kimberley to cape initiative...

KIMBERLEY TO CAPE INITIATIVE

EVALUATION

Karen Schmiing, MSc [email protected]

Abstract This evaluation aims to measure how the Kimberley to Cape Initiative is tracking, capture key learnings and shape its future plan.

Kimberley to Cape Initiative Evaluation

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3

The Kimberley to Cape Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 4

Vision .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Goals ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Overarching Goal .................................................................................................................................... 4

Detailed Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Target Participants and Key Partnerships ................................................................................................... 5

Current Actions, Outputs and Goals ........................................................................................................... 6

Concrete Goals and Timeline ...................................................................................................................... 7

Funding ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Governance ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Alignment with ECNT Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................... 9

The Evaluation ..............................................................................................................................................10

Evaluation Findings .......................................................................................................................................11

1. What is your relationship with the Kimberley to Cape program?....................................................11

2. What was the process of your involvement? ...................................................................................13

3. Why do you support Kimberley to Cape? ........................................................................................14

4. What do you see as the roles of Kimberley to Cape? ......................................................................14

5. In your opinion, are these the right objectives to achieve the mission? .........................................15

6. How successful has the program been in achieving its objectives? .................................................15

7. What do you think the key achievements have been? ....................................................................19

8. What do you see as key areas of improvement for the program? ..................................................20

9. What do you think the relationship between KtC and ECNT is? ......................................................21

10. What do you think the key direction or focus of KtC should be in the future? ...........................22

11. What opportunities for support are there to achieve this? .........................................................23

12. Which threats do you perceive to the program? .........................................................................24

13. Is there anything you would like to add? .....................................................................................25

Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................26

2

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................33

References ....................................................................................................................................................35

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................35

Questionnaire ...........................................................................................................................................35

List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................36

List of figures .............................................................................................................................................36


3

Executive Summary

The Kimberley to Cape Initiative was created in August 2013 to provide a counterpoint and alternative to

unsustainable development agendas for the North. The goal is to protect the ecological and cultural

values of the savanna region from Kimberley to Cape in the present and for future generations. It aims to

do so by engaging people and organisations across all sectors and all three states and developing a

shared picture of success.

83% of participants took part in the evaluation which provides a well-rounded picture of their opinions on

how the program is faring and where it should be headed. The program was seen as most successful in a

coordinating role, (e.g. organising the forum and phone link-ups), in information sharing (e.g. the news

round-up) and in connecting people across sectors. These successes are all thanks to the great work of

the Program Coordinator which was explicitly mentioned numerous times. The main areas of

improvement for the program and the major threats perceived are the program itself in particular its

objectives and goals as well as its resources. Throughout the evaluation, the need for a clarification of the

objectives was a recurring theme in the comments of participants: as a key area of improvement, a future

focus and a major threat if not pursued. It was seen as the basis for a future of the program. Such a

process of clarification was also seen as an opportunity for increased monetary support thus addressing

the threat of restricted resources. Increased stakeholder engagement, government grants, philanthropic

support, volunteers and crowd-sourcing were mentioned as other opportunities for support. Industry

support has not been sought before due to the positioning of Kimberley to Cape with the Environment

Centre Northern Territory. At the moment, Kimberley to Cape is acting quasi-independently from ECNT

and this is reflected in a number of participants being unsure about the relationship between the two or

stating there is none at all. A redefinition of the objectives and goals of the program should therefore also

clarify what the relationship between Kimberley to Cape and the Environment Centre Northern Territory

will be to ensure consistent branding and communication with stakeholders, the general public and

media. According to participants, a clarification process is vital for retaining and increasing stakeholder

engagement and securing resources.

To sum up, the Program Coordinator has been incredibly successful in furthering the program’s goals but

resource restraints and the lofty and vague aims and objectives of the initiative have stifled progress. The

need for a program like Kimberley to Cape is apparent but it has to redefine what exactly it is able to

achieve and deliver upon, otherwise, participants will disengage and support will dwindle.

4

The Kimberley to Cape Initiative

Vision

The vision of the Kimberley to Cape Initiative is to “safeguard the unique, multiple and globally important

values of the Northern Australian savanna by supporting appropriate development and conservation” or

to use its tag: “to keep the world’s greatest tropical savanna great”.

Since its inception in August 2013, this ambitious initiative has operated along four select guiding

principles. The first one regards the necessity for a resilient, diverse and sustainable economy. The

second guiding principle is the need for recognition, utilisation and safeguarding of Northern Australia’s

unique, intact and globally-significant natural and cultural values. The third that Indigenous interests

must be accepted and promoted and that northern development and socio-economic development must

be pursued together. The fourth and last guiding principle states that development and conservation

options must involve genuine collaboration with local communities and be compatible with local cultures

and conditions.

Goals

Overarching Goal

The comprehensive goal of the initiative is to “support development and conservation that enhance

natural and cultural values, and strengthen communities, from the Kimberley to Cape York” by “jointly

developing a shared vision, principles and high level outcomes for conserving and sustainably developing

Northern Australia, and facilitating progress towards this vision”.

Detailed Goals

The Kimberley to Cape Initiative’s aspiration is to support the need for job creation and improved

wellbeing in Indigenous communities in regional areas.

In addition, it advocates for the development of high value knowledge and services like tourism,

tropical medicine, disaster risk response and biosecurity. These could complement sustainably

managed primary industries like agriculture, mining, grazing and crocodile farming.

The initiative aims to promote investment in ecosystem services, land and water management

and conservation.

Kimberley to Cape works to avoid unsustainable development proposals such as multiple large

dams, large scale clearing and polluting activities. It provides an alternative to development at

any cost and responds to the decline of ecological and cultural integrity across the North.


5

Objectives

The Kimberley to Cape Initiative does not use the term objective to further define and narrow down its

intentions, instead the term role is used. In the following are the roles or objectives of the program.

1. Facilitate conversations and collaboration to build a shared picture of a successful future for

Northern Australia

2. Make and take opportunities to catalyse action towards shared success

3. Provide forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and connection to inform this picture and

help align, improve and expand efforts towards it

Kimberley to Cape aims to work with and support a variety of organisations, businesses and individuals

across the North. It facilitates conversations in order to find common ground and agreement on what a

sustainable and prosperous future for all might look like. With a shared vision, effort, investment and

action can then be aligned. Kimberley to Cape describes its work as being in the “coordination, policy and

communications space”. It also intends to support local people and identify and promote the benefits of

a healthy and intact savanna.

