Natural Resource and Environmental Policy

Natural Resource and Environmental Policy ESPM 3241W/ 5241 (3 Credits) Course Syllabus – Spring 2016

Course Meeting Time and Location

10:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m., Tuesday/Thursday Green Hall 110, St. Paul Campus

Course Instructor: Teaching Assistants:

Calder Hibbard, Ph.D. Marissa Schmitz Executive Director Department of Forest Resources MN Forest Resources Council [email protected], Office 209C Green Hall [email protected] Office Hrs: Mon noon-2:00 p.m., or by appt Office 201A/C Green Hall Office Hours Tu/Th 11:30 to 12:00 Claudia Nanninga Department of Forest Resources [email protected], Office 101B

Katherine Linnemanstons

Department of Forest Resources [email protected], Office 320 Green Hall Office Hours Tu/Th 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Required Text and Readings: All assigned readings, handouts, and supplemental resources are available on the course website accessible via Moodle (https://moodle.umn.edu/). Check frequently for updates as you are responsible for all material posted.

Course Description and Focus: This course examines the political and administrative processes at play in the management, use, and protection of the environment. Its focus is on the policy processes by which disagreements over how the conservation and management of natural resources are pursued by stakeholders, private-sector interests, government agencies, communities, and non-profit organizations. The course also develops your understanding of the basic scientific process in relation to methodologies of policy monitoring and evaluation, data collection, and analysis.

Specifically, the course focuses on developing an in-depth understanding of the policy process, which includes agenda-setting, problem formulation, selection, implementation, and evaluation of environmental policies. Relevant laws, policy tools, and institutions are examined. You will be exposed to basic scientific techniques for developing policy alternatives, evaluating existing polices, and methodologies for monitoring and adaptive management. You will collect secondary data pertaining to a particular environmental issue, and using one or more quantitative or qualitative tool, analyze these data as a basis for evaluating policy effectiveness. Through written assignments and team projects you will explore the various aspects of the policy process in the context of competing social values. 1 Multiple spatial and temporal scales are examined. Uses of interdisciplinary ways of solving problems are encouraged.

2 Student Learning Objectives: Having successfully completed this course, you will be able to:  Gain an understanding of the sequence of events involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of natural resource policies including agenda setting and definition, policy formulation, selection, implementation, evaluation, and review.  Recognize major participants involved in the policy process and the respective roles of legislative systems, judicial systems, bureaucratic agencies, special interest groups, general public, and non-governmental organizations.  Identify, define and solve policy problems, including securing an understanding of the decision processes involved in the selection of policies. [meets University learning requirements]  Compare and contrast the types of institutions (political, financial, markets) that affect natural resource management and be able to describe their basic structure.  Assess a range of natural resource policy issues (forestry, agriculture, air and water, renewable energy, endangered species) using acquired social science methods.  Discriminate between and engage in the collection and analysis of primary and secondary social science data used for policy analysis and evaluation, including locating and critically evaluating the quality of social science data used. [meets University learning requirements]  Demonstrate effective and professional-level written and oral communication and presentation of scientific principles, research findings, personal opinions and justifications. [meets University learning requirements]

Course Format: This course fulfills the Social Science Core and the Civic Life and Ethics Theme of the University of Minnesota Liberal Education requirements. You will be exposed to social science methodologies important to the field of policy analysis, and are expected to engage in data collection and analysis in fulfillment of in-class and written exercises. Course lecture, in-class exercises, and extensive use of small group interaction are used to challenge your attitudes, values and beliefs pertaining to the environment, allowing you to develop an understanding of the role of environmental ethics in the policy development process.

This is an intensive writing course with extensive use of journaling, reflective writing, and report writing. The primary instructional technique used is “learning by doing” accomplished through experience sharing, case study analysis, group brainstorming, small group discussion, Socratic questioning, role-playing, and panel debate are utilized with significant time for discussion and reflection on the topics of the day. The course schedule is tentative; it is your responsibility to keep track of announced changes.

