 1000 projects, but with limited funding available, and where biodiversity and environmental health are still declining, greater cohesion in the voluntary sector can make a measurable difference. A recent report proves this https://www.kiwisforkiwi.org/news-and-media/saving-kiwi-from-extinction-achievable/ (though annoyingly, there aren’t any links to the report itself!)

    Like

  3. Monica Things have developed all of a sudden with my Conservation Alliance project.. WWF ca;l;ed me and suggested I put in an application to their Conservation Innovation Awards So I have done just that Conservation Innovation Awards 2015 Its in the Community Projects section. However the system is that I need people to vote to support it and wondered if you would be prepared to: 1. endorse it yourself 2. send out an email to your list. Look forward toi hearing from you Thanks Julian Julian Fitter The Conservation Alliance 21 Ngaparaoa Drive RD9, Te Puke 3189 New Zealand Tel/fax: +64 7533 2040 Mob: +64 21 076 9436 email: julianfitter@xtra.co.nz From: monicalogues Reply-To: monicalogues Date: Saturday, 29 August 2015 4:29 pm To: Subject: [New post] Death by 1000 projects?

    WordPress.com Monica Peters posted: ” Death by 1000 projects. That quote can from the recent Environmental Defense Society conference, though apologies, I¹m not sure who to attribute it to. The point relates to the inefficiency of having such a large number conservation projects underway “

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s