Re so urc e s fo r tho se tha t suppo rt a g ric ultura l la ndsc a pe s a nd c o nse rva tio n
Na tio na l Ne two rk o n Wa te r Qua lity T ra ding T e c hnic a l a dvisor Coordina tors E stab lish a natio nal dialo g ue o n ho w wate r q uality trading c an b e st c o ntrib ute to c le an wate r g o als. T hat inc lude s pro viding o ptio ns and re c o mme ndatio ns to impro ve c o nsiste nc y, inno vatio n, and inte g rity in wate r q uality trading .
Building a Wa te r Qua lity T ra ding Pro g ra m: Optio ns a nd Co nside ra tio ns E le me nts a nd de c isio ns • inhe re nt in tra ding Po int-no npo int tra ding • De ta ile d o ptio ns • Pro s a nd c o ns fo r e a c h • o ptio n E xa mple s with de ta ile d • re fe re nc e s Co nsiste nt de finitio ns a nd • la ng ua g e
Na tio na l Ne two rk Dia lo g ue s Ma rc h 2016 (Sa c ra me nto , CA): Suppo rting a g ric ultura l • e ng a g e me nt in WQT No v 2016 (Wa shing to n D.C.): Ma rke t-b a se d • a ppro a c he s to sto rmwa te r ma na g e me nt Ma y 2016 (St. L o uis): Pro g ra m e va lua tio n: Me a suring • pro g re ss in WQT
Unlo c king Ma rke t De ma nd Wha t is the b ro a de r spe c trum o f de ma nd fo r WQT ? Agriculture cooperatives, companies, and • Municipal and industrial wastewater other producers • sources Philanthropy and socially responsible • Corporate sustainability investments investment • Drinking water utilities and beverage Public purchasers (e.g., state grant programs, • • companies soil and water conservation districts, federal cost share programs, infrastructure investment funds)
Willa me tte Pa rtne rship LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION.
Dia lo g ue Co nve ne rs Mark Kieser Bill Berry
The Diffusion of Innovations Innovators: Venturesome Early Adopters: Respectable Early Majority: Deliberate Late Majority: Skeptical Laggards: Traditional Rogers, Everett, 2003: The Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. The Free Press, New York. FGB: 4437,4 page 247 .
Program Conditions • Decisions affect price and opportunities to bring in spectrum of producers • High baselines...favor early adopters, limit participation, increase credit price, decrease market opportunities • WI Ag baselines…nearly unachievable even for TMDLs • Low baselines… • Great Miami targeting late adopters…low prices • VA stormwater credits targeting marginal lands…farmer financial gain
Farmer Considerations • Farmer economics (yield, input costs) • Contrary operational needs (improved drainage) • Short game vs. long game • Proven benefits • Access to technical information • Quantification of things not normally quantified • Farmer age and encumbering property for future generations • Land leased or owned • Risks/risk aversion (Sunday headlines; permits)
Science/Technology Considerations • Unintended consequences...no-till in WLEB • Ecosystem changes • Tiling/infiltration • Channelization/downcutting • Science gaps…linkages/lags • Production needs vs WQ needs • Opportunistic participation (random conservation) vs strategic participation in the landscape • WI Adaptive Management example...WQ outcome- based vs WQT for cheapest load reductions
What have we learned? • For Ag….conditions vary • Adaptability and flexibility • One size does not fit all • Absent demand…Ag is subject to disappointment • What WQT attributes translate well to other programs? • Do we recognize what’s worked or keep trying to build a better mouse trap for Ag participation and messaging? • Do we tailor WQT for every farmer knowing only a few will participate; or do we tailor to those likely to give most cost-effective credits? • Bottom line…farmer has to make a decision at the end of the day whether participation is worth it…our efforts must consider this
Dia lo g ue Ob je c tive s • De fine the po te ntia l ro le s o f inte rme dia rie s • I de ntify re so urc e ne e ds fo r pro g ra m imple me nta tio n • L o o k fo r e ffic ie nc ie s b y a lig ning e xisting pro g ra ms • Suppo rt c o mmunity o f pra c tic e
Why We Are He re Local entities such as conservation districts (CDs), cooperative extension agents, crop advisors, and other third party practitioners – collectively known as trusted intermediaries – bridge the trust gap between landowners and stewardship programs , and can be a valuable asset towards the implementation of water quality trading programs.
Why We Are He re • Program Administrator • Project planner/site screening • Project verifier • Credit aggregator • Monitoring and Reporting • Advisor
Why We Are He re • Ho w c a n tra ding pro g ra ms c a pita lize o n trust a nd kno wle dg e o f inte rme dia rie s? • Wha t re so urc e s c a n he lp inte rme dia rie s in the ir va rying ro le s? • Ho w c a n WQT a lig n with e xisting pro g ra ms? • Wha t o ppo rtunitie s a re the re fo r WQT to a dva nc e e xisting a nd e me rg ing c o nse rva tio n pro g ra ms?
Recommend
More recommend
