Table 2.1 and Figures 2.1 and 2.2 below describe the key activities and participants of the Minyumai IPA. Activities Description Participants and key details (FY09-15) Ranger work (Indigenous Protected Area and the Firesticks Project) Provides employment and training for older and younger Bandjalang as rangers fulfilling standard ranger responsibilities to manage the environment (e.g. fire management, feral animal and weed control, monitoring threatened species), but also to support Bandjalang to take ownership of the management of natural and cultural values of their country. 24 people employed as IPA rangers (approximately 53% men and 47% 15,957 ranger hours worked $0.3m in salaries paid (gross) Table 2.1 – Summary of activities Figure 2.1 – Number of Minyumai Indigenous Rangers (referred to as Rangers throughout this report), FY11-15 Figure 2.2 – Number of days worked by Minyumai Indigenous Rangers, FY11-15 2.3 Investment (inputs) The investment included in an SROI analysis is a valuation of all the inputs required to achieve the outcomes that will be described, measured or estimated and valued. For the purpose of this SROI analysis, the investment includes the value of financial (cash) investment over the five year period between FY11 and FY15. No in-kind (non-cash) investments were found to be material. Total investment over the five years was approximately $0.9 million. Investment Summary Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3 include a summary of the investment for the Minyumai IPA. Stakeholder Total Notes Government $812,636 Includes funding from the IPA programme (93%), ILC (6%; FY13 only), and National Parks and Wildlife Services (1%; FY13 only) NGO Partners $67,408 Includes funding from the Firesticks project (100%; FY13 and FY15 only) Foundations and Trusts $6,800 Includes funding from donations and sponsorship (87%; FY11 and only); and the Hoffman Foundation (13%; FY13 only) Total $933,291 Table 2.2 – Investment by stakeholder group, FY11-FY15 Figure 2.3 - Investment by stakeholder group, FY11-15
Figure 4.1a –Theory of change for the Minyumai IPA – Issues, Stakeholders, Activities and Inputs (Investment) Figure 4.1b –Theory of change for the Minyumai IPA – Community member and Ranger outcomes Figure 4.1c –Theory of change for the Minyumai IPA – Government outcomes Figure 4.1d –Theory of change for the Minyumai IPA –NGO partner and Research partner outcomes
knowledge and skillset as well as a willingness to share and collaborate. This outcome eventually leads to later outcomes including “research is more culturally appropriate and cost effective”, and “researchers’ careers are advanced through research outcomes”. Environmental outcomes Involvement with the Minyumai IPA has also had a substantial impact on the work of its Research partners. Rangers share traditional ecological knowledge and have provided both time and effort to assist with ecological monitoring and research. 4.3 Measuring the change Modelling indicators of change At the commencement of this project, there had been some data collected on the activities and outputs of the Minyumai IPA, with particular reference to environmental outcomes. However, there had been little data collected over time to indicate the changes experienced by stakeholders and the quantities of stakeholders experiencing those changes. Having identified the material changes experienced by stakeholder groups, we worked with MLHAC management and used payroll data to calculate (for the investment period): Number of people falling within each stakeholder Number of funding and economic opportunities available since the IPA declaration Average number of days carrying out burns using cultural practices in a year Number of hectares within the IPA where land management is low cost Number of NGO partners and Research partners of the IPA Degree of Government, NGO partner and Research partner outcomes achieved as a result of the IPA (on a of Low to Very High) As the groups of Rangers and Community Members were large, and their experiences varied, it was not possible to count individuals for whom outcomes had, or had not occurred. Instead we used basic threshold assumptions around the level of engagement required to experience the material outcomes. The thresholds used with respect to Ranger and Community member outcomes are included in Table 4.9 below. Outcome Indicator Quantity Rangers 1.1 Increased skills through training and experience # of rangers who have worked on country for between 3 and 12 weeks in a year (measured in ranger-years) 28 1.2 Increased confidence # of rangers who have worked on country for more than 12 weeks in a year (measured in ranger-years) 9 1.3 Better health and wellbeing # of rangers who have worked on country for more than 12 in a year (measured in ranger-years) 9 1.4 Increased pride and sense of self # of rangers who have worked on country for more than 12 weeks in a year (measured in ranger-years) 9 1.5 Better caring for country # of rangers who have worked on country for more than 12 weeks in a year (measured in ranger-years) 9 Community
