We’re delighted to share that Lytton Advisory has been appointed to the Queensland Government’s new Professional Services Preferred Supplier Panel (GGS0111-24), which begins on 1 September 2025.
Craig Lawrence, Managing Director, notes, “This panel connects government buyers with trusted partners, and we’re proud to be recognised for the value we bring through our economic advice and consulting. It’s a great opportunity to continue supporting Queensland Government agencies with thoughtful analysis and practical solutions.”
For us, this is about more than a panel appointment — it’s about deepening our partnerships and helping government teams tackle the important challenges ahead. We’re excited to get started and look forward to working with agencies right across Queensland.
Accurately determining the period of appraisal in cost-benefit analysis is vital for effective decision-making, particularly for finance ministry officials in Pacific Island nations. This strategic understanding significantly influences economic stability and growth in the region.
The period of appraisal refers to the time span over which a project’s costs and benefits are evaluated. Getting this right shapes the analysis and directly affects the perceived feasibility of a project. Selecting an appropriate timeframe ensures all relevant costs and benefits are considered, especially for long-term projects like infrastructure or environmental programs that might produce benefits years later.
The appraisal period should align with the expected life of the asset or investment. For projects with long lifespans, the period should cover decades to fully capture their potential benefits. Both short- and long-term economic benefits need to be accounted for. Furthermore, a well-defined appraisal period is significant in determining the relevance of residual values in project evaluation. Residual values represent the remaining worth of an asset at the end of the appraisal period. If this period is too short, the analysis may underestimate the project’s true value by overlooking residual worth.
Understanding the distinction between economic and financial analysis is also crucial. Financial analysis focuses on investor cash flow and profitability, while economic analysis examines the broader societal impact, including externalities. This broader perspective often requires a longer appraisal period than financial analysis.
It’s also essential to differentiate between the period of appraisal and the tenor of funding, which is the timeframe over which borrowed funds are repaid. Misalignment between the two can skew financial assessments and lead to underestimating a project’s long-term value.
When managing multiple projects, consistency in the appraisal period is vital. Using a consistent time horizon across similar projects enables meaningful comparisons and strategic planning, ensuring investment decisions align with national economic goals.
Equipped with this understanding, finance ministry officials can ensure investment strategies prioritise financial viability and broader economic benefits over each project’s entire lifespan.
Talofa! Lytton Advisory is pleased to announce that its Managing Director – Craig Lawrence – has been contracted by the Asian Development Bank as an Economist / Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) expert to assist the Government of Samoa’s Ministry of Finance (MoF)
Craig will be working with MoF officials to help strengthen the capacity of the Economic Policy and Planning team to produce timely cost-benefit analyses, improve data collection and provide advice to support decision making.
In recent years, the task of ensuring long-term financial sustainability of local governments has become more complex and multifaceted. One area that has emerged as a critical point of focus is landfill rehabilitation provisioning. The potential financial implications of post-closure care can significantly impact the financial health and long-term sustainability of councils. To that end, accurate estimates of landfill rehabilitation provisions are an indispensable component of robust and sustainable financial management.
The Need for Accuracy
Estimating landfill rehabilitation provisions involves anticipating future costs associated with closing and maintaining landfill sites. These include costs for capping, monitoring environmental effects, treating leachate, and mitigating gas emissions. Given the substantial nature of these expenses, any inaccuracies in estimation can lead to considerable budgetary shortfalls, pushing councils to face fiscal strain or to the brink of financial unsustainability.
Accurate estimates allow for the creation of financial reserves that ensure adequate funds are available when required. Underestimation might result in unexpected fiscal deficits, whereas overestimation could unnecessarily tie up funds that could otherwise be allocated to pressing local initiatives.
Methodologies for Accurate Estimation
To make more accurate estimates of landfill rehabilitation provisions, several techniques and methodologies are available:
Lifecycle Analysis: This method involves determining the entire lifecycle of a landfill, from planning and operation to post-closure management. An understanding of the full lifecycle cost can facilitate more accurate provisions for post-closure care.
Benchmarking: Comparing the estimates of similar landfills, considering factors like size, waste composition, and geographic location can provide a reference point for estimation.
Risk-Based Analysis: Estimating the financial provision based on potential risks, such as environmental contamination or changing regulatory requirements, helps in creating a more resilient and future-proof provision plan.
Engaging Experts: Environmental scientists, engineers, and financial analysts all have unique perspectives and insights that can contribute to a more accurate estimation process.
Impact on Financial Sustainability
The accurate estimation of landfill rehabilitation provisions plays a crucial role in maintaining the financial sustainability of councils. By accurately predicting future costs, councils can avoid sudden fiscal shocks, maintain a healthier financial profile, and assure citizens that funds are being effectively managed for current and future needs.
