1 / 18

Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis

Loomis & Ballweber’s A Policy Analysis of the Collaborative Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Cost Savings or Cost Shifting?. Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis. John Loomis & Jeffery Ballweber.

thelma
Télécharger la présentation

Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Loomis & Ballweber’sA Policy Analysis of the Collaborative Upper Colorado River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Cost Savings or Cost Shifting? Discussant, Danielle V. Dolan Thursday, May 22, 2014 ESP 212b – Spring 2014 UC Davis

  2. John Loomis & Jeffery Ballweber Pickering Firm, Inc. Mississippi Water Resources Association Mississippi Water Resources Institute University of Oregon School of Law 2000, Vice President, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 2004, Western Ag. Economics Assoc. Distinguished Scholar Award 3 books 234 scientific journal articles

  3. L&B analyze a collaborative approach to implementing the ESA.

  4. L&B seek to find if the Recovery Program resulted in actual net social benefit (cost savings), or simply cost-shifting from water users to tax payers. • ? $costs

  5. who pays for environmental damages? env. policies to address neg. externalities? L&B raise important questions re:

  6. L&B use traditional BCA methods to calculate direct costs, indirect costs, and cost savings from the collaborative project.

  7. The ESA attempts to mitigate a market failure through non-market “command & control” regulation. Negative Externalities Water as a common-pool resource Restricted access (excludability) Appropriative water rights (rivalry) Biodiversity as a pure public good Evaluation criteria • Direct costs • Costs savings • Lost opportunity costs • Species valuation [meta-analysis]

  8. The collaborative project provides market-based flexibility and economies of scale for more thorough & cost-effective compliance.

  9. "The direct costs of the Recovery Program's multipronged approach have been substantial."

  10. "The success of the consensus based multi-stakeholder …Program provides a model for other similar ESA conflicts that pit endangered species protection against development activities.".

  11. "It is extremely difficult to track or allocate the true cost of ESA litigation for federal, state and local governments and agencies or the private sector."

  12. L&B do a particularly good job identifying potential costs, cost savings, & cost distribution.

  13. L&B fail to define “society as a whole;” distribution of net benefit is thus unclear.

  14. L&B fail to account for potential lost benefits from collaboration (benefits of BaU). $ $ $ $ $ $

  15. A follow-up evaluation of success post-implementation would reveal actualized costs & benefits.

  16. Including social science scholars with expertise in collaborative governance and decision-making processes would enhance the analysis.

More Related