Part Four: Summary of Responses

This section of the report summarises the responses received from the 23 centres that responded to the survey document. Each of the topical areas is addressed in the order in which it appeared in the survey. The data supporting the commentaries is presented in aggregate form in Appendix 1.

Governance

4.1 The survey demonstrated that the governance structures in environment centres are strong. Typically, they are controlled by regular monthly committee meetings attended by an average of five to nine committee members. More often than not, decision-making is by consensus.

4.2 Centres were asked to identify the separation between governance and management in conducting their activities. There was an almost equal split between centres in which the committees have a key role in deciding on policies/positions and only delegate day-to-day decision-making to their staff, and centres in which committees maintain a more distinct governance function and delegate a broader range of policy/ position decisions to staff. In a minority of cases, committees delegated to their staff the power to address all matters regarding the centres' activities.

Staff Members

4.3 This question sought to identify centres' staff levels, working hours and the qualifications and experience brought to bear in operating the centres. With the exception of two centres that do not employ staff, most have one or two paid employees; with a lesser number having three paid employees. The average time worked by each staff member is between 20 and 30 hours per week. Typically their core expertise lies in community work experience, working with non-government organisations and environmental and conservation disciplines; sometimes they are supported by degrees (in some cases PhDs). Examples of other central skills identified include training and delivering adult education, fundraising, event co-ordination, and library skills.

Volunteers

4.4 The Ministry recognises the crucial role of volunteers in the successful operation of environment centres. The data gathered indicates that over a quarter of centres surveyed engage the support of 20 or more volunteers, with around half of centres averaging between 5 and 14. A significant proportion of duties that volunteers carry out are in practical environmental work, followed equally by organising projects and working with committees. The survey also suggests that volunteers have limited participation in duties such as networking, customer service, administration, publicity and fundraising. Therefore the probable impact of any significant reduction in volunteer support would be to severely limit centres' capacity for practical environmental work, which is generally regarded as the most positive and visible way of engaging further community support.

4.5 It is also apparent that many centres have yet to take advantage of the potential to secure additional financial support for practical projects through application to the Sustainable Management Fund, administered by the Ministry for the Environment.

Funding Issues

4.6 Of the centres surveyed, the majority of funds were spent on staff costs such as salaries, administration, recruitment and travel; additional running costs included such items as rent, electricity and publicity materials. Less funds were spent on volunteer costs, project costs (eg, venue hire) and advertising, and other costs such as resources and bank fees. In deciding what percentage of funding would be used for each of the categories listed above, the majority of centres allocated funds by prioritising their needs, with staff being their top priority; others prioritised running and volunteer costs.

4.7 The three most common ranges of annual income were $20,000 to $29,000; $40,000 to $49,000; and $75,000 to $99,000, with a wide variation in annual income across centres. The trend was that the lower the annual income of a centre, the greater their dependency on the Ministry grant. Conversely, the higher the annual income, the greater the ability of that centre to obtain other sources of funding. In general, the centres with a higher total income tended to be well established and to drive activities that attract financial support from the likes of regional and local councils.

4.8 Looking at the other sources of funding centres secured in the last financial year, the survey reveals that central government organisations are a major source of additional funding. In particular, many centres have been awarded funding through the Community Education Grant, administered by the Department of Labour.

4.9 The data shows after central government sources, regional funding organisations (such as the Lotteries Commission - Regional Community Committees) are the next most common method of additional funding, followed by local and regional councils and centres' own fundraising efforts. The least favoured method of securing additional funding is through Community Trust Boards.

4.10 Of those centres not currently receiving an Environment Centre Fund grant, the data suggests that the majority are financially supported by sources such as councils. A small proportion of centres receive an income from the sale of goods, subletting part of their premises to other organisations, or operating at the minimum level, carrying out only activities able to be supported by volunteer commitment.

Operation

4.11 This section enabled the Ministry to gain a greater awareness of the range of services that environment centres provide. The majority of centres have been open for more than five years. Half of the centres surveyed are open from Monday to Friday, with a third open during the weekend. A small proportion of environment centres operate for fewer than four days a week.

4.12 Of services provided at the centre, advice services, library services and assistance to other groups featured as the most popular. Meeting room hire, seminars, training courses and workshops, were also prevalent services.

4.13 The term 'library services' generally refers to the maintenance and availability of specialised publications dealing with resource management, environmental planning and case law on related matters. In some instances it also covers environmental and conservation practice and guidance.

4.14 Other examples of services include the Internet, advocacy, website forum and guided tours. All the environment centres identified community groups and community members as key users. Schools, universities and businesses were also listed by a number of centres.

4.15 Fewer than half the centres stated that they have other organisations providing a similar service within their geographical areas. A number of centres reiterated that aspects of their service were provided by other organisations, but that no one organisation delivered all the services offered by environment centres. Only three centres mentioned that another centre was operating in the same area; four said local and regional councils offered a similar service in part, and four identified localised environmental organisations offering broadly similar services.

4.16 Centres generally receive between 0 and 40 enquiries each week. The majority of these are received by email, and to a lesser extent by personal visits and phone calls.

