Hi all, Coming up to that peak time again when we are trying to get everything done before the EOFY and I have been given another luckily small project of benchmarking some of our systems and processes. Any information would be appreciated on one or all of the following.
1) Tree capitalization, systems and valuation methodology
2) Valuation of riparian corridors and stormwater detention basins
3) Planning maintenance and renewal of filtration planting
4) How are completed works handed over to asset management team for capitalization and asset register update
Assets Data Collector, Infrastructure Planning Camden Council I PO Box 183, Camden NSW 2570 P: 02 4645 5131 I F: 02 4645 5917
E: email@example.com I W: www.camden.nsw.gov.au
Theres a system called i-tree which might be usefull to it.
It is basically for capturing the true value of urban forests assets and so takes into account a number of parameters such carbon sequest, storm water amenity. and a number of other sustainability criteria. might be a bit overkill but the actual output might be useful.
Niall Simpson I FAILA. B.Env.Des. Grad. Dip. L.Arch | Landscape Architect & Urban designer | Parks & Recreation | City of Launceston | T | 03 6323 3623 M | 0407 875 213 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au
________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission. This disclaimer has been automatically added.
This is an interesting topic for discussion and I think is highlighting the difficulty of linking asset management and financial management practices.
I firmly believe that when managing natural assets that they should be managed using an asset management approach. That is consider, the whole of life costs such as maintenance and operational expenditure, consider the desired service levels etc. The Natural assets AMP should identify all these costs as well as the linkages between natural assets and the Councils Community Strategic plan and community aspirations
My problem arises in the valuation of the natural assets.
Infrastructure assets are generally valued on gross replacement cost, and we can have discussions whether that is replacing like with like or green field v brown field, and modern engineering equivalent etc. It is clear that infrastructure assets generally degrade over time and loose value (depreciate). This loss of value represents at a high level the required annual renewal expenditure for the asset should we wish to maintain this asset for long term use.
I am not sure that this is the case with natural assets. Firstly, the valuation of natural assets from my limited knowledge is an economic assessment of value not replacement cost for the asset. Natural assets tend to gain economic value over time rather than loose economic value and the loss of value happens very quickly towards the end of the asset life. This then leads to the issue of the rate of depreciation or rate of appreciation in some cases.
You would I think need to clearly understand why you are valuing these assets and what you hope to achieve from this. By all means value natural assets to understand the value to the community and using these values in business case analysis for funding applications or to emphasis the value of natural assets to the community. For asset management purposes, I would not value and capitalise these assets.
It would be a good idea to talk to your finance people to determine the impact of this on Councils overall financial position, my understanding is that the only natural assets that should be valued are commercial tree plantations but please check with your CFO.
From an asset management perspective please manage these assets in the same manner as your infrastructure assets.
This would be my preferred approach.
Hope this helps
Hi All, I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. Natural Assets Capitalization has a many facets that need to be addressed. I just wish to stress that identifying the "value" in an ecological sense is vastly different than assets and $$$. Say for example if in NSW you want to remove trees from the roadside, one of the large state organisations see the value of that one tree removal worth at least the equal to five - 15 trees (this is just an example) to replace that tree with an offset. And the fact that natural assets in city centres reduces urban heat, reduces air pollution and noise pollution.
There are so many additional benefits to natural assets, just remember the more intact the natural comunity is and connected it is, the higher value! Cheers Jo
Telephone: 1300 416 745