 |
 Partners in Conserving America's Resources |
Proposed Concepts &
Guidelines
for the Development of Resource Conservation Agreements
| Proposed Concepts | Proposed Guidelines | Participants in the May 1998 workshop discussed 45 issues, concepts and proposed guidelines. Consensus was reached on 41. The following concepts and guidelines -- and the outline of the Resource Conservation Agreement -- resulted from these discussions. For a description of the discussions that took place regarding these issues, concepts and guidelines, you may click on (1) Workshop Report: May 1998, (2) The Lease Concept: Developing a Private Habitat Conservation Lease and (3) Guidelines for Applying a Private Habitat Conservation Lease to a Parcel of Private Land. These concepts and guidelines are still evolving. Your comments on how they might be improved are welcome. Proposed Concepts: The Resource Conservation Agreement 1. The "Resource Conservation Agreement" would be a long-term service contract that would provide for the management of specific natural resources on private lands. With this approach, any government agency that has authority to enter into contracts would be able to negotiate a "Resource Conservation Agreement" with a private landowner and use any existing funds that are available for contracts, services, management or conservation to pay for the agreement. Agreements based on the service contract approach would therefore have a good deal of flexibility in terms of the number of agencies that could execute them, the number of existing funding sources that could be used to pay for them, and the ways in which payments to landowners could be calculated and paid out. For these reasons, it is recommended that the "Resource Conservation Agreements" be based on the service contract approach. As a service contract, payments to the landowner would be based on the value of the service rendered. For example, if government agencies with landholdings in southwest Florida pay an average of $11 per acre per year -- not including administrative costs -- to manage these lands (see economic analysis conducted by Florida Stewardship Foundation), then a payment in the same amount to a private contractor or landowner for the same services can be justified. As additional services are provided (such as access to private lands for research), additional payments can be made for these services. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
2. If both parties agree, a Contingent Value (or CV) analysis also can be conducted to determine the value of the resource that is being maintained -- and how much its value would increase if a landowner took actions to improve its ecological functions. CV analyses have been used to measure how much people are willing to pay for clean air, clean water, wetlands, open space and other natural resources and, thus, provide a representative dollar measure of the value placed on these resources by a statistically valid sample of the public for the purpose of comparing these values with the values of traditional market activities (such as building houses or expanding a manufacturing plant) in the economy. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
3. While one of the objectives of this program is to ensure the perpetuation of threatened and endangered species, the focus of the agreements most often will be on ensuring the viable function and integrity of the natural habitats and other resources named in each specific Resource Conservation Agreement. This, in turn, should contribute to improving the health and numbers of specific species. The purposes of each agreement, however, will be different -- depending upon the individual characteristics of the "conservation premises" covered by each agreement and the needs and desires of the parties involved -- and thus will be individually negotiated. Hence, some agreements may also incorporate management practices to advance single species or multi-species recovery goals. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
4. It is hoped that, as a result of this project, large numbers of landowners will be willing to commit to long-term management plans that will ensure: (1) essential habitats are not destroyed as a result of ever-encroaching urban development or the need to intensify and expand agricultural operations to keep these operations economically viable; (2) these habitats are well-managed so they maintain their ecological functions in a manner that is at least equal to, if not better than, what is found on these properties today; and (3) that these habitat protection objectives can be incorporated into existing agricultural operations in a manner that is both practical and profitable for ag enterprises. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
5. The agreement should be designed to appeal to a large number of private landowners. It should be neither coercive or invasive; instead, it should be based on the principle of rewarding private landowners for conservation practices through tax credits and/or annual payments. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
6. It should be stressed -- and clearly understood -- that the key benefit of the agreement, from a public interest standpoint, is: the agreement will provide landowners with a reduction in operating costs and/or a revenue stream for maintaining natural habitat and/or other conservation values on their properties. If the combination of tax credits, annual payments and other forms of compensation provided by the agreement are sufficiently attractive to the landowner, they will offset the economic incentives (and temptation) a landowner might have for converting these habitats to other uses. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
7. For a description of the proposed Resource Conservation Agreement, see outline of the Resource Conservation Agreement (which also can be found under Tab 5 in the workshop notebook) To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
8. The Resource Conservation Agreement would include provisions for monitoring to ensure compliance with the agreement. It also would provide flexibility and the opportunity to negotiate arrangements with individual landowners to conduct research on one or more species — in return for additional compensation over and above the base payments provided for management services. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
9. It is recommended that the agreements allow for a sliding scale payment option to determine the level of compensation for lands of differing conservation value. For example, tax credits, annual payments and other compensation paid to a Landowner would be calculated on a per acre basis on a sliding scale -- which would be determined by the intensity of use on the lands subject to the Resource Conservation Agreement, with the highest payment being for natural areas that have significant or notable natural resources, ecological functions or populations of threatened and endangered species (the "Conservation Premises"); the second highest payment for native pasture (which may be considered part of the "Conservation Premises" or part of the "Adjoining Lands"); the third highest payment for improved pasture (which generally would be considered part of the "Adjoining Lands"); and so on, with the compensation per acre descending proportionately as the intensity of the land's use increases. Also, each agency should have the flexibility to enter into agreements with payment options acceptable to both parties, including a lump sum payment. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
