Dr. Robin Saha

tubacitychiropractorManagement

Nov 8, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

64 views

Dr. Robin Saha

Study of the U.S. Institute

U.S. State Department

University of Montana

July 8, 2011



Topics


Selected features of U.S. political system


Definitions


public policy / environmental policy


Public policy theories


Environmental policy typology


Major environmental policies in the U.S.


Policy “actors”


strategies and tactics to influence
decision makers


Climate change policy examples


Group activity



Features of U.S. Political System

1.
Democratically
-
elected leaders

2.
High level of citizen participation

3.
Constitutional separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and
judicial (3) branches


horizontal fragmentation

A.
Federalism



federal supremacy over state government (hierarchy or
levels of governmental authority), constitutionally
-
reserved state
powers, with local powers deriving from state authority


vertical
fragmentation

B.
Resulting in dispersed and ever
-
contested power

4.
Relatively open government

5.
Primacy of individual (and corporate) freedom and private property rights

6.
Constitutional guarantee of freedom of belief, expression, and religion,
freedom of the press, and right to associate with others

7.
Powerful organized interests

8.
Short terms for elected officials

9.
Campaign financing allowed

10.
Enduring two
-
party system



To read more, see:
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9
-
12/index.html



Public Policy

Represents government’s attempt to address and/or
solve
perceived public problems

and:

1.
Includes the intentions, actions, and effects of
government.

2.
The intentions may or may not be publicly
stated.

3.
Any formal declarations such as laws,
regulations, executive orders, and court
decisions are public policy.


Government Policy Types

Corresponding to the U.S. government structure and the
three branches of government


Legislative policy


policies enacted by Congress, state
legislatures, tribal councils, county commissions, city
councils


Administrative policy


executive branch policies
established by the president, state governors, city mayors
and their political appointees, and by federal and state
agencies and county/city offices (bureaucracies)


Judicial policy


policies established by the federal, state,
and tribal courts

Policy Process Stages (Policy Cycle)

(also see
Swithzer
-
Vaughn book, Introduction)

Moving from problem to solution:


Problem Identification/Definition


Agenda Setting


Policy Formulation


Policy Adoption/
Legitimation


Policy Implementation (and budgeting)


Policy Evaluation



Policy Change/Evolution


Policy Termination or Problem Resolution




Role of State Government in Environmental Policy


Implement federal environmental laws and programs through
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)


Must have state legislation modeled after federal legislation
(must be as or more stringent than federal laws)


In 1980s and 1990s, states developed capacity to implement
environmental and natural resource laws and the state
environmental bureaucracy grew (number and size of agencies)


States have tended to follow federal leadership


Some states (esp. California) are environmental policy
innovators


can provide good ideas for federal (national) policy


State can be important testing grounds for new policy
approaches


Instruments of Public Policy

1.

Regulation



Laws or decrees requiring citizens or corporations to do something or not do
something



Monitoring and issuing of penalties (e.g., fines) for non
-
compliance

2.

Governmental Management



Direct provision of services or programs to the public, private industry, or other
levels of government



Includes management of natural resources and environmental quality

3.

Taxing and Spending



Mechanism to regulate and provide services



Also used to create incentives to encourage or discourage certain behaviors and
activities, such as smoking

4.

Market Mechanisms



Involve decisions to intervene or not into the market place



Can include subsidies and other incentives, or disincentives, to encourage or
discourage certain behaviors and activities

5.

Education, Information, and Persuasion



Attempts to persuade people
or businesses to behave a certain way




Environmental Policy

“… comprises a diversity of governmental actions that
affect or attempt to affect environmental quality or the
use of natural resources …. We cannot expect to locate
environmental policy in any single decision or statute.
Rather it is the aggregate of statutes, regulations, and
court precedents
, and the
attitudes and behavior of
public officials
charged with making, implementing, and
enforcing them. Policies may be tangible or largely
symbolic … they may nevertheless bring about
important environmental changes
over time by
influencing public beliefs
and organizational values and
decision making.”


Michael Kraft (2003).


Public Policy Theories

(also see Switzer
-
Vaughn book, Ch. 3)


Elite theory of the policy making process


Policy reflects the values, preferences, and judgments of the
governing elites


Elites include powerful government officials, foundations,
corporate executives, and influential professionals such as
scientists, doctors, lawyers


Focuses on the role of leaders and leadership


Assumes elites influence (manipulate?) “the Masses” rather
than the other way around


Movement of non
-
elites into elite positions is slow and
controlled to maintain stability


What are the limits or shortcomings of elite theory?



