Ref. No. [OMCEESJCBL 94-204
Upper Mississippi River Basin
Natural Resource Accounting Project
Discussion Paper # 1
October 7,1994
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2-
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
REGIONAL ECONOMIC ACCOUNTS-
ESTIMATION OF SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TO CURRENT ECONOMIC INCOME
Prepared by
DENNIS M. KING, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Solomons, Maryland, 20688
CONTENTS
Background and Discussion
Map of Study Area
List of Study Sectors and Regions
Definitions of Terms
Procedure for Estimating Current Economic Income
Preliminary Estimate's of Income by Sector/ by Region
Calculation of Income bv Sector/ fry Region
Background
TT -- deveI°PinS economic . and .natural resource accounts for the
Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) that will help facilitate sustainable
wa ershed management. Most of the important natural resource policy issues n
his watershed involve agriculture, and flood control and navigation structures
that support agriculture. We are focusing our initial effort therefore, on
10 ^ -resource accounts related to agricultural sectors in the
driven iS _\.'>l?ottom-uP" °r data-driven project, not a- "top-down" or -concept
driven project. This means that we are taring' to -ase available data to establish
how specific agricultural activities contribute to the economic welfare of the
?hrnn"h ffnerat10" ^trent income) and how they are linked-primarilv
n/mr.1 S ImentS' nutrients' and contaminants-with changes in
natural resource accounts that may adversely affect the economic welfare of
EPA 230-R-94-906
-------
current and future generations. We are developing our analyses for the base
year 1991, the most recent year, for which complete regional economic statistics
anaot/itTil^lA
are available.
The study area and the sub-areas we have selected for detailed analysis
are displayed in Exhibit 1. The agricultural sectors (roughly 4-digit Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) categories) for which we are developing our
empirical analysis, and the contribution of each of them to 1991 regional
economic production are displayed in Exhibit 2.
Genera) Approach
We are working on four separate, but interrelated tasks. One, we are
developing conventional economic accounts for each of the 26 agricultural
sectors in each of the 5 study areas, and we are using them to estimate each
sector's contribution to regional and national economic income. Two, we are
developing a taxonomy of natural resource accounts, known in accounting
jargon as a "chart of natural resource accounts" for the upper and lower
Mississippi River Basin and for the "Rest of the World." Three, we are
developing sets of bio-physical flow accounts associated with sediments,
nutrients, and contaminants and using them to illustrate how production
activity by each agricultural sector within the UMRB can directly and
indirectly affect natural resource accounts inside and outside the UMRB. And
fpJIL. we are attempting to show how changes in natural resource accounts are
likely to affect overall economic wealth (future inc.ome earning capacity) and
prospects for sustainable watershed management.
This discussio/n paper deals only with the first task—estimating
agricultural sector contributions to current economic income. It describes why
we believe it is important to measure each sector's "real" contribution to
economic income, and why we believe this measurement requires accounting
for direct and indirect transfer 'payments and costs associated with other
dedicated public investments (public costs) that support specific agricultural
sectors. This paper also presents our preliminary estimates of the "real"
economic income generated by each agricultural sector in the UMRB.
* * • ' '
The Basis for the Analysis
Economic Income :
"The maximum amount that can be spent on consumption in one period without
reducing real consumption expenditures in future periods ." (Hicks, 1946)
THe above definition of economic income, generally accepted and known
among f economists as "Hicksian income," is based on the concept that economic
wealth be the same at the beginning and end of the consumption period. This
concept of income provides the foundation for mos.t regional and national
income accounting systems, and is the one that logical individuals, households,
and businesses use to determine if their economic wellrbeing is being
maintained, improving, or deteriorating.
-------
, On a broader scale, this definition of economic income is also consistent
with the generally accepted definition of sustainable development- '"meeting
the needs of the present without compromising the ability 'of future
generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland Commission, 198.4) and with
the Clinton administration's interpretation of what sustainable development
requires: that, the present generation must leave future generations with the
wherewithal-the social capital,' consisting of human, natural, and physical
(man-made capital - to create our kind of life or a life of at least equal quality
to ours" (Economic Report of the President, 1994).
In our study we are using the current income generated by each
agricultural sector—the value of what it produces less the value of what is uses
- up in production-—as a first approximation of its contribution to economic
welfare. Note that the current economic ijicjung. generated by a sector can be
used to satisfy current demand (consumption) or .to increase wealth
investment), or both. Sectors that contribute significantly to current income,
therefore, can improve economic welfare for bath current and future
generations. The net contribution to the welfare of future generations
(increases in wealth) depends primarily on whether investments of current
income in man-made capital (e.g., economic infrastructure) or in natural
capita (e.g., environmental restoration) can in 'some sense offset the losses in
-natural capital caused by the activity that generated the current income. Note
also that investments in man-made or other forms of capital by each sector are
limited by the amount of current income that sector generates.