As there are a few other initiatives working in a similar space, there is mention on the website about

Kimberley to Cape’s unique characteristics which are as follows:

- futures orientated

- service focused

- a broker and convener of multiple sectors

- located in the North, and one of the few initiatives working across the whole of the North

- grassroots based, listening to people across the North and amplifying their voices

- not doing ‘on ground’ work but rather supporting those who do

- about appropriate development and conservation, the two going hand in hand

- independent of government funding

- working with others to create and hold a vision that inspires and unites those interested in

pursuing it

Target Participants and Key Partnerships

The Kimberley to Cape Initiative seeks industry organisations and businesses, Indigenous groups,

environmental organisations, natural resource management groups, research bodies and government

connections as their target participants and to form key partnerships with.

6

Current Actions, Outputs and Goals


7

Concrete Goals and Timeline

By 2020

By 2030

By 2040

Widespread agreement across regions and sectors on what a successful future for the North looks like, and ways to achieve it, and support for a shared statement or accord

Most Northern Australian landholders have fewer weeds and ferals on their land; fire, water and soil are well managed, and the declining trend of biodiversity across the North, especially of small mammals, is halted or reversed.

Resilient, diverse and sustainable industries and enterprises are prospering across the North with world leading social, environmental and cultural practices. Regional employment opportunities have increased significantly as have community wellbeing and land and water stewardship.

Benefits of a healthy intact savanna are extensively recognised, and funding for this land and water management work, especially Indigenous programs, is ongoing, more diversely sourced and expanding.

New and existing businesses meet shared sustainability criteria that uphold the North’s clean, green credentials, community enterprises are growing, a market for ecosystem services has evolved, and inappropriate developments are avoided.

An intact savanna of diverse tenures, that includes and links landscapes of particularly high conservation value, is being effectively managed so that natural and cultural values are protected and multiple ecosystem services are provided to communities and businesses. It is recognised, used and celebrated as the world’s greatest tropical savanna.

Regional communities are well informed about future possibilities and supported to undertake placed-based planning to guide development and conservation. They have better tools to identify, attract and explore opportunities that a) create enduring local employment opportunities and economic independence, b) strengthen communities, c) maintain and enhance natural and cultural values.

New reserves, Indigenous Protected Areas and other protections are established with community support for agreed priority areas.

8

Funding

The funding up to now has been provided by several partners:

-Bjarne K Dahl Trust

-Earth Welfare Foundation for a Living Planet

-Melliodora Fund of the Australian Communities Foundation

-Hayles Charitable Trust, managed by Perpetual

The board is in possession of the Dahl Trust milestone tables as well as the agreed milestone table for

Earth Welfare. The Perpetual Grant of $20,000 has been acquitted and Kimberley to Cape has funding

until June 30 next year 2016.The coordinator is in the process of and has been applying for new funding

from a variety of sources:

-TNRM Community Grants - applied for $14000 for Mar2016 workshop on futures

-Industry –$0 until ECNT completes ethics policy

-ENGOs - $0 (an appeal in April/May 2015 was unsuccessful)

-Trusts & Foundation – will try to secure $20,000 from Australian Communities Foundation, and apply for

other funds as opportunities arise e.g. Ian Potter Nov 2015, Dahl Trust March 2016

Hosting has been provided by Charles Darwin University as well as the Environment Centre Northern

Territory. ECNT contributed monetary support at the start of the initiative and holds responsible for the

management of the funding.

Governance

Kimberley to Cape, represented by the coordinator, receives advice from its Advisory Board which

includes representatives from the environment, tourism, mining, pastoral, NRM, Indigenous and

agricultural sector. Strategic decisions are essentially made by the coordinator in liaison with the ECNT

director. The director presents proposed decisions to the board and takes the feedback back to the

coordinator. However, there is no formal process of decision-making in place. Everyday decisions are

made by the coordinator in alignment with the mission and input from the Advisory Board or the

Connections Group if necessary. The Advisory Board does not formally include ECNT. According to the

coordinator, ECNT is represented by herself as a member of staff to “avoid duplication of representation

because it’s important that the advisory group is small and multisector”. The coordinator states that “in

agreement with Stuart Blanch, [a former Director of ECNT] Kimberley to Cape has been established with a

separate identity to ECNT to facilitate multi sector input without interfering with ECNT business and to

allow a fresh and separate slate for industry and other sector engagement. ECNT has also been involved

in the connections initiative in its own right.”


9

Alignment with ECNT Strategic Plan

The response to the question as to how the Kimberley to Cape Initiative aligns with the ECNT Strategic

Plan has been provided by the Program Coordinator, see below.

Goal 1 – Campaigns & Projects: The ECNT’s campaigns and projects are transformative, inclusive and

knowledge-based. ☑ Kimberley to Cape is transformative, inclusive and knowledge-based

Goal 2 - Financial viability: The ECNT’s income base is secure, diverse and growing. ☑ Kimberley to Cape

has attracted over $100,000 and a new donor since Aug 2013, [it is working on securing more funding for

after June 2016]

Goal 3 – Community Engagement: The ECNT is effectively engaging communities, landholders, business

and governments to actively support our campaigns and projects. ☑ Kimberley to Cape has engaged

support from communities, landholders, business and governments as measured by Advisory Group

membership, Futures Roundtable, joint submissions, teleconference participation, news-clips-feedback

Goal 4 – Reputation and Communications: The ECNT is well-known and held in high regard for the

effectiveness of our communications, campaigns and projects. ☑ Kimberley to Cape has been effective in

its communications and projects and measured by the indicators mentioned above.

10

The Evaluation

The aim of this evaluation was to measure how the Kimberley to Cape Initiative is tracking, capture key

learnings and shape its future plan. The evaluation was undertaken by Karen Schmiing, MSc, with support

from the Program Coordinator and the former Acting Director. The section on the background of the

Kimberley to Cape Initiative was summarised with the support and input from the Program Coordinator,

Clare Taylor and information from the Kimberley to Cape website http://www.kimberleytocape.net.au/ .

The method used to gain pertinent information on how the program is tracking was through interviews

with participants and a qualitative analysis. The interview questions were drafted with the input and

approval from the former Acting Director, Anna Boustead. The questions are based on a SWOT analysis,

aiming to highlight the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities of and threats for the program. Thus the key

evaluation questions are:

1. How successful has the program been in achieving its objectives?

2. What do you think the key achievements have been?

3. What do you see as key areas of improvement for the program?

4. What do you think the key direction or focus of Kimberley to Cape should be in the future?

5. What opportunities for support are there to achieve this?

6. Which threats do you perceive to the program?

The evaluation findings will be presented in the following section with the results of the interview

questions, and examples of answers and supporting graphics. The most common answers are shown in

figures and it is to be noted that multiple answers were of course possible and that some people

refrained from answering some questions which accounts for differences in numbers. Some of the

interview questions were shortened in the next section to improve readability. The complete

questionnaire can be viewed in the appendices.

