{"id":4545,"date":"2014-12-03T19:15:12","date_gmt":"2014-12-03T23:15:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/growingreturns\/?p=4545"},"modified":"2025-06-11T13:11:06","modified_gmt":"2025-06-11T17:11:06","slug":"are-we-giving-farmers-enough-credit-for-stewardship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/growingreturns\/2014\/12\/03\/are-we-giving-farmers-enough-credit-for-stewardship\/","title":{"rendered":"Are we giving farmers enough credit for stewardship?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Photo<\/a>
Photo credit: EDF\/Mathew Grimm<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At Environmental Defense Fund, we believe in the power of incentives to drive agricultural sustainability. That\u2019s why we support emerging markets like California\u2019s Central Valley Habitat Exchange<\/a> and the state\u2019s fledgling cap and trade market, which will soon allow rice growers<\/a> to earn extra revenue.<\/p>\n

Both markets reward farmers for improving the environment in specific ways.<\/p>\n

The Central Valley Habitat Exchange, when it becomes operational, will allow farmers who create enhanced habitat for at-risk species to sell credits to businesses and agencies that need to meet conservation goals.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the proposed offset market for rice \u2013 which is set for a Dec. 18 vote by the California Air Resources Board \u2013 will allow U.S. rice farmers to earn credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from rice cultivation.<\/p>\n

Different markets, different rules<\/strong><\/p>\n

Each market prescribes a set of practices for attaining the desired environmental outcome. The proposed rice standard, for example, identifies three practices for cutting methane emissions: dry seeding, early drainage, or alternate wetting and drying.<\/p>\n

But what if these practices create additional environmental benefits beyond reducing a farmer\u2019s GHG footprint, such as creating good habitat for the giant garter snake? Should the farmer earn credits for that too? If so, how? Through new markets? And how many credits should they earn? Is one market outcome more valuable than the other? How do we avoid double counting?<\/p>\n

Workshop on coordinating markets<\/strong><\/p>\n

EDF has been exploring these issues and the dynamic relationships between environmental benefits.<\/p>\n

On December 8, we will convene other experts working on this pioneering\u00a0concept\u00a0for a workshop ahead of the ACES<\/a> (A Community on Ecosystem Services) conference.\u00a0 At this workshop<\/a>, we\u2019ll facilitate a discussion on how to achieve better biodiversity outcomes by coordinating environmental markets.<\/p>\n

Environmental markets have been around for a while, but they\u2019ve basically operated in silos, not really interacting with one another. As new markets come online for everything from water quantity and water quality to biological diversity and greenhouse gas reductions, they are likely to overlap on the same piece of land.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s time to work through the challenge of coordinating markets now, to ensure we\u2019re giving farmers enough credit for their stewardship in the future.<\/p>\n

A comprehensive approach <\/strong><\/p>\n

We don\u2019t have the answers for how exactly to coordinate markets just yet. At the workshop, we\u2019ll consider a few key points:<\/p>\n