directions MAKE A COMMENT

the investment framework and plan

13.1 the framework

The Investment Framework builds on the assessment of priority threats to economic, environmental and social assets made in the RCS[20]. The Investment Framework:

assesses the efficiency and effectiveness of possible management options for target achievement
analyses the fixed and variable costs to achieve the specified targets[21]
estimates the amount of investment required from direct RCS funding and from co-investors
estimates the sub-Regional distribution of required investment using indicators of the severity of each threat to each asset class at sub-Regional level, and, on the basis of the above
generates an Investment Plan and cost shares

The RCS Investment Framework and Plan is thus designed as an instrument that will allow the CCMA to continually judge new investment priorities (including fund-seeking priorities) against recorded progress in reaching aspirational, time-indexed targets.

The Investment Framework proceeds through the following steps:

13.2 assess efficiency and effectiveness of management options

As in the past, management options are first developed at the Supporting Strategy level, where the expertise lies. In future, however, the difference will be that the method of prioritising actions within each Supporting Strategy will be based on cost-effectiveness (best triple-bottom line outcomes per dollar invested). Community stakeholders are involved alongside technical experts in generating possible management options, fitting these to detailed assessment of threats to assets, and assessing the likely effectiveness of each option. In future, the Region will work to ensure a consistent approach to prioritising activities across Supporting Strategies, using the Triple Bottom Line assessment methods described in RCS Report 11: A Framework for integrating investment across natural resources supporting strategies for the Corangamite RCS 2002-2007 (see Annex I). Following this step, each Supporting Strategy is presumed to be selecting those activities that return the greatest social, environmental and economic payoff per dollar invested,from the point of view of that particular Strategy.

Management options across the RCS Supporting Strategies fall into the following classes:

works (e.g. waterway reconstruction, revegetation, pest elimination, weed removal, groundwater pumping)
research and development
investigations, monitoring and evaluation
policy development, planning and regulation
stewardship (e.g. ongoing practices of land managers)
community capacity building
communication plan, and
education and information dissemination

Supporting Strategies differ in their management options.[22]

The Supporting Strategies that address water issues such as Water Quality (in preparation), River Health, and Floodplain Management, have a high proportion of activity in works (such as waterway reconstruction, upgrades to flood protection barriers and retention structures, and physical or vegetative interception of nutrients); a wide variety of planning/ regulation initiatives; and ongoing investigation/monitoring, including telemetry systems. In the next five years there will also be increased activity in developing Streamflow Management Plans.
The Draft Corangamite Salinity Action Plan 2003-2008 emphasises prioritisation according to hazard assessment and intervention activities, to enhance the community’s capacity for ongoing management of primary and secondary saline areas, for productive use and biodiversity enhancement; on-ground investments include wetlands protection and enhancement; selective fencing and tree planting for recharge management; and engineering options for urban saline discharge control. The plan has utilised the policy framework of the Victorian Salinity Management Framework 2000 to develop its regional style.
Pest Management is largely being addressed through planning; encouragement of adequate stewardship and duty of care, notably through property management planning; and community education. There is little direct intervention for weed control except on roadsides, some public land, and rapid response to new and emerging weed species, due to the limited funding available to the pest management program at present.
Threats to native vegetation are being addressed through some works for re-establishment of native vegetation, but mainly through initiatives in the area of planning and regulations aimed at achieving the principles of “net gain”, and working towards a comprehensive reserve system.
Landscape and infrastructure planning, and the regulation and management of hydrological regimes, water quality, flora and fauna in coastal environments, including shoreline, estuaries and marine waters are contained in the Central West Victoria Regional Coastal Action Plan, local area plans including the Swan Bay Estuary, and the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site Strategic Management Plan.
Social assets, including heritage and recreational sites, and landscape quality do not have dedicated Supporting Strategies, but are highlighted in other Supporting Strategies, notably the Draft Corangamite River Health Strategy and the Central West Victoria Regional Coastal Action Plan.
Sustainable land management initiatives are not currently expressed as a Supporting Strategy, however CCMA, DPI and DSE are actively supporting the adoption of best management practices and initiatives of key agronomic industry partners.
There are no Supporting Strategies dealing directly with groundwater quantity or quality (excluding Salinity – in the Draft Salinity Action Plan 2003-2008); climate change/variability (other than in the Floodplain Management Strategy); or fauna.

13.3 check for consistency and completeness at sub-regional level

Supporting Strategies for natural resource management in the Corangamite Region have been developed around specific issues, and need to be integrated at local landscape level. Some Supporting Strategies begin to integrate with other strategies (for example, management of pest animals and plants has deliberately focused on priority localities for nutrients and salinity action) but this has not been universal.

