Browsing by Author "Galik, Christopher"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10

Open Access
A Review of the Use of Early-Action Incentives in U.S. Environmental Markets
(2016-09-20) Galik, Christopher; Olander, Lydia
Early action can refer to activities undertaken prior to a regulatory program or the generation of a particular service before its use to mitigate an impact elsewhere. In U.S. environmental markets, early action can result in multiple benefits. One benefit is facilitation of market function by helping to generate a sufficient supply of viable, low-cost credits to buyers and gain momentum in new markets. Another benefit is providing advance mitigation, which can speed the delivery of ecosystem services. As markets emerge and mature, early action can help reduce lags in environmental performance, improve outcomes, and encourage innovation in mitigation approaches. Multiple tools have been proposed for encouraging early action in ecosystem services markets. To varying extents, these tools have also been deployed, providing valuable experience and insight into their functioning. This paper presents several case studies of how these tools have been used in wetland and stream mitigation, species and habitat banking, greenhouse gas emissions reduction and sequestration, and water quality trading. It finds that early action incentives necessary to motivate sellers differ from those necessary to motivate buyers and that interventions should account for this reality. The tool or approach best suited to encourage early action may also vary as conditions change and new barriers arise. Anecdotal evidence suggests the potential for benefits to accrue from early action, but additional data on the costs and benefits of early action are needed to inform the selection and implementation of specific tools. A revised version of the paper appears in the journal Land Use Policy.
Open Access
Assessing County and Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Creation: What Contributes to Success?
(2016-05-13) Baldino, Chelsea; Olander, Lydia; Galik, Christopher
Open Access
Effect of Existing and Novel Policy Options on the Sustainable Development of Regional Bioenergy Systems: Lessons and Future Directions
(2016-08-01) Galik, Christopher; Vegh, Tibor; Abt, Robert; Latta, Gregory
What are the most appropriate policies to facilitate regional bioenergy systems in furtherance of environmental, social, and economic objectives? A multi-year research project funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture has attempted to answer that question for the southeastern United States. Project analyses found few policies targeted to the upstream portions of the supply chain in the region, suggesting that efforts to encourage sustainable bioenergy markets should be cognizant of the dynamics of feedstock production and use. Investigation of bioenergy market participation identified non-production objectives, structural and social constraints, and market-related attributes that could influence market participation decision making. It also suggested that policies specific to individual markets might be more effective than uniform national initiatives in encouraging participation. Modeling of potential policies to facilitate development of regional bioenergy systems suggested that feedstock dynamics play a critical role in outcomes. A region-wide renewable portfolio standard—a policy characterized by few restrictions on the location of feedstock production and use—led to increases in forest carbon and decreases in greenhouse gas emissions at multiple scales. Forcing feedstock production and use to occur in particular locations might have the opposite outcome. The effectiveness of regional bioenergy systems will depend on the responsiveness of policy to social, economic, and resource conditions.
Open Access
Extending Forest Rotation Age for Carbon Sequestration: A Cross-Protocol Comparison of Carbon Offsets of North American Forests
(2009-04-22T18:12:55Z) Foley, Timothy
As the issue of climate change rises in prominence, growing attention is being paid to the ability of forests to mitigate rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Through carbon offset programs, forest owners can be offered financial incentives to enhance the uptake and storage of carbon on their lands. This project presents a modeling framework within which the creditable carbon potential can be quantified from extending the rotation age of multiple forest stands. The differences in creditable carbon potential from rotation extensions across several North American forest types are explored. Additionally, the model enables the comparison of project creditable carbon amongst three accounting methodologies: the Department of Energy 1605b Registry, the Chicago Climate Exchange Protocol, and the Voluntary Carbon Standard Protocol. There are important methodological differences between these carbon accounting schemes which have implications to both forest owners and policymakers alike. It is shown here that the inclusion of methodologies to account for such issues as leakage, permanence, additionality and baseline-establishment, while increasing the overall legitimacy of any forest carbon offset program, can reduce creditable carbon to the forest owner by up to 70%. Regardless of the protocol used, Pacific Northwest forest types emerge as the most effective at sequestering carbon on a per area basis.
Open Access
Factors of Success for County and Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Creation
(2015-04-24) Baldino, Chelsea
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are a means for private landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Historically, the HCP process has been done on a case-by-case basis, but it has become increasingly common for county and regional governments to create region-wide HCPs that cover development from multiple projects in the entire region. Local governments recognize that these plans can increase economic certainty for residents, increase development, and potentially increase conservation. However, region-wide plans are time and money intensive, so sometimes they fail to be completed.

