1. Overview
This organisational structure was developed to accommodate a large number of stakeholders. It was important to ensure that all groups had a say in the organisation while still being held accountable in way. (see table in 3. Description of accountability)
2. Diagram of Structure
3. Description of accountability
| Trustee Representation | Interest Groups | Members | Non/Voting |
| Staff (3 Trustees) | Field Station Staff (3 Trustees) | Research Station | Voting |
| Field Stations | Non voting | ||
| Visitors (3 Trustees) | Student and Research Organisations | University Research (International) | Voting |
| Scientific Institutions (International) | Voting | ||
| Local schools | Non voting | ||
| Nature Clubs | Non voting | ||
| Tourist Industry | Public Information Centres | Non voting | |
| Tourist Accommodation | Non voting | ||
| Tourism – Local Governments | Non voting | ||
| Land Management | Geopark | UN Organisation | Voting |
| (3 Trustees) | Forest Services | Voting | |
| ABC County | Government | Voting | |
| Farmers | 3 Counties | Non voting | |
| XYZ Enterprises | Sustainable Ecosystem Management | Enterprises | Voting |
| (3 Trustees) | And Resource Stewardship | EU organisation | Non voting |
| ABC Country organisation | Non voting | ||
| TRUSTEES TOTAL: 12 | |||
4. Impact on success of organisation
The expectation is that this organisational structure will encourage:
- Input from all groups which will ensure that all key information and learning is captured.
- Engagement and commitment from all groups which should increase resources available.
- Trust (transparency, mutual support and consistency) which will improve the decision making process.
5. Other notes
None at this time