E C O S Y S T E M W O R K F O R C E P R O G R A M W O R K I N G P A P E R N U M B E R 4 9 DREW BENNETT, MAX NIELSEN-PINCUS, AUTUMN ELLISON, ALAINA POMEROY, HARMONY BURRIGHT, HANNAH GOSNELL, CASSANDRA MOSELEY, AND LAUREN GWIN SUMMER 2014 Ecosystem Workforce Program Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest About the authors Drew Bennett is a doctoral candidate in the Geography Program of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. Max Nielsen-Pincus is an assistant professor of environmental science and management at Portland State University. Autumn Ellison is a research assistant in the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the University of Oregon. Alaina Pomeroy was a program manager at Sustainable Northwest. Harmony Burright is a research assistant at Oregon State University. Hannah Gosnell is an associate professor in the Geography Program of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. Cassandra Moseley is director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program and the Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. Lauren Gwin is an assistant professor of extension at Oregon State University and associate director of the OSU Center for Small Farms and Community Food Systems. Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who provided their time by filling out the survey. This working paper is part of a multi-state research collaboration involving Oregon State University, University of Oregon, and Sustainable Northwest, with funding from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture, Grant #2009-85211-06102-C0405A. Photos by Emily Jane Davis (cover, cover inset, page 7), Stacy Davis (page 12, back cover), Freshwater Trust (page 1, page 15), USDA Forest Service (page 5). For more information Ecosystem Workforce Program Institute for a Sustainable Environment 5247 University of Oregon Eugene OR 97403-5247 541-346-4545 ewp@uoregon.edu ewp.uoregon.edu An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication will be made available in accessible formats upon request. ©2014 University of Oregon DES0714-044br Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 1 Introduction Working forest and range lands are rapidly chang- ing as exurban growth, economic trends, and envi- ronmental impacts associated with climate change challenge traditional livelihoods derived from the production of farm, ranch, and forest products. Sus- taining viable small and medium-sized forest and ranch operations while also supporting conserva- tion-oriented management practices is essential to ensure that these properties continue to contribute to the working landscape and maintain ecological values in the American West. Private lands are critical to healthy ecosystems and wildlife populations. For example, two-thirds of federally listed species are present on private lands and for some, almost all remaining habitat is in the hands of private landowners.1 Similarly, private lands have a strong influence on water quality, as nonpoint source pollution from agricultural lands is a major contributor to 48 percent of impaired stream and river miles nationally.2 Conservation practices such as the maintenance of riparian buffers or filter strips, can help provide habitat, preserve water qual- ity, and promote healthy ecosystems. Conservation programs are one tool used to align economic and ecological goals by promoting en- vironmentally sustainable management practices through financial and other incentives, sometimes referred to as “payments for ecosystem services”. Ecosystem services are the benefits people receive from nature, such as water quality, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration. Numerous existing pro- grams, such as those offered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), seek to engage land- owners in forest and rangeland stewardship through conservation easements, cost-share programs, and other means. Other types of opportunities are also 2 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest emerging, such as ecosystem markets (e.g., carbon markets), water quality trading programs, and certi- fication schemes (e.g., grass fed beef, certified forest products, and organic produce) (see Table 1, above). The success of existing and emerging conservation initiatives, however, requires broad landowner par- ticipation.3 To achieve robust participation levels, programs need to be designed with sensitivity to landowner preferences and recognition of the fac- tors influencing management decisions. To address this issue, we investigated landowner experiences with, attitudes towards, and preferences for exist- ing and future conservation programs in the Inte- rior Northwest with the aim of answering the fol- lowing questions: 1. What are the barriers preventing broader partici- pation in traditional and emerging conservation programs? 2. What opportunities exist to improve these pro- grams to make them more appealing to land- owners? Our objective was to provide information to policy- makers, land use decision makers and conservation practitioners to assist them in the design and deliv- ery of new policies and programs, or the redesign of existing programs, so that they align with land- owner needs and preferences. We aimed to inform the search for ways to achieve greater accountabil- ity for environmental outcomes, and the concurrent need to address budget constraints. Insights from this research can be used to proactively engage land- owners through initiatives that are compatible with landowner motivations and management objectives. Table 1 Examples and explanations of several types of conservation programs Type of conservation program Explanation Reserve programs These programs typically require landowners to retire a specific area of land from production in return for an annual payment or other benefits. Reserve programs often involve a 10 to 30 year contract during which time management options are limited to practices