Strategy for the development of investment decision-making framework for road asset management for queensland department of main roads

The aim of this project is to develop a systematic investment decision-making framework for infrastructure asset management by incorporation economic justification, social and environmental consideration in the decision-making process. This project assesses the factors that are expected to provide significant impacts on the variability of expenditures. A procedure for assessing risk and reliability for project investment appraisals will be developed. The project investigates public perception, social and environmental impacts on road infrastructure investment. This research will contribute to the debate about how important social and environmental issues should be incorporated into the investment decision-making process for infrastructure asset management.

Asset allocation policy, returns and expenses of superannuation funds : recent evidence based on default options

We examine the asset allocation, returns, and expenses of superannuation funds whose assets are mainly invested in default investment options between 2004 and 2012. A majority of these funds fail to earn returns commensurate with their strategic asset allocation policy. It appears that much of the variation of returns between the funds might be a result of their engaging in significant active management of assets. Our results indicate that returns from active management are negatively related to expenses. We also find strong evidence of economies of scale existing in these superannuation funds across different size categories.

Shareholder values, not shareholder value : the role of 'ethical funds' and 'ethical entrepreneurs' in connecting shareholders' values with their investments

This article rebuts the still-common assumption that managers of capitalist entities have a duty, principally or even exclusively, to maximise the monetary return to investors on their investments. It argues that this view is based on a misleadingly simplistic conception of human values and motivation. Not only is acting solely to maximise long-term shareholder value difficult, it displays, at best, banal single-mindedness and, at worst, sociopathy. In fact, real investors and managers have rich constellations of values that should be taken account of in all their decisions, including their business decisions. Awareness of our values, and public expression of our commitment to exemplify them, make for healthier investment and, in the long term, a healthier corporate world. Individuals and funds investing on the basis of such values, in companies that express their own, display humanity rather than pathology. Preamble I always enjoyed the discussions that Michael Whincop and I had about the interaction of ethics and economics. Each of us could see an important role for these disciplines, as well as our common discipline of law. We also shared an appreciation of the institutional context within which much of the drama of life is played out. In understanding the behaviour of individuals and the choices they make, it seemed axiomatic to each of us that ethics and economics have a lot to say. This was also true of the institutions in which they operate. Michael ·had a strong interest in 'the new institutional economics' I and I had a strong interest in 'institutionalising ethics' right through the 1990s.' This formed the basis of some fascinating and fruitful discussions. Professor Charles Sampford is Director, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Foundation Professor of Law at Griffith University and President, International Institute for Public Ethics.DrVirginia Berry is a Research Fellow at theKey Centre for Ethics, Law,Justice andGovernance, Griffith University. Oliver Williamson, one of the leading proponents of the 'new institutional economics', published a number of influential works - see Williamson (1975, 1995,1996). Sampford (1991),' pp 185-222. The primary focus of discussions on institutionalising ethics has been in public sectorethics: see, for example, Preston and Sampford (2002); Sampford (1994), pp 114-38. Some discussion has, however, moved beyond the public sector to include business - see Sampford 200408299

Socially responsible investment in market downturns : implications for the fiduciary responsibilities of investment fund trustees

This paper investigates whether Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is more or less sensitive to market downturns than conventional investment, and examines the legal implications for fund managers and trustees. Using a market model methodology, we find that over the past 15 years, the beta risk of SRI, both in Australia and internationally, increased more than that of conventional investment during economic downturns. This implies that companies acting as fund trustees, managed investment schemes and traditional institutional fund managers risk breaching their fiduciary or statutory duties if they go long - or remain long - in SRI funds during market downturns, unless perhaps relevant legislation is reformed. If reform is viewed as desirable, possible reforms could include explicitly overriding the common law to allow all traditional funds to invest in SRI; granting immunity to directors of trustee companies from potential personal liability under sections 197 or 588G et seq of the Corporations Act; allowing companies acting as trustees, managed investment schemes and traditional institutional fund managers and trustees to invest in SRI without triggering a substantial capital gains tax liability through trust resettlement; tax concessions for SRI (eg. introducing a 150% tax deduction or investment allowance for SRI); and allowing SRI sub-funds to obtain “deductible gift recipient” status or the equivalent from relevant taxation authorities. The research is important and original insofar as the assessment of risk in SRIs during market downturns is an area which has hitherto not been subjected to rigorous empirical investigation, despite its serious legal implications.