Public Policy Theories (continued)


Group Theory of the policy making process


Policy is the result of the continuous struggle among interests
groups made up of individuals or organizations with common
beliefs, values, and goals


Groups differ in the amount and type of resources (political capital),
and thus their influence over other groups and policy makers


Government acts as the neutral arbitrator.


Different groups may cancel out or check the power of other groups


Policy makers and the political system manage group conflict by
establishing rules of struggle, arranging or imposing compromises,
and balancing interests


Policy is the result of the balancing of power between competing
groups and represents an equilibrium point


What are the limits or shortcomings of group theory?


Power


Power

is ability to reward
other actors for doing what
one wants or to penalize or
punish them for working
against ones interests

Public Policy Theories (continued)


Government Politics Model


A “middle ground” theory that views policies as the result of
the influences of elites
and
organized interest groups


Assumes that policy decisions are the result of the
competition, bargaining, and compromise
among a
diverse set of policy actors


Policy actors have unique interests, resources, and strategies
they use to advance their interests


Actors include government decision makers (more on policy
actors later)


Political process leads to i
ncremental policy making
, i.e.,
modest new policies and small changes to existing ones,


The political system is most likely to overcome these
tendencies in times of major crises




Non
-
governmental policy actors


Interest groups (e.g., NGOs, professional associations,
unions


organized labor), their lobbyists, and members


Indigenous peoples


Corporations, industry trade associations, and their
lobbyists


The Media


Scientists and scientific bodies


Think tanks (policy and legal research institutes)


Political Action Committees (PACs)


Celebrities


General public, individual citizens, and public opinion

Factors Related to Interest Group Influence


Size of group membership


Ability to mobilize members into action


Monetary and other resources, including technical and
scientific capabilities


Skill of its leadership


Social status and prestige of organization and leaders


Salience of policy issue to mission of the organization


Presence of absence of competing organizations


Attitudes of public officials (decision makers) toward
group and access to decision makers


Site of decision making in the political system


Major Public Lands and Conservation Policies


Yellowstone National Park Established (1872)


Yosemite National Park Established (1890)


Forest Reserve Act of 1891


Forest Management Act of 1897


Antiquities Act of 1906


Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960


Wilderness Act of 1964


National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA)


Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)


National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)


Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)


Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act of 1980
(ANILCA)


Health Forests Protection Act of 2003 (HFPA)

Major U.S. Environmental Policies


Clean Air Act of 1970


Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Clean Water Act)


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide

Act
(FIFRA) of 1972


Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA) of 1974


Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976


Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)


Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986


Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990


Incentive
-
Based Environmental Regulation


Rather than using penalties for non
-
compliance, incentive
-
based regulation encourages individuals, government
entities, and corporations to voluntarily perform desirable
behaviors by providing incentives, usually economic
(market
-
based incentives) though sometime rewards and
recognition or relief from future regulation are used.


Examples: Cap and trade provisions for SO
2

in Clean Air
Act of 1990; similar proposed programs for reducing CO
2

emissions and hazardous air pollutants such as mercury;
tax credits for alternative energy; Candidate Conservation
Assurances and Agreement (CCCAs) under the Endangered
Species Act; beverage container deposits to encourage
recycling; EPA’s Energy Star program to encourage energy
conservation.


International Climate Policy Examples

Under the Kyoto Protocol:


Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs)


Defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows a country with an emission
commitments (Annex B Party) to implement an emission
-
reduction project in
developing countries.


Projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits (one ton of CO2),
which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets (but must be “additive” and
should avoid “leakage”).


A CDM project activity might involve, for example, a rural electrification project using
solar panels or the installation of more energy
-
efficient boilers.


Stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while giving
industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction or
limitation targets.


Since 2006, the mechanism has more than 1,650 projects and is expected to generate
CERs with more than 2.9 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2012


For up
-
to
-
date information on the CDM, see the UNFCCC CDM website:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/index.html




International Climate Policy Examples

Under the Kyoto Protocol and as negotiated at the Conference of Parties
(COP) 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and COP
-
16 in Cancun, Mexico:


Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD)


Market/financial incentives (carbon offsets) in order to reduce the
emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation.