The NRM Integration Matrix[23] identifies all aspects of NRM that must be in satisfactory condition in a sub-Region if each priority asset-threat is to be handled effectively. For example, in rehabilitating a wetland or estuary it is usually necessary to achieve integrated action across water flow volumes, water quality, fringing vegetation, agronomic practices, waste management, pest management and development control. A general version of the NRM Integration Matrix showing key threats to assets for the Region as a whole, was reduced to six smaller matrices, each examining the priority threats to assets in each sub-Region. The matrix for a sub-Region then provides a checklist against which the management actions proposed in Supporting Strategies are reviewed to ensure they provide complementary actions.

13.4 fit targets against costs

Fixed and variable costs of each management option per unit of achievement are used to estimate the costs of reaching RCS aspirational targets for resource condition within given time-frames.

The level of investment to each Priority is set where there is an acceptable fit between the costs of management options and the likely target that will be achieved with that investment. This involves a trade-off: reaching a target faster requires more investment, with consequences for other targets.

13.5 make tradeoffs between supporting strategies

Once the Supporting Strategies have been checked for consistency and completeness at the sub-Regional level, tradeoffs between Supporting Strategies begin by organising the ranked possible actions into those considered:

essential (highly cost effective);
marginal (medium cost-effectiveness, and must be compared carefully with possible actions in other Supporting Strategies); and
low return (lower cost effectiveness and unlikely to be supported without increased resources).

Allocation choices centre on looking for the greatest environmental, social and net economic benefit across all Supporting Strategies. The following questions will be considered in assessing marginal elements across Supporting Strategies.

To what degree are the ultimate targets of the different Supporting Strategies being achieved?
Are the needs of each sub-Region being served?
Is there critical mass for achieving the targets?
Is the timing of an action important in deciding to give it higher or lower priority?
Are the resources available to a Supporting Strategy being fully employed?
Has there been sufficient assessment of Triple Bottom Line payoffs of the elements across Supporting Strategies?
Is the planning of Supporting Strategy elements well advanced?
Are there policy or social factors that favour the marginal elements of one Supporting Strategy as compared with other supporting Strategies?

While this rating process involves difficult judgements at the margin, this method will ensure that the highest ranked actions within each Supporting Strategy are undertaken given the available resources.

13.6 the investment plan

The RCS Investment Plan is a prospectus that contains information for all potential investors to assist them in making informed decisions about any project that falls within the scope of the RCS[24]. The Investment Plan:

quantifies the improvements in resource condition that can be expected from specific investments in natural resource management
coordinates effort across different investors
supports communities in their bids for funding, and
defines key indicators for monitoring and evaluation

Two broad categories of investor are identified in the Investment Plan:

direct investors - State and National agencies including CCMA, DPI and parts of DSE that will be funded directly through recommendations within the RCS
co-investors - public and private sector organisations, companies and individuals whose financial inputs will be essential to realising the overall objectives of the RCS. They include independently funded sections of DSE, DPI, Parks Victoria, and Southern Rural Water, as well as local government and the private sector (i.e. industry, the farming community, the forestry industry and the wider Corangamite community)

The Investment Plan provides long-term financial goals rather than a precise blueprint for implementation, because financial support for RCS implementation will be negotiated progressively from many different public and private sources. CCMA, DPI and DSE can and do exercise some discretion about the amount of financial resources that are to be allocated to individual management activities within their respective RCS programs, but none of these agencies has absolute control over the total financial resources that may become available, the sources of funds, or their distribution across different Supporting Strategies and management options. The RCS Investment Plan is therefore as much about raising financial resources as about allocating them.

RCS Report 11 Investment Plan and Cost Sharing at Regional and Sub-Regional Level, provides a detailed five-year investment requirements by type of asset and by sub-Region.

The total five-year investment needed to support all RCS targets is estimated at $138M at 2002/2003 prices, of which $99M is from RCS-sourced funds (including CCMA and DSE overheads and administrative services, estimated at $21M), and $39M is required co-investment by non-RCS funded public and private sector organisations and individuals. Expenditure within the annual Regional Management Plan budget needs to increase in real terms from $12M in 2002/2003, to $20M on an annual average basis.

Areas where the required investment of RCS funds is significantly higher on an annual basis than appears in the 2002/2003 Regional Management Plan are:

Surface water/ water use –flow stresses
Surface water/ water use – nutrients, sediment and other contaminants
Ground water management (quantity and quality)
Infrastructure –salinity threat
Land use – salinity threat
Native vegetation –loss and degradation threats
Heritage value protection
Recreational asset protection and enhancement
Landscape protection and enhancement, and
Community capacity building

The greatest difference between 2002/2003 expenditure and forward requirements in the Five-Year Investment Plan is in the area of nutrients. However, the five-year plan projection is consistent with the Corangamite Nutrient Management Plan. In addition, a number of items have been included, that flow from new NAP and NHT initiatives: notably research & development; new “Regional Projects”, and increased attention to catchment-coastal zone issues