Content uploaded by Grant Pink
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Grant Pink on Dec 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1941515
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT NETWORKS: DEVELOPMENT OF A
NETWORK EVALUATION MATRIX
PINK, GRANT1 and LEHANE, JAMES 2
1 Secretary, Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators neTwork;
GPO Box 787, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia, C/-
secretariat@aelert.com.au
2 Executive Officer, Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators
neTwork; GPO Box 787, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia, C/-
secretariat@aelert.com.au
SUMMARY
Despite sharing relatively common purposes, Environmental Enforcement
Networks are each unique. Part of this is because the circumstances vary under which
they were established. A range of factors influence their development and ultimately
determine their relative capability and potential maturity as a network.
This paper postulates five possible phases of development through which
Environmental Enforcement Networks may transition. Further, it suggests that the
application of Capability Maturity Model processes, like those used as part of
organisational assessments, is worthy of consideration by Environmental Enforcement
Networks. The ability to determine the phase of development that an Environmental
Enforcement Network is going through enables mapping the progression of the
network through that phase.
The authors consider that this conceptual model framework may assist and
guide networks to reach their next level of maturity more effectively and efficiently.
This paper proposes a Network Evaluation Matrix that has been informed by the
foundational Capability Maturity Model framework..
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1941515
1 INTRODUCTION 1 2
1.1 Development of Environmental Enforcement Networks
All Environmental Enforcement Networks (networks) direct time, effort and
resources toward development. For the purposes of this paper, the evolution of a
network includes, but is not limited to:
• establishing the network;
• maintaining the network; and
• ongoing development of the network.
In an associated paper, the authors have comprehensively documented the
establishment, maintenance, development and growth of the Australasian
Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators neTwork (AELERT).3 AELERT is a
regional environmental enforcement network operating throughout Australasia.
In documenting the evolution of AELERT and in undertaking the research, the
authors considered the various phases through which networks progress. Using three
overarching categories: establishing, maintaining and developing as a base, the
authors considered four questions:
• What are the levels of network maturity?
• How can network maturity be assessed?
• What type of factors should be considered in determining the maturity
level of networks?
• What is a network’s current level of maturity?
During the discussions and deliberations around the four questions, the
potential benefit of applying a Capability Maturity Model to networks was considered
then explored in some detail. Following analysis and modification, this paper
proposes a Network Evaluation Matrix that has been informed by the foundational
Capability Maturity Model framework.4 This matrix determines network maturity by
applying a series of indicators, and establishes a typology of networks.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Capability Maturity Models
The Capability Maturity Model is a framework that was designed and
developed during the 1980s, by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon
University, to assess and improve software development capability.5 In its simplest
form, the Capability Maturity Model is a framework that outlines the improvement
and maturity and ‘...guide[s] process improvement across a project, a division, or an
entire organization’6 through five or six stages (six stages where level zero or none is
included).
A currently documented six level Capability Maturity Model, with process as
the main focus, is shown in Diagram 1:7
Diagram 1: Capability Maturity Model– Six levels of a process
L5
L4 OPTIMIZING
L3 MEASURED
All processes
optimized &
continuously
improved.
Continuously
improved
enterprise
capability &
process
effectiveness
L2 STANDARDIZED
All processes
quantitatively
managed &
controlled.
Establish
measurable
quality goals &
use metrics to
manage
performance
L1 STRUCTURED
All processes well
defined &
documented.
Define, maintain,
document & use
standard process.
L0 INFORMAL
All processes
managed,
planned &
tracked.
Plan, control,
verify & track
performance.
NOT PERFORMED
All base
practices
performed
informally.
Similarly, the Capability Maturity Model with five levels of progression has
been established for integration into an organisation and details a more comprehensive
approach with focus points and processes being considered:
Diagram 2: Capability Maturity Model – Five levels of an integrated process8
Diagrams 1 and 2 show the levels ranging from Not Performed or Initial
through to those that are considered Optimal and involve continuous improvement.
