|
AREC 489a Syllabus: Fall 2001
SPECIAL TOPICS IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS
[Revised 10-8-01; subject to change]
Title: Producing Environmental Services from Agricultural Landscapes: Policy Issues, Options and Applications (3 credits)
Time/Venue: Monday, 2:30-5:00 p.m., 2200-B Symons Hall
Professor: Sara J. Scherr, Ph.D. (Adjunct Professor, AREC; member of the Graduate Faculty of the University of Maryland; and Fellow, Forest Trends)
3126 Symons Hall, tel: (301) 405-8360; (703) 758-2548; fax: (301) 314-9091;
e-mail: Sscherr@arec.umd.edu
Office hours: Mondays, 10:30-12:30 am (appointments advisable)
Grading: 20% Preparation, participation and presentations for class discussion
10% Poster presentation
20% Mid-term exam
10% Essay on Environmental Markets
15% Presentation of draft case study analysis to class
25% Final research paper
AREC Grading Scale
Objectives:
In many parts of the world, regions that are important for agricultural production—to supply national or international demand, stimulate regional economic growth, or meet subsistence food needs—must also play critical roles in providing environmental services, such as water supply, water quality, wild biodiversity habitat, and carbon emission sinks. This challenge is particularly acute in densely populated developing countries that continue to rely on agriculture as a key economic activity, around large urban centers in developed countries, and in agricultural regions located in or around centers of nationally or globally important biodiversity. In these places, the conventional paradigms of land use policy and planning that segregate productive and environmental uses do not function well. Landscapes must be managed to integrate these functions effectively and efficiently. Considerable technical advances have been made in developing environment-friendly agricultural production systems, and in understanding which landscape patterns can best support both agricultural production and environmental services. However, policy instruments, processes of policy formulation, and policy decision support tools to promote these systems and landscape patterns are still in the early phases of innovation.
The objectives of this course are:
1) To identify and understand the concepts and theories behind diverse regional development strategies, planning tools and processes, and policy instruments intended to achieve joint agriculture-environment goals;
2) To critically evaluate the performance of those policies, planning processes and instruments, as they have been applied around the world; and
3) To provide students an opportunity to apply analytical frameworks and lessons learned, by evaluating policy options for a selected case study region.
Class organization:
The class will be organized in 15 weekly workshops of 2 ½ hours, and divided into three parts. Part I, with four workshops, will review agricultural landscape management issues and technological options. Part II, with six workshops, will focus on strategies and policy instruments that have been proposed and utilized to produce high levels of environmental services in agricultural regions. Part III, including four workshops, will evaluate various frameworks, processes and tools for policy planning to achieve environmental and agricultural objectives at local and regional scales, including student case studies
Most workshops will have a defined theme, with several required papers for all students to read for discussion in class. Each week, selected students will review an additional set of papers and present a synthesis and analysis to the class, addressing pre-assigned questions. Readings will reflect a mix of conceptual and theoretical papers, policy documents, and applied policy analyses for specific case studies. At least half of each class will be devoted to group discussion of the topic and readings. Many workshops will include a presentation of case examples by invited faculty and external resource persons, or a group analytical exercise. Two and a half sessions will be used to play a simulation game on environmental service markets, and evaluate lessons learned from the experience. The organizer will present an overview lecture for each Part of the course.
A central feature of the course (worth 50% of the grade) will be student team research on one case study landscape and environmental-agriculture policy problem, to be selected together with the professor. After the first month of the course, student teams will prepare a poster describing the policy problem and possible environmental management options to address it. These will be presented to the class and discussed in one poster session. One of the final workshops will be dedicated to the presentation and discussion of students’ analysis of policies in the selected study area. In these papers, students will be asked to produce a well-written, rigorous analysis of the economic and policy/planning requirements for effective functioning of selected policy instruments to achieve joint production and environmental goals, using frameworks developed in the course. Specific guidelines will be provided for both the poster and the paper.