For purposes of our initial analysis we assume that sectors that generate
current income can contribute to future economic welfare, and sectors that
generally lose money (generate negative income) cannot . Sectors in the latter
category are "sustainable," only if society is willing to spend income and use
wealth generated elsewhere in the economy, e.g., by spending tax revenues or
increasing the federal debt, to keep them going. There are reasons why
continuously subsidizing an economic sector that is not otherwise "sustainable"
may make sense (e.g., public . health, national food security, environmental
quality). For our analysis, however, the important issue is whether a sector has
the capacity to indefinitely maintain existing levels of economic income. Since
income from direct and indirect transfer payments to households and
businesses in the region is not income "earned" from regional production, we
nave eliminated them in our calculation of regional economic income. In
making this adjustment we make no judgments about whether federal spending
on farm subsidies or federal investments in Hood protection or navigation
structures in the UMRB are good or. bad for the country. Our conclusion is only
that with the . adjustments regional income accounts are more useful for
purposes of identifying patterns of regional development that are sustainable.,
Natural Resource Accounting and Sustainabilftv
.Conventional methods of national and corporate income accounting
track changes in physical capital (e.g., plants and equipment) through
depreciation and inventory accounts to assure that the value of physical wealth
is kept constant when calculating, current economic income. Natural resource
accounting is being developed primarily as, a method of supplementing or
adjusting conventional measures of current . economic income to account for
-------
similar depreciation of natural wealth ...( e.g., fish,' timber, wettands, minerals.
air and water quality, biodiversity). One of the driving forces behind "green
accounting" is the fact that economic income associated with activities that •
destroy or degrade natural capital (adversely affect natural resource accounts)
reduce wealth and therefore may not represent "real" income at 'all.
Efforts are underway at the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) and elsewhere to "green" the national income
accounts for the U.S.. The purpose of our study, however, is different; it is to
investigate ' regional natural resource accounting as a tool for sustainable
watershed management. One way to do this is to examine whether regional
economic sectors appear to be generating enough current income to pay for
investments in man-made capital (e.g., new equipment or roads) or human
capital (e.g., schools) or natural capital (e.g., environmental restoration) that
might somehow offset the losses of natural capital they are causing.
There are many unresolved questions about whether investments in
man-made capital can ever substitute for the loss of some forms of natural
capital, and whether some forms of natural capital can be restored or replaced
with any level of investment. However, .these are second-order questions that
are not important in this part of our study. What is important is the fact that
each sector's potential to invest in offsetting forms of wealth is limited by the
income that it generates. ,
A commitment to "strong sustainafaility" is generally interpreted to mean
that man-made capital cannot be substituted for natural capital; each sector is
expected to stop destroying or degrading natural capital. A commitment to
"weak sustainability" allows some substitution, but implicitly requires that each
sector generate enough current income to .invest in forms of wealth that at
least offset the adverse impacts on natural capital. The goal of this part of the
project is to develop regional economic accounts that allow testing the
necessary conditions for "weak sustainability" at the watershed level.
Regional vs. National Income Accounting
Agricultural sectors in the UMRB actually provide two types of income to
regional households: income earned through farming, and also direct and
indirect income transfers received through farm subsidies and other federal
income support and cost-sharing programs. From a regional accounting
posture these direct and indirect income transfers from outside the region
represent "real" income because they do increase the amount "that can be
spent on consumption in one period .without reducing real consumption
expenditures in future • periods." However, from a national perspective the
purpose' of measuring income at the regional or sector level should be to
determine which sectors and which regions generate income and wealth, not to
determine how Congress and federal agencies choose .to redistribute the income
and wealth that the government receives as tax revenues. Again, the issue is
not whether federal spending decisions are good or bad for the country, but
whether methods of accounting for regional economic income can be improved
to more clearly identify patterns of regional development that are sustainable.
For such purposes income needs to be identified with the region and the
-------
• °°'
-
=
r
watershed management in the UMRB.
. with sustainable
LIST OF EXHIBITS
-
navigation sctures in
have M estimates of
aches of ^T""^-^ •' n°Od Conlrp1' ai?d
°
Exhibit 1 A map of the study area showing the watershed .
and flood plain regions selected for detailed analysis.