Participants, for the purpose of this evaluation, are persons that are or have been involved with the

initiative and thus able to provide an opinion on how the program is faring as well as valuable feedback

to inform its future direction. The level of involvement in the program differs naturally for each

participant, depending on the reasons for their engagement. Participants were chosen with input from

both the Program Coordinator and the former Acting Director. Overall, 45 people were to be contacted, 4

of which declined an interview, stating that their involvement was too little. 34 people were successfully

interviewed, bringing the percentage of people given the opportunity to comment to 83%. The timing of

the evaluation could have been better, seeing as it took place in the lead up to Christmas where a lot of

people take a longer leave. All participants in the evaluation have been promised anonymity so the

sources of comments will not be identified. Key learnings were gathered through analysis of the interview

results. The discussion and recommendations will provide a basis for the Director and ECNT Board for

future planning in regards to the Kimberley to Cape Initiative.

http://www.kimberleytocape.net.au/


11

Evaluation Findings

1. What is your relationship with the Kimberley to Cape program?

The majority of participants were a part of either the Advisory Board or the Connections Group, both of

which are in regular contact with the program coordinator and other participants. A few described

themselves as affiliates- interested in the program, having some relationship with it but not being an

officially named partner. Other interviewees were funders, people involved in the inception of the

program, an ECNT board member, the program coordinator and ECNT’s Acting Director at the time.

Figure 1: Evaluation participants by relationship

The sectors represented by participants in the evaluation were environment, funders, natural resource

management (NRM), Indigenous, regional development Australia (RDA), research and agriculture. Out of

the 34 people interviewed, 18, so just over half of them, form part of the environment sector. A bias that

is present in the participants in general, though, not only in those that took part in the evaluation (view

Figure 4 *participants=as stated in a list provided by the Program Coordinator). Particularly mining,

grazing, agriculture and tourism are underrepresented in comparison to other sectors with just one

participant or participating organisation each. Unfortunately, both the mining and grazing representative

were unavailable for an interview. It might be worthwhile to interview them at a later date in order to

incorporate their points of view into the evaluation.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

ConnectionsGroup

AdvisoryGroup

Affiliate Funder InceptionGroup

ECNTmember

ProgramCoordinator

Evaluation participants by relationship

12

Figure 2: Evaluation participants by sector

Figure 3: Program participants by sector

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Evaluation participants by sector

0

5

10

15

20

25

Program participants by sector


13

Looking at the program participants overall (that is all from the list provided by the Program

Coordinator), the most represented states by participants are Northern Territory, Queensland and

Western Australia. As these are the three states that are home to the Kimberley to Cape region and thus

the initiative, a very good balance in the recruitment of participants and organisations has been achieved.

Figure 4: Program participants by state

2. What was the process of your involvement?

For the majority of participants, the initial point of contact has been the Program Coordinator followed

by the former Director of ECNT. The Roundtable and the White Paper are also mentioned by a few but

again, these would have been initiated by the Program Coordinator and could thus be counted as

contacted by her. One participant got involved through an already active member and two are involved

through their position with ECNT. Figure 4 shows clearly that participants have been successfully been

actively contacted and recruited- no small feat.

Figure 5: Point of involvement

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NT QLD WA VIC NSW SA ACT

Program participants by state

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Program Coordinator

Former Director of ECNT

Roundtable

White Paper

ECNT

Member

Point of involvement

14

3. Why do you support Kimberley to Cape?

The most stated reasons that participants support the Kimberley to Cape Initiative are the felt necessity

for a coordinated, sustainable approach with multi-sectorial engagement and information sharing across

the North as well as the perception that Kimberley to Cape is the only group in that space. This is in clear

alignment with what the initiative set out to do.

Figure 6: Reasons for support

4. What do you see as the roles of Kimberley to Cape?

When comparing the answers about the roles of Kimberley to Cape Initiative with the reasons

participants support it (questions 3), obvious similarities become apparent. Again, there is mention of a

multi-sectorial forum, a role as communication facilitator and an agent to further sustainable ecological

and cultural development across the North. An additional perceived role is to find common ground and

build alliances between members. It seems that the reason why people support the program is closely

linked to and overlapping with its perceived roles. On a cautionary note, five participants found the roles

of Kimberley to Cape to be unclear, 12% of the interviewees.

Figure 7: Perceived roles of KtC

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Only group in that space

Cross-state initiative

Share information

Multi-sectorial engagement

Coordinated sustainable approach

Reasons for support

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Roles unclear

Build alliances, find common ground

Sustainable ecological and cultural developmentin the North

Facilitates communication/ information exchange

Multi-sectorial forum

Perceived roles of KtC


15

5. In your opinion, are these the right objectives to achieve the mission?

65% of participants interviewed stated that the objectives were not suitable and needed to be revised,

only 35% agreed that the objectives were suitable to achieve the mission (“yes, good base to capitalise

on”). Most commonly, people felt that the objectives were too broad, had no key performance indicators

nor followed the SMART guidelines for goals or objectives (Specific – target a specific area for

improvement; Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress. Attainable – assuring

that an end can be achieved. Relevant – is the right goal at the right time) and were unachievable. Some

comments were: “Laudable but can’t always get people to share a view”, “what is shared success? It’s

different for everyone” “they need to be translated into project size” and “the objectives do not mention

ecological and cultural goals”,

Figure 8: Suitability of objectives in regards to the vision

6. How successful has the program been in achieving its objectives? Please rate on a scale from 1-5 (1=not successful at all, 5=entirely successful/key achievements can be

stated).

Objective 1: Facilitate conversations and collaboration to build a shared picture of a

successful future for Northern Australia

Most participants rated the success in achieving this objective or providing this service at 3 which would

translate into a moderate success, followed by a good number of people that felt the program had been

successful in facilitating conversations and collaboration. A handful of participants saw only little success

while two stated that the program had been entirely successful. No one thought that the program had

not achieved anything and that there was no success visible.

65%

35%

Suitability of objectives

Not suitable

Suitable

16

Figure 9: Success in facilitating conversations and collaboration

to build a shared picture of a successful future for Northern Australia

Reasons that kept the initiative from succeeding were for one inherent in the objective itself as

people felt a shared picture has not and cannot be achieved and in the lack of resources. Some

comments were: “This is no reflection on the coordinator who has limited resources”, “the program

needs targeted outcomes and projects of collaboration”, “where is it going?”, “it’s too complex- not

possible”, “it needs a proactive agenda”, “it’s failing majorly in getting different sectors on board,

the same environmental groups are talking in isolation”, “KtC has not been part of broader political

debate”, “it’s too early to comment”, “not all key stakeholders are engaged”, “the method of

facilitating is not clear” and “conversation is taking place, collaboration is not visible ”.The reasons

most stated for the success of this objective were the forum, the information sharing such as the

news wrap-up and the meetings and conversation like the Connections Group (“Big round table was

a great success”, “it’s doing very well”, “collaboration has been very successful in bringing people

together” “progress is visible”, “there has been a lot of activity with regular email updates”, “some

worthwhile attempts”).

