<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for A little noted provision of the new Farm Bill]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Craig Allen http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/ Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:30:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/1 Good in theory ... but

Working as a wetland conservation officer I was successful in attracting AU$3.4 million for a conservation tender project in the Volcanic Plains ecosystems in Victoria (South East Australia) - www.ccma.vic.gov.au/home/vicvolcanicplains.htm

This followed in the wake of a bush tender project that was previously undertaken in region.

These projects a good in theory. But there are some severe problems with them. Most notably, as with all government programs, they receive inadequate funding in short bouts spanning at the most 3 years.

We are loosing remnants ecosystems in this region at a rapid rate. Once an area of native vegetation is lost, it is lost for ever. There is no example that I can think of where anyone has managed to recreate a significant area of bushland or native grassland so that it has more than a passing resemblance to a real remnant. Natural ecosystems are just too diverse and complex. Sure you can plant certain trees and shrubs, but what about the diverse array of small shrubs, herbs, grasses, sedges and geophytes. I guess that it is theoretically possible, but in reality the cost would be astronomical. Given this, there is an urgent imperative to halt the loss and decline of remnants. And loss is a one way street. You simple can not reverse losses (unless we increase available funding by several orders of magnitude - and invest massively in research and infrastructure to enable the propagation of species not currently available within existing horticultural propagation systems).

So in these tender projects we are asking people to bid to maintain or enhance existing remnants, we are designing the system so that they will do it for minimum cost, and the people we are asking to do it are generally farmers and hobby farmers with little understanding of ecological systems or ecological management techniques. However we will only pay for the ecological service for 3 years at a time. If the landholder/service provider does not continue to maintain a site, then it will subsequently degrade and all the invested money will have been lost. And if land changes hands, then the situation is worse still.

So we are actually critically dependent on the good will of the participating service providers, hoping that they will carry on the good work after the official project ends. However, it turns out the people who have participated in these programs as service providers or bidder often have a very poor opinion of them. They find the bidding process painfully complicated, in part because it generally involves a bidding to provide a service that they have never before provided. And also due the available money is always way less than needed to meet the demand or need in a region, there is a high bid failure rate. As a result, the tender process actually alienates many of the people who's good will we depend on.

With the Volcanic Plains Tender project, which has been implemented very well by the staff involved, I would estimate that rather than AU$3.4 over 3 years, we would realistically need AU$10 to 20 million per year, every year forever. It's a pittance when you compare it to funding on other programs such as roads. But it is just never going to happen. And besides, I suspect that we would be better off just buying up high value land and employing professionally trained ecosystem managers to look after that along with all the remnants on existing public land that are rapidly disregarding while we muck around with these tenders. Economists love these market based mechanisms, but you average economist has never tried to maintain an ecosystem, or tried to convince cranky farmers to not plough and graze them.

And besides, ecosystems and landscapes evolve over periods of hundreds and thousands of years, and need to be maintained over generations. These are not the timeframes within which economists work.

]]> Good in theory ... but

Working as a wetland conservation officer I was successful in attracting AU$3.4 million for a conservation tender project in the Volcanic Plains ecosystems in Victoria (South East Australia) - www.ccma.vic.gov.au/home/vicvolcanicplains.htm

This followed in the wake of a bush tender project that was previously undertaken in region.

These projects a good in theory. But there are some severe problems with them. Most notably, as with all government programs, they receive inadequate funding in short bouts spanning at the most 3 years.

We are loosing remnants ecosystems in this region at a rapid rate. Once an area of native vegetation is lost, it is lost for ever. There is no example that I can think of where anyone has managed to recreate a significant area of bushland or native grassland so that it has more than a passing resemblance to a real remnant. Natural ecosystems are just too diverse and complex. Sure you can plant certain trees and shrubs, but what about the diverse array of small shrubs, herbs, grasses, sedges and geophytes. I guess that it is theoretically possible, but in reality the cost would be astronomical. Given this, there is an urgent imperative to halt the loss and decline of remnants. And loss is a one way street. You simple can not reverse losses (unless we increase available funding by several orders of magnitude - and invest massively in research and infrastructure to enable the propagation of species not currently available within existing horticultural propagation systems).

So in these tender projects we are asking people to bid to maintain or enhance existing remnants, we are designing the system so that they will do it for minimum cost, and the people we are asking to do it are generally farmers and hobby farmers with little understanding of ecological systems or ecological management techniques. However we will only pay for the ecological service for 3 years at a time. If the landholder/service provider does not continue to maintain a site, then it will subsequently degrade and all the invested money will have been lost. And if land changes hands, then the situation is worse still.