that enhance the natural characteristics of the reserve area. Example includes USDA’s Conservation Reserve Programs (CRP/CREP). Cost shares, grants, and other These programs provide financial and technical assistance for a specific direct payment programs conservation project or practice. Sometimes these programs pay for the entire cost of implementing the project, and sometimes they provide a cost-share, where a landowner is responsible for a percentage of the costs (e.g., 25 percent). Conservation easements and These efforts can result in financial compensation for landowners in exchange for land transfers restricting future development or management opportunities on their land. Agreements are typically perpetual but in some cases may be termed (e.g., 20 or 30 years). Certification or ecolabeling These programs involve third-party verification of sustainable practices, and are programs another way some producers of food and fiber seek to benefit financially from good stewardship by differentiating their products in the marketplace. Examples include Certified Organic, Predator Friendly, Salmon Safe, and Forest Stewardship Council certification, among others. Environmental credit markets Markets have been developed in some places to “offset” impacts to wetlands, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality or quantity, or carbon emissions. These markets offer financial incentives for private landowners to protect or conserve natural resources, and result in credits that can be bought and sold. Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 3 Approach We surveyed over 800 property owners in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and western Montana to understand landowners’ experiences with con- servation programs that provide compensation, the factors that influence their decision making regard- ing participation, their attitudes towards these pro- grams, and their views on how conservation pro- grams could be improved. We also asked about their relationships with intermediaries (including state and federal agencies and nonprofit organizations). §¨¦5 §¨¦15 §¨¦90 §¨¦80§¨¦5 §¨¦84 0 110 220 miles HELENA BOISE RENO SALT LAKE CITY REDDING EUREKA PORTLAND SEATTLE SPOKANE Okanogan County Flathead County Crook County Chelan County Lake County Deschutes County Kittitas County Missoula County Klamath County Powell County Lake County California Nevada Utah Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Figure 1 Counties surveyed 4 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest We randomly selected nonindustrial landowners with forest or rangeland parcels of at least 20 acres within the three focus areas (see Figure 1, page 3). We mailed these landowners a questionnaire with 33 questions. In all, we contacted 2,226 property own- ers and we received surveys from 835 participants, a 38 percent response rate. We then analyzed the data using standard statistical techniques to provide insights into landowner opinions and preferences. Findings Landowner views on conservation and experience with conservation programs Landowners view themselves as conservationists and see conservation practices as aligned with their management objectives. Most landowners reported a strong resonance with the concept of conservation. For instance, 86 percent of landowners either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement: “For me, practicing conser- vation is just the right thing to do.” Similarly, 78 per- cent agreed that practicing conservation is very ben- eficial to their land (see Figure 2, page 9). A majority also saw conservation programs as compatible with their goals for their land (55 percent) (see Figure 3, page 9). Although definitions of “conservation” vary between landowners, this finding suggests that the stewardship values of most family forest and ranch landowners may be compatible with many conserva- tion programs and, as such, there is an opportunity to effectively engage a large percentage of landowners if these programs are perceived as aligned with their management preferences and objectives. Many landowners are aware of or have participat- ed in existing conservation opportunities. Approximately one-third of forest and ranch land- owners reported participation in some type of con- servation program or market (e.g., cost-share, con- servation easement, certification, or environmental credit market), and nearly the same number reported that they were very or extremely likely to participate in one or more in the future. The most commonly reported programs landowners participated in were cost-share programs (30 percent) to implement con- servation projects (see Table 2, below). Experience with more market-based conservation opportunities, such as carbon markets, was substan- tially less than more traditional conservation pro- Table 2 Have you participated in a voluntary conservation, certification, easement, environmental credit market, or other programs on any part of the land you own, rent, or lease? Number of responses Percentage No 527 67% Yes 265 33% Total: 792 100% If yes, what kind of program was it? Cost-shares 134 30% Certification or eco-labeling programs 76 17% Environmental credit markers 74 16% Conservation easements and land transfers 64 14% Grants 44 10% Other 41 9% Reserve programs 21 5% Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 5 grams. Only 4 to 8 percent of surveyed landowners reported having participated in a certification pro- gram or an environmental credit market, or having granted a conservation easement on their property. We found that participation rates were correlated with the primary land use of a person’s property. Landowners who reported that the primary use of their land was ranching or forestry were approxi- mately 40 percent more likely to have participated in conservation programs than landowners with primarily other uses (e.g., recreation, investment, or residential). However, forest operators who had participated in the past