Typically, the foundational Capability Maturity Model is shown in five levels as in
Diagram 2 and tend to describe the levels as initial, repeatable, defined, managed,
and optimised.
Capability Maturity Models provide a framework by which the relative
maturity of a process can be determined. Capability Maturity Models have been
modified and used as part of organisational assessments. It is for this reason that
modification of the Capability Maturity Model seemed appropriate for determining
network maturity.
2.2 Environmental Enforcement Networks
Generally, environmental matters have gained momentum as public policy
issues and major areas of public concern since the 1960s. In response, and with
increasing frequency especially since 1990, governments have introduced
environmental protection legislation.9
In an attempt to build capacity to enforce environmental protection legislation,
regulators have become involved in the establishment and development of
Environmental Enforcement Networks around the world. Some of these
Environmental Enforcement Networks have existed in various forms for over twenty
years, across various regions, covering wide-ranging jurisdictions, issues and
commodities.10
These Environmental Enforcement Networks have operated independently,
bilaterally, or multilaterally, dependent upon the nature of the issues they specifically
sought to address. Environmental Enforcement Networks have also partnered and
joined together to access the broader reach of the International Network for
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) on global initiatives. This is
consistent with INECE being a ‘network of networks’.11
3 DESIGNING AND DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT NETWORKS
3.1 What are the levels of network maturity?
In 2002, during the sixth International Conference on Environmental
Compliance and Enforcement, participants from six regions12 gathered separately
within their respective regional networks and considered a range of issues affecting
networks. They determined that networks fall within the three categories: absent,
fragile or well established.13
Whilst absent, fragile, and well established are reflective of several fixed
levels of networks, these three levels are possibly limiting, as they do not capture and
reflect the ongoing evolutionary processes of networks, as well as potential
regression.
Integrating the earlier observations of the INECE model14 with the
foundational Capability Maturity Model, the authors consider it useful to include
emerging and maturing as two additional transitional phases. These additions result
in five comprehensive and representative levels of network maturity: absent,
emerging, fragile, maturing and well established.
Table 1 compares the five levels of the foundational Capability Maturity
Model against the five levels of the Network Evaluation Matrix. It also shows
whether the phase is fixed or transitional.
Table 1: Capability Maturity Model Levels aligned with
Network Evaluation Matrix Levels and Type
Capability Maturity
Model
levels
Network Evaluation
Matrix
Levels
Type
Initial/Ad hoc Absent Fixed
Repeatable
Emerging
Transitional
Defined Fragile Fixed
Managed
Maturing
Transitional
Optimised Well established Fixed
3.2 How can network maturity be determined?
The Capability Maturity Model process defines the behaviours or factors
within each level of maturity. More specifically, the Capability Maturity Model
process can assist:
“... in measuring and enhancing your process improvement
capability ... [t]he model offers a simple yet comprehensive
assessment of process improvement capabilities and promotes the
definition of distinct levels of maturity (i.e. development) for the set
of capabilities. Each level of maturity is supported by layers of detail
pertaining to the individual capabilities for that model. A maturity
assessment can then be made for each individual capability with
regards to both current and target states.” 15
As such, drawing upon the Capability Maturity Model methodology, the
assessment of Environmental Enforcement Networks with the Network Evaluation
Matrix results in identifying and documenting a number of capabilities that span the
five distinct levels of maturity.
Various assessment processes may be used by Environmental Enforcement
Networks to establishwhere they fit within the Network Evaluation Matrix. Options
include self-assessment by Secretariats, governing bodies or by members, and can
extend to external review (which may take the form of review by another
Environmental Enforcement Network Secretariat, governing body or independent
third party). This paper seeks to establish the basis for such assessments. The
capabilities and associated levels of network maturity are now considered in greater
detail.
3.3 What factors should be considered in determining the maturity level of
networks?
