PLANNING PROCESS
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (+H)
Florida Help Sheet
Economic Considerations
The Economic and Social Considerations section of the Florida NRCS Environmental Evaluation (EE) form, the FL-CPA-52, is integral part of the conservation planning process. As stated in the General Manual, Part 400 Economics Policy, Subpart A Purpose, Policy and Scope, 400.2, “The agency will provide the economic effects of alternative actions to NRCS customers in order for them to make informed conservation decisions.”
This Help Sheet assists planners in complying with General Manual policy by providing guidance in evaluating the Economic and Social Considerations section of the FL-CPA-52. To determine the economic effects, consider the following questions listed below. If you chose those answers that are highlighted, then consideration for the proposed alternative should be reviewed more intensely (i.e. quantified, modified). Estimation of potential costsand benefitsto the landowner of the proposed alternative is preferred. All human and economic considerations shall be analyzed.
Short term effects occur during the implementation period and are temporary. Long-term effects occur during the system or practice life span.
Land Use
Change in land use efficiency.
Is the present land use suitable for the alternative?
Will the efficiency of land use improve(e.g. Feed and Forage Balance Sheet) with the alternative?
Will land be taken out of production?
Formulating alternatives that are appropriate or suitable to the current land use is essential to the success of implementation. For example, suggesting suitable forages based upon the soils and climate is the basis of a good grazing plan. Typically conservation alternatives will improve the efficiency of the land use in the long term, but if land is taken out of production the planner will have to recognize the costs of the loss of potential production and the benefit of the alternative.
Capital
Cash flow and investment requirements.
Does the producer have the funds or ability to obtain the funds needed to implement the alternative?
What are the costs associated with the initial investment for this alternative?
Involves quantitative answer (site specific cost estimate).
What are the additional annual costs associated with the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)?
Involves quantitative answer (site specific cost estimate).
Evaluating on whether or not the producer has the funds or the ability to obtain the funds can be evaluated by average crop or calf yields and the difference between the estimated costs of the alternative. Evaluating capital does not involve a review of the farm or ranch records, unless the producer volunteers that information, but can be analyzed through average county estimates. Each alternative will have an effect on capital because of the costs associated with installation and/or implementation of the conservation practice(s) in the short run, which is above the normal farming/ranching operation expenses.
Labor
Available trained workforce.
Does the client understand the amount and kind of labor needed to implement and operate the proposed practice(s)?
Does the client have the skills, time or ability to carry out the conservation practice(s) or can hire someone to do so?
Additional time and/or labor may be needed in and above what is already required on-farm, particularly when management practices are proposed such as 449 – Irrigation Water Management and 528 – Prescribed Grazing.
Management Level
Knowledge and ability to manage resources.
Does the client understand what is needed to manage the practice?
Does the client understand their responsibility to maintain practice(s) as planned and implemented?
Is it necessary for the client to obtain additional education, or hire a technical consultant, to operate and/or maintain the practice(s)? If yes, this will contribute to additional costs of practice implementation.
Is the client’s planning horizon too short for the lifespan of the practice(s)? Or is the practice lifespan too long for current management to assume the required operation and maintenance?
There are additional costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the proposed conservation practice. If the producer’s planning horizon is only 5 years and the proposed alternative has a lifespan of 15 years, than the alternative should be reviewed and reconstructed to fit the planning horizon. The producer must have knowledge of those additional costs to make an informed decision regarding the proposed alternatives.
Profitability
Returns exceed costs.
Is the proposed alternative needed and feasible?
Do the benefits of improving the current operation outweigh the installation and maintenance costs? (In other words, does the alternative have a positive benefit/cost ratio?)
Is there a reasonable expectation of long-term profitability/benefits for the operation if implemented?
Will crop, livestock, or wildlife yield(s) increase?
The evaluation of profitability can be evaluated either qualitatively or quantitatively. In some instances, producers may request or the planner may suggest certain conservation practices that are not needed such as planning a Livestock Shade Structure when there is adequate shade available or for other livestock such as beef cattle and not dairy cattle, which have a different nutritional needs and production function.
Risk
Exposure to monetary loss or damage to resources.
Will the alternative risk client participation in USDA programs?
Are there possible impacts due to a change in yield or loss in production?
Are there issues are involved with the timing of installation and maintenance of the alternative (conservation practice)?
Are the cash flow requirements of this alternative going to affect the timing of installation and maintenance of the alternative (conservation practice)?
Alternatives that have high installation costs, may risk client participation in other USDA programsincluding disaster payment programs, which require abeginning of the year lump sum payment. Producers may opt out of obtaining potential disaster payments to pay for the sunk costs of conservation. Understanding how the cash flow of the operation (i.e. calving, harvesting) affects the timing of installing conservation practices is critical to the successful implementation of the conservation alternative. If a beef operation calves in the spring, this also coincides with spring weather patterns which may hinder the installation of 516 - Pipeline and 614 - Watering Facilities.
Social Considerations
Public Health and Safety
Will there be a negative effect on the client and community with regard to public health and safety?
Will there be negative off-site effects?
Alternatives that have a potential to pose a public health and safety hazard should be evaluated closely, such as the spray zone of a 442 – Irrigation System, Center Pivot irrigating animal wastewater and its potential drift.
If any of the answers marked are highlighted in yellow, meaning that the considerations may have a negative impact on the operator and/or operation, the alternative should be reviewed and adjusted. Additional assistance may be obtained through the State Agricultural Economist. This Economic and Human Considerations Helpsheet may be included in Part 4, Environmental Compliance and Cultural Resources Information section (refer to FL-CPA-30) of the Conservation Plan as additional documentation.
Page 1of 3Section III (C)July 2014