Exhibit 2 The agricultural sectors used in the- analysis and
1991 gross sales for each of them originating in the
. study area, the watershed, and the three flood plain
areas .
Exhibit 3 Definitions of the terms, we are using to describe
our sector-level income estimating procedure.
Exhibit 4 Description and illustration of the income estimating
procedure. : e
•Exhibit 5 Preliminary estimates of net economic income for
each sector in each, region.
Exhibit 6 Empirical backup for Exhibit 5; shows the calculations
used to estimate net economic income for each sector
Exhibit 7 A proposed "double dividend" criteria for assessing
sustamability. This; will, be 'used at a later stage of the
...- - project to link regional income accounts with" natural •
resource accounts, and with indicators of ;sustainabilitv
-------
. Upper Mississippi Study Area
Watershed, Ropdplain, and Sub-Areas
Reach A
330 Miles
(from Pool #1 to Pool #13)
Reach B
320 Miles
(from Pool #13 to Pool #26)
Reach C
200 Miles
(below Pool #26)
-------
UFFE3 VCSSSSFPt HIVE5! (U M R) '
NATURALflESOURCS ACCOUNTING STUDY
EXHBIT2 •
VALUE OF GOODS SOLD
($ masons; 1991)
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS (a)
Seal . Sector
» Title
ArtBin n TI IOAI •
•
t
p~
10
1 1
^M«
12
18
'21
22 _
23
26
27
I
29
30
32 |\
34 l<
35 C
1
1 b
<
(
Dairy Fa/m Products
Poultry And Eqgs
Rancfi Fed Cattle
iRanas Fad Cattle
_ Came Feedlots
iSheeo. Lamas. & Goats
[Hogs. Pias~And Swine
Other Meat Animal Prod.
. Misc. Livestock
Cotton
iFbod Grains
1 Feed Grains
Vegetables
Sugar Crocs
Oil Beanntj Crow
Forest Products
Greenhouse & Nursery
Ao... Forestrv. Fishery
Landscape & Hon. Serv.
TOTAL AGRICULTURE
NON- AGRICULTURAL -
Construction
Manufacturing
iVhole & Retail Trade
Services
Bovemmem
"OTAL NON-AGRICULTURE
STAL ALL SECTORS
a) Sectors based on. Stmdai
B) Study Ana: 5 stale area
Study .
Area
5.914. 19
1.113.56!
3.458.8;
412.044
2.638.85
569. T
2.921.50
14.69
182.59
181.76
829.55
7.728.95
647.42
25.11
14.90
148.38
14.96
2.044.34'
106.716
39.136
4.969.742
50.161
950.329
53.994
1. 108.581
2.402.20'
39.252.308
9.71 3.41 S
82.672.020
394.953.40C
89.563.4SO
121.484.600
136.339.500
186.540.500
64.651.910
2.230.734
1.088.149.529
1,127.401.837
tJ Industrial Oassif
including, iranois. Ic
.-asoQ
UMR
. MI JJjj52fiyd_
1 4.618.K
> 748.ia,
__ 1276.91
226.141
2.010.34
451.6S3
2.361.044
_ • 0.00
142.823
5.33
409.52S
6.048.604
433.18
5.883
8.38
102.259
0.779
1.719.173
26.64!
27.042
3.487.06J
48.83!
858.334
2.097.262
28.405.182
7.248.841
69.672.910
332.071.000
72.837.810
104.623.700
119.922.100
180.812.900
54.833.460
1.913.928
923.536.253
952.941.435
taaton (SIC) Sv*
RAPHlCREGia
_ Total
55.6f
5.95:
55.3£
4.85
50.50
6.54
63.51
- 0.00
,1.70
1.56:
28.29
140.235
8.32
0.275
0.130
1 7.100
I , O.OS6J
18.241
0.000
0.24I
115.46;
0.12-
0.687
18.32!
78.725
680.232
400.752
2.561.894
13.919.146
2.523.391
3.741.417
3.823.312
5.443.073
1.655.598
65.743
34.134.326
34.814.559
•m as modified
flsiauri' ana vis
* (b) •
UMR
Reach A
30.60!
r.s:
8.92
1.12
8.36
1.01-
8.35:
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.171
15.08
0.000
0.130
0.525
O.OOI
5.626
0.000
0.03'
2.1N
0.12'
0.14!
2.514
8.1 3£
98.046
5.362
307.466
384.348
596.459
829.272
9.984
4.535.458
4.633.503
by the USOA II
Reach B
>l 8.57:
1.82'
26.21 (
2.347
28.486
"4.14'
37.452
O.OOC
0.43E
0.000
6.48.