In his book, entitled Handbook of Environmental Protection and Enforcement:
Principles and Practice, Farmer states that successful networks:
“... require a full commitment by members ... an active secretariat and
adequate funding. [And if]... the network is seen to be of value, that is, it
delivers what the members need”16
Distilling the above, the authors postulate that the five major themes contain
core criteria that should be used to assess Environmental Enforcement Networks,
namely:
• members,
• finances,
• governance,
• support and
• deliverables.
Sub-topics of the major themes have been developed to provide greater
functionality. The five themes are now considered briefly in turn.
Members – involves issues associated with members such as the; total number
of members, location (geographic distribution) of members, type (individual, agency,
etc.) and/or category of member (full, affiliate, observer, etc.), contribution of
members (whether it be; in-kind, financial, advocacy, or leadership); and value of
membership.
Sub issues of this category include:
• membership,
• leadership, and
• value.
Finances – relates to the finances required to staff the secretariat function.
Environmental Enforcement Networks also seek funds to hold conferences and
workshops and other enabling activities so that network projects can be undertaken.
Sub issues of this category include:
• budget,
• contributions, and
• project funding.
Governance – involves finding the balance between being over-prescriptive
(so as to not fetter involvement or participation) and so relaxed that it leads to
concerns about a lack of accountability. Governance remains an iterative issue that
should be revisited as the network addresses issues.
Sub issues of this category include:
• access,
• review, and
• structures.
Support – occurs through playing a liaison role between members. Support is
based upon a mutual exchange where members support the network and the network
and members support other members directly.
Sub issues of this category include:
• liaison,
• support base, and
• supporting function.
Deliverables – involves being able to demonstrate the value of networks. As
such, Environmental Enforcement Networks tend to focus on tangible benefits. Such
benefits usually take the form of outputs such as publications, manuals, conferences,
workshops, and other events.
Intangible benefits such as reputation, association and peer support, are
generally unreported and unrecognized. Notwithstanding, they need to be recognized
and factored into any assessment of maturity. The five major themes aim to recognise
and attribute some value to the intangible benefits of Environmental Enforcement
Networks.
Sub issues of this category include:
• events,
• outcomes, and
• products.
4 THE NETWORK EVALUATION MATRIX
In combining the five levels of network maturity with the five capability
categories of networks, a matrix begins to take shape. The Network Evaluation
Matrix details the core capability indicators across the levels of network maturity. The
complete Network Evaluation Matrix is shown in Appendix 1 at the conclusion of this
paper.
For convenience of publication, the full Network Evaluation Matrix has been
broken down by maturity level. The levels are now considered in turn.
4.1 Absent level
Given that a network has not yet been established, the Absent level of network
maturity has no criteria available for assessment. See Table 2.
Table 2: Network Evaluation Matrix – Absent Criteria
Members Finances Governance Support Deliverables
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4.2 Emerging level
Once established, networks transition to the Emerging phase of development.