Figure 10: Comments on objective 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Entirely successful

Successful

Moderately succesful

Little succes

Not successful

Success in facilitating conversations and collaboration

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

needs more resources

Meetings/conversation

Information sharing

Shared picture not achieved/not possible

Forum

Comments


17

Objective 2: Make and take opportunities to coordinate and catalyse action towards

shared success

With this objective, the picture looks somewhat different as there is an equal number of people that

think the program has been moderately successful (a rating of 3/5)or that there has been only little

success (a rating of 2/5). Overall, it would seem that the success would therefore have to be rated in

between little success and moderately successful. There are still some who feel it has been

successful, a few that it hasn’t been successful at all and one person that it has been entirely

successful.

Figure 11: Success in making and taking opportunities to coordinate

and catalyse action toward shared success

The most commonly stated reason for rating the program as having little to moderate success was that

there wasn’t much taking action only coordination and conversation (“Needs more focus on action”, “It

needs projects with deliverables”, “people are not seeing progress, values and achievements”). A

second reason and question that came up repeatedly was as to what the objective actually means

and entails (“I don’t understand what it means, success in what?”, “It needs strategic planning”).

Some participants on the other hand reported progress (“Eucalypts project was successful”, “It’s

going down that path extraordinarily well seeing the resources”) while others saw no sign of shared

success (“I haven’t seen signs of shared success”, “It didn't capitalise on forum”).


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Entirely successful

Successful


Little succes

Not successful

Success in making and taking opportunities to coordinate and catalyse action

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

No sign of shared succes

Some progress

What does objective mean/entail?

Not much taking action onlycoordination/conversation

Comments

18

Objective 3: Provide forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and connection to

inform a shared picture of success and help align, improve and expand efforts towards it

This objective is the one where most people rated it as successful (rating of 4/5) in comparison to the

other two (nine successful ratings for objective 1 and three successful ratings for objective 2). A fair

number of people thought it has been moderately successful (a rating of 3/5), a handful saw only little

success (a rating of 2/5) and one saw it as entirely successful. No one thought that there had been no

success.

Figure 13: Success in providing forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and connection to inform

a shared picture of success and help align, improve and expand efforts towards it

The reason why most people rated this objective as successful, was the forum, the Futures

Roundtable (“the round table was a highlight”, “reasonable participation with a range of

stakeholders“). Other mentioned the news wrap-up and the Connections Group as a good way to

share information. Some participants felt that shared success was impossible to achieve and

questioned the objective (“forums don't lead to change”, “more of an activity than an objective”).

The lack of resources was also brought up as well as the need for further forums.


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Entirely successful

Successful


Little succes

Not successful

Success in providing forums for knowledge exchange

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Lack of resources

Shared success impossible to achieve

Shared info

Forum

Comments


19


Participants see Kimberley to Cape as most successful in sharing information (“it developed common

messaging”, “keeping people aware of what others are doing”, “monthly news wrap-up is incredibly

useful”) and in the organisation of the forum that took place (“roundtable with so many different

stakeholders”). A good amount of people state the multi-sectorial connections (“connecting people

across sectors”) as one of the key achievements and meetings as another. “It got people talking” was also

mentioned several times as a success for Kimberley to Cape. Some critical voices questioned the key

outcomes and felt no progress has been seen and that it had already failed.

Figure 15: Key achievements

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Got people talking

Meetings

Multi-sectorial connections

Forum

Information sharing

Key achievements

20


50% of participants think that Kimberley to Cape needs to rethink and redefine its objectives (“Need for a

simple strategic plan”, “narrow down approach (strategic, specific), better to do one thing and do it

well”). The need for resources also featured in the most common answers. Another key area of

improvement was the need for concrete projects with outcomes (“the program needs tangible

outcomes”, “it needs change on the ground not exchanging information”, “at the moment, it’s purely a

reactive forum, it needs proactive strategies”). Participants also thought that more Indigenous

involvement was necessary and more forums should be held. Some people doubted the model (“the

model is not successful”, “all-inclusive model doesn't work”) and suggested that “stakeholders should be

invited to talk but not in decision-making”. Others pointed out a need for more “transparency of

decision-making processes”, accountability to environment groups and allies and an overhauling of the

governance.

Figure 16: Key areas of improvement

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

More forums

More Indigenous involvement

Concrete projects with outcomes

More resources

Rethink objectives

Key areas of improvement


21

9. What do you think the relationship between KtC and ECNT is?

The majority of people are aware that the Environment Centre is hosting and supporting the Kimberley to

Cape Program (“ECNT manages the project and is the key stakeholder”). At a close second, though, are

those 29% of participants that are not sure what the relationship actually is or if there is one at all (“don’t

know”, “confused”). Some participants describe Kimberley to Cape as an initiative of ECNT while others

believe it to be a completely separate organisation and independent. On the one hand, a few participants

felt that ECNT should get more acknowledgement for its role, play a bigger part and be on the Advisory

Board (“needs to be two-way street with outcomes for both”), other participants, on the other hand,

questioned if ECNT is the right organisation to host an initiative like Kimberley to Cape (“position with

ECNT not as helpful as it might be because it sets the tone of how people view the program, positioning

of project has worked against it”). One question that was asked was to whom Kimberley to Cape has a

reporting obligation. Other comments in no particular order were as follows: “it has received little

governance and support from ECNT”, “the branding has to be reassessed” and “it has raised the profile of

ECNT”.

Figure 17: The relationship between KtC and ECNT

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

ECNT is not the right place to host KtC

ECNT should be more acknowledged

Separate and independent

KtC is an initiative of ECNT

Not sure

ECNT hosts/supports KtC

The relationship between KtC and ECNT

22

10. What do you think the key direction or focus of KtC should be in the future?

Participants had several ideas of what the future focus of Kimberley to Cape should be. These ranged

from increased stakeholder engagement (“bringing sectors together rather than information-sharing and

networking”, “networking and collaboration across sectors”) to rethinking the goals and model (“choose

one key issue”, “fundamental rethink of goals and which model to use to achieve it”, “resource

companies should not be involved all the time”, “model at the moment not clear”) to being more

proactive (“initiating projects”). A better involvement of Indigenous groups also featured several times

(“there needs to be more focus on two major sectors; Indigenous and Pastoral, these industries cover the

majority of land interests across the North of Australia and need to be better and continually engaged”).