HCP legal, academic and policy experts, who acted as a focus group for this research, stated that few have studied the "human" side of HCP creation, i.e., HCP process design and management. Such information may be useful to diverse interests, such as conservationists and developers, in counties and regions where a large-scale HCP is possible. Thus, the overarching research question for this project was: What factors and processes lead to the successful completion of a Habitat Conservation Plan at the regional and county level?

This report includes five case studies on county or regional HCPs, located in 1) Benton County, OR; 2) Coachella Valley, CA; 3) East Contra Costa County, CA; 4) Pima County, AZ; and 5) Williamson County, TX. Three to four interviews per case with individuals who were knowledgeable about the county or regional government's perspective of the HCP process were the primary sources of information. Each interviewee was asked questions regarding:

1) The initiation process for the plan and who prepared the plan

2) Logistical and administrative support from other organizations and agencies

3) Local and political support

4) Staff capacity at the time of HCP creation

5) Staff opinions at the time of HCP creation

6) How the covered species were determined

7) How the mitigation strategy was determined

8) How the plan creation was funded

9) How plan preparers decided how to fund the plan once it was implemented

Each case study synthesizes the information from the interviewees, and at the end of this report, a cross-case study analysis brings all of the findings together. This analysis showed that some state agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, played a large role in the HCP creation process, while others were less involved. Also, because the length of time for HCP creation varied from approximately 5 to 15 years, the number of staff from the county or region that were necessary to complete these plans varied also. However, for the plans that took only around 5 years, approximately 2 full time staff from the county were needed. Staff opinions regarding the plans, e.g., whether they felt the plans would generate funding for conservation, also varied; most likely staff's sentiments reflected the local community's values. Despite differences between the cases, this analysis illuminated several factors that contributed to successful HCP creation:
A cooperative relationship between the county or region and the USFWS appears important. The relationship between the local governing body and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office was positive in four out of the five of these successfully completed cases.

Local and political support, especially early stakeholder engagement, was important in all cases.

A scientific advisory committee or a consultant was necessary to determine what species to cover in the plan.

Across all cases, USFWS Section 6 grants were the primary source of funds.

The most effective way to handle mitigation at this scale was through utilization of the county or region's own reserve lands, but the funding mechanism for this type of mitigation varied.