This level forms the basis for the network and its future directions and activities. See
Table 3:
Table 3: Network Evaluation Matrix – Emerging Criteria
Members Finances Governance Support Deliverables
Membership
Typically low
within
network’s
sphere of
influence
Restricted to
core member
agencies or
individuals
operating
within
network’s
sphere of
influence
Budget
Nonexistent or
modest to
initiate /
commence the
network
Access
Member
access to
foundational
and guiding
documents
No open
source access
to networks
guiding
documents
Liaison
Limited or no
liaison with
other
networks
Events
A few events
for members
Limited number
of members
working
together on
specific projects
Leadership
Few
individuals /
member
agencies take
lead role
Contributions
Limited in-kind
contributions
restricted to
core member
agencies or
Review
Informal
review by
foundation
members
Support base
Network
effectiveness
reliant on core
members
providing ad
Outcomes
Prospective
members
considering
potential of
network
across network
individuals hoc
coordination
Limited
functionality
within network
to deliver
outcomes
Value
Negligible or
questionable
value to non-
core members
Core members
only active
participants
with few
benefits
realised
Project funding
Non-existent or
minimal
Structures
General Aims
and
Objectives
laid down
Typically
developing
and fluid
No written
procedures
Supporting
functions
Base level
administrative
tasks
undertaken
for network
A few key
individuals
maintain the
network
Products
Low number of
publications
disseminated
Publication
limited to
contributions of
members
4.3 Fragile level
Networks that continue to develop may then progress to the Fragile level. This
level involves an expansion of the network’s membership and support base. Also,
governance structures and processes continue to develop with an increase in the
deliverables. See Table 4:
Table 4: Network Evaluation Matrix – Fragile Criteria
Members Finances Governance Support Deliverables
Membership
Generally
increasing
across
significant
actors within
network sphere
of influence
Budget
Contributions
are spasmodic
and are made
by small
number of
sources
Not sustainable
Access
Central
repository of
information
and
communiqués
to members
Limited open
source access
to network’s
guiding
documents
Liaison
Emergent and
exploratory
liaison with
other
networks
undertaken
Information
sought from
other
networks
Events
Irregular
events with
increasing
frequency
Preliminary
attempts to
undertake
cooperative
exercises
Leadership
Wider range of
key individuals
/ member
agencies taking
on leadership
roles across
network
Contributions
Few core
member
agencies /
individuals
providing in-
kind support
Review
Regular
changing of
operating
rules,
Constitutional
documents,
etc. to fit
circumstances
Support base
Growing
level of
support base
Increasing
numbers of
interested
individuals
Outcomes
Low level
coordination to
deliver
outcomes
Members
seeking
benefits
Value
Tangible
benefits
available for
active members
Most members
inactive /
passive and
question value
of network
Low level
communications
disseminated to
members from
core members
Project
funding
Very limited, if
available
Sourced from
lead member in
project team
Structures
Guiding
documentation
developed
reactively to
situations.
Clear Aims
and Objects
set out for
network
Supporting
functions
Central
support
function to
support
membership
and
administrative
tasks only
Products
Infrequent
publications
being
developed and
disseminated
Range of
network
members
contributing to
publications
4.4 Maturing level
The Maturing phase sees significant increases in the deliverables provided to
and/or available to members. It also includes greater transparency of the network
governance to members.
The Maturing level is appropriately named, as it is the point at which the
network has consolidated its direction, focussed its efforts, and has an increasing
number of procedures and processes to inform and guide its activities. See Table 5:
Table 5: Network Evaluation Matrix – Maturing Criteria
Members Finances Governance Support Deliverables
Membership
Expanded to
reach critical /
core number of
potential
members
within relevant
network area
of operation
Budget
Sufficient
funding for
network to
continue for
short to
medium term
(2-3 years)
Access
Increasing
access of
members to
network
steering /
guiding
documents
Open source
access to
limited
network
produced
documents
Liaison
Interest by and
liaison with
other networks
Capacity and
capability
discussions to
identify areas
of
commonality
Events
Held on semi
regular basis
Delivered
across network
Range of
events relevant
to all members
Restricted
range of
members
working
conjointly
Leadership
Critical mass
of individuals /
member
agencies take
on leadership
roles
Wide range of
membership
not represented
in leadership
roles
Contributions
In-kind support
provided by
central member
agencies /
individuals
Review
Third Party
review of
constitutional
documents and
guidance
considered
Support base
Widening
support base
across
network
sphere of
influence
Outcomes
Member
agencies
receiving
identifiable
benefits
Individuals
professionally
realise benefits
Value
Leading
members
displaying
demonstrable
benefits
through active
participation
Level of
inactive /
passive
members
reducing
Increasing
engagement
and
communication
between
members
Project
funding
Project funding
- increasing but
ad hoc
Project leaders
are able to
source limited
funding to
support project
Structures
Proactive
development
of guiding
documentation
with
consultation
across
membership
Development
of Operation
and Strategic
Plans to set
direction of
network
Supporting
functions
Administrative
tasks major
part of
function
Low level of
coordination
and project
capacity
Products
Are of useable
standard and
considered as a
step toward
better practice
across industry
Contributions
from those
outside of
network being
included
4.5 Well Established level
The Well Established level is the most advanced level in terms of network
development. Within this level of maturity, the network reaches the saturation point
for its membership, has a comprehesive support base, includes active contributions
from across the network, and has a secure source of funding for network services.