A process for the management of physical infrastructure

Physical infrastructure assets are important components of our society and our economy. They are usually designed to last for many years, are expected to be heavily used during their lifetime, carry considerable load, and are exposed to the natural environment. They are also normally major structures, and therefore present a heavy investment, requiring constant management over their life cycle to ensure that they perform as required by their owners and users. Given a complex and varied infrastructure life cycle, constraints on available resources, and continuing requirements for effectiveness and efficiency, good management of infrastructure is important. While there is often no one best management approach, the choice of options is improved by better identification and analysis of the issues, by the ability to prioritise objectives, and by a scientific approach to the analysis process. The abilities to better understand the effect of inputs in the infrastructure life cycle on results, to minimise uncertainty, and to better evaluate the effect of decisions in a complex environment, are important in allocating scarce resources and making sound decisions. Through the development of an infrastructure management modelling and analysis methodology, this thesis provides a process that assists the infrastructure manager in the analysis, prioritisation and decision making process. This is achieved through the use of practical, relatively simple tools, integrated in a modular flexible framework that aims to provide an understanding of the interactions and issues in the infrastructure management process. The methodology uses a combination of flowcharting and analysis techniques. It first charts the infrastructure management process and its underlying infrastructure life cycle through the time interaction diagram, a graphical flowcharting methodology that is an extension of methodologies for modelling data flows in information systems. This process divides the infrastructure management process over time into self contained modules that are based on a particular set of activities, the information flows between which are defined by the interfaces and relationships between them. The modular approach also permits more detailed analysis, or aggregation, as the case may be. It also forms the basis of ext~nding the infrastructure modelling and analysis process to infrastructure networks, through using individual infrastructure assets and their related projects as the basis of the network analysis process. It is recognised that the infrastructure manager is required to meet, and balance, a number of different objectives, and therefore a number of high level outcome goals for the infrastructure management process have been developed, based on common purpose or measurement scales. These goals form the basis of classifYing the larger set of multiple objectives for analysis purposes. A two stage approach that rationalises then weights objectives, using a paired comparison process, ensures that the objectives required to be met are both kept to the minimum number required and are fairly weighted. Qualitative variables are incorporated into the weighting and scoring process, utility functions being proposed where there is risk, or a trade-off situation applies. Variability is considered important in the infrastructure life cycle, the approach used being based on analytical principles but incorporating randomness in variables where required. The modular design of the process permits alternative processes to be used within particular modules, if this is considered a more appropriate way of analysis, provided boundary conditions and requirements for linkages to other modules, are met. Development and use of the methodology has highlighted a number of infrastructure life cycle issues, including data and information aspects, and consequences of change over the life cycle, as well as variability and the other matters discussed above. It has also highlighted the requirement to use judgment where required, and for organisations that own and manage infrastructure to retain intellectual knowledge regarding that infrastructure. It is considered that the methodology discussed in this thesis, which to the author's knowledge has not been developed elsewhere, may be used for the analysis of alternatives, planning, prioritisation of a number of projects, and identification of the principal issues in the infrastructure life cycle.