Academic Integrity:
The University’s Code of Academic Integrity that prohibits students from cheating on exams, plagiarizing papers, submitting the same paper for credit in two courses without authorization, buying papers, submitting fraudulent documents, and forging signatures.
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
The University is obliged to provide appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities. Please inform the professor of your needs at the beginning of the semester.
Religious Observances:
Students will be given an opportunity whenever feasible, to make up within a reasonable time any assignment missed due to religious observance. It is the student’s responsibility to inform the instructor of any intended absences in advance.
Summary Schedule:
Sept. 10 1. Introduction and Overview of Part I
Sept. 17 2. Problems and Challenges
Sept. 24 3. Technical Options for Environmental Management at Landscape Scale
Oct. 1 4. Overview of Part II; Local Governance for Environmental Management
Oct. 8 5. Legislative and Regulatory Instruments
Oct. 15 6. Student Poster Presentations
Oct. 22 7. Financial Incentives for Environmental Services
Oct. 29 8. Mid-Term Exam
Nov. 5 9. Markets for Environmental Services
Nov. 12 10. Simulation Game (I): Markets for Environmental Services
Nov. 19 11. Simulation Game (II): Markets for Environmental Services
Nov. 26 12. Overview of Part III; Environmental Planning and Policy Formulation
Due: Essay on Environmental Service Markets: Lessons Learned
Dec. 3 13. Presentation of Student Case Studies
Dec. 10 14. Bioeconomic Decision Support Models for Landscape Planning
Dec. 17 Due: Final paper on case study
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producing Environmental Services From
Agricultural Landscapes: Policy Issues, Options And Applications
(AREC 489a Syllabus, Fall 2001)
PART I. PRODUCING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FROM AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES
1 Introduction
Introduction to class
Overview: “The State of Global Agroecosystems”
Presentation of conceptual framework used in the course
Discussion of class objectives, policy interests, and rules for interaction
Allocation of student responsibilities for workshop paper reviews
2 Problems and Challenges
Items marked with ** are required readings. Those with * will be reviewed by selected students, but are optional for others.
** Wood, S., K. Sebastian, and S.J. Scherr. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 17-30. (skim)
** Ali, M. and D. Byerlee. 2001. Productivity growth and resource degradation in the irrigated rice bowl of Pakistan’s Punjab. in M. Bridges, et al. Response to Land Degradation, Science Publishers, Enfield, NJ.
** Pretty, J.N., C. Brett, D. Gee, R.E. Hine, C.F. Mason, J.I.L. Morison, H. Raven, M.D. Rayment and G. van der Bijl. 2001. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems.
** McNeely and Scherr (in press). Common Ground, Common Future: Ecoagriculture Strategies to Help Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. (“Agriculture: Critical Role in Food Supply, Livelihoods and Economic Development”, 25-47).
* Wood, S., K. Sebastian and S.J. Scherr. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. (“Soil”)
* Wood, S., K. Sebastian and S.J. Scherr. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. (“Water Services”)
* Wood, S., K. Sebastian and S.J. Scherr. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. (“Biodiversity”)
* Wood, S., K. Sebastian and S.J. Scherr. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. (“Carbon”)
* Johnson, B. 2000. “Genetically Modified Crops and other Organisms: Implications for Agricultural Sustainability and Biodiversity” in Persley and Lantin, Eds. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C. , pp. 131-138.
Resource Person: Prof. Jim Dietz, Dept. Conservation Biology, “Agriculture-Environment Interactions in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil”
3 Technical Options for Environmental Management at Landscape Scale
** Janzen, D. 1998. “Gardenification of Wildland Nature and the Human Footprint”. Science 79:1312-13.
** Forman, R.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (Chapter 1, pp. 3-28)
* * Goklany, I.M. 1999. Meeting global food needs: The environmental trade-offs between increasing land conversion and land productivity. Technology 6(107-130).