Deliverables in the Well Established network are regular, tangible and of high
standard. The deliverables in turn provide a catalyst for promoting the network,
attracting new members, and marketing the network. This level tends to involve more
aspects of review and continuous improvement. See Table 6.
Table 6: Network Evaluation Matrix – Well Established Criteria
Members
Finances
Governance
Support
Deliverables
Membership
Maximum or
near
maximum of
possible
members
within
relevant
operation of
network
coverage
Budget
Secured on
permanent
basis
Sustainable
arrangements
Access
Open and
transparent
access to
network
steering papers
across
membership
and support
base
Foundational
and guiding
documents
available as
open source
Liaison
Level of
support from
other
networks seen
through
interaction
and joint
activities
Good working
relationships
between
networks
Events
Held regularly
and well
attended
Coordinated
centrally for
delivery across
membership
Members
readily work
collaboratively
Leadership
Large
proportion of
members
taking
leadership
roles across
network
Contributions
High
proportion of
members
contributing in-
kind support to
projects, events
and initiatives
Review
Governance
structures
reviewed and
consistent with
better practice
Subject to
external
scrutiny and
review
Support base
Strong
support and
contribution
base from
practitioner
and senior
management
alike
Outcomes
Delivering
tangible
benefits to
members
Serve as
attractor,
drawing new
members into
network
Members
overtly
promoting the
benefits of
involvement
Value
Majority of
members
realise
benefits of
membership
attained
through active
participation
Open
communicatio
n across
members
Project
funding
Projects driven
by / within
network are
readily funded
Projects
undertaken by
network bring
in associated
funding
Structures
Robust written
governance
structures in
place
Membership
well
represented on
guiding body
Supporting
functions
Central
function for
coordinating
network
activities,
project and
events
Administrativ
e tasks are a
minor part of
the function
Products
High standard
and considered
better practice
across industry
Subject to
review and
improvement
process
Wide range of
contributors to
network
publications
5 ASSESSMENTS USING THE NETWORK EVALUATION MATRIX
5.1 What is a network’s current level of maturity?
The purpose of the Network Evaluation Matrix is to categorise the maturity
levels of existing networks and establish a typology of networks. To assist in this
assessment, numerical values can be given for each sector of the matrix. These values
establish the maturity of an aspect of the network and can be added together to
determine an indicative overall level of network maturity.
The following numerical values (point scores) have been allocated for the
various maturity levels;
• 0 - Absent,
• 1 - Emerging,
• 2 - Fragile,
• 3 - Maturing, and
• 4 - Well Established.
Table 7 below displays how these ratings for part of the Network Evaluation Matrix.
Table 7: Levels of Network Maturity: Factors
Environmental Enforcement
Netow
rk
Level of Maturity
Five Capability Areas
Members
Finances
Governance
Support
Deliverables
Network Evaluation
Matrix
– Grand
T
otal
Well
Established
4 4 4 4 4
Maturing 3 3 3 3 3
Fragile 2 2 2 2 2
Emerging 1 1 1 1 1
Absent 0 0 0 0 0
Capability
sub-total - - - - - --/20
To assist in determining the relevant level of maturity, the following threshold
and transition values or scores have been allocated:
• 0 = Absent,
• 1 – 7 = Emerging,
• 8 – 13 = Fragile,
• 14 – 17 = Maturing, and
• 18 – 20 = Well Established.
As the evolution of the AELERT paper17 took shape, it became clear that
AELERT had transitioned though a number of phases. In preparing both papers, the
authors tested the Network Evaluation Matrix by using AELERT as a self-assessment
case study.
