The paper is based on the presentation given by Melanie Strang (Director of Ecoedge Environmental Pty Ltd) at The Society for Ecological Restoration Conference, Avignon 2010. For more information: http://www.ecoedge.com.au or Follow on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ecoedge

1. Proceedings 7th European Conference on Ecological Restoration Avignon, France, 23-27/08/2010
DETERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
– A NEW FRAMEWORK
MELANIE STRANGA, DAVID J. PANNELLB,D, ANNA M. ROBERTSC,D,E, GEOFF PARKD,F,
JENNIFER ALEXANDERC
A
Ecoedge Environmental Pty Ltd, PO Box 1180 Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia 6231 melanie@ecoedge.com.au
B
School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia
C
Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia
D
Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre, Western Australia
E
Formerly known as Anna M. Ridley
F
North Central Catchment Management Authority, Victoria, Australia
Abstract: Environmental problems are often much larger than the budgets allocated for addressing them,
and many public programs fail to achieve outcomes cost-effectively. A new tool that enables transparent,
effective and informed decision making regarding investment in environmental projects has been
developed and is now used extensively in Australia. Called INFFER (Investment Framework for
Environmental Resources), this tool is a seven-step process that assists users to identify the most valued
environmental assets (for example rivers, wetlands, endangered species, highly valued agricultural land)
in their regions, and determine which ones are the most cost-effective to protect. INFFER uses available
science and gives priority to highly valued natural assets that are highly threatened or degraded, with high
technical feasibility of avoiding or repairing that damage, and high likelihood of adoption of the required
works by relevant land managers. INFFER has been used in nineteen of the fifty six natural resource
management regions throughout Australia and in several state government agencies. The first northern
hemisphere trial is currently being undertaken with the University of Florence and there is strong interest
in North America. Other partnership opportunities are being investigated in Europe.
Keywords: invasive species, disturbance by fire, biodiversity policy, water policy, environmental policy, socio-economics of
nature restoration, decision support
Introduction
Funds for the conservation, repair and maintenance of the natural environment are often
substantially less than what is realistically required. In Australia, as in other countries, costs
associated with these activities are often under-estimated, leading to many programs not
achieving stated goals and to environmental assets remaining at risk. The Australian National
Audit Office has expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of current environmental
investment programs (Auditor General, 2008). Substantial increases in funding available to
environmental managers appear unlikely for the foreseeable future. It is therefore important that
the available funds are used effectively, and that those making decisions regarding funding
allocation have confidence in comprehensiveness and transparency of the project proposals put
before them.
Fifty-six community-based regional groups in Australia are responsible for planning and
delivering publicly funded environmental projects, funded by programs such as Caring for Our
Country. In order to secure funding, these groups must develop high-quality project proposals
that are aligned with the federal government’s stated investment priorities. They must also
indicate a high likelihood of achieving stated outcomes. To facilitate the development of well-
considered projects and enhance the assessment of those projects, a new framework, the
Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (INFFER), was developed and is now
extensively used. Simultaneously considering biophysical, social, technical and economic
parameters, as well as providing an indication of cost-effectiveness and guidance on appropriate
policy mechanisms, the new framework facilitates the development of robust, self-substantiating
project proposals and subsequently enables confidence in investment decision making.
This paper will provide an overview of the INFFER framework and present a case study
application from the north of the state of Western Australia.
1

2. Ecological Restoration and Sustainable Development - Establishing Links Across Frontiers
Methods: Description of the framework
INFFER was specifically designed to be asset-based, meaning that it focuses on areas of
greatest environmental significance in a region or area. ‘Assets’ can be lakes or wetlands, rivers,
nature reserves, plants, land, marine areas or other natural things; the only qualifying factor is
that they must physically exist and be spatially explicit. The seven-step process begins with
guiding users through the initial asset identification and screening process, which usually
involves consideration of existing scientific knowledge as well as community and stakeholder
consultation.
Once assets have been identified and screened to identify preliminary priorities, projects to
address threats to these assets are developed by way of the Project Assessment Form (PAF).
