Thank you for the chance to address the committee.
I'm going to talk about our group a little bit and our experience with the role of citizen science. We're definitely on a different scale than the last group you talked to. We're a small NGO in the east end of Toronto. We operate in what's now the Rouge Urban National Park. We've been operating there for 21 years. We have a lot of experience, but in terms of scale and scope, our experiences are different from those of the other groups you've talked to.
The value we in Citizen Scientists perceive is that we can really fill a lot of gaps that other agencies and organizations don't currently fill. We have become a niche organization that helps to fill those gaps. We're a lot more flexible and adaptable than a much larger group, such as a conservation authority or ministry, can be. If we want to go and monitor something else next week, we can do that. We don't need the approval of a board. We don't need approved budget line items. We can use our own equipment and our own labour to go do that. We're quite flexible and adaptable in that way.
The other thing that's really of benefit from a science perspective is that we are on the ground a lot. We often have members who are activists or scientists. They are from the local areas. They really know the landscape more than any other agencies or biologists from the ministry, for example, do. They're there all the time, every month of the year, for years upon years. We can see changes that occur. We try to systematically document those changes.
When you have a ministry or there is a larger program that does the work, they come through once every decade and they do a day of surveying. Our understanding of the local systems is different from what that of a biologist from another agency might be.
The role we play in the landscape and the world around us is largely dictated by those who are in charge of the land. We're in southern Ontario. We're not a major landowner. We're on land that's owned by someone else—the government, private organizations, conservation authorities or something like that. We are there trying to observe the world, but we often need permission and an invitation to participate in those discussions about how the land is managed or operated. The role is defined for us in large part.
When you talk about citizen science, there's often confusion between what science is and what activism, involvement or engagement is. We try to do actual science. We do a lot more detailed work than some of the other groups might do. They are more activist-focused. Their primary role is trying to raise awareness.
If you're looking to encourage citizen science over time, we need to consider that there are two ends of the spectrum. There's the organization that wants the data or the government that wants the information, and there's the application of the individuals collecting the data.
There are also the guys who do that work on a volunteer basis. They have wants and needs as well. Some of them want to have some increased training to build their skill set, but often they want to see changes in the world. That's why they are out doing the work. They want to see something that concerns them get changed, rectified or managed better.
That's one thing you have to think about. The encouragement and involvement by the citizen science community in doing something meaningful and actual is really a role that needs to be encouraged, to help expand their roles.
I guess you guys saw, in the first presentation, that there are two scales of monitoring or research they encourage with citizen science. The first role or the first stream originated years ago. There were primarily expert naturalists and retired professionals who had a lot of background in that field. They wanted to continue their role in the world and help other agencies and scientists fill gaps. There was a lot more on-the-ground monitoring and measuring of the real world around them, so that requires primitive field equipment and that sort of thing.
The more recent adaptation has been—