Improved EQIP Ranking Systems Can Benefit Both Landowners and Conservation Efforts
Posted: 18-Feb-2004; Updated: 07-May-2006
The value of a practice often depends on the degree to which it is implemented, such as integrated pest management. (Credit: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.)
With the 2002 Farm Bill funding increases, EQIP is the nation's second largest agricultural program and a critical component of local, state and national efforts to achieve conservation goals on agricultural lands. The program funds a wide range of practices that address not only soil, air and water quality, but also habitat enhancement for at-risk species. Yet landowner demand for EQIP dollars still far exceeds the supply -- by nearly $1.49 billion in Fiscal Year 2002 -- underscoring the need to spend available dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible. Improving the ranking processes that state and local NRCS offices use to rate landowner applications and allocate funds is essential for getting the most "bang for the buck."
In a January 2003 report, Environmental Defense analyzed the ranking systems states used to allocate EQIP Fiscal Year 2002 funds and recommended improvements. Some of the recommendations in that report, Getting More Bang for the Buck, include:
States or districts can better accomplish their conservation goals by creating resource-specific ranking sheets to avoid complicated "apples and oranges" comparisons, unless a state or district gives overwhelming priority to whole farm plans that address all resource concerns for the entire contract area. For example, it is very difficult to compare the value of a wildlife project to that of a pest management project, or a wetland wildlife habitat project to a sediment control project.
Higher levels of performance and improvement should be recognized and rewarded instead of simply offering more points for more practices. This approach would not only encourage better conservation but also be more equitable to farmers and ranchers already using good practices.
States and districts should focus on the level of improvement achieved by a practice or project to prioritize projects that deliver the greatest results. Targeting the biggest problems may not offer the most benefits.
It is important to link location-based points to practices or projects that address location-specific conservation priorities. For example, a project located in a watershed impaired by sediments should only receive location bonus points if the project reduces sediment delivery to the stream or river of concern.
Multi-producer cooperative projects, innovative approaches and demonstration projects should be encouraged as they will benefit EQIP overall.
Wildlife dollars can be used more effectively by awarding wildlife points only for appropriate and beneficial wildlife practices, and not for inappropriate practices added to a project in order to get additional points.
It is important that key consideration be given to a project's cost-effectiveness.
In a follow-up report, Getting a Bigger Bang for the Buck, Environmental Defense looked at how states and districts ranked applications in Fiscal Year 2003. This second report:
Gives an overview of the ranking systems developed and used by states and districts, highlighting those approaches considered noteworthy in light of the recommendations in the first report, Getting More Bang for the Buck;
Analyzes how effectively states and districts complied with the allocation and ranking requirements of the final EQIP rule, released in May 2003; and
Provides a list of "best management practices" for developing ranking systems and a series of model ranking templates based on these best management practices.
The goals of the model ranking templates are to enable states and districts to comply fully with the requirements of the final EQIP rule; to treat farms and ranches equally, regardless of size or type; and to use EQIP dollars cost-effectively. The focus is on ranking mechanics, rather than identification of priority resource concerns. While ranking mechanics -- such as how to award points, how to reward higher levels of performance and how to incorporate cost-effectiveness -- can be applied in any state, resource concerns can only be identified and prioritized at the state or district level. The ranking templates are blueprints that can be adapted at the state or district level to achieve those locally-identified conservation goals. Experience demonstrates that getting the mechanics of ranking right is time-consuming and challenging. To avoid reinventing the wheel across the country, NRCS and State Technical Committees can use the templates to comply with the many elements of the EQIP final rule and spend their already over-taxed time identifying and prioritizing resource concerns and leveraging EQIP to address challenging conservation goals.
Both Getting More Bang for the Buck and Getting a Bigger Bang for the Buck are available online at www.privatelandstewardship.org or from Suzy Friedman at sfriedman@environmentaldefense.org or 202-387-3500. Many states have already expressed an interest in the model ranking templates, and Environmental Defense staff members have visited a number of NRCS state offices to share and explain these ideas. Interested persons can obtain more information from Suzy Friedman.
Suzy Friedman
Scientist and Agricultural Policy Analyst
Environmental Defense