Its original objective is to reduce green house gases but it can deliver "co
-
benefits" such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation


For more information on national REDD+ strategies with the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Development
Program(UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Program, see:
http://www.un
-
redd.org/

and YouTube video at:
http://www.youtube.com/v/9JME_JpwQ
-
U?version=3




Indonesia’s National REDD Program

Indonesia hosts the third
largest tropical rainforest in the
world, with forests covering
approximately 70% of the
country.

REDD+ architecture in
Indonesia will allow a fair,
equitable and transparent
implementation to reduce
forest
-
related GHGs.

In March 2009, US$5.6 million was approved by the UN
-
REDD
Program Policy Board for the Indonesia National Program.

In March 2010, funds were provided to start of the Program’s
inception and implementation phase.

You can get more information on the UN
-
REDD Indonesia
Program website at:
http://www.un
-
redd.or.id/


Viet Nam’s National REDD Program

About
40% of Viet Nam is
covered by forests, making
the country highly suitable for
a national REDD+ Program.

Despite an overall increase in
forest area, various regions of
Viet Nam still have high rates
of deforestation.

In March 2009, US$4.4 million was approved by the UN
-
REDD Program
Policy Board for Viet Nam’s National Program.

With the final approval of the National Program document in September
2009, the country entered its inception and implementation phase.

The Viet Nam UN
-
REDD Program was very active in 2010, and is currently
completing strategic national level activities, as well as initiatives in
several pilot districts.


Cambodia’s National REDD Program

Cambodia has a total of 10
million hectares of forest cover,
or nearly 57% of its land area.

It is one of the first countries in
the Greater Mekong region to
address REDD+ with pilot
activities starting in 2008.

In Nov. 2010, the REDD Policy Board allocated US$3 million for Cambodia

Four outcomes will be pursued:



Effective national management of the REDD+ readiness process and stakeholder
engagement in accordance with the roadmap principles


Development of the National REDD+ Strategy and Implementation Framework


Improved capacity to manage REDD+ at sub
-
national levels


Design of a monitoring system and capacity for implementation

National Climate Policy Example


Response to policy gridlock in Congress
(legislative policy)

and lack of
presidential leadership on climate change


In 2007, in
Massachusetts v. EPA
, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the
EPA must determine whether greenhouse gases (GHGs) from motor
vehicles cause or contribute to harmful air pollution
(judicial policy)


In 2009, the EPA Administrator made final determination about the risks
of GHGs to human health and environment
(administrative policy)
,
concluding that:


GHGs in the atmosphere
endanger

the public health and welfare of
current and future generations.


Emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles and engines
contribute

to
GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.


US EPA is now working on GHG emission standards (regulations) for
commercial trucks
(administrative policy)
to increase the fuel efficiency
(miles per gallon) in 2012
-
2016 models and for light trucks and passenger
cars by 2017


EPA is also working on renewable fuels standard
(administrative policy)





State Climate Policy Example


In 2002, California declared CO
2

a pollutant and set cap on
CO
2

from motor vehicles


In 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger pledged to return to 2000
emission levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020


In 2006, CA enacted Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32)


Requires cuts to 1990 level by 2020 (including emission from out
-
of
-
state electricity)


a 25% reduction from present


Must establish cap by Jan. 1, 2008; adopt reporting rules for significant
sources and Scoping Plans by Jan. 1, 2009


Must adopt regulation for maximum technologically feasible and
cost
-
effective reductions, including market and alternative
compliance mechanisms by 2012


California Air Resource Board (CARB) implementation authority


Among the 44 “early actions to achieve ¼ of reductions needed:


Low Carbon Fuel Standard (10% reduction in carbon intensity for
transportation fuels by 2020)


Increased methane capture from solid waste landfills


CA also set GHG standards for vehicles (sound familiar?)