So we are actually critically dependent on the good will of the participating service providers, hoping that they will carry on the good work after the official project ends. However, it turns out the people who have participated in these programs as service providers or bidder often have a very poor opinion of them. They find the bidding process painfully complicated, in part because it generally involves a bidding to provide a service that they have never before provided. And also due the available money is always way less than needed to meet the demand or need in a region, there is a high bid failure rate. As a result, the tender process actually alienates many of the people who's good will we depend on.

With the Volcanic Plains Tender project, which has been implemented very well by the staff involved, I would estimate that rather than AU$3.4 over 3 years, we would realistically need AU$10 to 20 million per year, every year forever. It's a pittance when you compare it to funding on other programs such as roads. But it is just never going to happen. And besides, I suspect that we would be better off just buying up high value land and employing professionally trained ecosystem managers to look after that along with all the remnants on existing public land that are rapidly disregarding while we muck around with these tenders. Economists love these market based mechanisms, but you average economist has never tried to maintain an ecosystem, or tried to convince cranky farmers to not plough and graze them.

And besides, ecosystems and landscapes evolve over periods of hundreds and thousands of years, and need to be maintained over generations. These are not the timeframes within which economists work.

]]> Comment #2 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/ Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:15:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/2 No offense, but...

directs the USDA to work in cooperation with other federal and state agencies, NGOs, and others to establish technical guidelines for measuring environmental services, as well as a verification process. Environmental service markets could cover such areas as water and air quality and habitat protection, but the initial focus is to be on carbon markets.

...it seems awfully vague.  I don't see anthing 'bout standards or any sorta language that would require their input into any of these fields if they didn't want to give their advice (or if others didn't want them to give it).

Also, it's not the USDA is the most eco-friendly thing out there (to be blunt, they clash heads with even moderate environmentalists often enough to cause major migrains for the movement), so even if they give their input, it wouldn't necessarily be the type of input that would lead to a cleaner environment to begin with.

]]> No offense, but...

directs the USDA to work in cooperation with other federal and state agencies, NGOs, and others to establish technical guidelines for measuring environmental services, as well as a verification process. Environmental service markets could cover such areas as water and air quality and habitat protection, but the initial focus is to be on carbon markets.

...it seems awfully vague.  I don't see anthing 'bout standards or any sorta language that would require their input into any of these fields if they didn't want to give their advice (or if others didn't want them to give it).

Also, it's not the USDA is the most eco-friendly thing out there (to be blunt, they clash heads with even moderate environmentalists often enough to cause major migrains for the movement), so even if they give their input, it wouldn't necessarily be the type of input that would lead to a cleaner environment to begin with.

]]> Comment #3 by Thomas Dobbs http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/ Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:16:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/3 yes, indeed, the language is vague

The language in this new Farm Bill provision is, indeed, quite vague. That's one reason I did this post, to alert the environmental community to watch for opportunities for dialogue and input.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> yes, indeed, the language is vague

The language in this new Farm Bill provision is, indeed, quite vague. That's one reason I did this post, to alert the environmental community to watch for opportunities for dialogue and input.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> Comment #4 by Thomas Dobbs http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/ Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:28:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/paying-for-environmental-services/4 PES not best policy tool for all services

I fully agree with several of picoallen's points, and have stated in my post that PES not the best policy approach for all situations. I also noted that there are special problems with biodiversity services, which sounds like the kind of ecological preservation you are talking about. The special issue of Ecological Economics does not 'sugar coat' these problems. The problem of lack of permenance beyond contact period is fully recognized. In fact, the concluding article in the special issue states that if the externality is permanent, there is no reason to expect service provision will extend beyond the contract period. In that type of case, payments need to be ongoing. And in some cases, as you point out, the government (or other service user) might be better off purchasing the service provision area outright. Certainly, a 3-yr contract period is totally unrealistic.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]> PES not best policy tool for all services

I fully agree with several of picoallen's points, and have stated in my post that PES not the best policy approach for all situations. I also noted that there are special problems with biodiversity services, which sounds like the kind of ecological preservation you are talking about. The special issue of Ecological Economics does not 'sugar coat' these problems. The problem of lack of permenance beyond contact period is fully recognized. In fact, the concluding article in the special issue states that if the externality is permanent, there is no reason to expect service provision will extend beyond the contract period. In that type of case, payments need to be ongoing. And in some cases, as you point out, the government (or other service user) might be better off purchasing the service provision area outright. Certainly, a 3-yr contract period is totally unrealistic.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

]]>