North Carolina Vision for the Future of Conservation Delivery
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•27 views
From the 2020 NACD Annual Meeting. Learn how the North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts has partnered with the North Carolina Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation to develop a vision for the future of conservation delivery in the state.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to North Carolina Vision for the Future of Conservation Delivery
Similar to North Carolina Vision for the Future of Conservation Delivery (20)
More from National Association of Conservation Districts
More from National Association of Conservation Districts (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
North Carolina Vision for the Future of Conservation Delivery
- 1. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Bryan Evans, NC Association of Conservation Districts Michelle Lovejoy, NC Fnd for Soil & Water Conservation
- 3. NC Conservation Partners’ Foundation Private, Corporate, State & Federal Resources Enhance Conservation Leadership Grow Foundation’s Fiscal Security Build Conservation Partnership Support Locally Led Conservation Message
- 4. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Quick History Lesson - Hugh’s Big Idea Use the land according to its capabilities, manage the water and soil as one, never relax vigilance. “What is the most important thing that you have learned?” “…that a man can make his soil better than what nature provided for his use.” Rebuild a political commitment to conservation by … speaking terms of ethics as well as economics. Essay from Relationship with the Land: High Hammond Bennett, Aldo Leopold, and the Future of Conservation Land Ethic
- 5. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery The Soil Conservation Service in New York State (1954) Study to assess inter-agency cooperation and farmer attitudes Michael von Eltz Rulison Master’s Thesis Cornell University Purpose: limit soil erosion and build productivity capacity; focus on demonstrations + plans Improvements: Allow planning process to meet local needs Concerns: Small group using resources; Not using plans, focused on single practices Valued Assets: Technical assistance on private lands
- 6. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Meet your Facilitation Team! Dr. Mary Lou Addor NCSU College of Natural Resources Donna Rewalt Cooperative Extension Durham Co Bryan Evans Association Michelle Lovejoy Foundation
- 7. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery • Funding - NRCS Cooperative Agreement • 2016 Memorandum of Agreement = Core Conservation Partner • Soil and Water Conservation Districts • Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts • Conservation District Employee Association • Association of RC&D Councils • NC Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation • Soil and Water Conservation Commission • Department of Ag’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
- 8. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Project Concept: 1. To realize the goals of the core conservation partnership. 2. Be prepared to address emerging issues. 3. End result - a road map to envision future Conservation Delivery success. Present State of Conservation Delivery Shaping the Future of Conservation Delivery Strengths, Opportunities, Challenges Assessment Background: turnover in leadership and capacity; funding sources are smaller in scope or have changed mandates.
- 9. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery StrategicFormulation Step 1. Stakeholder Input Interview national organizations Interview other State Associations Interview State External Partners District Input - survey & Focus Groups Step 2. Core Partners Facilitated Discussions Review Stakeholder Input Define organization’s partnering role Refine draft Strengths, Opportunities, Challenges Identify information gaps Step 3. Core Partners Leadership Retreat I Review Stakeholder & Core Partners Input Refine Strengths, Opportunities, Challenges Partners draft Strategic Directions (post retreat) Step 5. Core Partners Leadership Retreat II Adopt Strategic Directions Goals and Action Plans Step 4. Conservation District Feedback Solicited Input at Annual / Spring Meetings Strategic Directions Goals &Objectives Activities & Timeline To achieve Objectives
- 10. National Orgs + State Associations Interviews NACD NCDEA NASCA USDA NRCS American Farm Bureau American Farmland Trust Other State Assoc • Virginia • Tennessee • Delaware NC External Partners Interviews Environmental • Conservation Trust NC • Environmental Defense Fund • NC Environmental Educators Commodity Groups • Pork Council • Cattlemen • Cotton Producers Advocacy / Service Providers • Farm Credits • Farm Bureau Academia • Cooperative Extension • UNC-CH SoG • Mount Olive University StrategicFormulation Step 1. Stakeholder Input = Interview External Partners
- 11. Partnership Strengths Partnership Weaknesses Power of Local Relations Technical Capacity Unique Structure Improves Environment Strength of Partnership Locally Led Conservation via Strong Leadership Education + Outreach Partnership Composition, Support, and Functionality Program Delivery Local Board Engagement Job Skills and Training Workload Limited Resources Limited Public Understanding
