New Zealand Four Wheel Drive Association Inc.

SPARC has completed a review of outdoor recreation in New Zealand. The review considered how to maximise the value of outdoor recreation to New Zealand and New Zealanders. There is provision for public comment on this report before 29 August 2008.
The NZFWDA contributed a paper to this review but it appears to have little effect!

http://www.sparc.org.nz/research-policy/policy/key-policy-projects

Following the release and a CORANZ meeting with the Minister Clayton Cosgrove, the Co-Chairman: Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ), Ken Sims made these observations..
"There are two things to keep in mind about SPARC in the context of these (ongoing) discussions. Firstly, the system is set up to be self-perpetuating. Controlling the allocation of funding (SPARC's primary focus) gives those involved a lot of status, power and authority, as well as their own financial rewards. Such systems are very unlikely to change themselves internally or on request.

Secondly, SPARC is only interested in supporting (funding/rewarding) things that are measurable. Hence its concentration on sport, which by its competitive nature, provides SPARC with its own measurable outcomes. And hence, why it only supports/funds those sports that:
A) Have already proven themselves as internationally competitive, and
B) Buy into the SPARC performance programmes
If you don't have an approved governance structure, training and performance programmes and at least a 5-year business plan that SPARC can measure you against, just what do you think the chances are of getting major SPARC funding? Funding by the way, that is targeted specifically at supporting international competition.

Hence why the Minister prefers to deal with ONZ. ONZ provides training, and training is measurable. SPARC knows all about training (and coaching) through its concentration on competitive sport, and will insist on it whether you like it, need it, or not. Otherwise, they can't measure it. And if they can't measure it, they can't support it.

Which, interestingly enough, also becomes self-perpetuating. We have a number of educational institutions in NZ and overseas pumping out graduates in Sports Management. Like middle managers anywhere, they are employed by sporting organizations as part of the SPARC approved governance structure, and frequently move around different sporting codes. Underneath them, they set up training and coaching educational programmes at national, regional and local levels. These programmes have to be supported by nationally recognised qualifications of course, be that coaching and training methodologies, first-aid, or whatever. Voila! You have suddenly created an industry. And who pays for this industry? In the small number of sporting codes that meet the SPARC criteria, there may be funding support from SPARC. For everyone else, the organizations themselves do, and the only way they can do that is by levies on membership fees.

So the cost of participation goes up. SPARC can report to the Minister on how effectively the money it allocates to sport is utilised. BUT do we have any proof that New Zealand's participation levels in sports have increased? Or that, as a result of all this, we are any more effective/successful in sport than when it was an amateur pastime? I suggest not. It is also interesting to look at those sports that had international success, built up sporting structures on the basis of SPARC funding, and then lost both the international success and the accompanying funding (hockey, soccer and even rowing spring to mind).

So you will excuse my scepticism about the National Outdoor Recreation Strategy, especially when it is called "Creating a healthy state for Outdoor Recreation in NZ". The model used to allocate funding by the agencies involved would have to change drastically, and I simply cannot see that happening. But I am quite happy to be proved wrong.

I think that SPARC's response to the 4WD Association (as outlined by Peter Vahry) was quite telling. Firstly, why would they want to join SPARC, and more importantly, why would SPARC be interested in them! Secondly, have they adopted the Drug Free Sport policies? Now I am strongly opposed to the use of any performance enhancing, ‘recreational' or illegal drug use, but would simply question whether you have checked the list of what SPARC considers these to be? Can you imagine telling a member of your club/organization that they cannot compete in a competition (or event) simply because they are taking cold medication they can buy at a chemist?

Can you imagine being required to have event organisers for whatever your clubs recreational activity is, being required to hold recognised qualifications in First Aid, Water Safety, Mountain Safety, Group Management, Organisation and Communication, etc, etc. All very laudable and sensible, and totally OTT. Well take a look at organised sports these days, especially those sports that do get SPARC funding. Is that really what our members want, what we can afford, and where we want to go?"