Docstoc

INFFER _Investment Framework For Environmental Resources_

Document Sample
INFFER _Investment Framework For Environmental Resources_ Powered By Docstoc
					                                                 www.inffer.org




                 INFFER
(Investment Framework For Environmental Resources)




    Background and Overview
                 Context
· Budgets small compared to the problems
· Environmental protection more expensive
  than we’ve often allowed for
· Spatial heterogeneity
· Prioritisation is essential but difficult




                                        www.inffer.org
         Institutional context
· Concerns about outcomes from regional
  investment
· Treasury, Australian National Audit Office
  concerns about value for public money from
  NRM investment
· Greater focus on outcomes in Caring for our
  Country and by some state governments




                                        www.inffer.org
 What does INFFER help with?
· How to get value for money from NRM
  budget?
· What is realistic/feasible?
· Appropriate delivery mechanisms?
· Project design
· Give confidence to funders




                                        www.inffer.org
            General emphases
·   Natural assets
·   Outcomes
·   Value for money
·   Multiple threats
·   Multiple asset types
·   Technical & socio-economic (equal emphasis)
·   Policy tools/delivery mechanisms
·   Transparency




                                                  www.inffer.org
       Regional testing and use
· South West (WA)              ·   Northern Rivers (NSW)
· Avon (WA)                    ·   Namoi (NSW)
· South Coast (WA)             ·   North East (Vic)
· Northern Agric (WA)          ·   North Central (Vic)
                               ·   Corangamite (Vic)
· Rangelands (WA)
                               ·   West Gippsland (Vic)
· Perth (WA)
                               ·   East Gippsland (Vic)
· Lachlan (NSW)
                               ·   Goulburn Broken (Vic)
· Central West (NSW)           ·   Port Phillip & Westernport
· Border Rivers/Gwydir (NSW)       (Vic)




                                                         www.inffer.org
         Based on experience
· Builds on lessons from previous frameworks and
  from use by 15 regions
· As simple as possible, but comprehensive
· Highly structured and guided process
  ¨ Template
· Actively supported
  ¨ Help desk
  ¨ Workshops
  ¨ Regular phone-hookup meetings
· Fully documented
  ¨ All documents freely available at www.inffer.org



                                                       www.inffer.org
                                       River reach
    Asset types                        •Intact native veg
                                       •Cultural heritage
                                       •Woodland birds




Wetland
•Listed on register                    Threatened species
•Last of its type                      •Flagship
                                       •Critically endangered



                      Native vegetation
                      •Concentration of threatened species
                      •Near pristine condition
                      •Important location       www.inffer.org
          What is the output?
· An assessment for each asset
  ¨ Background information about the asset
  ¨ A specific, measurable, time-bound goal
  ¨ On-ground works that will achieve that goal
  ¨ Delivery actions that will result in those works
  ¨ Information about asset value, threats/damage,
    technical feasibility, socio-economic feasibility,
    urgency, cost, risks
  ¨ Benefit:Cost Ratio (comparable across projects)



                                                 www.inffer.org
        What sorts of projects?
· Ones that will deliver NRM outcomes for
  identifiable natural assets, which can be
  ¨ large or small
  ¨ degraded or pristine
  ¨ localised or dispersed
  ¨ any sort of natural asset
· Not
  ¨ Untargeted capacity building
  ¨ M&E not linked to a specific project
  ¨ R&D not linked to a specific asset

                                           www.inffer.org
INFFER Pre-Assessment Checklist
Asset focus
1. Can you clearly identify the environmental or natural resource
   asset?
2. Will it be possible to define a goal for the asset that is
   “SMART”?

Cost-effectiveness
3. Is there evidence to indicate that management actions can
   make a real difference?
4. If the desired management actions are mainly on private land,
   is it likely that those actions would be reasonably attractive to
   fully informed land managers when adopted over the required
   scale?
5. If the project requires change by other institutions is there a
   good chance that this will occur?


                                                             www.inffer.org
North Central
    CMA




                www.inffer.org
                     www.inffer.org




The INFFER Process
            INFFER process
· Can be applied to individual assets
  ¨ Run small number of cherry-picked assets
    through the process
  ¨ Helps with project development
  ¨ Helps assess whether it is worth pursuing the
    project
· Better to be a comprehensive process
  ¨ Community consultation + other info sources
  ¨ A more comprehensive look at the project options



                                               www.inffer.org
      Comprehensive process
1. Develop a list of significant natural assets in the
    relevant region(s)
2. Apply an initial filter to the asset list, using a
    simplified set of criteria
3. Define projects and conduct detailed assessments
    of them
4. Select priority projects
5. Develop investment plans or funding proposals
6. Implement funded projects
7. Monitor, evaluate and adaptively manage projects


                                                www.inffer.org
     Rationale for the process
· Starts broad, with far too many assets
· Reduce list somewhat with simplified
  criteria
  ¨ No point in great sophistication at this
    stage
· Few enough make it through to make
  a good assessment practical




                                               www.inffer.org
      How long does it take?
· New user: around 5 person-days per asset to
  complete Project Assessment Form
· Experienced user: 1-2 days per asset, if
  information and experts accessible
· Could be extended to encompass detailed
  modelling if desired




