and differing policies between organizations. Contact lists become obsolete due to HR transitions and a CoP may offer a defined contact list to broaden the network available to all stewardship practitioners.
Full Group Discussion/Report Back The discussion began with discussion regarding where/around whom a CoP would be centered. Would it be between senior decision makers and First Nations? Concern was voiced regarding key stakeholders who were notably absent from the proceedings (educators, practitioners, First Nations) as those present were largely government and gate-keeping decision-makers. Gaps between practical work and science, and community outreach and values are ongoing concerns that could be addressed through a CoP. A central contact directory was identified as a point of excitement for many participants who are weary of outdated and decentralized directories. The directory issue was noted as being the tip of the iceberg in terms of the siloing effect of the current stewardship community structure. The action component is important, but it’s the facilitated discussion that needs to take place. Stewardship groups suffer from capacity and funding limitations, and we all know that a lack of funding equates to an inability to be strategic. A COP would reduce duplication of initiatives, allowing for collaborative efforts. Ideally in stewardship, there are a lot of opportunities that can be developed through a COP, and consulting with one another has actually led to more funding because we’re not all asking for the same thing.
33