were about 25 percent less likely than ranchers to report that they would partic- ipate in similar programs in the future, which raises questions about some of the challenges in maintain- ing ongoing participation, as well as the differences between forest and ranch landowner circumstances. Barriers to participation Landowners are concerned about legal and regula- tory implications. A critical challenge programs face is landowner perception of the legal and regulatory environment. For instance, 52 percent of landowners agreed that participation in conservation programs results in in- creased regulatory pressure (see Figure 4, page 10). Over half of landowners rated the lack of regulatory or legal assurances as the biggest reason to not par- ticipate in a conservation program. Landowners ex- pressed a great degree of concern that conservation programs can create unintended consequences (see Figure 5, page 10); for example, if enhanced habitat brought species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to their land. While challenging, this finding presents an opportunity for policymak- ers and conservation practitioners to develop pro- grams that provide legal and regulatory assurances for landowners. For example, conservation programs could be integrated with Safe Harbor Agreements for ESA listed species to ease landowner concerns. Landowners believe that it is confusing and com- plex to participate in conservation programs and it may not be worth the hassle. Landowners reported a perception of conservation programs as confusing and complex. Over half of the respondents (55 percent) felt that the paperwork required by conservation programs is complex (see Figure 6, page 11), while 41 percent viewed the sign- up process as confusing (see Figure 7, page 11) and 6 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 43 percent felt that participating in programs was not worth the hassle. This finding suggests there is a real opportunity to increase landowner participa- tion by simplifying program details and streamlining the landowner enrollment process. One strategy to achieve this would be to provide greater support to agency personnel or intermediaries, such as local nonprofits, who are trained and experienced with the process. Intermediaries can assist in identifying programs, providing outreach to landowners, inte- grating multiple pots of money, and helping land- owners complete and submit paperwork. Programs may lack the flexibility to meet landown- er needs. Landowners must juggle many different consider- ations when making land and water management decisions. They may have to manage a significant amount of uncertainty and be flexible in order to adapt to changing circumstances, and a lack of flexi- bility in conservation programs was a perceived bar- rier for some landowners. For example, 30 percent of landowners strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “the programs aren’t flexible enough to meet my needs.” These perceptions were especial- ly true for programs with long contract durations. Finding ways to provide landowners flexibility over time may enhance some landowners’ perception of these programs. Opportunities to improve participation Rewards for participating in conservation pro- grams do not need to be exclusively in the form of a direct payment. Landowners reported that the most desirable ben- efits for participating in conservation programs or markets were tax incentives, an agreeable annual payment, or insurance against legal liability and contract failure (see Figure 8, page 13). Landowners with either residential or recreational property rated protection from legal liability and contract failure as more important than an agreeable annual payment. This is not to suggest that the financial implications are not important to landowners: 54 percent of re- spondents either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “practicing conservation has to ‘pencil out’ financially” (see Figure 9, page 13). In addition, 41 percent of respondents saw an overall negative impact of participation on landowner finances (see Figure 10, page 14), possibly due to the fact that many respondents had participated in cost-share programs, which require landowners to pay for part of a conservation practice. Identifying ways to make participation “pencil out” for landowners may be an opportunity to increase participation rates. Programs that protect existing high-quality habitat are the most appealing to landowners. Many landowners perceived themselves as conser- vationists, and of six statements about future con- servation programs and environmental markets, landowners agreed most strongly with the statement that they “… should reward landowners for protect- ing existing high quality habitat.” “Implementing new conservation actions” was ranked significantly lower—fifth of the six statements landowners rated. These findings suggest that landowners believed that programs should reward those who are already good stewards, rather than paying to help those who have not demonstrated a high degree of stewardship in the past. The lowest ranked statement was “imple- menting conservation projects jointly with neigh- bors or nearby landowners” (see Figure 11, page 14). Notably, forest and ranch operators were more likely to express interest in projects that emphasized water quality than other types of projects, with 56 per- cent of respondents reporting that they were either “extremely likely” or “very likely” to participate in such a program if it were offered. This was followed by projects that aimed to restore or protect stream flows (49 percent), stream habitat (49 percent), wet- lands (43 percent), and endangered species habi- tat (42 percent). Landowners had the least interest in carbon sequestration projects (29 percent) (see Figure 12, page 16). These preferences may be a re- flection of the challenging regulatory environments surrounding wetlands and endangered species, and the lack of regulations regarding carbon emissions. The uncertainty around compliant climate markets and future demand for carbon credits may also make landowners less interested in these projects. Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 7 Shorter duration contracts are preferred over lon- ger-term contracts. Contracts of 10 years appealed to landowners much more than contracts of 20-year, 30-year, or perma- nent length. This was especially true for landowners who had not participated in conservation programs or markets before. Shorter-term agreements may al- low more landowners to try conservation programs or markets to see if they are compatible with their objectives. Permanent agreements and 30-year con- tracts were rated equally undesirable, suggesting that landowners may view any contract duration of 30 years or more as basically permanent (see Figure 13, page 16). This finding suggests that there is an opportunity to increase landowner participation by offering multiple options for contract lengths—for example, shorter-term contracts for first time partici- pants and longer-term contracts for returning par- ticipants. This approach would enable some land- owners to try conservation programs without lock- ing them into what could be perceived as a lifetime obligation. As landowners become more comfortable with programs and develop relationships with pro- gram administrators, they may be more willing to continue to participate and open to longer duration options. Local entities matter, especially for recruiting new landowners. Landowners that had not previously participated in a conservation program or market rated local gov- ernment and local non-profit groups as more highly desirable to work with than other state, federal, or private sector entities. For landowners who had par- ticipated in the past and reported that they were likely to do so again in the future, state and federal government agencies were rated equal to local gov- ernment and local non-profits. Working with and through local intermediaries that have trusted rela- tionships with landowners is likely the best way to reach those who have not previously participated in conservation programs. These local actors may help bridge the trust gap between landowners and state and federal agencies and open up additional conservation opportunities for landowners. Conclusions and Recommendations Forest and ranch landowners operate in a complex and dynamic environment and must balance short- term opportunities with their long-term goals and objectives for their properties when deciding wheth- er or not to participate in a conservation program. In this research, we identified several barriers that may prevent landowners from participating in con- servation programs. The perceived risks of increased regulatory scrutiny and limitations on future man- agement options due to long-term contract durations were the most significant obstacles to increased par- ticipation. Also significant were the complexities of understanding the details of different programs, and the bureaucratic hassle of enrolling. Together, these obstacles limited overall landowner participation. These findings suggest that there are opportuni- ties to improve the attractiveness of conservation programs by reducing the perceived risks and in- creasing the perceived benefits. Working with local 8 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest Perceived barriers to participation • Potential for increased regulatory scrutiny • Limitations on future management options due to long-term contract durations • Participation may not “pencil out” financially • Complexity in understanding the details of different programs • The bureaucratic hassle of enrolling Key recommendations • Address perceived legal and regulatory implications of participation through enhanced landowner outreach and education • Expand program incentives to include legal and regulatory assurances for participation • Develop new conservation programs around areas such as water quality and stream habitat protection • Provide multiple options for participation including different contract lengths • Engage local nonprofits as intermediaries to increase trust and recruitment of new landowners Endotes 1 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ESA Ba- sics: 40 Years of Conserving Endangered Species (Arlington, VA: USFWS, 2013). Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/ endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf 2 J. Christian-Smith, “Water and Agriculture,” in A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy, ed. J. Christian-Smith and P. Gleick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 203. 3 M. Sorice, C. Oh, T. Gartner, M. Snieckus, R. Johnson, and C. J. Donian. 2013. “Increasing participation in incentive programs for biodiversity conservation.” Ecological Applications. 23: 1146-1155. intermediaries to conduct outreach and education may help build trust and improve understanding of the regulatory environment; however, integrating local intermediary partners into conservation pro- grams will require the development and or mainte- nance of adequate capacity and financial support for those organizations. Another approach is to expand program incentives to include legal and regulatory assurances, which would have the impact of simul- taneously diminishing perceived risks and increas- ing landowner benefits. Similarly, developing new conservation programs around areas such as water quality and stream habitat may also alleviate some perceived regulatory risks. Recruiting new landowners into these programs is also essential for achieving long-term success. Our research indicates that many landowners who have not previously participated in programs are interested but unsure of opportunities. Our find- ings suggest two key ways to increase participation from this group. The first is to provide multiple op- tions for participation, including different contract lengths. Landowners who are unsure are much less likely to make a long-term commitment, but may be willing to experiment over a shorter period such as 10 years or less. Finally, landowners who had not participated in programs in the past generally had less trust of federal and state agencies and greater trust in local organizations and local agency staff. Enabling local nonprofits to serve as intermediaries may help bridge the trust gap between landowners and government-run programs to increase new land- owner recruitment. In sum, the long-term goals and objectives of many landowners do align with the goals and objectives of some conservation initiatives. Our results sug- gest that many landowners view themselves as con- servationists, have a strong land ethic, and can be important allies in protecting the ecological health of western landscapes. By better understanding their needs and preferences, existing and emerging conservation programs can be better designed and delivered to assist forest and ranch managers in the stewardship of their lands. Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 9 Figure 2 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about adopting conservation practices on your land? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% For me, practicing conservation is just the right thing to do. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Practicing conservation on my land would not cause too many problems. Practicing conservation is very beneficial to my land. Practicing conservation on my land only matters if my neighbors do it too. Practicing conservation on my land is not a high priority. Figure 3 Typically, my goals for my land and the goals of conservation programs are: Extremely compatible Slightly incompatible NeitherModerately compatible Moderately incompatible Slightly compatible Extremely incompatible 35% 30% 15% 25% 10% 20% 5% 10 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest Figure 4 Typically, participation in conservation programs results in regulatory pressure that is: Extremely reduced Slightly increased NeitherModerately reduced Moderately increased Slightly reduced Extremely increased 35% 30% 15% 25% 10% 20% 5% Figure 5 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following about why you might not participate in conversation programs? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% I’m concerned about legal or regulatory implications. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree It’s too much hassle to get involved. Programs like these tend to create unintended consequences. I don’t know anything about any of these programs. The programs aren’t flexible enough to meet my needs. The sign-up process is too confusing. Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 11 Figure 7 Typically, the sign-up process for conservation programs is: Extremely clear Slightly confusing NeitherModerately clear Moderately confusing Slightly clear Extremely confusing 35% 30% 15% 25% 10% 20% 5% Figure 6 Typically, the paperwork required by conservation programs is: Extremely simple Slightly complex NeitherModerately simple Moderately complex Slightly simple Extremely complex 35% 30% 15% 25% 10% 20% 5% 12 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 13 Tax incentives for participation An agreeable annual payment for some contract duration Protection from potential legal liabilities or contract failure An upfront bonus payment and smaller annual payments Technical assistance to improve my management practices A price premium on farm and forest products I sell to the market An incentive for participating jointly with my neighbors A non-cash incentive like health insurance or college tuition Qualification for a program that certifies my stewardship Visible recognition for my participation *Respondents were asked to assign 100 points to the ten items above. The graph represents the average points assigned to each item. 3 6 9 12 15 Figure 8 Assuming participation in a market or program for conservation was in your interest, which of the following benefits would be most desirable to you?* Figure 9 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement “For me, practicing conservation has to ‘pencil out’ financially”? 12175 292 171 102 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 14 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest Figure 10 Typically, the impact of conservation programs on landowner finances is: Extremely positive Slightly negative NeitherModerately positive Moderately negative Slightly positive Extremely negative 35% 30% 15% 25% 10% 20% 5% Figure 11 To what extent do you agree or disagree that future markets or programs for conservation should reward landowners for the following: 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Protecting existing high-quality habitats Implementing new conservation practices Maintaining existing conservation practices Restoring currently degraded land Achieving measurable environmental outcomes Implementing conservation projects jointly with neighbors or nearby landowners Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 15 16 Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Landowner Participation in Conservation Programs in the Interior Northwest 30% 35% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Water quality Extremely likely Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely Stream habitatStream flows Wetland habitat Endangered species habitat Carbon sequestration Figure 12 How likely would you be to participate in a market or program for conservation that supported projects to protect or restore the following? Figure 13 Assuming the benefits were sufficient, would you be willing to participate in a market or program for conservation that required the following contract lengths? (Select one response for each contract length) 40% 30% 20% 10% Definitely yes Probably yes Unsure Probably no Definitely no 10-year contract 30-year contract20-year contract A permanent agreement