ranger program development strategy · the ranger program across 11 remote aboriginal communities...

Ranger Program Development Strategy

CENTRAL LAND COUNCIL REPORT | 2015

PROJECT DETAILS Client Central Land Council

Contact Details David Alexander

Address 27 Stuart Highway ALICE SPRINGS NT 0870

Phone 08 8951 6304

Email [email protected]

Prepared By Creating Communities Pty Ltd

SGL Consulting

Project Team Carl Binning Director - CCA

Kim Wiltshire Project Manager – CCA

Phil Gray Director - SGL

Address 100 Jersey Street Jolimont WA 6014

Phone 08 9284 0912

Email [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Central Land Council (CLC) is committed to advocating and supporting Aboriginal people living within the CLC’s area of jurisdiction to express and fulfil their wishes and aspirations for the management of the land’s natural and cultural resources.

For more than 15 years the CLC, under the guidance of traditional owners, has supported the development of the Ranger Program across 11 remote Aboriginal communities in its region. The Ranger Program supports the aspiration of Aboriginal people in Central Australia in three key areas:

• Pathways for Economic and Social Participation: Building on capacity of individuals and groups to participate in education, skills development and transfer, employment and enterprise.

• Enabling strong Environmental Stewardship: Facilitating the protection and management of key environmental and cultural assets.

• Supporting Strong Culture and Governance: Identifying, harnessing and promoting the intergenerational transfer of cultural practices and ecological knowledge.

The true value of the Ranger Program sits at the intersection of a combined commitment to achieving the desired objectives across these three areas. It therefore has the potential to create long lasting, sustainable benefits for the communities as a whole.

1

The Ranger Program has developed to a point where it now has a proven capacity to devise and implement a structured work program in the communities where it operates that involves:

• Governance through a Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Committee or Indigenous Protected AreaCommittee.

• Development of long term strategic plans and annual plans for natural and cultural resourcemanagement.

• Employment and support of Ranger Coordinators to facilitate the ongoing employment of six to tenRangers in each team.

• Indigenous employment pathways from casual seasonal rangers through to permanent Rangers,Senior Rangers, Ranger Program Support Officers and Ranger Group Coordinators.

• Mentoring support and training for Ranger group members.• Provision of necessary hard infrastructure including housing, office and storage space, transport (i.e.

vehicles) and equipment for land management activities.

In addition the CLC provides program wide support and administration including land management planning and expertise, human resources, contract administration, IT etc.

The Ranger Program is currently predominately funded from three sources:

• Commonwealth Government Working on Country: A cross-cultural model that acknowledgesIndigenous people’s strong relationships and obligations to country and their desire to have their landand sea management work recognised as paid employment.

• Indigenous Land Corporation: Through the Real Jobs Program targets employment in theenvironmental land management and pastoral sectors through on-the-job and accredited trainingopportunities for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.

• Aboriginals Benefit Account s64(4): An account established under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act toreceive and distribute royalty equivalent monies generated from mining on Aboriginal land in theNorthern Territory, where funding distributed supports a broad range of initiatives that benefitAboriginal people living in the Territory.

Under these relatively secure funding arrangements over the past eight years the CLC has built strong foundations and motivation for ongoing participation by Aboriginal people in the Ranger Program. The Ranger Program has now developed to a point of maturity where it is able to attract, retain, develop skills and deploy a stable workforce to undertake natural and cultural resource management (NCRM) activities. In addition to core NCRM activities, some Ranger groups are displaying a capability to successfully gain, manage and complete land-based fee-for-service contracts (e.g. visitor management, pastoral, national parks joint management, mining rehabilitation etc) and other enterprise.

As a consequence the program is in high demand, with requests for new Ranger groups often made at a CLC Council level and community meetings. In this context, the CLC has initiated an assessment of 25 potential locations to prioritise those communities with the capacity to sustain a ranger group with an objective to grow the program to support up to 20 teams over the next 5 to 15 years subject to the availability of resources and support. The target for this objective has been set using feasibility criteria including:

• Area of land over which the traditional owners retain an interest.• Size of population living within the boundaries of the area of land over which the traditional owners

maintain an interest.• Level of demand and support for the program at a community level.• Access to land with significant natural and cultural resource management issues and opportunities.

2

• Access to fee-for-service / enterprise opportunities that will diversify revenue streams for RangerProgram.

A map showing the location and operating boundaries of existing Ranger groups is contained in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Ranger Group Work Areas

3

It is recognised that new and innovative sources of revenue will be needed in order to achieve the objective of growing the reach of the program to meet the needs of Aboriginal communities. Further robust governance and supporting infrastructure needs to be progressively strengthened at a community level.

It is within the context of the over-arching objective of growing the reach and impact of the program over the next 5 to 15 years that the following key recommendations are made.

1. The CLC is currently the most appropriate organisation to manage the Ranger Program in CentralAustralia.

The CLC brings nearly 40 years of institutional knowledge and capacity in Aboriginal affairs in Central Australia. It has established processes through which to manage the myriad of expectations and interests of its constituents in relation to land ownership and access, preservation of traditional culture, community engagement and economic development. For these reasons the CLC is well placed to work at the interface between traditional owners and government agencies, local industry, businesses and other key stakeholders. In addition, the CLC is uniquely placed in its capacity and commitment to uphold traditional owner governance and decision-making in the further development of the program.

Deloitte Access Economics (September 2014) concluded that, "The CLC is a logical vehicle for the delivery of government services in Central Australia due to the level of accountability currently required through obligations to publicly report on the funds it receives and the services it provides...and that...considerable institutional capacity has been built into the CLC through its continuous improvement processes, which provide considerable opportunity for government to utilise the organisation as a local service delivery provider with significant connections to the traditional owners.”

Specific to the Ranger Program, the CLC has also developed the capability to manage a complex set of operational issues that comes with retaining oversight of a remotely based workforce across a number of different locations. The CLC has the administrative and corporate capacity to support a large complex program of this kind. It also has the potential to leverage administrative support through economies of scale.

Without a deliberate plan to develop an alternative entity dedicated to this purpose the review finds that there is currently no other organisation in Central Australia that offers the same level of qualification to effectively manage the diverse range of inputs required to keep the Ranger Program operating while still maintaining traditional owner governance of the program.

In the longer term there are important questions about the role of the CLC in evaluating alternative options for the delivery of the program. The review finds that the CLC will need to address a number of key challenges in further developing and growing the program. The most important challenge lies in supporting enterprise development and revenue diversification within the CLC that is traditionally dependent on government and grant based funding. Another relates to progressively building capacity to enable local communities to administer and govern Ranger groups in the longer term as they desire. In all of these cases there remains a strong case for the CLC to provide institutional support including exploring opportunities to underpin greater autonomy at the local level.

It is also recommended that there is a need for the CLC to complete further detailed investigation into the relative merits of different delivery models that support progressive devolution of the program.

These findings are discussed in detail in Section 6.1 of this report.

4

2. Partnerships and revenue diversification are required in order to be able to expand and sustain theprogram

The Ranger Program is currently dependent on significant financial support from a range of Commonwealth government agencies and sources directed at Aboriginal land and development, including the Indigenous Land Corporation and Aboriginals Benefit Account. However, a changing emphasis in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Indigenous Affairs) policy means that ongoing financial support from a number of current sources is uncertain and therefore heightens the imperative to identify and develop alternative revenue streams for the Ranger Program.

The review finds that there are a range of available potential revenue sources ranging through:

• Continuing to source funds from all spheres of Government to support the “public good” includingenvironmental stewardship and community development that supports strong, resilient and safeAboriginal communities.

• Philanthropic sources for cultural and environmental conservation.• Fee-for-service contracts for environmental services.• Environmental and cultural enterprises.• Provision of community and municipal services.

Key to achieving the goal of revenue diversification is a need for the CLC to clarify the role and function of the Ranger Program in the longer term and progressively engage and motivate traditional owners in revenue generation.

It is recommended that the CLC work urgently to develop strategic partnerships that are capable of building the desired revenue base over time. In order to do this new and dedicated resources, in the form of a partnership and enterprise unit within the CLC, will be required.

These findings are discussed in detail in Section 6.3.

3. Planning processes must be better integrated and linked to a robust monitoring and evaluationframework.

Integrated planning and reporting are critical to ensuring that the Ranger Program is able to effectively plan, monitor and review its activities and continuously improve.

As the program expands, it will be essential to be able to efficiently and effectively identify and track the achievement of outcomes targeted through the program. Outcomes will range from traditional owners aspirations through, funding organisation requirements and broader CLC priorities such as enterprise development.

The review finds that the CLC has robust annual planning processes in place and is able to monitor and report its core responsibilities to funding agencies.

However, an important opportunity exists to improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of both the planning and reporting processes. Linkages between the various environmental, land, and cultural objectives could be strengthened through a simple, effective monitoring framework that is used to inform high level, long term strategic planning.

These findings are discussed in Section 6.2 and a program logic and monitoring and evaluation framework is outlined in Section 4.

5

4. Mechanisms for motivating and retaining Rangers are required, including contemporary andrelevant training and mentoring support.

The CLC has a strong commitment to retention, development and career progression for Aboriginal people within the Ranger Program. The CLC provides dedicated mentoring and support to Rangers and provides structured training to all of the Ranger groups including Conservation and Land Management and Language, Literacy and Numeracy in partnership with Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Charles Darwin University and Central Desert Training.

However, there remains an ongoing challenge to improve the rates of retention and the transition of Rangers to higher levels of training accreditation and professional roles in the Ranger Program.

The current employment model for the Ranger Program focuses on recruitment, retention and advancement of ongoing employees rather than casual employees. This review reaffirms the objective of building a core team of 3 to 5 rangers with more than 3 years of experience in each Ranger group. There are opportunities to improve retention and advancement through:

• Ensuring Rangers are being recognised for past employment and skills attained, thereby encouragingRangers to re-enter the program after a period of absence.

• Develop an alternative training delivery model that provides a greater emphasis for ‘on-the-job’training and competency assessment, accompanied by a greater level of individualised casemanagement and mentoring.

• Review of career structures to allow Rangers to progressively build team leadership through smallersteps focused on building competency and leadership in particular activities – e.g. fire management.

• Complement existing ongoing employment with a larger and more formally constituted pool of casualemployees to provide opportunities and recognition outside of the core employment model.

These findings are discussed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5.

5. Communication and advocacy must be strategically managed in order to create broaderunderstanding and support for the program.

The CLC Ranger Program enjoys strong recognition and support from stakeholders who are directly exposed to the work and achievements of the Ranger groups. Further, each Ranger Group has activities in place to develop the competency and confidence of individuals in communicating the achievements of their team.

Beyond these foundational activities the program would benefit from the creation of a communications and advocacy agenda that promotes the benefits and outcomes from the program, including validation by program partners and other third parties. This will be critical to ensuring other funding sources (e.g. philanthropic donors, research institutions, government and private sector contracts etc) are developed, retained and expanded upon.

Key opportunities highlighted in the review include:

• Developing a clear program narrative and supporting communication materials.• Harnessing traditional owner participation in advocacy.• Dedicate resources for partnership and advocacy development.• Build stakeholder network through regular communications and updates.• Targeted advocacy through program partners.• Building nation-wide connection with other Ranger Programs.

These findings are discussed in Section 6.6.

6

The main body of the report is structured as follows:

• Strategic Plan & Implementation: An outline of key program outcomes, strategic drivers, targets andpriority projects to grow the program. Also included is a proposed implementation framework for howto action the delivery of priority projects.

• Program Objectives and Resources: An overview of the key outcomes sought and the resources andinputs available to deliver the program.

• Program Logic: A clear understanding of the key strategic pillars, objectives, outputs and requiredinputs to deliver the Ranger Program.

• Health Check: An informed analysis of how the current CLC Ranger Program responds to the keycriteria outlined in the Program Logic, utilising available data and qualitative feedback from Rangersand CLC staff.

• Strategic Drivers: Drawing on key insights from the review of the CLC program, and learnings fromother programs around the country, identification and discussion of the key factors which the CLC caninfluence and will have a significant impact on the long term success of the Ranger Program.

7

CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Methodology .......................................................................................... 1

2. Strategic Plan and Implementation .................................................................................... 3

3. Program Objectives and Resources .................................................................................... 8

4. Program Logic ................................................................................................................... 15

5. Health Check Summary ..................................................................................................... 21

6. Strategic Drivers ................................................................................................................ 23

7. Appendix A – References .................................................................................................. 70

8. Appendix B – Implementation Planning ...........................................................................71

9. Appendix C – Program Logic Primary and Secondary Metrics: Example Planning Tool ...76

10. Appendix D – Individual Ranger Group Health Checks ..................................................... 90

11. Appendix E – 2020 Scenarios ............................................................................................ 91

1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1. Overview Creating Communities and SGL Consulting1 were commissioned by the Central Land Council (CLC) to undertake a strategic review of the Council’s ranger program and develop strategy for the future development and growth of the program, including developing a robust monitoring and evaluation framework. The project team have worked closely with CLC to develop a robust methodology in response to the project brief to undertake a strategic review of the Ranger Program.

Broad consultations within the CLC, with remote communities and Ranger groups have been undertaken and data sourced from a review of existing documentation including funding contracts and performance reports, face to face community and stakeholder consultation, site visits, desktop research and telephone interviews. A consistent picture of the current CLC Ranger Program and other leading Ranger Programs has been developed, including the definition of some key program strategic drivers.

Draft business model options were developed and subsequently analysed in a workshop with key CLC stakeholders. During the workshop the preferred business model options were selected and consensus was also obtained on an agreed program logic and monitoring and evaluation framework, including the definition of metrics for measuring program outputs and, importantly, progress toward the achievement of the longer term outcomes sought from the program.

The report is structured as follows.

• Strategic Plan & Implementation: An outline of key program outcomes, strategic drivers, targets and priority projects to grow the program. Also included is a proposed implementation framework for how to action the delivery of priority projects.

• Program Objectives and Resources: An overview of the key outcomes sought and the resources and inputs available to deliver the program.

• Program Logic: A clear understanding of the key strategic pillars, objectives, outputs and required inputs to deliver the Ranger Program.

• Health Check: An informed analysis of how the current CLC Ranger Program responds to the key criteria outlined in the Program Logic, utilising available data and qualitative feedback from Rangers and CLC staff.

• Strategic Drivers: Drawing on key insights from the review of the CLC program, and learnings from other programs around the country, identification and discussion of the key factors which the CLC can influence and will have a significant impact on the long term success of the Ranger Program.

An overview of the methodology for the strategic review is outlined in Figure 1 below.

1.2. Next Steps This report outlines some key strategic choices for the CLC in further developing the program. It also outlines a range of opportunities for operational improvements. An initial prioritisation of key initiatives for implementation has been undertaken in consultation with the CLC. The resulting strategic plan represents a high level blueprint for several years of work to fully realise the potential of the ranger program.

1 SLG Consulting was sub-contracted by Creating Communities to provide expertise in the development of a project monitoring and evaluation framework and support for stakeholder and community engagement activities.

1

1.3. Project Stages Figure 1: Methodology

2

2. STRATEGIC PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION

2.1. Ranger Program Strategic Plan The CLC Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017 outlines the aspiration to grow the size of the program so that there are up to 20 Ranger groups in operation in communities across the CLC’s area of jurisdiction. The target for this number of Ranger groups has been set using feasibility criteria including;

• Area of land over which traditional owners retain an interest; • Size of the population living within the boundaries of the area of land over which traditional owners

maintain an interest; • Level of demand and support for the program at a community level; • Access to land with significant natural and cultural resource management issues and opportunities;

and • Access to fee-for-service / enterprise opportunities that will diversify revenue streams for the Ranger

Program.

The table below outlines the future target number of Ranger groups and likely value of funding required to support a program of that size.

Table 1: Growing the Ranger Program - Targets

METRIC CURRENT STATUS TARGET 2019 TARGET 2029 # Ranger Groups 11 16 - 18 20 - 25 Funding required $8.8 million $12 - $15 million $16 - $22 million

Of the current $8.8 million required to fund 11 Ranger groups, approximately 50 percent of funding is spent on salaries and wages, including for Rangers and Ranger Coordinators. Capital works (i.e. housing, vehicles, plant and equipment etc) and administration fees are the next highest cost proportions at approximately 16 percent and 10 percent respectively, with the remainder of costs spread across accommodation, utilities, motor vehicle expenses, travel, meetings and purchase or hire of minor equipment.2

Of the total spent on salaries and wages, approximately 21 percent is spent on salaries for support staff based in the Central Office. The remainder spent on salaries and wages is spread across the 11 different Ranger groups and the approximate amount allocated to each is directly proportional to the number of ongoing employees currently working in the team.3

As discussed in detail in Section 6.4 of the report, the vast majority of current funding for the program (approximately 95 to 97 percent) is sourced from government grants, with the remainder gained from fee-for-service work or other sources. Consultation with key CLC staff revealed that there is general acknowledgement that if the desire is to expand the program then there will need to be leverage existing government funding sources by increasing the capacity for Ranger groups to gain, manage and grow alternative revenue streams, especially fee-for-service and local enterprises.

Options for managing the ongoing operation and growth of the program include:

1. Continue with current funding model with continued dependence on government grants.

2. Use existing government funding to leverage other revenue sources. In this option modest growth in government funding is complemented by a more significant increase in revenue from fee-for-

2 Data for financial year 2012-13 supplied by Central Land Council. 3 Data for financial year 2012-13 supplied by Central Land Council.

3

service / enterprise, thereby shifting the balance of funding from 95% government funding to between 60 and 70%.

3. Over time move the Ranger groups towards becoming an entirely financially and operationally independent entity from the CLC.

Informed by a deep understanding of the Ranger Program’s current opportunities and constraints and through ongoing consultation with key CLC staff, it is recommended that option 2 presents the most feasible pathway for Ranger Program expansion. Key considerations for this option include:

• The CLC retains overall governance of the Ranger Program and therefore ongoing provision of high-level corporate administration support and a critical “safety net” for program operations.

• The CLC retains its role in ensuring equitable distribution of resources within and between communities.

• The CLC Executive provides an ongoing mandate to pursue the recommended strategic directions outlined in Section 6 of the report, including approving the level of resources required to do this.

• The CLC commits to build revenue gained from fee-for-service / enterprise to 30 to 40 percent of total program funding.

• The CLC works to ensure Ranger groups progress over time to require less of the CLC Ranger Program support structures – e.g. training, mentoring, basic administration etc.

In the medium to longer term creating Ranger groups that are independent of the CLC is worthy of further exploration. It is likely that the administration of the program would remain more efficient and effective if coordinated by a single entity. If the circumstances or focus of the CLC shifts to a point where support of Ranger groups is no longer a strategic priority, then establishing an independent entity should be considered. Under this model it is envisaged that from the time of inception Ranger groups would progress along a continuum:

New/Foundational (0 – 3 years) Evolving (3 – 7 years) Mature (6 – 15 years)

A “new/foundational” team (e.g. Harts Range) is one that is still in the process of forming a core group of three to five ongoing employed Rangers and has not yet been able to successfully take full advantage of any fee-for-service opportunities.

An “evolving” team (e.g. Muru-warinyi Ankkul Rangers, Anmatyerr Rangers) is one that has a core group of three to five ongoing employed Rangers in place for at least 2 years and has been able to gain, manage and complete a limited range of fee-for-service activities.

A “mature” team is one that has a core group of three to five ongoing employed Rangers plus a growing number of casual rangers who have attained “competency” in specific areas who together are able to gain, manage and complete a diverse range of fee-for-service / enterprise activities that contribute a significant proportion of revenue to sustain the ongoing function of the team.

Building on the successes achieved to date, the strategic plan aims to provide a clear approach for how to grow the Ranger Program under this model and ensure it continues to work towards achieving the aspirations of traditional owners.

In addition the plan highlights key factors – i.e. strategic drivers - which the CLC can influence and will have a significant impact on in regards to ensuring the long term success of the Ranger Program. Detailed analysis of on these strategic drivers, including identification of business options, can be found in Section 6 of the report.

The process of defining key program objectives, outcomes and strategic drivers, as well as targets to measure progress, was completed in close collaboration with key CLC staff, with supporting rationale provided in the main body of this report.

Progressing the development of the Ranger Program will require an ongoing commitment to meet the targets outlined in the strategic plan as well as a disciplined process of quality planning and review to ensure delivery of the Ranger Program remains efficient and effective.

4

CENTRAL LAND COUNCILRANGER PROGRAM

2014 � 2024

Delivering:

→ Economic and Social Participation

→ Environmental Stewardship

→ Strong Culture and Governance

STRA

TEG

IC D

RIV

ER

SC

OR

E O

UTC

OM

ES01

GROWING AND THRIVING PROGRAM

▶ Project Expand: Identify options for how to grow the Ranger Program to 20 teams. ▶ # Ranger groups

02ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

▶ Project Motivate: Engage Traditional Owners to identify factors that motivate long term participation, retention and career development.

▶ # Rangers with more than 3 years total experience ▶ % of Senior Rangers positions filled ▶ # partnerships and businesses catalysed

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

▶ Project Map: Identify, map and record condition of key natural and cultural assets in country / landscape.

03 ▶ Annual Work Plan endorsed by TORAC / IPA Committee and LM section

04STRONG CULTURE AND GOVERNANCE

▶ Project Connection to Country: Continue to improve opportunities for access to country and intergenerational transfer of traditional cultural practices and ecological knowledge. Ensure targets for this are defined through the planning cycle.

▶ # Trips to Country with Knowledge Holders participating ▶ TORAC / IPA Committee in place and meeting 3 times per annum ▶ TORAC / IPA Committee Effective

▶ Project CLC Governance: Define the Ranger Program’s future governance and policy framework.

▶ Project Retain Funding: Continue to maintain strong partnerships with key funding agencies.

▶ Project Infrastructure: Identify infrastructure needs and criteria for prioritisation.

▶ Project Efficiency: Analyse administrative processes and resources in order to identify opportunities for more efficient program delivery.

PROGRAM WIDE GOVERNANCE

05

▶ # Ranger teams ▶ CLC Supporting Structures in Place and Effective

06QUALITY PLANNING AND REPORTING

▶ Project Integrated Planning: Develop organisational system and processes to integrate planning inputs and reporting requirements.

▶ Project M+E: Develop, implement and report against a robust M+E framework.

▶ Annual Work Plan endorsed by TORAC / IPA Committee and LM section

▶ % of tasks completed to plan

07REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION

▶ Project Partnership / Enterprise: Identify, develop and manage partnerships that will help grow the Ranger Program and support enterprise development.

▶ # partnerships ▶ total fee-for-service revenue raised ($) ▶ # partnerships and businesses catalysed

CAPACITY AND MOTIVATION TO PARTICIPATE

08 ▶ Project Training / Career Development: Implement a more efficient model for training delivery, including more on-the-job training and competency assessments; individualised career pathways and greater access to training funds.

▶ # ongoing employees ▶ # casual employees ▶ % of labour pool in ongoing employment

COMMUNICATION AND ADVOCACY

09 ▶ Project Communicate & Advocate: Develop and implement a clear communications and advocacy strategy for the Ranger Program.

▶ # activities communicating achievements of program ▶ # of external stakeholders on Communications and Advocacy Strategy database

� 10 YEAR OUTCOMES � 2 YEAR HORIZON � 3 – 5 YEAR METRICS

5

STRATEGICOUTCOMES

� 2024

STRA

TEG

IC D

RIV

ER

SC

OR

E O

UTC

OM

ES

CENTRAL LAND COUNCILRANGER PROGRAM

� 2024 STRATEGIC OUTCOMES � KEY OBJECTIVES

GROWING AND THRIVING PROGRAM To expand the program.

01

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

To build on the capacity of individuals and groups to participate in education, skills development and transfer, employment and enterprise.

02

04STRONG CULTURE AND GOVERNANCE

To identify, harness and promote the intergenerational transfer of traditional cultural practices and ecological knowledge.


To identify, protect and manage the key environmental and cultural assets in Traditional Owner Country.

03

PROGRAM WIDE GOVERNANCE

To establish organisational and governance arrangements for the Ranger Program that will allow for its future growth and sustainability.

05

CAPACITY AND MOTIVATION TO PARTICIPATE

To build the motivation, capacity and competency level of Rangers so they have the ability to maintain permanent employment and contribute to developing their skills, professional qualifications and career outcomes.

08

COMMUNICATION AND ADVOCACY

To encourage a range of external and internal stakeholders to play an increasing role in communicating and advocating the values and achievements of the Ranger Program.

09

07REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION

To secure and build the financial resources of the Ranger Program to: support and sustain the existing operations of the program; expand both the number and size of Ranger teams in each community; and ensure the long term sustainability and resilience of the program.

QUALITY PLANNING AND REPORTING

To engage Traditional Owners in the active management of land through a range of cultural and natural resource management activities so as to ensure that the natural and cultural assets in Central Australia’s landscapes are protected and preserved for generations to come.

06

6

2.2. Implementation Planning Utilising a simple implementation planning tool, initial effort has been made by key CLC staff to define each Priority Projects and outline the first three months activities associated with each of the projects.

Context, background and supporting rationale for each of the projects is contained in the main body of the report and cross referenced here.

Appendix B contains the implementation planning template, as well as completed implementation plans for four of the priority projects (note at the time of this report’s finalisation, implementation plans for the other priority projects were yet to be completed). A summary of the priority projects are as follows:

PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION REPORT REFERENCE

Project Expand: Identify options for how to grow the Ranger Program to 20 teams.

Section 2.1

Project Motivate & Retention:

Engage traditional owners to identify factors that motivate long term participation, retention and career development.

Section 6.4

Project Map: Identify, map and record condition of key natural and cultural assets in country / landscape.

Section 6.2

Project Connection to Country

Continue to improve opportunities for access to country and intergenerational transfer of traditional cultural practices and ecological knowledge. Ensure targets for this are defined through the planning cycle.

Section 6.3and 6.4

Project Governance: Define the Ranger Program’s future governance and policy framework.

Section 6.1

Project Retain Funding: Continue to maintain strong partnerships with key funding agencies.

Section 6.3

Project Infrastructure: Identify infrastructure needs and criteria for prioritisation.

Section 6.1

Project Efficiency: Analyse administrative processes and resources in order to identify opportunities for more efficient program delivery.

Section 6.1 and 6.2

Project Integrated Planning:

Develop organisational system and processes to integrate planning inputs and reporting requirements.

Section 6.2

Project M+E: Develop, implement and report against a robust M+E framework.

Section 6.2

Project Partnership / Enterprise:

Identify, develop and manage partnerships that will help grow the Ranger Program and support enterprise development.

Section 6.3

Project Training / Career Development:

Implement a more efficient model for training delivery, including more on-the-job training and competency assessments; individualised career pathways and greater access to training funds.