Student Expectations and Policies: To facilitate the rapid exchange of information and ideas, the following is emphasized: 1) The interactive style of learning used in this course makes it necessary that you attend ALL classes. Much of the work and most of your knowledge will derive directly from our class encounters. You are expected to devote six hours per week outside the classroom to coursework. 2) Information posed as “fact” MUST be cited in an appropriate citation style. Failure to cite information other than your own is considered plagiarism. Scholastic dishonesty in any form

3 shall be grounds for awarding a grade of F or N for the entire course. Scholastic dishonesty includes plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or using test materials without faculty permission; submitting false or incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; altering, forging, or misusing a University academic record; or fabricating or falsifying data, research procedures, or data analysis. ALL electronic devices are prohibited during exams. 3) At the instructor’s discretion, late assignments will receive up to 5 percentage points deducted per day taken off the final grade earned. In the event of an emergency, it is the student’s responsibility to provide a writing excuse prior to, or as soon thereafter as practical. 4) Students with disabilities will be reasonably accommodated. Please inform the instructors of specific disabilities or accommodations in advance so that we may respond appropriately. Additional information may be found at: http://ds.umn.edu/. 5) Sexual harassment by or toward a member of the University community is prohibited. 6) As a student you may experience a range of issues that can cause barriers to learning, such as strained relationships, increased anxiety, alcohol/drug problems, feeling down, difficulty concentrating and/or lack of motivation. These mental health concerns or stressful events may lead to diminished academic performance or reduce a student's ability to participate in daily activities. University of Minnesota services are available to assist you with addressing these and other concerns you may be experiencing. You can learn more about the broad range of confidential mental health services available on campus via http://www.mentalhealth.umn.edu/ 7) We will treat others with respect and dignity. You are encouraged to critique other’s ideas and arguments in a civilized discussion. However, it is inappropriate to attack a person or their values and beliefs.

Evaluation: Exams – Two (2) examinations will be given. Exams are cumulative meaning that any previous information covered in the course may be tested. Exams will generally consist of some multiple choice and True/False, and mostly short answer essay.

On the second exam, administered during the final exam period, you are to select one book from the list below and answer questions pertaining to the synthesis of the book thesis and apply that information to a natural resource or environmental policy situation.

 Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action by G.P. Marsh (Scribner, 1864)  1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by C. Mann (Knopf, 2005)  Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility by M. Shellenberger and T. Nordhaus (Houghton Mifflin Co, 2007)  Hot, Flat, and Crowded by T. Friedman (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008) Pop-Quizzes (Team-based) – four (4) unannounced team-based quizzes will be administered throughout the semester. The best 3 of 4 grades received will be used for individual scores.

Current Event(s) Presentation – Short 5-8 minute group presentation regarding environmental or natural resource policy event(s) which have transpired over the past week. The only criteria are that

4 your group must provide some background, the current status of the issue, who are the prominent stakeholders , and what you think will happen in the future.

Guest speaker questions – Each student will be required to develop three questions which might be asked of the presenter.

Legislative Letter (Individual) – you will prepare a formal letter to a State Legislator communicating your recommendations for a key environmental bill debated during the last (2015 session) legislative session.

Policy Brief (Team-based Wiki) – a case study and institutional evaluation of a policy focused on a natural resource issue will be prepared by students working as part of a team and presented on the course Wiki site (https://wiki.umn.edu/twiki/bin/view/ESPM3241W/WebHome). Interdisciplinary teams will submit an issue statement outlining their desired policy. A draft of the policy brief will be submitted for feedback prior to completion of the final briefing.

Graduate Students – in addition to or in lieu of the above requirements, graduate students will negotiate an individual project to fulfill requirements for ESPM 5241. Grad students are also required to participate in bi-weekly discussions of relevant classroom topics and issues presented by the instructors and your peers. You are expected to meet outside of the regularly scheduled class time; time and location will be negotiated based on schedules.