The assessment considered the first, third and seventh year of AELERT’s
operation. The results indicate that AELERT has transitioned from Emerging to
Fragile and now may be considered as Maturing. See Table 8:
Table 8: AELERT Self-assessment
6 A BENEFICIAL MATRIX OR NOT?
6.1 The value of the Network Evaluation Matrix
The Network Evaluation Matrix is designed as a detailed assessment tool of a
network’s development. It enables an isolation and categorisation of improvements as
well as areas of shortfall. This provides targeting data for future review, management
and evolution. In addition, the model can provide an overall picture of the network’s
status. On both these levels, the Network Evaluation Matrix offers criteria and a
process for both internal and external quality review.
By determining the current phase of development of an Environmental
Enforcement Network, the Environmental Enforcement Network is then able to map
progression through future phases of development. This conceptual model may assist
and guide networks to reach their highest level of maturity more effectively and
efficiently.
Moreover, it provides a platform for Environmental Enforcement Networks to
perform a self-assessment to direct network effort and strategic planning, and also
allows for peer assessment by other networks or independent third parties.
7 CONCLUSION
The Network Evaluation Matrix framework has emerged from the
specificexperience of assessing AELERT as the Australasian Environmental
Enforcement neTwork. Its broader applicability has yet to be tested. It is anticipated
that the model will find use in the assessment of other Environmental Enforcement
Networks globally and that amendments, modifications, uses, and applicability of the
model will be conveyed back to the authors. This paper should be the opening of a
dialogue on assessing Environmental Enforcement Networks.
Such a dialogue could best be coordinated by INECE in partnership with its
regional Environmental Enforcement Networks. Network secretariats, coordinating
bodies, and sponsor organisations may be interested in refining some of the ideas and
concepts contained in this paper further in an attempt to provide Environmental
Enforcement Networks with a ‘roadmap’ to assist network development.
The Network Evaluation Matrix builds on the work of Jones18 and postulates
that there are five levels of maturity for Environmental Enforcement Networks. In
addition, the Network Evaluation Matrix offers five discreet capability areas that may
be considered for standardising a range of possible assessments.
As an assessment framework, the Network Evaluation Matrix enables
networks to self-assess their level of maturity. This assists Environmental
Enforcement Networks in identifying areas in which to concentrate effort in order to
advance to the next level of maturity. It also provides a set of criteria and benchmark
standards for independent evaluation.
Year Members
Finances
Governance
Support
Deliverables
Total and
rating
2005 1 1 1 1 1 (5) Emerging
2007 2 2 1 2 1 (8) Fragile
2010 2 3 3 4 3 (15) Maturing
8 REFERENCES
1 The paper represents the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent the
views of the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators neTwork
(AELERT) or any member agency.
2 The authors acknowledge the assistance of Dr Matthew Marshall, Senior Policy
Project Officer, Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) for his insightful comments and
critique of reviewing this paper. Additionally, review comments from Dr Robyn
Bartel, Senior Lecturer, University of New England were positive.
3 Lehane, J. and Pink, G. (In Press) Evolution of a regional environmental
enforcement network: The Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and
Regulators neTwork (AELERT). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 20-24 June 2011. International
Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), British
Columbia, Canada.
4 The foundational Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has since been modified into
the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and the Process Improvement
Maturity Model (PIMM).
Carnegie Mellon University (2011) Capability Maturity Model: Integration.
Available at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ . Accessed 14 March 2011.
5 Crow, K. (2011) Capability Maturity Model. Available at http://www.npd-
solutions.com/cmm.html. Accessed 18 February 2011.
6 Carnegie Mellon University, op cit
7 Network Maturity Maturity Partnership (2011) Network Maturity Model: Capability.
Available at: http://www.networkmaturity.com/capability.htm. Accessed 14 March
2011.
