Page 1
PUBLICATIONS LAUNCH & DISCUSSION
• Improving Water Quality: A National Modeling Analysis on
Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of
U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
• Improving Water Quality: Overcoming Barriers to Better
Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
MODERATOR: Craig Hanson, Director, Food, Forests & Water Program
JUNE 10, 2014
Page 2
Mic & Speakers is usually the best
audio option but you can use the
call-in number as well.
Submit your text questions and
comments using the Questions
Panel.
We will answer questions during the
Q&A discussion session.
For more information, please email
[email protected] .
Note: Today’s presentation is being
recorded and will be posted on
WRI’s website within a week.
Your Participation
GoToWebinar Housekeeping
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
EXCESS ALGAE BLOOMS
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
FISH KILLS
Page 5
MAJOR SOURCE:
FARM NUTRIENT & SEDIMENT RUNOFF
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
COASTAL EUTROPHICATION & HYPOXIA WORLDWIDE
Page 7
DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –
Prioritizing areas:
a. Greatest environmental
impairments
Page 8
DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –
Prioritizing areas:
a. Greatest environmental
impairments
b. Pristine conditions
Page 9
DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –
Prioritizing areas:
a. Greatest environmental
impairments
b. Pristine conditions
c. Greatest change in
environmental conditions
possible
Page 10
DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting – Prioritizing areas: a. Greatest environmental
impairments
b. Pristine conditions
c. Greatest change in environmental conditions possible
• Benefit-cost targeting –
Identifying acres and practices that can produce the most environmental benefits per dollar spent (e.g., most pounds of N reductions/$)
Page 11
AUTHORS
Bruce Knight Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC
& former chief of USDA’s NRCS, ‘02–‘06
John Stierna American Farmland Trust
& former senior economist, NRCS, ’95-’04
Michelle Perez Senior Associate
Mindy Selman Senior Associate
Sara Walker Associate
Katie Reytar Research Associate
PANELISTS
Page 12
MICHELLE PEREZ, PHD
IMPROVING WATER
QUALITY A National Modeling Analysis on Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
Page 13
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How cost effective is the current (BAU) approach?
– BAU=spending on nutrient & erosion control practices: ’06-’11
2. How much more effective could it be with targeting?
– 3 targeting approaches
3. How do results change depending on what
environmental benefit is being optimized?
– N, P, & sediment reduction & soil C sequestration
4. If programs were designed to achieve the most cost-
effective benefits, where would the funds be spent?
Page 14
DATA & MODELS
• Farmer survey data
from Natural Resources
Inventory-Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project (NRI-CEAP)
• Agricultural Policy
Extender (APEX) model
• Economic optimization
model
Page 15
MODELING LIMITATIONS
• Geographic targeting - Prioritizing areas with greatest change possible
• Model analysis is at edge-of-field
• Doesn’t account for where acres are vis a vis impaired water bodies
• Prioritizes acres that offer the biggest edge-of-field pollution reduction opportunities
Page 16
201 4-DIGIT WATERSHEDS
& ESTIMATING BAU COST EFFECTIVENESS
BAU $ spent in each watershed on average
# lbs. N reduced at edge-field in each watershed
$/# lbs. N reduced = level of cost effectiveness in each watershed
Page 17
3 TARGETING APPROACHES IN MODEL
Page 18
DUAL TARGETING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN BAU
12 x
8 x
8 x
7.5 x
Page 19
DUAL TARGETING IS MOST COST EFFECTIVE
• Geographic + benefit-cost targeting could
result in 7 to 12 times more environmental
benefits per dollar spent than BAU
• Benefit-cost targeting alone could achieve 4 to
9 times the benefits as BAU
• Geographic targeting alone could be better or
worse than BAU
Page 20
CHOOSING WHAT TO TARGET
• Optimizing for
multiple benefits
(N, P, & soil C) yields
more co-benefits &
fewer trade-offs than
optimizing for
individual benefits
• If only 1 benefit can
be targeted,
optimizing for
phosphorus
reductions is best
Page 21
TARGETING MAY MEAN MORE ACRES
16.8
12.8
8.7
Benefit-CostTargeting for
Sediment
Dual Targeting forNitrogen
BAU
1.5 times more acres
(Millions of acres)
Page 22
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
Page 23
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
MULTIPLE BENEFITS OPTIMIZATION (N, P, C)
Page 24
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
PHOSPHORUS OPTIMIZATION
Page 25
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
NITROGEN OPTIMIZATION
Page 26
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
SEDIMENT OPTIMIZATION
Page 27
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
SOIL CARBON OPTIMIZATION
Page 28
WHAT THIS STUDY IS & IS NOT
• Not an analysis of what NRCS could have
done in past due to
– Scientific & technical barriers
– Institutional & implementation barriers
– Social & political barriers
• Is an analysis of what NRCS could be
doing in the future
Page 29
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Track environmental benefits
2. Rank applications according to
benefit-cost ratios
3. Conduct pilot projects
4. Improve state funding allocation
formulas
Page 30
Thank You! Michelle Perez, PhD
202-729-7908
[email protected]
Page 31
SARA WALKER AND MICHELLE PEREZ
OVERCOMING
BARRIERS TO
TARGETING June 10, 2014
Page 32
3 MAJOR TYPES OF BARRIERS
1. Scientific and
Technical
2. Social and Political
3. Institutional and
Implementation
Image: Nicholas A. Tonelli
Page 33
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: LIMITED DATA AND TOOLS
Source: U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW Model, courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Phosphorus Hot Spots in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Page 34
Scientific and Technical
OPTIONS
• Better employ existing tools and metrics
• Transfer tools
• Advance modeling capabilities
Image: NRCS/Lynn Betts
Page 35
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: COMPETING POLITICAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Source: WRI
Social and Political
Funding allocation under
business as usual
Page 36
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: COMPETING POLITICAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Source: WRI
Social and Political
Funding allocation under
targeting
Page 37
Scientific and Technical
OPTIONS
• Set aside portion of
funds for geographic
targeting
• Focus on costs and
benefits
Image: NRCS/Tim McCabe
Social and Political
Page 38
Scientific and Technical
CHALLENGE: LIMITED AGENCY CAPACITY AND
TARGETING EXPERIENCE
Image: NRCS/Bob Nichols
Social and Political
Institutional and Implementation
Page 39
Scientific and Technical
OPTIONS
• Strengthen leadership
and oversight
• Involve producers and
local community
• Use effective
mechanisms to educate
producers
Image: NRCS South Dakota
Social and Political
Institutional and Implementation
Page 40
THANK YOU!
Sara Walker
[email protected]
202-729-7824
Michelle Perez
[email protected]
202-729-7908
Image: NRCS/Lynn Betts
Page 41
VISIT WATER QUALITY TARGETING PAGE
wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting