Upload
preston-callicoat
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.inffer.org
INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources)
Background and Overview
www.inffer.org
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) Avon (WA) South Coast (WA) Northern Agric (WA) Rangelands (WA) Perth (WA) Lachlan (NSW) Central West (NSW) Border Rivers/Gwydir
(NSW)
Northern Rivers (NSW) Namoi (NSW) North East (Vic) North Central (Vic) Corangamite (Vic) West Gippsland (Vic) East Gippsland (Vic) Goulburn Broken (Vic) Port Phillip & Westernport
(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•Intact native veg•Cultural heritage •Woodland birds
Wetland•Listed on register•Last of its type
Threatened species•Flagship•Critically endangered
Native vegetation•Concentration of threatened species•Near pristine condition•Important location
Asset types
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 focus1. 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-effectiveness3. 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
The INFFER Process
www.inffer.org
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 process1. 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
Project Assessment Form
www.inffer.org
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 Up front (3-5 years) 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
Public and private benefitsand choice of NRM policy instruments
www.inffer.org
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
Pu
blic
ne
t be
ne
fits
0 Private net benefits
Possible projects
Each dot is a set of land-use changes on specific pieces of land = a project. Lucerne
Farm A
LucerneFarm B
Forestry in water catchment
Current practice
Which tool?• Incentives• Extension• Regulation• New technology• No action
www.inffer.org
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
AIncludes polluter-pays mechanisms (command and control, pollution tax, tradable permits, offsets) and beneficiary-pays mechanisms (subsidies, conservation auctions and tenders).
Alternative policy mechanisms for seeking changes on private lands
www.inffer.org
Simple rulesfor 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.
Private net benefit
Pu
blic
net
ben
efit
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
www.inffer.org
Simple public-private framework
Private net benefit
Pu
bli
c n
et b
enef
it
0
Positive incentives or technology change
Extension
No action (or flexible negative
incentives)
Negative incentives
No action(or extension or negative incentives)
No action
Technology change (or no action)
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
Benefit: Cost Ratio
www.inffer.org
The BCR
An index of benefits from the project
Total costs (project and ongoing)
www.inffer.org
BCR = ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
Project cost
Potential project benefits
E(prop’n of required adoption)
(1 Risk of failure
) Discountfactor fortime lags
V W V: asset value
W: effectivenessof works
A B A: adoption
B: compliance
F P GF: feasibility
P: socio-politicalG: long-term funding
1/(1 + r)L
L: time lag to benefitsr: discount rate
C + PV(M+E) G C: project cost
M: annual maintenance costE: polluter-pays compliance costs
PV: summed present value over 20 yearsG: 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 rankingProject 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
Interpretation and use of results
www.inffer.org
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
Challenges
www.inffer.org
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 $5 million BCR 1.75
-100
-50
0
50
100
-100 -50 0 50 100
Private net benefit ($/ha/year)
Pu
bli
c n
et b
enef
it (
$/h
a/ye
ar)
Positive incentives or tech change Extension
No action
Negative incentives
Technology change (or no action)
No action(or extension or negative incentives)
No action (or flexible negative incentives)
No action
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