7401ENV Environmental Economics – Case Study Report – Semester 1 2017 Assessment weighting: 50% Submission deadline: Monday Week 12 (22nd May) 17:00 Queensland time Submission method: Please submit your Case Study Reports electronically via the 'Final Report Version' Turn-It-In link on the 7401ENV L@G site by the submission deadline of 17:00 (Australian Eastern Standard Time) Monday Week 12 (22nd May 2017). Please use the 'Draft Report Version' link to pre-check your essay for text matching with Turn-It-In's database of student papers, web pages, journals and books. Once you are happy that you have not accidentally copied material from other sources please submit your essay for marking via the 'Final Essay Version' Turn-It-In link. Word length: not to exceed 2500 words, excluding references, tables and diagrams Referencing format: APA (see http://www.griffith.edu.au/library/workshops-training/self-help-resources/referencing ) Choosing an environmental/resource system or issue as the focus for your report: You should conduct an environmental economic appraisal of the regulatory and policy framework surrounding a specific environmental/resource system or issue of your choice, rather than addressing broader concepts such as ‘climate change’ or ‘environmental impacts of globalisation and development’. Examples of suitable environmental/resource systems or issues are: conversion of coastal mangrove wetlands in Thailand; the expansion of internal air travel in China; management of the Bluefin Tuna stock in the North Atlantic ocean; municipal solid waste in Vietnam; agricultural production in the catchment of the Yellow River in China; logging in temperate rainforests in the Pacific northwest of the USA; continuing expansion of India’s megacities; Greenland’s emerging stocks of minerals and fossil fuels; irrigated agriculture in the Kimberley region of Western Australia ….. You are not limited to these topics. Indeed, it would probably be better for you to choose your own topic. Please discuss your choice of topic with Jim Smart if you are unsure whether your intended topic will be suitable. Case Study Report title: ‘An environmental economic appraisal of the regulatory and policy framework surrounding [a specific environmental/ecological system or issue of your choice]’ Expected topic coverage and suggested report layout In broad outline, the marking criteria will require you to draw on the concepts and methods you have learnt during the 7401ENV course to:  describe the current status of the environmental resource, including current pressures and threats  conduct an ecosystem services analysis to identify the range of ecosystem services provided by the environmental resource  describe current mechanisms for managing the resource  appraise current management mechanisms in terms of their equity, efficiency and ability to constrain utilisation within the regeneration capacity of the resource  suggest improvements to current management mechanisms Your report should include the following sections, each of which should address the topics indicated: 1. Introduction: - introduce your chosen environmental/resource system or issue; why is management of this system/issue important (important in what way and to whom ?); what is the current status regarding the system/issue; are there causes for concern regarding current or likely future management of the system/issue ? 2. Ecosystem service analysis: use the ecosystem services framework to identify and describe the range of ecosystem services affected (currently and, if relevant, likely to be affected in the future) by management of your chosen system/issue under the existing regulatory and policy framework; adopt the perspective of ‘society’ – so make sure you include relevant external impacts on ecosystem service delivery. 3. Current regulatory and policy mechanisms: describe current property rights relating to your chosen system/issue and property rights relating to desirable/undesirable inputs to and/or outputs from the system/issue; describe relevant current regulatory mechanisms and policy instruments (e.g. regulatory emissions limits, licencing for environmental discharges, emissions taxes, tradable permit mechanisms …). 4. Appraise the current regulatory and policy framework(s): Drawing on your ecosystem service analysis from Section 2, appraise current regulatory and policy frameworks from an environmental/ecological economics perspective. Do shortcomings in current regulatory and policy frameworks contribute to socially inefficient and/or ‘sub-optimal’ management of the system/issue ? – for example by permitting or inadvertently encouraging adverse impacts on ecosystem service delivery ? 5. Opportunities for improving regulatory and policy framework(s): Drawing on your appraisal in Section 4, critique current regulatory and policy frameworks. Suggest how these frameworks could be modified to increase the net social benefit delivered by your chosen system. Adopt a long run ‘sustainability’ perspective here from society’s viewpoint, and consider how this might affect your recommendations for improvements to existing management frameworks. 6. Conclusion: Recap your main recommendations for improving regulatory and policy frameworks and highlight the particular insights obtained by applying an environmental economic perspective to management of this system/issue. Reports will be marked with regard to the following assessment criteria:  description of the current status of the environmental resource, including current pressures and threats to ecosystem service deliveries  description of current mechanisms for managing the resource  appraisal of current management mechanisms in terms of their equity, efficiency and ability to constrain utilisation within the regeneration capacity of the resource  critique of current management mechanisms and suggestions for improvement  structure of essay, clarity of expression and grammar; appropriate use of references The final set of assessment criteria will be accorded lower weight in the overall mark. The marking rubric below will be applied: Standards of achievement Marking criteria Excellent [HD] Very Good [D] Good [C] Adequate [p] Unsatisfactory [F] Description of current status, pressures and threats to ecosystem service deliveries Exceptionally clear description of current status, pressures and trends. Very clear description of current status, pressures and trends. Clear description of current status, pressures and trends. Basic, but sound, description of current status, pressures and trends. Unclear description, lacking several important aspects Description of current management mechanisms Exceptionally clear and insightful description, extending well beyond concepts covered in the course. Very clear description, pushing beyond concepts covered in the course. Clear description covering most relevant concepts from the course. Sound description, drawing on some of the main concepts from the course, Description is unclear and/or confused; no clear insights offered. Appraisal and critique of current management mechanisms Highly insightful critique, integrating insights and perspectives across the course and beyond. Well considered critique, drawing on several areas of the course. Clear critique, well founded in the central themes of the course Sound critique, drawing on some of the main themes of the course Weak critique, ignoring several key themes from the course Suggestions for improvement Highly insightful suggestions, drawing on insights beyond those covered in the course. Well considered suggestions, drawing on several areas of the course. Clear suggestions, well founded in the central themes of the course Sound suggestions, drawing on some of the main themes of the course Weak suggestions, ignoring several key themes from the course Standards of achievement Marking criteria Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Structure & grammar Structure is clear and generally easy to follow; any grammatical errors are of minor importance Structure is unclear and difficult to follow; grammatical errors make it difficult to understand what has been written Referencing A solid set of references are included, potentially extending beyond those provided in the course materials. References are generally cited correctly and appropriately in text. Full reference details are provided in the reference list. An inadequate set of references are provided. References are not cited correctly in the text. Insufficient details are provided in the reference list.