Line of Enquiry 1: the process to develop a framework

series of actions) applied to develop information and tools for ecosystem services assessments (frameworks). It analyses methodologies developed in different contexts (including different scales) to determine the drivers directly influencing and shaping the adoption of different processes; and how these drivers and resulting processes influence and shape the frameworks (information and tools) developed. By identifying these drivers and understanding why certain processes were applied (or not), and using this to reflect on our research and decision making context, we can learn from others

experiences and make more objective decisions when determining an appropriate process to develop a framework for ecosystem services assessments across multiple scales. The literature revealed four key topics requiring further analysis to answer this question, they include:

 factors underpinning a program’s initiation;

 who coordinated the program;

 resources (e.g. time, money, expertise) invested in developing the framework; and

 the structure of program.

Factors underpinning the initiation of programs can be one or many. The primary factor underpinning the initiation of the MA was realisation by scientists and national

governments that current mechanisms for scientific assessments where not halting the loss of biodiversity and reducing land degradation globally; therefore, not meeting the needs of the four major ecosystem-related conventions (MA 2005a; Reid et al. 2006a;

66

Ash et al. 2010). The need, however, to better include the environment in economic decisions and the MA’s lack of economic analysis encouraged Ministers of the G8 +5 to use the MA as the foundation to build a new framework under TEEB (2010). Similarly, underpinning the initiation of SEEA (UNSD 2012) and Boyd and Banzhaf’s (2007) research was the recognition of traditional economic accounting methods not adequately accounting for ecosystem degradation and environmental inputs to economic goods; a more comprehensive measurement of human welfare to ensure more effective and efficient national natural resource policy making was considered necessary.

Maynard and Cork (2011) showed that at local to regional scales in Australia factors underpinning the initiation of programs were more directly related to communities and on-ground NRM activities. Mostly they had an agricultural focus, focusing on

ecosystem services inputting into production processes or other ecosystem services derived from agricultural landscapes that contribute to the broader community’s well- being (Binning et al. 2001; Reid et al. 2006b; Bennett et al. 2010). However, the primary factor leading to the initiation of the SEQ program was the release of the MA and awareness of the potential of ecosystem services approaches to better understand the impact of excessive population growth on the natural resources of the region (Maynard et al. 2010). Due to this variance in factors leading to the initiation of programs, further analysis into the impact they have on framework development is required.

In the methodologies reviewed, the missions and mandates of most organisations coordinating the development of the framework have an ‘environmental’ focus, yet the coordinating sectors from which they belong are widely varied. UNEP who is the leading global environmental authority coordinated the collection and development of information supporting the MA (2005a). Maynard and Cork’s (2011) paper describing Australian local to regional scale programs identified frameworks developed by federal scientific organisations (Binning et al. 2001); private environmental consultants

(Bennett et al. 2010); individuals from state government environmental departments (Wallace 2007); university researchers from environmental departments (Reid et al. 2006b); and non-government NRM organisations (Maynard et al. 2010). The differences across information and tools supporting these frameworks suggest organisational context as a topic for further analysis.

Although a number of programs openly disclosed the resources invested in developing their framework (MA 2005a; Maynard et al. 2010, 2015), in the literature, overall this information is rarely disclosed especially for smaller scale programs. The MA (2005a) global methodology which was built on existing information operated over a four year period and cost approximately US$24 million, but it also required more than US$7 million of in-kind support. The regional scale methodology described in Maynard et al. (2010) said the lack of resources available to develop their framework was prohibitive to developing dynamic models or to train in model development and application. Further research to better understand the influence available resources (e.g. time, money, knowledge, skill (both pro-bono and paid)) have on developing a framework is required as it is important to understanding possible returns on investment, determining the design of a program, and the technical realities of what type of information and tools can be achieved.

In the literature reviewed, authors primarily focused on describing the information and tools developed through their program, or outcomes of applying information and tools to conduct assessments (De Groot 2006; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Fisher and Turner 2008; Morrison and Hatton-MacDonald 2010; Johnston and Russell 2011; UNSD 2012; Landers and Nahlik 2013). Few papers provided any information on the structure of the program in terms of how the framework or schools of thought were formed and who was involved in its development. From those that did, processes ranged from in-house approaches (Wallace 2007; Ott and Staub 2009; Staub et al. 2011; Plant et al. 2012) to highly participatory and collaborative approaches such as the MA (Binning et al. 2001; MA 2005a; Australian Government 2009; Maynard et al. 2010; TEEB 2010). Only Maynard et al. (2010, 2012) describe the structure of their program in as much depth as the MA (2005a). Further analysis of program structures is necessary to address this gap in the literature and better understand why different structures were chosen and the influence of these on framework development.

The outcomes of the applied research in SEQ (Chapter 4) and case study analysis in the US (Chapter 5) and UK (Chapter 6) will build on knowledge gained from reviewing this literature describing others experiences in developing ecosystem services frameworks. The outcomes from applying this Line of Enquiry to the SEQ, US and UK programs are discussed in Sections 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1 respectively. Each section is broken into four sub-

68

factors underpinning program initiation; the coordinating organisation; resources invested in developing frameworks; and the structure of programs. Section 7.1 presents the lessons learnt from cross-analysing methodologies and research approaches, and from this, provides Recommendations for determining an appropriate process to develop a framework. Lines of Enquiry 2 and 3 are discussed in the following two sections of this chapter.

3.1.2 Line of Enquiry 2: the information to support a framework