Part Two: Findings

This section summarises key issues and points of note from the survey responses.

Value for Money

2.1 A central objective of this review was to assess centres in terms of the value for money they represent in acting as catalysts for environmental action. This proved a difficult assessment to make due to two key factors.

a) It has always been recognised that centres would prioritise their activities around meeting local environmental needs. Therefore, local differences in focus and emphasis make direct comparison between centres inappropriate and potentially misleading.

b) Changes in the Ministry's strategic direction have been made to reflect changes in environmental value. Few environmental issues are constant, and the Ministry is now articulating its renewed direction and priorities to centres.

2.2 There is sufficient evidence to show that the existing activities, although almost exclusively locally geared, are producing positive environmental results. Equally, our analysis suggests that in a majority of cases, centres' activities would gain additional value through a better understanding of the Ministry's strategic direction. This would enable centres to better align their efforts and reinforce the work of the Ministry.

2.3 The Ministry is addressing this through new funding application material that is structured to get centres to specify projects at a higher level of detail than in the past. New Deeds of Funding also reflect this and will allow for a clearer picture of centres' performance.

Funding Issues

2.4 Issues associated with financial support are of central concern to centres. The issues identified include:

a) centres would like the total funding pool of $300,000 per annum to be increased

b) centres support the introduction of multi-year funding arrangements

c) a perception that the Ministry could better manage performance issues relating to centres.

Following is a discussion of each of these issues in more detail.

Environment centre funding pool

2.5 Aside from the 2002/03 financial year, in which the fund was effectively doubled, the total amount available has remained at around $300,000 per year. At the time of the fund's creation it was envisaged that funding would be available to six centres that would each receive $50,000 per year. However, public enthusiasm for centres has seen an unexpectedly high level of interest, such that the fund is routinely oversubscribed to two to three times its value.

2.6 The Ministry recognises that there is significant financial pressure on centres and that fundraising is often a large component of the work of centre volunteers. However, we believe that the priority is to clarify the issue of centre alignment with the Ministry's goals. Seeking an increase in the level of the Environment Centre Fund would be premature at this stage.

2.7 In the meantime, centres are encouraged to seek project-specific funding. Those centres that organise a wide range of activities attract greater financial support, which results in a higher annual income. It is important that the proportion of the overhead costs needed to run a project is factored into any project-specific funding. Spreading running costs over a number of funders will lead to increased viability, and the impact of one funder withdrawing support will be less detrimental.

2.8 The Sustainable Management Fund has recently increased the emphasis on funding projects with a high degree of community environmental 'action-on-the-ground'. Accordingly, centres now have considerable potential to develop projects that meet the Sustainable Management Fund criteria. Environment centres are encouraged to apply to the fund because:

a) the Sustainable Management Fund has a better-established mechanism for ensuring that projects organised by centres will align with key Ministry priorities

b) it is a further source of funding that centres can access, thus encouraging them to become more project-focused with the potential to spread costs among a range of funders and increase their viability.

Multi-year funding

2.9 A related issue is the impact of a lack of funding certainty (highlighted in the Ministry's application material warning that future funding cannot be assured). This is seen to have implications for centres' planning and delivery. It is likely that this situation will not be satisfactorily resolved until the issue of the total amount of funding available is addressed, but the Ministry is willing to look at options for multi-year funding. Balance has to be achieved between the need for centres to have funding security, and the need for the Ministry to ensure quality and flexibility.

Managing performance

2.10 The perception that the Ministry has chosen to manage performance issues with specific centres through declining future funding, rather than by addressing the problem is of concern to both the centres and the Ministry. This perception may owe much to the fact that the time demands of Ministry staff have meant that there has been less direct contact than the Ministry and centres consider desirable. As a result an element of guidance mentoring and, where appropriate, correction has been lacking. The creation of a dedicated fund management team in April 2003 was expected to go some way towards addressing this, among other issues. The further development of reporting templates and Deeds of Funding will increase the guidance levels. Also, each Deed of Funding now has the contact details of the contract adviser assigned to the centre, and centres are encouraged to contact their adviser with any questions.

Governance

2.11 The survey saw ample evidence to suggest that centres have appropriate and reliable governance structures in place.

Volunteers

2.12 The responses show that the ability of a centre to attract adequate volunteer support is critical to the centre's success. This is largely due to the central role volunteers play in contributing to practical environmental projects. This work is seen as highly influential in engaging further community support.

Relationships

2.13 The survey shows that centres are keenly aware of the importance of developing effective and productive relationships with a range of organisations, including local government and educational institutions. A higher number of relationships than expected have been established with businesses. Many centres are focusing on furthering their connections with universities, polytechnics and other educational facilities with an emphasis on participating in field research.

Issues Impacting on Service Delivery

2.14 A key factor, negatively impacting on service delivery, is the concern that centres may have to compromise their independent status to meet Ministry funding requirements. In common with many non-government organisations that receive Crown financial support, centres identify an inevitable tension between meeting the funders' requirements and their need for independent status, particularly where issues of the day are concerned. For its part, the Ministry is aware of its responsibilities as a steward of public funds, and it is equally aware that ministries have recently been censured for funding non-government organisations for whom lobbying was an express activity.

2.15 It is to be expected that on some issues centres may adopt a different position than that of the Ministry. The Ministry respects the independent nature of centres and does not seek to compromise this through the Deed of Funding. However, the Ministry must ensure the appropriateness, transparency and accountability of the expenditure of public funds. To prevent a lack of clarity around our expectations the Ministry will provide guidance to the centres on the appropriate range of activities that centres can undertake with Ministry support.

2.16 Negative stereotypes - "being labelled as greenies" - can also impact on local levels of support. On a positive note, centres cited their geographical location and the skill sets and experience of volunteers as key contributors to effectiveness.

Resource Management Act

2.17 Seventy-five percent of centres surveyed report that they handle enquiries specific to the Resource Management Act. However, only 40% of the same centres consider that they have sufficient capacity to manage these queries. Twenty percent of centres refer Resource Management Act enquiries to alternative sources of advice. It is important for centres without the in-house capacity to manage Resource Management Act enquiries to liaise with their local council and advice services such as Community Law Centres.

[ Previous|Next ]