2017 SWCS Annual Conference July 30-August 2, 2017 Monona Terrace Convention Center

1. SWCS Conference
August 2017
PREPARING FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP: A
DUAL APPROACH FOR ILLINOIS LAND TRUSTS

2. WHAT WE DO: work at the
nexus of environmental
sustainability and economic
development throughout the
Great Lakes.
ABOUT DELTA INSTITUTE
HOW WE DO IT:
• Develop innovative programs and market-driven
solutions
• Build sustainable markets
• Convene diverse stakeholders
• Inform better policy
@DeltaGreatLakes
Learn more at delta-institute.org

3. THE ORIGIN STORY
• In 2008, Grand Victoria Foundation
(GVF) brings together conservation
leaders
• In 2009, GVF revises its grant guidelines
based on VLI member priorities
• VLI includes land trusts, other
nonprofits, government
representatives, and funders
• Summits are held regularly and working
groups continue to meet and advance
conservation activities
• Working Groups – 1. Policy, 2.
Coordination, & 3. Funding http://www.grandvictoriafdn.org/how-we-work/how-can-we-overcome-fragmentation-
and-unite-behind-a-big-picture-vision

4. PROTECTED LAND IN ILLINOIS
Conserved Land in IL: 1,028,054 acres
Privately Held Land: 74, 216 acres
Source: PSCC I-View Web Platform
Holding Acres
Conservation Easement 23090
Fee Simple 50824
Life Estate 90
Managed 213

5. THE COSTS OF STEWARDSHIP
We used PSCC data and the ISNAV
values to roughly estimate that the
stewardship cost associated with
these acres is $8-$11 million
annually.
https://www.aldoleopold.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/McKenna-blog-2-540x360.jpg
http://sustainability.fnal.gov/images/land-stewardship/07-0414-
06D_md.jpg
At a growth rate of 1,500
acres annually in 25 years,
this would grow to >$16
million

6. ILLINOIS LAND ACQUISITION
NAAF
Year Acres Dollars
2013 43.3 $43,000
2011 39.4 $140,000
2010 302.5 $454,500
2009 814.3 $4,115,058
2008 516.8 $5,302,699
2007 692.6 $3,315,803
2006 3,306.10 $13,560,981
2005 430.4 $1,230,174
2004 548 $937,188
2003 1,266.00 $2,883,504
2002 3,752.10 $5,207,448
2001 1,539.90 $3,838,584
2000 485.8 $1,195,308
1999 1,393.10 $4,418,801
1998 257.2 $743,038
Total 15,387.50 $47,386,090
Open Lands Trust
Year Acres Dollars
2013 715.4 $2,947,296
2012 547.9 $2,884,500
2007 0 $1,000,000
2006 259 $1,268,500
2005 217.5 $744,763
2004 10 $2,014,680
2003 7,217.10 $31,667,692
2002 6,841.30 $32,754,321
2001 18,112.00 $40,780,096
2000 7,504.60 $21,721,455
1999 1,662.00 $7,000,000
1998 131.5 $60,006
Total 43,218.20 $144,843,310
OSLAD
Year Acres Dollars
2012 0 $623,350
2011 5.3 $168,500
2010 215.7 $4,996,400
2009 180 $3,838,100
2008 0 $5,841,050
2007 75.2 $7,560,666
2006 113.8 $9,308,400
2005 0 $1,455,500
2004 40 $2,681,300
2003 5.2 $1,821,800
2002 11.3 $1,570,450
2001 2.3 $5,536,190
2000 136.2 $5,967,800
1999 29.9 $4,267,200
1998 1.9 $3,350,600
Total 816.7 $58,987,306
All graphs from conservation almanac.org "Since 1998, NAAF provided $47.4 million in
funding to acquire 15,321 acres of high quality natural habitat. Between 2010 and 2014,
less than $1 million total has been spent on land acquisition. “

7. HOW DO WE PROVIDE
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING TO
MAINTAIN HIGH QUALITY
ECOSYSTEMS ON
PROTECTED LANDS?

8. THE PROJECT TEAM
Policy
Perspective
Market
Analysis
Practitioner
Perspective

9. OUR “HYPOTHESIS”:
The traditional “buy and flip” or “acquire, restore, transfer”
models are currently not sustainable. We need a new
model for long term management of high value
ecosystems.

10. OUR PROCESS
1. Assess existing Illinois revenue structures and budget needs,
both short-term and long-term, for conservation.
2. Identify the elements and benefits of successful stewardship
financing models.
3. Assess barriers to implementation of these models.
4. Design a sustainable financing mechanism.
5. Identify necessary infrastructure for implementing the
proposed framework.

11. KEY BARRIERS IDENTIFIED
• Reliable funding with longer term contracts
• Holistic funding that covers acquisition, restoration, stewardship, and
administration
• Available funding for all conservation organizations
• Diverse funding that can comply with match requirements
• Lessening of restrictions to prevent mission drift
• Greater capacity in the form of staff, equipment and expertise
• More collaboration among smaller organization to tap into larger
opportunities.