Additionally, it sends a positive signal to potential creditors, rating agencies, and investors, thus facilitating better borrowing terms and improving the overall financial reputation of the council.
Conclusion: A Pathway towards Sustainability
In conclusion, landfill rehabilitation is an area that necessitates long-term planning and financial commitment. Accurate estimates of landfill rehabilitation provisions are not just about fiscal prudence; they are also about environmental stewardship, regulatory compliance, and, above all, ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of councils.
For CFOs of local governments, making accurate estimates should be seen as a strategic investment in future financial stability and sustainability. By adopting robust estimation methodologies, councils can confidently manage the financial implications of landfill rehabilitation, ensuring their communities continue to thrive for generations to come.
Recently we looked at this issue for a Queensland council. In preparing their audited financial report they needed to show the basis on which those provisions had been calculated.
Managing a local council’s budget is no simple task. From infrastructure to public services, CFOs are faced with the challenge of funding projects that are essential to the prosperity of their communities. Two potential sources of funding have been generating quite a buzz in council meetings across the country: grants and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). In this article, we unpack the advantages and limitations of these two funding avenues.
Grants: A Gift That Gives Back
Grants are like the presents that keep on giving, primarily because they don’t need to be paid back. This feature makes them a cost-effective source of financing for many local councils. Moreover, the focus of grants often aligns perfectly with the mission of local councils: benefiting the community.
Another upside is that grants often come with a degree of spending flexibility, depending on their source and nature. However, a word of caution: it’s not all smooth sailing in the world of grant funding.
Applying for grants can feel like being in a fiercely competitive race. It requires a significant investment of time and resources to prepare a compelling application – with no guarantee of crossing the finish line first. Another pitfall lies in the scope of funding. For larger, more ambitious projects, grants might fall short. The funding pool is also subject to availability and can fluctuate from year to year. Lastly, grants can come with strings attached, limiting how councils can use the funds.
Public-Private Partnerships: Sharing the Load
If you’re looking to bring big projects to life, PPPs could be the answer. They’re an effective way to facilitate large-scale projects that might be beyond the reach of a council’s independent financing. An appealing aspect of PPPs is risk-sharing. By involving the private sector, both entities share the project risks, mitigating the council’s financial exposure.
Another potential advantage is efficiency. The private sector often boasts specialized skills, innovative technology, and advanced management techniques that can help deliver projects more effectively.
But PPPs aren’t without their challenges. They often entail complex and lengthy negotiations, requiring clear agreements on roles, responsibilities, and rewards. It’s also important to remember that private entities are profit-driven, which could result in prioritizing profitability over community benefits. Lastly, the long-term nature of PPP contracts could tie the council’s hands, reducing flexibility to adapt to changing community needs.
Making the Choice
Both grants and PPPs have their unique strengths and challenges. The choice between them hinges on a council’s specific circumstances and needs. Remember, these aren’t the only funding options out there. Other strategies such as municipal bonds, levies, or direct budget allocations are also worth exploring.
In the ever-changing landscape of local government finance, it’s more crucial than ever for CFOs to stay informed about the various funding mechanisms available. Balancing community needs with financial sustainability is the art of local council financing.
As Queensland’s local governments strive to ensure sustainability in waste management, innovative techniques like A-B Testing are increasingly gaining traction. This method, commonly used in marketing to test consumer preferences, can also be applied to household waste behaviour. It involves comparing two groups – one following the current waste management practice (A) and the other testing a new approach (B).
Recently I have been thinking about three ways this might be done in a local government context:
Study 1: Recycling Education Programs. Educational programs about the importance and methods of recycling are key to promoting responsible waste management. A-B Testing can be used to measure their effectiveness. Group A could continue with the current education approach, while Group B would receive enhanced education material – perhaps more engaging, interactive content. The success could be measured in terms of recycling rates, contamination rates, and waste volume reduction.
Study 2: Waste Collection Frequency. Changing the frequency of waste collection is another variable local governments could experiment with. Group A could maintain the current schedule, while Group B could have more frequent recycling pickups and less frequent general waste pickups. This encourages households to recycle more and could result in substantial landfill reduction.
Study 3: Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Policies. Finally, implementing PAYT policies could be a game-changer. Under this scheme, households are charged based on the amount of waste they produce. Group A could continue with the flat fee structure, while Group B would test the PAYT policy. The impact would be measured through waste volume, disposal costs, and recycling rates.