8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2011) Capability Maturity
Model: Integrated. Available at
http://mdob.larc.nasa.gov/hilites/Hl.03/SEPG03.graphic.jpg. Accessed 23 March
2011.
9 Wolters G. (2005). Foreward. In Zaelke, D, Kaniaru, D, & Kružíková, E. (Eds.)
Making law work: Environmental compliance & sustainable development. Volume 1.
Pp. 19-20. London: Cameron May Ltd.
10 Wijbenga, B, Ruessink, H, De Wit A, & Kapitein P. (2008). Environmental
policing in the 21st century – Background, organisation and experience in the
Netherlands. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental
Compliance and Enforcement. 5-11 April 2008. International Network for
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE). Cape Town, South Africa.
Pp.323-333. London: Cameron May.
11 International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (n.d.).
Raising awareness, developing networks, strengthening capacity. [Brochure].
12 The six regions were South America, Africa, Europe, Central America, North
America, and Asia and Pacific
Jones, D. (2002) Summary of Plenary Session #9: Reports of Regional Meetings and
Workshops (Moderators: Tony Oposa & Wout Klein), Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement.
International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE).
Pp.457-465. Available at http://www.inece.org/conf/proceedings2/77-
Plenary%20Session9ALT.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2011. Pp.457-463
13 Jones, op cit, Pg.464.
14 ibid
15 Hitachi Consulting, (2011). Process Improvement Maturity Model. Available at
http://www.hitachiconsulting.com/uk2/0125.cfm. Accessed 18 February 2011. Pg.1.
16 Farmer, A. (2007). Handbook of environmental protection and enforcement:
Principles and practice. London, Earthscan. Pg.261.
17 Lehane & Pink, op cit.
18 Jones, op cit.
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carnegie Mellon University (2011) Capability Maturity Model Integration Available at
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/. Accessed 14 March 2011.
Crow, K. (2011) Capability Maturity Model. Available at http://www.npd-
solutions.com/cmm.html. Accessed 18 February 2011.
Farmer, A. (2007). Handbook of environmental protection and enforcement: Principles and
practice. London, Earthscan.
Hitachi Consulting, (2011). Process Improvement Maturity Model. Available at
http://www.hitachiconsulting.com/uk2/0125.cfm. Accessed 18 February 2011.
International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (n.d.). Raising
awareness, developing networks, strengthening capacity. [Brochure].
Jones, D. (2002) Summary of Plenary Session #9: Reports of Regional Meetings and
Workshops (Moderators: Tony Oposa & Wout Klein), Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement.
International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE).
Pp.457-465. Available at http://www.inece.org/conf/proceedings2/77-
Plenary%20Session9ALT.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2011.
Lehane, J. & Pink, G. (In Press) Evolution of a regional environmental enforcement network:
The Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators neTwork (AELERT).
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and
Enforcement, 20-24 June, International Network for Environmental Compliance and
Enforcement (INECE), British Columbia, Canada.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2011) Capability Maturity Model:
Integrated. Available at http://mdob.larc.nasa.gov/hilites/Hl.03/SEPG03.graphic.jpg.
Accessed 23 March 2011.
Network Maturity Maturity Partnership (2011) Network Maturity Model: Capability.
Available at: http://www.networkmaturity.com/capability.htm. Accessed 14 March 2011.
Select Business Solutions (2011) What is the Capability Maturity Model? (CMM). Available
at http://www.selectbs.com/process-maturity/what-is-the-capability-maturity-model. Accessed
15 March 2011.
Wijbenga, B, Ruessink, H, De Wit A, & Kapitein P. (2008). Environmental policing in the
21st century – Background, organisation and experience in the Netherlands. Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. 5-11 April
2008. International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE). Cape
Town, South Africa. Pp.323-333). London: Cameron May.
Wolters G. (2005). [Foreward]. In Zaelke, D, Kaniaru, D, & Kružíková, E. (Eds.), Making law
work: Environmental compliance & sustainable development Volume 1. Pp. 19-20. London:
Cameron May Ltd.