Course Grading: Total Assignments: Points Date Due Legislative Letter (Individual) 100 February 16 Policy Brief (Team-based Wiki) Briefing summary 20 March 29 Draft policy brief 60 April 19 Final policy brief 40 May 5 Evaluation of team contribution 30 May 5 Current Events Presentation 10 Variable Speaker Questions 10 Varaible Quizzes and Exams: Team-based quizzes (best 3 of 4) 75 Unannounced Mid-term exam 125 March 3 Final exam 150 May 10 Total Points Possible 620 In addition to or in lieu of the above requirements, graduate students will have a separate grading scale presented separately.

The “+” and “—” grading symbols will be used on the final course grade. Course grades will be assigned as follows:

A Demonstrated achievement is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet the course requirements (100 – 94 = A; 93 – 90 = A-). B Demonstrated achievement is significantly above the level necessary to meet the course requirements (89 – 87 = B+; 86 – 84 = B; 83 – 80 = B-). C Demonstrated achievement meets the course requirements (79 – 77 = C+; 76 – 74 = C; 73 – 70 = C-). 5 D Demonstrated achievement is worthy of credit even though it fails to fully meet the course requirements (69 – 67 = D+; 66 – 64 = D; 63 – 60 = D-). F Represents failure (no credit) and signifies that the work was either (1) completed but at a level of achievement that is not worthy of credit, or (2) not completed and no agreement between the instructor and student that the student would be awarded an I (< 60 percent). I (Incomplete) Assigned at the discretion of the instructor when, due to extraordinary circumstances (e.g., hospitalization), a student is prevented from completing the work of the course on time. An “Incomplete’ requires a written agreement between the instructor and student specifying dates and conditions for completion of the make-up work.

Note: The above numeric standards for assigning grades may be adjusted downward (only downward) at the discretion of the instructor, depending on overall class performance.

2016 Course Outline and Schedule: Lecture Date Topic Readings Policy Process 1 January 19 Intro/Extent and use of natural resources 2 January 21 Policy characteristics and development processes Kraft & Furlong – Ch 3 3 January 26 Environmental policy history and personal attitudes 4 January 28 Agenda setting Cubbage – Ch 4 5 February 2 Problem definition and formulation Clark – Ch 5 6 February 4 Policy selection Ellefson Ch5 / Dustin Ch. 8 7 February 9 Policy implementation Layzer Ch 2 8 February 11 Media and influence Gobster Ch 7 Policy Participants 9 February 16 Interest groups Dennis Ch 14 DUE: Legislative Letter 10 February 18 Legislative processes Buck Ch 1 11 February 23 Bureaucracy, Federalism, Political Parties and the Public 12 February 25 Judicial systems and processes 13 March 1 Balancing environmental interests & attitudes exam review) March 3 Mid-term Exam 14 March 8 Policy Briefing assignment beginnings March 10 Government control of resources

March 14 - 18 SPRING BREAK – NO CLASSES Policy Instruments 15 March 22 Regulations and voluntary initiatives Vig & Kraft – Ch 12 16 March 24 Taxation and other financial tools Oates – Ch 22 17 March 29 Conservation Easements DUE: Draft Briefing Summary 18 March 31 Policy Review: Ecosystem services and private lands mgt Boyd (2005) 19 April 5 Teaching , research and extension 20 April 7 Planning and zoning as policy instruments

6 21 April 12 The science of policy analysis and evaluation Dunn – Ch 1 22 April 14 International environmental policy 23 April 19 Policy review: Endangered species/ Invasive species DUE: Draft Policy Brief (Wiki) 24 April 21 Policy Review: Renewable energy 25 April 26 Policy review: Wildfire 26 April 28 Policy Review: Ocean policy Policy Review: Climate Change 27 May 3 DUE: Final Policy Brief (Wiki); Peer Evaluation May 5 Human population and Course wrap-up May 10 Final Exam: TBD (Rm 110 Green Hall) *Check the course website frequently for changes in the schedule and assigned readings.