Priority threat management of invasive plant species in the Lake Eyre Basin

This project is led by scientists in conservation decision appraisal and brings together a group of experts working across the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). The LEB covers a sixth of Australia, with an array of globally significant natural values that are threatened by invasive plants, among other things. Managers at various levels are investing in attempts to control, contain and eradicate these invasive plant species, under severe time and resources limitations. To date there has been no basin-wide assessment of which weed management strategies and locations provide the best investments for maximising outcomes for biodiversity per unit cost. Further, there has been no assessment of the extent of ecosystem intactness that may be lost without effective invasive plant species management strategies. Given that there are insufficient resources to manage all invasive plant species everywhere, this information has the potential to improve current investment decisions. Here, we provide a prioritisation of invasive plant management strategies in the LEB. Prioritisation was based on cost-effectiveness for biodiversity benefits. We identify the key invasive plant species to target to protect ecosystem intactness across the bioregions of the LEB, the level of investment required and the likely reduction in invasive species dominance gained per dollar spent on each strategy. Our focus is on strategies that are technically and socially feasible and reduce the likelihood that high impact invasive plant species will dominate native ecosystems, and therefore change their form and function. The outputs of this work are designed to help guide decision-making and further planning and investment in weed management for the Basin. Experts in weed management, policy-making, community engagement, biodiversity and natural values of the Basin, attended a workshop and agreed upon 12 strategies to manage invasive plants. The strategies focused primarily on 10 weeds which were considered to have a high potential for broad, significant impacts on natural ecosystems in the next 50 years and for which feasible management strategies could be defined. Each strategy consisted of one or more supporting actions, many of which were spatially linked to IBRA (Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia) bioregions. The first strategy was an over-arching recommendation for improved mapping, information sharing, education and extension efforts in order to facilitate the more specific weed management strategies. The 10 more specific weed management strategies targeted the control and/or eradication of the following high-impact exotic plants: mesquite, parkinsonia, rubber vine, bellyache bush, cacti, mother of millions, chinee apple, athel pine and prickly acacia, as well as a separate strategy for eradicating all invasive plants from one key threatened ecological community, the GAB (Great Artesian Basin dependant) mound springs. Experts estimated the expected biodiversity benefit of each strategy as the reduction in area that an invasive plant species is likely to dominate in over a 50-year period, where dominance was defined as more than 30% coverage at a site. Costs were estimated in present day terms over 50 years largely during follow up discussions post workshop. Cost-effectiveness was then calculated for each strategy in each bioregion by dividing the average expected benefit by the average annual costs. Overall, the total cost of managing 12 invasive plant strategies over the next 50 years was estimated at $1.7 billion. It was estimated that implementation of these strategies would result in a reduction of invasive plant dominance by 17 million ha (a potential 32% reduction), roughly 14% of the LEB. If only targeting Weeds of National Significance (WONS), the total cost was estimated to be $113 million over the next 50 years. Over the next 50 years, $2.3 million was estimated to eradicate all invasive plant species from the Great Artesian Basin Mound Springs threatened ecological community. Prevention and awareness programs were another key strategy targeted across the Basin and estimated at $17.5 million in total over 50 years. The cost of controlling, eradicating and containing buffel grass were the most expensive, over $1.5 billion over 50 years; this strategy was estimated to result in a reduction in buffel grass dominance of a million ha in areas where this species is identified as an environmental problem. Buffel grass has been deliberately planted across the Basin for pasture production and is by far the most widely distributed exotic species. Its management is contentious, having economic value to many graziers while posing serious threats to biodiversity and sites of high cultural and conservation interest. The strategy for containing and locally eradicating buffel grass was a challenge to cost based on expert knowledge, possibly because of the dual nature of this species as a valued pastoral grass and environmental weed. Based on our conversations with experts, it appears that control and eradication programs for this species, in conservation areas, are growing rapidly and that information on the most cost-effective strategies for this species will continue to develop over time. The top five most cost-effective strategies for the entire LEB were for the management of: 1) parkinsonia, 2) chinee apple, 3) mesquite, 4) rubber vine and 5) bellyache bush. Chinee apple and mother of millions are not WONS and have comparatively small populations within the semi-arid bioregions of Queensland. Experts felt that there was an opportunity to eradicate these species before they had the chance to develop into high-impact species within the LEB. Prickly acacia was estimated to have one of the highest benefits, but the costs of this strategy were high, therefore it was ranked 7th overall. The buffel grass strategy was ranked the lowest (10th) in terms of cost effectiveness. The top five most cost-effective strategies within and across the bioregions were the management of: 1) parkinsonia in the Channel Country, 2) parkinsonia in the Desert Uplands, 3) mesquite in the Mitchell Grass Downs, 4) parkinsonia in the Mitchell Grass Downs, and 5) mother of millions in the Desert Uplands. Although actions for several invasive plant species like parkinsonia and prickly acacia were concentrated in the Queensland part of the LEB, the actions involved investing in containment zones to prevent the spread of these species into other states. In the NT and SA bioregions of the LEB, the management of athel pine, parkinsonia and cacti were the main strategies. While outside the scientific research goals of study, this work highlighted a number of important incidental findings that led us to make the following recommendations for future research and implementation of weed management in the Basin: • Ongoing stakeholder engagement, extension and participation is required to ensure this prioritisation effort has a positive impact in affecting on-ground decision making and planning. • Short term funding for weed management was identified as a major reason for failure of current efforts, hence future funding needs to be secure and ongoing. • Improved mapping and information sharing is essential to implement effective weed management. • Due to uncertainties in the outcomes and impacts of management options, strategies should be implemented as part of an adaptive management program. The information provided in this report can be used to guide investment for controlling high-impact invasive plant species for the benefits of biodiversity conservation. We do not present a final prioritisation of invasive plant strategies for the LEB, and we have not addressed the cultural, socio-economic or spatial components necessary for an implementation plan. Cost-effectiveness depends on the objectives used; in our case we used the intactness of ecosystems as a surrogate for expected biodiversity benefits, measured by the extent that each invasive plant species is likely to dominate in a bioregion. When other relevant factors for implementation are considered the priorities may change and some actions may not be appropriate in some locations. We present the costs, ecological benefits and cost-effectiveness of preventing, containing, reducing and eradicating the dominance of high impact invasive plants through realistic management actions over the next 50 years. In doing so, we are able to estimate the size of the weed management problem in the LEB and provide expert-based estimates of the likely outcomes and benefits of implementing weed management strategies. The priorities resulting from this work provide a prospectus for guiding further investment in management and in improving information availability.