                                        www.inffer.org
        What skills needed?
· Ideally, good knowledge of asset(s)
· Able to engage with experts
· Understand NRM projects – some experience
  in implementation
· Capture and interpret technical and socio-
  economic information
· Make judgements based on partial
  information


                                       www.inffer.org
    INFFER and knowledge gaps
·   Makes the best of the available info
·   Captures key knowledge gaps
·   Ratings for quality of information
·   Possible outcomes
    ¨ Project to fill knowledge gaps
    ¨ Data collection/investigation within the project
    ¨ Feasibility assessment as phase 1 of project
· Captures risks of project failure


                                                   www.inffer.org
                      www.inffer.org




Project Assessment Form
    Project Assessment Form
· Completed for every project
· Could be more than one alternative project
  for the same asset
· Guided process to collect the required
  information
· Detailed instruction manual




                                        www.inffer.org
    Project Assessment Form
· Web-based
  ¨ Instructions hidden until needed
  ¨ Automate calculations
  ¨ Easy navigation
  ¨ FAQs
  ¨ Example responses




                                       www.inffer.org
                1. The asset
·   Spatial definition of the asset
·   Significance/importance of the asset
·   Key threats
·   Existing projects




                                           www.inffer.org
            2. Goal, works
· Setting a specific, measurable, time-bound
  goal
· On-ground actions to achieve goal
· Actions by other organisations
· Time lags until benefits
· Effectiveness of works
· Risk of technical failure
· Spin-offs (positive and negative)


                                        www.inffer.org
         3. Socio-economics
· Anticipated adoption of works by private
  land/water managers
  ¨ Encompasses community capacity and
    knowledge
· Risk of practice changes for the worse
· Approvals
· Socio-economic risks




                                           www.inffer.org
                4. Budget
· Delivery mechanisms
  ¨ Private citizens
  ¨ Other organisations
  ¨ Works, investigation and management
· Costs
  v Up front (3-5 years)
  v Long-term maintenance costs




                                          www.inffer.org
              5. Project info
·   Project title
·   Project summary
·   Funder’s targets and outcomes
·   Outputs and intermediate outcomes




                                        www.inffer.org
                                         www.inffer.org




Public and private benefits
  and choice of NRM policy instruments
 Public: private benefits framework
· Selects the most appropriate policy tool for
  a given circumstance
· Relevant to change on private land




                                         www.inffer.org
    Public and private benefits
· “Private benefits” relate to the landholder
  making the decisions
· “Public benefits” relate to all others
  ¨ neighbours, downstream water users, city
    dwellers interested in biodiversity




                                               www.inffer.org
                  Possible projects

Each dot is a set of
land-use changes
on specific pieces       Lucerne
                         Farm B
of land = a project.                          Lucerne
                                              Farm A

Which tool?                        Current
                                   practice
• Incentives
• Extension
• Regulation
• New technology                               Forestry in
• No action                                    water
                                               catchment


                                                             www.inffer.org
    Alternative policy mechanisms
                  for seeking changes on private lands

Category                  Specific policy mechanisms included

Positive incentives       Financial or regulatory instrumentsA to encourage
                          change
Negative incentives       Financial or regulatory instrumentsA to inhibit change
Extension                 Technology transfer, education, communication,
                          demonstrations, support for community network
Technology change         Development of improved land management options,
                          e.g. through strategic R&D
No action                 Informed inaction



A
 Includes polluter-pays mechanisms (command and control, pollution tax, tradable permits,
offsets) and beneficiary-pays mechanisms (subsidies, conservation auctions and tenders).


                                                                               www.inffer.org
                     Simple rules
            for allocating mechanisms to projects
1. No positive incentives for land
    -use change unless public net
    benefits of change are
    positive.
2. No positive incentives if
    landholders would adopt land
    -use changes without those
    incentives.
3. No positive incentives if
    overall costs outweigh
    benefits.




                                                    www.inffer.org
Simple public-private framework




                           www.inffer.org
               How applied
· Project Assessment Form collects info
· Public net benefits
  ¨ Asset significance
  ¨ Threats, Effectiveness of works
  ¨ Time lags, Risks
· Private net benefits
  ¨ Adoption of the required works
· Does not dictate mechanisms: you choose


                                          www.inffer.org
                      www.inffer.org




Benefit: Cost Ratio
           The BCR


An index of benefits from the project
  Total costs (project and ongoing)




                                  www.inffer.org
   V´W                A´B               F´P´G                   1/(1 + r)L
 V: asset value      A: adoption         F: feasibility     L: time lag to benefits
W: effectiveness    B: compliance      P: socio-political       r: discount rate
    of works                         G: long-term funding




        Potential      E(prop’n                                Discount
                                             Risk of
         project    ´ of required     ´ (1 -                ´ factor for
                                             failure )
         benefits      adoption)                              time lags
BCR = ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
                                    Project cost


                                C + PV(M+E) ´ G
                                      C: project cost
                               M: annual maintenance cost
                            E: polluter-pays compliance costs
                         PV: summed present value over 20 years
                                   G: long-term funding