Section 6.4 and 6.5

Project Communicate & Advocate:

Develop and implement a clear communications and advocacy strategy for the Ranger Program.

Section 6.6

The implementation of priority projects should commence immediately and include step-wise action-planning at regular intervals – e.g. every quarter.

7

3. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND RESOURCES

3.1. Objectives and Outcomes Sought

The vision for the Ranger Program is held up by a commitment to:

Promote economic and social participation, environmental protection and maintenance of strong Aboriginal cultural transferance and governance.

Under each of these focus areas a range of sub-objectives have been articulated. These were identified during the consultation and discussions with traditional owners, Central Land Council (CLC) staff and stakeholders during the preparation of this report. They are indicative of the broad scope and reach of the Ranger Program and also serve to highlight the challenge of identifying a simple unified set of program goals.

Growing and Thriving Program – Expand the Ranger Program.

Key sub-objectives include:

• To grow the program so that there are up to 20 Ranger groups in operation in communities across the CLC’s area of jurisdiction.

• To develop and evolve current Ranger groups to have the capacity to gain, manage and grow alternative revenue streams.

Economic and Social Participation - Build on capacity of individuals and groups to participate in education, skills development and transfer, employment and enterprise.


• To provide a community-based workforce to support traditional owner aspirations for sustainably managing country and protecting its cultural and natural assets.

• To recognise and bring to the fore the skills and knowledge of traditional owners so they have the ability to participate in and contribute to the local economy.

• To create clear pathways to employment and career development. • To develop and maintain community Ranger groups as skilled and viable remotely-based workforces

with the capacity to address a wide range of cultural and natural resource management issues of local, regional, Territory, national and international significance.

• To provide young people in remote communities with valued employment in the area of cultural and natural resource management across areas of Aboriginal-owned land to which they are culturally affiliated.

• To provide Rangers with access to nationally-accredited and non-accredited contemporary training (e.g. conservation and land management, literacy and numeracy) and training in Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (e.g. tracking) so they can build their skill, competency and confidence levels.

• To improve opportunities for traditional owners to develop cross-cultural skills and abilities and promote the notion of “two-way” sharing of knowledge and learning.

• To encourage Rangers to be local role models for younger people. • To create a framework for young people to enter into the Ranger Program and learn on country

through available community education pathways (i.e. Junior Ranger Program) and link to a Ranger “college” or “alumni.”

• To assist traditional owners to use the Ranger Program as a platform from which to develop and maintain enterprises (e.g. sustainable land use, environmental services, cultural services, tourism etc), as this will build economic resilience and pathways to alternative employment.

• To encourage traditional owners to play an increasing role in advancing the development of partnerships and collaboration with key stakeholders.

8

Environmental Stewardship - The protection and management of key environmental and cultural assets.


• To work with and assist traditional owners in the active management of the land through a range ofcultural and natural resource management activities (e.g. biodiversity surveys, fire and watermanagement, weed site management and maintenance and feral animal control etc) so as to ensurethat the environmental and cultural assets in central Australia’s remote and unique landscapes areprotected and preserved for generations to come.

• To ensure that all planning and implementation of cultural and natural resource managementactivities through the Ranger Program is integrated with regional, national and international strategiesseeking to maintain Australia’s biodiversity and areas of ecological significance.

• To implement a sound monitoring and evaluation framework for the Ranger Program so that datacollection can be effectively used to inform high level, long term strategic planning and ongoingquality control.

Culture and Governance- Identify, harness and promote the intergenerational transfer of cultural practices and ecological knowledge.


• To facilitate traditional owner oversight of ranger group development, planning, operations andpriority setting through the Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Committees (TORACs).

• To ensure that each TORAC is comprised of members who reflect the leadership paradigm and landownership structure of each traditional owner group in order to bolster and improve the resilience oflocal leadership structures.

• To support the aspirations of the traditional owners to maintain positive community governance andemployment structures.

• To enable more traditional owners to access and look after country.• To create more opportunities for the intergenerational transfer of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge

and skills to young people.• To help instil motivation, pride and a sense of responsibility for country, culture and natural resource

management in younger generations.• To directly engage senior traditional owners (“cultural teachers”) in on-ground NRM activities so they

can mentor Rangers and younger people on country.• To improve access to and protection of sacred sites, as this will ensure the continuation of important

ceremony and other traditions intrinsic to the enhancement of the cultural heritage, identity andvalues of each traditional owner group.

• To encourage traditional owners to play an increasing role in advancing the development ofpartnerships and collaboration with key stakeholders.

• To develop a network of Ranger groups both internal and external to the CLC region.

3.1.1. Integrated Outcomes for Country

A focus on any of the individual core program objectives in isolation is likely to lead to a program that, whilst resulting in some value for the community, fails to realise its full potential.

The true value of the Ranger Program sits at the intersection of a combined commitment to economic and social participation, the identification, protection and management of key environmental assets and the sharing of culture. With a targeted focus on achieving the desired objectives in each of these areas, the program has the potential to create long lasting, sustainable benefit for the community as a whole.

9

10

In this case, the Ranger Program will result in holistic outcomes for the communities in which it operates:

3.2. Key Program Resources (Inputs) Various human, financial, capital and infrastructure inputs are required to achieve the desired outcomes of the Ranger Program. These resources sit across three levels of management; external, internal and community.

3.2.1. External Resources

Funding Sources

Funding sources for the CLC Ranger Program may be from government grants, government fee-for-service, private fee-for-service, partnerships, research institutions, new enterprises and/or philanthropy. The CLC Ranger Program is currently largely dependent on Federal government grants (Working on Country, Indigenous Land Corporation’s Real Jobs) and revenue from the Aboriginals Benefit Account.

The desire to diversify and increase revenue to the program is a key topic of this review.

Governance

The CLC has established governance structures including its executive and governing Council that provide strategic oversight to the overall directions and priorities of the CLC, including the role of the Ranger Program.

The CLC Ranger Program also engages traditional owners at a community level in making decisions about the program and directing the activities of Ranger groups through the establishment of Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Groups (TORACs). There is an established TORAC in each location where the program is operating and all are comprised of a mixture of male and female traditional owners.

On behalf of the traditional owners the Ranger Group Coordinators organise and facilitate either the TORAC or Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) Committee meetings and in some locations, rangers also help to facilitate the meetings. Each TORAC aims to meet at a minimum of three times per year.

Where IPAs exist (i.e. Northern Tanami, Southern Tanami) or are being proposed (i.e. Katiti-Petermann), the IPA Committees act as TORACs. TORAC or IPA Committee members may also be involved in committees that focus on specific environmental activities such as burning, feral animal management etc. This enables the traditional owners to participate in integrated decision-making processes across all regional land management programs and ensures Ranger groups continue to engage with broader land management strategies through their annual work plans.

11

CLC Corporate Services

Corporate services include the Ranger Program’s finance, administration, human resources, IT, technical services (property), risk management and other required office functions, the majority of which are managed centrally in the CLC Office in Alice Springs. Ranger Coordinators and other key Land Management staff may also bear some of this load in satellite locations. The corporate services available are generally not specific for the Ranger Program as there are other key functional areas within the CLC requiring similar support (e.g. Anthropology, Community Development, Legal etc).

3.2.2. CLC Ranger Program Support Structures

Ranger Coordination Team

Ranger Coordinators are employed by the CLC to coordinate and support the ongoing function of each Ranger group. Requirements of the Ranger Coordinator usually include:

• Live in the community in which they are working. • Expectation to be able to work with 8 to 12 Rangers, traditional owners, the wider community and

relevant stakeholders to implement a diverse program of on-ground natural and cultural resource management activities as part of an approved work plan.

• Build good working relationships with Aboriginal people and communities; key stakeholders (e.g. government and non-government organisations); CLC Land Management staff and other CLC staff.

• Receive direction from and report to their Ranger Program Coordinator. • Build capacity of Ranger group to assume more responsibilities. • Complete a range of duties that comply with relevant legislation, Aboriginal land / lease agreements,

funding requirements and the CLC Strategic Plan 2012-2017.

Two Ranger Program Coordinators provide critical oversight, strategic planning, administration and operational support to individual Ranger Coordinators to ensure the ongoing function of the program in each community. The Ranger Program Coordinators also work closely with other senior Land Management staff members to ensure the Ranger Program remains integrated with broader strategic Land Management projects and directions. The Ranger Program Coordinators report directly to the CLC Land Management Manager.

The Ranger Training Officer, Ranger Mentors, Ranger Support Officers, Regional Land Management Officers and environment specialists provide support to the Ranger Program, including individual rangers and the Ranger Coordinators. Mentors have played a critical role in addressing issues outside of the workplace that impact on Rangers and their ability to remain in ongoing employment. Environment specialists and Regional Land Management Officers provide specialist advice and logistical support for the planning and implementation of land and cultural management activities. The Ranger Training Officer organises training that will meet the professional development needs of the Rangers.

Regional Land Management / Indigenous Protected Areas

A regional approach to land management, through close ties to other regional land management planning and programs (e.g. Indigenous Protected Areas), is integral to the success of the program because it provides long term (i.e. five to ten year horizons) for the delivery of natural and cultural resource management activities by Ranger groups.

Annual work plans are created under the guidance of the Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Committees and IPA Committees, with effort made to link broader regional land management planning wherever possible. This can be facilitated through the establishment of an IPA e.g. Northern Tanami and Southern Tanami IPAs.

The IPA program, an initiative of the Australian Government, is directed at supporting Aboriginal people to manage their country for the enhancement of biodiversity and cultural values. Implicit in the protection of these values is recognition of social benefits for participating Aboriginal people and communities, including improvements in health and education outcomes.

12

Skills / Training

A significant investment is required to build the capacity of individuals to participate in the Ranger Program. Accredited and non-accredited training are delivered by a range of registered training organisations contracted by the CLC including Central Desert Training, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and Charles Darwin University and includes:

• Language, Literacy and Numeracy (LLN)- i.e. the Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) program

• Environmental Management – i.e. accredited CLM competencies and non-accredited skills such as 4WD, reptile-handling etc

• Occupational Health and Safety • Basic business and administration – i.e. computer literacy, project management etc

Specific skills development – e.g. use of cybertrackers – may be delivered by relevant experts internal to the CLC as well as from a range of external sources including government agencies and research institutions.

There are under-utilised community-based training facilities where the Ranger Program currently operates, hence training is generally delivered either centrally in Alice Springs or through targeted visits to communities by training providers. Most of the training providers only offer training courses in larger centres (e.g. Alice Springs) hence Rangers are often required to travel away from their place of work and community in order to access this training. The main exception is literacy and numeracy training that is regularly delivered to each community where the program is operating. Delivery in community is particular challenging for the most remote Ranger groups.

Mentoring / Professional Development

The CLC has two positions within the Land Management team that are designed to specifically focus on providing mentoring and other support to Rangers. The Ranger Mentor Northern and Ranger Mentor Southern travel to their respective target communities to work closely with Rangers to help manage a variety of non-work related issues (e.g. domestic, legal, financial etc) and workplace issues that may prevent an individual from being able to continue their employment as a Ranger. The Ranger Mentors manage individual cases as required and work collaboratively with the relevant Ranger Coordinator and other Land Management team members (e.g. Ranger Program Coordinator, Ranger Trainer, Ranger Support Officers etc) and external agencies in order to try and achieve the best possible outcomes for each individual Ranger. The Ranger Mentors also work closely with the Ranger Trainer to ensure Rangers are progressing in their professional development.

The CLC has identified a professional development and career pathway for Rangers who aspire to progress their level of responsibility in the Ranger Program, as below:

Ranger Senior Ranger Ranger Program Support Officer Ranger Coordinator

Additional mentoring and professional development opportunities for Rangers are also provided through the annual Ranger Induction (for newer recruits) and Ranger Camp (for all Rangers).

Monitoring and Evaluation

The current monitoring and evaluation program is closely tied to the project planning and reporting requirements of the funding agencies.

As part of this framework Ranger Coordinators are required to develop an Annual Work Plan and submit a weekly report to track performance and attendance. Program-wide monitoring and evaluation is a key requirements of the current work program.

13

3.2.3. Local and Community Resources

Rangers

Rangers are employed by the CLC as a member of an indigenous land management team (i.e. Ranger group) to assist in the delivery of natural and cultural resource management activities. Rangers are expected to be able to work closely and effectively with other members of the Ranger group (both male and female) to deliver these activities.

Rangers are expected to attend work regularly and reliably and attendance is closely monitored with defined processes for addressing absenteeism.

Rangers are also expected to be able to receive direction from and report to their Ranger Coordinator and older traditional owners, as well as maintain good relationships with the wider community and relevant stakeholders, in order to implement the activities outlined in an approved work plan. Rangers should have the ability to develop good working relationships as required with other Aboriginal people and communities being serviced by the activities of the Ranger group; key stakeholders (e.g. government and non-government NRM organisations); CLC Land Management staff and other CLC staff.

Infrastructure and Equipment

To successfully operate the Ranger Program there is a need to provide the Ranger groups and Ranger Coordinators in satellite locations with access to an appropriate quality and quantity of accommodation, office space, office equipment, storage space, vehicles and tools and equipment.

Program of Works

The program of works refers to the suite of natural and cultural resource management activities that are being undertaken by the Ranger group. The program of works incorporates activities that aim to achieve broader strategic regional land management outcomes (e.g. Indigenous Protected Areas, weed control, feral animal control, threatened species monitoring etc), as well as local outcomes that address any specific environmental and cultural priorities identified by traditional owners.

The annual work plan functions as the implementation plan for the program of works and is developed with the participation of the traditional owners through the TORACs. Each Ranger group has its own individual Annual Work Plan.

14

4. PROGRAM LOGIC

4.1. Output and Outcome Measures - Mapped Against Program Objectives

The success of each Ranger Program can be determined by the extent to which it achieves outcomes that are aligned to the strategic objectives outlined in the previous section.

The program currently collects a vast array of data and information which in turn is used to report against multiple reporting frameworks from various funding agencies. This has led to complexity in both the reporting and the capacity of the CLC to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program. Whilst there has been some attempt to monitor the Ranger Programs, it is evident that a unified framework is required to get a clear picture of operations across multiple locations.

As a result a simplified set of primary output, outcome and headline metrics for each of the objectives has been identified, see Table 3. Once finalised, these primary metrics should be used to guide the future directions and priorities of the program. Definitions of acronyms and the meaning of particular words and phrases used are outlined in Table 4 and Table 5.

A set of secondary metrics have also been identified and these intend to satisfy project measures outlined in existing funding agreements. However it is recommended that all future agreements with funding agencies and/or other partners should utilise the primary metrics only as this will ensure more efficient program monitoring and evaluation. An example of a planning tool that includes all the primary and secondary metrics can be viewed at Appendix C.

Also an initial qualitative assessment “Health-Check” of each of the Ranger groups has been completed against this framework.

15

Table 3: Program Logic - Key Program Metrics

STRATEGIC PILLAR OBJECTIVE OUTPUT OUTCOME HEADLINE METRIC

Growing and Thriving Ranger Program

To grow the scale, reach and effectiveness of the program

Budget ($ Revenue)

Budget ($ Expenditure)

% of revenue from non-government sources

# external stakeholders on Communications and Advocacy Strategy database

# Ranger groups # of Ranger groups

Economic and Social Participation Build the capacity to participate (Training and Competency)

# hrs of training Competency achieved;

• LLN

• CLM

• OHS

• Administration

# Rangers with more than 3 years total experience

% of Senior Ranger positions filled

Build the capacity to participate

(Health and Wellbeing)

# sick days per ranger (average)

# ULWP days per ranger (average)

Retention of Rangers

Better health outcomes (e.g. lower rates of chronic disease)

Employment # ongoing employees

# casual employees

% of labour pool in ongoing employment

# budgeted days

% of budgeted days utilised

Retention of Rangers

Advancement;

• # Rangers

• # Senior Rangers

• # Team Leaders

• # Coordinators

Enterprise # partnerships

Total fee-for-service revenue raised ($)

# partnerships and businesses catalysed

# partnerships

16

STRATEGIC PILLAR OBJECTIVE OUTPUT OUTCOME HEADLINE METRIC

Environmental Stewardship Effective management of Country to maintain ecological and cultural assets

Annual Work Plan linked to strategic regional and traditional owner priorities in place.

Plan Executed to Plan;

• # of days effort

• % of tasks completed to plan

Key Activities; • Survey • Fire • Weeds • Feral Animals

• Threatened Species

• Soil

• Water

• Visitor Management

• Infrastructure

Key ecological and cultural assets protected, including management of key processes and threats.

Annual Work Plan endorsed by TORAC / IPAC and LM Section.

% of tasks completed to plan

Strong Culture and Governance

Traditional owners participate in priority setting

TORAC / IPAC in place and meets at least 3 times per annum

TORAC / IPAC effective

Significant sites and cultural priorities identified and managed or supported

# Trips to Country with Knowledge Holders participating

Maintain strong aboriginal culture:

• Access to Country

• Ceremony

• IEK

• Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer

# Trips to Country

# Knowledge Holders and Youth participating

Culture is retained and transferred between generations

Program governance is progressively devolved to local Aboriginal organisations according to traditional owner and Ranger aspirations and capacity

# of program responsibilities governed by the TORAC and/or local Aboriginal organisations

Traditional owners effectively govern the program

17

Table 4: Program Logic – Description of Acronyms

ITEM DESCRIPTION

CLM Conservation and Land Management

IEK Indigenous Ecological Knowledge

IPAC Indigenous Protected Area Committee

LLN Language, Literacy and Numeracy

LM Land Management

OHS Occupational Health and Safety

RLM Regional Land Management

TORAC Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Committee

ULWP Un-authorised Leave Without Pay

Table 5: Program Logic – Definitions

ITEM DESCRIPTION

“More than three years total experience” Total number of accrued years of engagement with the Ranger Program within a period of five years.

“Senior Ranger” A Senior Ranger is one authority level and one ASO wage level higher than a Ranger.

“Ongoing employee” Either a full-time or part-time employee in the Ranger Program who has completed their probation period for ongoing employment and is eligible for standard paid leave and other benefits.

“Casual employee” An employee in the Ranger Program who is not employed in an ongoing manner and is ineligible for standard paid leave and other benefits.

“Number of budgeted days” The total number of FTE equivalent days accounted for in the budget that are available for Rangers and Senior Rangers to deliver Ranger Program activities.

“Percentage of budgeted days utilised” The proportion of FTE equivalent days actually utilised by Rangers and Senior Rangers to deliver Ranger Program activities – i.e. actual number divided by total number and converted into a percentage.

ITEM DESCRIPTION

“Partnerships” An ongoing relationship with a partner agency/organisation who offers one or more of the following:

• Grant money • Fee-for-service contracts • Enterprise development support • Training and career development support • Communication and advocacy support • Other general in-kind support

18

“Total fee-for-service revenue raised” The total revenue raised through the acquisition and completion of commercial contracts or enterprise delivery.

“Business” Any enterprise or business that is successfully operating six months from the date of commercial registration.

“TORAC / IPAC effective” Assessment of the level of efficacy of a TORAC / IPAC should take into account the following:

• Appropriate level of representation by traditional owner within the operational domain of the Ranger group, including an equitable gender mix.

• Number of traditional owners attending each TORAC / IPAC meeting. • Effective and equitable distribution of traditional owner-directed activities within the operational domain of the Ranger group and its

TORAC. • A guiding 5 Point Rating Scale:

1. TORAC does not meet regularly with an appropriate level of representation by traditional owners. 2. TORAC has appropriate representation meets regularly but does not effectively engage in planning for the Ranger Program 3. TORAC has appropriate representation meets regularly and provides effective input and endorsement to Annual Plan 4. TORAC has appropriate representation, meets regularly and actively engaged in participatory planning that ensures effective and

equitable distribution of traditional owner-directed activities. 5. TORAC is effectively chaired and convened by senior traditional owners with limited input from CLC staff, has appropriate

representation, meets regularly and actively engaged in participatory planning that ensures effective and equitable distribution of traditional owner-directed activities.

“Survey activities” Includes but is not limited to: biodiversity surveys, track plot surveys, cyber-tracking, updating CLC biodiversity database with new data, specific one-off research survey projects etc.

“Fire activities” Includes but is not limited to: fire management planning, early season burns, weed control burns, protecting threatened species habitat burns etc.

“Weed activities” Includes but is not limited to: surveying weed infestations, chemical weed spraying and other weed control activities etc.

19

ITEM DESCRIPTION

“Feral animal activities” Includes but is not limited to: feral animal mustering/culling, erecting protective fencing, monitoring waterholes for feral animal impacts, signing of community agreements regarding feral animal management etc.

“Threatened species activities” Includes but is not limited to: fauna monitoring, implementation of threatened species recovery plan activities etc.

“Soil activities” Includes but is not limited to: monitoring erosion impacts, erosion control activities etc.

“Water activities” Includes but is not limited to: monitoring waterholes for water quality, cleaning and maintaining waterholes etc.

“Visitor management activities” Includes but is not limited to: assessing areas for tourism impacts, repair/maintenance/cleaning at tourism sites, erecting visitor signage, guiding visitor tours etc.

“Infrastructure activities” Includes but is not limited to: repair/maintenance/cleaning of building infrastructure, repair/maintenance/cleaning of vehicles, repair/maintenance/cleaning of equipment, maintaining up to date asset register, acquisition and sale of infrastructure etc.

“Knowledge Holder” An individual who is perceived by others to possess a depth of traditional knowledge which means they are more senior in cultural authority.

“Trips to Country” An activity of a minimum of four hours of duration that is conducted on land of cultural significance to local traditional owners and engages individuals to meaningfully contribute to program deliverables as outlined in the Annual Work Plans. A meaningful contribution is one that helps to achieve a measurable output and/or outcome as defined in the Program Logic.

“Cultural activities” Includes but is not limited to: camping trips for site documentation, bush tucker and/or medicine trips, cultural knowledge transfer etc. Does not include IEK activities as this is measured independently to all other cultural activities.

“Activities communicating achievements” Includes but is not limited to: press releases, presentations, newsletters, email blasts, flyers/poster etc.

20

CLC RANGER PROGRAM – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY REPORT

5. HEALTH CHECK SUMMARY

5.1. OVERVIEW

5.1.1. Outcomes

A review of the 11 current Ranger groups against the Program Logic was undertaken through site visits, engagement with traditional owners and Rangers and review of available data. A number of common themes are evident across Ranger groups and provide important insight into the success of programs in terms of their economic, environmental and cultural objectives and the current effectiveness of various inputs.

On average Economic and Social Participation was rated lowest performing of all areas, with Culture and Governance highest.

Relative strengths common across the Ranger groups include:

• Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Committees (TORACs) in place and active: Evidence of strong Advisory Groups of key traditional owners who are involved in all recruitment decisions and work planning. For the most part, these groups meet regularly enough to enable collaborative decision making, however in some cases it was observed that there was a need for more regular contact to facilitate day to day decisions.

• Protection and maintenance of sacred sites: In general, older traditional owners acknowledged that the Ranger Program is helping to ensure the country and sacred sites are being protected and maintained.

• Transfer of skills and knowledge: It is clear across all Ranger groups that the program provides valuable opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge and skills with younger people. There is a strong desire amongst Rangers to complete more on country trips engaging young people, indicative of the importance of cultural sharing as a motivational driver for Ranger and community involvement in the programs.

• A strong commitment to skills development and training: Whilst the Ranger Program as a whole has a strong commitment to developing the skills of rangers, there are varying levels of engagement in training.

Relative weaknesses common across the Ranger groups include:

• Fluctuating retention and attendance levels: A lack of consistency across Ranger groups in retention and attendance levels.

• Limited partnership development: Whilst the majority of Ranger groups have an established partnership with their local school, there is a varying degree of interest in, and evidence of, broader partnership development. As such, programs are largely reliant on single sources of uncertain or declining funding.

• Gender imbalance amongst Rangers: It is evident that there are a mix of genders in most Ranger groups but there is still a significantly lower proportion of women engaged in the program overall. However it is acknowledged that this gender imbalance may be exacerbated by social and cultural expectations – e.g. male and female Rangers not always able to travel in same vehicle together etc.

21


• Monitoring and quality of data collection: There are some specific monitoring activities that are being completed to varying degrees of success by the Ranger groups (e.g. cyber tracking, threatened species monitoring, water quality monitoring etc.) however there is inconsistent collation and analysis of the data being generated from these activities.

Areas where performance was reported as variable across Ranger groups include:

• Annual Work Plan linked to strategic regional and traditional owner priorities in place: Each Ranger group has an Annual Work Plan in place. These plans guide natural and cultural resource management activity to priority areas. However the strength of linkages to regional plans is variable and there are varying degrees of implementation.

• Equipment and infrastructure: Although the CLC endeavours to ensure the level of supply is equitable across the whole program challenges associated with the remoteness of some locations, processes for leasing land and/or buildings and amount of funding available for the maintenance or purchase of vehicles and equipment means that distribution of resources is not always adequately meeting demand.

The process of assessment also highlighted a number of inconsistencies evident in how data is collected managed and stored. As a result, there was a greater reliance on qualitative measures to complete the program Health Check. Over time the quantitative evidence base will be built up against these suggested metrics. Prominent gaps in data collation and analysis included:

• The number of trips on country completed to date in FY 14 • The number of days in field completed to date in FY 14 • The value of partnerships and enterprises • The training competencies reached by rangers • Retention data by year

Full health check for each community is summarised in Appendix D.

22


6. STRATEGIC DRIVERS

In developing strategies for the future development of the program a range of alternative scenarios for how the Ranger program could evolve to 2024 were developed. These scenarios were based on an assessment of the external and internal factors that will most significantly impact the future development of the program.

The scenarios are contained at Appendix E and provide an important strategic overview of the potential future directions of the program and the factors that will influence it.

Based on the scenarios and defined objectives of the program the following key Strategic Drivers have been defined. A Strategic Driver reflects an element of the Ranger Program and its organisation that the CLC can effectively manage to meets its objectives and address the challenges and opportunities presented by changes in the external environment.

The following Strategic drivers were selected for detailed analysis to support the development of the final Strategy contained in Section 2.

1. Program Wide Governance: Assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the role of the CLC in managing the Ranger Program.

2. Quality Planning and Reporting: The capacity to support Ranger groups through corporate support, planning and reporting processes.

3. Revenue Diversification: The ability to develop partnerships, generate revenue and catalyse enterprise through the program.

4. Capacity and Motivation to Participate: The strategies deployed to engage and motivate participation and skills development of Rangers

5. Employment Model: The models for employment and retention of Rangers

6. Communication and Advocacy: The ability to report and advocate program-wide outcomes.

These drivers are analysed in the following section with a view to:

• Clarifying the sub-objective that needs to be achieved in order to meet over-arching objectives of the program.

