BRSF Index | WebMerchants Index | Search
5. Political Opposition and Support
6. Environmental Effectiveness
8. Evaluating BNR Policy Options (Tables) [Under Construction!]
How should the Stewardship Foundation decide which policy to advocate? Here we lay out a framework for analyzing that decision. We chose seven criteria which we view as encompassing the major reasons to decide for or against advocating a particular policy: two based on cost, two based on environmental quality, one based on short-term politics, one based on a combination of politics and environment, and one based on long-term politics. Our description of the criteria is followed by an outline of six policy options within the framework. The next chapter analyzes the policy options in detail.
Financial Cost to Implementing Agencies
How much will the policy cost the agency that implements it? If that cost is prohibitive, the policy will not be implemented, even if all the other criteria are favorable. If the cost is very high, the implementing agency must trade off other programs or other goals in order to implement the new policy. If nothing else, the agency must solicit its funding source for additional funds to implement any new policy, so a policy with a low cost is always easier to implement than one with a high cost. We also account here for any financial costs to agencies other than the primary implementing agency, if those costs are high.
Economic Cost and Distributional Impact
How much effect will the policy have on the economy? Who will benefit from the policy, and who will have to pay for its non-financial costs? Non-financial costs include: spending a lot of time; reducing employment; transferring wealth from poor to rich; creating a difficult process for compliance; or requiring inefficient activity. In the BNR, the primary economic costs are based on income distribution and economic efficiency. The distributional cost is high if those who gain from the policy are wealthier members of society, and those who lose are poorer. The efficiency cost is high if the policy is insufficiently voluntary to allow for the best use of resources under different circumstances.
Pollution Level
How much effect would the policy have on pollution in the river? An ideal policy would prevent too much of agribusiness pollution from reaching the river. Some policies would achieve that goal by limiting agribusiness activity, others by creating a protective area which would absorb agribusiness runoff. Under this criterion, we rank policies by the level of pollution reduction which could be achieved, if the policy were fully implemented as effectively as possible. We discuss in our recommendations the means by which we expect each policy would be implemented; if they are implemented differently, their effect on pollution levels can differ from our assessment.
Recreational Quality
How much will the policy effect the quality of the recreational experience in the BNR? High pollution levels diminish recreational quality. Hence this category is related to the pollution level criterion, but other factors affect recreational quality as well.
First, the type of pollution reduction matters, and each policy choice would result in different levels of reduction of each pollutant. We account for the relatedness of type of pollutant to recreational quality by assessing how closely recreational quality is related to the mission of the agency implementing the pollution reduction. If the agency is directly concerned with recreational quality, they will focus on reducing pollutants which have the greatest effect on recreational quality.
Second, the "geographic thoroughness" matters. Government agencies could take all relevant land by eminent domain, and hence ensure that all tributaries, or the entire watershed, are protected. Private agencies must rely on voluntary cooperation, and hence can always expect to have some non-compliance. Recreational quality is related to geographic thoroughness because the pristineness of the surroundings depends on how completely they are protected -- one badly polluted acre degrades the pristine quality of a whole stretch of the river.
Third, if recreational users must directly pay more for their use of the BNR, their recreational experience may be diminished. The diminution of recreational experience due to the recreational users' financial costs is balanced by the increase in quality due to reduced pollution, if their additional fees are dedicated to reducing pollution.
Political Opposition and Support
Who will oppose the policy and who will support it? In the short-term political view, the opposing and supporting groups will determine whether or not the policy has a good chance of being implemented at all. First, the implementing agency must strongly support the policy, or else even if the policy is formally undertaken, it will not be acted upon. Second, groups which are represented in the decision making process are more likely to support a policy. Third, groups which stand to gain from the policy, financially or economically, are likely to support it, and groups which are damaged are likely to oppose it. Fourth, if politically powerful groups are expected to oppose a policy, its chances of being successfully undertaken are diminished. We assess as part of "political power" the intensity with which a group would oppose a policy, as well as the group's political representation or political influence.
Environmental Effectiveness
How likely is the policy to actually improve the BNR environment? This criterion summarizes our assessment of each policy's effect on pollution and river quality, plus its likelihood of political success. A policy must be economically and politically feasible in order to have an effect on the environment at all. A policy must have a positive impact on the environment or it is not worth expending economic and political resources. Therefore, a low score in any one of the preceding categories results in a low score in this category.
How long will the policy last? This criterion assesses the policy's long-term political prospects. If the policy requires an ongoing effort, it will only last as long as it is actively maintained. If a policy sets up a permanent new system, it will last indefinitely, unless actively removed. The more often a policy must be re-addressed, and the more political will required to maintain the policy, the lower its sustainability.