I too really like the current agenda. I would be satisfied with the current agenda as it is but there are a few issues that I face in attempting to scale up activities on the Upper Miss. River. Perhpas it does not fit the theme of this conference but I'll throw it out here for consideration. I would suggest that it might fit under the agenda item that addresses how we change risky behavior.
In order to change behavior I think we need to place a higher priority on how we succeed or fail to fund and manage conservation projects and how we succeed or fail to market conservation. In my opinion we also need to address interpersonal skills needed by conservation practitioners. Do conservation practitioners have proper training to persuade or sell producers/landowners, are there enough practioners to do the one on one relationship building that is essential to changing behavior, is their work acknowledged and rewarded, is it a viable career path?
Perhaps more creative incentives are needed but I think the current suite would do if a larger, more highly trained "sales force" was available. People are certainly motivated by broad "socio-economic" stimulii but in my years of working with farmers, donors etc. I think the single most important factors in changing behavior is the the ability to build rapport and relationships, market ideas by demonstrating value to each individual operation etc. When I am working on a project the only stats and incentives I am worried about are those that influence the producer standing in front of me - what is their economic situation, who else influences their decision, landlord, wife, etc., what are their core beliefs? etc. etc. This cannot be determined through a statewide poll but by talking directly with the producer. While we can broadly categorize what motivates farmers and craft better policy as a result that does not go far enough. You have to figure out what each individual farmers needs are - each is unique and to change their behavior you need to think more like a salesman and less like a sociologist.
Other issues are the fact that USDA only provides funding for practices - little or no funding is available for staffing special project managers, monitoring of outcomes. If we are going to follow the advice given in MAL1 we will need to find dedicated funding for project administration and outcome monitoring. Perhaps if EPA, NRCS and USGS provided a "one stop shop" for watershed projects we would have enough watershed projects to influence water and soil at scale.
Another concern I have is the fact that special project managers are often on "soft" money and have little hope of making a career out of managing conservation projects. Little if any attention is paid to the retaining or motivating the people who go out and market conservation door to door and few are recognized when they excell at this skill. Such interpersonal skills as persistance, political savvy, persuasiveness, negotiation skills etc. are in my opinion extremely important and often (always?) overlooked when crafting strategies for getting conservation on the ground. In the conservation world our "sales" force are often the lowest paid, least experiences staff. In the business world a well trained, motivated sales force is considered essential to a companies success and they are paid accordingly. We probably will not match the financial incentives of the corporate world but we could begin to pay more attention to the "art of the deal" as we are simultaneously developing better science, better modeling tools etc.
Its late and I am rambling on a bit but these are some things I had on my mind and perhaps could be incorporated into the MAL2 agenda.