- 12. Current / Emerge Issues + Future Opportunities Threats from Current / Emerge Issues • Increase Capacity • Advocacy + Engagement • Agriculture Innovations • Urbanization • Education + Marketing • Natural Resource Issues • Privatization of Conservation Delivery • Limited Resources and Staff Capacity • Local Leadership Attrition • Regulations that limit the voluntary approach
- 13. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery
- 14. Q Sort Only Association Executive Committee Commission Foundation Q Sort + Discuss District Employee Assoc RC&Ds NRCS Division StrategicFormulation Step 2. Core Partners Facilitated Discussions Review Stakeholder Input Define organization’s partnering role Refine draft Strengths, Opportunities, Challenges Identify information gaps
- 15. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery 41% 22% 37% 0% 70% 9% 18% 3% 81% 8% 12% 0% BOARD MEETING STAFF REVIEW STAFF AND BOARD REVIEW - NOT IN MT DISCUSSION, UNSPECIFIED How the survey information was collected Mountain Piemont Coast
- 16. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery 67 39 31 30 30 26 16 13 8 6 5 2 Top Strengths
- 17. Current or Emerging Issues Statewide 15 13 15 3 3 3 19 16 15 6 9 1 10 14 11 12 6 2 By Region Moutain Piedmont Coast
- 18. 17 9 4 10 2 8 4 Challenges Impacting Conservation Delivery #1 Limited Funding = 69 #2 Limited Program Resources = 65 (staff + training + engineering + equipment)
- 19. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery A project of the NC Conservation Partnership
- 20. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery A project of the NC Conservation Partnership Funding provided by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service with facilitation support from NC State University
- 21. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Core Partners Leadership Retreat I - Formalize Strategic Directions Timeline: September 10 Farm Bureau = HURRICANE FLORENCE Evaluate Stakeholder Input Verify – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities + Challenges Core Partners Leadership Retreat II – Formalize Action Plan Timeline: December 11-12; Farm Bureau = WINTER ICE STORM Adopt Strategic Directions Form Action Plan Committees for 3+ Strategic Directions Step 3. Core Partners Leadership Retreat I Review Stakeholder & Core Partners Input Refine Strengths, Opportunities, Challenges Partners draft Strategic Directions (post retreat) StrategicFormulation
- 22. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Get input on Goals / Objectives • Small Group Discussions • What Strategic Directions are important for your District? • What kinds of goals can your District support? • Goals & Objectives Brainstorm • Draft goals should include a noun & a verb • Draft objectives include specific measurements • Vote on your favorite Goals or write your own! StrategicFormulation Step 4. Conservation District Feedback 360 Review = Solicited Input at Annual / Spring Meetings
- 23. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery Step 5. Core Partners Leadership Retreat II Adopt Strategic Directions Goals and Action Plans Strategic Directions Goals &Objectives Activities & Timeline
- 24. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery A project of the NC Conservation Partnership Strategic Direction I: Implement leadership development to promote effective locally-led conservation Goal: Develop a training program for boards & staff Strategic Direction II: Connect the private landowner’s management goals and the partnership’s priorities Goal 1: Reinvigorate a process stakeholders to give input into setting local priorities. Goal 2: planning process for each landowner, includes management goals and impacts (9-steps)
- 25. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery A project of the NC Conservation Partnership Strategic Direction III: Collaborate for locally-led conservation Goal 1: Redo local workgroup process for broad community support. Strategic Direction IV: Address current and emerging landscape scale issues through integrated planning both locally and regionally Goal 1: Improve program efficiencies with regional approaches. Goal 2: Mitigate natural disasters impacts with conservation processes
- 26. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery A project of the NC Conservation Partnership Strategic Direction V: Strengthen & leverage Conservation Districts to be the preferred conservation delivery system Goal 1: build local technical and educational capabilities Goal 2: strengthen relationships with local and regional governments and non-governmental partners Strategic Direction VI: Advocate to increase current and new resources, and educate the public, on existing & emerging issues Goal 1: build relationships with Federal, State, and Local leaders Goal 2: verify success of conservation Goal 3: leverage private $ for conservation
- 27. Visioning the Future of Conservation Delivery A project of the NC Conservation Partnership Core Partners put Plan into Action Assign Strategic Directions to Association Committees • Each committee has 1 • Two committees share 1 • Finance com reviews $ requests Assign RC&D reps Committee Orientation Training at Spring Mts Coms draft Action Plans Review 2x yr – Summer & Annual Mts Core Partners Reassess in 3 to 5 years
Editor's Notes
- Bryan Introduction Michelle Introduction Share a story of how we are strengthening our partnership, you can do a similar process in your state. So as you listen, think about how it could apply to your partnership.