Local Climate Policy


80% of U.S. population and 50% of global population
lives in urban areas


In the U.S., city
government decisions directly affects
30
-
50% of nation’s GHG emissions
(
Lindseth

2009)


Local leadership needed to develop long
-
term and
effective solutions


Integrating climate change mitigation into municipal
planning, infrastructure, and decision
-
making processes


Building public
-
private partnership


U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement


Part of the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign of the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now the
Local Governments for Sustainability


Founded in 1990 at its inaugural conference at the United Nations in New York


Now includes 1220 local governments in 70 countries

representing over 560 million people worldwide


Some ICLEI headlines:


Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Bans Motorized Vehicles:

Brings Back the Once Popular “
Becaks



The People's Committee of Hanoi City and the Department of Technology and
Environment Services Drawing Up and Will Implement Climate Action Plan in
Coordination with Other City Departments
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1476#sect72



Viet Nam Becomes Part of the

Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement


Framework of
5 milestones
for local governments to achieve emissions
reductions:

1.
Conduct a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (Baseline
Inventory and Forecast)

2.
Establish a Reduction Target

3.
Develop a Climate Action Plan

4.
Implement the Climate Action Plan

5.
Monitor Progress and Report Results

Progress Toward Milestones in Montana

Milestone

City of
Helena

City of
Bozeman


UM

Cit of
Missoula

1.

Conduct
Emissions
Inventory

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2.

Establish
a Reduction
Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

3.

Develop
Climate Action
Plan

Yes

Yes

Yes

In progress

4. Implement
Climate Action
Plan

In progress


In progress


In progress


5.

Monitor
Progress and
Report Results

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Emission
Reduction Targets for Bozeman, Helena, and the
University of Montana (UM)

Base Year /
Comp. Year

Base Year
Emissions

(
tons
CO2e)

Comp.
Yr.

Emissions

(tons CO2e)

%
Change

Ave.
Annual

%
Change

Emissions
Reduction Target

Missoula

2003
/
2008

7,883

11,540

46.4%

9.4%

N/A

Bozeman

2000 / 2006

6,083

7,866

29.3%

4.9%

15% below 2000
level by 2020

Helena

2001 /2007

12,691

10,397

-
18.1%

-
3.0%

15% below 2007
level by 2020

UM

2000 / 2007

36,657

42,687

16.4%

3.3%

100% below 2007
level by 2020

Sources: Bozeman Climate Protection Task Force 2008; Helena Climate Change Task Force 2009; Davie 2007; and Peacock and
Bloom 2010.

University Climate Policy at the Univ. of Montana


American College & University Presidents

Climate Commitment


Requires signatories to inventory GHG

emissions, develop GHG reduction

plans, carry out plans, and make inventories

and plans publicly available


Signed by President Dennison in 2007


UM Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Inventory in 2007


Climate Action Plan in 2010 with goal

of becoming climate neutral by 2020


Building energy conservation & efficiency


Wood biomass gasification plant

Student
-
initiated Renewable Energy Loan

Fund (RELF)


$4 per semester optional student fee


Student
-
faculty
-
administrator
committee accepts student proposals for
renewable energy and energy
conservation and efficiency projects in
campus buildings




Funded project include:


Solar panels on campus buildings


Motion
-
detection (occupancy)
light switches on campus


Energy efficient cloth

washing machines in residence halls


Exhaust fan shut off systems on clothes driers in residence halls


Re
-
usable food containers in the “Food Zoo”



Activity

In your country groups:


Using climate change as an environmental problem or issue


Pick a level of government in your country: national,
prefectural, local, institutional (university)


Think of policy instruments (regulation;
gov’t

mgt., taxing
& spending; market mechanisms; education, information,
& persuasion) that can address or help solve the problem


For each policy instrument identify the policy actors that
should be involved


Discuss obstacles or challenges to policy adoption


Report back to full group 2 or 3 policy proposals

Feel free to contact me at
robin.saha@umontana.edu


Not used

Public Policy Typology (and associated politics)

1.

Distributive



grants, programs, and services that distribute resources or
projects (often “pork barrel”) with only “winners” (in the most narrow sense)




College student grants




Agricultural subsidies




Highways and bridges




Parks and other amenities





2.

Redistributive


having goal of redistributing wealth, income, or opportunity
to compensate for market or government failures, with clear “winners” and
“losers”




Welfare




Taxes, tax incentives, credits, etc.




Social security/Medicare




Affirmative action





3.

Regulatory



restricting individual or groups conduct to be within acceptable
bounds with general societal benefits and costs to specific industries




Consumer protection




Workplace health and safety




Environmental




Licensing, anti
-
trust, etc.


Historical Periods of U.S. Environmental Policy

(from Vaughn book, Ch. 1)


Colonial period: 1607 to 1900


Progression reforms and conservationism : 1900 to 1945


Recreation and the age of ecology: post
-
WWII to 1969


Earth Days and deregulation: 1970 to 1992


Global awareness and gridlock: 1993 to 2000


Rollback: 2000 to 2009