Abstract

Results are presented from research in support of the New Zealand Department of Conservation’s strategy on conservation with communities. The research encompasses a wide range of rural and urban partnerships with the Department, focused on species protection, pest control, recreation, education and conservation awareness. The key features of effective community initiatives are identified, focusing particularly on the business rhetoric often associated with community groups. The notion that effective community initiatives are often run as a ‘business’ is examined, along with the role of wider community initiatives and the Department’s work with communities.

Introduction

The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) is the central government organisation charged with conserving natural and historic heritage on behalf of and for the benefit of present and future New Zealanders. Recently the Department released its strategy on conservation with communities.

The purpose of this strategy is to improve the ability of the Department to work with communities to achieve conservation outcomes through:

• encouraging and supporting communities and individuals to contribute to conservation, and building their capability to do so; and
• helping to increase awareness of and commitment to conservation among New Zealanders.

The strategy emphasises the importance of building partnerships with communities, providing opportunities for community participation, and supporting communities to develop the skills they need to do conservation work. A key message of the strategy is that ‘conservation needs community support’.

To assist implementation of the strategy, research was commissioned to review the key features of effective community conservation initiatives. The research focused on the broad range of community groups that are working with the Department, both inside and outside protected areas.

This paper draws on these research findings and reviews the key features of effective community initiatives, focusing particularly on the ‘business’ rhetoric that was often associated with these groups. In light of the notion that community groups are often run as a ‘business’, the paper considers the role of the wider community in these initiatives and in the Department’s work with communities.

Methods

Seven case study partnerships¹ are examined using a combination of interviews and focus groups with Department staff and representatives from these community groups. No attempt is made to provide a comprehensive picture of the broad spectrum of conservation projects the Department has with community groups. Instead, this research aims to identify the key issues and dynamics surrounding a selection of Department-community conservation initiatives.

The seven partnerships selected included a mixture of urban and rural projects, large and small scale projects, projects initiated by the community, projects initiated by the Department, and formal and informal projects. The partnerships focus on a range of issues including species protection, pest control, recreation, education and awareness.

Key Features of Effective Community Groups

Community groups can be based on a range of factors including geography, common interests or demographics. Just as each community will have its on own distinct make up, so will each community group. Each group has been selected because they are achieving or working to achieve specific conservation outcomes. However, in nearly all of the case studies, the groups have experienced internal tensions and conflict, unexpected hurdles, disappointments, or slower progress than expected. As part of the research, community groups identified the following eleven factors that they believed had influenced the success of their conservation initiatives and kept them going in the face of often significant hurdles.

1. Strong community leaders or ‘movers and shakers’ involved in the project. In a few case studies this leadership role came from within the Department.

2. Leaders who like working with a group of people and involve others in the discussions and decision making. While projects are often driven by one or two key people, there was a common sense across the groups that successful projects needed to be bigger than one person.

3. Group stability which comes from the same group of trustees or committee members being involved throughout the duration of the project.

4. A range of skills within the group with people hand-picked from the community who had proven skills to carry out specific tasks.

5. A clearly defined goal or mission statement that the entire group agrees to that can ensure the focus is on what the group has in common as opposed the differences in the personalities involved.

6. Developing and agreeing to a plan before starting any work to ensure a foundation and framework is set in place.

7. Recognising and celebrating achievements is a key motivating factor for keeping a group going.

8. Secure medium to long term funding.

9. The right legal structure for the group.

10. Systems in place for internal communication.

11. Business-like approaches to running the operations of the group.

Community Groups as Businesses

A key theme to emerge from many of these discussions with community groups was the importance of running the groups as a ‘business’. Common comments from community participants included:

I think of it as a business.

We involved the right people, that’s why its succeeded so well. It’s just like a business – we run it properly.

The committee decided to become more business like – then personalities are not as important.

Every community group is markedly different and will be situated at different places along the community group continuum in Figure 1. Groups who sit predominantly at the left end of the continuum could be described as informal or small scale. While groups who are predominantly at the right end of the continuum can be defined as more ‘business like’ or corporate.