10. As Ernie Caldwell, Vice President of Government and Environmental Affairs for Berry Holding Corporation and an original member of the Landowner Working Group, observes: "The Resource Conservation Agreement is something most landowners and producers should be willing to accept, even want to accept, because of the way it is written and because it will pay them carry out the type of management practices that will benefit both the environment and their operations. I know of producers who don't carry out some management practices now, even though they could, because the expense is too great and there is no way of passing on any of these costs to the consumer. In fact, the only way to cover these costs is to take them out of the bottom line. The way the bottom line is in ag these days, there simply is no room for any expense or requirement that doesn't pay its way." To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
1. This program does not replace public land acquisition or any other conservation option. It is designed to supplement and augment other existing conservation tools and options. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 2. This program will offer the opportunity to establish long-term management plans on many thousands of acres of habitat that may never be protected through any other means, nor prevented through any law, rule, regulation or limitation on private property rights from being converted to uses that could destroy most or all of their habitat value. This text is one of the unresolved issues that will receive additional discussion at the October 1998 workshop. Responses to original text: Green: 14 -- 5 landowner, 6 government, 1 landowner/government, 2 other Yellow: 4 -- 3 government, 1 conservation Orange: 2 -- 1 government, 1 other Comments Offered:
To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 3. This program is designed to work together with and advance the management objectives of other existing conservation options and tools -- including public land acquisition, less-than-fee acquisition (including conservation easement and purchase of development rights programs), the "Safe Harbors" provisions that are being implemented under the Endangered Species Act and the incentive programs contained in the 1996 Farm Bill. (To see a summary of other conservation options and tools, click on your choice: | Other Conservation Options | or | 1996 Farm Bill Incentive Programs | ).To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 4 - 7. For a description of the proposed Resource Conservation Agreement, see outline of the Resource Conservation Agreement (which also can be be found under Tab 5 in the workshop notebook) To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 8. The agreement document, the tone of negotiations and the benefits that can be derived by entering into the agreement must appeal to landowners, and make as many landowners as possible want to participate in program. 9. Many agreements covering many thousands of acres = large conservation benefit. 10. Few agreements covering very few acres = small conservation benefit. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 11. Public access to private lands subject to the agreements is not required as a condition of the agreements. In the exceptional case where a landowner is willing to allow public access for specific purposes, such access should be negotiated with each individual landowner in a manner acceptable to the landowner, who may receive additional compensation over and above the base payments for management services provided in the agreement. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 12. It is agreed that some level of monitoring is necessary; however, the specific details should be site specific and negotiated with each individual landowner. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 13. The following text will be revised. This program is proposing a change in social behavior, and in public and private perception of the relationships between private landowners and government agencies. Both sides have valid basis for caution and new tools are needed to try to mend some old fences. The wording of this section was not deemed adequate to express what needs to happen. A thoughtful, careful and precise discussion needs to be held. How this relationship is developed is a critical component in the success of this program -- the whole key is the relationship between the private landowner and the government. This relationship must be crafted carefully to make it a good one. Specific suggestions on how the following text should be reworded are welcome. The text presented at the May 1998 workshop read: It must be understood from the onset that "business as usual" will not work. Individuals from land trusts and agencies involved in negotiations with landowners must work to understand the motivations of private landowners -- their desire to to be left alone, to pursue the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of their property, to be given a goal to work toward (maintaining and improving habitat on their property) and to be rewarded for the actions they take in that regard. If the leases are perceived as another layer of regulation, or contain lengthy lists of "do's and don'ts" governing every aspect of a landowner's behavior, and give the impression that every action is going to be watched and measured, they won't be accepted and won't work. This text is one of the unresolved issues that will receive additional discussion at the October 1998 workshop. Responses to original text: Green: 17 -- 10 landowner, 4 government, 1 landowner/government, 2 other Yellow: 5 -- 4 government, 1 other Orange: 2 -- 1 government, 1 conservation Comments Offered:
To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 14. Most properties on which a Resource Conservation Agreement may be considered will have high conservation values for one or more reasons. They may be identified as candidate properties for public acquisition, or for action of some type so their conservation values can be "protected." These values may be perceived to be "at risk" because of encroaching development, future intensification of land use and/or because the lands that provide these conservation values are in diminishing supply in the state or region where the properties are located. In most cases, the properties will have high conservation values, not because of any past or current government action, but because the management practices of the current landowners -- and/or preceding generations of landowners -- have allowed these conservation values to exist, coexist or even flourish in concert with economic use of the land. The properties also will have landowners who are motivated to maintain these conservation values, but who do not want to sell their properties to a land trust or government agency and are not interested in -- or ready to accept -- the restrictions, complexities, costs or permanent nature of a conservation easement or sale of development rights. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below: 15. The agreement should give a landowner the responsibility and obligation to ensure that the habitats and/or other identified conservation values on his/her property continue to be well-managed. The agreement also should include guidelines to help the landowner succeed and make technical assistance available on request. However, the landowner must be given the latitude to excel via his or her own ingenuity, effort and initiative, and to test concepts that, at first, may not work. Penalties for the landowner who does not honor his or her commitments and obligations under the agreement, or who knowingly damages or destroys habitat or another identified conservation value, should be clear. The emphasis, however, should not be on "do's and don'ts," but on encouraging the landowner to take extra efforts to improve and even expand habitats and other conservation values, and on rewarding the landowner for these efforts. To navigate through this document, return to other pages, search for specific terms, or submit comments, please click below:
|