7 Course Readings Birgisson, G.; Petersen, E. 2006. Renewable energy development incentives: Strengths, weaknesses and the interplay. The Electricity Journal 19(3):40-51 Beder, S. 2006. Environmental principles and policies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sterling VA: Earthscan. 304 p. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, H.S. 2005. Ecosystem services and government accountability: The need for a new way of judging nature’s value. Resources, Summer 2005:16-19. Boyd, J.; Burtraw, D.; Krupnick, A.; McConnell, V.; Newell, R.G.; Palmer, K; Sanchirico, J.N.; Walls, M. 2003. Trading cases: Is trading credits in created markets a better way to reduce pollution and protect natural resources? Environmental Science & Technology (June 1):216-223. Buck, S.J. 1996. Understanding environmental administration and law (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 225 p. Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals. New Haven, MA: Yale University Press. 215 p. Cubbage, F.W.; O’Laughlin J.; Bullock III, C.S. 1993. Forest resource policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dennis, S. 2001. Natural resources and the informed citizen. Champaign, IL: Sagmore Publishing. 287 p. Dunn, W. 2004. Public policy analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Dustin, D.L.; Schneider, I.E. 2005. The science of politics/the politics of science: Examining the snowmobile controversy in Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Management 34(6): 761-767. Ellefson, P.V. 1982. Forest resource policy: Process, participants, and programs. McGraw-Hill. 562 p. Gobster, P.H.; Hull, R.B (eds). 2000. Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 321 p. Haley, D.; Nelson, H. 2007. Has the time come to rethink Canada’s Crown forest tenure systems? The Forestry Chronicle 83(5):630-641. Kraft, M.E.; Furlong, S.R. 2007. Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 459 p. Lazer, J.A. 2006. The environmental case: Translating values into policy (2nd e.d). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 527. Schiermeier, Q.; Tollefson, J.; Scully, T.; Witze A.; Morton, O. 2008. Electricity without carbon. Nature 454(4):816-823. Oates, W.E. (ed). 2006. The RFF reader in environmental policy (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: RFF Press. 314 p. Resources for the Future. 2005. Where do we go from here: Four RFF experts share their views on life post-Kyoto. Resources, Spring 2005: 14-22. Solomon, B.D.; Krishna, K. 2010. The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy 39:7422-7431. United Nations. 2010. Human Development Report 2010. United Nations Development Program, New York, New York. 227 p. United Nations. 2007. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs. 17 p.

8 Natural Resource Policy Briefing (Wiki) ESPM 3241W/5241 Spring 2016 (Team Project – 150 points)

ASSIGNMENT: A case study of policy development focused on a natural resource or environmental issue will be prepared by your team. The intent of the assignment is to sharpen issue-defining skills and to further understanding of how issues are resolved using different policy instruments. Each team will select a natural resource policy and prepare a briefing paper structured around the policy development framework. Teams will work collaboratively to write and edit information on the ESPM3241W Wiki website, which will be the primary venue for your sharing of ideas, writing of the policy brief, and to facilitate completion of work outside of class.

PROCEDURE: Three stages in the assignment are required: 1. Topic Summary (20 points total): Each team selects a specific natural resource or environmental policy to be used for the entire assignment. Care should be taken to select a policy that has some history (information on very current issues is difficult to obtain) and that clearly has experienced the stages in the policy cycle. Each team will prepare the equivalent of a one-page description of the topic to be posted on your team website by the beginning of class on Tuesday, March 29. In doing so, complete these tasks: a. Navigate to your team’s designated Wiki website and add a short project title where requested (https://wiki.umn.edu/twiki/bin/viewauth/ESPM3241W). b. Collaboratively develop a topic summary that includes the following:  Short description of a selected policy including pertinent background information, history, and title and legal description (including the number) of the policy selected.  Identify key information that will need to be collected to complete the assignment.  Identify team member responsibilities and deadlines for task completion. c. Each team member must post at least two (2) sources of information to be used in your briefing (e.g., government reports on policy effectiveness, literature on the problem the policy was intended to address, Congressional testimony, etc). You must provide correct in-text citations and bibliography using an accepted APA citation format (http://writing.umn.edu/docs/sws/quicktips/APA.pdf).