Some participants just wanted to see more of what Kimberley to Cape has been doing, see it promote

ecologically and culturally sustainable development, develop a shared vision or organise another forum.

There were a lot of other ideas mentioned such as the “provide comment, analysis and advice on

appropriateness of developments”, “support regional aspirations”, “engage in policy” and “focus on

media”.

Figure 18: Future focus

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Develop shared vision

Another forum

Promote ecologically and culturally sustainabledevelopment

More of what they have been doing

Indigenous groups

Be more proactive

Rethink goals and model

Increase stakeholder engagement

Future focus


23


Participants saw the greatest opportunity for support in the participating groups themselves. The second

most popular option was to secure funding from industry and the third to get government recognition

and apply for grants. Some people stated that they saw no opportunity for support with the current set-

up (“do concrete projects”) and that objectives needed to be clarified first. Other options mentioned

were: “get more partners”, “get volunteers” and “government business enterprises, social

entrepreneurship, crowd sourcing, philanthropic partnerships and North Australian Government

funding”. Some suggested to engage with “businesses that would like to be environmentally sound” and

to “identify profile champions to advance economic environmental development models”. One

advocated a “regionalised approach with projects under KtC banner but managed by on-ground partners

and KtC as coordinating, collaborating entity with small overhang”.

Figure 19: Support opportunities

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Clarify objectives/None with current set-up

Government recognition/lobbying

Industry

Participating groups

Support opportunities

24


The biggest threat perceived by the evaluation participants was the resources and connected with that

the number of staff (“not possible with one person”, “burnout of coordinator”). The program itself (“can't

please them all”, “not clear what Kimberley to Cape’s role is”) and its unclear objectives were seen as the

second biggest threat (“need to decide on valuable but relevant goals”, “needs clear purpose or support

will be lost”) followed by the program not delivering on its objectives (“too difficult to achieve”,

“disappointed expectations”, “participants don’t believe it’ll achieve its goal”, “the few that are engaged

are waiting to see if it will deliver”, “it is only a space for sharing info and not taking action towards

shared successes”). Participants disengaging and the program losing its momentum were also mentioned

(“become irrelevant”, “affiliates don't recognise its value”, “people lose interest”). The general political

situation was seen as a threat (“political parties and their view on environment”, “government does not

have same agenda and pursues unsustainable development”) as was the organisational structure itself

(“unclear governance and reporting structure”). Other threats mentioned were “it’s trying to please

industry stakeholders” and “the spatial scale is too large”. Participants were also worried about keeping it

independent and multi-sectorial: “Some organisations might think it’s too green which is why some won’t

join in so it’s important to be careful with the positioning of Kimberley to Cape statements”.

Figure 20: Threats

0 5 10 15 20 25

Organisational

Politics

Participants disengage, it loses momentum

Not delivering on objectives

Program itself, unclear objectives

Resources, number of staff

Threats


25

13. Is there anything you would like to add?

Asked for additional comments, participants sometimes mentioned points of view and opinions

pertaining to other questions and their answers have therefore been added to those sections. The

remaining comments were in the majority about the Program Coordinator’s work and very

complimentary ("coordinator has done heroic job in difficult circumstances and no one could have

tried harder”, “coordinator is doing a great job, committed, diligent and passionate, I’m very

impressed”, “coordinator's enthusiasm helps group”, “coordinator has heart in right place”,

“personable and good relationship with Kimberley to Cape”, “congratulations to coordinator, great

communicator and networker, views are on operational level don’t reflect her, excellent job”,

“coordinator has done an outstanding job of trying to achieve some pretty lofty goals on a fairly

modest budget. She has worked very hard to make it an inclusive process and to keep people

informed and this is very challenging role given the large differences among these stakeholders”,

“I’ve really appreciated all the effort put into to connect with us about issues of importance across

Northern Australia”). Some used the chance to say that “there is a big space for this type of program

that needs to be filled by us not the government” and “it’s even more important with the renewed

development of the North agenda” as well as “it’s also an opportunity filled environment as the

focus is on Northern Australia with the release of the white paper, political interest has been

aroused”.

26

Discussion

Following the methodology used for the presentation of the Evaluation Findings, I will also discuss the

findings in regards to and in the order of the questions asked.

1. The participants

Most participants were from either the Connections Group or the Advisory Board which contributes to

the accuracy and importance of their opinion as they are regularly involved with the Kimberley to Cape

Initiative. Funders, ECNT members and the Program Coordinator also formed part of the evaluation

group which should help build an informed picture of how the program is faring. With 83% of all

participants taking part in the evaluation (as per the list provided by the Program Coordinator), the

emerging picture of opinions and comments should be a very well-rounded snapshot of the Kimberley to

Cape Initiative.

Looking at the evaluation participants and participants of the program in general, it becomes very

obvious that there is a big difference in the number of participants in the different sectors. The

environment sector is overrepresented with its members making up 55% of program participants all

together, a bias that is also present in the evaluation participants’ representation of the sectors.

Especially the mining, agriculture, grazing and tourism sector are only represented by one participant

(agriculture) or one organisation each (mining, grazing, tourism). Indigenous groups are also only a few

which misrepresents their importance in land management in Northern Australia. As the program aims to

be multi-sectorial in its approach to finding common ground and promoting ecologically sustainable

development across the North, the underrepresentation of certain sectors is something essential to be

remedied. Suggestions by participants of some organisations that could be approached in order to

increase the range of sectors involved are the Engineers Australia, the Extractive Industry Association of

the Northern Territory and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory. There are for

certain a lot of other representatives that could be contacted, too, and would prove a valuable addition

to the Kimberley to Cape Initiative.

When looking at the program participants by state, a very balanced picture emerges. The states most

represented are Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia- just the ones where the

Kimberley to Cape Initiative aims to effect positive change and a sustainable future. This clearly indicates

that the Program Coordinator has done a great job in networking in the three concerned states equally

even though being based in Darwin.


27

2. Initial contact

Most participants have been actively or indirectly recruited through the Program Coordinator: by phone

calls, meetings or invitations to be part of the Round Table or the White Paper. The former Director of

ECNT also had a big role in the recruitment of participants. Some participants are involved in the initiative

through their position at ECNT or were made aware through a participant. This shows that the Program

Coordinator has been successful in proactively seeking out organisations and individuals that could be

part of the program. What would be interesting to investigate would be the actual involvement and

numbers of participants over time: how many participants were involved at the start, after one year etc.?

