Preparing for Long Term Stewardship
-
Upload
soil-and-water-conservation-society -
Category
Environment
-
view
140 -
download
0
Transcript of Preparing for Long Term Stewardship
SWCS Conference
August 2017
PREPARING FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP: A DUAL APPROACH FOR ILLINOIS LAND TRUSTS
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
@DeltaGreatLakesLearn more at delta-institute.org
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
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 AcresConservation Easement 23090Fee Simple 50824Life Estate 90Managed 213
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
ILLINOIS LAND ACQUISITION
NAAFYear Acres Dollars2013 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 TrustYear Acres Dollars2013 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
OSLADYear Acres Dollars2012 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. “
HOW DO WE PROVIDE SUSTAINABLE FUNDING TO MAINTAIN HIGH QUALITY ECOSYSTEMS ON PROTECTED LANDS?
THE PROJECT TEAM
Policy Perspective
Market Analysis
Practitioner Perspective
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
CASE STUDIES1. 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
Mechanism: Ecosystem Service Payments– Source water
protection through forest management
– Over 5 years, costs each user approximately $27
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
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
THE DUAL APPROACH
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
COLLECTIVE IMPACT MODEL
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
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
INITIAL FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Stewardship Scenario
Low Annual Cost per Acre
High Annual Cost per Acre
Farm
land
Sce
nari
o
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
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
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND NEXT STEPS
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND NEXT STEPS1. 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
https://openlandsdotorg files wordpress com/2016/05/local food jpg?w=1920
QUESTIONS?Benjamin ShorofskyPrograms Specialist
WHAT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DELTA’S WORK?VISIT http://delta-institute.org/