An additional exploratory analysis provided insight into three important factors leading to HCP failure. The first is delays at the regional FWS level due to miscommunication and tensions with the regional or county staff. The second occurs when HCP preparers make the scope of the HCP too broad. And the third results from poor project management and HCP preparers who are not responsive to USFWS input.
Open Access
Improving Federal Allocation of EQIP Funding
(2013-04-25) Gilbert, Emily; Qin, Jianming; Liu, Jiemei; Neal, Ashley
The motivation behind this report is to evaluate and respond to past and current decision pathways employed for determining state allocation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] funding under the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. We work to provide justifiable recommendations for how the allocation of EQIP dollars might be improved, especially as it pertains to improving equity among those states with the highest priority needs. The distribution mechanism of federal EQIP funding to each state has received significant criticism in the past. The criticism stems primarily from the usage of a weighted factor formula that has been thought to unfairly favor certain states over others. Beyond questions of equity, there have also been more fundamental concerns over the quality of data inputted into the funding formula. In this project, we worked with our client, a Program Analyst at the North Carolina NRCS office, to tailor our recommendations to the specific concerns of one state. Our client’s specific concern was that North Carolina has historically been positioned lower in the national ranking of EQIP funding that it receives as compared to many other large agricultural states. To better understand the process of federal EQIP allocation, we reviewed the history of EQIP, examined the past and current decision pathways used to determine federal allocation of conservation dollars to state NRCS offices, conducted interviews among NRCS staff, and quantitatively analyzed the funding allocation process. We provide scenarios for how it might be possible for a state like North Carolina to increase the allocation of EQIP funding that it receives and attain better conservation on identified lands of highest priority. We expect that our recommendations targeted at helping EQIP improve equity among states in the federal funding allocation process, will ultimately lead to a rise in North Carolina’s allocation of EQIP funds and in its national ranking among other states. In this project, the formula we use to develop our quantitative analysis of the federal EQIP allocation process is the formula used by NRCS for fiscal years 2009-2011. The EQIP formula includes two parts: financial assistance and technical assistance. From our analysis, we developed a number of scenarios that propose ways in which the funding formula might be changed to better address different social or environmental issues and to serve those states that, in the past, have struggled to receive the same budgetary support as other states, and so are less likely to see the needs of their farmers and the conservation needs of their land be served to the same degree. Our evaluation led us to make a number of recommendations that we expect will move EQIP more in line with its stated goal of optimizing environmental benefits. Our recommendations are also made with the goal to reduce or eliminate many of the inconsistences and criticisms that have beleaguered past EQIP funding allocation processes.
Open Access
Improving Federal Allocation of Environmental Quality Incentives Program Funding
(2013-04-25) Gilbert, Emily; Liu, Jiemei; Neal, Ashley; Qin, Jianming
The motivation behind this report is to evaluate and respond to past and current decision pathways employed for determining state allocation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] funding under the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. We work to provide justifiable recommendations for how the allocation of EQIP dollars might be improved, especially as it pertains to improving equity among those states with the highest priority needs. The distribution mechanism of federal EQIP funding to each state has received significant criticism in the past. The criticism stems primarily from the usage of a weighted factor formula that has been thought to unfairly favor certain states over others. Beyond questions of equity, there have also been more fundamental concerns over the quality of data inputted into the funding formula. In this project, we worked with our client, a Program Analyst at the North Carolina NRCS office, to tailor our recommendations to the specific concerns of one state. Our client’s specific concern was that North Carolina has historically been positioned lower in the national ranking of EQIP funding that it receives as compared to many other large agricultural states. To better understand the process of federal EQIP allocation, we reviewed the history of EQIP, examined the past and current decision pathways used to determine federal allocation of conservation dollars to state NRCS offices, conducted interviews among NRCS staff, and quantitatively analyzed the funding allocation process. We provide scenarios for how it might be possible for a state like North Carolina to increase the allocation of EQIP funding that it receives and attain better conservation on identified lands of highest priority. We expect that our recommendations targeted at helping EQIP improve equity among states in the federal funding allocation process, will ultimately lead to a rise in North Carolina’s allocation of EQIP funds and in its national ranking among other states. In this project, the formula we use to develop our quantitative analysis of the federal EQIP allocation process is the formula used by NRCS for fiscal years 2009-2011. The EQIP formula includes two parts: financial assistance and technical assistance. From our analysis, we developed a number of scenarios that propose ways in which the funding formula might be changed to better address different social or environmental issues and to serve those states that, in the past, have struggled to receive the same budgetary support as other states, and so are less likely to see the needs of their farmers and the conservation needs of their land be served to the same degree. Our evaluation led us to make a number of recommendations that we expect will move EQIP more in line with its stated goal of optimizing environmental benefits. Our recommendations are also made with the goal to reduce or eliminate many of the inconsistencies and criticisms that have beleaguered past EQIP funding allocation processes.
Open Access
IMPROVING FEDERAL ALLOCATION OF EQIP FUNDING
(2013-04-24) Qin, Jianming; Neal, Ashley; Gilbert, Emily; Liu, Jiemei