                                                                       www.inffer.org
                  Flexible
· Can compare large and small projects
· Can compare short and long projects
· Allows comparison of projects for different
  types of assets
  ¨ Waterways
  ¨ Wetlands
  ¨ Vegetation
  ¨ Threatened species
  ¨ Agricultural land


                                         www.inffer.org
       Example BCR ranking
    Project      Benefit: Cost Ratio   Budget

       4                10.0            $3m
       2                 8.1           $13m
       5                 7.2            $1m
       1                 4.0            $0.5
       6                 1.1            $1m
       3                 0.8            $9m



If budget = $17m, preferred projects are 4, 2 & 5

                                               www.inffer.org
      Advantages of the BCR
· Avoids common problems in metrics used for
  ranking environmental projects
  ¨ Add when they should multiply variables
  ¨ Fail to divide by project costs (e.g. subtract costs,
    or just leave it out!)
  ¨ Omit key variables (common to ignore adoption
    and technical feasibility)
  ¨ All three
· Cost of poor metrics is huge
  ¨ Benefits of investment roughly halved
  ¨ BCR can easily double environmental benefits

                                                  www.inffer.org
                        www.inffer.org




Interpretation and use of
         results
      Project assessment report
·   Title, summary, etc.
·   Benefit: Cost Ratio
·   Time lag until benefits delivered
·   Risks of project failure
·   Spin-offs
·   Quality of information
·   Key knowledge gaps



                                        www.inffer.org
                  Principles
·   The info is an input to decision making
·   BCR is not to be used mechanistically
·   All-things-considered judgement
·   Other things may matter
·   Need a process of QA to give the decision
    makers confidence




                                           www.inffer.org
             www.inffer.org




Challenges
              Challenges
· For many environmental managers it’s a
  very different way to do business
· Having to provide comprehensive info
· Particular concepts new to people
· Ideally, need an asset expert with
  comprehensive knowledge




                                       www.inffer.org
Typical problems for new people
· Difficulties with “asset” and goal
· Poor link between threat and works/actions
· Required land-use changes not quantified
· Tend to stick with comfort zones
· Unrealistic expectations of adoption
· Not adequately costed
· Insufficient detail to judge the project




                                               www.inffer.org
  Requirements to get through
· Training
· One-to-one support
  ¨ INFFER team offers training and one-to-one
    support
  ¨ Getting to resource limits
  ¨ Vic govt planning to provide a training/support
· Clear signals from government that there
  will be benefits to those managers who do it
  well


                                                www.inffer.org
Project Examples




                   www.inffer.org
  Example

   Upper
Lachlan River




                www.inffer.org
         Upper Lachlan River
· Goal – improve condition and connectivity, protect
  fish
· Threats – loss of habitat (riparian and in stream),
  sediments –nutrients, sand slugs
· Management – fencing, grazing exclusion, habitat
  restoration, sediment slug control, gully control,
  groundcover
· Moderate impact on threats




                                               www.inffer.org
  Upper Lachlan River (cont’d)
· Adoption
  ¨ Little/none without incentives
  ¨ Standard CMA cost sharing ~50% adoption
  ¨ Achievable for some elements, unlikely for larger
    management changes (gully, groundcover)
· Overall cost around $3 million
· BCR 3.6 (pretty good)




                                               www.inffer.org
Lachlan Ranges




                 www.inffer.org
            Lachlan Ranges
· High value, but not a ‘jewel’?
· Goal – high conservation vegetation
  ¨ Maintain extent and condition
· Threats – weeds, invasive native species, ag
  impacts
  ¨ Reduce threat from high to medium
· Management – grazing management, direct
  weed/pest control, reveg


                                         www.inffer.org
      Lachlan Ranges (cont)
· Adoption
  ¨ Little/none without incentives
  ¨ Standard CMA cost sharing anticipates >50%
    adoption
  ¨ Analysis recommended
    stewardship payments
  ¨ 7 landholders
  ¨ Overall cost $1.81 million
  ¨ BCR 4.65



                                            www.inffer.org
Patho Plains




               www.inffer.org
               Patho Plains
· Very high value
  ¨ Small remnants dispersed over large area
· Goal – high conservation vegetation
  ¨ Maintain extent and condition
· Threats – weeds, over grazing, cultivation
  ¨ Reduce threat from high to medium
· Management – grazing management, direct
  weed control



                                               www.inffer.org
         Patho Plains (cont)
· Adoption
  ¨ Little/none without incentives
  ¨ Current MBI payments ® 25-50% adoption
  ¨ 100+ landholders
  ¨ Overall cost $5 million
  ¨ BCR 1.75




                                             www.inffer.org
            Acknowledgements
· Affiliations of the INFFER team
  ¨   University of Western Australia
  ¨   Department of Primary Industries, Victoria
  ¨   North Central Catchment Management Authority
  ¨   Future Farm Industries CRC

· Other key funders
  ¨ Australian Research Council (Federation Fellow Program)
  ¨ Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the
    Arts (CERF Program)
  ¨ Department of Sustainability and Environment , Victoria




                                                      www.inffer.org

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:7/22/2013
language:English
pages:59