12. KEY BARRIERS IDENTIFIED
• Reliable funding with longer term contracts
• Holistic funding that covers acquisition, restoration, stewardship, and
administration
• Available funding for all conservation organizations
• Diverse funding that can comply with match requirements
• Lessening of restrictions to prevent mission drift
• Greater capacity in the form of staff, equipment and expertise
• More collaboration among smaller organization to tap into larger
opportunities.
INCREASE FUNDING AND CAPACITY

13. A SCAN OF MECHANISMS
● Carbon Income Investments
Program
● Carbon Offsets
● Collective Impact Model
● Conservation Easement
● Cost Share Payments
● Deposit Refund Scheme
● Direct Budget Allocations
● Ecosystem Service Fees/Payment
for Ecosystem Services
● Endowed Funds
● Green Bond Financing
● Green Commodities Price Premiums
from Working Lands
● Impact Investing
● Insurance Payments
● Natural Capital Levy
● Opt-In Donations
● Program Related Investments
● Real Estate Transfer Tax
● Sales Tax/Excise Tax
● Settlement Funding
● Mitigation Funding
● Clean Water State Revolving
Fund
● Substitute Fund
● Tourism/User Fees
● Transfer of Development
Rights

14. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
• Resource and Financial Flow
• Involved Parties
• Strengths/Weaknesses
• Does it create a sustainable revenue stream or address
a specific barrier addressed in the project?
• Applicability to Illinois and for Stewardship

15. CASE STUDIES
1. CA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
2. Iroquois Valley Farms Working Lands
Model
3. MI Natural Resources Trust Fund
4. “From Forests to Faucets”
Partnerships
5. Sierra Nevada Watershed
Improvement Program
6. Freshwater Trust Medford Oregon
Temperature Trading

16. Mechanism: Ecosystem
Service Payments
– Source water
protection through
forest management
– Over 5 years, costs
each user
approximately $27

17. NARROWING IN DURING ROUND 2 EVALUATION
Mechanism Barrier Addressed
Ballot Measure Stewardship
Fund
Sustainable Funding
Private or Foundation
Developed Stewardship Fund
Sustainable Funding, Match Requirements
Land Aggregation for
Ecosystem Services or Markets
Scale needed to tap into markets,
Coordination, Match Requirements
Expanding use of State SRF Sustainable Funding
Business to Business Service
Network
Capacity development. Quick Access, Match
Requirements, Coordination
Working Lands Models Sustainable Funding, Quick Access
The Stewardship Clearing
House
Quick Access
A Unified Conservation Bank Capacity development, Quick Access

18. PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATION
• Scale of Mechanism
• Addressing what need
• Potential Lead and other Orgs Impacted
• Implementation Needs
• Constraints and Barriers
• Policy Implications
• Key Unknowns
• Administrative burden
• Eligibility Requirements
• Timeline for Implementation

19. THE DUAL APPROACH

20. APPROACH 1: REGIONAL STEWARDSHIP PARTNERSHIPS
Why: Increasing and Optimizing Capacity
How: Formalize the informal stewardship
networks
• Begin with 5 potential regions based on
IDNR regions
• 1 Stewardship Coordinator each to
facilitate and provide expertise
• Built on a collective impact model

21. COLLECTIVE IMPACT MODEL

22. APPROACH 1: REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
Potential Roadblocks
• Initial scaling of program
• Long-term buy-in
• Concern about value of organizations time
• Regional constraints
The Benefits
• Builds upon existing networks and relationships
• Identifies new partnership opportunities and resource optimization
• Paid technical expertise and support

23. APPROACH 2: A NONPROFIT AGRICULTURAL WORKING LANDS
COOPERATIVE
Why: The need for a sustainable funding source
How: Create a working lands “endowment”
• investment cooperative that invests in sustainable farmland to create
returns and grow the pot over time.
• Aggregates donated land and dollars from land trusts and attracts outside
donations/dollars
• Entity manages all leasing, management techniques, legal agreements
• Provide the needed support for farmers to develop sustainable practices
• By setting up this specific entity we can leverage additional funding through
PRI’s, mission aligned investments, and foundation dollars improving the
bottom line for Land Trusts

24. INITIAL FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Stewardship Scenario
Low Annual Cost per
Acre
High Annual
Cost per Acre
FarmlandScenario
100% Good
Productivity
Acres Needed in
Cooperative
27,268 35,704
Cost to
Purchase Acres
$212,688,320 $278,488,769
100% Fair
Productivity
Acres Needed in
Cooperative
54,535 71,407
Cost to
Purchase Acres
$261,770,240 $342,755,408

25. APPROACH 2: AN AGRICULTURAL WORKING LANDS
COOPERATIVE (WE THINK)
Potential Roadblocks
• Equitable distribution of generated income
• LT need to be able to use land as collateral still
• Farmer apprehensions
• Agricultural market shifts
• BMP identification
• Slow early growth
The Benefits
• Align mission with Investments
• Increasing the overall acres protected
• Works across sizes

26. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND NEXT STEPS

27. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND NEXT STEPS
1. Further Understanding Land Trust Revenue Structures and Gaps
2. Creating Tools to better use existing revenue
3. Creating Policy Action Plans
4. Piloting the Dual Approach Framework

28. QUESTIONS?
Benjamin Shorofsky
Programs Specialist
bshorofsky@delta-institute.org
WHAT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DELTA’S WORK?
VISIT http://delta-institute.org/