This step involves rigorous consideration of all aspects of the project and is generally
undertaken using input from local experts, technical advisors, local socio-political (community)
experts and others. In this step, goals are set and actions required to achieve them are
determined; here also impacts such as community support or opposition and effects of actions
(or lack of action) by other organisations on the achievement of the goals are considered. The
most appropriate and relevant policy mechanism to secure engagement in the project is
determined through use of the ‘Public-Private Benefits Framework’ (Pannell, 2008), and then,
based on this and the recommended actions, the proposed budget is developed. Values, risk
parameters, feasibility parameters and the short and long-term costs of the project (which have
been captured throughout the PAF process) are applied to a formula which calculates a Benefit-
Cost Index, which indicates the project’s cost effectiveness or value for money. Step four
involves the assessment of completed PAFs and culminates in an Investment Plan in Step five.
Project implementation and monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management complete the
process as Steps six and seven respectively.
Benefit-Cost Index
One of the primary objectives of the framework is to embed economic thinking into the analysis
and decision processes of environmental managers. The Benefit-Cost Index (BCI) generated
through the process is one of the key outputs of INFFER. The BCI creates the opportunity to
compare projects of different types, scales and durations with one another based on their relative
cost-effectiveness or value for money. It facilitates this because it expresses benefits in a
common unit of measure (a score standardised against an asset of high national significance),
divides benefits by costs to allow comparison of relative cost-effectiveness, and discounts future
benefits and costs to calculate their present values (Pannell, 2010). Higher priority projects are
those with higher index values.
INFFER is a strongly supported, with training and technical assistance available. All
documentation including completed examples, FAQs and templates are available online free of
charge at www.inffer.org
Methods: Case study – Fire Sensitive Vegetation Communities of Hamersley Ranges
As part of the development of their regional planning strategy, Rangelands Natural Resource
Management Region, a regional land management council in the northwest of Western
Australia, trialled the use of INFFER to develop and prioritise projects that would protect
important assets of the region. An asset prioritisation process was undertaken prior to the
INFFER trial, with assets essentially ranked based on results of a threat-value matrix
assessment. One of the exceptional assets, located approximately 1040 km north-northeast of
Perth, was the Hamersley Ranges; a national biodiversity hotspot containing the Karijini
National Park. The vegetation communities of the ranges resulted in the asset being scored as of
‘exceptional’ value. Land within the ranges is owned and/or managed by various organisations
including mining companies, pastoralists, the state conservation agency and local government.
To further define the asset, discussions were held regarding the relative degree and urgency of
threats to the vegetation communities present and the range of natural values provided by them
2

3. Proceedings 7th European Conference on Ecological Restoration Avignon, France, 23-27/08/2010
(such as habitat values or relictual characteristics) with technical advisors from state agencies
and universities as well as local regional staff. This resulted in three vegetation communities, all
vastly different in characteristic and location, being selected as the asset. They are those located
in topographically protected areas such as gorges, wetlands and hilltops; Mulga vegetation
communities on low slopes; and the long-unburnt fire sensitive Spinifex vegetation
communities. As the three communities shared the common threat of being susceptible to
inappropriate fire regimes, they were considered under the one analysis.
An experienced INFFER officer travelled to the region to guide and assist with the process of
project assessment. For this particular asset, there were two key technical experts of which one,
a state environment agency employee with more than twenty year’s local experience, was the
primary expert. Additional advice was sourced where required and where possible from
literature, university, regional staff and other agency staff.
The PAF was completed over 5 days, with two days of intensive discussion held with the
technical advisor(s) and others. Projected onto a screen for ease of collaboration, the PAF was
‘live’ during these discussions, with all agreed comments and conclusions captured. The
INFFER officer processed the information collected, creating drafts that were then reviewed and
approved by the contributors.
In-depth discussions were held around: achieving agreement on the three key threats;
determining the current extent of and recommended actions to control specific weed species;
determining the most appropriate control methods for feral grazing animals; the best ways to
achieve effective combinations of a) summer burning which was used by pastoralists but not
undertaken on lands managed by the state agency and b) the use of strategic buffers which are
used by state agencies but not by pastoralists. The latter was the most important discussion in
the process as it revolves around a highly political topic, and one that if resolved, has the
potential to significantly reduce the threat of wildfire.
