Several common themes were brought up in the working group discussion.
I. The movement needs clear goals and incentives.
- What are the motivations that drive conservation activities?
- How can we ensure consistent funding and the accessibility of resources?
- What role do financial incentives play?
- What role should funding sources like the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund play?
- Red tape needs to be reduced and there should be better coordination of federal, state and local government requirements.
- Conservation efforts would be more effective and efficient if government requirements could be streamlined and refocused on managing for conservation vs. managing for processes.
- State agencies should play a role as facilitators, not managers of private conservation efforts.
- Agencies provide a social infrastructure to support conservation.
- Except in instances of legal or regulatory requirements, state government should serve as an information resource and reference for private conservation groups, but not take a leading role in managing or funding private conservation projects.[*]
- Certification programs should be meaningful and integrated with conservation efforts, but not punitive.
[1]Comments suggested during editing of this paper noted that some members of the working group “fully support the state and federal government funding private conservation as cost share/incentives, but maybe as a lower priority or narrower focus (threatened and endangered species/habitats for example not found within public ownership or practices that improve water quality) for these fully funded conservation projects compared to the public land/ water resources.”
- As with meeting other government process requirements, certification programs should not just insert another layer of burdensome or bureaucratic process.
- Certification programs should be based in scientific findings and market-based demands and should be connected as closely as possible with the realities on-the-ground.