Figure 1. Community Group Continuum

With groups handling large amounts of money and subject to reporting requirements from funders, community organisations can often move to mirror the structures of the private sector. Across the community sector in general there has been an increasing shift towards professionalism of groups and an associated reliance on skilled volunteers or paid professionals. In part this can be attributed to the need to secure funding and fulfil the reporting requirements of funding providers (Wilson 2001).

Many of the case studies in this research had shifted over time towards the right end of the continuum and advocated the importance of being ‘business like’. As the Chairperson of the Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi² commented:

There is some concern that we are creating another bureaucracy. But we are a business and have become more professional. We have moved away from the church steeple fund. When it first started DOC saw it as an informal group – it has evolved.

Most of the individuals who initiated these projects come from a business background and did not want to be identified as ‘greenies’ or ‘forest and bird types’. The main objectives of the projects are physical goals such as protecting a species, building a track, or controlling a pest and they want to achieve these goals in the most efficient, timely, cost effective, business like manner. This preferred ‘business’ approach was apparent in the views of one person who had been involved in Project Kiwi³:

If I was starting this up somewhere, the first thing I’d do is hire the most experienced ecosystem manager possible and then get good technical back up. Start it up as a business. Enthusiasm and commitment mean bugger all it’s experience that counts. Get good plans and systems up and running and then open the doors for all the enthusiasm and passion. You’ve gotta be pretty mercenary I reckon.

Another common theme in the business rhetoric was the importance of having paid professional ‘experts’ involved in the project as opposed to enthusiastic volunteers. In a number of cases staff with specialist skills were being contracted as project managers or technical experts and paid staff are often perceived as a ‘safer’ and more reliable option than volunteers.

Role of the Wider Community in Existing Conservation Initiatives

There was much discussion with the groups as to where the wider community and volunteers fit into these community projects and a number of projects have had to turn away people who want to get involved. Some community participants commented:

People are always saying ‘what can I do?’ ‘How can I help?’ And you’ve got to politely turn them down.

It’s great having two contractors out there – not just volunteers at weekends. Volunteers are never as focused or know it as well as a full time [person] on the job all the time.

As Wilson (2001, p. 37) notes:

The ‘unknown’ or ‘unreliable’ volunteer is increasingly being overlooked in favour of the more ‘dependable’ paid worker, in order to ensure certainty in meeting contractual commitments. Paid workers are regarded as performing a better standard of work, bringing higher qualifications to the job, and offering greater continuity and stability – characteristics often identified as crucial when entering into government contracts (Blacksell and Phillips 1994; Davis Smith 1997; 6 and Kendall 1997).

While some projects like Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi and Kaharoa Kokako Trust⁴ managed to combine a business-like organisation with wider community involvement through providing volunteering opportunities, the groups varied in terms of the levels of wider community involvement and some questioned whether it was necessary to have this wider involvement. Business-like community groups often chose to focus on the goals of their ‘business’ (for example species protection) as opposed to wider social objectives of community involvement. According to one community participant:

[The secretary] keeps reminding [the Chair] to include the community. We have to be a bit inefficient because the community funds us. [The Chair] would prefer just to have six efficient people … The [committee] is very white, upper class and rural.

This highlights the tension between projects being a basis for wide ranging community involvement and projects run as a skilled business with connotations of exclusivity and boundaries around who can be actively involved.

Encouraging Wider Community Involvement in Conservation

The term ‘community’ can be used to refer to a range of different types and clusters of people. When developing a partnership with the ‘community’ it is important to consider who is included, and possibly excluded, from this particular ‘community’. While the projects may be initiated and driven from someone in the community, the projects are not necessarily about wider community involvement.

In a number of the studies discussed, the projects are run by a small group of people without any, or only minimal, wider community involvement. In some cases, there have been comments from others in the community that these types of projects are ‘elitist’ or ‘exclusive’. Often the goal of these projects is not to involve the wider community but to achieve specific tangible conservation outcomes such as pest control or species protection in an efficient manner.

While these partnerships have benefits for the Department and conservation, it is important to realise that they are only one small sub set of community involvement. Often these projects are initiated and run by people who are already committed to conservation goals and who have the time, resources and skills to do something about it. Thus, while many of these projects are initiated by members of the ‘community’, there can be debate over whether some of these are ‘community’ projects.