** Conway, G. 1997. A Doubly Green Revolution: Food for all in the 21st Century. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. (Chapter 9 “Sustainable Agriculture”, 163-184)
** Lefroy, E.C., J. Salerian, and R.J. Hobbs. 1992. Integrating economic and ecological considerations: A theoretical framework. In R.J. Hobbs and D.A. Saunders, eds. Reintegrating Fragmented Landscapes: Towards Sustainable Production and Nature Conservation. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, pp. 209-244.
* Angelsen, A. and D. Kaimowitz. 2001. Agricultural technology and forests: A recapitulation. Pp. 383-402; and D. Kaimowitz and A. Angelsen, Policy recommendations (pp., 403-411) in Angelsen, A. and D. Kaimowitz. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. CABI, with CIFOR: Wallingford.
* Coiner, C., J. Wu and S. Polasky. 2001. Economic and environmental implications of alternative landscape designs in the Walnut Creek Watershed of Iowa. Ecological Economics 38:119-139.
* Vosti, S.A., , J. Witcover, C.L. Carpentier, S.M. de Oliveira, J. C. dos Santos. 2001. Intensifying small-scale agriculture in the Western Brazilian Amazon. In. D. Lee and C. Barrett, eds. Tradeoffs and Synergies: Agricultural Intensification, Economic development and the Environment. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, London, pp.245-266.
* Leakey, R.R.B. 1999. Agroforestry for biodiversity in farming systems. In W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset, eds. Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. CRC Press LLC.
* Conway, G. 1997. A Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. (“Controlling Pests”, 205-222)
* IPCC. 2000. Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Climate Change Convention (“Additional Human-Induced Activities”, 198-222).
* McNeely, J.A. and S.J. Scherr. (In press). Common Ground, Common Future: Ecoagriculture Strategies to Help Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. (“Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Enhance Wild Biodiversity in Agricultural Lands”, 78-90)
PART II. POLICY INSTRUMENTS
4 Local Governance for Environmental Management
** Ostrom, E. and E. Schlager. 1996. “The Formation of Property Rights.” In S.S. Hanna, C. Folke, and K. Maler, eds. Rights to Nature: Ecological Economic, Cultural and Political Principels of Institutions for the Environment. Island Press: Washington, D.C., pp. 127-156.
** Flora, C.B., S. Gasteyer, E. Fernandez-Baca, D. Banerji, S. Bastian, S. Aleman. 2000. “Local Participation in Research and Extension for Conservation and Development of Natural Resources: A Summary of Approaches.” Paper presented at the 16th meeting of the International Farming Systems Association, Santiago, Chile, November 30.
** Scherr, S.J. 2000. A Downward Spiral? Research on the Relationship between Poverty and Natural Resource Degradation. Food Policy 25:479-498.
** Uphoff, N. 2001. Balancing Development and Environment Goals through Community-Based Natural Resource Management. In. D. Lee and C. Barrett, eds. Tradeoffs and Synergies: Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, London, pp. 433-450.
* Meinzen-Dick, R. and 1995.
* Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare: Communities sharing the land and the Future. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards NSW, Australia. (especially pp. 22-39)
* Catacutan, D.C. and J. Mercado. 2001. “Technical Innovations and Institution- Building for Sustainable Upland Development: Landcare in the Philippines. Paper presented to the International Conference on Sustaining Upland Development in Southeast Asia: Issues, Tools and Institutions for Lofcal Natural Resource Management. Makati, Philippines, May 27-30.
* Scherr, S.J., et al. 2001. Secondary local organizations in natural resource management in upland southeast Asia. Paper presented to the SANREM Conference on “Local Governance of Natural Resource Management in the Uplands of Southeast Asia.”, Makati, Philippines, May.
* White, T.A. and C.F. Runge. 1994. Common property and collective action: Lessons from cooperative watershed management in Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change 43(1):1-41.
5 Legislative and Regulatory Policies
** Hannam, I. And B. Boer. In press. Land degradation and international environmental law. In M. Bridges, ed. Responses to Land Degradation. Science Publishers, Enfield, New Jersey.