2. Policy Brief (100 points total): Each team will collaboratively write a policy brief of your selected topic and post it to your team website. A draft of your brief is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, April 19 (50 points). The total length should not exceed 4,000 words. Instructor feedback will be provided, which should be used in your revisions. Your final policy brief posted to your team’s website, is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, May 5 (50 points).

An outline is provided on your assigned website, though you may modify the format to suit your project needs. In preparation of your brief, each person must contribute to each section of the document, which will be tracked by the instructor and TAs for individual contributions. All edits are completed in “real-time” meaning that your work is accessible on-line to anyone within the University.

Your policy brief should address the following: a. Introduction that provides an overview of the policy topic. Include a concise overview of the issue, why a policy was needed, and the specific policy your team is reviewing. Include appropriate in-text citations where necessary with a bibliography at the end of the document. Provide web links to sources that can be found on the web. b. How was the issue that your policy was intended to address, placed on the formal agenda? Describe the history and actions that took place.

9 c. Who were the primary participants in the policy process? Who were they affiliated with? How did the different individuals/organizations affect policy development? d. What alternative policies were formulated to deal with the issue? What alternatives or amendments were considered prior to coming to agreement on the final policy as passed? What amendments were considered since implementation? e. Which criteria may have been used to select the chosen alternative? f. What were the specific actions taken to implement the selected policy? What were the primary policy instruments used? Describe the desired outcome(s) of the policy instrument(s) used and how they are/were to achieve the desired policy response. g. Describe the monitoring and evaluation steps taken to determine the effectiveness of the selected policy. What were the results? If no monitoring was conducted, describe the data and approach that could be taken to determine if the policy requires modification.

3. Peer Evaluations (30 points total): You will evaluate each of your team members based their contributions to brainstorming, organization, writing, and revision of your policy brief. Each person will also be evaluated based on the quality of information posted to your team’s website and participation in development of the final product, which will be assessed by the instructor.

GRADES: This assignment is worth 150 points, or 25 percent of the course grade. One grade will be given to each team based on the evaluation criteria provided including substance, completeness, grammar, neatness, and completion on time. Individual grades will be given to team members by the instructor based on peer evaluations

10 Legislative Letter ESPM 3241W/5241 Spring 2016

ASSIGNMENT: You are to prepare a letter written to a State Legislator communicating your recommendations on an actual environmental bill debated during the 2015-2016 legislative session. Select a bill by reviewing bill summaries at the websites listed below, investigate emerging issues and track legislation from the list provided, or identify a current bill in other state of interest. Highlight the strength(s) and weaknesses of the proposed legislation, alternatives to consider, and important factors for implementation. You will need to investigate the position of key stakeholders (interest groups, Governor, legislators, industry, etc.) and provide information supporting your position. The intent of this exercise is to sharpen your understanding of approaches used to influence public policy.

Current Minnesota Bill Summaries:

House Bills: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/billsum.asp Senate Bills: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/billsumm/index.php?ls=#header

Emerging Minnesota Legislative Issues:

- Repeal of state moratoriums on the construction of new coal and nuclear power plants - Increased scrutiny of the use of state taxes and lottery proceeds for renewable energy production, conservation, and environmental research - Regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in southeast Minnesota for silica sand mining - Proposal to combine state water resource management and protection agencies - Funding efforts to stem the spread of invasive species, specifically Asian carp - Require certain companies to increase recycling rates and implement responsible packaging practices

PROCEDURE: Using agenda setting and knowledge of the policy process, prepare a letter that describes:

4. Strategic Recommendation(s): Research the issue and (a) provide recommendations to your State Legislator by identifying whether or not you support the bill as presented. Provide detailed justification for your position by making an argument based on well-researched, persuasive background information, and a clear articulation of the problem or opportunity. Next, (b) make recommendations for how the bill should be amended by identifying specific actions you would like to see implemented.