• An analysis of key issues that need to be understood and addressed by the CLC management team • A summary of key experiences and approaches from other Aboriginal Ranger Programs across

Australia • Identification of options for future action and investment by the CLC • A recommendation reflecting the outcomes of the Business Planning workshop held with senior CLC

staff.

23


6.1. Program-Wide Governance Objective:

To establish organisational and governance arrangements for the Ranger Program that will allow for its future growth and sustainability.

The Ranger Program represents a relatively new initiative in the history of the Central Land Council (CLC) and a shift in emphasis toward program and service delivery in remote communities.

The roots of the CLC lie in the history of Aboriginal struggle for justice and rights to their traditional land. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 gave Aboriginal people title to most of the Aboriginal reserve lands in the Northern Territory and gave the opportunity to claim other land not already owned, leased or being used by someone else.

The CLC region covers 771,742 square kilometres of remote rugged and often inaccessible areas, of which 407,985 square kilometres is owned by Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people own 49 percent of the land in the Northern Territory. The CLC is a representative body promoting Aboriginal rights. It is a statutory authority under the Aboriginal Land rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It also has functions under the Native Title Act1993 and the Pastoral Act 1992.

(Central Land Council Website)

In this context the objective of developing the Ranger Program needs to be reconciled and integrated with the broader consultation, advocacy and administrative functions of the CLC.

Key Issues

The CLC brings many strengths to the table in developing a Ranger Program.

At the strategic level:

• The focus of the Ranger Program on enabling environmental and cultural conservation by enabling “Access to Country”, “Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer” and “Indigenous Ecological Knowledge” is central to the achievement of the CLC’s purpose and function.

• The CLC brings nearly 40 years of institutional knowledge and capacity in Aboriginal affairs in central Australia.

• The CLC is uniquely placed and has established processes through which to manage the myriad of expectations and interests at play between different community, language and family groups in central Australia

• The CLC is representative and facilitates development of Aboriginal lands in the region through an established process of consultation, informed consent and agreement making. For example at the end of 2013 the CLC had facilitated 63 Exploration Agreements and 11 Mining Agreements between minerals companies and traditional owners.

24


At an operational level the development of the Ranger Program has expanded and strengthened the suite of capacities and services that the CLC has at its disposal, these include:

• Contract and administrative management • Marketing, communications and advocacy • Training • Remote supervision • Human Resources • Information technology • Housing accommodation and equipment

These strengths are countered by the fact that the CLC is a relatively large and complex organisation where the Ranger Program being more recently established, may at times be overshadowed by more established statutory functions of the organisation. In addition the status of the CLC as a Commonwealth corporate entity may, at times, operate as a constraint.

As a result there is a question over what the most effective institutional and governance arrangements for the program ought be in the short, medium and longer term.

A number of critical issues are discussed in Section 6.3 that explores the potential for revenue diversification. These include:

• Changing emphasis in Commonwealth funding objectives • Barriers to a culture of enterprise within the CLC • Motivation and capacity of traditional owners and other Aboriginal organisations to independently

govern the program • Size and relatively bureaucratic nature of the CLC

These issues need to be considered alongside the analysis of the fit between the role and function of the CLC and the Ranger Program and alternative options for its longer term governance and administration.

Core Functions of the CLC

It is pertinent to reflect on the core functions of the CLC before considering options for the future governance of the program. The CLC’s functions are clearly established in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 which inter alia state

Section 23 Functions of Land Council

(1) The functions of a Land Council are:

(a) to ascertain and express the wishes and the opinion of Aboriginals living in the area of the Land Council as to the management of Aboriginal land in that area and as to appropriate legislation concerning that land; and

(b) to protect the interests of traditional Aboriginal owners of, and other Aboriginals interested in, Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council; and

(ba) to assist Aboriginals in the taking of measures likely to assist in the protection of sacred sites on land (whether or not Aboriginal land) in the area of the Land Council; and

(c) to consult with traditional Aboriginal owners of, and other Aboriginals interested in, Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council with respect to any proposal relating to the use of that land; and

(d) where the Land Council holds in escrow a deed of grant of land made to a Land Trust under section 12:

(i) to negotiate with persons having estates or interests in that land with a view to the acquisition of those estates or interests by the Land Trust; and

(ii) until those estates or interests have been so acquired, to negotiate with those persons with a view to the use by Aboriginals of the land in such manner as may be agreed between the Land Council and those persons; and

(e) to negotiate with persons desiring to obtain an estate or interest in land in the area of the Land Council:

25

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23aboriginal

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23area

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23aboriginal_land


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23traditional_aboriginal_owners





http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23sacred_site








http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23grant

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23land_trust

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s12.html





(i) where the land is held by a Land Trust--on behalf of traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of that land and of any other Aboriginals interested in the land; and

(ii) where the land is the subject of an application referred to in paragraph 50(1)(a)--on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land or on behalf of any other Aboriginals interested in the land; and

(ea) to assist Aboriginals in the area of the Land Council to carry out commercial activities (including resource development, the provision of tourist facilities and agricultural activities), in any manner that will not cause the Land Council to incur financial liability or enable it to receive financial benefit;

…..

(h) to supervise, and provide administrative or other assistance for, Land Trusts holding, or established to hold, Aboriginal land in its area; and

(i) such other functions as are prescribed by the regulations.

(2) A Land Council may, with the approval of the Minister, perform any functions that may be conferred on it by a law of the Northern Territory, including, without limiting the foregoing, functions in relation to:

(a) the protection of sacred sites;

(b) access to Aboriginal land; and

(c) schemes for the management of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

(3) In carrying out its functions with respect to any Aboriginal land in its area, a Land Council shall have regard to the interests of, and shall consult with, the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of the land and any other Aboriginals interested in the land and, in particular, shall not take any action, including, but not limited to, the giving of consent or the withholding of consent, in any matter in connexion with land held by a Land Trust, unless the Land Council is satisfied that:

(a) the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of that land understand the nature and purpose of the proposed action and, as a group, consent to it; and

(b) any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the proposed action has been consulted and has had adequate opportunity to express its view to the Land Council.

(4) The reference in paragraph (1)(e) to an estate or interest in land includes a reference to a licence in respect of that land.

The Ranger Program, in its current form, is consistent with the functions of the CLC in that it supports traditional owners to identify and manage cultural and environmental values on Aboriginal land and to facilitate access to land for cultural purposes.

Possible Tensions with Core Function

Given the objectives to expand the program and to further encourage traditional owners to pursue commercial opportunities, a number of tensions may exist between a diversified Ranger Program and the core functions of the CLC that must be carefully considered.

• If commercial opportunities are pursued, the Land Council may have conflicting objectives between its roles in:

o negotiating “land access/leasing” arrangements on behalf of traditional owners; and o the process of undertaking a commercial enterprise on land.

• The Land Council may be constrained by the requirement to pursue commercial interests of traditional owners in any manner that will not cause the Land Council to incur financial liability or enable it to receive financial benefit (S23-1ea).

• The Land Council may be constrained by the need to set its budget on an annual cycle subject to the approval of the Minister (S34-S35).

• The Land Council may be constrained by needing Ministerial approval for its annual priorities and budget.

For now the point is moot. It is clear that the CLC can engage in developing partnerships that further the interests of the traditional owners. The CLC does not consider this to be a constraint to the pursuit of earning

26











http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23law_of_the_northern_territory

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23law_of_the_northern_territory

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html%23sacred_site











revenue / cost recovery by Ranger groups provided that funds earned are only deployed to further support the Ranger Program. However, if in the longer term, enterprises emerge that are profitable or that require capitalisation, then the CLC would need to consider placing them at arm’s length – options for which are outlined below. The issue then is not legal but more reflective of what the CLC views its roles and responsibilities as being.

Options:

Four options for the future are defined below with their relative strengths and weaknesses highlighted in the following Table 6.

1. CLC continues the existing operation of Ranger Program with focus on traditional owner aspirations and regional environmental management priorities

Under this option, the CLC continue the existing program with primary emphasis on environmental and cultural conservation. Enterprise development is not considered a core deliverable of the Ranger Program but is pursued separately through other activities of the CLC.

2. CLC continues operation of Ranger Program but initiate semi-autonomous “Partnership and Enterprise” Unit to:

• Pursue commercial opportunities to support the further development of the Ranger program. • Incubate new businesses with a view to transfer ownership in the longer term to traditional

owner entities once commercialised.

In this option the CLC uses the Ranger Program as a primary vehicle for motivating and building capacity for economic participation by Rangers. A dedicated unit is established with a clearly defined mandate to develop partnerships and enterprise opportunities for all Ranger groups.

In addition to supporting the Ranger Program, a decision would need to be made on the scope of the Enterprise Unit in supporting other initiatives of the CLC.

All revenue raised would be re-invested in the program, ensuring that the requirement: to pursue commercial interests of traditional owners “in any manner that will not cause the Land Council to incur financial liability or enable it to receive financial benefit,” is met.

In the event that fully commercial business opportunities emerge, the ownership of these would be vested in the appropriate entity and continue to be supported by the CLC in their capacity as a secretariat for the program and in building the capacity of the Ranger group members.

3. CLC maintain management of the Ranger Program but out-source enterprise development to an external enterprise with a commitment to Ranger groups as a “Labour Pool”

In this option the CLC continues to support the development of the Ranger Program and teams. However, a separate entity is established to pursue new business and enterprise opportunities for the Ranger groups.

Ranger groups are sub-contracted from the CLC to the new entity on an agreed basis. Over time some Ranger groups achieve a level of independence from the CLC with all funding sourced from the commercial services entity.

4. Move Ranger Program to a separate entity

In this option the Ranger Program is “released” to an independent “single purpose”, not-for-profit entity whose sole focus is on the future development and growth of the Ranger groups. The entity has dual objectives of supporting cultural and environmental conservation as well as the development of fee-for-service and commercial opportunities for the program. The CLC remains closely aligned and supportive of the organisation.

27


Table 6: Program-Wide Governance Options – Strengths and Weaknesses

MODEL STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

1. Retain existing Ranger group model within CLC Retains focus on traditional owner aspirations and engagement. CLC best placed to manage expectations over the location, size and scope of Ranger groups. CLC support for training development and capacity building. Retain critical linkages to Commonwealth government funding.

Very little support for enterprise development. It is less likely that objectives to diversify revenue streams will be successful.

2. Retain Ranger group model within the CLC with the addition of “Partnership and Enterprise” unit.

Recognises and works to the “embryonic” status of the Program and early stage of development of the Ranger groups. Continues to build off the strengths of CLC in providing institutional and political support for the program. Most likely to succeed in developing a culture of engagement and partnership within the Ranger Program staff – including Ranger Coordinators. Provides a pathway for successful enterprises to be vested with local Aboriginal organisations.

Unit may not achieve a true “mandate” from the CLC. May not be supported by Ranger groups and the TORAC / IPA Committees. Another “Sub-Program” within an already complex structure within the CLC. Risk of political interference. Inability to make decisions or raise the capital required for genuine commercialisation of initiatives.

3. Outsource Enterprise Development Separate Entity is free to explore opportunities. Unconstrained by CLC processes. Fully independent of the Commonwealth making it able to adopt a “higher risk profile”.

May not be supported by Ranger groups and the TORAC / IPA Committees. May generate expectations that cannot be fulfilled. May create conflict with the CLC. Another organisation - adding to administrative costs.

4. Create Separate Ranger Entity Is able to pursue the future development and growth of the ranger program as its sole focus.

May create difficulties and conflicts within the CLC. May lose support of traditional owners. May lose focus of traditional owner aspirations and objectives of the Ranger program. May lose Commonwealth Government support. Does not adequately leverage the administrative, logistical and political strengths of the CLC.

28


Key Recommendations:

That the CLC retain the Ranger Program with the addition of a “Partnership and Enterprise” Unit.

• The Unit should have a clear mandate to explore partnerships and enterprises that are consistent with the status and capabilities of each of the Ranger groups.

• Engagement in partnership and enterprise should require consultation and agreement by the traditional owners through the TORAC / IPA Committees.

• All funds should be re-invested in the program (NB: a policy to guide the distribution of revenue earned by local enterprise activities will need to be developed).

• Where an enterprise reaches “critical mass” shareholding should be defined and transferred to the traditional owners through the established structures for facilitating land use agreements within the CLC.

• The Unit will support other initiatives of the CLC as required (NB: a policy framework outlining the type and extent of support provided will need to be developed).

The CLC should only consider devolving the Ranger program in its entirety if:

• Governance structures at a community level reach a point of maturity where they can administer the full range of functions associated with the program.

• The CLC forms a view that it cannot support the required partnership and enterprise development required to further develop the program.

29


6.2. Quality Planning and Reporting

Objective:

To engage traditional owners in the active management of the land through a range of cultural and natural resource management activities (e.g. fire, weeds, feral animal management, biodiversity surveys etc) so as to ensure that the natural and cultural assets in central Australia’s landscapes are protected and preserved for generations to come.

The planning and implementation of cultural and natural resource management activities through the Ranger Program is complex, necessitating the integration of multiple inputs including the requirements of funding bodies, the cultural imperatives and activities sought by traditional owners and the regional and national environmental priorities. In addition, all strategic planning and implementation should be informed by the monitoring and evaluation of collected data to ensure quality outcomes continue to be achieved through activity delivery.

Key natural and cultural resource management activities include:

• Indigenous Ecological Knowledge transfer • Biodiversity surveys • Significant site protection and recording • Fire management • Weeds management • Feral animal management • Threatened species monitoring • Soil conservation • Freshwater management

Metric / Target:

METRIC CURRENT STATUS 2013

TARGET 2019 TARGET 2029

Annual Work Plan endorsed by TORAC / IPA Committee and Land Management Section

tbc 100% 100%

% of tasks completed to plan

tbc 85% 85%

% budgeted day utilised tbc 90% 95%

TORAC / IPA Committee in place and meets at least 3 times per annum

8/10 100% 100%

TORAC / IPA Committee effective

9/10 100% 100%

30


Baseline Performance:

The CLC Ranger Program currently successfully engages traditional owners in making decisions about the Ranger Program and directing the activities of Ranger groups through the establishment of Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) Committees and Traditional Owner Ranger Advisory Committees (TORACs). IPA committees are established only where IPAs exist (i.e. Northern Tanami, Southern Tanami) or are being proposed (i.e. Katiti-Petermann) and all other Ranger Program locations have TORACs.

Each IPA Committee or TORAC is comprised of a mixture of senior male and female traditional owners who are deemed to reflect local customary governance arrangements. Most IPA Committees and TORACs have equitable representation by the traditional owners who are connected to the different areas of “country” covered by the operations of a Ranger group.

Variable approaches are used by each Ranger group to manage the flow of planning, implementation and reporting of natural and cultural resource management activities

Whilst there is a clear intention to link longer term regional scale planning with annual work planning and reporting, there remains significant challenges in implementation across the Ranger groups. Ranger Program activity is more successfully aligned to long-term, regional land management planning and implementation where IPAs exist. However elsewhere longer-term planning and implementation appears to be more ad-hoc, with links to broader land management strategies and outcomes only being achieved where on-ground resources enable this to happen. In addition, quality long-term planning is further challenged by shorter-term funding cycles.

The ability to effectively measure the level of success of activities delivered on the ground in achieving targets and outcomes outlined in annual plans, regional strategies or funding KPIs remains a key challenge across the whole program. Broadly there is limited data collation and analysis and an absence of a program-wide monitoring and evaluation framework.

Ranger Coordinators currently submit a Weekly Report that tracks individual ranger performance and attendance. This Weekly Report also records “significant activities and outcomes for the week” however does not generally distil this information any further nor indicates if the activities and outcomes are successfully meeting funding requirements – i.e. there is limited collation and analysis of this data.

There are some specific monitoring activities that are being completed to varying degrees of success by the Ranger groups (e.g. cyber tracking, threatened species monitoring, water quality monitoring etc) however again there is inconsistent collation and analysis of the data being generated from these activities.

Key Issues:

Lack of integration in planning and reporting processes

Integrated planning and activity delivery between units internal to the Land Management section appears to be driven through relationships and collaboration between CLC staff rather than supported by a coordinated and structured approach towards achieving strategic communication and action. This is also reflected in the way the Land Management Section engages with other CLC sections. Initiatives in progress are seeking to address this at both levels through the formation of regional teams both within the section and across the organisation.

No clear monitoring and evaluation framework

The lack of clear, concise program objectives supported by a monitoring and evaluation framework to inform ongoing planning at both a regional and local level means it is difficult to guage how effectively the Ranger Program is delivering against the expectations of both the traditional owners and current funding bodies. It also means data currently being gathered through the Ranger Program is not always being effectively utilised for the purpose of ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the program’s activity delivery.

31


Furthermore there does not appear to be a defined approach or the resources required to ensure data collected through the Ranger Program is being processed centrally and linked to other data management systems in the CLC – e.g. Anthropology.

Information management system

A consultant report completed in 2013 noted that a quality electronic document and records management system (EDRMS) would be the most economical option to achieve a significant upgrade in the organisation’s information management performance.4 To date the lack of an easy-to-use and accessible information management system means that data being collected through the Ranger Program is not always being properly recorded and stored. This is further compounded by poor access to a high-speed internet connection at some Ranger Program sites.

Quality of data being collected

The collection of data requires individuals working in the field to have been trained sufficiently to use relevant data collection devices (e.g. CyberTracker) and be able to interpret and record data accurately. In addition, as highlighted in the CyberTracker Project 2010-13 report, the ability to effectively use more complex data collection devices may be hindered by lower levels of literacy and numeracy. Hence without an appropriate level of support to continually improve data collection skills and knowledge, there is a real risk that data being collected through the Ranger Program may not always be of an acceptable quality, have defined data attribute/meta data, be stored in an appropriate manner or be able to be interpreted effectively.

Tools for planning and reporting

The planning, implementation and reporting of natural and cultural resource management activities is a tiered process, however, the different reporting tools currently used at each layer – e.g. Annual Work Plan, Weekly Report – do not appear to be aligned. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is an absence of an overarching monitoring and evaluation framework.

Lack of partnerships

A restrained approach to partnering with research institutions and other land and environmental management organisations means the natural and cultural resource management outcomes being achieved through the Ranger Program may not be as well recognised, analysed and reported as they potentially could be. Alliances with key research bodies have the potential to increase the understanding of how effective the program is in terms of the maintenance of the culture and biodiversity of a locally, regionally and nationally significant Central Australian landscape. It also means there are missed opportunities to access the technical expertise and resources as required. On the other hand experience shows that such partnerships require management of the risk of the practical aspects of program implementation and traditional owner priorities being overwhelmed by a research agenda.

What Others Are Doing:

Kimberley Land Council – developed the regional Healthy Country Plans (HCPs) via an IPA strategic planning process – each HCP outlines a clear vision, priorities, targets etc / at each Ranger group site there is an annual planning cycle that is informed by the relevant HCP / KLC seeking to establish in the near future a Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Committee comprised of volunteers from each Healthy Country Advisory Committee and technical experts / seeking to develop an appropriate information and data management system.

Carpenteria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation – aiming to have Land and Sea Management Plans for every region by the end of the calendar year / each Ranger group has an Annual Work Plan that outlines specific activity delivery and Senior Rangers manage the planning process / monitoring and evaluation framework

4 Electronic Document and Records Management System, Siller Systems Administration, January 2013

32


centres around collecting data (i.e evidence of completion of tasks) that meets the expectations of the funding organisations (traditional owners understand that the program is a contract with a client and there are obligations associated with this contract) / using CSIRO’s MERIT program to capture data for biodiversity research and other projects / good communication with broader community and other constituents about measured outcomes.

Torres Strait Regional Authority – a planning hierarchy is in place: Torres Strait Land and Sea Management Strategy Working on Country/IPA plans community-based plans as required (e.g. Dugong and Turtle Management Plans) / ten (10) new Regional Ecosystems have been classified in Torres Strait under the Regional Ecosystem Mapping Project and Terrestrial Biodiversity Management Profiles have been completed for most outer islands / TSRA staff are supporting the design and establishment of an Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) system for the Torres Strait to enable Rangers’ planning and management activities to be guided by Ailan Kastom (Island Custom) / supporting the coordination and delivery of research projects in Torres Strait through the National Environmental Research Program (NERP) Tropical Ecosystems Hub.

Northern Land Council – each Ranger group has an Annual Work Plan / Annual Work Plan subject to bi-monthly review by traditional owners / Annual Work Plans informed by IPA plans where IPAs exist / focus of work plans is on achieving environmental outcomes / funding an IT officer to help manage a program-wide information management system known as “Tool Box” and currently training all rangers to be capable of contributing data and other information to “Tool Box.”

KJ – Planning is iterative with a strong focus on the management of cultural sites of significance and the management of landscape scale processes – predominately fire management and culling of introduced animals such as camels. Longer term strategic planning is envisaged once greater capacity has been achieved with the traditional owners.

Overall the linkages between strategic planning and operational planning appear fragmented across each of the Ranger Programs spoken to.

33


Options:

Option 1: Strengthen Linkages in the Planning Process

Maintain the existing Land Management section functional structure but revise the Ranger Program planning and reporting process so that relevant CLC units, both internal to the Land Management Section (i.e. Regional Land Management, Employment and Training, Joint Management/ Tourism etc) and external to the Land Management Section (i.e. HR/Finance, IT, Community Development, Anthropology etc), help shape the key items and priorities contained in each Ranger group’s Annual Work Plan through the development of an “Annual Statement of Advice”.

This Statement of Advice will enable relevant CLC units to offer their expertise and set minimum requirements on strategic matters that may impact or be impacted by the activities and outcomes being delivered through the Ranger Program. The Statement of Advice should not replace existing current methods of communication but rather function as an overarching, strategic document that can formalise any key requirements of the annual planning process. The implementation of a Statement of Advice should be accompanied by a review process (e.g. quarterly review) that will assess progress against key requirements as well as provide the opportunity for any additional requirements that emerge to be incorporated into program operations. Outlined below are examples of what each CLC unit may offer high-level advice about:

• Regional Land Management – priority regional natural and cultural resource management outcomes, focus areas for addressing environmental processes and threats, regional cultural projects, regional research requirements etc.

• Employment and Training – priority training and employment outcomes, including individual development plans etc.

• Joint Management and Tourism – contract work opportunities, enterprise opportunities etc. • Human Resources / Finance – key policy, funding available, funding organisation requirements, WHS

requirements • Information Technology –outline minimum requirements for uploading information and data

management. • Community Development – key projects, opportunities for collaboration etc. • Anthropology – key focus areas, opportunities for collaboration, cultural research opportunities etc. • Mining – in relation to fee-for-service opportunities etc.

The benefit of this option is that there is no requirement for structural change to the Land Management Section however it will help to ensure that the Ranger Program planning process more effectively address the range of strategic drivers for the Ranger Program itself as well as broader CLC matters of significance.

34


QUALITY PLANNING & REPORTING – OPTION 1

LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

HUM

AN RESO

URCES /

FINAN

CE

INFO

RMATIO

N TECHN

OLO

GY

COM

MU

NITY DEVELO

PMEN

T

TORAC / IPA COMMITTEE

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

(2 page Statement of Advice)

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

RANGER PROGRAM COORDINATORS

RANGER COORDINATORS

RANGERS

WEEKLY

REPORT MONITORING &

EVALUATION

FRAMEWORK

ANNUAL

WORK

PLAN

REVIEW &

APPROVAL

REVIEW &

APPROVAL

ANTHRO

POLO

GY

35


Option 2: Establish Regional Structures

Introduce a dedicated regional structure to the Land Management Section by creating new roles of Regional Land Management Coordinators who have a “single point accountability” and authority for integrating the various requirements of relevant units internal to the Land Management Section (i.e. Regional Land Management, Employment and Training, Joint Management/ Tourism etc) and external to the Land Management Section (i.e. HR/Finance, IT, Community Development, Anthropology etc).

The Regional Land Management Coordinator will be responsible for working with the TORAC / IPA Committees and Ranger Coordinators / Rangers to help develop the key items and priorities contained in each Ranger group’s Annual Work Plan.

This option will require the Regional Land Management Coordinators to have a clear mandate to be able to independently coordinate land management activities at a regional level (e.g. North West, North East, South West and South East). The Regional Land Management Coordinators will report directly to the Land Management Manager.

The benefit of this option is that it will ensure that the Ranger Program planning process is managed within a coordinated regional planning framework. The disadvantage of this option is that it will require a major change to the Land Management section’s organisational structure which in turn requires a significant amount of time and resources devoted to an internal process of change. Staged transition to this option on a region-by-region basis could be considered.

36



LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

HUM

AN RESO

URCES /

FINAN

CE

INFO

RMATIO

N TECHN

OLO

GY

COM

MU

NITY DEVELO

PMEN

T

RANGER COORDINATORS

RANGERS

ANTHRO

POLO

GY

LAND M

ANAG

EMEN

T

REGIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR

(South West)


(South East)


(North West)


(North East)





PROGRAM PRIORITIES

ANNUAL WORK PLAN

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

RANGER COORDINATORS

RANGERS

RANGER COORDINATORS

RANGERS

RANGER COORDINATORS

RANGERS

ANNUAL WORK PLAN

ANNUAL WORK PLAN

ANNUAL WORK PLAN

REVIEW &

APPROVAL

REVIEW &

APPROVAL

37


Option 3:

Restructure the CLC so activity delivery is managed by Regional Coordinators who oversee the coordinated planning and operations for all CLC activity delivery at a regional level (e.g. North West, North East, South West and South East).


REGIO

NAL LAN

D MAN

AGEM

ENT

RANGER CO

ORD

INATO

R

TORAC / IPA CO

MM

ITTEE

EMPLO

YMEN

T & TRAIN

ING

HR / FIN

ANCE

COM

MU

NITY DEVELO

PMEN

T

ANTHRO

POLO

GY

GENERAL MANAGER (HR, Finance, IT)

REGIONAL COORDINATOR

(North East)

REGIONAL COORDINATOR (South West)

REGIONAL COORDINATOR

(South East)

REGIONAL COORDINATOR (North West)

REGIO

NAL LAN

D MAN

AGEM

ENT

RANGER CO

ORD

INATO

R

TORAC / IPA CO

MM

ITTEE

EMPLO

YMEN

T & TRAIN

ING

HR / FIN

ANCE

COM

MU

NITY DEVELO

PMEN

T

ANTHRO

POLO

GY

REGIO

NAL LAN

D M

ANAGEM

ENT

RANGER CO

ORD

INATO

R

TORAC / IPA CO

MM

ITTEE

EMPLO

YMEN

T & TRAIN

ING

HR / FIN

ANCE

COM

MU

NITY D

EVELOPM

ENT

ANTHRO

POLO

GY

REGIO

NAL LAN

D MAN

AGEM

ENT

RANGER CO

ORD

INATO

R

TORAC / IPA CO

MM

ITTEE

EMPLO

YMEN

T & TRAIN

ING

HR / FIN

ANCE

COM

MU

NITY DEVELO

PMEN

T

ANTHRO

POLO

GY

ANTHROPOLOGY MANAGER

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MANAGER

LAND MANAGEMENT

MANAGER

MINING MANAGER

38



Implement Option 1: Embed integrated planning and reporting processes

Integrated planning and reporting is critical to ensuring that the Ranger Program continues to successfully build on the value of outcomes being achieved. If integrated planning and reporting is not effected well then there is a risk that if and when the program expands, it will become increasingly difficult to ensure the outcomes being achieved are meeting all the different requirements – from traditional owners aspirations to funding organisation requirements to broader CLC priorities.

