Modo Automático

Chapter 4 explained how Enghsh Nature’s work programme is target-driven, with these targets mainly imposed on the organisation from its wider institutional context of European Commission Directives on nature conservation, the UK Government’s Pubhc

Service Agreements and modernising agenda, and the UK BAP. In terms o f securing continued government funding, ensuring these targets are met is an issue of ‘corporate survival’ for E N (see Chapter 4). The consequence is that despite the encouragement by government to use participatory approaches, if they do not contribute directly towards meeting these targets, which are typically framed in terms of wildlife gain, they are likely to be awarded a low priority. Within this target-oriented culture there is a risk that the more long-term diffuse benefits that may come from DIPs and community-led exercises that may not have any immediate benefit in terms of biodiversity targets, will always be in competition for resources with the shorter term use of DIPs to deliver pre-defined conservation targets. The net effect is that within a local team, priority tends to be given to work on designated sites and areas in the wider countryside where wildlife gain is likely to be greatest, and there remains inadequate incentive for local staff to invest time and resources in participatory experimentation:

‘I ’d h a v e to say th a t 95% [ o f S S S Is to b e in fa v o u r a b le c o n d itio n ] b y 2 0 1 0 , is b a sica lly th e m a in driver fo r u s, an d ou r C h ie f E x e c u tiv e h as m a d e it clear th at th is is a target h e d o e s n o t w a n t us to m iss. S o y o u k n o w th e r e ’s a p r e ss u r e there. B u t at th e sa m e tim e h e ’s sa y in g g e t in v o lv e d in th e w id e r c o u n tr y s id e . C learly p e o p le w ill fo c u s o n th e area w h e r e th e y fe e l th e y ca n d o th e m o s t , w h ic h is th e la n d th at is in o u r c o n tr o l v ia th e le g isla tio n .’ (L o ca l T e a m S taff).

‘T h e r e are th e s e v a rio u s th in g s th at w e h a v e to a c h ie v e - h o w m a n y site m a n a g e m e n t s ta te m e n ts h a v e w e d o n e ? H o w m a n y site v is its h a v e w e d o n e ? H o w m a n y u n its are in fa v o u ra b le c o n d itio n ? T h e s e are th in g s w h ic h are c o u n te d a n d as alw ays th e th in g s y o u c o u n t wiU d riv e th e p r o g r a m m e , s o w h e th e r or n o t th e y are g o in g to d eliv er th e b e s t fo r w ild life , it c o m e s s e c o n d really.’ (L o c a l T e a m staff)

Both the strength and weakness o f using a DIPs approach for an organisation hke EN is that outcomes tend to be more unpredictable and the full range o f benefits are notoriously difficult to capture (see Ch. 2). Participation is therefore seen as a risky exercise which could divert resources away from the achievement of E N ’s corporate targets, and EN, despite its corporate rhetoric, was not seen as a risk-taking organisation:

‘T h e o r g a n isa tio n talks a b o u t b e in g a risk -ta k in g o r g a n is a tio n ... a risk by d e fin itio n m e a n s y o u ca n p o te n tia lly fail, s o 1 d o n ’t th in k w e are v e r y risk -tak in g. 1 th in k w e are v ery , v e r y u n h a p p y w ith r isk -ta k in g .’ (L o c a l T e a m sta ff)

As a result, risk-taking tends to be employed only on sites not regarded as being of high conservation value (i.e. ‘trivial’):

‘On these [designated] sites, there’s an enormous amount at stake, so if we let the multiple stakeholders decide what happens, we feel that we’re giving away our legislative imperative, our legislative basis for doing things ... And basically we don’t trust them to do the right thing But the trivial sites, simply because they are trivial we are willing to engage in a multi-stakeholder approach, and usually the solutions are fairly straightforward. So we’re willing to give people the money to kick off a stakeholder approach, bring in a facilitator, and become involved in it ourselves. And it feels quite safe. We just don’t have the guts to do it on these [complex multi-stakeholder, designated] sites because we can hide behind the legislation.’ (Local Team staff)

By adopting this approach, the organisation is able to incorporate the objectives of participants i» without compromising its own biodiversity-focused goals, thus reducing the likelihood o f criticism from raising stakeholder expectations through dialogue whilst retaining control over outcomes to ensure they meet predefined targets (see Goodwin, 1998).

Enghsh Nature’s People and Pohcies Programme Board has made significant progress in setting corporate targets which have a strong process-oriented element, with the aim of integrating them across the whole of E N ’s work programme. The 2002-5 Corporate Plan sets out these targets - to build support, increase understanding and encourage more people to experience and act for nature; to influence pohcies to protect priority habitats and species within and outside designated sites; and to achieve a wide recognition of biodiversity as a key test of sustainable development (EN, 2002b). It is hoped that these targets wiU create the necessary targets to change staff behaviour:

‘Until that it [DIPs] becomes a thing that you must do people whl ignore it, and I think that in the organisation that is a clear change. We are getting in our corporate plan and in our planning guidance the targets and drivers to make people become more participative in their approach.’ (local Team Staff)

In addition, the creation of Community Liaison posts and the Lifescapes initiative, which has purposefuUy avoided imposing whdhfe targets (Lifescapes Project Officer, pers. comm.), suggest that EN is trying to increase the flexibhity o f local staff in their engagement with stakeholders. However, the risk remains that the objectives o f the People and Pohcies Programme whl not be mainstreamed into the actions o f local staff because the primary emphasis across ah work programmes stih hes with meeting PSA targets on designated sites

‘But in terms of growing the [People & Policies] programme also, there’s an awareness raising of its relevance internally as well... conservation officers are so focused on delivery of the PSA targets, their heads are kind of inside a screen on designated sites. And their awareness of the People and Pohcies programme, and the need to dehver it sharper, smarter, better, and their role in it, is low.’ (Manager)