1 / 14

INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources)

INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources). Gippsland Lakes INFFER assessment results presentation. Gippsland Lakes. Important national asset with agreed goal Gippsland Lakes Taskforce Agreed goal: 40% nutrient reduction Test INFFER on large, complex asset Mutual benefit:

stevie
Download Presentation

INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources) Gippsland Lakes INFFER assessment results presentation

  2. Gippsland Lakes • Important national asset with agreed goal • Gippsland Lakes Taskforce • Agreed goal: 40% nutrient reduction • Test INFFER on large, complex asset • Mutual benefit: • Underpin business case for Taskforce • Additional credibility for INFFER

  3. What we have done • Developed agreement with GLTF • Appointed Peter Cottingham to work with us • Collated previous information • Inception meeting (14 people) • Technical workshop (16 people) • Adoption workshop (12 people) • Workshop with Chris Barry and Barry Hart • Review assumptions • Provide guidance • Additional specialist input • External review (Tony Ladson, Dan Rattray, Darron Cook)

  4. Outputs • Updated land use layer • Better basis for future work • Gippsland P load tool • Integrates previous load modelling, effectiveness, adoption and cost assumptions • Underpins scenario analysis • Benefit:Cost Ratio Calculator • Uses costs from P tool as input • Considers all the other important factors • Report to GLTF • 18 scenarios • Economic optimisation analysis • Highlights knowledge gaps • Detailed assessment for 20 and 40% P options

  5. Scenarios analysed • 40, 30, 20 and 10% P least cost • $2, 5 and 10 million/year/5 years + on-going maintenance costs • As above but no on-going costs • Current incentives – 3 scenarios • Effluent enforcement • Streambanks only – 50% and 20% effective • Higher lakes value

  6. Land use Forest - production, plantation Horticulture/cropping High rainfall mixed dairy-beef Dryland dairy Dryland beef-sheep Irrigated dairy

  7. 40% 30% P 20% 10% 789 mil PV 20yrs 0.04 BCR Dryland dairy/high rainfall mixed dairy-beef – Full cost all BMP’s; Full enforcement of effluent management Stream bank– Full cost bank stabilisation over 99% or priority waterways Irrigated dairy – Full cost all BMP’s; full enforcement of effluent management Dryland beef-sheep – Full cost all BMP’s Forest production & plantation – Full cost road improvements Retirement of 2,415 ha of irrigated dairy land out of agriculture

  8. 40% 30% P 20% 10% 73 mil PV 20yrs 1.1 BCR Stream bank – Full cost, streambank protection on 90% of priority waterways Irrigated dairy – Current incentives for tailwater re-use (30%) & pressurised irrigation(40%); Full enforcement effluent management, (80%); Current incentives irrigated farm plans(98%)

  9. 40% 30% P 20% 10% 16 mil PV 20yrs 3.2 BCR Stream bank – Current incentives for streambank stabilisation bank stabilisation offered on 73% of priority waterways Irrigated dairy – Current inventives, presurised irrigation conversion on 40% of relevant land

  10. Some scenarios 584 38 0.04 117 0.32 10 54 2.5 1.1 10 0.6 3.2 25 8 0.8 25 0 2.0 1 14 1.6 5 1 2. 0

  11. Gippsland Lakes: key results

  12. Time taken to complete • 100 person days • 40+ was for workshop engagement • Medium/large scale assets 10-15 days • Small assets 2-5 days • Learning costs for 1st assessments • Should be viewed as due diligence for large public investments

  13. Several reflections • Knowledge gaps • Link between P and algal blooms • N • Connectivity issues • Lack of integration of available info • Large costs, low BCR for 40% no surprise • Plenty of opportunity for high BCR projects on components of Lakes catchment (if staff trained) • Need for long term incentives tied to performance and enforced regulation • Voluntary BMPs wont get far enough • The bigger the target the more impact on agriculture • Pressures on lakes will increase (dairying) • Reconsider P and N targets

  14. How does INFFER add value? • Strong basis for business case • More effective use of public $ • Budget certainty and longevity is crucial • Internal consistency • Basis for strategic direction and debate • What % P target should be aimed for? • More realism about agricultural and environmental trade-offs required • Challenges some existing approaches • Reduces bias in decision making • Review current emphasis • Assumptions are transparent

More Related