Conservation Councils around Australia are complaining because the Federal Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, last week decided to change the criteria for the public funding of environment groups. (media release)
For some years, Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO) have provided funding to State-based Conservation Councils, Environment Centres and many smaller environment groups.
Senator Campbell has decided that GVEHO grants be capped at $10,000 for groups. Last year Conservation Councils received between $75,000 and $92,000, for example, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW received an $85,000, Queensland $92,000, SA $75,000. Moreover, the criteria for which groups are eligible to receive the funding have been tightened. To be eligible, groups must now demonstrate that they engage in "on-the-ground" activities such as tree planting, weed control and creek restoration.
The specific complaint by the Queensland Conservation Council for example is that, "instead of planting trees Queensland Conservation lobbies for greater environmental protection, provides services and resources to 70 member groups and raises community awareness of critical environmental issues". QCC maintain that the criteria for grants "make it virtually impossible for peak environment groups like Queensland Conservation to gain funding for the crucial work we do on behalf of the community and environment (emphasis added)".
This statement begs the questions, on whose behalf are these people active, how do they know their work is crucial?
They go on to say, "planting trees and restoring creeks play their part in helping our environment, but cannot stop the building of a new coal-fired power station or protect Queensland's wild rivers. Nor can this type of conservation work create new national parks, marine parks or strengthen environmental laws". Is stopping a "coal-fired" power station the right thing to do for the environment? Such an action may damage the environment by causing existing less efficient stations to take up the load. Or would the QCC prefer the community go without power. These matters are debatable, so why should any government pay for pre-determined, usually unsubstantiated and often unscientific advice on the environment?
I have for some time pointed out that a great many conservation groups spend much of their time and energy running political campaigns. The outcry from the conservation lobby at Campbell's cuts confirms this observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment