How to become a Trustee (community based environmental management in action!)

This blog post is going local, to Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, which is just down the road from Lincoln University in Canterbury.



Te Waihora - by Cath Brown (local Māori artist)



It all started with today's IEM lecture, where we discussed the evolution and role of community (based) environmental management (C(B)EM) as part of IEM.  This phenomenon is also referred to as, amongst other things, "community-centred environmental management", "community-level environmental management", and even collaborative management/governance (although quite where C(B)EM fits on the spectrum of management --> governance is open for debate).

C(B)EM in its most basic form is the involvement of community members in organised groups, which strive for the advancement of environmental goals within their local area - although "local" is not necessarily just their respective neighbourhoods.  Such groups may be formalised in an incorporated society, a trust, or even under legislation (for example, the Guardians of Fiordland). 



Community plantings



But what can C(B)EM actually accomplish? Is it a good tool for achieving better environmental outcomes where more centralised government operations have failed? Or is it merely a "cop out" by governments who have centralised environmental funding and services so much that there is a gap on the ground that must be filled by volunteers? And, more importantly, what can such groups really achieve in terms of improving environmental quality? Does all that tree-planting and sausage sizzling actually help to combat problems such as high nitrates in water, or enhance biodiversity in wetlands? Or is it really just producing a "feel good factor" that results in a gain in social capital but none in tangible environmental improvement?

Well, in an attempt to see how such groups operate, I decided to attend the annual general meeting for the Waihora/Ellesmere Trust, being held at the brand new Lincoln Events Centre (a great opportunity to check out this new facility, if nothing else!).  I wasn't too sure what to expect - maybe a bit of an overview of the Trust's strategy for 2012, and some information on what they have been up to in the past year.  It turns out that I was presented with all of this and more - the more being an impromptu nomination for (and acceptance of) the newly vacant fifteenth Trustee position.  Not quite what I had anticipated..

The Lake on a good day



The Lake on a better day - or some careful photo shopping to make it blue..?



Nevertheless, I seized the opportunity to "get involved" and learn more about what this group is doing for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere.  The Trust "is a community organisation dedicated to the improvement of the health and biodiversity of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere and its catchment".  It aims to "educate, activate and facilitate", working with other groups to make the Lake and its environs a better place. 

The Trust's logo

 

A more accurate picture of the water colour in the Lake



So far, I've seen what has been achieved under a new joint sustainable drain management initiative, the progress that has been made by prison workers on riparian plantings at Chamberlains and Coes Fords, how the Trust's strategy and vision is still relevant almost a decade after its conception, and that the Trust itself is a very interesting example of people getting involved in environmental management of their area.  I'm pretty sure my nomination was accepted in order to get some "fresh blood" into the group (the Trustees' words, not mine!) as well as to add a more representative dimension (I'm one of four lovely ladies on a group of 15) which I'm more than happy to provide.  Unlike many of the Trustees, I don't have any historical ties to the Lake, nor do I own land in the area (or even live nearby), but I'm hoping that my fresh perspective and interest in environmental matters generally will make my nomination worthwhile.  And of course, I'll be promoting an IEM approach wherever possible!

Sustainable drain management in action



So yes, it turned out to be quite an interesting evening - and now I really will learn how well C(B)EM works in practice! You'll just have to watch this space.. In the mean time - why not have a look around your local area to see what is on offer in terms of C(B)EM - go plant a tree (see how good it makes you feel?!) or attend a meeting, submit on a plan or join a group. You never know what opportunities might come along for you to get some community based environmental management action! And who knows, you might really make a difference for some of those "big picture" environmental problems.



The plight of Kiribati

(Pronounced “Keer-i-bhas”)

The effects of climate change may be felt in the increased occurrence of extreme weather events and patterns. The damage and scale of these events varies, and it is still a contested point whether increased CO² emissions is the cause of climate change at all. But what if, rather than being faced with an increased chance of drought or higher temperatures, there is a credible  likelihood that your whole country might be swamped by the sea within 60 years? This is a real concern for Kiribati President Anote Tong, who, not for the first time, spoke of the impending crisis facing the 100,000 residents of Kiribati at the recent 42^nd Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), 6^th – 9^th September 2011, hosted by the New Zealand Government at Waiheke Island.

