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

bshorofsky@delta-institute.org

WHAT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DELTA’S WORK?VISIT http://delta-institute.org/