A proposed planning cycle is outlined in Table 7.

Table 7: Ranger Program – Planning Cycle

Planning Stage CLC Staff Responsibilities Timing

Strategic Guidance (optional)* CLC Executive sets cultural, environmental and economic priorities for the Ranger Program.

Lead Land Management Manager Inputs CLC Council CLC Executive

30 November

Annual Statement of Advice (no longer than 2 pages)* Establishes the specific goals and objectives that each Ranger group needs to deliver in the following year. Taking account strategic planning documents (e.g. IPA Management Plan).

Lead Regional Land Management Coordinator Inputs Land Management:

• Administration Coordinator • Ranger Program

Coordinators • Employment and Training

Coordinator • Joint Management and

Tourism Coordinator • Enterprise Coordinator

Community Development Anthropology Human Resources Technical Services Information Management Finance/Budget

28 February

Annual Work Plan and Budget* Develop annual work plan and budget reflecting traditional owner (TORAC/IPAC), CLC and Funding Organisation/s priorities including: - WOC - ILC - Fee for Service

Lead Ranger Program Coordinators Inputs TORAC/IPAC Ranger Group Coordinators

30 April

Annual Work Plan Appraisal (optional 2 day workshop) Annual Work Plan presented to Regional Land Management Team for final review.

Lead Land Management Manager Inputs Ranger Program Coordinators Ranger Group Coordinators Regional Land Management Team

1 May

Annual Work Plan Endorsement Annual Work Plan endorsed

Land Management Manager 10 May

Submission to Funding Agencies Administration Coordinator 15 May

Weekly Reporting Lead Ongoing

39


Reporting against the M+E framework and Funding Organisation KPIs

Ranger Group Coordinator

Ranger Program Annual Report Consolidation of program achievement for financial year

Lead Ranger Program Coordinators Support Administration Coordinator Ranger Group Coordinators

30 August

*Note: All stages of the planning cycle must take account of and reflect traditional owner priorities: • Strategic Guidance - will account for Program-wide inputs from the CLC Council • The annual plan will be developed and endorsed by the TORAC

Some key factors for successful implementation of the planning cycle are as follows:

• Oversight of the planning cycle should rest with a single-point of accountability at either a Manager or Coordinator level. This includes making sure that all relevant parties are aware of why, when and how they are to contribute to the planning cycle.

• Ensuring “buy-in” and ongoing commitment from all relevant parties. • An ongoing process of review that will enable the planning cycle to adapt and evolve as required.

Any proposed modifications to the current schedule for TORAC / IPA Committee meetings should be flagged as early as possible with traditional owners in order to provide TORAC / IPA Committee members with sufficient time to organise their availability for a new meeting schedule.

It is recognised internally that over three to five years there is an opportunity for the CLC to transition towards a regionalised model of organisational activity and delivery (see Option 2). However in order to effectively manage this transition there will be a need for dedicated resources and a clear framework for contributing roles and responsibilities.

Design and implement a monitoring and evaluation framework

The key to delivering quality natural and cultural resource management outcomes is the implementation of an effective, but simple, monitoring and evaluation framework that will directly inform high level, long term strategic planning and in turn links to on ground operational planning and activity delivery.

The monitoring and evaluation framework should utilise an appropriate set of metrics and all tools used for planning and reporting should be aligned appropriately to ease the burden on how data is being recorded, analysed and used.

A set of metrics for the program, including “Headline Metrics”, that are indicators for the key objectives of the program are outlined in Table 3 on page 10 of this report. Key CLC staff members who hold a leadership function in the delivery of the Ranger Program helped to define these metrics. These metrics are relatively easy to collect; aligned to the reporting requirements of the funding bodies; able to be aggregated and include culturally relevant environmental indicators.

Strategic partnerships

Building more compatible partnerships with research institutions and other land and environmental management organisations will improve opportunities for collaborative research projects and funding, as well as access to relevant Western scientific knowledge and expertise as required.

Ongoing improvement of information management system

The identification and implementation of appropriate information management systems should be an ongoing exercise that takes into account current IT resources and limitations (e.g. sites with poor access to high-speed internet), new emerging technology options and user-friendly platforms. The latter is particularly important taking into account the variable levels of IT knowledge and skills amongst CLC staff and all staff contribute to the process of data collection and management.

40


6.3. Revenue Diversification Objective:

To secure and build the financial resources of the program in order to:

• Support and sustain the existing operations of the program • Expand both the number and the size5 of Ranger groups in each Community • Ensure the longer term sustainability of the program, including resilience to changes in government

priorities.

There are four key drivers for broadening the income base, number and diversity of revenue streams secured by the program.

1. To ensure the program is valued by a diverse range of stakeholders to underpin a targeted advocacy strategy aimed at securing ongoing financial support in the form of recurrent long term funding from Commonwealth government agencies, the Indigenous Lands Corporation and the Aboriginals Benefit Account (ABA).

2. To grow total revenue and hence the number, size and scope of Ranger groups throughout the CLC region.

3. To ensure Ranger group members and supporting staff are progressively exposed and enriched through partnerships and alliances including research, public good agencies and commercial enterprises.

4. To build the diversity and resilience of the program by aligning the goals and objectives of traditional owners with the key drivers of external stakeholders, including the funding objectives of public agencies and the commercial imperatives associated with fee for service work.

In the short to medium term it is recognised that funding will be dependent on block funding from public agencies. As a consequence, the primary focus in the next 3-5 years will need to be on building a strong, diverse program that enjoys wide support from stakeholders that are capable of assisting with targeted advocacy aimed at securing ongoing funding and partnerships.

In the medium to longer term greater connection may develop between the aspirations of traditional owners, the commercial market place and the motivation and capability of traditional owners to deliver project outcomes. If these connections are made, there are numerous revenue opportunities available to grow the program.

Metrics and Targets:

METRIC CURRENT STATUS 2013 TARGET 2019 TARGET 2029

# of partnerships 10-15 25 35

$ raised $8.8 Million $12 - $15 million $16 - $22 million

# of partnerships and businesses catalysed

0 2 6


The program enjoys significant support from a range of government agencies. When CDEP programs were abolished, funding devolved to individual Commonwealth government agencies and the Commonwealth Environment Department expanded the Working on Country Program, the CLC Land Management Unit was well positioned to grow the delivery of Ranger Programs.

5 In Section 6.2 of the report it is recommended that: a) each Ranger group has a core group of three (3) to five (5) ongoing employed Rangers who have a minimum of three years of experience in the program and; b) create and grow a “pool” of casual rangers who must attain “competency” in specific areas before being employed to deliver specific land management activities.

41


Ranger groups have proven popular amongst traditional owners because of the nexus between work, culture and environment developed in the program. It is perceived that Ranger work represents one of the few opportunities for ongoing employment that is aligned to the culture and aspirations of traditional owners.

As a result of the initial success and popularity of the program amongst traditional owners funding has also been made available through sources directed at Aboriginal land and development, including the ILC and ABA.

FUNDING SOURCE 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

SEWPAC -WoC $1,662,975 $2,120,604 $3,108,323 $3,941,808 $3,788,088

ILC $733,242 $2,106,670 $2,271,658 $1,086,039 $2,132,999

ABA 64 (4)

$215,469 $2,260,000 $2,853,239 $400,000

SEWPAC - CfoC $200,000 $301,000 $403,225 $330,000 $345,000

Other grants $174,547 $390,500 $365,409

Fee for service $55,488 $97,182 $156,668 $156,824 $186,046

Other income $13,000 $48,470 $27,720 $190,215 $29,409

Total $2,839,252 $5,279,895 $8,593,003 $8,558,125 $6,881,542

In addition a limited number of grants and projects associated with environmental management have been secured including funding for fire management, camel control and biodiversity survey primarily through the Commonwealth government’s Caring For our Country program.

Other funding sources include some philanthropic investment associated with IPAs and limited fee for service work through State agencies (Parks and Wildlife) and environmental services associated with the CLC’s partnership with Newmont Mining.

The Land Management Section and, more broadly, the CLC is involved in a number of other activities that have the potential to generate revenue and work for the Ranger groups. These include:

• Support for the management of Pastoral properties, including cattle management • Oversight of arrangements for the co-management of national parks and conservation reserves on

behalf of traditional owners • Development of tourism partnerships and opportunities for enterprise with traditional owners • Negotiation of land-use agreements with mining companies and other interested parties • Provision of cultural services including anthropology and ethnographic services

42


Key Issues:

Changing emphasis in Commonwealth funding objectives

All Aboriginal programs administered by the Commonwealth Government have been aggregated and transferred to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A new Indigenous Advancement Strategy, commenced on 1 July 2014, will replace more than 150 individual programmes and activities with five streamlined programmes all focused on achieving results in the priority areas of:

• Jobs, Land and Economy • Children and Schooling • Safety and Wellbeing • Culture and Capability • Remote Australia Strategies

The Jobs, Land and Economy Program will support Land and Sea Management with an overarching objective to:

Get adults into work, foster Indigenous people to generate economic and social benefits from effective use of their land, particularly in remote areas.

The programs relating to Remote Australia, Schooling and Culture and Capability also have important linkages to the work of the Ranger Program but are not likely to become primary sources of funding.

Two key changes/trends in policy represent both risk and opportunity for the future development of Ranger Programs:

1. There is an increased focus on building capability and opportunity for engagement in the mainstream economy - in the form of real employment and enterprise in remote Aboriginal communities. This view enjoys currency with a number of thought leaders, including some influential Aboriginal leaders.

2. There is a reluctance to support programs that are in anyway tied to ongoing dependence on government transfers and welfare.

Ranger Programs are tied to employment that delivers public good benefits in the form of the conservation of the environment and Aboriginal culture. Hence two aligned challenges are present for Ranger programs in the evolving policy environment:

1. To develop a stable workforce, which no longer draws on welfare payments, that is able to perform and deliver defined services on a regular and reliable basis.

2. To achieve recognition that environmental and cultural activities are “real work” which are worthy of ongoing public investment.

If these two challenges can be met then there is the potential for Ranger programs to grow under the emerging policy settings. However, the risk remains that the Ranger Programs are perceived as “training” and “make work” programs, with subsequent progressive withdrawal of government support.

Targeted advocacy based on an evidence of performance will be the most effective strategy to address these risks and harness opportunities to extend and grow long term recurrent government funding for the program. Key areas of focus include:

• Ensuring effective long term retention of stable Ranger groups • Progressive building of competencies of the Ranger groups • Development of partnerships and alliances that diversify revenue and reinforce support for the

program with key decision makers.

43


Developing a culture of enterprise within the CLC

The CLC has a proud history in representing and serving Central Australian Aboriginal people including rights, land access, cultural protection, sustainable and economic use of Aboriginal land and building strong communities.

The major focus of the work of CLC over the last 30 years has been to secure and support access to Aboriginal lands in central Australia by traditional owners. This work has been dominated by advocacy and policy work.

Over the last 15 years the CLC has also lead the development of on-ground land management programs. It has progressively designed and built a robust capacity to deliver on-ground programs in remote communities. The delivery of larger scale employment programs such as the Ranger Program, is now well embedded within the core functions of the CLC.

A logical progression of the management of land-based programs is to progressively develop Ranger capacity in enterprise development. The challenge moving forward is that outside of government funding, the CLC has limited expertise, capacity and history in enterprise development.

Within the Ranger Program there is a strong belief in the “intrinsic and public good value” of the program. Amongst Ranger Coordinators and supporting staff there is a belief that the program should be funded from government with a primary focus on meeting the needs and aspirations of traditional owners.

Whilst some within the Land Management team do believe in the long term importance of developing enterprise for Ranger groups, there is concern about the capacity of teams to deliver and a lack of resources to acquire suitable expertise in enterprise development within the team.

Motivation and capacity of traditional owners

Ranger programs are popular because of their linkage to the intrinsic motivations of culture and country. They are traditional owner directed and tied to the priorities of the community.

A shift in program emphasis to focus on partnership development does, necessarily, involve shifting the focus to the desires and aspirations of the funding organisations. It also may involve greater accountability for the delivery of outcomes on the ground.

It will be important to select partnership opportunities that enjoy support of the traditional owners through consultation with the TORAC and that also match the current status and capabilities of each Ranger group.

Bureaucracy

The CLC has become a relatively large organisation that remains values driven. The development of organisational systems from the “centre” of the organisation is a need, but also potentially a constraint on the development of effective on-ground programs. The Ranger Program has clearly defined set of rules (for example Occupational Health and Safety Standards) and less formalised conventions (for example, the do’s and do nots of being a Ranger Coordinator) that guide and mandate the boundaries of operation of staff. Tensions inevitably exist between local imperatives and corporate requirements.

Partnership and revenue development is an intrinsically risky activity that requires flexibility in the type of work that Ranger groups take on and the standard to which work is performed. This may require a more flexible and outcome based approach to be adopted across the organisation.

What Others Are Doing

Kimberley Land Council – project partners are invited to directly participate in each HCAC meeting and this helps to open up discussion about other work opportunities / strategic approach to building partnerships – i.e. aim to leverage from partners advocacy pathways with a ‘snow-ball’ effect / TOs directly engage with and are proud of the partnerships because it means they feel that their vision and aspirations for looking after country and their communities is being heard and supported.

44


Carpenteria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation – TOs understand Ranger Program to be a contract with the government and that this means there are mutual obligations and shared outcomes that must be achieved / growing conversation with TOs about the opportunity to build other types of work opportunities and fee-for-service opportunities being pursued are with fisheries (i.e. assisting with compliance), Telstra, heavy machine operation (i.e. roads, mine rehabilitation) and weed management.

Torres Strait Regional Authority – all program delivery done in partnership with PBCs (approx. 20 PBCs – i.e. one for each island) / the extent to which responsibility is devolved to each PBC depends on the PBCs capacity and willingness to manage compliance etc / primarily government funded and does not see a solution around this - only approx. 1% of total revenue comes from fee-for-service contracts.

Northern Land Council – partnership development is built into the work plan / some fee-for-service opportunities being pursued are a pilot program with Telstra to manage six sites, pastoral station work, weed management with Territory government and local Shires.

Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa – partnership with TNC has enabled access to significant corporate and philanthropic funding sources / partnerships with research organisations has enabled scientific expertise to meet traditional knowledge / traditional owners enjoy and actively help to show representatives from funding organisations around their country.

Options for Program Resilience and Revenue Diversification:

Options for the development of revenue sources for the program are explored through four interrelated tasks:

1. Clarifying the role and function of the program in remote Aboriginal communities and within the CLC 2. Identifying the mechanisms for engaging Aboriginal communities and Ranger groups in new revenue

opportunities 3. Initiating the process of identifying and developing partnerships and new revenue sources 4. Putting in place the appropriate supporting resources and organisational structures within the CLC

Clarifying the role and function of the Program

The first task is to decide where to position the program in the longer term. Four layers of potential commitment have been identified.

SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF RANGER WORK POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES

Working on Country Focus on cultural and environmental conservation

• Government investment in “Working on Country” • Research and Training • Philanthropic investment

Land Management Services Fee for Service based on environmental services

• Joint management of parks • Environmental services • Cultural services

Land and Culture Based Enterprise Catalysing new businesses

• Tourism • Camel farming • Seed collection and bush products • Cultural awareness training

Community Services Diversifying the program to meet infrastructure and social needs

• Municipal services • Building maintenance • Civil services • Social Services

A fuller description of opportunities and potential partners in each of these areas is contained in Table 8 below.

In the first instance the choice of how to develop the program should be based on the functional role the Ranger Program might play in achieving the longer term objectives of the CLC.

45


• If the CLC are of the view that the Ranger Program’s primary function is as a vehicle for cultural and environmental engagement of traditional owners, a focus that is closely tied to public interest funding from government and philanthropic sources should be pursued.

• If the CLC are seeking to develop capability amongst individuals and Ranger groups to participate in environmental employment, a logical extension for the program is to engage in other land management services on a fee for service basis.

• If the CLC are seeking to support traditional owner aspirations to develop enterprises there are important opportunities in natural resource industries, tourism and cultural awareness.

• If the CLC perceive the Ranger Program as a model for engagement of traditional owners to participate in employment, then there is potential to extend the program including the model (i.e. supervision, mentoring and training of traditional owners in remote communities) to a wide range of other social services.

A key concern raised during consultations is that targeting other sources of revenue may be a distraction or push Ranger groups away from their core responsibilities of “Caring for Country”.

This raises fundamental questions of

“What is the purpose of the CLC in facilitating Ranger groups?” and

“What business are Ranger groups in?”

Until these issues are resolved it is difficult to determine a pathway for the future development of the program. This is because the scope of long term ambition for the program will determine how broadly and how aggressively the CLC should seek revenue and partnerships for the program.

Other Ranger Programs around the country are progressively addressing the need to diversify income:

• Some programs such as Martu Rangers, managed by KJ, are focussed on partnership development to source government, philanthropic and corporate funding to support the cultural aspirations of remote communities.

• Other programs such as the Gulf of Carpenteria, Cape York, Kimberley and Northern Land Council are progressively engaging in land and sea based work opportunities. The initial focus is in supplementing and growing the income base through fee-for-service work predominately with other government agencies such as AQIS.

No programs that we are aware of have made serious attempts toward enterprise development or the delivery of broader social and community services.

Engaging and motivating traditional owners in revenue generation

The second task is to engage the traditional owners to motivate participation and progressively build capability to participate.

The Ranger Program has the important attribute that existing funding provides a guaranteed income stream for achieving Working on Country and ILC program objectives. The task of aligning the contractual requirements of these programs to the cultural and environmental aspirations of traditional owners is relatively straightforward – i.e. the Ranger Program is largely targeted to and responsive to traditional owner values, aspirations and priorities.

This stands in contrast to the vast majority of alternative income generating opportunities where revenue is provided in return for delivering a service or product that is demanded by a third party. Views are varied within the broader CLC and within the Land Management team on the extent to which Aboriginal people should be encouraged to identify and meet external market imperatives for the use of their land, particularly where the proposed work does not have a clear cultural context within the community.

In this environment it is understandable that traditional owners and some CLC staff may not be motivated to identify and source alternative sources of funding that carry different objectives and accountabilities. On the

46


other hand the objective set by the CLC for this consultancy to identify the basis for building resilience in the Ranger Program underlines the organisations commitment to pursuing all available opportunities that maintain the integrity and broad range of community benefits it generates.

Other programs have addressed this gap in motivation by meeting the traditional owner aspiration for larger Ranger groups with opportunities to deliver a broader suite of services, such as the maintenance of camping ground infrastructure (parking, sites, toilets and other amenities). CLC’s own experience from the CDEP based period of ranger groups and other programs is that teams will readily adopt new work obligations if they are able to access better equipment or employ additional rangers from the community.

A further outcome reported by other programs is that the benefit of diversifying funding partners is that traditional owners are exposed to new people and experiences. A new program partnership may involve ranger interactions with scientists, mine managers, pastoralists, tourists, State Parks and Wildlife Officers and so on. If these new interactions are well managed, they can have multiple benefits in transferring skills and building the confidence of traditional owners and in the cultural awareness of partner organisations.

A logical starting point for developing awareness and motivation to source new revenue opportunities would be to progressively initiate discussion with TORACs about modest partnership opportunities that can be used to supplement and build the revenue of individual Ranger groups.

Developing partnerships and new revenue sources

The third task is to initiate partnerships that are capable of building the desired revenue base over time.

Once the scope of the revenue objectives of the program are clarified, it will be important to identify the nature and timing of opportunities to be developed with each Ranger group.

The first and most critical priority is to ensure the ongoing support of the Commonwealth government, the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Aboriginals Benefit Account.

Critical to retaining and growing these revenue streams will be the task of demonstrating achievement of existing program objectives and also adapting the program and its focus to the changes in policy emphasis that inevitably occur over time.

The CLC is well equipped with relationships, marketing and advocacy skills to retain core funding for the program. However, its ability to secure the long term future of the program will be significantly strengthened by two factors:

1. Improved articulation of program objectives and outcomes through a more clearly defined program logic and better focussed monitoring and reporting of program outcomes. (see section 3).

2. The development of partnerships that can be drawn upon for third party validation of the program.

It is clear that the program will remain dependent on government funding for the foreseeable future as there are no low risk alternative sources of $5 – 10 million of funding per annum.

There are, however, a small number of large scale funding opportunities that could be aligned to the program over the medium to longer term. Each has challenges:

• There may be potential for larger scale corporate or philanthropic investment. The KJ Martu program for example has secured a multi-million dollar program in an alliance with the Nature Conservancy and BHP Billiton. However, such an Alliance will take time to develop and may be impeded by the CLC’s status as a statutory authority.

• Joint management of Parks represents a significant opportunity for broadening the work of the Ranger groups. However, current bureaucratic and funding constraints within the NT Parks Service mean that revenue is likely to be limited in the short term, although productive engagement has previously occurred in this area under the Flexible Employment Program.

47


• Toursim has the potential for large scale adoption based out of Alice Springs which is already a major hub for domestic and international visitors. However, the logistics and skills required to deliver quality tourism experiences are not yet embedded within the Ranger groups.

In all cases there is important work to do over a number of years to build the capacity of the CLC and Ranger groups to engage with partner organisations. A suggested starting point is to target opportunities for each Ranger group that:

• Complement their existing work program • Have the potential to start at a modest and achievable scope, that can be subsequently scaled. • Are aligned to the factors that motivate the traditional owners and Rangers • Have the potential to introduce new people and reaffirm the experience and confidence of individual

rangers. • Involve organisations whose endorsement of the program will reinforce and strengthen the CLC’s case

for retaining funding from core agencies.

An overview and analysis of potential partnerships and the work required to develop and validate each of them is contained in Table 8 below.

Identify required structures and organisational support

A fourth task is to identify what structures and organisational support are required from the CLC to successfully build new partnerships and revenue for the program.

There are fundamental questions about the capacity and agility of a large statutory agency such as the CLC to engage with and diversify revenue based on a model of enterprise. These issues are addressed separately in the section addressing governance issues (Section 6.1).

Aside from these concerns there are a number of practical issues that need to be addressed to place the CLC on a firmer partnership footing.

• Partnerships and enterprise will not be successfully fostered in the current Ranger group culture. The team is highly committed to delivering with traditional owners and meeting existing funding requirements. Aside from a small number of key individuals, the need to secure ongoing funding is not considered a core responsibility.

• New tasks, roles and responsibilities are unlikely to be welcomed unless deep engagement is made with each of the teams on the nature of potential partnerships and the direct benefits additional responsibilities will provide to each Ranger group.

• Partnership development, oversight and administration is also a significant task in its own right and would need to be appropriately resourced at a Head Office level in Alice Springs – preferably through the reallocation of existing resources.

48


Table 8: Ranger Program - Analysis of Potential Partnerships

AREA OF ENGAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS SCOPE OF AND PURPOSE OF PARTNERSHIP KEY ACTIONS

Core Funding Commonwealth Government Current core funding sources include: Working on Country, Caring for our Country, Indigenous Protected Areas These funding sources will change as Aboriginal programs are consolidated with a trend toward supporting the policy imperatives of individual capacity, economic participation and employment. Revenue Potential $4 – 8 million p.a.

Develop targeted advocacy and communications program. Tighten program goals and objectives and align to Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.

Indigenous Land Corporation The ILC is likely to continue to support Aboriginal land management and employment programs in the future. Revenue Target $2 – 4 million p.a.

Aboriginals Benefit Account Eligibility for funding under the ABA is currently under review. Funding is likely to be primarily capital to support the Ranger program, for example through building and equipment upgrades. Revenue Target – Adhoc Capital Grants

Research, Training and Capacity

NT Education Department and Community Local Schools Charles Darwin University Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education

CSIRO

Desert Knowledge

Arid Zone Research Institute

Central Desert Training

Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre

Schools There is considerable potential to expand the reach of the program through a more structured engagement of the Primary and Secondary schooling system. A dedicated “Ranger Curriculum” supported by a full time teacher in each community may not be outside of the reach of the program. Revenue Potential $200 000 - $2 million (cash and in-kind) Training Current in-kind contribution from CDU and BIITE annual profile funding is in the order of $500 000 - $1 million p.a. The effectiveness of existing training could be significantly improved (see section 6.4) Revenue Potential $500 000 - $1.5 million p.a. (in-kind)

Engage in discussion with Charles Darwin University regarding establishing a strategic partnership to support integrated training and research program. Engage NT Education Department to discuss development of Junior Ranger Program embedded in Schools Curriculum.

Research

A strategic research partnership with one or more of the research providers has potential to enhance program effectiveness in a number of areas including:

• Assessment of environmental and cultural values • Strategic and operational land management planning • Environmental and cultural survey • Data analysis • Monitoring and evaluation • Social and community engagement • Enterprise development

Revenue Potential $1 – 5 million p.a.

49



Philanthropy The Nature Conservancy Conservation International Pew Charitable Trusts http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2013/11/12/indigenous-conservation-programs Australian Bush Heritage Australian Wildlife Conservancy Greening Australia

The desert landscapes of central Australia have unique environmental and cultural values. The combination of scale, custodianship of traditional owners, and environmental and cultural values makes the landscapes of the deserts globally significant. The CLC has enjoyed support from the Nature Conservancy (South Tanami IPA), Pew Charitable Trusts and The Australian Wildlife Conservancy (Newhaven Reserve) in working with the Ranger Program. These three organisations, alongside the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, represent the leading on-ground conservation organisations in Australia. Collectively they share a vision to establish a Trans-Australia Eco-Link, an ambitious project seeking to create a 3,500-kilometre corridor of land managed for conservation. When completed, the Eco-Link will stretch from Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory to Port Augusta in South Australia, making it the largest conservation corridor initiative in the world. They also have access to corporate partners, philanthropists and senior government officials and ministers. They are active lobbyists and enjoy significant influence within government. Partnership with these organisations would yield access to networks of influence in order to advocate for government funding and also to secure significant private investment in the core environmental and cultural activities of the ranger program. Revenue Potential: $1 – 2 million p.a plus advocacy to governments

Reinvigorate relationships with The Nature Conservancy, Pew and Australian Wildlife Conservancy. Engage other Ranger groups potentially associated with the Eco-Link initiative.