How many participants have dropped out? How has the participants’ involvement developed over time?

How many take part in the Connections Group? Has it become more or less?

3. Reasons for support

The participants see the need for a coordinated sustainable approach across the North, the need for an

initiative that engages people across sectors and shares information. Kimberley to Cape is the only group

a lot of participants see as active in that space that aims to promote and deliver a sustainable future for

the North. The reasons for support that have been stated overlap with the initiatives overarching goal

which is to “support development and conservation that enhance natural and cultural values, and

strengthen communities, from the Kimberley to Cape York” by “jointly developing a shared vision,

principles and high level outcomes for conserving and sustainably developing Northern Australia, and

facilitating progress towards this vision”. This shows for one that participants are aware of what the

Kimberley to Cape Initiative generally stands for and that it has thus been successful in promoting its

goal. On the other hand it also indicates that the necessity for an initiative to be active in this space, in

providing a coordinated sustainable approach with multi-sectorial engagement, is great, as it is the

reason why most people support the program.

4. Roles of Kimberley to Cape

For most participants Kimberley to Cape’s roles are to be a multi-sectorial forum that facilitates

communication and information exchange, builds alliances and finds common ground in order to

progress sustainable development across the North. This overlaps quite well with the program’s roles or

objectives as they are stated by the Coordinator: a) facilitate conversations and collaboration to build a

shared picture of a successful future for Northern Australia, b) make and take opportunities to coordinate

and catalyse action towards shared success, c) provide forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and

connection to inform a shared picture of success and help align, improve and expand efforts towards it.

These roles or objectives have obviously been successfully imparted to participants which is a positive

achievement and good outcome. 12% of people, however, have stated that they are unsure of what it is

28

that Kimberley to Cape does. This indicates that the roles or objectives as they are stated at the moment

are unclear (“role never clearly defined: Action? Research? Info sharing? Lobbying? Coordination?”,

“program not clear on how hard-core environmental it should be”) - a redefinition and change of the

roles or objectives would be needed to remedy the problem.

5. Suitability of objectives

When asked about the suitability of the objectives to achieve the vision, 65% of participants rated the

objectives as unsuitable. 65% is a strong argument for the need to clarify and rethink the current

objectives. People felt that the objectives as they are stated now were simply too broad, had no

performance indicators and were unachievable. They questioned how shared success would even be

defined and some also felt that objective 1 (facilitate conversations and collaboration to build a shared

picture of a successful future for Northern Australia) and objective 3 were essentially the same (provide

forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and connection to inform a shared picture of success and

help align, improve and expand efforts towards it). However, a redefinition of objectives is not a small or

easy undertaking. Objectives are an expression of priorities or a priority. At the moment the initiative has

big goals and broad objectives and to narrow those down could potentially be a lengthy process,

especially if following best practice on how to develop objectives. A process that would prove

worthwhile, though, as the participants are the lifeblood of the initiative and their opinion has to be

taken seriously and acted upon.

6. Success of the program

When comparing the ratings of success that people gave the different objectives or services as the

Coordinator describes them, it is evident that the third objective is the one that participants feel the

program has been most successful with (provide forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and

connection to inform a shared picture of success and help align, improve and expand efforts towards it).

The reason for that is that a forum has taken place and it was well received. The second most success was

achieved in the first objective (facilitate conversations and collaboration to build a shared picture of a

successful future for Northern Australia). Again, the forum was most mentioned as a reason for success.

Information sharing in the form of news round-ups and meetings and conversation like phone link-ups

were also mentioned. The second objective was the one that participants saw as the least successful

(make and take opportunities to coordinate and catalyse action towards shared success) which is

underlined in the most common comments. People said that there was not much taking action only

coordination and conversation and some saw no sign of shared success. If one compares all three

objectives, it becomes apparent that the Kimberley to Cape Initiative has been most successful in the

organisation of the forum, information-sharing and coordination of meetings and less so in taking action.

Some reasons stated for the program not being entirely successful in achieving its objectives were that

the objectives themselves are unachievable as people felt a shared picture and shared success is not


29

possible to achieve and some were unsure what the objectives even entailed. Another reason mentioned

was the lack of resources, especially in the number of staff being only one person. Overall, it needs to be

noted that again the objectives themselves are questioned and secondly, that there is an enormous

discrepancy between the goal to be achieved and the staff available to do it.

7. Key achievements

The key achievements stated mirror what the participants’ perception of success in achieving the

objectives are: information sharing and the forum. This is closely followed by achieving multi-sectorial

connections. Meetings were also mentioned as part of the program’s key achievements and that the

program got people talking. Looking at the key achievements, Kimberley to Cape is mainly seen as a

successful coordinator and information broker. It is important to note, that neither successful

collaboration nor any achievements in the area of concrete actions are even mentioned by participants in

this section. Participants do not seem to see Kimberley to Cape as an organisation that is taking specific

action, rather a supporting forum and connection enabler. If the objectives were to be revised, it would

be important to take this result into account and deliberate whether it is better to build on this perceived

strength and narrow down the objectives to make the program even more successful in this or if the goal

is a different one and more action-orientated meaning that participants’ minds would have to be

changed as to what Kimberley to Cape can do.

8. Key areas of improvement

50% of participants see the need to rethink the objectives as the most important area of improvement.

That is a very clear and important signal that should not be ignored. Participants also felt that with more

resources, much more could be achieved by the Kimberley to Cape Initiative as one staff member is not

enough for such an ambitious initiative. More specific areas of improvement brought up are concrete

projects with measurable outcomes and more Indigenous involvement. Additionally, participants were

interested in more forums. To sum up, a fresh approach and rethink of the Kimberley to Cape program is

necessary to turn it into an organisation that delivers outcomes and is clear in how to achieve them.