5. Audience: Your letter must be written to a State Legislator (preferably from your district) who will affect the outcome of the issue (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/leginfo/memroster.pdf). Prepare your letter from the perspective of a private citizen (individual or interest group representative).

6. Political Symbol: Insert into your letter, a short statement/phrase that captures the essence of your argument. Your phrase should paint a mental picture (symbol) of the issue to persuade your audience.

7. Citations: Information cited as fact must be referenced according to American Psychological Association standards (APA) (http://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/apa_References.pdf), including appropriate in-text citations (http://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/apa_in-text.pdf).

Letters of not more than two pages (not counting citations), no less than 11-point font and 1-inch margins are due at class time on February 16 (Tuesday). This assignment is worth 100 points. Letters will be graded on substance, completeness, grammar, neatness, and timely completion. 11 Writing Rubric for the Legislative Letter HIGH Quality Letters: 1. Clearly identifies a) support for legislation as proposed, b) support with modification, or c) lack of support. Clearly states why the chosen position is taken, giving examples with supporting documentation. 2. Clearly states what actions need to be taken to successfully implement the selected policy. If supporting proposed legislation, there is an identification of how such actions could be put into practice. If not supporting, an alternative policy is identified with details on how it could be accomplished. Example of “what” – increase percentage of renewable fuel used in gasoline; Example of “how” – sales tax incentive for companies that comply beyond the stated goal. 3. Appropriate use of a political symbol introduced in such a way to strategically evoke a mental image of the issue. Example – if opposed to ATVs on the North Shore Trail, the symbolic statement might read, “Stop the spread of noxious ATVs and exotic species.” 4. Provide statements of “fact” or connections between causal events that are backed up with appropriate reference materials from external data sources like media, government reports, interest group statements, or scientific literature (using APA citation format). Example: Minnesota farmers disagree that ethanol is a poor gasoline alternative (Becker 2007). 5. Are provocative with well-developed arguments. The letter is logically ordered with appropriate transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Sentence structure, spelling, and grammar are free of major errors. MEDIUM Quality Letters: 1. States or implies a) support for proposed legislation, b) support with modification, or c) lack of support. Justification exists for why a particular position is taken but is not entirely specific or clearly developed. Examples and supporting documentation are provided but they do not strengthen the overall argument. 2. Include statements of what action(s) need to be taken but are less developed or vaguely articulate how actions could be accomplished. Vague policy alternatives exist where legislation is not supported. 3. May use a political symbol to support the argument, but the statement is not well articulated, does not adequately evoke a mental image of the issue, or is not strategically positioned within the letter. 4. Provide statements of “fact” or connections between causal events that are not supported with appropriate references. Use of external sources of information is minimal or not appropriately cited. 5. Are interesting and generally easy to understand. The letter has transitions between most sentences and paragraphs. Arguments are generally clear though may not be entirely developed or persuasive. Some errors exist in sentence structure, grammar or spelling. LOWER-Quality Letters: 1. Statement of a) support, b) support with modification, or c) lack of support is vaguely described or is missing. Justification for why a position is taken is poorly developed, has few or no examples, or lacks supporting documentation. 2. Lack statements of what action(s) need to be taken, or there is no identification of how actions could be accomplished. Where legislation is not supported, there is no identification of alternative policies. 3. Provide a poorly stated political symbol or fails to use a political symbol or statement in support of the argument. 4. Present information stated as fact but do not support with appropriate references. Arguments are not supported with external information. 5. Are difficult to read or understand. Letter lacks appropriate transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Arguments are underdeveloped or unclear. Many errors exist in sentence structure, grammar and spelling.