Pacific leaders pose for the traditional “silly shirts” photo, as part of the 42^nd PIF, 6^th – 9^th September 2011, Waiheke Island, New Zealand.

Kiribati is an island nation in the very middle of the Pacific Ocean (straddling both the equator and the international dateline) and is made up of a series of 32 atolls, and one raised coral island. These islands have an area of only 811 square kilometres, but are spread over 3.5 million square kilometres. The average altitude of Kiribati is about 2-3 metres with the highest point being only 81 metres above sea level. Whilst there are an estimated 100,000 permanent residents, there is a net migration rate of -2.85 per 1000 people, mostly due to the limited economic prospects on the islands. However, the greatest threat for the population seems to be the environmental degradation from a growing population and limited carrying capacity of the islands, and its impending vulnerability to climate change.

Kiribati

The middle of the Pacific Ocean

The PIF Communiqué 2011 included a resolution acknowledging the effects of climate change:

“CLIMATE CHANGE

15. Leaders reaffirmed that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific. They welcomed the historic visit of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Pacific to see firsthand the degree of vulnerability of the people of the Pacific to the adverse impacts of climate change and sea level rise, as exemplified by the case of Kiribati. They also welcomed the presentation by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and support for regional efforts and strong international action to address the impacts of climate change.”

However, President Tong went further than this when, in his speech to fellow leaders, he outlined a radical plan to combat the effects of climate change on his country. He proposes that his people shall, within 60 years, be living on a series of “floating islands”, entirely man-made, at a cost of USD$2billion. Here is an artist's conception of what they might look like:

The Jetsons meets Swiss Family Robinson

Pretty bizarre? That was my first reaction. As too for the many people who commented on a story in the UK Guardian newspaper last week (you can read them for yourselves here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/08/artificial-island-pacific-sea-levels#start-of-comments ). 

But then I thought some more about this “solution” that President Tong has so boldly proposed. Is he a little deluded, a bit too optimistic that such a science fiction-esque project can be completed? He admitted himself that his own people might struggle to live on such islands. Has President Tong been sucked into a goal trap? Whereby he provides a solution for his people that does not require them to abandon their island living? Or has he been forced into a corner by the rest of the world, who's ability to ignore the plight of Kiribati has meant that any attempt at a more integrated environmental management approach would be closer to impossible than his dream of floating islands.

For one, climate change is an acknowledged “wicked problem” (see my first blog for an explanation of this) that has no easy solution. How then can a small country, covering such a vast area, yet so insignificant on a global scale, begin to hope to address such a complex problem – and one to which they barely contribute. Whilst the risk of sea level rise to small Pacific Island nations has been well acknowledged, there seems to be very little being done to help those who cannot easily help themselves. This raises the issue of environmental refugees, and where the line between migration and forced exile should be drawn. Rumour did exist that New Zealand actually had an agreement with Tuvalu to receive climate change refugees. However, this is unfortunately not true (see http://mfat.govt.nz/Foreign-Relations/Pacific/NZ-Tuvalu-immigration.php). So, whilst New Zealand generally supports its smaller Pacific neighbours, even we do not have a specific agreement to provide a safe haven for refugees/migrants from those nations most affected by climate change. The New Zealand government instead includes an allocated number of migration entitlements for these countries each year, more as part of an economic assistance package than anything else.

It has been raised that the “donation” of a spare island by another Pacific nation could well solve Kiribati's problems. Fiji perhaps? Vanuatu? But would these nations really be prepared to give up some space for Kiribati? And is it likely that, if they did, it would be particularly productive or economically sustaining land? Not really, given that all other Pacific nations have their own environmental, economic and social issues to deal with, mostly on very limited space themselves.

Therefore, with such elementary options unavailable to Kiribati, is the floating island suggestion really such a “solution-minded” outcome for President Tong to reach? It seems that, where an integrated environmental approach might have provided a better resolution for Kiribati, such an approach is much too far out of his reach.