over 20 hours) compared to direct NLP grant recipients (81% spending up to 2 weeks developing it, and 55% spending up to 10 hours). Table 20. Number of people involved in completing the MERI plan (NRM regional organisations and direct NLP grant recipients) Less than 5 5-10 10-20 Greater than 20 Total Missing % % % % n % n NRM regional organisations 38% 46% 15% 1% 130 100% 22 Direct NLP grant recipients 90% 8% 2% 52 100% 2 Total 53% 35% 11% 1% 182 100% 24 Source: NLP stakeholder survey. Question 35 ‘Approximately how many people were involved in completing the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) plan?’, n=182 Table 21. Total time spent developing the MERI plan (NRM regional organisations and direct NLP grant recipients) Time spent developing MERI Less than 1 week 1-2 weeks 2-4 weeks More than 4 weeks Missing % % % % n % n NRM regional organisations 3% 19% 47% 31% 138 100% 14 Direct NLP grant recipients 43% 38% 9% 9% 53 100% 1 Total 14% 24% 37% 25% 191 100% 15 Source: NLP stakeholder survey. Question 36 ‘What is your estimate of the time all people spent initially in developing the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) plan until the first submission to the Department?’, n=191 Table 22. Total time spent finalising the MERI plan (NRM regional organisations and direct NLP grant recipients) Less than 5 hours 5-10 hours 10-20 20-40 hours Greater than 40 hours Total Missing % % % % % n % n
Project outcomes and beneficiaries Outcomes The importance of NLP funding for funded projects The majority of all stakeholders who received direct funding (NRM regional organisations, NRM local groups who received funding or direct NLP grant recipients) indicated that none of the NLP funded projects would have gone ahead if they had not received NLP funding. The proportion was higher among direct NLP grant recipients (60%) compared to NRM regional organisations stakeholders (54%) and NRM local groups who received funding (50%) (Figure 9). Figure 9. Number of projects that would have gone ahead without NLP funding (NRM regional organisations, NRM local groups who received funding or direct NLP grant recipients) Source: NLP stakeholder survey. Question 14 ‘How many of the National Landcare Programme funded projects would have gone ahead if they had not received National Landcare Programme funding?’, n=433 Direct impacts All NRM stakeholders were asked about the broad impacts of the NLP (Table 26). While the majority of stakeholders agreed with all types of potential impacts listed, the most frequently identified across all stakeholder groups were: Improved landscape management (86% agree or tend to agree) Increased adoption of sustainable management practices (86%) Enhanced social and institutional capacity for sustainable management practices (82%).
For the most frequent the regional delivery model, half the mentions were made by respondents from NRM regional organisations who were supportive of the way the model was structured, the effectiveness of the NRM regional organisations and the Regional plans. Some NRM local groups and ‘other’ respondents were also in favour of the regional model, with particular emphasis on Regional Landcare Facilitators as beneficial. Very few industry groups mentioned the model as the thing they would not change. According to one stakeholder from an NRM regional organisation Regional delivery structure. This structure allows strategic and targeted on ground delivery across areas despite other organisations capacity, politics in the area, population size or focus of other business and groups. [NRM regional organisation stakeholder] A lot of stakeholders welcomed the multiyear timeframe of the NLP; this was equally frequently mentioned by the two main stakeholder groups, NRM regional organisations and NRM local groups, less frequently by other groups. funding is fantastic. The introduction of a 5-year NLP has been wonderful for the stability of staffing, long-term planning and delivery of well-planned outputs and outcomes. It also reduced the overhead burden by not requiring annual processes. [NRM regional organisation stakeholder] The community and local involvement aspects were mostly popular among state and local government, NRM local groups, Industry and Other groups. Local engagement is vital - never centralise control when so many different areas of this country require different solutions to their local environment parameters. [Industry group stakeholder] Retaining the funding of the NLP, in particular small grants, was a key theme among direct NLP grant recipients and NRM local groups. Other key themes from individual stakeholder groups included MERI plans (NRM regional organisations), and the focus on sustainable agriculture (industry groups). Areas for improvement identified by stakeholders Stakeholders also had the opportunity to identify areas for improvement for specific aspects of the NLP. As in the previous analysis, any mention of positive aspects of the NLP were excluded from this particular analysis as this was covered in another question. Program delivery approach All stakeholder groups had also the opportunity to comment on the NLP program delivery approach (through small grants and regional delivery) and identify areas for improvement. This open-ended question is the one that received the most comments. Out of 916 survey
Tick one option only for each statement Agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Disagree Don’t know/NA I am aware of National Landcare Programme objectives [NRM regional organisations only] Our National Landcare Programme funded projects align with our Regional NRM plan National Landcare Programme funding meets the environmental priorities of the Australian Government National Landcare Programme funding meets the agricultural priorities of the Australian Government National Landcare Programme allowed for enough autonomy in setting regional and local priorities [Industry groups and state or local government] Tick one option only for each statement Agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Disagree Don’t know/NA National Landcare Programme funding helps our industry improve sustainability Improving sustainability helps our industry improve profitability Improving sustainability helps our industry improve access to markets
Tick one option only How engaged were you with this process? How satisfied are you with this level of engagement? Priority setting of National Landcare Programme funds delivered by regions Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not very satisfied Not satisfied at all Developing the regional NRM plan delivered by your NRM regional organisation Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not very satisfied Not satisfied at all The planning of projects delivered by your NRM regional organisation under the National Landcare Programme Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not very satisfied Not satisfied at all The delivery of projects by your NRM regional organisation the National Landcare Programme Very engaged Somewhat engaged Not very engaged Not engaged at all Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not very satisfied Not satisfied at all [NRM local groups, industry and state or local government] Do you feel your suggestions were considered/ taken on board? Tick one option only Very much Somewhat Not very Not at all [NRM local groups, industry and state or local government] Have you been engaged in other projects with NRM regional organisations through National Landcare Programme funding? Tick one option only Yes (Go to Q28) No (Go to next section)
… the level of protection, rehabilitation, restoration of prioritised environmental assets, threatened species, ecological communities and/or migratory species has increased … Indigenous participation in natural resource management has increased [All respondents] On balance, what has been the impact of the National Landcare Programme in your region? Tick one option only for each statement. positive impact Small positive impact No impact negative impact negative impact Don’t know/NA Economy Jobs Developing skills and knowledge in managing natural resources (capacity building) Community engagement Social wellbeing Environmental health Sustainable agriculture