9. Kimberley to Cape and ECNT

Participants are mostly aware that ECNT hosts and supports KtC and that it is an initiative of the centre. A

good number of people asked, however, were not sure what the relationships between the two is and

others thought that there was no connection at all. Kimberley to Cape has been working quasi

independently from ECNT and ECNT has not been included on the Advisory Board. This might explain the

fact as to why a lot of people are not sure what the relationship actually is or see KtC as completely

30

independent. It therefore makes sense that some people felt ECNT should be more acknowledged and

actively involved in KtC. Questions were also raised as to whether ECNT is the right place to host the

Kimberley to Cape Initiative as it might prove detrimental to its goal of engaging across sectors. This is a

question that can only be answered by looking at what Kimberley to Cape stands for. At the moment, the

initiative has broad goals and aims to include all sectors equally. A shared picture and common ground is

what the organisation is looking for. This means straddling a two-edged sword in a way as environmental

organisations and resource companies often find themselves at opposing sides with little they can agree

upon. Is that bit of agreement what the organisation is aiming to promote? It doesn’t ever become quite

clear as to how KtC deals with vested interests and aims to resolve such conflicts. There are no processes

in place in general and no transparency in decision making on what to agree upon. This vague arena of

finding common ground is where the program sits at the moment and if it stays there, the question will

be as to how decision making processes can be put into place and be transparent, how vested interests

are handled and resolved and how much deviation from cultural and ecological sustainable development

will be accepted in order to find common ground. So if the current path is further pursued than the

question could indeed be asked as to which host would be deemed the most neutral (such as a

university) or which combination of hosts (environmental and industrial) could work best as the

Environment Centre is very obviously on the environmental side of the equation. A better avenue of

looking at it, to my mind, would be to take into account what participants have said which is that the

initiative needs to take a very long and hard look at its objectives, model and vision and needs to clarify

what it wants to achieve. If the result of that process is that the initiative has a clear environmental and

cultural focus than the ECNT is the perfect host, if the decision were to be made that the initiative was to

be entirely neutral then it might need a new host or hosts. Seeing as a lot of money, time and effort of

ECNT has gone into the project already, it is difficult to imagine a decision where the program is given

over to other organisations entirely. Thus, as the programs is sitting with ECNT and in regards to what

participants have commented, it seems to make the most sense to redefine the objectives not only to

make them achievable and give them measurable outcomes but also to emphasise and simply mention

the conversation of the environment and cultural values in them.

10. Key future focus

A number of the future foci mentioned by participants are areas in which the initiative has already been

active and they’d like to see more of like increased stakeholder engagement, more involvement of

Indigenous groups, promoting culturally and ecologically sustainable development, another forum,

developing a shared vision and simply “more of what they have been doing”. The comments about an

increased involvement of Indigenous groups should definitely be taken on board as in comparison to

their importance in land management, they are underrepresented as active participants in the program.

And again, there is the adage to rethink the goals and the model and to be more proactive. To me, the

comments on a future focus read like a nudge to evaluate in depth what Kimberley to Cape wants to and

realistically can achieve which will in turn make it easier not only to coordinate or action campaigns with

concrete outcomes but also to increase stakeholder engagement as the message about KtC’s work and

goals will be much clearer.


31

11. Support opportunities

Most participants see the participating groups and organisations as the best opportunity for monetary

and other support. The feeling most expressed is that these groups obviously have an interest in a

sustainable future for the North and if able to, are probably the most likely to at least provide in-kind

support or even staffing hours. A number of people also suggested the support of industry groups but

that would give rise to some questions: in which cases or if at all is monetary support from industry

acceptable when following conservation goals and how neutral is KtC supposed to be? It comes back to

the general question of the positioning of Kimberley to Cape, which considering the participant’s

comments should be re-evaluated in any case. Following a clarification process, the question if support

from industry should be admissible will have an easier and clearer answer. Others mentioned that

Kimberley to Cape has up to now not tapped into any government grants and has not been lobbying for

support or been an influential presence in the political arena. Lastly, quite a few evaluation participants

stated that without a change in the current set-up and a clarification of the objectives and progress on

measurable outcomes, support would not be given by their organisations or others.

12. Threats

The most imminent threat is seen as the restricted resources as expressed by the number of staff being

limited to one person. Reasons as to why this is a threat were stated as the Coordinator resigning, facing

burnout and the task being simply too big for one person. The program itself and its unclear objectives

were seen as the second biggest threat- by now a recurring sentiment. People also said that the program

not delivering on the objectives and with participants disengaging, it might lose momentum and become

irrelevant. The current political climate which is rather in opposition to sustainable development was also

described as a threat. Lastly, participants felt that there were organisational threats facing Kimberley to

Cape such as an unclear governance and reporting structure. Nearly all of these threats can be addressed

and alleviated. Efforts can be made to secure more funding branching out into grants and even crowd-

sourcing. By addressing the subject of the unclear objectives, the positioning of the program itself and its

deliverables as well as creating objectives that can be achieved, more funding should result both from

philanthropic as from environmental organisations according to their representatives in the evaluation.

This process should also address the problem of people disengaging and the program itself losing its

momentum, as with a clarification of its positioning, communication with participants, the general public,

the government and potential funders would prove much easier- a straight-forward presentation of what

Kimberley to Cape stands for and how it can help and provide real gain to the relevant stakeholders. The

organisational threat is one that can be remedied as well by ascertaining which structures or processes of

governance and decision making are currently in place and replacing these or improving upon them by

using best practice models.

32

13. Additional comments

In the additional comments, participants were full of praise for the Program Coordinators work especially

in view of the resources available. This shows an impressive networking capability that the Program

Coordinator has put to good use. In this final section, people wanted to stress that the evaluation is one

of the program itself and does not have anything to do with the quality of her work.

This is indeed something that is very important to note. The idea of the Kimberley to Cape Initiative, its

vision, its goals and objectives are on an incredibly broad and wide-ranging scale. So on the one hand you

have a spatial scale that reaches across three states, a multitude of Indigenous groups and landholders,

three governments, a variety of environment and industry stakeholders, a plethora of ecosystems and

your everyday Joes and Janes living in the region- and that is not even broken down into any specifics. On

the other hand´, you have one person to do the job. That is an incredible discrepancy and an obviously

unachievable task that the Program Coordinator took on and managed admirably in view of these

constraints.


33

Conclusions and Recommendations

Current development agendas for the North pose a clear, imminent and future threat to an ecologically

and culturally sustainable future for the savanna region from Kimberley to Cape. The Kimberley to Cape

initiative was created to address this threat.

Since its inception in August 2013, the initiative has successfully recruited a range of participants to its

cause. Some of these are involved with the program through their position on the Advisory Board, others

through being part of the Connections Group or as funders or affiliates. The participants and their

organisations hail mainly and equally in numbers from Western Australia, Northern Territory and

Queensland. This attests to a prudent, well-balanced and successful approach in networking by the

Program Coordinator as these are the three states concerned with an initiative from Kimberley to Cape.

The sectors represented by participants are environment, natural resource management, regional

development Australia, research, funders, Indigenous, mining, grazing, agriculture and tourism. This is a

wide range of sectors involved and again, it is obvious that a lot of time and effort must have gone into

securing these well-chosen sector representatives. Something to note is that some sectors are much less

represented than others, though, such as mining, grazing, agriculture and tourism with just one

representative or organisation each and Indigenous groups with just a few representatives, too. The

increased involvement of Indigenous groups is stated by some participants to be a key area of

improvement and by others as a key future focus. One recommendation would therefore be to increase

stakeholder engagement in particular in these sectors in order to have a well-balanced representation of

sectors engaged in the initiative. It will depend on other decisions about the program, however, as to

which sectors in particular should be better represented in Kimberley to Cape.