O.OOC
0.04!
49.782
O.OOC
0.34:
6.09C
13.99C
196.048
445.325
405.783
594.450
855.074
10.771
6.145.800
6.416.646
UIPLAN System
Reach C
3l 18.5061
L_ 2^911
5 20.244
' 1.383
13.654
• 1.396
I -19.712
I ' - 0.000
I. 0.930
! 1.563
21.639
0.056
0.169
' 83.569
0.000
0.201
7.725
. 56.597
199.342
1.809.103
1.733.261
2.632.404
3.758.727
44.988
23.453.068
23.764.409
^r** ,?***•* *««"«»• Stuoy Am. mat d«n irto trtbutariM of the Ml»iss,ppi River.
noedpWn: Counties adjacent to the UMR mat am *te»d by a 100 yur flood evenL
Reach A: From MirmeapoUs. MN to OantfPool * 13 (330 mder motay undtvetoped)
* " t0 °alM>00' * " (32° ««« party d*ve*pp«d in. agriculture).
1 * 26 l° Caira' """^ (20° "^
m« .UP, B
forest Service. IMPLAN Regional Economic Modeling System.
-------
EXHIBIT 3
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
(1) GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS Total revenues received from all sources including
sales of products and services, rents, royalties and other property income, and direct
transfer payments from the federal government.
(2) DIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS Transfers of income from taxpayers inside or
outside the region to this sector. This excludes payments that reflect the fair market
value of goods or services received, e.g., sales to the federal government, and includes
payments associated with direct farm subsidies and other income support programs.
(Source: USDA Producer Subsidy Equivalency (PSE) Study, 1993)
(3) VALUE OF GOODS SOLD The market value of goods and services produced and
sold. (Row (1) less Row (2))
(4) COST OF GOODS USED Purchases from other sectors of intermediate goods and
services used in production.
(5) GROSS VALUE ADDED The difference between the VALUE OF GOODS SOLD and the
VALUE OF GOODS USED (Row (3) less Row (4)). Includes payments to households in the
form of employee compensation, proprietary and other property income, indirect
business taxes, and capital depreciation allowances.
(6) CAPITAL DEPRECIATION Spending to restore or replace used plant and
equipment . ' •
(7) ADDITIONS TO INVENTORY Net change in the value of goods produced or
purchased, but not used or sold.
(8) NET VALUE ADDED . (Unadjusted) Gross Value Addled ksi Capital Depreciation
plus Additions to Inventory. (Row (5) less Row (6V plus Row (7))
(9) INDIRECT TRANSFER PAYMENTS Dollar value of federal assistance provided
in the form of commodity loans, land improvements, farm storage assistance and the
provision of other goods and services used'to produce, distribute or market products,
excluding annual federal spending to operated and maintain river transportation and
flood protection structures.
(Source: USDA Producer Subsidy Equivalency (PSE) Study, 1993)
(10) PRORATED ANNUALIZED PUBLIC COSTS Average annual non reimbursed
public expenditures necessary to operate, maintain, and restore navigation and flood
control structures (locks, • dams, reservoirs, and levies) in order to protect agricultural
property and facilitate flows. of agricultural inputs and products.
(11) NET VALUE ADDED (Adjusted) Net Value Added (Unadjusted) (Line 8) minus
Indirect Transfer Payments (Line 9) and other Public Costs (Line 10). NOTE: This
intermediate measure of the net economic income generated by a sector does not
reflect environmental costs and benefits or .changes in natural capital
-------
t-y (f.
<• A
<; « C '-
M ~ P5 •
5
• n
o oo
o
»•
'1--
s
,0
.-> =r «
-OB o a
o = -.
0 w B
^ 1* .,.'!
"* i' O. -, Q.
. O «> • O at '
•O.- . .p.--
e o B o
o tt
Q. o
.sr
n 03
90.
O ->'
« n
O "^
a, n
to 3
, »•
'O
« as
<»•«.
CLo
a. —
'«
."* a.
O _
to sr
II -
II c
II O
II _,
II ^
II _
II =
II "»
II •»
II n
-11 'a.
ll
II
ll
ll
ll
n
n
n
ll
n
ll
ll
ll
ll
ll
n
n
n
ll
n
n
.
B • .-
o-
2
P5
>
r*
SB
o
«
CO
- Q.
n —
-* -•
n.
-o o '
n
,
P5
c?
rt
<-s "' O
C B »
a -
•ft
•e
V) n
** "1
*-\ *"
.rt '»
w 3
- n
.» s"
3 „
3 O)
ero
o n
Q. °
• as
C -
w w
^ o
as
3
«—> 3 •
- .vi.