The motivation behind this report is to evaluate and respond to past and current decision pathways employed for determining state allocation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] funding under the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. We work to provide justifiable recommendations for how the allocation of EQIP dollars might be improved, especially as it pertains to improving equity among those states with the highest priority needs. In this project, we worked with our client, a Program Analyst at the North Carolina NRCS office, to tailor our recommendations to the specific concerns of one state. Our client’s specific concern was that North Carolina has historically been positioned lower in the national ranking of EQIP funding that it receives as compared to many other large agricultural states. We reviewed the history of EQIP, examined the past and current decision pathways used to determine federal allocation of conservation dollars to state NRCS offices, conducted interviews among NRCS staff, and quantitatively analyzed the funding allocation process. We provide scenarios for how it might be possible for a state like North Carolina to increase its allocation of EQIP funding and attain better conservation on identified lands of highest priority. In this project, the formula we use to develop our quantitative analysis of the federal EQIP allocation process is the formula used by NRCS for fiscal years 2009-2011. From our analysis, we developed a number of scenarios that propose ways in which the funding formula might be changed to better address different social or environmental issues and to serve those states that, in the past, have struggled to receive the same budgetary support as other states, and so are less likely to see the needs of their farmers and the conservation needs of their land be served to the same degree. Our evaluation led us to make a number of recommendations that we expect will move EQIP more in line with its stated goal of optimizing environmental benefits. Our recommendations are also made with the goal to reduce or eliminate many of the inconsistences and criticisms that have beleaguered past EQIP funding allocation processes.
Open Access
IMPROVING FEDERAL ALLOCATION OF EQIP FUNDING
(2013-04-25) Liu, Jiemei; Gilbert, Emily; Qin, Jianming; Neal, Ashley
The motivation behind this report is to evaluate and respond to past and current decision pathways employed for determining state allocation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] funding under the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. We work to provide justifiable recommendations for how the allocation of EQIP dollars might be improved, especially as it pertains to improving equity among those states with the highest priority needs. The distribution mechanism of federal EQIP funding to each state has received significant criticism in the past. The criticism stems primarily from the usage of a weighted factor formula that has been thought to unfairly favor certain states over others. Beyond questions of equity, there have also been more fundamental concerns over the quality of data inputted into the funding formula. In this project, we worked with our client, a Program Analyst at the North Carolina NRCS office, to tailor our recommendations to the specific concerns of one state. Our client’s specific concern was that North Carolina has historically been positioned lower in the national ranking of EQIP funding that it receives as compared to many other large agricultural states. To better understand the process of federal EQIP allocation, we reviewed the history of EQIP, examined the past and current decision pathways used to determine federal allocation of conservation dollars to state NRCS offices, conducted interviews among NRCS staff, and quantitatively analyzed the funding allocation process. We provide scenarios for how it might be possible for a state like North Carolina to increase the allocation of EQIP funding that it receives and attain better conservation on identified lands of highest priority. We expect that our recommendations targeted at helping EQIP improve equity among states in the federal funding allocation process, will ultimately lead to a rise in North Carolina’s allocation of EQIP funds and in its national ranking among other states. In this project, the formula we use to develop our quantitative analysis of the federal EQIP allocation process is the formula used by NRCS for fiscal years 2009-2011. The EQIP formula includes two parts: financial assistance and technical assistance. From our analysis, we developed a number of scenarios that propose ways in which the funding formula might be changed to better address different social or environmental issues and to serve those states that, in the past, have struggled to receive the same budgetary support as other states, and so are less likely to see the needs of their farmers and the conservation needs of their land be served to the same degree. Our evaluation led us to make a number of recommendations that we expect will move EQIP more in line with its stated goal of optimizing environmental benefits. Our recommendations are also made with the goal to reduce or eliminate many of the inconsistences and criticisms that have beleaguered past EQIP funding allocation processes.
Open Access
Improving Federal Allocation of EQIP Funding
(2013-04-25) Gilbert, Emily; Liu, Jiemei; Qin, Jianming; Neal, Ashley
The motivation behind this report is to evaluate and respond to past and current decision pathways employed for determining state allocation of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] funding under the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. We work to provide justifiable recommendations for how the allocation of EQIP dollars might be improved, especially as it pertains to improving equity among those states with the highest priority needs. The distribution mechanism of federal EQIP funding to each state has received significant criticism in the past. The criticism stems primarily from the usage of a weighted factor formula that has been thought to unfairly favor certain states over others. Beyond questions of equity, there have also been more fundamental concerns over the quality of data inputted into the funding formula. In this project, we worked with our client, a Program Analyst at the North Carolina NRCS office, to tailor our recommendations to the specific concerns of one state. Our client’s specific concern was that North Carolina has historically been positioned lower in the national ranking of EQIP funding that it receives as compared to many other large agricultural states. To better understand the process of federal EQIP allocation, we reviewed the history of EQIP, examined the past and current decision pathways used to determine federal allocation of conservation dollars to state NRCS offices, conducted interviews among NRCS staff, and quantitatively analyzed the funding allocation process. We provide scenarios for how it might be possible for a state like North Carolina to increase the allocation of EQIP funding that it receives and attain better conservation on identified lands of highest priority. We expect that our recommendations targeted at helping EQIP improve equity among states in the federal funding allocation process, will ultimately lead to a rise in North Carolina’s allocation of EQIP funds and in its national ranking among other states. In this project, the formula we use to develop our quantitative analysis of the federal EQIP allocation process is the formula used by NRCS for fiscal years 2009-2011. The EQIP formula includes two parts: financial assistance and technical assistance. From our analysis, we developed a number of scenarios that propose ways in which the funding formula might be changed to better address different social or environmental issues and to serve those states that, in the past, have struggled to receive the same budgetary support as other states, and so are less likely to see the needs of their farmers and the conservation needs of their land be served to the same degree. Our evaluation led us to make a number of recommendations that we expect will move EQIP more in line with its stated goal of optimizing environmental benefits. Our recommendations are also made with the goal to reduce or eliminate many of the inconsistences and criticisms that have beleaguered past EQIP funding allocation processes.

Browsing by Author "Galik, Christopher"

Results Per Page

Sort Options