** Bekkers, V. and J.Verschuuren. 1996. Integration of environmental objectives into agricultural policy and law in the Netherlands. In W. Lockeretz, ed. Environmental Enhancement through Agriculture. Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy, American Farmland Trust, and the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment. Tufts University, Medford, MA, pp. 295-304.
** Lichtenberg, E. 2001. Harmonizing agricultural and environmental policies. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Integration of Agricultural and Environmental Policies in an Environmental Age. Seoul, Korea, August 20-25.
* Glanznig, A. and M. Kennedy. 2001. Addressing biodiversity loss in Australia: Land degradation and native vegetation clearance in the 1990’s. In Bridges, et.al., eds. Response to Land Degradation. Science Publishers, Enfield, NJ.
* Cassells, S.M. and A. D. Meister. 2001. Cost and trade impacts of environmental regulations: effluent control and the New Zealand dairy sector. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45:2(257-274).
* Nelson, G.C., V. Harris and S.W.Stone. 2001. Deforestation, land use and property rights: Empirical evidence from Darien, Panama. Land Economics 77(2):187-205.
* Cattaneo, A. 2001. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Comparing the Impacts of Macroeconomic Shocks, Land Tenure and Technological Change. Land Economics 77(2):219-240.
Resource person: Ted McConnell (AREC): “Quantifying Agriculture-Estuary Interactions in the Amazon Basin”
6 Student Posters and Presentations (Assessment of Case Study Landscape Problems and Management Options, according to class guide)
* Guidelines for Assessment of Case Study Landscapes and Management Options
7 Financial Incentives for Environmental Services
** OECD 1997. The Environmental Benefits from Agriculture: Issues and Policies. The Helsinki Seminar. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
** Johnson, N, T.A. White and D. Merrot-Maitre. 2001. Developing Markets for Water Services from Forests: Issues and Lesson for Innovators. Forest Trends, World Resources Institute and the Katoomba Group: Washington, D.C.
** Wiebe, K.D. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 1998. Property rights as policy tools for sustainable development. Land Use Policy 15(3):203-215.
** USDA. 2001. Conservation and the Environment. Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century. USDA, Washington, D.C.
* Ferraro, P.J. and R.D. Simpson. 2000. Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments. Discussion Paper 00-31. Resources for the Future: Washington, D.C.
* USDA. 2001. Agri-environmental payments; Rewarding farmers for environmental performance. Agricultural Outlook/May. Economic Research Service/USDA. Washington, D.C., pp.26-31.
* Wilson, C., P. Moura Costa, M. Stuart. 1999. Transfer payments for environmental services to local communities: A local-regional approach. IFAD Proposed Special Programme for Asia. Rome, Italy, pp.
* Cacho, O., R. Greiner and L. Fulloon. 2001. An economic analysis of farm forestry as a means of controlling dryland salinity. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45:2(233-256).
* Lichtenberg, E. 2000. Soil and water conservation on Maryland farms: a 1998 update. Maryland Extension Economic Viewpoints.
Resource Person: Prof. Lori Lynch, AREC, “Rehabilitating the Chespeake Bay through Conservation Farming in Maryland.”
8 Mid-Term Exam
9 Markets for Environmental Services from Farmlands
** Pagiola, S. and G. Platais. 2001. Selling Biodiversity in Central America. Working Paper. The World Bank: Washington, D. C. Draft.
** Powell, I., A. White and N. Landell-Mills. 2001. Developing markets for the ecosystem services of forests. Forest Trends, Washington, D.C.
* Pretty, J. and Ball. 2001. Agricultural influences on carbon emissions and sequestration: A review of evidence and the emerging trading options. Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper 2001-03, University of Essex,UK. March.
* Agricultural pollution permits in the U.S.