Q.
. ffl
•o
3
o
o
a-
CO
c
3
T3
O
Q.
O
3
OV
So
_ era
as
n
n
o
VI
Q
3
N)
ON
.r
c r
R «
— "" .r™
_ CT k" i1 •
= a .o f™
•".' — H
-oc
- 2 ~
o ,.
= -a"—
•" r M
05
O
r
n
'«
as
- =
•u
as
3
n
3
TO
.
O
O
CC
.
"3
>
"SB
'SO
ft
n
.ft
"B.
H
3
O
o
=
e,
•o
T3
P
.«
a:
sr >
. . -
o 2
n-o
c ^
'•»«
JO CO
03 H
-H £
21:-.
— cn
,nn
• ,,H
n
on
tnZ
jo
03
c'
H
-------
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (U M R)
NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY
EXHIBfTS
ADJUSTED ANNUAL NET VALUE ADDED (1991) BY AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
(Not Adjusted for Public Investments in Navigation/Flood Protection)
($ millions)
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
Sect
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Sector
Title
AGRICULTURAL:
Dairy Farm Products
Poultry And Eggs
Ranch Fed Cattle
Range Fed Cattle
Cattle Feedlots
Sheeo. Lambs. And Goats
Hogs. Pigs, And Swine
Other Meat Animal Prod.
Miscellaneous Livestock
Cotton
Food Grains
Feed Grains
Hay And Pasture
Grass Seeds
Tobacco
Fruits
Tree Nuts
Vegetables
Sugar Crops
Miscellaneous Crops
Oil Bearing Crops
Forest Products
Greenhouse And Nursery
Forestry Products
Commercial Fishing
Agriculture. Forest, Rsh.
Landscaoe And Hort. Serv
TOTAL AGRICULTURE
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Study
Area
209.539
92.773
897.752
52.559
685.367
244.702
1,268.777
6.668
26.072
10.585
158.651
977.949
235.491
6.354
1.324
12.728
0.650
198.127
31.520
12.663
458.913
8.339,
347.905
47.862
23.798
423.518
1,185.441
7,626.024
U.M.R .
Watershed
197.999
77.076
695.936
42.761
545.925
202.153
1,078.227
0.000
21.035
0.248
69.937
804.045
179.701
1.549
1 .034
9.629
0.027
168.547
• 6.578
8.661
362.856
8.102
286.864
34.221
18.603
328.769
1,047.023
6,197.506
U M R Roodplain
Total
1.071
0.389
11.219
0.610
9. 009
2.245
21.711
. 0.000
0.184
0.073
3.576
12.400
2.456
0.071
0.017
.0.585
0.002
1.091
0.000
0.060
8.504
0.028
3.294
. 0.624
0.311
5.687
37.309
122.526
Reach A
1.294
0.162
3.232
0.257
' 2.522
0.484
3.270
0.000
0,057
0.000
0.038
2.285
. 0.900
0.000
0.017
' 0.069
0.000
0.584
0.000
0.010
0.284
0.028
0.685
0.114
0.060
0.854
3.891
21.095
Reach B
-0.009
0.120
5.-111
0.259
4.'863
1.413
12.465
0.000
0.045
, 0.000
0.667
5.902
0.626
0.011
0.000
0.086
0.000
0.106
0.000
0.013
3.225
0.000
2.048
0.201
0.158
2.321
6.533
46.163
Reach C
-0.213
•0.107
2.876
0.094
1.624
. 0.349
5.976
0.000
0.082
0.073
2.871
4.214
0.930
0.060
0.000
0.431
0.002
0.400
0.000
0.037
4.995
0.000
0.561
. 0.310
0.093
2.512
26.885
55.268
-------
UPPER MISSESPP! HIVEH (UMR)
NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY
, EXHHT6 5ansfaf Pavments
lass Annuatead Fedafa) Costa
NET VALUE ADHPn
RANGE FED CATTLE
ANNUAL RECSFTS
less Direct Transfer Payments
0.000
412.044
285.482
126.562
. 0.000
0.000
VALUE OF GOOOS SOLD
226.149
142.771
83.378
0.000
less Cost of Goods Sold
GROSS VALUE APPEn
jus Additions to Inventory
:8j NET VALUE Aonpn
126.562
74.003
0.000
52.559!
lass Indirect Transfer
lass Annualizad Federal Costs
NET VALUE ADDED fadiuaadl
-------
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVEH (U M R)
^TURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY
, . EXHIBITS 3ass Caoitai Denreaatlnn
(US Additions to Invantpni
NET VALUE ADDED
0.000
25.6'??
