School of Public Policy

University of Maryland at College Park

PUAF 660 -- Policy Analysis Workshop

Environmental Section

Robert H. Nelson

Spring 2006

The policy workshop is a course based on the concept that policy analysis is a craft that must be learned by practice and experience. Book learning can help but in the end the successful practitioner must learn by doing. The learning process thus should involve frequent opportunities for trial and error. Learning policy analysis skills is similar to learning the skills of a good artist, a good writer, or a good athlete.

The policy analysis workshop offers students an opportunity to undertake a major project that involves the actual practice of policy analysis. For 2006, the environmental section will study environmental options for rewriting the Farm Bill in 2007, focusing on legislative steps to benefit the cleanup of Chesapeake Bay. Large volumes of nitrogen and phosphorus – about 50 percent of the total nutrient load -- enter the Chesapeake Bay from agricultural sources. It is increasingly recognized that reductions in agricultural nutrient loads are the key to Bay cleanup.

When nutrient loads from agriculture and other sources reach the Bay, they fertilize the growth of large numbers of algae. The excessive algae both reduce water clarity and, when they die and decompose, can significantly reduce the oxygen content of the Bay, killing fish and causing other environmental problems. Since 1987, the states of the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been engaged in a major effort to reduce substantially the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay. While there was considerable optimism during the 1990s about the rate of progress, more recently there has been a recognition that existing Bay cleanup efforts may be insufficient.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has limited authority to control agriculture and other non-point sources of pollution. The greatest federal leverage with respect to the activities of farmers in the Bay watershed lies in the crop support payments and environmental funds provided through the Farm Bill. Arguably, the provisions of federal agricultural policy will have more impact in improving future water quality in the Chesapeake Bay than the policies and management actions of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Since the mid 1980s, spending for environmental purposes has become an increasingly important part of the Farm Bill. The largest expenditures, equal to $1.9 billion in 2005, support the “conservation reserve program” that pays farmers to take environmentally sensitive lands out of production. In 2005, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was funded at $1.0 billion. Total environmental spending under the Farm Bill in 2005 was equal to $3.8 billion. The policy workshop will explore whether these funds might be spent in more cost-effective ways to reduce nutrient loads from agriculture.

Because the Farm Bill is up for reauthorization in 2007, this is an opportune time for analysis of past federal agricultural policy impacts on the environment and for the formulation of new legislative options. Existing agricultural spending in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, for example, might be consolidated into a block grant, and the funds targeted more closely to achieve greater nutrient reductions. The receipt of crop support payments in the Bay watershed might be tied in some manner to the adoption of nutrient management plans by farmers.

Economic considerations will play an important role in designing future farm policies. Farmers have also long been noted for their large political influence. The rewrite of the Farm Bill will have to take into account a host of economic, political, administrative, legal and other factors. The analysis developed by the policy workshop team will require blending in a practical setting of the various specific methods and skills taught in the School of Public Policy -- including microeconomic analysis, political analysis, statistics, financial and normative analysis. It will offer an excellent lesson in the real world application of policy analysis to an important public policy issue.

The overall result will be a report that might be titled something like “Environmental Options for a New Farm Bill in 2007 – Including Provisions to Benefit Chesapeake Bay.” Whatever, the exact outcome, the final report of the environmental section of the policy workshop will be sent to members of Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Department of Environment, the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other appropriate parties. It will be distributed as well to leading newspapers in the region.

Students will undertake activities both as individuals and as a team. Each student will prepare a major paper as an individual effort. The paper will examine a subject that has been identified by the full class as a significant contribution to the overall team production of a final class report. All students in the environmental section will work together to scope out the final project report, to define the necessary individual tasks, to produce the report, and to undertake other joint efforts as needed. The goal is to produce a final report that will command the attention and help to stimulate new policy thinking among regional opinion leaders.

Each student at the end of the course will write an op ed piece on some aspect of the study. Well written op eds may be submitted to an appropriate newspaper.

Grading will be according to the following criteria:

Individual major paper -- 50%

Class discussion and other contributions to group efforts – 25%

Team grade for overall project -- 20%

Op ed piece -- 5%

Schedule of Classes

This course is an example of “adaptive management.” It involves four broad phases: (1) understanding the problem and general orientation; (2) scoping out a set of project objectives and tasks, including individual paper assignments; (3) the writing of individual papers; and (4) integration of the papers into a well formed final report. It is difficult to specify an exact timetable in advance. However, each phase may require roughly one month – February for learning about the problem, March for scoping out papers, April for writing the papers, and May for pulling together the final document. There will be no examinations. Unless otherwise notified, the class will meet on Tuesday at the assigned time (9:15 A.M) to receive progress reports, to discuss the analytical issues involved, to go over the next steps in the project, and other team concerns. As matters work out, there may be significant departures from the schedule below. There will probably be several team visits to individuals and organizations in the Chesapeake Bay area that are studying the role of agriculture in Bay cleanup and the environmental impacts of the Farm Bill generally. There may be a field trip to possible Bay sites where agricultural cleanup issues could be seen first hand.

January 31 -- Organization of class, introduction to issue and project, distribution of supplemental readings, discuss possible assignments of students to particular areas of initial investigation.

February 7 – Possible site visit to Alex Echols, former Congressional staffer working on agricultural issues, and consultant to Sandy County Foundation.

February 14 – Possible site visit to Tracy Mehan, former Assistant Administrator for water quality at EPA.

February 21 – team discussion.

February 28 – Site visit.

March 7 – Team discussion, individual papers proposed by each student.

March 14 – Finalize individual paper topics. Discuss further final report needs

March 21 -- No class, spring break.

March 28 – No class, students work on individual paper.

April 4 – First drafts of individual papers due. Discuss policy issues, status of report.

April 11 -- Student critiques of individual draft papers due (each student will read and annotate the paper of another student and prepare a one-page single spaced critique). One hour sessions will be scheduled this week with each paper writer to go over individual papers with the instructor and the student author of the paper critique present as well.

April 18 – No class, work on revision of papers.

April 25 – Individual final papers due. Organize team effort to integrate individual papers, to complete team report. Assign writing of final report sections, introductions, conclusions, transitions, other tasks needed for final overall report.

May 2 – Instructor will prepare and distribute first draft of “integrated report,” incorporating and blending individual papers. Discuss progress of overall project report.

May 9 – Discuss and comment on draft report. Rewriting and editing assignments for overall class report given out for each student. Individual op eds (800 words) due.

May 16 – Final rewrites due. Final assignments made.

May 19 – Final report completed.