• Change text size
• Skip to content

Natural Heritage Trust

Publications

• About us
• Contact us

NHT Home

• What is the Trust?
• What can I do?
• Funding
• Envirofund
  • Planning your project
  • Supported activities
  • Assessment of proposals
  • Approved projects - what next
  • Previous rounds and outcomes
  • Frequently asked questions
  • Monitoring, evaluation and final reports
• Projects
• Publications
  • Agreements
  • Annual Reports
  • Books and Reports
  • Brochures
  • Case Studies
  • Envirofund
  • Fact Sheets
  • Frameworks
  • Guidelines
  • Legislation
  • Media Releases
  • Newsletters
  • Strategies

Executive Summary

Recommendations

The feedback from the course evaluation and the opinions of the trainers lead us to recommend:

1. That the Building Regional Capacity short course is continued and made available to natural resource management groups throughout Australia.
2. That advisory groups are established to guide the program in each region or designated area.
3. That a pre-requisite for the course is that each group agrees to a specific project which will be conducted in parallel with the course.
4. That appropriate and sufficient time is allocated to the planning and development of a program in a region, prior to training commencing.
5. That the course be run over eight days, in three sessions each four to six weeks apart, as a residential course.
6. That the trainer participant ratio be lifted by the addition of an assistant trainer who will work with the lead trainer. The lead trainer should be a qualified assessor.
7. That participant selection becomes a more open and accessable process, to ensure a appropriate mix of stakeholders are involved.
8. That at the commencement of each course, time is allocated to ensure that those areas most relevant to participants are given emphasis.
9. That the trainers and program administrators continue to work with local agencies, aiming eventually to ensure that all regions have the ability to deliver and support this course and other required natural resource management programs.
10. That the cross cultural component be strengthened.
11. That the Natural Heritage Trust Skills Toolkit qualifications be made available to all participants.
12. That assessment opportunities be promoted to people both in and outside the course.

Other recommendations include:

Training

13. That follow-up or refresher programs of one or two days duration should be considered for the regions involved in the pilot program, to support the initial investment.
14. That based on the findings of the Training Needs Analysis the provision of quality targeted general education and training in natural resource management is pursued.
15. That accredited training, including assessment of prior learning and current competence, and the awarding of statements of attainment leading to formal qualifications, is continued to be offered to interested participants within the training program.
16. That the benefits and mechanics of accredited training are promoted and explained more widely, as general awareness is low.
17. That Training Needs Analysis appear to be best conducted through interactive focus groups rather than by questionnaire or survey.
18. That if the program is continued, selected trainers are given the responsibility to identify, develop, mentor and nurture an upcoming group of natural resource management practitioners (presenters) who are committed to building regional capacity, and capable of working with established institutions to achieve specific outcomes. It is recommended that this program is not devolved to regional institutions.

Future program

19. That capacity building as a concept is more widely promoted and defined. If regional strengths and human resources are to be supported, better utilised or developed, capacity building initiatives need to be understood. A commitment by all stakeholders is required with equality of partnership, and honest and open communication. Forums for these types of exchanges would enhance trust and effectiveness. It is vital to have stakeholders who actively and enthusiastically support the initiative, even if this requires more time spent in 'forming' region groups and developing and planning the project in each region.
20. That it may be valuable to consider having programs for sub-sets of regional community groups to feed into wider regional programs ensuring that all have access to capacity building initiatives.
21. That a national approach to Building Regional Capacity is continued, building on what has been achieved, rather that allow the risk of individual States or regions duplicating effort, competing for resources or re-inventing the wheel. Regional relevance and ownership is acknowledged as vital. However, regional leaders may not always be able to take a broader perspective which is an essential component to this Commonwealth initiative.

Participants

22. That the selection of participants in a capacity building program is designed to ensure that they are selected because of their strategic importance and potential contribution, their different views and positions. Intervention at this critical point will ensure better outcomes than selection that is unplanned.
23. That the cost of travel, cost of time away from primary employment, and the potential cost of accommodation to attend training, especially by volunteers, and people in remote regions, is addressed. Regions that are very large, require additional resources to enable people to physically come together. Community members and volunteers are a vital part of a capacity building initiative and incentives to assist them to participate need to be considered.
24. That regions should be selected based on regions of interest or a specific focus ie a river system or catchment. Developing a wider understanding of regional impacts and the potential of collaboration should be encouraged. The selection of 'capacity building regions' should make sense to the stakeholders involved.
25. That regions should be encouraged to acknowledge existing achievements, and reward and celebrate work completed at all levels. The BRC course presents an opportunity to do this.