4.179
0.000
21.711
Indirect Transfar Pavm«nts
.1» NET VALUE AOPFn
Sector 08 OTHER MEAT ANIMAL PRODUCTS
1) GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS
O.OCIO
O.QCio
o.ocio
o.ocio
0.000
0.00^
0.000
0.000
Uss Annualizaa Fadaral Costs
-------
UPPER MISSISSPPl RIVE?)
- Area
836.026
6.471
829.556
651.977
177.581
0.513
0.000
177:067
18.416
0.000
158.851
U MR
412.719
3.194
409.525
330.243
79.282
0.253
0.000
79.029
9:091
0.000
69.937
Tota ' "
28.520
0.221
28.299
, 4.221
0.017
, 4.204
0.628
0.000
• 3.576
U M R F
. 0.178
0.001
0.178
0.042
0.000
0.042
0.004
0.000
0.038
6.534
0.051
6.464
0.814
0.004
O.B11
0.144
0.000
o:ee7
21.808
0.169
21.839
3.365
0.013
3.352
0.480
0.000
'. 2.871
Sector 12 , FEED GRAINS
(2) less Direct Transfer Payments
(5) GROSS VALUE ADDED
(8) NET VALUE ADDED
(10) less Annuaiized Feaerai Costs
Study
. 7.929.910
200.953
7.726.957
6.226.409
L 1_.;S02.S48
50.605
1 .549.392
571 .943
0.000
977.949
U M R
6.205.868
157.264
6.048.604
4.831.148
1.217.456
' 36.736
1.251.642
• 447.597
0.000
304.045
Total ~~~
143.881
117.831
0.431
10.377
12.400
U M H Ftoodolain
15.475 72.1141 - 56.292
• 15.0831 70.2861 54.8651
11.7151 59:4371 48.680i
0.0061 0.0271 0.023
• 0.0391 0.2811 0.111
. '1.116 i 5.2011 4.0601
2.2851 .-- S.902I " ' 4.2T4
-------
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (U Uf>
NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNnNG STUDY
EXHIBTT6 SS<**** t 3 ' NET VALUE ADDED (adfustsdl
Study
.Area
25.117
0.000
25.117
18.783
6.354
0.000
0.000
6.354
0.000
0.000
6.3S4
U M R
Watershed
5.883
0.000
• 5.883
4.334
1.549
0.000
0.000
1.549
0.000
0.000
1.549
U M,R Ftoodolain
Total
0.27«i
O.OOCI
0.275
0.203
• 0.071
0.000
O.OOCI
0.071
O.OOCI
O.OOCI
0.071
Reach A
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
• o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.000
0.052
0.041
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.223
0.000
0.223
0.163
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.060
Sector 15 TOBACCO
(1) GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS
(21 less Direct Transfer Payments
(3) VALUE OF GOODS SOLD
(4) toss Cost of Goods Sold
(5) GROSS VALUE ADDED
(61 less Caoitai Deoreaation
(71 olus Additions to Inventory
(81 NET VALUE ADDED
(9) less Indirect Transfer Payments
(101 less Annuitized Federal Costs
(111 NET VALUE ADDED fadhotadl
Study
Area
14.970
0.068
14.902
. '13.418
1.485
0.000
0.032
1.517
0.193
0.000
1.324
• U M R
Watershed
4.418
0.038
8.380
7.251
1.T29
0.000
0.013
1.148
0.109
0.000
1.034
U M R Ftoodplain
Total
0.131
0.001
0.130
0.112:
0.0 18
0.000
0.000
0.019'
o.oos:
0.000
0.017
0.131
0.001
0.130
. 0.112
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.002
0.000
0.017
Reach B
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Reach C
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
• o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sector 16 , FRUITS
.
(1) GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS
(21 less Direct Transfer Payments
(31 VALUE OF GOODS SOLD
(41 (ess Cost of Goods Sold
(51 GROSS VALUE ADDED
(61 less Caoitai Deoreaation
(7) olus Additions to Inventory
(81 NET VALUE ADDED
(91 tess Indirect Transfer Payments
(101 less Annuahzed Federal Costs
(111 NET VALUE ADDED fadiustedl
Study
Area
150.650
2.261
148.389
129.943
18.446
0.000
0.722
19.168
U M R
Watershed
103.817
1.556
102.259
88.605
13.653
0.000
0.414
14.067
6.440I 4.438
O.OOOl 0.000
12.7281 9.629
U M R Ftoodolam
Total
7.208-
0.1 Off
7. 1 0Ol
8.293
0.807
O.OOOl
o.oae
0.893
, 0.308
O.OOD
0.585
0.533
0.008
0.525
0.437
0.088
0.000
0.003
0.091
0.023
0.000
0.069
Reach B
1.348
0.020
1 .328
1.193
0/135
0.000
0.009
0.144
0.058
0.000
0.086
Reach C
5.326
0.080
5.246
4.662
0.584
0.000
0.074
0.658
0.228
0.000
0.431
-------
UPPER MISSES*1?! RIVER (U M R)
NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY
EXHBT6
SECTOR COWTWBUTIONTO.RaaONALECONOMK: INCOME (Smiiions)
Sector 17 TBEENUTS.