Priority threat management of non-native plants to maintain ecosystem integrity across heterogeneous landscapes

Invasive non-native plants have negatively impacted on biodiversity and ecosystem functions world-wide. Because of the large number of species, their wide distributions and varying degrees of impact, we need a more effective method for prioritizing control strategies for cost-effective investment across heterogeneous landscapes. Here, we develop a prioritization framework that synthesizes scientific data, elicits knowledge from experts and stakeholders to identify control strategies, and appraises the cost-effectiveness of strategies. Our objective was to identify the most cost-effective strategies for reducing the total area dominated by high-impact non-native plants in the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). We use a case study of the ˜120 million ha Lake Eyre Basin that comprises some of the most distinctive Australian landscapes, including Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. More than 240 non-native plant species are recorded in the Lake Eyre Basin, with many predicted to spread, but there are insufficient resources to control all species. Lake Eyre Basin experts identified 12 strategies to control, contain or eradicate non-native species over the next 50 years. The total cost of the proposed Lake Eyre Basin strategies was estimated at AU$1·7 billion, an average of AU$34 million annually. Implementation of these strategies is estimated to reduce non-native plant dominance by 17 million ha – there would be a 32% reduction in the likely area dominated by non-native plants within 50 years if these strategies were implemented. The three most cost-effective strategies were controlling Parkinsonia aculeata, Ziziphus mauritiana and Prosopis spp. These three strategies combined were estimated to cost only 0·01% of total cost of all the strategies, but would provide 20% of the total benefits. Over 50 years, cost-effective spending of AU$2·3 million could eradicate all non-native plant species from the only threatened ecological community within the Lake Eyre Basin, the Great Artesian Basin discharge springs. Synthesis and applications. Our framework, based on a case study of the ˜120 million ha Lake Eyre Basin in Australia, provides a rationale for financially efficient investment in non-native plant management and reveals combinations of strategies that are optimal for different budgets. It also highlights knowledge gaps and incidental findings that could improve effective management of non-native plants, for example addressing the reliability of species distribution data and prevalence of information sharing across states and regions.

Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia: Final report

FRDC project 2008/306 Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia was developed and approved in response to the widespread recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of incorporating economic considerations into marine management in Australia and of the persistent undersupply of suitably trained and qualified individuals capable of providing this input. The need to address this shortfall received broad based support and following widespread stakeholder consultation and building on previous unsuccessful State-based initiatives, a collaborative, cross-jurisdictional cross-institutional capability building model was developed. The resulting project sits within the People Development Program as part of FRDC’s ‘investment in RD&E to develop the capabilities of the people to whom the industry entrusts its future’, and has addressed its objectives largely through three core activities: 1. The Fisheries Economics Graduate Research Training Program which provides research training in fisheries/marine economics through enrolment in postgraduate higher degree studies at the three participating Universities; 2. The Fisheries Economics Professional Training Program which aims to improve the economic literacy of non-economist marine sector stakeholders and was implemented in collaboration with the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre through the Future Harvest Masterclass in Fisheries Economics; and, 3. The Australian Fisheries Economics Network (FishEcon) which aims to strengthen research in the area of fisheries economics by creating a forum in which fisheries economists, fisheries managers and Ph.D. students can share research ideas and results, as well as news of upcoming research opportunities and events. These activities were undertaken by a core Project team, comprising economic researchers and teachers from each of the four participating institutions (namely the University of Tasmania, the University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), spanning three States and the Commonwealth. The Project team reported to and was guided by a project Steering Committee. Commensurate with the long term nature of the project objectives and some of its activities the project was extended (without additional resources) in 2012 to 30th June 2015.