Conservation Reserves Parks and Wildlife commission of the NT Parks Australia

NT Parks and Wildlife have a formal joint management arrangement with traditional owners for 20 parks and reserves within the CLC region. Parks Australia also has joint management arrangements for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.

Under Park leases, they are obligated to provide benefits to traditional owners and preferential treatment to traditional owners or Aboriginal businesses for economic opportunities where capacity exists. Joint management commenced for most parks in 2005 with the amendment of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Title hand-backs and Park Leases were finalised June 2012.

Parks are about to launch their Tourism and Recreation Masterplan and advertise an EOI process to encourage private investment on park. Many of the small service contracts will be rolled into campground concessions (businesses) with the potential to value-add and some smaller parks may be considered for out-sourced management. Joint management opportunities represent a major opportunity for the Ranger Programs and Ranger groups to supplement income and further develop career paths and enterprise opportunities for individual Rangers and teams. Opportunities vary from environmental and land management through camp ground and kiosk management to cultural awareness tours for visitors. Revenue potential: $1 – 2 Million 5 – 10 contracts and $100 000 – 200 000 p.a.

Identify 3-5 joint management opportunities that can be integrated into existing Ranger group work programs.

50

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2013/11/12/indigenous-conservation-programs






Environmental Services Mining companies Pastoral Stations Infrastructure Managers • Telecommunications • Gas • Electricity • Water

Department of Land Resource Management Territory NRM

Ranger groups are progressively building capabilities in land management tasks ranging through:

• Environmental planning • Biological/ecological survey • Fire management • Weed and feral animal control • Environmental monitoring • Restoration and rehabilitation

These skills are required by a variety of landholders and commercial interests within the CLC’s area of operation. For example, there is opportunity for Ranger groups to undertake maintenance and fire suppression work alongside key infrastructure such as telecommunications and electricity infrastructure and/or restoration work associated with minerals exploration programs. Revenue potential: $1 million (10 contracts at $100K)

Assess key environmental service needs associated with each Ranger group and approach potential clients. Initiate small scale manageable projects in the first instance.

Cultural Services Art Centres Linguists Outback Music Foundation Learning Centres

Ranger groups are an important source of cultural knowledge and also may have the capacity to assist in the organisation of larger scale “access to country” trips for the community. Providing logistical support to individuals and organisations seeking cultural access and engagement to communities may provide a modest revenue stream to Ranger groups. It would be critical that the team has a mandate from the senior traditional owners before undertaking any work of this nature. Revenue potential: unknown

Evaluate role of Ranger groups in facilitating Access to Country and identify potential revenue streams from cultural sources (including independently funded Community Development initiatives).

Media and Communications TV Stations Film makers Print Media Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association

Media partnerships are a key way for the Ranger Program and teams to effectively communicate the role and value of the program to decision makers and the general public. Media also offers an alternative pathway for skills and employment training that may be better suited to some Ranger group members. An alliance with key media organisations to document and publish accessible information on the Ranger Program and its achievements would be a very powerful input to any stakeholder engagement and advocacy strategy. Revenue potential: Grant and In-kind assistance for media production

Identify preferred media partners, source grant funds and link to high performing Ranger group.

Aboriginal Corporations TBC Aboriginal Corporations offer community governance, corporate and administrative skills and other capabilities that may provide key local support structures for Ranger Program growth and function moving forwards. Revenue potential: unknown

Identify and engage appropriate Aboriginal Corporations in discussions around developing strategic local partnerships that will support growing the independence of individual Ranger groups.

51



Tourism Adventure and Cultural Tourist Operators Ayers Rock Resorts

Tourism, with appropriate support has significant potential for Ranger groups. Opportunities range from basic maintenance to more sophisticated products:

• Maintenance of tourism infrastructure such as camping areas and toilets • Basic cultural awareness and information sessions (e.g. 1 – 2 hours) • Day trips and cultural engagement “in-country” from established tourist

centres such as Uluru and Alice Springs • Larger scale adventure/4wd/cultural tours (3-15 days) supported by Ranger

groups. A significant challenge lies in developing the logistical capability to support tourism that is demand driven and seasonal in nature. Alliances with existing professional tourism operators are more likely to be successful in the near term. Revenue potential: $100k - $2 million depending on scale.

Identify a small number of opportunities that can easily be integrated into work program of an existing Ranger group. Scope potential for longer “in-country” trips and run a trial.

Land Based Enterprise Bush products Seed Camel farming / harvesting (Ngaanyatjarra Camel Company) Ninti One

Sustainable harvesting of bush products has clear potential within the region, ranging through: supporting bio-prospecting, seed harvesting, bush tucker, cosmetics, timber extraction, sustainable harvesting of feral and native animals and cultivation and breeding of animals (e.g. camel farming for milk production). Some of these opportunities, such as seed collection, may be seasonal and could be relatively easily added to a Ranger group’s calendar to produce modest supplementary income to the program. Others such as camel harvesting/farming will require more careful consideration before being progressed. Revenue potential: $0 - $4 million (plus)

Assess bush products for which there is an established “low-risk” market and run trial. Develop business case for a larger scale enterprise such as camel farming.

Other Ranger Programs Northern Land Council Kimberly Land council Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa Ngaanyatjarra APY Lands

Other Ranger Programs have the potential to complement the CLC Ranger Program through exchange, skills development, organisational benchmarking and shared advocacy to governments. The vision to establish a Trans-Australia Eco-Link, an ambitious project seeking to create a 3,500-kilometre corridor of land managed for cultural and environmental conservation is capable of attracting global attention and investment. An alliance of Ranger Programs and IPAs along this corridor has the potential to greatly enhance visibility profile and support across the country. Revenue potential: Support to secure government and philanthropic investment

Organise meeting with other Ranger groups that may be involved in the “Eco-Link” initiative. Meet to discuss, strengthen its cultural context and rename the initiative so it is Aboriginal owned and led.

52



Municipal Services Alice Springs Municipality McDonnell Regional Council Central Desert Regional Council Barkley Regional Council

Regional Councils perform a wide range of services within remote communities, many of which would lie within the capability of a Ranger group. Management of land and fire are obvious examples. However, basic infrastructure and building maintenance would also lie within the skill set of Ranger groups. Examples of services from the McDonnell Shire Annual plan include:

• Roads and Traffic management • Housing Buildings and Facilities • Waste Management • Cemetery Management • Fire Hazard Reduction • Public Parks and Open Spaces

A threshold issue is whether such services lie within the purpose of the Ranger program. Further, issues surrounding the potential demarcation of different services and the relationship with Shire councils would need to be resolved. Revenue potential: $0 - $10 million (plus)

Initiate discussion with each Shire around the role of the Ranger program in communities and potential to deliver land based municipal services through local employment.

Social Services Remote Jobs and Community Program Providers Childcare Providers Youth Services Aged Care in Community Disability Services

A further step would be to extend the model of small teams supported by a local coordinator to other social services. Remote communities are in need of a full suite of services, many of which have pathways for entry level workers. Many of the Ranger program’s organisational systems could be applied to social services to further promote the CLC’s role in supporting communities to become self-sustainable. However many of the specific skills are not readily transferable and social services do not have the same motivational drivers that working on country provides. If the CLC is to extend into the delivery of social services it may be better to view this as a new initiative. Many of these services are administered by Regional Councils who remain a key partnership opportunity for the CLC. Revenue potential: $0 - $10 million (plus)

CLC hold an internal discussion about the efficacy of the existing Ranger Program and its potential application to other social services in remote communities in central Australia.

53

Outlined in the table below are the most prospective revenue opportunities identified for each Ranger group. Note that these opportunities have been identified by key Ranger program staff as opposed to traditional owners and/or Rangers.

Table 9: Individual Ranger Group Prospective Revenue Opportunities

RANGER GROUP MOST PROSPECTIVE REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES

Arltarpilta Inelye – Harts Range Joint management with Northern Territory Parks & Wildlife – i.e. Dulcie National Park; fee-for-service on neighbouring pastoral stations – e.g. fencing, weed management, rangelands monitoring etc.

Ltyentye Apurte – Santa Teresa Fee-for-service on neighbouring pastoral stations – e.g. weed management (especially Athel Pine); environmental services / outstation maintenance (via Community Development); partnership with local Aboriginal organisation to engage at-risk youth through outdoor excursions that include looking after and riding horses, survival skills, camping etc.

Anangu Luritjiku – Papunya Feral animal control – i.e. camels, horses; partnership with tourist operators to manage visitation to naturally and culturally significant sites on Land Trusts; mining industry contracting services – e.g. surveys, weed management, burning etc.

Anmatyerr – Ti-Tree Cultural tourism - e.g. day trips to access country, commercial art centre; joint management with Northern Territory Parks & Wildlife; bush harvesting; gas pipeline/rail corridor maintenance.

Kaltukatjara – Docker River Tourism – e.g. camp ground maintenance.

Angas Downs – Angas Downs Fee-for-service on neighbouring pastoral stations; tourism; research partnerships.

Munguru-Munguru - Daguragu Joint management with Northern Territory Parks & Wildlife – e.g. remote southern parts of Gregory National Park; cultural tourism - e.g. day trips and/or school excursions to Wave Hill station.

Muru-warinyi Ankul – Tennant Creek

Joint management with Northern Territory Parks & Wildlife - e.g. Davenport National Park, Telegraph Station etc; tourism – e.g. camp ground construction and maintenance at Kunjarra etc.

Tjuwanpa - Hermannsburg Resource industry contracting services – e.g. weed management, gas pipeline maintenance; cultural services; joint management with the Northern Territory Parks & Wildlife, tourism.

Warlpiri - Yuendumu-Willowra-Nyrripi

Environmental and land management services with Newmont (Granites Mine) – e.g. mining reclamation, rehabilitation, maintenance, environmental surveys; tourism - e.g. camp ground construction and maintenance.

Wulaign - Lajamanu Environmental and land management services with Newmont (Granites Mine) – e.g. mining reclamation, rehabilitation, maintenance, environmental surveys; horse harvesting - e.g. sale of horse meat to local crocodile farm.

In addition there are some program wide prospective revenue opportunities:

• Volunteer tourism – e.g. threatened species monitoring, building shelters, fencing sites, recording stories etc

• 4WD tours • Hosting university researchers • Separate teams with expertise in feral animal musters, fencing, burning, soil conservation etc • Potential offset projects required for land development activities


Partnership development is critical to the ongoing success and sustainability of the CLC’s Ranger Program.

• In the near term partnerships will re-affirm the value of the program to core investors particularly the Australian Government.

• Progressive development of partnerships will build self-esteem and skills amongst the traditional owners further preparing them to embrace economic opportunities - within and outside community.

• In the longer term partnerships have the potential to lift the revenue base of the program, including having some teams achieve financial independence by directing their efforts to enterprises that have mainstream markets.

54


The immediate pathway forward is challenging and will require:

• Engagement of all members of the CLC Land Management team on the importance of partnership development to the future development of the program.

• Engagement of all Ranger Coordinators, Ranger group members and TORAC members in a dialogue around opportunities for new partnerships.

• Establishing a goal for each Ranger group to foster one partnership with an external body that is capable of supporting or supplementing their existing work program.

These initiatives will require dedicated support from the CLC

• At a minimum, one Senior Manager reporting directly to the Manager Land Management will be required full time to support partnership development.

• Supporting governance arrangements (See section 5.5) will also be required.

55


6.4. Capacity and Motivation to Participate

Objective:

To build the motivation, capacity and competency level of Rangers so they have the ability to maintain ongoing employment and continue developing their skills, professional qualifications and career outcomes.

Building the motivation, capacity and competency of Rangers is critical to not only the ongoing success of the Ranger Program itself, but also to fostering the high levels of participation required to develop and sustain a diversified and thriving local economy.

In order to build individual capacity and competency, Rangers must be supported in their access to and completion of accredited and non-accredited contemporary training (e.g. conservation and land management, literacy and numeracy) and traditional training (e.g. culture, law, ceremony, and tracking).

Contemporary (i.e. mainstream) accreditation is necessary to ensure that Rangers are able to continually improve their level of engagement with the broader economy and mainstream marketplaces – this is particularly important should alternative revenue opportunities such as enterprise development be pursued whether by choice or by necessity.

However of equal importance is knowledge and skills being passed on from traditional owners to Rangers and younger people. Although not yet recognised in the formal training systems, the transfer of knowledge creates a culturally relevant framework to build on aspirations around gaining meaningful, ongoing employment and the individual work ethic required to achieve this.

In addition contemporary training and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge intersects to create a nexus of opportunity for how Rangers can develop cross-cultural skills and abilities and promote the notion of “two-way” sharing of knowledge and learning in a work environment that accommodates the unique cultural context of each Ranger group location. This includes the opportunity for and acknowledgement of culturally relevant skills and knowledge development, governance systems, work planning methods and different working styles.

Metric / Target:


# Rangers with more than 3 years of experience

21 ( based on 2009 – 2013 retention data)

40 75


tbc 75% 100%

# Rangers with CLM Cert IV accreditation

0 3 10

# Rangers with CLM Cert III accreditation

1 (tbc) 15 50

# Rangers with CLM Cert II accreditation

21 40 75

# ULWP days per ranger (average)

tbc tbc tbc

# sick days per ranger (average)

tbc tbc tbc

56



As at January 2014, of the 56 ongoing employed Rangers who had been employed for greater than six months, 21 had achieved Conservation and Land Management (CLM) II accreditation and one (1) had achieved CLM III accreditation (this does not take into account casual Rangers). In regards to professional development progression, five (5) were Senior Rangers and one (1) Ranger had progressed to becoming a Ranger Support Officer.6

Data from the CDT 2013 report indicated that most ongoing employed and casual rangers across all Ranger Program locations were participating in WELL training during 2012-13, with 65% of WELL participants having undertaken or recently completed CLM II level units and 20% having undertaken or recently completed CLM III level units.7

Training is currently being delivered in partnership with Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) including the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education (BIITE), Charles Darwin University (CDU) and Central Desert Training (CDT). Training investments include:

• Language, Literacy and Numeracy (LLN) – i.e. the CLC’s WELL program • Conservation and Land Management (CLM accreditation) • Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (informal with accreditation yet to be developed)

The current training approach has strengths, including an emphasis on building foundational skills through the WELL program and basic competencies in CLM accreditation.

Key Issues:

Engagement and Motivation

Views are varied as to the relevance and importance of accredited training to building the capability of Aboriginal Ranger groups.

On the one hand there are strong arguments for placing greater emphasis on “engagement” and “participation” ahead of accredited skills development, particularly in remote communities where the intrinsic motivator for the Ranger groups is to facilitate access to country experiences.

An alternative view, promoted by Ranger groups in less remote locations, is that accredited training is critical for skill development, OH&S compliance and access to career progression.

A balanced perspective may recognise the value of accredited training in advancing both individual and Ranger group engagement and skills development. However, training will need to remain closely tied to those activities and outcomes that motivate and drive participation in the program and contribute to securing its future, for example, through skills development for fee-for-service activities.

Training revenue is difficult for the CLC to access

Funding for the accredited and non-accredited conservation and land management training is sourced by BIITE and CDU who in turn obtain their revenue through the Territory’s Department of Business’ annual profile funding for training. In addition BIITE also has access to significant Federal Away From Base funding costs associated with transporting, accommodating and catering for all of the students they bring into a major centre (i.e. Alice Springs or Yuendumu) for training. Altogether this is a significant source of support that would be difficult for the CLC to access directly.

The 2013-14 WELL program was being funded directly by the CLC who contracted CDT to deliver the WELL training. The source of this funding was from the Aboriginals Benefit Account. However, at the time of writing this report, ongoing access to the ABA to obtain revenue for the Ranger Program was under review by the Federal Government, with an outcome yet to be determined.

6 Internal training data supplied by Central Land Council, 2013 7 Supplementary Report for CLC Ranger WELL Program – Final Report 2013, Central Desert Training, October 2013

57


Limitations imposed by current Territory vocational training delivery model

The current Territory vocational training delivery model is funded against measured inputs (i.e. number of participants in a training unit and number of nominal unit hours completed) as opposed to the level of individual competency achieved. Anecdotally this means that RTOs who are delivering training to participants in the Ranger Program will focus on ensuring attendance levels are high but not necessarily place time and effort to measure the quality of performance outcomes at either an individual or program level.

A “One-Size-Fits-All” approach

The Ranger Program does not offer many alternative training opportunities outside of the core CLM competencies and WELL program. There are some Rangers who have completed a Business or Leadership training unit, however, there is no evidence of a Ranger completing a certificate or higher level of accredited training outside of CLM. There is also currently little internal training for Rangers to help them understand and develop competencies in mainstream workplace processes and expectations.

Broadly Rangers are less involved in the determination of their own training and career pathways. However there are some exceptions, particularly Rangers who have been employed with the Ranger Program for a longer time.

The current available human resources of one Ranger Training Coordinator and two supporting Ranger Mentors means individual case management is difficult to achieve across all the Ranger Program sites. A lack of resources also means the tracking of individual training and career progression is not always being managed as effectively as it could be – i.e. there is a current lack of individualised training and professional development plans.

Lack of training “on-the-job”:

In relation to the Ranger Program, BIITE is the largest provider of accredited CLM units. However to date BIITE preferentially delivers the majority of this training to Rangers in a major centre (i.e. Alice Springs or Katherine) as opposed to on site where the Ranger Program is operating. CDU is more flexible around the delivery of accredited and non-accredited units on site however they deliver a significantly lower proportion of these units. CDT delivers all of the WELL training on site.

Delivering training off site has the potential to reduce the quality of learning outcomes because individuals are not able to apply their learning in a practical context. In addition, Rangers who travel to the major centres for their training disrupt their working schedules and in some instances, may become distracted by easy access to negative influences and/or embroiled in internal family conflicts due to being away from family.

Relationships with RTOs and funding sources:

Currently the CLC nurtures constructive partnerships with the RTOs who are delivering training for the Ranger Program. However the CLC has limited or no relationship with the funding sources for this training which means it has less ability to advocate for improvements around the current Territory vocational training delivery model. However the significant student load provided to RTO's by the program provides some leverage to CLC in influencing training delivery.

Monitoring and evaluation of training data:

The lack of a quality electronic information management system to monitor and evaluate relevant training data (e.g. levels of attendance, number of units completed, level of competency achieved etc) means that despite the creation of a number of custom-designed Excel based tracking tools and templates by the CLC to manage this, the task generally remains far too onerous and difficult for staff to consistently input and manage the data.

58


The above is compounded by the fact that staff report that CLC requests to RTOs for the verification of attendance and achievement of basic competencies for training participants is not always receiving a timely or useful response.

Motivation and capacity of Rangers:

Retention of Rangers remains a significant challenge for the program (this is discussed in greater detail in section Employment Model). Poor retention rates directly impedes the capacity for individuals to continue to develop higher levels of skill.

Lack of mainstream recognition for Indigenous Ecological Knowledge:

The sharing and transfer of knowledge from older traditional owners to younger people (i.e. Indigenous Ecological Knowledge) is yet to be formally recognised by the mainstream CLM training system, even though IEK is a learning foundation for Rangers completing natural and cultural resource management activities.


Kimberley Land Council – focuses on achieving core CLM competency however makes achievement of accredited CLM II and CLM III compulsory for each ongoing employed, full-time Ranger delivered through individualised case management, strong alliance with regional RTO, with an emphasis on ensuring trainers deliver on site training. An effective WELL program is in place.

Carpenteria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation – strong alliance with local RTO including individualised case management that is planned for by each Ranger. Ongoing communication with RTO about individual progress / on-site training completed as much as possible.

Torres Strait Regional Authority – limited access to RTOs / all training off site at major centre / employ some staff with training qualifications (i.e. Certificate IV in Training) / one staff member has dedicated role to look after individual case management, leadership development and mapping of pathways to career options external to ranger program.

Northern Land Council – most Rangers have completed CLM II / three Rangers have progressed to become Ranger Coordinators and currently operate in this role in their home community. NLC has partnership with Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and Charles Darwin University in delivery of training and place emphasis on training to be delivered on site (albeit facing some of the same challenges as the CLC). Previously had a training coordinator position funded through the former Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, who helped to coordinate training and skills development, however, this position is no longer funded hence training is now being delivered in an ad-hoc manner.

Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa – approximately 25 – 50% of rangers progressing through CLM I and CLM II training being delivered by Greening Australia. There is an ongoing challenge to access RTO support via State government. Greater emphasis is placed on engagement and participation ahead of formalised training outcomes.

59


Options:

1. Continue with current training operations and make no change to level of resourcing for the CLC training unit. This option assumes that the majority of training will continue to be delivered off site by external RTOs and it will remain difficult to manage individual training and professional development needs.

2. Continue with current training operations but expand CLC training unit resources in order to improve level of individual case management. This option assumes that the majority of training will continue to be delivered off site by external RTOs but individual training and professional development needs will be managed more effectively.

3. CLC to place greater emphasis on ‘on-the-job’ training and competency assessment alongside the creation of an alliance with an RTO who can certify accredited units, plus expand CLC training unit in order to improve level of individual case management. This option assumes that a greater proportion of training can be delivered on site by a qualified CLC staff member where practicable and linked to an Annual Work Plan, with certification of accredited units being completed by the partner RTO. This option also requires that individual training and professional development needs will be managed more effectively.

4. CLC to become an RTO and deliver all training, plus expand CLC training unit in order to be able to manage this new CLC function effectively. This option requires that the CLC will be responsible for obtaining and administering all funding for training and will retain full control on how training and associated support mechanisms are being delivered through the Ranger Program.


Individual Case Management:

Subject to funding and resourcing, improving the individual case management of each Ranger would ensure that each Ranger is more engaged in determining and prioritising their training development and career aspirations and progressing along the pathway towards success. To do this effectively will require a greater number of Ranger Mentors, Ranger Support Officers and trainers and an efficient information management system to collect relevant data for ongoing monitoring and evaluation against the CLC’s internal performance development and management system.

Strategic Alliances with RTOs:

Improving the industry profile of the CLC and relationships with BIITE, CDU and relevant government agencies (Territory, Federal) would bring greater value to the training delivery and outcomes being achieved through the Ranger Program. Building these strategic alliances requires effort from the highest level within both the CLC (i.e. Manager of Land Management, Director, Chairman etc) and the relevant training and government agencies.

Employ Certified Trainers:

Employing Ranger Program staff (e.g. Ranger Coordinator, Ranger Mentor, Ranger Program Coordinator etc) who are either qualified trainers (i.e. have a Certificate IV in Training) or have the ability to become qualified trainers would mean that some or all training could be delivered “on-the-job” and mitigate issues associated with Rangers travelling away from site to access training. Another benefit of being able to deliver training is that it will be easier to link the training to the Ranger group Annual Work Plans, as well as more effectively tailor individual Ranger expectations, abilities and motivation to training outcomes.

It is acknowledged that there may be logistical challenges encountered at some sites in regards to placement of qualified trainers. However this could be accounted for through the broader effort across the whole program to ensure ongoing infrastructure, vehicle and equipment needs are being adequately met.

60


6.5. Employment Model

Objective:

To build the work-readiness, experience, skills and knowledge of Rangers so they have the ability to permanently participate in and contribute to the economy.

The employment model is underpinned by a long-term commitment by the CLC to seek the ongoing employment of Rangers (both full and part time). This appears to be driven by a desire to ensure that the program is a provider of mainstream employment opportunities through a structured approach to work and a working week, as well as achieving welfare reform by transferring employees from social employment programs to mainstream paid employment.

An important value-add provided by the Ranger Program is the creation of a community-based workforce which supports Traditional Owner aspirations for sustainably managing country and protecting its cultural and natural assets. Another is that the Ranger Program provides people in remote communities the opportunity to “work on country” – i.e. obtain valued employment in the area of cultural and natural resource management across areas of Aboriginal-owned land to which they are culturally affiliated.

Under its new Indigenous Advancement Strategy that commenced on 1 July 2014, the Federal government has identified five priority streamlined program areas that it will be investing in under the direction of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The program area “Jobs, Land and Economy Program” aims to get adults into work, foster Indigenous business and assist Indigenous people to generate economic and social benefits from effective use of their land, particularly in remote areas.8 The CLC’s Ranger Program currently intersects comfortably with these parameters and has the opportunity to strengthen its ability to deliver in this space even further if it is able to support revenue diversification for the Ranger Program through enterprise development (see section Revenue Diversification).

Metric / Target:


# Rangers with more than 3 years of experience

21 ( based on 2009 – 2013 retention data)

40 75


tbc 75% 100%

# ongoing employees 57 100 150

# casual employees 35 120 200


62% 70% 70%

8 http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous_affairs/ (accessed 7 July 2014)

61

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous_affairs/



At the end of June 2013 there were a total of 14 ongoing employed full-time Rangers; 50 ongoing employed part-time Rangers and 44 ongoing casual Rangers.9

As at January 2014, five (5) of Rangers employed were Senior Rangers and one (1) Ranger had progressed to becoming employed as a Ranger Support Officer.

Overall retention of Rangers over a four year period from FY9 to FY13 has been calculated to be 29%.10

Currently the career employment pathway in the Ranger Program is defined by transferable skills upwards to a higher role and therefore responsibilities – see below:

Ranger Senior Ranger Ranger Support Officer Ranger Group Coordinator

Graduation to the next role is generally accompanied by an expectation that a certain level of accredited training will have been achieved and an ability to be an ongoing employee.

Key Issues:

Requirement for ongoing employment

A core rationale of ranger program’s is to encourage ongoing employment and increase financial independence. This has tended to create a relatively rigid employment model where individuals are encouraged to make a permanent commitment to the program.

An employment model that focuses on the attraction and retention of ongoing employed Rangers may limit the program’s ability to be responsive to individual needs. This approach has the potential to be particularly problematic in seeking to retain long term employees. Individuals are often subject to a range of other family, cultural and social priorities that hamper their ability to consistently maintain the obligation of fitting into the mainstream model of ongoing employment.

A model that allows for rangers to more easily enter, exit and then re-enter the program may be more successful in securing longer term commitment to employment.

In addition an employment model that is focussed on ongoing employment may limit the Ranger group’s ability to take advantage of opportunities that may arise outside of the Annual Work Plan scope and requires additional human resources – e.g. short-term contract work, smaller research projects etc.

Maintaining an active and engaged casual workforce to complement the permanent workforce may have a range of strategic advantages including capacity to undertake seasonal work, capacity to remain engaged outside of ongoing work and further development and retention of individual rangers. However any casualised component of the ranger workforce would not be as available for more specialised training and experience required for participation in fee-for-service tasks where a higher level of skill may be required.

9 Ranger employment data supplied by Central Land Council. 10 Ranger retention rate data supplied by Central Land Council.

62


Career structure

The current Ranger Program career structure requires an individual to be motivated, confident and skilled enough to graduate to the next stage of their career in a context where this would likely require a significant amount of support and mentoring resources. Barriers to career progression are evidenced by the fact that there are currently only five Senior Rangers and one Ranger who has ever progressed to become a Ranger Support Officer. These low rates of career progression suggest that the staging of progression is not easily attainable even for those who are motivated to graduate to the next level.