M fl' Ftaodolain
GROSS ANNUAL RECSFTS
jess Direct Transfer Payments
VALUE OF GOODS SOU
lass Cost of Gooas Sold
GROSS VALUE ADDED
lass Capital Daofaeiatinr
lus Additions to Invanto
NET VALUE ADDED
lass Inaireet Transfsr
jess AnnualizM Federal Costs
1.1) NET VALUE ADDEP
VEGETABLES
U M R Ftooonla
GROSS ANNUAL RECBPT5
lass Direct Transfer
VALUE OF GOODS SOLO
less Cost o< Goods Sold
GROSS VALUE ADDED
jus Additions to Invantorv
0.000
0.187
0.920
0.519
0.000
NET VALUE ADDED
IMS Indirect Transtai
[ess AnnuaUzBd Federal Com
NET VALUE ADPEP
SUGAR CROPS
U M R Ftoodolain
GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS
lass Dlract Transfer
0.000
O.OOC
0.000
0.000
0.000
VALUE OF GOODS SOLP
toss Cost al Goods Sold
GROSS VALUE ADDSn
NET VALUE ADQgQ
lass Indirect Tfarurfm-
lass Annuatizad FedaraJ Coat
NET VALUE ADPgp
MISCELLANEOUS CROPS
GROSS ANNUAL RECEIPTS
less Olreet Transfer
VALUE OF GOQOSsntn
less Cost of Goods Sold
GROSS VALUE ADDED
jus Additions to Invantn
NET VALUE ADDED
lass Indirect Transfer Pa
lass Annuaiizsd Faderal Costs
11V NET VALUE ADDED
-------
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (U M R)
NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY
, , EXHIBITS
SECTOR CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMIC INCOME (S mdlions)
Sectoral OIL BEARING CROPS
(2) >ess Direct Transfer Payments
(SI GROSS VALUE ADDED
(7) olus Additions to Invamorv
(101 lass Annuaiizao Federal Costs
5.04
T
4.96
4.29C
67S
C
67S
22C
(
" 458
'.528
3.742
1,17?
> 570
non
.570-
.657
.000!
=11,11
U M R
Watershed
3.541.463
54.398
2.969.384
S17.6S1
0.000
517.681
154.826
0.000
362.856
117.2138
1.8131
11S.4B7
101.3135
13.8aj_
0.000
0.000
13.6a~
5.127
O.OCIO
8.504
U M R I
2.149
0.033
1.738
0.000
0.094
0^000
Hoodoiam
50.558! 84 SSI
"•3461 55.7511
0.0001 0 OOOi
2.2101 2.8221
Sector 22 FOREST PRODUCTS
(21
VALUE ADDED (adjusted)
Study
1 • 0.000
• 41.346
0.005
8.339
0.000
o.oooi
8.339I
U M R
48.839
0.000
' 48.839
40.273
8.565
0.468
0.004
8.102
0.000
0.000
8.102
0.184
0.000
1 0.124
0.096
•__ 0.029
0.001
0.000
0.028
0.000
0.028!
U M R F
React) A
0.124
0.096
0.029
0.000
0.028
0.000
loodolain
_ Readi; B
Sector 23 GREENHOUSE AND NURSBTr'
Study
Ama
U M R
Watershed
U M R Roodolain
950.329
759.011
10.77H
.424
.14:
7.
286.864
O.i
347.90!
286.364
0.685
347.90!