A-B Testing in these areas could provide local governments with robust data on the effectiveness of new waste management strategies. It’s an evidence-based approach that can drive better policy-making and offer several potential gains. There are many more options for this kind of analysis.
But what are the benefits?
For the councils, the benefits include better resource allocation, improved recycling rates, and reduced costs associated with waste management. It can also drive innovation in service delivery and contribute to sustainability goals.
Ratepayers also stand to gain significantly. Efficient waste management systems can lead to lower rates over time. Moreover, they provide an opportunity for households to play an active role in waste reduction and recycling, contributing to the larger goal of environmental sustainability.
A-B Testing allows us to bring data to the heart of decision-making, fostering an innovative, evidence-based approach to household waste management. Queensland local governments, by embracing such methodologies, can set an example in driving sustainability through informed, data-driven decisions.
I have been doing cost benefit analyses for a few years now. The concept is deceptively simple but provides a solid framework for insightful decision making.
It is a tool used to assess potential costs and benefits of a decision or project, usually in monetary terms. It is commonly used to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of projects, policies and regulations.
Recently I have been thinking about the usefulness of the approach given that many major project often seem to float past this analysis.
Here are five epiphanies that might help CBA evangelists:
The true value of a decision lies not just in its financial cost and benefit, but also in its impact on people and the environment.
CBA forces us to weigh the pros and cons, but it’s important to remember that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify and may have long-term effects that are not immediately apparent.
It should not be the sole factor in decision-making, as there may be intangible or ethical considerations that cannot be easily measured in financial terms.
CBA is a useful tool, but it is important to remember that it does not account for future uncertain events. Therefore, it should be used in conjunction with other decision making tools for a comprehensive evaluation.
Cost-benefit analysis can be misleading if it only looks at short-term financial gains and ignores long-term social and environmental costs. A more holistic approach should be used that accounts for all the potential impacts of a decision.
These are just some of the insights about CBA, but there are more that might be organisational or project relevant.
Is CBA a key driver of your organisation’s project appraisal process or just another compliance element in developing business cases?
Cost-benefit analysis is a tool that can be used to evaluate the costs and benefits of different options for managing waste. It helps decision makers understand the trade-offs involved in different approaches to waste management and make informed choices about how to allocate resources.
There are many factors that can be considered when conducting a cost-benefit analysis of waste management options. These may include the upfront costs of implementing a particular solution, such as the cost of purchasing equipment or constructing a new facility. Other costs to consider might include ongoing operating costs, such as the cost of fuel or labor, as well as the potential costs of environmental impacts or regulatory fines.
On the other hand, the benefits of a particular waste management approach can include reduced environmental impacts, improved public health, and economic benefits such as the creation of jobs or the generation of income through the sale of recycled materials.
By comparing the costs and benefits of different options, decision makers can choose the solution that offers the greatest net benefit, or the greatest benefit after accounting for the costs. This can help them make informed decisions about how to allocate resources and achieve their waste management goals in the most effective and efficient way possible.
How often does your organisation undertake cost-benefit analysis?
Thanks, Gene (Adept Economics) for hosting me on an episode of your podcast series Economics Explained. It was great we were able to unpack a few things about city infrastructure for your listeners, particularly regarding Brisbane’s Green Bridges program and Cross River Rail.
Today marks the sixth anniversary of Lytton Advisory as an independent economic consulting practice. Over that time, we have worked on a wide range of economic issues. This has taken us to places as diverse as the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
We have never lost our enthusiasm for helping clients make smarter capital investment decisions. Neither have we wavered in our passion for proper planning, prioritisation and funding of infrastructure. In more recent years, our work has been around leading project teams of committed, experienced economists and professionals to bring high conviction analyses to our clients. Good cost benefit analysis is at the heart of what we do.
In the first half 2019 founder, Craig Lawrence took, in effect, a sabbatical from the practice to lead the establishment of the Economic and Social Infrastructure Program in PNG. This $130 million 4+4 year Cardno-delivered, Australian Government funded program seeks to improve the quality of planning, prioritisation and funding of infrastructure to achieve economic outcomes and social development goals for Papua New Guineans.
Whether it is: developing an investment manual to incorporate climate change adaptation in infrastructure development decisions in the Solomons; a full cost pricing algorithm for food and drug regulatory services in Saudi Arabia; or generating savings from waste transfer station closures that fund a ten-year capital works program – Lytton Advisory is up for the challenge. At every stage, it is about driving value for the clients and communities affected by infrastructure.
We are excited about the future for infrastructure, its contribution to sustainable economic and social development, and how emerging economic incentives, new social paradigms and innovative technologies are shaking up these services.
Lytton Advisory 