Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MICHELLE PEREZ | Senior Associate | October 24, 2014Large Landscape Conservation Workshop| Washington, DC
Targeting farm conservation efforts for improving field-level & landscape-level water quality
3 papers on improving water quality through better targeting of U.S. farm conservation funds
www.wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting
DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –Prioritizing areas:a. Greatest change in
environmental conditions possible (field)
b. Greatest environmental impairments (landscape)
c. Pristine conditions (landscape)
• Benefit-cost targeting –Identifying acres and practices that can produce the most environmental benefits per dollar spent (e.g., most pounds of N reductions/$)
FIELD-SCALE TARGETING: Solves individual water quality problems
on individual farms
LANDSCAPE-LEVEL TARGETING: Achieving measurable water quality
improvements in water bodies
Targeting for Field Outcomes v. Targeting for Landscape Outcomes
Field-level targeting Landscape-level targeting
Opportunities for Improving Edge-of-field Water Quality
• USDA regional CEAP studies:– Half US cropland (146 M acres) has a “high” or
“medium” need for nutrient and soil loss conservation treatment
– Opportunity: NRCS should translate its CEAP findings into actionable protocols for each State to be able to “find” these priority fields
• WRI’s national targeting study– Used CEAP data & models to predict potential future
improvements in cost-effectiveness
IMPROVING WATER QUALITYA National Modeling Analysis on Increasing Cost Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm Conservation Funds
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How cost effective is the current (BAU) approach?– BAU= $335 M for 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?
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
* Excludes transaction costs
TARGETING MAY MEAN MORE ACRES
16.8
12.8
8.7
Benefit‐CostTargeting forSediment
Dual Targeting forNitrogen
BAU
1.5 times more acres for same $335 M budget
(Millions of acres)
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL ALLOCATION OF NUTRIENT & SEDIMENT REDUCTION FUNDS
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR MULTIPLE BENEFITS OPTIMIZATION (N, P, C)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR PHOSPHORUS OPTIMIZATION
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR NITROGEN OPTIMIZATION
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SEDIMENT OPTIMIZATION
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR SOIL CARBON OPTIMIZATION
1. Track environmental metrics in addition to administrative metrics
2. Rank applications according to benefit-cost ratios
3. Conduct pilot projects
4. Improve state funding allocation formulas
RECOMMENDATIONS
LANDSCAPE-LEVEL TARGETING: Achieving measurable water quality
improvements in water bodies
• Rural Clean Water Program (’80 – ’90)- 12/21 projects achieved measurable water quality improvements
• 319 Projects (on-going)- 1/3 of 488 “Success Stories” thanks to ag conservation programs
• NIFA-CEAP Watershed Projects (’13 evaluation)- 6/13 projects achieved measurable water quality improvements
Targeted Watershed Project Successes Rates
Mississippi River Basin
Healthy Watersheds
Initiative
WRI reviewed 60% of ‘10 &
‘11 MRBI projects in each state
Stakeholder & Producer Buy-in
SMART-Q Goals
Geographic Targeting
Monitoring & Evaluation
Cost-Effective-
ness
Adaptive Mgt
STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS
GOAL FINDINGS
Most projects went beyond outputs to set outcome-oriented goals
• All projects set MULTIPLE goals- 93%: output goals (BMP counts &
acres)- 78%: interim outcome goals
(Reduce fertilizer applications rates)- 78%: environmental outcome
goals (Reduce N & P loadings to streams)
• 67% of projects with outcome goals also set quantitative targets
PROJECT-LEVEL GOAL FINDINGS
• 78% of projects mention policy drivers (e.g. TMDLs or Impaired Waters List) but don’t state the project aims to address the driver
• None set ecological restoration goals
• Half of the most ambitious project goals weren’t very SMART-Q
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Prioritize funds for projects that aim to achieve already existing landscape-scale policy goals
• Write clear, SMART-Q goal statements for both the program & projects
GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING FINDINGS
Initiative lacked targeting rational for each of 43 MRBI areas
• Referenced relevant data but no narrative provided for why each project area was prioritized
- Top SPARROW N & P Loading Watersheds- Impaired Waters Lists- TMDL Lists- Availability of existing monitoring data- Availability of staff resources & interested on-the-ground
groups- Etc.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Provide “targeting narratives” for the targeted watershed projects
Tell the public about it on an MRBI and an RCPP state information clearing house website
MEASUREMENT & EVALUTION FINDINGSA lot of water quality monitoring may be
occurring at a lot of different scales
# Projects monitoring each major
water quality indicator category
Actual water quality indicators mentioned
MEASUREMENT & EVALUTION FINDINGS
• Uncertain Initiative oversight, leadership, & accountability for Initiative-level results- Providing EOF leadership: monitoring moratorium & new protocols- In-stream & watershed-outlet oversight?
• RFP required projects to have a “water quality monitoring and evaluation plan” - Half the projects planned to measure progress towards goal(s)
• Additional clarity is needed regarding - Only half the projects mentioned setting an adequate water quality
monitoring baseline- Only 40% of projects were using a watershed-based plan
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Ensure leadership & accountability for landscape-scale outcomes Establish MRBI & RCPP HQ & State Coordinators to collect
results data & tell the public about it on the websites
• Establish advisory teams for water quality monitoring, metrics, & modeling
• Prioritize projects with already existing baseline data or using a paired watershed approach
• Require watershed-based planning to help ensure landscape-scale outcomes