General

26. That the project continues its vicarious role for the commonwealth, of capturing community anxst about natural resource management programs, and provide a safe environment for discussion, and a forum for two way feedback - acting as a lightning rod for community concerns.
27. That the National Project Steering Committee meets more regularly to maximise national impacts and outcomes.
28. That an impact evaluation of the Building Regional Capacity project is conducted in approximately July 2001. The impact evaluation should include benefits to individuals, the outcomes of regional project work and the number of participants who were took up the qualification / assessment option with the regional training organisations.
29. That the whole of Tasmania is too large to be considered one region.
30. That it is recognised that complex NHT processes including application, administration and reporting procedures is causing volunteer burnout, recruitment problems and deteriorating morale at the local level, which can affected course participation in some cases.
31. The concept of addressing a regional project within the training framework is beneficial. In the future, the selection of a regional project with appropriate course content adjustments (based on the NHT Skills Toolkit and regional priorities) should be considered. One of the keys for success with the regional project concept, is for participants to understand what is required to act effectively on a regional scale. Achieving this understanding requires course presenters to hold their nerve. In some cases, participants will seek to establish that 'we have nothing in common, so it is best to do a series of mini-projects'. Forcing the group to confront what is harder, ie. regionally effective, is a more productive strategy.
32. That the NHT Skills Toolkit is maintained and updated to meet future needs.

Summary

Many concepts and strategies were trialled in the pilot program. These included:

• the need and demand for the training;
• utilising region Advisory Groups to support the project's implementation;
• incorporating a cross-cultural (indigenous) segment into the course that was acceptable and effective;
• scheduling and organising the training to fit in with local, regional, state, national and international events (many participants were involved in the 1st International Landcare Conference, February 2000)
• marketing an unknown training product;
• recruiting a mix of participants from a wide cross-section of stakeholders into an extended period of training over several months and maintaining interest for the duration of the course;
• working with regional training organisations as partners in the project;
• developing the concept of capacity building (what it is and how it works);
• incorporating a competency based training approach;
• issuing formal qualifications within the program based on assessment of prior learning and current competence;
• designing a course that would meet the needs of the natural resource management community whilst providing challenge, educational merit and enjoyment;
• maintaining quality management systems within a limited budget.

It must be remembered that the project was a pilot.

• The project development stage required patience and tolerance from the clients and project consultants and trust from those involved in the regions. Some region Advisory Group members were initially quite concerned about the proposal and expressed their concern forcibly. Many of the concerns went to the heart of Government policy and Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funding. Additionally, it was difficult to define the course content until after the Training Needs Analysis (TNA) had been completed. The TNA also caused some tension, as many groups felt that they had been 'surveyed out'.
• The turning point in the process came after the courses had commenced, and participant feedback was positive. Everyone relaxed.
• In a sense the development and progress of the course mirrored the typical developmental process that many community groups undergo. At the outset there was a good deal of uncertainty, confusion and sorting out of expectations as the course and participant group formed. At times this spilled into some conflict or 'storming'. By the end of the first module most participant groups, and the course direction itself had settled into some 'norms' and positive progress and performance became more evident in the second and third modules. Reflecting on this process to participants and region Advisory Groups was a powerful learning outcome of the overall course.
• The rewards came when it became clear that the participants were enjoying, and gaining value from, the course. Attendance figures indicated that 79% completed the level required to receive a Certificate of Participation (5 days of the 8 day program or 4 days of the 6 day program) and 55% of participants completing 100% of the training. This was gratifying.
• The Working With People presenters did an excellent job with a challenging and talented audience, with wide ranging education and skill level, and they are to be commended.
• The course provided a wide range of benefits to participants. We recommend that this should be evaluated formally by an impact evaluation in about 6 months time. Evidence from review sessions conducted at the commencement of modules 2 and 3 in all regions indicate that participants had taken what they have learned and applied it in the field with effective results. Refer Attachment - to Evaluation Report.
• The opportunity for communication and networking between course participants was a very positive feature of the program and was cited as extremely valuable by participants. The inclusion of the cross-cultural component was also highly regarded in all workshops.
• The regional projects also deserve a specific mention. In a number of cases the regional project concept was embraced with considerable thought and effort, with some concrete achievements resulting. In other cases it did not work as well.
• Course participants expressed concern about the future of the Natural Heritage Trust. This uncertainty means that good people continue to be lost to natural resource management programs. This appears to be a fractured investment in the potential of a very talented and committed movement.
• Our experience indicated that regional planning is in need of some concentrated work to optimise the benefits of the planning process. There appears to be confusion about regional planning, mixed with many instances of disempowerment and disillusionment. In some regions, plans have been drawn up but the implementation phase is confusing, complex and problematic. In other regions plans do not exist, despite acknowledgement that they are needed.
• However, the turn around can be dramatic. When assisted to cut through the confusion and provided with simple and robust tools, many participants indicated a renewed enthusiasm to get people working together and moving positively at a regional level.
• The total cost to conduct the program was approximately $1800 per participant, or $260 per participant per day of training. There were 192 enrolled participants and 54 days of training in 8 states and territories. The total cost included significant pre-course preparation, Advisory Group meeting costs, training needs analysis, course design and general development, in addition to delivery costs. Based on other courses we have delivered, this cost is competitive.
• Management of the project at the national level provided consistency in the training while aiming at all times to maintain regional ownership and involvement. This level of regional support and good-will was achieved in most, if not all, regions.
• Training organisations vary in their understanding of the needs of the natural resource management community and their ability to deliver a course of this type at an advanced level.

There are a number of problems that have been encountered:

• The first is to find individual trainers from partnering training organisations who have the ability and depth of experience to present segments of the course. Due to the time constraints, the variability of the course participants and the calibre of the community and professional representatives, delivery of the course is a daunting task. It requires trainers with both a broad sweep of skills that are applicable to community based resource management programs, and a deep understanding of group and individual development and interaction. The presenters of the pilot program have been selected specifically for these criteria and have worked together to further develop the required skills and competencies. There are possibly people within the training partner organisations who meet these criteria, but it is hard to find them.
• Secondly, the critical requirement is for attitude or commitment to the course and to the process. It is hard to engender the commitment unless key individuals can be identified, involved at the outset and then given support and encouragement from their own institutions.
• Rather that trying to change the institutional structures and engender enthusiasm and commitment into sometimes bureaucratic organisations, is may be better to identify keen individuals or contractors and assist them to work to, or utilise, the accreditation processes that are accessible from institutions. This approach is more akin to a case management process as used in the health and care industries.
• However, the keys to success are excellence in delivery and commitment to making a difference. This is unlikely to be attained by turning the course over to institutional trainers.
• Regional capacity development will be better served by providing an excellent product and process and then identifying and nurturing individuals who demonstrate ability and commitment within the process. The building of regional capacity needs to be a gradual and structured process.
• The worst outcome would be to cast the initiative onto unreceptive ground. This would squander the progress that had been made to date.
• Regional relevance and ownership is important, but sometimes parochialism in local and regional leadership prevents new ideas and projects getting off the ground. In some regions, local leaders appeared to have a closed mind to this project, and in fact appeared more intent of protecting the local turf rather than recognising and developing an opportunity for their community.

Capacity building

It would appear to be important to not simply regard capacity building as a catchy name. Internationally there is growing interest in capacity building initiatives particularly in developing country contexts. There is a significant body of research and literature expanding on this concept.

The definition and meaning of the term capacity building (World Bank cited in ECDPM, 1998) was described as

The proven ability of key actors in a society, mainly that of individuals, groups and institutions, to achieve socio-economic goals on their own.

Other definitions were described in the reference as 'placing emphasis on the ability if individuals, organisations and systems to set and implement development objectives in a sustainable way'. It was recognised that 'such holistic and all encompassing definitions provide little operations guidance'. It was clear that there are both theoretical and operational issues to be considered in capacity building descriptions.

The capacity building discourse embodies multiple stakeholders and the concepts of good governance, civil society, democratisation, public sector reform, privatisation, and sustainable development.

There is a difference between capacity (outcome or condition to be achieved) versus capacity building as the process by which capacities are acquired.

It is said that capacity depends on the presence of:

• viable institutions;
• leadership and vision;
• financial and material resources;
• skilled human resources;
• effective work practices, including systems, procedures and appropriate incentives.

The concept of Capacity Building requires further definition and development if it is to be adopted in regional communities. Participants react positively to the notion but are unsure what it exactly means or how to do it. Feedback from participants on the value of the course as a capacity building initiative indicates that the gaps in capacity also need to be considered. Assessment of capacity perhaps should be undertaken prior to capacity building initiatives. Capacity development is firstly about education and training to build skill and capability in individuals. However, capacity building could also be regarded as a wider initiative, involving many stakeholders, with a shared vision, issue, or problem, and with education and training as a means to link and coordinate a collective effort.

Generally participants saw capacity building as a positive process¹ : empowering people; developing skills, ability and knowledge; continuous improvement; building change management skills; furthering economic, social and environmental goals; harnessing and coordinating individual and collective effort to enhance outcomes and build teams; involving all stakeholders; increasing a region's ability to create positive outcomes; creating structures and organisations to enable the foundations and frameworks for development; capacity to evaluate what is done; nurturing sustainable development without the need for on-going support; having power and influence over government agencies in the region; opening up an understanding of what can be achieved and options and directions.

Having a mix of strategic stakeholders in the group was seen as a vital component. Participants also felt that the training should be conducted over an extended period, with 6 - 8 days ideal. Participants agreed that committing the time to attend initially was a deterrent, but once they had commenced the course they could see the value in the 'total' package.

---

¹Points taken from capacity building discussions with participants from the Upper Murrumbidgee ACT, Burdekin Dry Tropics, Qld and South East, SA