As these types of projects may not contribute to the Department’s wider goals of increased community involvement or conservation awareness for particular social, economic or cultural groups, and it is important to consider ways of involving other sectors of the community in conservation initiatives. The Department’s Weed Busters initiative is a good example of a way to actively involve community members who may not have initiated their own conservation projects but who have the enthusiasm and energy to participate if the Department acts as a catalyst and brings people together. The Weed Busters group developed as a result of a weed awareness project initiated by the Department’s Buller Area Office in 2002 (Copeland, 2002). A public information evening was held in Westport at which a number of those present expressed interest in being personally involved in the fight against weeds and it was decided to meet again to discuss further possible action. Two meetings were then held at the Department’s office with a staff member facilitating in order to discuss the group objectives and plan a weed initiative. This staff member originally acted as group facilitator but this responsibility has been passed on to the group and the staff member is now simply a member.

As members of the Weed Busters group commented:

I hadn’t thought about being part of this before … didn’t have the people power. This group gave us the power.

At the meeting we found out about other people who were interested. It’s a privilege to be involved.

I was surprised that there were so many people interested in weeds … surprised at the cross section of people. It’s a good way to get a project started. It brings in people you wouldn’t expect.

Conclusion

When developing projects with communities it is important to consider who is included, and possibly excluded, from these communities. Often conservation projects are initiated and run by people in communities who are already committed to conservation goals and who have the time, resources, skills and capability to do something about it. These groups frequently attempt to run these projects in an efficient ‘business-like’ manner in order to achieve specific ecological outcomes and meet the requirements of the funders, and there may only be minimal opportunities for wider community involvement. Thus, while these projects may address specific conservation outcomes, in many cases they may not always contribute to the Department’s goals of helping to increase awareness and commitment to conservation and supporting a range of social, economic and cultural communities to develop the skills and capability they need to do conservation work. Thus, in order to ensure a range of communities have the opportunity to be involved in conservation work, and to implement the conservation with communities strategy, the Department may need to take on a more active role as catalyst and facilitator in order provide opportunities for community members to come together and initiate their own conservation projects.

References

P., Kendall, J. (eds) 1997: The Contract Culture in Public Services. Studies from Britain, Europe and the USA. Arana, Aldershot.

Blacksell, S.; Phillips, D. 1994: Paid to Volunteer: The Extent of Paid Volunteers in the 1990s. The Volunteer Centre UK, London.

Copeland, M. 2002: Weed Awareness Pilot Project Report and Evaluation. Department of Conservation, Buller.

Davis Smith, J. 1997: Expansion or withdrawal? The implications of contracting for volunteering. In 6, P., Kendall, J. (eds) The Contract Culture in Public Services. Studies from Britain, Europe and the USA. Arena, Aldershot.

Department of Conservation. 2003: Conservation with Communities Strategy: working together for conservation. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Wildland Consultants. 2001: Strategic Plan for Project Kiwi 2001-2006, Kuaotunu Peninsula, Whitianga. Wildland Consultants, Rotorua.

Wilson, C. 2001: The Changing Face of Social Service Volunteering. Ministry of Social Development, Wellington.

Wilson, C. 2003 (unpublished): Partnerships between the Department of Conservation and Community Groups. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

¹ The case study partnerships are: Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi, Project Kiwi, Kaharoa Kokako Trust, French Pass Environment Zone, Hector for Hector’s, Weed Busters and Hump Track Trust.

² Tiritiri Matangi Island forms part of the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park near Auckland. A programme of using volunteers to plant trees on Tiritiri Matangi has been established since 1984. The Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi were established by a group of volunteers to provide work and to raise money for the cost of the material associated with the planting programme.

³ Project Kiwi is ‘the first private initiative to provide a kiwi-friendly environment for any species of kiwi over a large area’ (Wildland Consultants 2001, p. 1) and is situated on the Kuaotunu Peninsula immediately north-east of Whitianga on the Coromandel Peninsula in the North Island. The objective of Project Kiwi is to maintain a kiwi population on the Coromandel Peninsular by establishing a viable predator trapping regime.

⁴ The Kaharoa Conservation Area is located on the outskirts of Rotorua in the North Island. The objective of the Kaharoa Kokako Trust is to ensure the long-term protection and survival of kokako at Kaharoa.