- Proud history of being first in conservation, with Dr. Hugh Hammond Bennett forming first District in 1937 Hub of partnership Part of state government, but most consider part of county government Receive state and county operating funds and state cost share funds Association formed in 1950s = Executive Director for 10 years Soil & Water Commission Establishing the rules and procedures of the cost share programs, currently funded at $5M Division – in NC Dept of Ag Staff to commission, currently~40 Provides resources and assistance to Districts on all fronts NRCS currently capped at ~120 in NC $22M in EQIP annually RC&Ds = 11 in state, covering ¾ of state Some in good place post loss of federal funds, others still looking for better structure DEA = strong leadership in employee ranks Foundation, next slide
- $15M to date, leverage $16M more Formed 20 years ago by state Association Brings a more in-depth level of support to conservation in our state
- Michelle
- Based on national MOA template, but added Foundation
- Current District + Partnership Strengths – The Power of Local Relationships (7) – personal relationships with private landowners and the community Technical Capacity (7) – provide site specific solutions following national standards Unique Organizational Structure (7) - provide a bridge from local to state to national levels; Work that Improves the Environment (6) –offering a community to regional approach to solve issues The Strength of the Conservation Partnership (6) –proud legacy; the partnership as a “family”; allows for a cross pollination of ideas Locally Led Conservation through Strong Leadership (5) –partners are stronger when Districts are strongest Education + Outreach (4) –pathway for future leader development Current District + Partnership Weaknesses Partnership Composition, Support, and Functionality (4) – lack of nontraditional partners; limited legislative support; too departmentalized; Program Delivery (4) – Regulatory challenges; loss of local decision-making; Local Board Engagement (4) – too much reliance on partners, county no longer relies on the District as the “go to” for land management issues Job Skills Development and Training (4) –limited cross training; colleges not teaching basic conservation skills; inability to modernize Workload (4) - high attrition rates leads to a loss of institutional knowledge; Limited Resources (3) –lower salaries than industry; un-funded mandates; and being expected to “do more with less” Limited Public Understanding (2) –inability to link conservation benefits to economic benefits; limited focus on adult outreach programs Outliers important points offered by a single group no time to do long-range visioning Farmers adopt technology faster than the partnership so that partners are losing their technical edge board composition – ag background or not, older or younger, looking beyond county lines
- Future Opportunities Increase Organizational Capacity – diversify services, partner with local businesses + corporate; attract next generation to spur innovation; Advocacy + Engagement –assume active role in Farm Bill discussions; capitalize on national interest in water quality and water quantity Agriculture Innovations – precision agriculture; small farm startups; new technologies such as drones + remote sensing; emerging markets Changing Land Use due to Urbanization –working lands preservation, stormwater management, land use buffers Education + Marketing – modernize youth education programs; large scale media campaigns; develop next generation messaging Natural Resource Issues soil health, cover crops, carbon sequestration; precision ag; animal waste management; air quality Outliers Conservation with an Impact + watershed to landscape scale conservation Climate change – linkages to soil health + water quantity Population growth and increase in food demand Water usage groundwater management + regional water management Negatively Impact Locally Led Conservation Delivery Privatization of Conservation Delivery Limited Resources and Staff Capacity Local Leadership Attrition Regulations that limit the voluntary approach Outliers population growth; resistance to climate change; current political climate; unwilling to be innovative and solution oriented;
- Collective Vision of Locally Led Conservation Delivery Below is a word cloud of thoughts offered by the other state associations, national organizations, and state level supporting groups. The title page includes statements made by Conservation Districts in the online survey. How other state associations, national orgs, and state level orgs answered question of Future Vision of Locally Led Conservation Local Solutions Build, Share, Research Voluntary, prioritization Small word - measurable
- Survey opened after Annual Meeting and stayed open 2 months 88 Districts participated Did get feedback that Districts found the survey cumbersome, next time need to do an orientation for staff to answer questions up front Note survey designed with open ended questions, so no question has a checklist of items to tick off Facilitation Team lumped like answers together for analysis
- District Top 3 Strengths #1 Technically strong and knowledgeable staff #2 District staff and board understand the needs of local community and the landscape = “Locally Led” #3 Engaged knowledgeable Board Interesting – Some of these ideas also appeared on external partners “weakness” list = good process in place but maybe we aren’t as affective as we could be
- Top 3 Issues Impacts from Development Agriculture (emerging markets, regulatory changes) Need to increase organizational capacity – staffing, program resources, technical assistance tools like equipment, training Interesting Piedmont referenced urban issues whereas coastal mentioned water issues Similar list from partners – lots of discussion at national level on Landscape Scale Conservation with an Impact Climate Change & Population growth these topics but do not seem to surface much at District level DIFFERENT DISCUSSION POST FLORENCE
- Challenges are just Opportunities in disguise Top answers – not enough funding and not enough program resources – chart lists others Urbanization Partnership Cohesion Changes in agriculture Public awareness Reflecting – External – changing state and changing ag markets; Internal – do we play well together and does the public really get us Partners also included Privatization of conservation delivery Local leadership attrition – staff and boards Interesting Outliers Inability to be innovative and solution oriented – again, no time to plan ahead / only dealing with immediate issues (brain operations)