Transcript Incentive-Based Solutions to Agricultural Environmental

From Priorities to Action
– Resolving Natural Resource and
Environmental Issues
Alan Randall
Setting Priorities – what are we trying to
accomplish?
Identify research and education objectives
From the stakeholders’ perspective
1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meaningful and coherent
Addressed to urgent needs (some well-recognized,
others emerging)
Conveying a clear sense of the good to come from
their accomplishment
…………………………….. that we are capable of
accomplishing them
Setting Priorities – what are we trying
to accomplish?
Identify research and education objectives
From the providers’ perspective
2.
•
•
•
•
Meaningful and coherent
Compelling to stakeholders
Challenging – offering the prospect of advancing the state
of the art
But not beyond the realm of practical possibility
Setting Priorities – what are we trying to
accomplish?
Problematic priorities
•
Timid – we promise them only things that are non-controversial
•
Demand-driven – we promise them whatever it is that we think
they want
•
Supply-driven – we place a high priority on whatever it is that
we want to do
In setting meaningful priorities, we should seek
achievable D, S equilibria – we should be alert to demand
signals but realistic about our capacity to supply research and
educational solutions
The C-FARE Priorities for NRE
a. How can we more effectively manage natural resources and
control environmental risks?
• Evaluate the economics of best management practices to sustain and
improve water, soil, and air quality.
• Evaluate and measure the values that the public places on environmental
goods.
• Develop mechanisms to assess and mitigate global environmental
resource management including climate change and desertification.
• Assess the costs and benefits of government regulations on agriculture,
the food and fiber system, natural resources, and the environment.
• Evaluate the impacts of alternative agricultural systems such as
sustainable agriculture and organic farming.
The C-FARE Priorities
a. How can we more effectively manage natural resources and
control environmental risks?
• Evaluate the economics of best management practices to sustain and
improve water, soil, and air quality.
• Evaluate and measure the values that the public places on environmental
goods.
• Develop mechanisms to assess and mitigate global environmental
resource management including climate change and desertification.
• Assess the costs and benefits of government regulations on agriculture,
the food and fiber system, natural resources, and the environment.
• Evaluate the impacts of alternative agricultural systems such as
sustainable agriculture and organic farming.
The C-FARE Priorities
b.
How can land use be managed to minimize conflicts and resolve
rural-urban issues?
• Define and educate about the meaning of land use incompatibilities
and sprawl and the economic and other impacts of congestion/sprawl.
• Measure the preferences/values of the public for various land uses and
the attributes (open space) of these land uses.
• Design new public policies for managing land use and educate about these
policy options and their impacts.
• Research and educate about the performance of alternative policy
options to manage land use.
• Understand and analyze the unique issues at the rural-urban interface.
The C-FARE Priorities
c.
How should water resources be managed in
response to increasing scarcity and conflict?
• Introduce incentives and trading mechanisms to enhance
water use efficiency and quality and policy.
• Expand research and education related to water development,
use, conservation, marketing, and policy.
The C-FARE Priorities – some comments
•
Coverage of topics and issues is adequate – although it seems
sometimes that the language is encoded
•
I’d suggest less assessing and evaluating, and more designing
and testing mechanisms to manage, mitigate, adapt
•
“… around the world” – what is our commitment to a global
mandate?
•
Serious attacks on the problems identified require
interdisciplinary research and education, which implies serious
organizational adjustments in universities and funding agencies
The Emerging Environment for
Research and Outreach Education
In Washington and beyond
1. In Agriculture
• Formula funding continues to diminish
• Agriculture remains too insular
• Competitive grants lag
• The pork barrel keeps expanding
The Emerging Environment for
Research and Outreach Education
In Washington and beyond
2. In the action agencies – EPA, NOAA, Energy
• Funding fluctuates but remains more resilient
• Agencies are more open to funding partnerships
• The RFP route prevails – competitive
Homeland security is an action agency, too!
The Emerging Environment for
Research and Outreach Education
In Washington and beyond
3. The Research Establishment – NSF, NIH, etc
• Funding continues to grow
• Competitive grants are the norm
• Interdisciplinary approaches often are demanded
• Big Science – Big Social Science
• Funding organizations often expect funding partnerships
The Emerging Environment for
Research and Outreach Education
In the universities
• University administrations are playing the rankings game,
making huge investments in research capacity, and expecting
colleges, departments, and faculty to get on board – and they
are becoming much smarter about transmitting incentives
• Diminishing formula funding and state appropriations leave
Ag colleges with a clear and stark choice – adapt or become
marginalized
• Adaptation must be subtle (Dance with the One that Brung You
– DOBY) but relentless – and this won’t be easy!
How Should Programs Be Organized
– in the land-grant institutions?
Status quo:
• Administrators promise research and education solutions to
priority problems, in exchange for budgets they manage
• Resources available to administrators are dominated by tenured
faculty with fulltime appointments and rigid appointment splits
• Administrators cling to a command & control style of operation,
but in fact have little capacity to command or control
• The land-grant components remain leery of the broader university
How Should Programs Be Organized
– in the land-grant institutions?
Organizational Issues:
1. Within the land-grant colleges
•
Project funding rather than appropriations? Competitive?
•
Faculty appointments – less than calendar-year? less than
fulltime? greater reliance on non-tenure-track faculty
and/or professional staff?
•
Role and structure of departments (and other disciplinary
groupings) within college?
How Should Programs Be Organized
– in the land-grant institutions?
Organizational Issues:
2.
In the broader university context
•
Greater responsiveness to university goals and priorities
•
Greater commitment to interdisciplinary projects and programs
•
More prominent roles for multi/interdisciplinary centers, institutes
•
Greater willingness to partner, on-campus and beyond
•
Closer alignment with a multi-agency, RFP-driven, competitive
Big Science research environment
How Do We Get There – or, what are we
going to do with DOBY?
1.
Formula funds and state appropriations will continue to matter,
and NRE economics must continue to compete in that arena.
We have a good story to tell
- The problems are compelling
- We have strong capacity to deliver the goods
2.
We have learned already much of what we need to know,
to thrive in the emerging environment
-
Operating in a competitive funding environment
Cultivating links with a variety of funding sources
Brokering funding partnerships
Operating in a multidisciplinary research & education
environment
How Do We Get There – or, what are we
going to do with DOBY?
We need to
3. Encourage our land-grant colleges to be
responsive to the new directions in Washington and on
our own campuses
4. Reassure our traditional stakeholders that a
deliberate adjustment to the new realities will bring benefits
for them, too
5. Encourage Agriculture in Washington to get on board
– the threat of marginalization is at least as great for them as it is
for us