The career structure does not give recognition to individuals who may be very skilled and knowledgeable in specific areas of land management but because they have not achieved full accreditation and/or have ongoing LLN limitations, are unable to progress to playing a more senior or team leader role in the delivery of some activities even if they have the ability and desire to do so.

Poor retention of Rangers

Retention of Rangers remains a significant challenge for the program. Poor retention rates directly impedes the capacity for individuals to continue to develop higher levels of skill and progress in their Ranger career. In particular, there is poor attraction and retention of ongoing employed female Rangers.

Lack of ongoing, formal engagement with individuals who leave the Ranger Program

It appears that once an individual leaves the Ranger Program there are limited resources to maintain contact with them in order to track their progress in other areas of employment. Currently the formal mechanism for an individual to regain employment in the program is to reapply however this is not readily being pursued by many of those who have left.

Further the lack of data on what employment or further training past rangers are undertaking makes the measurement of program outcomes relating to “economic and social participation” difficult to measure.


Kimberley Land Council – promotes value of casual employment as legitimate employment however regards the maintenance of Ranger groups comprised of individuals with ongoing employed full-time employment important because this has been seen to improve team work and morale, retention and opportunity to successfully obtain fee-for-service contract work / Rangers themselves prefer to have ongoing employment / casual employment offered to those individuals who indicate this is their preference.

Carpenteria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation – preference for ongoing employed Rangers however does employ casual staff who are older traditional owners “cultural Rangers” / believes the approach to casualise the workforce creates a risk that individuals may not give a serious commitment to the program.

Torres Strait Regional Authority – entirely ongoing employed full-time Rangers / strict enforcement of no attendance equals no pay / currently only 5% turn-over per year / comparisons with central Australia are difficult.

Northern Land Council – funding requirements mean that ideally all Rangers should be ongoing employed part-time employees at a minimum / has obtained funding to employ casual staff for specific one-off projects – e.g. burning / encourage flexible employment options in order to enable full-time staff to move to casual role if necessary / willing to re-engage with individuals after they have left the Ranger Program.

Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa – “once a Ranger always a Ranger” – i.e. individuals who leave the program are welcome to return to the program / if an ongoing employed individual leaves the Ranger Program and then wants to return to a permanent role at a later date, they may have to work as a casual until a permanent position becomes vacant.

63


Options:

Option 1: Ongoing Employment

Build on the current employment model to ensure that each Ranger group has a core group of three (3) to five (5) ongoing employed Rangers who have a minimum of three years of experience in the program.

The positions of the core group will continue to be funded through the existing Commonwealth program funding sources.

The benefit of this option is that the Ranger Program will focus on ensuring that each Ranger group has a core group of skilled and motivated individuals who are continuing to improve their potential to graduate to the next career stage, as well as provide important positive role modelling and peer support to new Rangers. The disadvantage of this option is that it perpetuates the burden that is often placed on higher performing, ongoing employed Rangers to continue to grow their responsibility in the Ranger Program when this may not always be possible due to external factors and/or individual capacity, willingness and desire.

Option 2: Ongoing Employment Complemented by a Larger Pool of Casual Employees

Option 1 plus create and grow a “pool” of casual rangers who must attain “competency” in specific areas before being employed to deliver specific land management activities (e.g. a casual ranger who has completed the fire management modules of CLM is commissioned to work on fire projects). This approach may be tied to a broader view of mentoring and individual case management.

The positions of all the core group and some of the casual workers will be funded through the existing Commonwealth program funding sources. The remainder of the casual work positions will be funded through funding obtained via fee-for-service contracts in the public and private sector and/or development of profitable enterprises.

The benefit of this option is that all participants in the Ranger Program would be encouraged to remain affiliated on a casual basis and continue to develop competencies in an ongoing manner. It will also allow ongoing employees who exit the program to re-enter as an ongoing or casual employee at a future time when their life circumstances allow.

This option also creates the flexibility required to capitalise on fee-for-service opportunities that sit outside the scope of the Annual Work Plan and will therefore help build the profile of the Rangers as a skilled and effective labour force that can be utilised for contract work.

Option 3: Ongoing Employed Rangers Supporting Larger Pool of Junior, Cultural and Community Rangers

Adopt a whole-of-community approach that widens the “pool” of casual Rangers to include Junior Rangers and Cultural Rangers. Junior Rangers are students and young adults who progressively develop competencies and follow a “pipeline of talent” for future employment within the program. Continue to employ on a casual basis senior traditional owners who are tasked to play an important role in passing on Indigenous Ecological Knowledge to Rangers and young people.


Implement Option 2: Ongoing Employment Complemented by a Larger Pool of Casual Employees

To complement the ongoing employed workforce, a casual Ranger position should be considered as a legitimate option for how to access paid work, enterprise opportunities and training/professional development. Importantly a more flexible employment model will ensure the program can better accommodate the pursuit of alternative income streams. It will also mean that the program can more efficiently engage individuals who are not always able to maintain ongoing full-time or part-time employment due to other pressures and obligations.

64


Recalibrating career progression pathway

Recalibrating the career progression pathway to create a process of “smaller steps” will ensure Rangers are granted the opportunity to move forwards in their career and access earlier leadership opportunities even if they have not necessarily completed a full CLM certificate. This will also accommodate Rangers employed on a casual basis.

This could be achieved by implementing a simple award system that gives recognition to Rangers who may have an increasing level of expertise and responsibility in a specific land management activity – e.g. similar to the award systems used in Scouts or Duke of Edinburgh. An award system will also help to create higher levels of motivation, mutual respect and shared responsibility amongst Ranger group members.

Make the effort to engage with individuals who leave the Ranger Program

A significant investment is made to retain an individual’s association with the Ranger Program and ensure they progress in their training and professional development. Hence any individual who was previously employed in the Ranger Program and then returns to it will bring the value of the preceding resources that were invested in them, plus potentially the added value of professional skills and knowledge obtained externally to the program.

65


6.6. Communication and Advocacy

STRATEGIC DRIVER: COMMUNICATIONS AND ADVOCACY

Objective:

To encourage a range of external and internal stakeholders to play an increasing role in communicating and advocating for the values and achievements of the Ranger Program

To ensure other funding sources (e.g. philanthropic donors, research institutions, government and private sector contracts etc) are acquired, retained and expanded upon, there is an immediate imperative to create a communications and advocacy agenda that promotes the benefits and outcomes from the program, including validation by program partners and other 3rd parties.

A strategic approach to communications and advocacy will include the identification of key advocates (e.g. CLC Council members, senior rangers, government executives, research experts, opinion leaders etc) who are dedicated to championing the cause and creating broader understanding, excitement and support for the program – i.e. building a “coalition of the willing.”

Metric / Target:

METRIC CURRENT STATUS TARGET 2019 TARGET 2029

# activities communicating achievements of the Ranger Program

tbc tbc tbc

# external stakeholders on Communications and Advocacy Strategy database

tbc tbc tbc

66



The Ranger Program has a range of communication materials prepared including:

• Quarterly newsletters prepared by the Ranger groups • Ranger group power point presentations of program achievements • Others (tbc)

Drawing on these local resources there has been limited communications material prepared at a whole of CLC level.

In terms of advocacy to 3rd party organisations, the CLC currently successfully maintains strong, strategic partnerships with key funding organisations for the Ranger Program including the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Working on Country and Aboriginal Benefit Account), Department of Environment (Caring for Country) and the, Indigenous Land Corporation (Real Jobs). It also maintains operational partnerships with RTOs delivering training through the Ranger Program including the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education (BIITE), Charles Darwin University (CDU) and Central Desert Training (CDT).

The CLC has long established partnerships with some Territory government departments – i.e Parks and Wildlife, Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, Department of Land Resource Management (weeds management) etc – and agencies delivering Remote Community Jobs Program activities. However the maintenance of these partnerships appears ad-hoc and driven by opportunities for once-off collaborations for specific projects rather than more overarching strategic partnership development with the exception of long-term negotiated frameworks such as the joint management of Northern Territory National Parks and Reserves.

On a site-by-site basis, each Ranger group has also developed to varying degrees of success partnerships with key community organisations and local agencies – e.g. school, learning centres, youth agencies, aged care, etc.

To date there has been some partnering with research organisations – e.g. CSIRO, universities etc – however maintenance of these partnerships again appear to be driven by once-off collaborations for specific projects rather than strategic partnership development.

Currently there are no partnerships with philanthropic partners although there is limited engagement with the Nature Conservancy and Pew Charitable Trust through the IPA work being delivered at some Ranger Program sites (e.g. southern Tanami IPA).

Key Issues:

Communicating the value proposition of the program

The Ranger Program adopts a holistic approach that successfully delivers cultural, social, economic and environmental outcomes, but faces the constant challenge of communicating this success to funding bodies, external stakeholders and the broader community. The inability to clearly articulate the value proposition of the program and lack of resources to effectively disseminate this means the CLC continues to struggle to gain recognition and broader support for the program and outcomes being achieved.

Development of communications, marketing and media materials

Individual Ranger groups are successfully developing resources to support the communication of the achievements of the program. However, these local resources are not being effectively leveraged with high quality marketing or being distributed to a wide range of stakeholders. An important opportunity exists to build a structured communications and marketing strategy for the program.

67


Lack of third party endorsement

Due to a minimal number of partnerships beyond those currently central to the ongoing function of the Ranger Program, the CLC has not yet effectively created a “coalition of the willing” comprised of advocates who support, understand and help to promote the value proposition of the Ranger Program – i.e. provide critical validation by a third party that will be perceived favourably by existing and potential funding partners.

Resources for partnership development

The development and maintenance of key strategic partnerships for the Ranger Program is generally being undertaken by staff members who are in the higher levels of the CLC’s Land Management section and corporate services. Some of these individuals may be extremely time poor due to a range of other responsibilities hence they may be compromised in their ability to seek further partnership opportunities, let alone have the time to dedicate nurturing these partnerships into being.

Traditional owners not always leading Ranger Program partnership development

Traditional owners appear to play a very limited role in the development and maintenance of strategic partnerships. Although their contribution to directing the planning and activities of the Ranger Program is not in question, traditional owners appear to have little involvement in the ongoing dialogue with existing or potential program partners. In the absence of their involvement in this space, the CLC may be missing a key opportunity to build a powerful and personal narrative regarding the success and evolution of the Ranger Program.

Alliances with other ranger programs

Currently alliances with other ranger programs are ad-hoc and lacking a strategic approach. This means that there may be lost opportunities for the sharing of knowledge and resources and in particular, an inability for the CLC and other organisations delivering ranger programs to develop a unified way of promoting the positive outcomes these programs are achieving across remote Australian communities and landscapes.


Kimberley Land Council - strategic approach to building partnerships – i.e. aim to leverage from partners advocacy pathways with a ‘snow-ball’ effect / TOs directly engage with and are proud of the partnerships because it means they feel that their vision and aspirations for looking after country and their communities is being heard and supported / project partners invited to directly participate in each Health Country Advisory Committee HCAC meeting.

Carpenteria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation – has built partnerships with international philanthropic organisations (i.e. PEW Charitable Trust, Wilderness Society) who help promote the program through their own channels / has identified a highly respected, media-savvy Elder traditional owner who is a champion of the program / has built the capacity of Rangers to speak with local media in order to build the profile of the Ranger Program in local communities / Rangers given opportunities as they arise to engage with state and national media / Rangers attend and present at relevant conferences.

Torres Strait Regional Authority –partnerships that have been developed offer an exchange of knowledge and expertise / partners will become advocates of the program ‘by default’.

Northern Land Council – partnerships are central to the program as long as they help produce outcomes that meet the aspirations of the traditional owners / partnership development is built into the annual work plan for each Ranger group.

KJ – Active communications program including regular newletters, annual reporting and multi-media partnerships including photography, film making and web.

68


Options and Key Recommendations:

Outlined below are key opportunities and recommendations for building a compelling communications and advocacy approach to support the ongoing success of the Program. The opportunities are complementary and progressively build from key foundational activities to more advanced approaches.

1. Develop a clear program narrative and supporting communication materials - there is a need to clearly define and emphasise the value proposition of the program – i.e. the benefit of environmental, cultural and social “outcomes” being generated by the program are measured, communicated and valued by existing and potential partners.

A compelling narrative supported by high quality communications (print and media) is required.

2. Harnessing traditional owner participation in advocacy – build capacity of traditional owners to have greater level of involvement in partnership development, communication with external stakeholders and media relations. This option encourages complementing responsibilities for managing relationships with existing and potential partners by central CLC staff with the involvement of traditional owners and Rangers. If done successfully, this will create a greater pool of advocates for the program internal to the CLC who can engage effectively with a broad range of external stakeholders.

Media and communications training could be provided to traditional owners with particular motivation and aptitude for this type of work.

3. Dedicate resources for partnership and advocacy development - Partnership development must be strategically coordinated and supported by an appropriate amount of resources to ensure success. This means employing at least one CLC officer who is dedicated solely to identifying, building and maintaining partnerships; creating a clear advocacy agenda and supporting traditional owners to become more skilled in advocacy and communication with partners and mainstream media.

4. Build stakeholder network through regular communications and updates – Leverage CLC networks by establishing a database of Ranger Program supporters and stakeholders. Produce quarterly program updates based on “best of class” Ranger group news articles.

5. Targeted advocacy through program partners – Develop an annual program of events and visits including having key stakeholders visit Ranger groups and having traditional owners and program partners present to key decision makers. Key stakeholders should be mapped with planned activities of engagement put in place.

6. Build a nation-wide Ranger Program alliance - By developing a network of Ranger groups across Australia there will be increased opportunities to share knowledge and resources and advocate the collective impact of the programs to existing or potential funding agencies at a state, national and international level.

69


7. APPENDIX A – REFERENCES

1. Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation: Peter Barker, Manager, Land and Sea Management (telephone interview 4 June 2014)

2. CLC Annual Report 2012-13, Central Land Council, October 2013 3. CLC 2011 Report on the Central Land Council Community Development Program, Praxis Consultants,

July 2012 4. CLC Expression of Interest Real Jobs Project, Central Land Council, February 2013 5. CLC Indigenous Land Corporation Progress Report, Central Land Council, June 2013 6. CLC Mentor Report 1 January – 30 June 2014 (Northern), Central Land Council, June 2014 7. CLC Risk Management Plan 2013-14, Central Land Council, December 2013 8. CLC Strategic Plan 2012-17, Central Land Council, 2012 9. CLC Submission to the Australian Government Review of Indigenous Training and Employment

Programs, Central Land Council, December 2013 10. CLC Working On Country Advice Form, Central Land Council, November 2011 11. CLC Working On Country / Indigenous Protected Areas Report, Central Land Council, June 2013 12. Electronic Document and Records Management System, Siller Systems Administration, January 2013 13. EMU Implementation (Phase 2) at Santa Teresa and Ti Tree, Pringle Environmental Consulting, March

2011 14. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous_affairs/ (accessed 7 July 2014) 15. GIS Review, AG42, October 2013 16. Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa: Peter See, Manager Government Relations and Strategic Funding (telephone

interview 4 July 2014) 17. Kimberley Land Council: Ari Gorring, Manager, Land and Sea Management Unit, (telephone interview

4 June 2014) 18. Outcomes of the Central Desert Cybertracker Project 2010-13, September 2013 19. Northern Land Council: Justine Yanner, Manager, Land and Sea Management (telephone interview 4

July 2014) 20. Ngura Nganampa Kuṉpu Kanyinma: Kaṯiṯi-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area - Plan of

Management Draft, Central Land Council, 2014 21. Southern Tanami Indigenous Protected Area Plan of Management, Central Land Council, 2012 22. Supplementary Report For CLC Ranger WELL Program, Central Desert Training, 2013 23. Torres Strait Regional Authority: Shaun Barclay, Strategic Policy and Partnerships (Environmental

Management), Land and Sea Management Unit, Environmental Management Program (telephone interview 11 June 2014)

Note:

The CLC also supplied a range of internally created documentation for operational and management purposes (e.g. work planning templates, reporting templates, financial data, training data, employment data, monitoring and evaluation data, position descriptions, maps etc) that have all been reviewed by Creating Communities and also informed the writing of the report.

70

8. APPENDIX B – IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

TABLE 1: IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING TOOL

2015 MILESTONE

CURRENT SITUATION

3 MONTH TARGET

INITIATIVES TANGIBLE OUTPUTS WHO

1.

2.

3.

4.

71


TABLE 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – PROJECT PARTNERSHIP / ENTERPRISE

2015 MILESTONE Effective facilitation of at least 6 strategic partnerships for the Ranger Program whether they be associated with training, enterprise opportunities (tourism), research and conservation or other relevant area. (Jade has touched on partnerships with CDU, BIITE and Dept. of Business in the context of training).

CURRENT SITUATION

Partnerships/relationships with government have been productive to date in securing funding for the ranger program however the challenge remains to explore other non-government funding opportunities to improve resilience of the program. This will not only improve the financial resilience of the program but will also validate the program with existing funders through the support of 3rd parties. There are currently no dedicated resources to developing partnerships beyond government and RTO’s.

3 MONTH TARGET


Map existing and potential partnerships for the program and each ranger group.

• Understanding of current situation. • Clarity on who and where the immediate partnerships and alliances are. • Provide for a prioritisation process to identify where to target in the next 6 months • Discuss the potential of partnerships with relevant ranger program and other staff

PD DA, MC, NC

Partnership development • Following on from initiative 1 target relevant partners and start holding meetings and strategic

discussions with those people and explore where the mutual benefits are. • Implement a couple of pilot projects.

PD MC, NC

Pursue available avenues to secure resources to dedicate to ongoing management and facilitation of partnerships (IAS, ABA, IBA or others)

• Enhance the CLC’s ability to manage strategic partnerships and seize opportunities for the ranger program.

• Write and submit funding submissions to the IAS process, ABA when it opens, and if all else fails pursue IBA or other appropriate operators that the CLC may be able to partner with to meet this objective.

• Draft job description and define role if successful in procuring funding.

PD MC,NC, DA

72


TABLE 3: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – PROJECT TRAINING / CAREER DEVELOPMENT

2015 MILESTONE EFFICENT, ON-TARGET TRAINING More on country training and workplace assessments. More qualification completions. Individualised training plans in place. Greater, secured access to training funds. RTOS WORKING FOR US, RANGERS WITH SKILLS.

CURRENT SITUATION

LOTS OF MONEY, TIME, HEARTACHE… BUT NO SUBSTANTIAL OUTCOMES Lots of internal commitment and resource allocation to training. Units directed by RTO not workplace. Insufficient individualise learning/career plans. Lots of training in town, Rangers ‘going of the rails’ when forces to come into Alice Springs BIITE training blocks. Large salary + operational expense for training. CDU not offering or understanding our training needs. Funding opportunities and barriers not fully appreciated or addresses.

3 MONTH TARGET


CDU Relationship • Local NCRM lecturers on staff • Scheduled 2015 profile funding activities in remote areas • National Student Identifier rolled out across the program staff

JK MC,NC, DA

BIITE Relationship • 2015 training program directly related to ranger program / work program training needs • Flexibility and input into the allocation of Remote Profile and Away From Base (AFB) funding • Individualised Training Plans by Qualification in place for all enrolled rangers

JK MC,NC, DA

NT Dept. Of Business Relationship

• More representative allocation of Profile into CLM courses and remote delivery • Enforcement of RTO responsibility to effectively consult and respond to industry needs. • 2015 Indigenous Response Program (IRP) funding successful application to cover core WHS units

delivering across all program locations.

JK MC,NC, DA

Language Literacy and Numeracy Program • CONTINUED DELIVERY AND FUNDING …. Need to find the money!

JK & KB MC,NC, DA, NG, DR, anyone & everyone

73


TABLE 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – PROJECT COMMUNICATE & ADVOCATE

2015 MILESTONE

• Agreed Communication Strategy for Ranger Program – links to CLC Comms Strategy articulated • Identified the resources needed for comms and advocacy – some collation of existing and production commenced

of new • Internal Advocacy strategy completed and key CLC staff engaged • External Advocacy plan developed and agreed

CURRENT SITUATION • No formal Communication Strategy for Ranger Program • Resources – eg books, visuals, film are limited, CLC web site 3-5 years out of date re ranger program • Advocacy is ad hoc, intermittent, with a lack of partners and focus

3 MONTH TARGET


Check CLC Comms Strategy development • Look over drafts, consult CLC media manager • Develop draft RP Communication Strategy template

Elke, MC and NC

Identify and contact up to 20 targeted external advocates for RP who advocate immediately re IAS funding round.

• 20 supporters agreed to call, email, or write to Minister in the next two weeks MC, NC

Develop RP Comms Strategy • Draft developed and circulated within CLC for feedback from key staff • Resources to assist communication and advocacy identified

MC, NC

CLC Advocacy stakeholders engaged • Workshop RP Comms Strategy with key media/policy/LM staff • Identify ideas for external advocacy strategy – longer term

MC, NC and key other staff

Draft RP Advocacy strategy

• Circulate strategy to key media/policy/LM staff • Commence planning and resource development to implement strategy • Identify target partners, organisations, and individuals • Identify desired approach to these key partners

MC, NC

74


TABLE 5: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

2015 MILESTONE Clear articulation of infrastructure needs and approximate costings of each current team for next 10 years. These are to be prioritised in a plan for upgrades and construction.

CURRENT SITUATION

There is a reasonable understanding of each ranger unit’s infrastructure needs. A short term, approximate plan is in place for building and renovating at some sites, with funding yet to be secured. No clear, qualified opinion has been provided or documented by or provided to the LM team for all sites of what is required at each.

3 MONTH TARGET


Identify infrastructure needs of a generic Ranger group and provide rough costings where possible.

List of each infrastructure item needed by a generic Ranger group. Specifics of training room size, electrics audited and safe, storage capacity, internet capacity are to be included amongst others.

MC, NC, Karin

Grade the importance of each need in light of WHS, retention risks, functional operational team.

Infrastructure list with “importance grade” detailed for each item.

MC and NC

Assess Maloney Report Maloney Report informs prioritising of sites to be assessed and contributes to prioritisation at completion of assessments.

MC, NC, KB, Technical Services

Assess each ranger station against generic Ranger group needs.

3 sites assessed against the Infrastructure list by qualified personnel. The rest to follow within 6 months.

Technical Services

75


9. APPENDIX C – PROGRAM LOGIC PRIMARY & SECONDARY METRICS: EXAMPLE PLANNING TOOL

TABLE 1: PRIMARY & SECONDARY METRICS WEEKLY PLANNING TOOL (EXAMPLE ONLY)

METRICS ANNUAL TARGET

YEAR TO DATE

STATUS – GREEN/ORANGE/RED

WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 etc..to WK 52

GROWING AND THRIVING RANGER PROGRAM

Number of Ranger group

Total revenue ($)

Total expenditure ($)

ECONOMIC & SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

Number of Rangers with more than 3 years total experience

Percentage of Senior Ranger positions filled

Competency Achieved

Number of Cert II, Cert III, Cert IV accreditations in the year

Number of partnerships and businesses catalysed

Number of hours of training

Number of Ranger hours of accredited training

Number of WELL training hours delivered

Percentage of accredited training provided in overall program

Number of sick days

Number of ULWP days

Number of ongoing employees

Number of casual employees

Number of contract / seasonal employees


Number of budgeted days

Percentage of budgeted days utilised

Number of partnerships

Total Fee for Service Revenue raised ($)

Number of Ranger hours dedicated to fee-for-service work

Number of fee-for-service contracts for period

76



YEAR TO DATE




Plan endorsed by TORAC / IPA Committee and LM Section

Percentage of tasks completed to plan

Number of days effort

Percentage of tasks completed to plan

Significant Sites

Number of significant natural and cultural sites protected

Number of new hectares under land management

Number of hectares restored

Number of culturally significant hectares protected

Survey

Number of survey activities

Number of hectares surveyed

Number of Ranger days undertaking survey activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking survey training

Fire

Number of fire activities

Number of hectares burned

Number of outstations protected

Number of Ranger days undertaking fire activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking fire training

Weeds

Number of weed activities

Number of hectares surveyed/treated

Number of Ranger days undertaking weed activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking fire training

77



YEAR TO DATE



Ferals

Number of feral animal activities

Number of hectares protected

Distance of new fencing erected (km)

Number of Ranger days undertaking feral animal activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking feral animal training

Threatened Species

Number of threatened species activities

Number of species protected

Number of Ranger days undertaking threatened species activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking threatened species training

Soil

Number of soil activities

Number of hectares restored

Number of Ranger days undertaking soil activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking soil and/or heavy machine operation training

Water

Number of water activities

Number of waterholes restored

Number of Ranger days undertaking water activities

Number of Ranger hours undertaking water monitoring training

Visitor Management

Number of visitor management activities

Number of Ranger days undertaking visitor management activities

Infrastructure Management

Number of infrastructure management activities

Number of Ranger days undertaking infrastructure management activities

78



YEAR TO DATE



STRONG CULTURE & GOVERNANCE

Number of Trips to Country with Knowledge Holders participating

TORAC / IPA Committee in place and meets at least 3 times per annum

TORAC / IPA Committee effective

Number of Trips to Country

Number of cultural site visits

Number of Knowledge Holders and Youth participating

Number of TO involved in cultural site visits

Number of TO involved in cultural activities

Number of TO involved in IEK projects

Number of young people involved in IEK projects

Number of program responsibilities governed by the TORAC / IPA Committee

Number of activities communicating achievements of the Ranger Program

Number of external stakeholders on Communications and Advocacy Strategy database

Key: Primary metrics = black Secondary metrics = blue TABLE 2: PRIMARY & SECONDARY METRICS WEEKLY PLANNING TOOL (EXAMPLE ONLY)

WEEK TOP THREE OUTPUTS DESCRIPTION / COMMENT WK 1 e.g. three new waterholes monitored and restored e.g. 2 Rangers completed waterhole monitoring and clean-out at three new sites identified by traditional owners.

e.g. bush tucker trip e.g. 4 Rangers, 3 Knowledge Holders and 5 Youth visited site X to learn about and collect bush tucker e.g. CLM 2 training at site X e.g. 3 Rangers completed 5 hours of CLM 2 module X training on-the-job at site X

WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 etc..to WK 52

79

10. APPENDIX D – INDIVIDUAL RANGER GROUPHEALTH CHECKS

80

CLC RANGER PROGRAM - DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

PROGRAM HEALTH CHECK

RANGER GROUP: ARLTARPILTA INELYE DATE UPDATED: 1 OCTOBER, 2014 LOCATION: HARTS RANGES AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH MIKE CARMODY

OUTCOMES

Focus Area Suggested Metric* Rating** Comment Data Gaps Economic Participation

Build the capacity to participate (Training and Competency) • # hrs of training• Competency achievedBuild the capacity to participate (Health and Wellbeing) • WELL training• # of sick daysEmployment • # Permanent Employees• # Casual Employees• RetentionEnterprise • # initiatives/partnerships• $ Raised

• Poor level of retention of rangers.• 6 rangers recently recruited - 2 permanent part-time rangers and 5 casual

rangers. • Casual rangers include some females.• Older TOs comprising permanent staff but have poor relationship with younger

TOs. • Partnership with Plenty Pathways (locally-based VET organisation).• Potential to improve partnerships with surrounding pastoral leases – especially

in relation to shared land management activities – e.g. fencing, fire, weeds.

