The document discusses two publications from WRI about improving the cost-effectiveness of U.S. farm conservation programs through better targeting of funds. It provides an overview of the research questions, data and models used, key findings, and recommendations. The modeling analysis found that targeting conservation funds based on both environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness could achieve 7-12 times more nutrient reductions per dollar spent compared to current approaches. The presentations also discuss barriers to targeting such as limited data, competing political interests, and agency capacity, and provides options to help overcome these barriers.
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
Improving Water Quality through Better Targeting of Farm Conservation Funds
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
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
amaddocks@wri.org.
Note: Today’s presentation is being
recorded and will be posted on
WRI’s website within a week.
Your Participation
GoToWebinar Housekeeping
9. DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –
Prioritizing areas:
a. Greatest environmental
impairments
b. Pristine conditions
c. Greatest change in
environmental conditions
possible
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/$)
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
12. MICHELLE PEREZ, PHD
IMPROVING WATER
QUALITY
A National Modeling Analysis on Increasing Cost
Effectiveness through Better Targeting of U.S. Farm
Conservation Funds
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?
14. DATA & MODELS
• Farmer survey data
from Natural Resources
Inventory-Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project (NRI-CEAP)
• Agricultural Policy
Extender (APEX) model
• Economic optimization
model
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
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
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
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
21. TARGETING MAY MEAN MORE ACRES
16.8
12.8
8.7
Benefit-Cost
Targeting for
Sediment
Dual Targeting for
Nitrogen
BAU
1.5 times
more acres
(Millions of acres)
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
29. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Track environmental benefits
2. Rank applications according to
benefit-cost ratios
3. Conduct pilot projects
4. Improve state funding allocation
formulas
31. SARA WALKER AND MICHELLE PEREZ
OVERCOMING
BARRIERS TO
TARGETING
June 10, 2014
32. 3 MAJOR TYPES OF BARRIERS
1. Scientific and
Technical
2. Social and Political
3. Institutional and
Implementation
Image: Nicholas A. Tonelli
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
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
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