286.86'
Sector 24 FORESTRY PRODUCTS
H_D
Study
0.000
662.738
47.862
0.000
0.000
47,862]
U M R
Watershed
489.438
, 0.000
455.218
34.221
„ 0.000
34.221
34.2211
L Total
9.494
. O.OOCI
8.869
0'.62*
O.OOCI
O.OOCI
0.000
U M R f
Reacn A
loodolain
0.0001 O.OOOi
3.1 Ml - 4.769J
-------
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (U M R)
NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY
.EXHBTT6
SECTOR CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMIC INCOME (S masons)
Sector 25 - COMMERCIAL FISHING
U M R
Watershed
42.101
GROSS-ANNUAL RECBPTS
0^687
O.OOC
0.687
0.378
0.309
less Direct Transfer Payments
VALUE OF GOODS SOLD
less Cost of Goods Sold
GROSS VALUE ADDED
0.109
0.092
0.00.0
less Capital Depreciation
0.000
0.139
18.603
0:000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.311
0.000
0.000
0.311
plus Additions to Inventorv
NET VALUE ADDED
less Indirect Transfer Payments
less Annuaiized Federal Costs
NET VALUE ADDED (adjusted!
Sector 26 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHERIES
(1) GROSS ANNUAL HECSPTS
(2) less Direct Transfer Payments
(3). VALUE OF GOODS SOLD
(4) less Cost of Goods Sold
(5) GROSS VALUE ADDED
7) plus Additions to Inventory
8) NET VALUE ADDED
9) less Indirect Transfer Payments
10) Jess Annualized Federal Costs
11) NET VALUE ADDED (adjust.*)
Study
Area
1,108.581
O.OOC
1,108.581
685.063
423.518
0.000
' 0.000
423.518
0.000
0.000
• 423.518
U M R
Watershed
858.334
O.OOQ
8S8.334
529.565
. 328.769
0.000
0.000
328.769
0.000
0.000
328.769
Total
16.329
0.000
16.329
10.642
5.687
0.000
•0.000
5.687
- o.ooo
0.000
5.687
U M R F
Reach A
2.514
0.000
2.514
1.660
•O.B54
0.000
0.000
0.854
0.000
0.000
0.654
Reach B
6.090
0.000
8.090
3.769
2.321
0.000
• 0.000
2.321
0.000
0.000
2.321
' Reach C
7.725
0.000
7.725
5.213
2.512
0.000
0.000
2.512
0.000
0.000
2.512
Sector 27 LANDSCAPE AND HORTICULTURE SERVICES
(1) GROSS ANNUAL HECEPTS
I?} less Direct Transfer Payments
(3) VALUE OF GOODS SOLD
(4) less Cost of Goods Sold
(7) . plug Additions to Inventory
(8) NET VALUE ADDED
(9) less Indirect Transfer Payments
[1 1) NET VALUE ADDED (adjusted)
Area
2.402.204
0.000
2.402.204
1.216.763
1.185.441
0.000
0.000
1.185.441
1,185.441
U M R
Watershed
2.097.263
0.000
2.097.263
1.050.240
1,047.023
0.000
0.000
1.047.023
- ' 0.000
0.000
1,047.023
Total
78.725
0.000
78.725
37.309
0.000
0.000
, 37.309
0.000
37.309
U M R F
Reach A
8.138
0.000
8.138
3.891
0.000
0.000
3.891
0.000
.' 3.891
Reach B
13.990
0.000
13.990
6.533
0.000
0.000
S.533
• , 0.000
8.533
Reach C
56.597
0.000
. 56.597
26.885
0.000
0.000
26.885
0.000
26.885
-------
EXHIBIT 7
"DOUBLE DIVIDEND" CRITERIA
FOR EVALUATING SUSTAINABLE WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT
KEY QUESTION:
Does an economic sector generate:
a) CURRENT DIVIDENDS
. b) FUTURE DIVIDENDS
c) BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE
d) NEITHER CURRENT NOR FUTURE
CURRENT DIVIDENDS - A positive contribution to current Economic Income
CRITERIA: Sector activity produces goods and services with economic value that
exceeds the economic .value of goods and services used up in production,
including consumption of market-valued (man-made) capital.
NOTE:
Current Dividends can be used for current consumption OJL invested to increase wealth.
FUTURE DIVIDENDS- A'positive contribution to Economic Wealth
CRITERIAr* Sector activity results- in a higher valued mix of natural and man-made
capital being left for future generations.
Strong Evidence:
Weak Evidence;
Sector activity results in either:
a)
b).
positive changes in the value of
natural and man- made capital.
or. . . - ,.
ppsitive changes in the value of one
form of capital with no change in ,the other
Sector activity results in positive changes in one of
the two types of capital that are more than sufficient
to offset declines in,the other.
NOTE;
Under the Weak evidence criteria, the potential for investments made
from current income in one of the two kinds of capital to more, than
offset declines in -the other kind is limited by the fact' that investments
cannot exceed current income. , •
------- |