Environment Effective management of Country to maintain ecological and cultural assets • Annual plan linked to strategic regional

and traditional owner priorities in place• Plan executed to plan

- # days effort- % of tasks completed to plan

• Key Activities recorded- Survey- Fire- Weeds- Feral Animal Control- Environmental survey

• Annual Work Plan developed.• Plan being delivered to plan.• Good level and quality of data collection.• Increasing level of effort to integrate land management activities with

surrounding pastoral leases. • Also completing natural and cultural resource management activities in the

Dulcie Ranges National Park.

Culture and Governance

TOs participate Priority Setting • TORAC in place and meets at least

3 times per annum Community Returns to Country

• #Trips to Country• #Elders participating• # Community participating

Devolution of program governance and administration

• #of program responsibilitiesgoverned by the TORAC

• # of Activities communicating theachievements of the program

• TORAC committee in place and active.• TOs determine work program and visit sites to plan work.• High number of on-country trips.• TOs can help younger rangers and help with transfer of culture and about the

country. • Program appears to have good community support. Strong ongoing

communication with community. • Elders want feedback on works done, preferably using photographs etc.• Ranger Coordinator a good facilitator between Ranger team and broader

community. • Community governance rating: 3.5 – 4.• Community support rating: 5

INPUTS

Focus Area Metric* Rating** Comment Data Gaps Funding Sources • Government funding (AUD$)

• Trust funding – e.g. ABA (AUD$)• Other funding (AUD$)

• Predominantly ILC “Real Jobs” funding – this funding most at risk as it is onlyguaranteed up to FY15.

Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • TORAC committee in place and active.• TOs determine work program and visit sites to plan work.• TOs successfully supporting Ranger Coordinator in managing Ranger team

issues. • Want mixed gender ranger teams.


• Corporate Services plan • Quality finance / HR

•


• Induction completed• Capability• Rates of retention of Ranger Coordinator

• Coordinator employed since January 2013.• Rangers work 8 hour day including lunch (which is provided as part of the

program), three days per week.

Regional Land Management / IPAs

• Annul calendars for each region • RLMO very active with Ranger team and effective in role.• RLMO seeking to improve Ranger team integration with activities happening on

surrounding pastoral leases (e.g. Huckitaa pastoral lease owned by ILC). This will include the development of a regional plan to inform ongoing Ranger work.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Approximately 2/3 time allocated to training• Recognise importance of literacy and numeracy skills and ability to use

computers – good WELL training. • Rangers attended Ranger Camp.• Two permanent rangers currently completing Cert II CLM.

Mentoring & Professional Development

• Rates of retention• Mentors present

• No casual rangers from 2013 employed as permanent ranger since 2014.• Attendance at work is problematic - often rangers do not turn up to work for

reasons which are often not acceptable.

Monitoring & Evaluation

• Data captured for environmental work• Reporting meets contract milestones

• Ranger Coordinator skilled at data collection hence rangers have good level ofskill at doing this.

Rangers • # FTE• # PTE• # casual• Rates of retention• Junior Ranger Program

• 6 rangers recently recruited - 2 permanent part-time rangers and 5 casualrangers.

• School difficult to engage with hence limited exposure by students to Ranger Program.

• Job Network difficult to engage with.

Infrastructure & Equipment

• Asset management plano Officeo Housingo Vehicleso Equipment

• Coordinator recently provided with donga adjacent to office.• Pending funding acquisition and approval, new Ranger Coordinator house and

Ranger shed will be built. • CLC Regional Office but this is a shared space with other CLC officers / activities

which can be disruptive. • Good IT access and network.• 1 x vehicle.• Good equipment but poor storage space.

Program of Works

• Long-term plan integrated with other land management plans – e.g. IPAs

• Annual plan• Activities performed to plan

• Maintaining sacred sites is very important – graves and ceremonial sites.• Priority to soil erosion and land management works.• Increasing level of effort to integrate land management activities with

surrounding pastoral leases. • Also completing natural and cultural resource management activities in the

Dulcie Ranges National Park. *Over time the quantitative and qualitative data and evidence base would be built up against these suggested metrics. However until this point has been reached, there may be a greater reliance on qualitative measures in some instances tocomplete this program Health Check. **Rating key: Green = Good / Orange = Needs Improvement / Red = Poor

81



RANGER GROUP: LTYENTYE APURTE DATE UPDATED: 1 OCTOBER, 2014 LOCATION: SANTA TERESA AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH MIKE CARMODY

OUTCOMES

Focus Area Suggested Metric* Rating** Comment Data Gaps

Economic Participation

Build the capacity to participate (Training and Competency) • # hrs of training • Competency achieved Build the capacity to participate (Health and Wellbeing) • WELL training • # of sick days Employment • # Permanent Employees • # Casual Employees • Retention Enterprise • # initiatives/partnerships • $ Raised

• High retention rate – one of the best retention rates in the Ranger Program. • All permanent part-time rangers. • Approx 3-4 graduates in CLM Cert II in FY13. • Many rangers now in the process of completing CLM Cert III in FY14. • One female Senior Ranger and two other female permanent part-time rangers. • Strong partnership with school. • Partnership with Bush Mob Youth Organisation. • Recently agreed to partner with a media organisation to make a documentary. • Partnership with CSIRO to complete a Climate Change research project. • Partnership with NT government to complete a Slater Skink research project. • Potential: horse mustering, partnerships with pastoralists, Fink Gorge

parkinsonia control, commercialisation of bush tucker and medicine.


and traditional owner priorities in place • Plan executed to plan

- # days effort - % of tasks completed to plan

• Key Activities recorded - Survey - Fire - Weeds - Feral Animal Control - Environmental survey

• Transfer of culture and knowledge. • Extensive EMU pilot project over a five year period that has informed ongoing

activity delivery. Major issues identified and addressed through the EMU planning process was feral horse management and soil erosion. The time is now appropriate to consider other opportunities, especially cultural – e.g. increased trips on country by older TOs, improving access and maintenance of sacred sites etc.




• #Trips to Country • #Elders participating • # Community participating


• #of program responsibilities governed by the TORAC

• # of Activities communicating the achievements of the program

• Strong TORAC in place and working effectively to engage the ranger coordinator and rangers in setting priorities.

• One of the most stable TORACs and Ranger team. • There is strong demand for return to country trips for cultural reasons and

intergenerational transfer. • Increasing number of on country trips being completed. • Good mixture of prioritisation between men’s and women’s places

Many of the TOs who are now part of the TORAC previously participated in the 5 year Ecological Management Understanding (EMU) pilot project.

• Community governance rating: 3 • Community support rating: 4

INPUTS


• Trust funding – e.g. ABA (AUD$) • Other funding (AUD$)

• Predominantly ILC “Real Jobs” funding – this funding most at risk as it is only guaranteed up to FY15.

Governance

• TO Advisory Committee structure • Good gender mix on TORAC. • Younger TOs being guided by older TOs to step-up to leadership roles – i.e.

good building of cultural competency and knowledge.



•


• Induction completed • Capability • Rates of retention of Ranger Coordinator

• Ranger Coordinator is one of two Indigenous Ranger Coordinators. • Current Ranger Coordinator has worked with the CLC for ten years.


• Annul calendars for each region • Increasing level of engagement by RLMO. • EMU pilot project has created good regional planning framework and many of

the land management issues identified through the EMU planning process are still relevant moving forwards.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • A significant component of work program. • Approx 3-4 graduates in CLM Cert II in FY13. • Many rangers now in the process of completing CLM Cert III in FY14. • Despite retention, overall lack of progress in regards to level of competency

achieved.


• Rates of retention • Mentors present

• High retention as only one ranger has left the program in last 12 months. • Often TOs on site with ranger to show how works were done in the past.


• Data captured for environmental work • Reporting meets contract milestones

• Reasonable level of skill at data collection.

Rangers • # FTE • # PTE • # casual • Rates of retention • Junior Ranger Program

• 6 male and 2 female rangers. • Annual engagement with school students re: horse skills training. • Working with school children T to Yr9 in an educative role, explaining about

culture and land management.


• Asset management plan o Office o Housing o Vehicles o Equipment

• House for Ranger Coordinator. • Good office. • Rebuilding infrastructure for horse mustering / trapping. • Good equipment – including grader.

Program of Works


• Annual plan • Activities performed to plan

• Previous EMU planning processes has created a long-term planning framework. This is a solid platform from which to continue planning Ranger team activities.

• Continuing to engage well with RLMO RLMO has very large land mass to cover. • Key activities include weed management, fencing of water sources (feral

animals poison the water) and bush medicine (need to protect the plants for medicine).

• Partnership with CSIRO to complete a Climate Change research project has resulted in a new project focusing on practical soil erosion activities.

*Over time the quantitative and qualitative data and evidence base would be built up against these suggested metrics. However until this point has been reached, there may be a greater reliance on qualitative measures in some instances to complete this program Health Check. **Rating key: Green = Good / Orange = Needs Improvement / Red = Poor

82



RANGER GROUP: ANANGU LURITJIKU RANGERS DATE UPDATED: 1 OCTOBER, 2014 LOCATION: PAPUNYA AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH MIKE CARMODY

OUTCOMES

Focus Area Suggested Metric* Rating** Comment Data Gaps Economic Participation


• One male ranger interviewed had been part of program for two to three years and was enjoying the work. Second male ranger had only recently commenced employment with the program.

• No female rangers currently employed. • One ranger interviewed enthusiastic about training and felt like progressing

in his career. • Low retention. • No evidence of formal self-assessments being completed by rangers. • Partnership with local school. • Potential partnerships: local Government Business Manager. • Potential enterprises: camel meat. • Pilot program that is now continuing.

• Retention data by year. • Training competencies reached by

Rangers. • Partnerships. • Enterprises.




• Key Activities recorded: Survey, Fire, Weeds, Feral Animal Control, Environmental survey

• Annual Work Plan generally being adhered to. • Have worked in collaboration with the Tjuwanpa Rangers in the past. • Weekly reports being completed by Ranger Coordinator. • New RLMO increasing level of support, especially in regards to regional

management of feral animals and waterholes.

• Number of days in field completed to date in FY14.

• Weekly reporting template. • M&E environmental data.








• TORAC in place and active. • Older TOs satisfied with the extent of their involvement in the decision-

making. • Rangers and TOs both indicated their ability to make decisions together was a

strength of their decision-making. Partnership with local school.

• Three major ALT groups feeding into TORAC however primarily representation from Papunya (other ALTs Haasts Bluff and Mount Liebig).

• Older TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the country and sacred sites are being looked after / protected and there are more opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge and skills with younger people.

• TOs and rangers keen to have more young people / school students attend trips on country.

• TOs and rangers keen to have more meetings to make decisions about what activities need to happen and these meetings should involve all age groups.

• Number of TORAC meetings held to date in FY14.

• Partnerships. • Number of trips on country completed

to date in FY14.

INPUTS

Focus Area Metric* Rating** Comment.

Data Gaps

Funding Sources • Government funding (AUD$) • Trust funding – e.g. ABA (AUD$) • Other funding (AUD$)


• Funding contract requirements.

Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • Older TOs observed to be actively contributing to Annual Work Plans for ranger team.

• Needs greater input and participation by older TOs from Haasts Bluff and Mount Liebig.




• • Corporate Services plan.



• Ranger coordinator started position in June 2013 and had previously worked in role as Acting Ranger Program Coordinator.

• Ranger Coordinator been living in Papunya for approx. 30 years and able to communicate with TOs and rangers in language.

• Adequate accommodation and office / shed infrastructure for Ranger Coordinator.

• Some access to environmental expertise and support – i.e. one RLMO visiting as required.

• Quality of induction for Ranger Coordinator.


• Annul calendars for each region • Annual Work Plan based on TORAC priorities. • No evidence of annual calendar of activities for region. • Some integration with broader regional land management activities – e.g.

camel management/mustering, burning.

• Annual regional calendar of activities.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Overall trend for the past two financial years is an increasing number of total accredited, non-accredited and occupational licensing training hours completed. However there has been a decrease by 650 hours in accredited training in FY13.

• Training completion • Competency



• Ranger mentor available for Southern ranger teams. • Retention data by year. • Number of mentoring hours.



• Good data collection using cyber-tracking. • Lack of program-wide monitoring and evaluation framework and evidence

base. •

• Funding contract milestones. • Specific data and analysis of key

environmental activities.


• Currently 3 permanent part-time rangers. One is a Senior Ranger who currently is unable to work due to recent leg injury.

• Poor retention. • Only two full-time rangers present during author’s visit to Lajamanu. • No female rangers currently employed. • One school trip out on country completed in FY13.

• Retention data by year. • Analysis of tenure of current

rangers. • Post-employment outcome. • Number of on country trips with

school students to date in FY14.



• One ranger team vehicle. • Two small offices with a total of four computer terminals. Slow internet access. • Good quality ranger office. • Quality outdoor meeting area. • Need better shed / storage space.

• Asset register / equipment schedule.

Program of Works



• Due to current lack of Haasts Bluff Land Trust Plan of Management, planning for natural and cultural resource managements activities appears to be driven by near term priorities of TOs.

• Some longer-term land management planning in relation to specific sites – e.g. Ilpili, Ulamparru.

• Some integration with broader regional land management activities – e.g. camel management/mustering, burning. This is improving through increased effort by RLMO to coordinate this activity.

• Evaluation of how successfully Anangu Luritjiku Rangers deliver against KPIs of Annual Work Plan.

• Evaluation of how successfully Anangu Luritjiku Ranger team meets expectations of funding organisations.


83



RANGER GROUP: ANMATYERR RANGERS DATE UPDATED: 14 JUNE, 2014 LOCATION: TI-TREE AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH NIKKI COWCHER

OUTCOMES




• The senior male ranger and senior female ranger interviewed had been employed in the program for eight years and four years respectively.

• Five of the rangers had been employed in the program for two to three years.

• Rangers interviewed enthusiastic about training and feel like progressing in their individual careers.

• Three rangers, including two senior rangers, expressed pride in being role models in the community.

• Two senior rangers highly motivated in regards to career development and both played central role in helping to facilitate planning meeting with older TOs.

• No evidence of formal self-assessments being completed by rangers. • Partnership with local school. • No known enterprises. • Fee-for-service contract with NT Parks & Wildlife.







• Annual Work Plan still being developed. • Have worked in collaboration with Muru-warinyi Ankkul Rangers in the

past. • Weekly reports being completed by Ranger Coordinator.

• Annual Work Plan. • Number of days in field completed

to date in FY14. • Weekly reporting template. • M&E environmental data.


TOs participate Priority Setting • TORAC in place and meets at least 3

times per annum Community Returns to Country





• There is an established TORAC in place which identifies priorities. • TOs felt TORAC meetings being held regularly enough to ensure TOs

identify priorities. • Rangers indicated the ability to make decisions together with the TOs was a

strength in their work planning. • Rangers indicated that would be good to have more engagement with TOs

to make decisions on a day-to-day basis. • Partnership with local school. • Older TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the

country and sacred sites are being looked after / protected and there are more opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge and skills with younger people.

• TOs and rangers keen to complete more trips on country. • TOs and rangers keen to have more young people / school students attend

trips on country.


• Partnerships. • Number of trips on country

completed to date in FY14.

INPUTS



• Dependent on WoC government funding. • Amount of government funding available is decreasing. • Small amount of government fee-for-service work in past.



• Two senior rangers both played central role in helping to facilitate planning meeting with older TOs.





Ranger Coordinator


• Ranger Coordinator commenced role in July 2013. Prior to this the position was vacant for a period of time.

• Poor induction. • Good accommodation but poor office infrastructure for Ranger Coordinator. • Some access to environmental expertise and other supports – i.e. Ranger

Program Support Officer visiting regularly, RLMO visiting as required, Ranger Mentor visiting as required.

•


• Annual calendars for each region • No evidence of annual calendar of activities for region. • Some integration with broader regional land management activities – e.g.

fauna surveys, burning, cybertracking.

• Annual Work Plan • Annual regional calendar of

activities.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Overall trend for the past three financial years is an increasing number of total accredited, non-accredited and occupational licensing training hours completed, with an increase in just over 700 accredited training hours in FY13.

• Rangers interviewed identified new training option.




• Ranger mentor available for Northern ranger teams. • Retention data by year. • Number of mentoring hours.



• Lack of program-wide monitoring and evaluation framework and evidence base.




• Currently seven full-time rangers and two casual rangers. Two are senior rangers.

• Seven full-time rangers and two casual rangers all present during author’s visit to Ti-Tree.

• Three female rangers currently employed.






• Two ranger team vehicles. • Small office with only two computer terminals. Slow internet access. • Good quality ranger shed / storage space.


Program of Works



• Planning appears to be driven by near term priorities of TOs. • Some longer-term land management planning for the Ahakeye ALT area

through the Ecological Management Understanding pilot project. • Cultural Heritage Management Plan had been completed for a sacred site. • Annual Work Plan appeared to still be in development. • Some integration with broader regional land management activities – e.g.

fauna surveys, burning, cybertracking.

• Annual Work Plan. • Evaluation of how successfully

Anmatyerr Rangers deliver against KPIs of Annual Work Plan.

• Evaluation of how successfully Anmatyerr Ranger team meets expectations of funding organisations.

*Over time the quantitative and qualitative data and evidence base would be built up against these suggested metrics. However until this point has been reached, there may be a greater reliance on qualitative measures in some instances to complete this program Health Check / **Rating key: Green = Good / Orange = Needs Improvement / Red = Poor

84



RANGER GROUP: KALTUKATJARA RANGERS DATE UPDATED: 14 JUNE, 2014 LOCATION: DOCKER RIVER AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH NIKKI COWCHER

OUTCOMES




• A small number of long standing and motivated male rangers. • Currently only 2 permanent part-time male rangers. • No progress beyond CLM Cert II. • Barriers to access training due to distance • No effort beyond core funding from government programs sourced by the

CLC. • Potential enterprises: camel products (i.e. milk and meat), bush medicine

commercialisation, Lasseters Cave and campground maintenance, Walka Rock Art Site maintenance, Ant Dreaming cultural tours.

• Training competencies reached by Ranger





• IPA plan near completion. • Annual planning for Ranger program in place based on near term priorities of

the TORAC. • Limited integration between Strategic (5 year) IPA planning and near term

planning until IPA has been officially declcared. • Time in field and work productivity are anecdotally reasonable given capacity

constraint. • Effectiveness of work is variable from high value (fire/survey) to more

marginal (weed control)

• Need to sight the annual plan and reporting including hours in field etc

• Need to sight environmental monitoring data.








• TORAC in place and working effectively to engage the ranger coordnaotr and rangers in setting priorities.

• There is strong demand for return to country trips for cultural reasons and intergenerational transfer.

• Good mixture of prioritisation between men’s and women’s places • Community governance rating: 3 • Community support rating: 4

• Has the TORAC been effective in the past or was this just a “lucky” meeting.

INPUTS

Focus Area Metric* Rating** Comment Data Gaps

Funding Sources • Government funding (AUD$) • Trust funding – e.g. ABA (AUD$) • Other funding (AUD$)

• Limited to WOC and ABA funding • Some stability with funding. • Once IPA declared, IPA funding will also be received.

•

Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • TORAC in place and effective • Linkages between TO aspirations and annual work program need to be

drawn/inferenced by either the coordinator or senior ranger. • Significant demand for return to country trips for cultural reasons and

intergenerational transfer.

• Has the TORAC been effective in the past or was this just a “lucky” meeting.



• Corporate services adequate. • Some logistical frustrations due to distance and telecommunications

•



• Ranger Coordinator in place and stable for past two years. • Recruitment and retention of an effective Ranger coordinator has been difficult

in the past.

• Length on tenure


• Annual calendars for each region • IPA plan in final stages of drafting however there has been a significant delay between IPA planning and commencing implementation.

• Annual Work Plan based in TORAC priorities. • Integration of long (5 year) and short (1-2 year) planning unclear

•

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Docker River has comparatively less training hours delivered due to distance for trainers to come to site or Rangers travelling to Alice Springs.

• Training focused on CLM Cert II competencies.




• Mentor position appears to be having some successes and spending a large amount of time at this site.

• Mentor was at site during site visit. • Some issues around getting to and from the remote location.

•



• Good tracking of annual activities against the annual plan. • Detailed recording of environmental work and survey results via cyber tracker

has been difficult

• Sited reports at site visit • Do not have access now


• Newly recruited team of rangers and of these only one is a permanent ranger. • Women recently recruited (older and potentially good role models for others • Retention has been poor after requirement for regular work attendance

enforced. • Engagement of young rangers is embryonic – poor relationship with school.

• Retention data by year • Analysis of tenure of current rangers • Post-employment outcomes



• Good office space • Adequate accommodation for Coordinator who is single –it is small and semi

attached to the office space making separation from work a small issue • Limited capacity to store machinery, tools, chemicals etc • Access to one vehicle (Land cruiser) and the Polaris is barely adequate and may

limit the capacity of the program – particularly travel to more remote regions.

• Based on observation and discussion not validated against asset management plan.

Program of Works



• Strong annual work plan developed in conjunction with traditional owners. • Implementation of the work program is well tracked. • Good integration with regional burning projects. • Ongoing development of cultural tourism venture at Walka Art Site.

• Need to sight the annual workplan and reporting.

•


85



RANGER GROUP: MUNGURU-MUNGURU RANGERS DATE UPDATED: 14 JUNE, 2014 LOCATION: DAGURAGU AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH NIKKI COWCHER

OUTCOMES




• One male ranger interviewed had been employed in the program for two to three years.

• One female ranger interviewed only recently started in the program. • Rangers interviewed enthusiastic about training and feel like progressing in

their individual careers. • No evidence of formal self-assessments being completed by rangers. • Older TOs satisfied with the extent of their involvement in the decision-

making. • Rangers and TOs both indicated their ability to make decisions together was

a strength in the decision-making process. • Partnership with local school.


Rangers. • Number of TORAC meetings held

to date in FY14. • Partnerships.





• Annual Work Plan in place. • Currently six permanent part-time rangers available to complete the work. • Weekly reports being completed by Ranger Coordinator.

• Annual Work Plan. • Number of days in field completed

to date in FY14. • Weekly reporting template. • M&E environmental data.








• There is an established TORAC in place which identifies priorities. • TORAC meetings being held regularly to ensure TOs identify priorities. • Older TOs satisfied with the extent of their involvement in the decision-

making. • Rangers and TOs both indicated their ability to make decisions together was

a strength in the decision-making process. • Partnership with local school. • Older TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the

country and sacred sites (especially massacre sites) are being looked after / protected and there are more opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge and skills with younger people.

• TOs and rangers keen to complete more trips on country. • TOs and rangers keen to have more young people / school students attend

trips on country.




INPUTS





Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • Older TOs and rangers observed to be actively contributing to planning for burning trips.





Ranger Coordinator


• New Ranger Coordinator who commenced in role in November 2013. • Poor living accommodation. • Some access to environmental expertise and other supports – i.e. one RLMO

visiting as required and Coordinator Environment Program visiting as required.



• Annual calendars for each region • No evidence of annual calendar of activities for region. • Some integration with broader land management activities – e.g. burning

trips.

• Annual Work Plan • Level of interaction with Wulaign

Ranger team.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Overall trend for the past four financial years is an increasing number of total accredited, non-accredited and occupational licensing training hours completed.

• Overall not as much training completed at this site compared to other sites. • Rangers interviewed identified new training options.




• Ranger mentor available for Northern ranger teams. • One ranger interviewed indicated need for improving team work. • No Senior Ranger.

• Retention data by year. • Number of mentoring hours.







• Currently three full-time rangers (NB: Recruitment process recently completed).

• Two full-time rangers present during author’s visit to Daguragu. • One female ranger currently employed.






• One ranger team vehicle. • Small office with only two computer terminals. Slow internet access. • Poor quality ranger shed / storage space. • One ranger interviewed indicated need for another vehicle.


Program of Works



• No evidence of long term strategic land management planning. • Annual Work Plan appeared to still be in development. • Planning appears to be driven by near term priorities of TOs. • Some integration with broader land management activities – e.g. burning

trips.

• Annual Work Plan. • Evaluation of how successfully

Munguru Munguru Rangers deliver against KPIs of Annual Work Plan.

• Evaluation of how successfully Munguru Munguru Ranger team meets expectations of funding organisations.


86



RANGER GROUP: MURU-WARINYI ANKKUL RANGERS DATE UPDATED: 14 JUNE, 2014 LOCATION: TENNANT CREEK AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH NIKKI COWCHER

OUTCOMES




• Rangers interviewed had all been employed in the program for more than a year – some for over four years.

• Team currently has three more experienced team leader rangers, including one female.

• Rangers interviewed enthusiastic about training and feel like progressing in their individual careers.

• All rangers appeared to be highly motivated in regards to career development. • One female ranger has completed CLM Cert IV. • More senior rangers have attended and presented at national and international

conservation and land management forums. • Rangers observed to lead the consultation with TOs during the planning process

in the TORAC meetings. • No evidence of formal self-assessments being completed by rangers. • Strong partnership with local schools – senior school students completing VET

placements in Ranger Program. • Partnership with Partta Land-holding Aboriginal Corporation at Kunjarra. • Collaboration with Dept Parks and Wildlife from FY10 to current day for work

completed in Davenport Ranges National Park, Karlu Karlu (Devil’s Marbles) and Kunjarra (Devil’s Pebbles).

• Fee-for-service contracts in FY11 with Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association, Emerson Mining, Excalibur Mining Corporation Ltd.

• Fee-for-service contract in FY12 with Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association.




and traditional owner priorities in place • Plan executed to plan: # days effort, % of

tasks completed to plan • Key Activities recorded: Survey. Fire,

Weeds, Feral Animal Control, Environmental survey

• Annual Work Plan generally being adhered to. • Appears to be a ranger team with a higher level of activity compared to other

teams. • Have worked in collaboration with Anmatyerr Rangers in the past. • Weekly reports being completed by Ranger Coordinator.










