Funding again

Following yesterday's posting there have been some serious discussions. 
One quite controversial but valid point was that perhaps there are too many smaller conservation organisations and to lose one or two might be no bad thing.  Too many small groups can dilute the message and work done, not to mention spreading the funding thinly, each group requiring their own offices, admin, marketing etc.
Opposing that was the argument that small groups are highly focused are can throw the spotlight onto their cause bringing an overlooked area to the fore. There was the feeling that larger organisations can become too big and wrapped up their own importance which can lead to them becoming irrelevant or even exerting too great an influence on discussions (last year's forest sell off, this year's badger cull etc) by being big enough to shout louder than other groups.  Smaller organisations may have a huge wealth of expertise and knowledge but without a higher profile that knowledge may not be available because those who need or can use that information are unaware of the groups existence.  And when it comes to those big discussions smaller groups can be drowned out by larger groups simply because the larger organisation is more well known and has the skills / funds to be seen and heard.
We went round in circles and didn't reach any conclusion, so one or two large groups or lots of smaller ones maybe with a high level of co-operation and resource sharing?