People mainly support the initiative because they see the need for a coordinated multi-sectorial

approach across the North that promotes sustainable development and provides information-an

alternative to the current agendas propagated and that is what Kimberley to Cape stands for in the eyes

of most participants. 12% of those asked in the evaluation, however, were not sure what it is that

Kimberley to Cape does, for them the roles as they are stated at the moment are vague and need to be

redefined. As this is not a very high percentage of people, it could be argued that a recommendation to

review and redefine the objectives and model is not needed but this percentage changes dramatically

when people are asked directly about the suitability of the objectives. 65% of evaluation participants

responded that the objectives are not suitable to achieve the mission and goals of Kimberley to Cape.

Participants said that the objectives are too broad, not SMART (specific, measurable, attainable,

relevant), unachievable, some objectives too similar (one and three) and that they had no performance

indicators. People are obviously aware of what Kimberley to Cape stands for in general but they are not

sure how the program aims to achieve its goals, what its objectives and outcomes are. 50% of

participants therefore saw a clarification of the objectives as the most important area of improvement,

some mentioned it as the key future focus and it was seen as the second biggest threat to the program if

not pursued.

Participants judge the initiative to have been most successful in having provided a very successful forum

and in information sharing like the well-received news round-up and the phone link-ups in the

34

Connections Group. The initiative was seen as less successful in taking action. Reasons for a lack of

success were believed to be unachievable and unclear objectives and the lack of resources with the staff

being just one person. For one, this underlines the need to take a closer look at a possible process of

redefinition with the goal of creating objectives that result in actions with measurable results. Secondly, it

is apparent to participants that the lack of resources is a strong inhibiting factor in achieving the

initiative’s goals which is why it is also perceived as the greatest threat to the program and a key area of

improvement. It is vital therefore to resolve the incredible discrepancy between the number of staff and

the goals and vision of the initiative by either adjusting the goals and objectives down to a scale that

reflects the available resources or by finding ways to increase the funding. An increase in funding could

also be achieved by a clarification of the objectives and progress on measurable outcomes as participants

from large environmental organisations have stated. The governance structure and organisation of the

program itself (“How are vested interests dealt with?”) was seen as a possible threat by some

participants, too, and it might prove useful to consider adopting more formal processes in decision-

making and structures that support transparency in accountability when looking at redefining the

program and its objectives in general.

In conclusion, the recommendation is to clarify what the program aims to do and can realistically

achieve and create objectives with measurable outcomes and performance indicators. In the course of

this process and to support its success, it might be useful to consider adopting best practice methods

and structures not only in coming to a decision but for general increased transparency and

accountability.

The relationship between the Environment Centre NT and the Kimberley to Cape Initiative is not a clear-

cut one. Most participants are aware that the program is hosted and supported by ECNT and that it is an

initiative of the centre while others thought that there was no connection whatsoever and deemed KtC

to be separate and independent. The interpretation of this data really depends on what point of view one

wants to take. If ECNT has an interest in being known as the host of the initiative or would like to take

more ownership and get more involved i.e. as part of the Advisory Board as some participants have

suggested then people seeing no connection between the two would be negative. If the goal was to have

KtC operating quasi independently and “neutral” then people seeing no connection between the two

would be considered a success. Either way, the questions as to the positioning of KtC in regards to ECNT

is one that needs to be answered in order to ensure stringent and clear messaging about the program in

general. The answer might become clear on its own if a decision is made to clarify the program’s goals

and objectives overall. It has to be noted, though, that the number of people that are aware of a

connection between ECNT and KtC is higher than those who do not see them as connected. One might

consider this to already be an indication that people are aware that KtC is not “neutral” as such and are

engaged nonetheless. If neutrality, possibly in the form of a university or a collaboration of environment

and industry sectors hosting the program, is the aim of the initiative then this would have to be

considered in a possible process of redefining the model, goals and objectives and the positioning in

regards to the environment centre. If the aim is a clearer stance for environmental protection with more

visibility and involvement of the centre, then this would have obvious consequences for the relationship

between KtC and ECNT, too. The recommendation is hence to answer the question what the

relationship between Kimberley to Cape and the Environment Centre is to be in order to ensure

appropriate branding and clear and consistent communication.


35

References

http://www.kimberleytocape.net.au/, accessed 14.12.2015

Appendices

Questionnaire

1. What is your relationship with the Kimberley to Cape program?

2. What was the process of your involvement?

3. Why do you support Kimberley to Cape?

4. What do you see as the roles of Kimberley to Cape?

5. (See below) In your opinion, are these the right objectives to achieve the mission of

“safeguarding the Northern Australian savanna by supporting appropriate development and

conservation”?

6. How successful has the program been in providing these services and achieving these objectives,

please rate on a scale from 1-5 and provide a short comment with your reasoning.

(1=not successful at all/ no progress seen/no achievement made,

5=entirely successful/progress clearly visible/key achievements can be stated)



9. What do you think the relationship between Kimberley to Cape and the Environment Centre

Northern Territory is?

10. What do you think the key direction or focus of Kimberley to Cape should be in the future?

Objectives/Services Scale of 1-5 Comments

Facilitate conversations and collaboration to build a

shared picture of a successful future for Northern

Australia

Make and take opportunities to coordinate and

catalyse action towards shared success

Provide forums for knowledge exchange, discussion

and connection to inform a shared picture of

success and help align, improve and expand efforts

towards it

http://www.kimberleytocape.net.au/

36



13. Is there anything you would like to add?

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

KtC Kimberley to Cape

ECNT Environment Centre Northern Territory

RDA Regional Development Australia

NRM Natural Resource Management

ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation

List of figures

1. Evaluation participants by relationship

2. Evaluation participants by sector

3. Program participants by sector

4. Program participants by state

5. Point of involvement

6. Reasons for support

7. Perceived roles of KtC

8. Suitability of objectives in regards to the vision

9. Success in facilitating conversations and collaboration to build a shared picture of a

successful future for Northern Australia

10. Comments on objective 1

11. Success in making and taking opportunities to coordinate and catalyse action toward shared

success


13. Success in providing forums for knowledge exchange, discussion and connection to inform a

shared picture of success and help align, improve and expand efforts towards it


15. Key achievements

16. Key areas of improvement

17. Relationship between KtC and ECNT

18. Future focus

19. Support opportunities

20. Threats

kimberley to cape initiative...

Documents