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.
Local governments with recycling campaigns are toying with enforcement and compliance actions. However, recent considerations of a three-strikes rule on households that contaminate their recycling bins is tosh.
A three-strikes approach seeks to confiscate bins after three warnings to curb contamination, but it overlooks key issues:
A big stick hurts some more than others. Punitive measures disproportionately affect households with limited capacity—such as low-income or elderly residents—who may struggle to interpret guidelines, especially if inspections are inconsistent.
Don’t assume everyone is a bad actor. Making recycling easier (via convenient bin placement and user-friendly prompts) yields better outcomes than threatening bin removal. The three-strikes model assumes deliberate non-compliance and overlooks system design flaws that can contribute to errors.
It costs money. Enforcement is costly. Southland’s pilot required extensive staff time for inspections and follow-ups. These programs can incur substantial overheads without clear long-term benefits. Redirecting those resources toward education or more innovative sorting technology would be more efficient.
Unexpected things can happen. The threat of confiscation may trigger unintended behaviours—such as illegal dumping or abandoning recycling—thereby increasing landfill loads and eroding trust.
Context and opportunities are missed. Uniform penalties ignore contextual nuances. Rural areas can face higher contamination due to limited infrastructure and travel distances; language and cultural barriers may hamper compliance. Without ensuring equal access to support, punitive measures risk penalising those least able to adapt.
A balanced strategy combining proactive education, optimised bin design, and targeted support would address root causes more effectively than strict enforcement.
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 a knowledge world we absolutely must invest in continuing professional development.
It is very useful to have this learning externally validated. This is about improving practice, refreshing with best practice and delivering improved client service.
We are drowning in a sea of information. But knowledge can be hard won and wisdom sometimes seems almost impossible to implement. Many would experience this in the infrastructure sector. So for those that follow me on LinkedIn, I thought a series of infrastructure haikus might be a novel way to look at some of the issues.
Early vision cast, Needs and dreams on paper sketched, Blueprints in the mist.
Funding battles fought, Public voice and budgets weigh, Choice in numbers set.
Designs come to life, Engineers and planners meet, Maps turn into roads.
Shovels break the ground, Concrete, steel take form and rise, Promise now concrete.
End of useful life, Time to reassess the need, Planning is reborn.
Each haiku focuses on a specific phase of infrastructure planning, from initial conception to design, construction, operation, maintenance, and eventually reconsideration for future needs. Collectively, they aim to encapsulate the cyclical, ongoing nature of infrastructure planning and its multifaceted aspects.
Nestled in the valleys, cutting through small towns, and traversing natural landscapes, rail trails have emerged as not just pathways for recreational activities, but also powerful engines for regional economic development. These abandoned or disused railway tracks, repurposed into multi-use trails, have breathed life into many communities, attracting both tourists and investors. But as with any significant infrastructure development, rail trails present their own set of challenges.
First and foremost, rail trails are magnets for sustainable tourism. Cyclists, runners, hikers, and families flock to these trails for a unique experience that combines history, nature, and physical activity. Unlike high-impact tourism, where large numbers of visitors can degrade an environment, rail trail tourism is sustainable, respecting and preserving the surrounding ecology.
Local businesses directly benefit from this influx of tourists. Cafes, bed-and-breakfasts, bike rental shops, and guided tour services spring up alongside these trails. With the increase in foot (or bike) traffic, property values often rise, breathing life into erstwhile dwindling town economies.
Preserving Culture and Environment
Rail trails serve as an ode to history, preserving the legacy of old railway lines. Stations can be repurposed as museums or cultural centers, celebrating the region’s past. Simultaneously, they also play a crucial role in conserving the environment. With green corridors for flora and fauna, rail trails can act as vital habitats for various species, also facilitating migration for some. The emphasis on non-motorized transport also means reduced carbon emissions, promoting a cleaner, greener future.
Community Engagement and Health
The community benefits from these trails in numerous ways. Beyond the economic incentives, these trails offer safe, car-free zones for exercise and recreation, encouraging healthier lifestyles. They can also become social hubs, venues for local events, and spaces where community members bond.
However, it’s not all smooth sailing. Establishing these rail trails comes with its own set of challenges:
Land Acquisition and Rights
One of the primary challenges in developing rail trails is navigating the complex terrain of land rights. Some old rail lines may cross private properties, leading to disputes over land acquisition or usage rights. These disputes can be time-consuming, expensive, and can lead to animosity within communities.
Initial Funding and Maintenance Costs
Rail trails, despite utilizing existing infrastructure, demand significant upfront investment for repairs, resurfacing, and signage. Maintenance costs, although often lower than those for roads, can still be considerable. Funding can be a hurdle, especially for regions already grappling with economic challenges.
Balancing Development and Conservation
With increased human activity, there’s always a risk to the environment. Ensuring that rail trail development doesn’t harm surrounding ecosystems is vital. Striking the right balance between fostering economic development and preserving nature can be a delicate task.
Conclusion
In the grand tapestry of urban and regional planning, rail trails offer a unique blend of economic, environmental, and social benefits. Their ability to drive economic growth, especially in regions that have been left behind by other forms of modern development, is particularly noteworthy. However, as we embrace the potential of these trails, it’s crucial to navigate the challenges thoughtfully, ensuring that the path ahead benefits both the land and its people.
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.
Lytton Advisory 