4.17 Government department information is utilised by all of the centres surveyed. Information from regional and local councils, non-government organisations such as Forest and Bird and Greenpeace, and local environmental groups are also held by most centres. This information is disseminated and shared with interested parties, largely through libraries and schools.

Encouraging Community Action

4.18 The Government's vision is that centres act as catalysts for community environmental action, through facilitating or providing assistance to community environmental projects. The extensive list of projects received through this survey gives a good indication of how interactive centres are with the local community. This is detailed further in Appendix 2.

Relationships

4.19 As we have seen, to forge partnerships within the community, environment centres need to act as catalysts for community action. This section of the questionnaire outlined the types of organisations that centres have an active working relationship with. All but two centres have a relationship with the local community. This takes the form of providing facilities for community groups and individuals to use, and organising practical environmental projects such as restoration work, pest control and worm farming. Similarly, all but one centre have a relationship with their local council that focuses on practical conservation work (eg, pest control and riparian planting). A number of centres are involved in the delivery of the Sustainable Households Programme on behalf of the councils, working alongside local councils in promoting bike to work days, and in council consultations.

4.20 Seventy-five percent of centres surveyed said they have a relationship with central government agencies, based on disseminating or displaying the agencies' information. The Department of Conservation is the most prominent agency in this respect, and a number of the Centres were involved in promotional activities such as Conservation Week and Sea Week. Likewise, nearly 75% of centres surveyed have a working relationship with iwi groups, the core connection being through networking and involvement in consultations.

4.21 Of the centres surveyed, only a small proportion does not have a relationship with the local schools in their area. Four centres are involved with the Enviroschools Programme, while the remaining centres either deliver educational programmes to the schools, or the schools visit the centres to carry out practical environmental work.

4.22 Listed in the higher percentile of active working relationships are businesses. These involve relationships developed through, for example, receiving sponsorships, becoming involved in waste minimisation programmes, and the promotion of green products. Less than half of the centres surveyed cited working relationships with regional groups such as Landcare Trust, Genesis and Waicare. Where these relationships did occur they centred on information sharing.

4.23 In developing future partnerships, nearly half of the centres surveyed stated that they are keen to promote relationships with schools and (in particular) universities. This would focus on providing education programmes or becoming involved in practical research work. Thirty-three percent stated that they are keen to develop further relationships with councils and iwi, with a further 33% seeking to develop relationships with central government agencies to obtain funding and disseminate information on behalf of these organisations. The remainder of the centres will be developing partnerships with businesses to identify projects such as improving waste management and looking at alternative energy sources. None of the centres surveyed mentioned developing further relationships with regional environmental organisations.

Independent Feedback

4.24 The Ministry was interested to hear from other centre users to enhance our understanding of the environment centres' contribution. To facilitate this, we invited centres to provide contact details for two or three independent referees.

4.25 The majority nominated non-government organisations, followed by government departments, and educational and leisure facilities. A sample selection of independent referees was contacted. All the referees spoke positively about the centre operating in their area. The following is a sample of the answers given when referees were asked about the role the centre plays in the community.

It is an important one-stop shop and clearing house.
The Centre is predominantly an educator on environmental issues.
They are a disseminator of information.
They are very much action-on-the-ground focused.
They encourage change in the community through workshops and providing information.

4.26 The referees also made a number of suggestions for improvement. These focused on centres improving their relationships, planning and ability to secure other sources of funding. The following is a sample of the comments made.

Centres need mentoring to help them lift their game and become a more attractive funding venture.
More interaction with regional councils is required.
Better long term planning is needed as some projects can be rushed.
They are under-resourced, but they could be more proactive in obtaining funding for specific projects.

Issues Impacting on Service Delivery

4.27 The ability of centres to deliver services can be affected positively or negatively by a range of operational and strategic factors. We asked the centres to identify the positive and negative issues impacting on their ability to deliver services and worked out what percentage of centres identified these issues as a priority.

4.28 Half of those surveyed expressed positive views regarding their geographical location (such as space and well-situated CBD premises). Knowledge and skills among volunteers came second, followed equally by local and national recognition and community support.

4.29 In terms of negative issues, the majority of centres identified funding sustainability as the main reason their centre may not be able to deliver services as required. Lack of resources such as promotional/marketing material, lack of general awareness, lack of support from regional and local councils, and being labelled 'greenies' (suggesting they are not taken seriously or professionally) were issues also identified.

4.30 As well as describing these issues, we also welcomed suggestions for ways to address them. Some examples of suggestions include support from local and regional councils, ongoing educational programmes, regular meetings with Ministry representatives, and education about Maori cultural values.

Resource Management Act

4.31 Seventy-five percent of centres surveyed receive enquiries specifically related to the Resource Management Act. Around 40% have the capacity to deal with RMA enquiries, whereas 40% do not have such capacity. The remaining 20% can deal with enquiries by referring people to RMA guides and websites, but were unable to answer specific enquiries themselves. In this case they refer people on to other organisations such as community law centres, RMA management consultants and regional councils.

4.32 The survey also suggests a strong need to develop the capacity to deal with RMA enquiries in the future.

[ Previous|Next ]