* Chomitz, K. 1999. Transferable development rights and forest protection: An exploratory analysis. Paper prepared for the “Workshop on Market-Based Instruments for Environmental Protection”, July 18-20, 1999, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
* Smith, J. and S.J. Scherr. 2001. Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods. CIFOR and Forest Trends, Bogor, Indonesia.
10 Simulation Game: Payments for Environmental Services (I)
“The Katoomba Game”, Rounds 1 and 2. [Round 3 to be played by e-mail during the week.]
Resource Person: Chetan Agarwal, Forest Trends.
11 Simulation Game: Payments for Environmental Services (III)
“The Katoomba Game”, Round 4, Analysis
Resource Person: Chetan Agarwal, Forest Trends.
PART III. INTEGRATING AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
12 Environmental Planning and Policy Formulation in Agricultural Regions
** Chung, B.R. 1999. Community-Based land Use Planning in Conservation Areas: Lessons from Local Participatory Processes that Seek to Balance Economic uses with Ecosystem Protection. Training Manual America Verde No. 3. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, PP. 5-17, 68-80.
** Miller, K.R. 1996. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances through Bioregional Management. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
** Stakeholder analysis in conservation planning in agricultural regions.
* Catacutan, D. 2000. Municipal Land Use Planning in the Philippines.
* Biodiversity Corridor planning in the U.S.
* Ries, N., et al. 1998. Habitat Conservation Plans in California: A Research Proposal.
* Glanznig, A. and M. Kennedy. 2001. Addressing biodiversity loss in Australia: Land degradation and native vegetation clearance in the 1990’s. In Bridges, et.al., eds. Response to Land Degradation. Science Publishers, Enfield, NJ.
13 Case Study Presentations by Students
1) Increasing farmland biodiversity in the Everglades, Florida
Harris Handwerker, Tom Murray
2) Reducing farm nutrient pollution in the Eastern Shore of Maryland
Jenny Maier, Net Meredith
3) Reducing farmland conversion in Baltimore County
Patrick Rodgers
4) Managing environmental services in farmlands of Korea
Matthew Connelly
5) Promoting watershed services in El Salvador
Juan Conde, James Greenwell
6) Reducing deforestation for farming in Ghana’s rainforest
Mira Afu Asare
7) Biodiversity conservation in Puerto Rican farming
Joe Molitor
* Guidelines for Case Study Presentations.
14 Economic Decision Support Models for Agriculture-Environment Landscape Planning
* Vanclay, J.K, R. Muetzelfeldt, M. Haggith, and F. Bousquet. 2000. FLORES: Helping people to realize sustainable futures. In Krishnapillay, et al., eds. Forests and Society: The Role of Research. Sub-Plenary Sessions (1): 723-729.
* ILRI. 2000. The SAVANNA model: Providing solutions for wildlife preservation and human development in East Africa and the Western United States. International Livestock Research Institute and the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University, Nairobi, Kenya.
* Barbier, B. and G. Bergeron. 1997. Policies for sustainable agricultural intensification in the hillsides of Honduras: A microwatershed model. EPTD Discussion Paper. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
* Binder, C., R. Lopez and S.J. Scherr. 1999. Bioeconomic policy model for an Upland Watershed in Nicaragua. ETH, Switzerland.
* Coxhead, I., et al. 1999. Land use policy model for the Philippine uplands.
* Lichtenberg, E. 1999. Evaluating the transition to organic farming. AREC, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
* Nepstad, D.C., A.G. Moreira, A.A. Alencar. 1999. Flames in the Rain Forest: Origins, Impacts and Alternatives to Amazonian Fire. Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest, Brasilia, Brazil. (esp. 104-137).
* Sanchirico, J., A. Krupnick, J.-S. Shih. 2000. A watershed model integrating land use policy and market-based instruments for pollution reduction. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Draft.
* Bockstael, N., et al. Modeling land use change in four watersheds.
Exercise: Evaluate selected models from an applied policy perspective (income, environment, agricultural supply, for diverse stakeholders)
|
ShareThis