Government 3.1 Rangers are skilled and trained Value placed on achieving work readiness (per person per year) $9,000.00 Direct savings to Government as a consequence of skilled IPA rangers trained on the job and no longer requiring training through a program 3.2 Reduction in income support payments Average income support savings (per person per year) $284.47 Direct savings to Government as a consequence of permanent rangers earning over the threshold for receipt of Newstart and other allowances 3.3 Increase in income tax Average increase in tax revenue (per person per year) $1,347.41 Increased revenue for Government as a result of increased taxable income 3.6 Improved engagement with communities Annual salary of a Community Relations Coordinator for this IPA (and others) $18,041.50 Government stakeholders observed that they are more welcome at, and are able to better engage with, communities through the IPA. No on-costs were included. 3.7 Partnership model promoted Annual salary of a Strategic Partnerships Manager for this IPA (and others) $24,627.75 The IPA programmes have been promoted internally and externally in recognition of their success. No on-costs were included. 3.8 Greater respect for TEK Average annual cost of Environmental Scientist salary $32,312.50 An alternative for achieving a similar of connections and relationships is hiring an environmental scientist. No on-costs were included. 3.9 Low cost land management Difference in cost between land management on IPAs and national parks $18.20 Direct savings to Government as a consequence of voluntary commitment of land as an IPA Table 4.11 – Financial proxies used in the SROI analysis A detailed description of the valuation of each of the outcomes, including the calculations and the source of the financial proxy, is included in the Methodological Attachment to this report. Valuation filters
Community members 2.1 More role models for young people $10,125 $334,098 (24%) 2.4 IPA leveraged for additional funding and economic opportunities $196,762 2.5 Increased respect for $21,450 2.7 Connection to country strengthened $69,761 2.9 More burning using cultural practices $36,000 Government 3.1 Rangers are skilled and trained $249,750 $411,204 (30%) 3.2 Reduction in income support payments $4,480 3.3 Increase in income tax $10,779 3.6 Improved engagement with communities $36,083 3.7 Partnership model promoted $49,256 3.8 Greater respect for TEK $57,902 3.9 Low cost land management $2,953 NGO partners 5.1 Deeper connections and relationships $91,463 $144,192 (11%) 5.2 Better meet core biodiversity objectives $52,729 Research partners 7.1 Deeper connections and relationships $121,950 $184,313 (13%) 7.2 Better meet core research objectives $62,363 Table 4.13 – Total adjusted value of outcomes
activities Strait Islander people 2010-11 (2013). Available at: (accessed 5 Dec 2015) 2.4 IPA leveraged for additional funding and economic opportunities Attribution 0% 0% 25% 2.10 More burning using cultural practices Financial proxy: Cost of hiring a contractor to carry out a burn (per day) $6,000 * remoteness multiplier where appropriate 50% of baseline 150% of baseline 3.9 Low cost land management Financial proxy: Difference in cost between land on IPAs and national parks $18.20 $6.17 Note: WA and lowest state estimate in Gilligan (2006) evaluation. Adjusted for inflation. $49.38 Note: VIC/NSW and highest estimate in Gilligan (2006) evaluation. Adjusted for inflation. 5.2 Better meet core biodiversity objectives Financial proxy: Estimated value of activities carried out by the IPA that assist with core biodiversity objectives $35,424 50% of baseline 150% of baseline 7.2 Better meet core biodiversity objectives Financial proxy: Estimated value of activities carried out by the IPA that assist with meeting core research objectives $467,723 50% of baseline 150% of baseline