{"id":818,"date":"2021-01-26T15:31:57","date_gmt":"2021-01-26T20:31:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/clients.dotgov.com\/esmc\/?p=818"},"modified":"2021-02-03T16:07:24","modified_gmt":"2021-02-03T21:07:24","slug":"january-2021-esmc-monthly-newsletter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clients.dotgov.com\/esmc\/january-2021-esmc-monthly-newsletter\/","title":{"rendered":"January 2021 ESMC Monthly Newsletter"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Ecosystem Services Market Consortium
\nMonthly Newsletter
\nJanuary 2021<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

ESMC News: <\/strong>Executive Director Update<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As we kick off 2021 and welcome the incoming administration of President Joseph Biden, I am optimistic that we can collectively make significant inroads on issues important to society, and to ESMC\/ESMRC and our members. The Biden administration has identified COVID-19, racial equity, and climate change as three of their highest priorities to address. These critical issues will demand immediate and extended attention to adequately address, and will require that we all do our part, with patience, focus, and determination. For the administration in particular, burgeoning federal debts and fiscal realities will require a balancing act to ensure existing federal resources are maintained and\/or redeployed in a manner that ensures all necessary priorities are equitably supported.<\/p>\n

As we head down this road together, I wanted to share some thoughts on our collaborative work seeking to scale beneficial agricultural outcomes and ecosystem services impacts that benefit society and that recognize and reward farmers and ranchers for their work. Our agenda aligns well with the new administration\u2019s agenda in many ways, and we look forward to working collaboratively with the Administration, the legislative branch, and with our members and stakeholders to achieve positive change.<\/p>\n

One worthwhile discussion I think we should begin with is the role of the public and the private sector \u2013 as well as public-private partnerships such as our own, and where joint or shared investments are also appropriate. Thinking just about scaling GHG mitigation and delivering ecosystem services from agriculture, for instance, a common understanding of our shared vision, and a comprehensive plan that delineates public and private roles and shared or joint roles now and in the future can ensure the most beneficial, durable outcomes for which current and future investments \u2013 whether public, private or joint \u2013 make sense.<\/p>\n

We should take stock of what investments the private sector (which I define here to include private corporations as well as civil society, non-profit organizations, and philanthropic organizations) has made and is making, and will best retain in the future for purposes of longevity and durability, and identify what roles the public sector can retain, improve, and perhaps additionally take on in ways that avoid duplicating or undermining those investments. We should recognize where the private sector is leading (and where it has greater agility and ability to ensure continued progress and investments to scale and achieve beneficial outcomes) to ensure that the public sector\u2019s resources are best utilized to address gaps.<\/p>\n

For instance, corporates in the private sector are leading in making investments to reduce their direct and indirect GHG and environmental impacts, but access to federally funded research data, practice data, and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers would help scale private sector advances, particular private voluntary market-based programs. Because markets won\u2019t pay early adopters or innovators after the fact for their ecological goods and services, however, a public role could be paying early adopters whose beneficial actions we seek to maintain and encourage and whose leadership we wish to tap to scale greater adoption. USDA, for instance, could pay farmers and ranchers to protect existing soil organic carbon stocks, while private markets can pay for new and increased soil carbon sequestration. Why? Soil carbon lost from existing stores increases the need to mitigate GHG, and that soil carbon is more difficult and more costly to replace \u2013 but since markets don\u2019t (with some notable exceptions) reward the protection of these stocks, federal agencies could. The Biden Administration has signaled USDA\u2019s Carbon Bank as a priority. This could be used to protect soil carbon stocks in this way and to reward early actors and good stewards. The same concept also could be applied for early adopters whose early systems changes eliminate them from participating in ecosystem services markets due to additionality requirements; if USDA can reward early adopters for their significant impacts (lets just say \u2013 for the past 5 years \u2013 though the timeframe should be discussed and agreed) then we are not perversely penalizing them by preventing their participation in private markets. We might also consider rewarding them for their leadership and pay them to showcase their own farms and ranches to help train the next generation. A few more suggestions for public sector investments:<\/p>\n