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.

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

3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
EXCESS ALGAE BLOOMS

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
FISH KILLS

5. MAJOR SOURCE:
FARM NUTRIENT & SEDIMENT RUNOFF

6. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM:
COASTAL EUTROPHICATION & HYPOXIA WORLDWIDE

7. DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –
Prioritizing areas:
a. Greatest environmental
impairments

8. DEFINING TARGETING
• Geographic targeting –
Prioritizing areas:
a. Greatest environmental
impairments
b. Pristine conditions

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

17. 3 TARGETING APPROACHES IN MODEL

18. DUAL TARGETING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN BAU
12 x
8 x
8 x
7.5 x

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)

22. BUSINESS-AS-USUAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS

23. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
MULTIPLE BENEFITS OPTIMIZATION (N, P, C)

24. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
PHOSPHORUS OPTIMIZATION

25. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
NITROGEN OPTIMIZATION

26. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
SEDIMENT OPTIMIZATION

27. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR
SOIL CARBON OPTIMIZATION

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

30. Thank You!
Michelle Perez, PhD
202-729-7908
mperez@wri.org

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

34. Scientific and
Technical
OPTIONS
• Better employ existing
tools and metrics
• Transfer tools
• Advance modeling
capabilities
Image: NRCS/Lynn Betts

35. Scientific and
Technical
CHALLENGE: COMPETING POLITICAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Source: WRI
Social and
Political
Funding allocation under
business as usual

36. Scientific and
Technical
CHALLENGE: COMPETING POLITICAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
Source: WRI
Social and
Political
Funding allocation under
targeting

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

38. Scientific and
Technical
CHALLENGE: LIMITED AGENCY CAPACITY AND
TARGETING EXPERIENCE
Image: NRCS/Bob Nichols
Social and
Political
Institutional and
Implementation

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

40. THANK YOU!
Sara Walker
swalker@wri.org
202-729-7824
Michelle Perez
mperez@wri.org
202-729-7908
Image: NRCS/Lynn Betts

41. VISIT WATER QUALITY TARGETING PAGE
wri.org/water/water-quality-targeting