Results
The completed PAF clearly illustrated the value of the vegetation communities in question, and
provided substantial information regarding actions that needed to be implemented to protect
them from the identified threats. Three SMART (Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant,
Time-bound) goals were set for the project, based around maintenance or improvement of asset
condition rather than based on actions. The level of threat to the asset was estimated to be 76-
100% loss of asset value in the absence of the proposed 5-year project, or 26-50% with the
project in place. The analysis provided a clear case for investment. The cost of the project was
substantial at AU$4 million; however, the Benefit-Cost Index was very high at 24.22, indicating
that the project is likely to provide excellent value for money.
The in-depth consideration of the social and political aspects of the project also brought to light
the fact that much more emphasis needed to be placed on communication between the state
conservation agency and pastoralists regarding the reasoning behind their different management
regimes, and to foster a mutually supportive relationship that would result in a cooperative
future approach.
Discussion
Based on the information contained within the PAF, Rangelands Natural Resource Management
(NRM) consider this project to be a high priority for investment. In the 18 months since the
INFFER trial was completed, both Rangelands NRM and the state conservation agency have
made substantial investments towards stated project goals and have used the PAF to guide
project development and prioritise actions. The project is not aligned with current Federal
Government investment priorities and so has been unable to attract funding from that source but
it remains a priority for Rangelands NRM.
3

4. Ecological Restoration and Sustainable Development - Establishing Links Across Frontiers
One of the most positive results of this INFFER process has been the establishment of open and
willing communication between stakeholders, particularly the state agency and pastoralists.
Prior to this project, these land managers approached fire risk reduction in completely different
ways, both of which had merits. Through the INFFER process, it became clear that both groups
needed to adopt aspects of the management styles of the other, so that both were implementing a
more comprehensive and complementary regime. The recent regional investment, which
delivered meetings, workshops and the establishment of a representative working group, has
resulted in the formation of an effective working relationship between these key stakeholder
groups. For the state agency, which has a legislative responsibility to manage fire risk, to have
the local landholders cooperating is a significant achievement, and one which makes
implementation, review and ongoing adaption of their fire management plan a much easier task.
The state agency has also committed to implementing their fire management regime within the
framework of the collaborative approach, giving confidence to pastoralists into the future.
Conclusion
Early in the process it became apparent that funds required to implement a fully comprehensive
project were unlikely to be obtained. The PAF process resulted in a smaller, more targeted
project that was developed in a concise and transparent proposal. The INFFER assessment
provided a clear, justifiable reason for bridging a social and political gap that had existed for
many years; by addressing the social and political risks identified in the PAF, a new
environment of cooperation and support between key stakeholders has been created that will
result in improved outcomes for the asset in question, even in the absence of full funding.
Since this initial trial, Rangelands NRM have undertaken numerous INFFER assessments, with
at least four more ‘exceptional’ or ‘very high’ ranked assets being assessed. This proactive
preparation of fully developed project proposals puts them in a strong position when new
funding opportunities emerge.
Whilst INFFER was developed and is most widely used in Australia, principles of the
framework are applicable internationally. In addition to the primary deliverables of the process,
other non-project-related outcomes of INFFER, such as those detailed above, have been noted
by users across Australia. It is likely that similar benefits would also result from international
applications.
INFFER will continue to be trialled, piloted and or applied throughout natural resource
management regions and government agencies in Australia. The first international application,
currently being undertaken by the University of Florence with the Siena Province, will be
completed in late 2010. There is strong interest for trial applications in Canada and interest from
the US, Ireland, England and the Netherlands.
References
Australian National Audit Office (2008) Audit Report No.21 2007–08. Performance Audit: Regional Delivery Model for the Natural
Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality
Pannell, D.J. (2008). Public benefits, private benefits, and policy intervention for land-use change for environmental benefits, Land
Economics 84(2): 225-240.
Pannell, D.J., Roberts, A.M., Park, G., Curatolo, A. and Marsh, S. (2010). INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental
Resources): Practical and Theoretical Underpinnings, INFFER Working Paper 1001, University of Western Australia.
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/dp1001.htm
Pannell, D.J., Roberts, A.M., Park, G., Curatolo, A., Marsh, S. and Alexander, J., (2009). INFFER (Investment Framework For
Environmental Resources), INFFER Working Paper 0901, University of Western Australia, Perth.
http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/dp0901.htm
4