• There is an established TORAC in place which identifies priorities. • At least three TORAC meetings held per annum. • TOs felt TORAC meetings being held regularly enough to ensure TOs identify

priorities. • Rangers and TOs both indicated their ability to make decisions together was a

strength of their decision-making. • Partnership with local school. • Partnership with Partta Land-holding Aboriginal Corporation • Older TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the


• TOs and rangers keen to complete more trips on country.



INPUTS



• Largely dependent on government funding. • Amount of government funding available is decreasing. • Small amount of fee-for-service funding.



• Rangers observed to lead the consultation with TOs during the planning process in the TORAC meetings.

•



•

• Corporate Services plan.



• Ranger Coordinator has been in role for four years. • Ranger Coordinator keen for more professional development and improved

career opportunities. • Adequate accommodation and very good office / shed infrastructure for Ranger

Coordinator. • Good access to HR support. • Good access to environmental expertise and other supports – i.e. one RLMO

permanently based in Tennant Creek, Ranger Program Support Officer visiting as required.

•


• Annul calendars for each region • Annual Work Plan based on TORAC priorities. • Good integration with broader regional land management activities – e.g.

national park conservation, weed management, burning, fire breaks. • Annual calendar of activities for region has been established and currently

updated on an annual basis or as required.

•

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Overall trend for the past three financial years is an increasing number of total accredited, non-accredited and occupational licensing training hours completed, with an increase in just under 950 accredited training hours in FY13.

• Some TOs identified that more mainstream training should be happening at out stations / on country.

• One TO noted that offering work placements for school VET students was working well and should be continued.

• Rangers interviewed identified new training options.




• Ranger mentor available for Northern ranger teams. • Rangers interviewed had all been employed in the program for more than a

year – some for over four years.

• Retention data by year. • Number of mentoring hours.




•




• Currently seven full-time rangers and two casual rangers. • Seven full-time rangers and one casual ranger all present during author’s visit to

Tennant Creek. • Three female rangers currently employed.






• Two ranger team vehicle. • One RLMO vehicle. • High quality office (Tennant Creek main regional CLC office) and appropriate

amount of office equipment. • High quality ranger shed / storage space (located separate to CLC office).


Program of Works



• Planning appears to be driven by near term priorities of TOs. • Some longer-term land management planning in relation to specific sites – e.g.

Phillip Creek Mission Block, national park conservation work. • Good integration with broader regional land management activities – e.g.

national park conservation, weed management, burning, fire breaks.

• Evaluation of how successfully in Muru-warinyi Ankkul Rangers deliver against KPIs of Annual Work Plan.

• Evaluation of how successfully Muru-warinyi Ankkul Ranger team meets expectations of funding organisations.

87



RANGER GROUP: TJUWANPA DATE UPDATED: 1 OCTOBER, 2014 LOCATION: HERMANNSBURG AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH MIKE CARMODY

OUTCOMES




• Good retention. • No female rangers currently employed (NB: a separate female ranger program

exists that is being supported by the local Community Resource Centre and funded through WoC).

• Casual female rangers can be employed if needed • 1 Senior Ranger and 1 Acting Senior Ranger. • Recent recruitment process targeted ALT areas where there is currently under-

representation on the Ranger team. • Rangers interviewed enthusiastic about training and feel like progressing in their

individual careers. • Benefits of ranger program are seeing works being done on country and

acquiring skills which may be useful in obtaining other work • Rangers understand numeracy and literacy skills are required for most jobs. • Partnership with local school. • Previously good partnership with NT Parks & Wildlife through joint management

of the Fink Gorge National Park (fee-for-service contract). This was previously contributing the majority of fee-for-service funding being obtained by the Ranger Program. However contract for this work no longer exists due to poor relationships that developed and is in the process of being repaired / regained.

• Potential enterprise: currently exploring environmental services to the Magellan Gas Field, opportunity to build on existing local family tourism operations.

• Details of staff retention levels. • Details of accreditation obtained. • Details of fish survey partnership





• Annual Work Plan developed under guidance of the TORAC and partly executed. • Increasing number of on country trips with older TOs. • Relatively good definition of priorities and planning for work activities at an

individual ALT level. • Building regional plans for fire management, feral horse management and

biodiversity research (i.e. “Red Centre” biodiversity region).

• Breakdown of time allocated to training, meetings, planning activities and work on country.








• Ranger program has been operating since 2006 and earlier as a CDEWP program • There are five ALTs and affiliated groups who are part of the TORAC and Ranger

team. However representation is not quite yet equitable with only three ALT groups currently having representation and due to a culturally skilled Ranger Coordinator, possibly a fourth ALT group may become more involved moving forwards.

• Second TORAC meetings being held while author present • TORAC identified broad priority areas for forthcoming year. • Partnerships with local school and Community Resource Centre. • Require permission from TO before commencing works. • Decisions on work plans made collectively. • TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the country

and sacred sites are being looked after / protected and there more opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge and skills with younger people.

• TOs and rangers keen to complete more trips on country. • TOs and rangers keen to have more young people / school students attend trips

on country. • Community governance rating: 1 -2 • Community support rating: 4

• Information of which land trusts are represented in the ranger program and both rangers and TO

INPUTS



• WoC funded Ranger team. • Amount of government funding available is decreasing. • Previous regular fee-for-service work.

Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • One TORAC meetings held this year. • Difficulty arranging TORAC meeting, • Want to have TOs from all 5 ALTs to identify priority works.



•



• New Ranger Coordinator. • Ranger Coordinator is Aboriginal and has familial connection with all the ALT

groups. Hence has a high capacity and ability to engage and encourage input and participation from all ALT groups.

• Ranger Coordinator is highly respected and regarded to have good integrity.


• Annual calendars for each region • No prior regional planning – i.e. was not included in the EMU pilot project. • There is progression of regional planning for fire management and feral horse

management.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • 1200/2850 ranger days allocated to training in FY13 – (?) too much training.



• Natural attrition and decreasing rate of retention due to internal conflicts. • Approximately 6 rangers have stayed with the program for 5-7 years.



• Medium level of data collection skill.


• Currently eight permanent part-time rangers (4 – 4.5 days per week) and two long-term casual rangers.

• Rates of retention currently decreasing. • No female rangers currently employed. • Junior ranger program is operated through the school – 2 casual rangers visit

the school every fortnight to engage with the students.



• Ranger Coordinator house also functions as Ranger office. Aim is the for the next capital works program to obtain a long-term lease over the land on which the house sits and build a separate Ranger office and shed and upgrade the house.

• Poor telecommunications access. • 2 sea-containers for storage of equipment.

Program of Works



• No long-term planning. • Currently increasing effort to improve integration with broader regional land

management activities – e.g. fencing, fire, weed (especially around water holes).

• Fish survey – to be done for a week, involves counting and measuring fish in water holes in Eyre Basin.

• Requests from outstation – for safety. • Teaching of country – more requests to document culture. However there is a

lack of cultural activities due to conflicts of interest between the different ALT groups and previous Ranger Coordinator. Aim is to improve the level of cultural activity moving forwards.

*Over time the quantitative and qualitative data and evidence base would be built up against these suggested metrics. However until this point has been reached, there may be a greater reliance on qualitative measures in some instances to complete this program Health Check.**Rating key: Green = Good / Orange = Needs Improvement / Red = Poor 88



RANGER GROUP: WARLPIRI RANGERS DATE UPDATED: 14 JUNE, 2014\ LOCATION: YUENDUMU / WILLOWRA / NYIRRIPI AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY KIM WILTSHIRE WITH NIKKI COWCHER

OUTCOMES



Build the capacity to participate (Training and Competency) • # hrs of training• Competency achievedBuild the capacity to participate (Health and Wellbeing) • WELL training• # of sick daysEmployment • # Permanent Employees• # Casual Employees• RetentionEnterprise • # initiatives/partnerships• $ Raised

• Rangers interviewed had all been employed in the program for more than threeyears – one for over four years.

• Team currently has one Senior Ranger. No female Senior Rangers.• Retention of permanent rangers poor / retention of casual rangers good.• Attendance levels fluctuate.• Some rangers indicated need to improve recruitment of rangers from Willowra

and Nyirripi. • Rangers interviewed enthusiastic about training and feel like progressing in their

individual careers. • Less training completed compared to other Ranger teams.• No evidence of formal self-assessments being completed by rangers.• Partnership with local school.• Partnership with Warlpiri Youth Development Aboriginal Corporation / Mount

Theo. • Partnership with PAW Media (funded by GMAAC). • Partnership with Warlpiri Education and Training (funded by GMAAC).• Fee-for-service contracts with New Haven (conservation reserve) and GMAAC

(fauna-monitoring).

• Retention data by year.• Training competencies reached by

Rangers • Partnerships.• Enterprises..


and traditional owner priorities in place• Plan executed to plan

- # days effort- % of tasks completed to plan

• Key Activities recorded- Survey- Fire- Weeds- Feral Animal Control- Environmental survey

• Annual Work Plan generally being adhered to.• Southern Tanami IPA helps to inform activities being delivered through Annual

Work Plan. • Intact landscape with quality monitoring and fewer environmental threats

compared to other regions. • Weekly reports being completed by Ranger Coordinator.


• Weekly reporting template.• M&E environmental data.




• #Trips to Country• #Elders participating• # Community participating


• #of program responsibilitiesgoverned by the TORAC

• # of Activities communicating theachievements of the program

• At least three TORAC meetings held per annum.• There is an established IPA Committee in place which identifies priorities.• IPA meetings being held regularly to ensure TOs identify priorities.• Rangers and TOs both indicated their ability to make decisions together was a

strength of their decision-making. • A number of good local partnerships.• Older TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the


• TOs and rangers emphasised the benefit of “two-way” sharing of knowledge and skills.

• TOs and rangers keen to complete more trips on country.• TOs and rangers keen to have more young people / school students attend trips

on country.

• Partnerships.• Number of trips on country


INPUTS


• Trust funding – e.g. ABA (AUD$)• Other funding (AUD$)

• WoC government funding.• Amount of government funding available is decreasing.• Natural Heritage Trust funding one position.• Fee-for-service contracts with New Haven (conservation reserve) and GMAAC

(fauna-monitoring).


Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • At least three IPA meetings held per annum.• Older TOs observed to be actively contributing to Annual Work Plans for ranger

team. • Equitable representation from three Warlpiri communities (Yuendumu,

Willowra, Nyirripi) observed. • Good integration evident between ranger program and IPA activities.

•





• Induction completed• Capability• Rates of retention of Ranger Coordinator /

IPA Coordinator / Ranger Support Officer

• Ranger Coordinator has been in role for five years.• Good accommodation and office / shed infrastructure for Ranger Coordinator.• Very good access to environmental expertise and other supports – i.e. IPA

Coordinator and an RLMO permanently based in Yuendumu; permanent Ranger Program Support Officer and Coordinator Environmental Management visiting as required.

•


• Annul calendars for each region • Work activities focus on Indigenous Protected Area of Southern Tanami and arebased on TORAC / IPA committee priorities.

• Good integration evident between ranger program and IPA activities.• Annual calendar of activities for region in place (as developed by RLMO).

• Annual regional calendar ofactivities.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Overall trend for the past four financial years is an increasing number of total accredited, non-accredited and occupational licensing training hours completed, with an increase in just over 550 accredited training hours in FY13.

• Rangers interviewed identified new training options.

• Training completion• Competency


• Rates of retention• Mentors present

• Ranger mentor available for Northern ranger teams.• A few rangers interviewed indicated desire to increase opportunity for peer-to-

peer support. • Permanent rangers have lots of access to CLC support staff.• Casual rangers have less access to mentors and other supports.

• Retention data by year.• Number of mentoring hours.


• Data captured for environmental work• Reporting meets contract milestones

• Data being collected but not being collated and analysed.• Lack of program-wide monitoring and evaluation framework and evidence

base.

• Funding contract milestones.• Specific data and analysis of key


Rangers • # FTE• # PTE• # casual• Rates of retention• Junior Ranger Program

• Currently four full-time rangers and six casual rangers. Three are senior rangershowever no female senior rangers.

• Three full-time rangers and three casual rangers present during author’s visit toYuendumu.

• Three female rangers currently employed.

• Retention data by year.• Analysis of tenure of current

rangers. • Post-employment outcome.• Number of on country trips with

school students to date in FY14. Infrastructure & Equipment

• Asset management plano Officeo Housingo Vehicleso Equipment

• Three sites need to be resourced but most of it is based in Yuendumu.• Two ranger team vehicles.• One IPA vehicle.• Quality office regional CLC office with appropriate amount of office equipment

and space. Slow internet access. • Poor telecommunications access.• Quality ranger office / shed / storage space.


Program of Works


• Annual plan• Activities performed to plan

• Southern Tanami IPA Plan provides 10 year framework that is used to directly inform the Wulaign Ranger team’s Annual Work Plan.

• Good integration evident between ranger program and IPA activities.

• Evaluation of how successfully Wulaign Rangers deliver against KPIs of IPA Plan and Annual Work Plan.

• Evaluation of how successfullyWulaign Ranger team meets expectations of funding organisations.

*Over time the quantitative and qualitative data and evidence base would be built up against these suggested metrics. However until this point has been reached, there may be a greater reliance on qualitative measures in some instances tocomplete this program Health Check. / **Rating key: Green = Good / Orange = Needs Improvement / Red = Poor 89



RANGER GROUP: WULAIGN RANGERS DATE COMPLETED: 19 June, 2014 LOCATION: LAJAMANU AUTHOR: Reviewed by Kim Wiltshire with Nikki Cowcher

OUTCOMES




• Fluctuating attendance levels. • Both male rangers interviewed had been part of program for two to three years

and were enjoying the work. • No female rangers currently employed. • Rangers interviewed enthusiastic about training and feel like progressing in their

individual careers. • No evidence of formal self-assessments being completed by rangers. • Partnership with local school. • Partnership with Warlpiri Education Training / Mount Theo. • Potential partnerships: PAW Media.







• Annual Work Plan generally being adhered to. • Northern Tanami IPA helps to inform activities being delivered through Annual

Work Plan. • Weekly reports being completed by Ranger Coordinator.










• At least three IPA meetings held per annum. • IPA meetings also held as required. • Rangers and TOs both indicated their ability to make decisions together was a

strength of their decision-making. • Partnership with local school • There is an established IPA Committee in place which identifies priorities. • TOs believe IPA meetings being held regularly enough to ensure TOs identify

priorities. • Older TOs acknowledging that the ranger program is helping to ensure the

country and sacred sites are being looked after / protected and there more opportunities for sharing traditional knowledge and skills with younger people.

• TOs and rangers keen to complete more trips on country. • TOs and rangers keen to have more young people / school students attend trips

on country.

• Number of trips on country completed to date in FY14.

INPUTS



• Dependent on government funding –WoC. • Amount of government funding available is decreasing. • GMAAC covers cost for 1 x vehicle.


Governance • TO Advisory Committee structure • At least three IPA meetings held per annum. • Older TOs observed to be actively contributing to Annual Work Plans for ranger

team. • Good integration evident between ranger program and IPA activities.

•






• New Ranger Coordinator who commenced in role in November 2013 (had previously worked with CLC).

• Good accommodation and office / shed infrastructure for Ranger Coordinator. • Good access to environmental expertise and other supports – i.e. Northern

Tanami IPA Coordinator also permanently based in Lajamanu, RLMO visiting as required, Coordinator Environmental Management visiting as required.



• Annual calendars for each region • Work activities focus on Indigenous Protected Area of Northern Tanami and are based on TORAC / IPA committee priorities.

• Good integration evident between ranger program and IPA activities. • Annual calendar of activities for region in place.

• Annual regional calendar of activities.

• Level of interaction with Munguru Munguru Ranger team.

Skills / Training • # hours completed • Overall trend for the past four financial years is a decreasing number of total accredited, non-accredited and occupational licensing training hours completed.

• No individualised training plans. • Rangers interviewed identified new training options.




• Ranger mentor available for Northern ranger teams. • Retention data by year. • Number of mentoring hours.







• Currently six full-time rangers. • Three full-time rangers present during author’s visit to Lajamanu. • No female rangers currently employed. • Two school trips out on country completed in FY13.






• Two ranger team vehicles. • Intermittent access to one IPA vehicle. • Quality office and appropriate amount of office equipment. Slow internet

access. • High quality ranger shed / storage space. • One Ranger Coordinator house.


Program of Works



• Northern Tanami IPA Plan provides 10 year framework that is used to directly inform the Wulaign Ranger team’s Annual Work Plan.

• Good integration evident between ranger program and IPA activities.

• Evaluation of how successfully Wulaign Rangers deliver against KPIs of IPA Plan and Annual Work Plan.

• Evaluation of how successfully Wulaign Ranger team meets expectations of funding organisations.


90


11. APPENDIX E – 2020 SCENARIOS

Capacity is a function of:

• The capacity of traditional owners to advise and progressively take an active role in the governanceand management of the Ranger program.

• The quality of the strategic and operational planning for the cultural and environmental managementof “Country”.

• The quality of the program inputs and supporting structures including coordinators, trainers, mentors,vehicles, equipment etc.

• The skills and capabilities of the Rangers.

• The stability and functionality of the community.

• The quantity of revenue that is attracted.

Alignment

• The extent to which traditional owner aspirations are understood and valued by potential funders,including government, philanthropic and commercial sources.

91


Scenario 1: “Thriving Communities”

In 2016 the Australian government recognised the unique environmental and cultural values of central Australia by creating a permanent appropriation for the management of a network of Indigenous Protected Areas.

This was achieved through a unified position and advocacy of aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. Active partnerships with the research and high profile philanthropic donors ultimately made the difference in convincing the Prime Minister that welfare reform, skills, work and individual capabilities would be most effectively developed by linking employment to intrinsic motivators of traditional owners that is culture and country.

Importantly it was recognised that funding was required to support traditional knowledge through connection to country. Cultural rangers and strong traditional owner governance were supported with a focus on ensuring activities are guided by the cultural needs and desires of the community, including intergenerational transfer of knowledge. Today the traditional knowledge, practices and culture of aboriginal communities remain strong and have evolved to address contemporary needs and aspirations. Young aboriginal children are engaged early in building cultural competencies through a Junior Ranger program and Academy that support progressive development of skills in parallel with core mainstream literacy and numeracy skills.

Funding remains founded on a core principle of welfare reform, with the activities of the ranger program recognised as real work. A core workforce of ongoing employed rangers was complemented by a large workforce of casual employees who participate in key activities and events throughout an annual calendar of events. Pathways from education to employment have been created through the progressive accumulation of accredited mainstream (e.g. numeracy and literacy, CLM) and traditional cultural skills (e.g. tracking) through the education and adult learning systems.

Environmental management has evolved with increased understanding of the role and value of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge integrated with contemporary conservation and land management practices. Aboriginal people are recognised and valued as the most appropriate custodians and stewards of Country. Environmental works and monitoring are guided by long term strategic planning coupled with an active monitoring, evaluation and research program. This has enabled conservation work to be targeted to key cultural and ecological assets in the landscape as well as reintroducing key management practices, such as burning, and effective management of threats, such as camel and donkey control.

In 2020 a Centre for Excellence in aboriginal land management was created in partnership with indigenous managed lands in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The centre administers block funding from the Australian Government appropriation to community ranger programs and provides mentoring, quality assurance and corporate support to build the capacity of traditional owners and rangers on an as needs basis.

Central Australia is rapidly becoming recognised as a cultural landscape where traditional culture is strong and remains actively practiced, including intergenerational transfer. Private sector, philanthropic and research partnerships have been forged and driven understanding and recognition of the value of culture and stewardship of Country within the broader Australian community.

Inspired by the model of environmental and cultural rangers, a movement of community and social services rangers has developed ensuring that remote communities are increasingly places where services are delivered through employment of local aboriginal people that are supported by strong, capable external organisations (e.g. health services) that can bring the knowledge and skills required for successful service delivery.

An increasing number of rangers are electing to participate in the mainstream economy by establishing careers in conservation and land management, with a long term ranger from Lajamanu recently appointed as the first aboriginal CEO of the Northern Territory Conservation Agency. Other rangers have moved beyond employment and initiated their own enterprises ranging from production of traditional medicines, road maintenance to cultural tourism. The economy of central Australia is rapidly diversifying.

Social issues and problems remain, however, the “Gap” is closing, welfare dependency has reduced and year on year improvement is being recorded against key social benchmarks.

92


Scenario 2: “Continued Dependence”

The Central Land Council has enjoyed sustained success in sourcing funds for ongoing Ranger Programs. There is continued support for the proposition that Aboriginal people have a role in actively managing the land to deliver cultural and environmental objectives.

Funding has continued to be allocated on 3- 5 year funding cycles with shifts in policy focus and program objectives occurring periodically. The CLC has successfully navigated these changes and funding has cycled between 70% and 150% of 2013 levels.

However, debate continues about the extent to which Aboriginal people are capable of managing ranger programs and whether or not desert lands in central Australia should be formally recognised for their cultural and environmental value.

The capacity of individual rangers has been progressively developed. However, the program objective of having rangers become coordinators and progressively taking on the corporate functions of the program within the CLC has not been achieved. Turn-over of rangers has remained high at 25% p.a.

Rangers with more than 3 years experience fall into the following categories:

• Individuals who leave the program due to personal / family/community pressures and return to welfare dependency (50%)

• Individuals who leave the program to take up alternative paid employment (17%)

• Individuals who stay with the program beyond 3 years but are content to stay at an entry level role within a ranger group (30%)

• Individuals who achieve a higher level of competency (Certificate IV) and are recognised as senior rangers. (3%)

• 2 individuals (less than 1%) have achieved the status of ranger coordinator and only one remains with the other resigning due to family and community conflicts.

As a result the CLC has accepted that external program support and coordination will be required in the long term. A robust and competent land management team is embedded and integrated within the CLC that has progressively accepted and become active in the role of coordinating service delivery to remote Aboriginal communities.

Environmental management has evolved with increased understanding of the role and value of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge integrated with contemporary conservation and land management practices. Environmental works and monitoring are guided by long term strategic planning coupled with an active monitoring, evaluation and research program. This has enabled conservation work to be targeted to key cultural and ecological assets in the landscape as well as reintroducing key management practices (e.g. burning) and effective management of threats (e.g. camel and donkey control).

Social issues and problems remain with literacy and numeracy remaining below national benchmarks and crime and substance abuse remaining above national benchmarks. Despite significant attempts by government, welfare dependency has remained dominant.

93


Scenario 3: “Main-streamed”

The ranger program has undergone significant change since its inception in the early 2000’s as a program focused on meeting traditional owner aspirations relating to environmental and cultural management.

Under the Conservative government (2012 – 2021) strong bipartisan support arose for ongoing welfare reform and enterprise development within Aboriginal communities. Ranger programs funded under the “Working on Country” initiative were reviewed and deemed to be focused on skills and capabilities that would not lead to long term income generation in the real economy and broadly represented another form of government welfare.

Since that time, governments on both sides of the political fence have consistently resisted any move to provide dedicated appropriation funding for the conservation of cultural heritage and undertaking traditional practices “On-Country”. The only exception has been through the Indigenous Protected Area Program which was formally brought within the National Reserve System in 2019. Funding for traditional owner management of IPAs is available but has needed to be supplemented by philanthropic donations and tourism services.

Drawing on the strengths of the ranger program as a motivator of aboriginal participation, the focus of the program was progressively shifted to land based enterprise, tourism and community services. Whilst some initial resistance was experienced, a number of thriving aboriginal businesses began to emerge in central Australia. One ranger group was successful in developing its capacity in environmental monitoring and rehabilitation and became permanently employed by the neighboring mining company. Another started a cultural tourism program for long stay desert adventures and has enjoyed sustained growth. Another women’s team have specialised in seed collection.

Drawing on these successes the CLC commercialised its ranger program in 2018 and established a capital fund and business incubation Unit. The Unit has managed to catalyse 11 successful aboriginal businesses employing in excess of 150 local aboriginal people in real jobs. Combined with the work of the IPAs a total of in excess of 250 full time jobs have been created as a result of the initiatives taken.

A relatively small number of traditional owners remain in remote communities either unable to develop the capacity and skills required, or lacking the motivation to participate in the numerous economic opportunities that have emerged.

A core group of traditional owners are steadfast in maintaining their connection to country and are increasingly seeking to keep their families and children away from schooling and other mainstream economic institutions. Importantly a number have moved to reject welfare payments that are tied to obligations for economic participation. A number of aboriginal Trust funds, including from mining agreements, are funding traditional law and culture independently of government.

The Land Management unit of the CLC has been disbanded with only a business, governance Unit remaining to support the numerous and thriving indigenous businesses in Central Australia.

94


Scenario 4: “Widening the Gap”

The Ranger Program, coupled to Aboriginal policy and program delivery, has struggled as successive governments have attempted, without success, to address the “Gap” in core social and economic outcomes for Aboriginal people.

Remote communities lie in disarray facing a deep and systemic dysfunction.

Early attempts at welfare reform and economic engagement of Aboriginal communities failed. A lack of engagement with traditional owners meant that policies and programs failed to motivate participation. Employment programs were under-subscribed. The kids did not attend school. Businesses failed to emerge and corruption grew with funding flowing to a selected few families.

The early success of land management programs was not recognised. Ranger programs funded under the “Working on Country” initiative were reviewed and deemed to be focused on skills and capabilities that would not lead to long term income generation in the real economy and broadly represented another form of government welfare.

However, the businesses that the CLC and others sought to catalyse in response to the changed policy environment failed to emerge. There were multiple compounding reasons. The need for initiatives to be driven at a community level and have strong traditional owner support were ignored and Aboriginal people ‘voted with their feet.’ Unrealistic expectations were placed on the speed with which individual and community capacity could be built.

The net result is another lost generation. Increasingly aboriginal people have neither the basic skills required for mainstream economic participation nor the cultural skills to participate in traditional practices. Despite the efforts and expenditure by governments, welfare dependency remains absolutely dominant. In many families there are several generations of non-participation. Education and traditional law and ceremony are “too hard” and whole communities have opted out.

The net result is that inactivity; poor health and life expectancy; substance abuse; domestic violence and property crime are all on the rise.

Traditional owners still connected to country are in despair. Their communities do not listen and their language is dying. The young people are no longer interested and do not appear to have any respect or desire to learn. Kinship has become compromised with rights abused and obligations ignored.

The CLC has valiantly persisted with the Ranger Program but an increased focus on economic opportunities saw the emphasis shift to rangers providing municipal services. The “romance” for traditional owners associated with the program was lost.

The CLC persist but conflict within and between communities and family groups has made the barriers to progress insurmountable.

There are of course exceptions. There remain 2 active engaged Ranger groups.

In reflection, the CLC believes it failed to communicate and advocate the values and successes of the Ranger program recognised. Community leaders, researchers, opinion leaders and philanthropists were not appropriately engaged and convinced to become long term partners and advocates for the program.

95

http://www.creatingcommunities.com.au/





ranger program development strategy · the ranger program across 11 remote aboriginal communities...

Documents