Environment General Courses (ENVIRON)
graduate level, taught in Durham
298.79 Marine Ecosystem Based Management:
Hype or Hope?
3 units
Raphael Sagarin
Introduction
This course will focus on the emerging concept
of “Ecosystem Based Management” (EBM) as it
is applied to coastal and ocean systems. Two
major U.S. Commissions in 2003 and 2004 on
ocean policy have recommended that EBM be applied
to all aspects of ocean governance. Yet progress
in implementing EBM has been slow and uneven.
Part of the delay stems from policy makers
who perceive EBM as a vague term with little
guidance on implementation. Through exploration
of research in economics, law, earth and life
sciences we will attempt to answer the question,
“What is EBM and how can it actually be applied
to ocean policy?”
Course Leader
The course will be taught by Dr. Raphael Sagarin,
Associate Director for Ocean and Coastal Policy
at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental
Policy Solutions. Dr. Sagarin is a marine
ecologist who has also worked as a Congressional
Science Fellow in the office of U.S. Representative
Hilda L. Solis. Tim Profeta and Sheril Kirshenbaum,
who will assist with the course, both have
extensive experience working as Congressional
staff on environmental issues.
Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes of the course are:
- Develop a critical understanding of a current
“hot topic” in conservation science.
- Improve reading and comprehension skills
and be able to put understanding of research
topics into a political context.
- Develop communication skills required to
bridge the gap between academic and policy-focused
writing.
- Acquire a realistic perspective on the policy
making process through exercises guided by
experienced Congressional staff.
Course Format
The course, which will meet twice a week for
75 minutes each will have three interrelated
components focused on: (1) facilitating discussion;
(2) writing in a range of voices and peer critique
of this writing; and (3) active participation
in a policy forming exercise.
1. Facilitating discussion. We will
read, and help each other understand, 4 peer-reviewed
articles each week. This component will follow
on the successful model of my Spring 2007 reading
group on the same topic, in which individual
students took charge of half of a class period,
assigning reading and leading discussion through
a series of questions. Approximately 25 minutes
will be spent discussing each paper, followed
by 5-10 minutes of discussion on how the student
presenter approached the writing component (below).
These times are based on my experience with the
Spring 2007 reading group.
2. Writing and Critique. During the
course of the semester, each student will choose
three articles (including the one they present
to class) for which they will have to write two
synopses of very different character. The first
will be an academic summary of the article written
at a high level for an audience that is knowledgeable
about ocean conservation and science issues.
The second synopsis will is to be written in
a completely different voice aimed at an audience
of Congressional and executive agency staff,
non-profit organizations and other academic researchers
who want an overview of the latest information
on EBM. As part of the discussion of the paper
we will discuss how students tackled their different
synopses with a focus on how language was used
to make the synopses appropriate for the given
audience. I will also provide detailed written
feedback on the synopses. Students will then
revise each critique as needed, and if they choose,
their policy-oriented synopses will become content
for a new web-based discussion forum on EBM being
developed by the Nicholas Institute (www.RealOceans.org).
3. Active Participation. After each
student has had a chance to facilitate a class
period, we will form small 4-5 person groups
to take part in a policy forming exercise. The
primary background work and research for this
exercise will occur outside of class, while live
exercises in class will be used to teach the
qualitative aspect of policy making and to provide
opportunity for peer review and group learning.
The goal of this segment is for students to get
an appreciation of the wide array of factors,
many of which having little to do with the “science”
of an issue, that become part of policy making
process. Each group will choose a topic issue
based on the readings and form a mock advocacy
group to champion that issue. Groups will have
to do further research into the relevant science
and policy of the issue as well as the political
context and history in which the issue is likely
to be debated. We will discuss in class prior
to the start of this segment of the course what
types of background materials will be useful
in understanding the policy context, such as
white papers by policy think tanks, Congressional
Research Service reports, Congressional records
such as hearing testimony and floor speeches,
and literature from interest groups, and how
to access these materials.
This work will be in preparation for two in
class meetings with a mock U.S. Senator and staff,
to be played by Nicholas Institute Director Tim
Profeta, and Research Associate Sheril Kirshenbaum,
respectively. Groups will be given a dossier
on the Senator including relevant personal and
professional information. They will first meet
with the Senator’s staff in class to convince
her that their issue merits a meeting with the
Senator. During this meeting, they will be asked
to research specific further information, and
will be given clues to how they should revise
their “pitch”. The course will culminate with
a meeting with “Senator” Profeta in class, in
which the students must display a mastery of
the political process to convince the Senator
of the merits of their position. These meetings
will be witnessed by the rest of the class and
will each be followed by a discussion of the
group’s performance with a focus on how the political
process works to shape debate on conservation
issues. Thus, there will be a group learning
component of the course facilitated by peer observation
and critique.
The initial meetings with the Senator’s staff
will essentially serve in lieu of background
lectures on how the policy making process really
works in Washington, DC, whereas the culminating
meeting with the “Senator” will serve as a practicum
to put this learning to work. This approach
is justified because there simply is no text
or readings that capture the true nature of the
policy making process, yet Dr. Sagarin, Ms. Kirshenbaum
and Mr. Profeta have over five years of direct
experience as Congressional staff working on
environmental policy issues to bring to bear
on this learning outcome. Moreover, students
from the Spring 2007 reading group reported that
an abbreviated version of this exercise was extremely
valuable and several suggested that it be done
in an iterative format, as I propose here.
Readings
After several seminal papers on EBM to be read
in the first week, articles will be chosen
by the group using the Science Citation Index
method, in which a list is generated of articles
which have cited the original seminal papers,
and the most promising papers chosen from this
list. The goal is to discuss the most timely
and relevant papers and to give students ownership
of the class. In comments from the Spring
2007 reading group students repeatedly cited
this feature as being important to their learning
outcomes.
I offer here some example papers and discussion
topics, acknowledging that students will ultimately
shape the discussion.
Background readings and course introduction:
Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s Living
Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Pew
Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report
of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to the
President and Congress, Washington DC.
2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management. Available at www.compassonline.org
These three documents will be the launching
point for the course and will be used in the
first week to ensure that all students have the
basic background necessary for a high level of
discussion. The Pew and US Commission reports
both call for an ecosystem approach to managing
marine resources and the Scientific Consensus
statement attempts to clarify what this approach
means. However, the course will show that these
documents are only the starting point for a deeper
debate on marine management—one that is helped
and hindered by complex dynamics in the oceanic
system, socio-economic factors, historical approaches
to marine management and political nuances that
are rarely discussed in academic texts.
Example papers:
Arkema, K. K., S. C. Abramson, and B. M. Dewsbury.
2006. Marine ecosystem-based management: from
characterization to implementation. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 4:525-532.
Key points of discussion:
- This is one of the first cross-cutting reviews
of marine EBM programs
- It highlights how despite many stated goals
that fit the EBM paradigm, few actions have
been taken on the ground toward achieving those
goals
- It may be too early to take on a review of
this type as EBM is a new concept
- What criteria were not considered by the
authors that are nonetheless essential to making
EBM work?
Fluharty, D. 2005. Evolving ecosystem approaches
to management of fisheries in the USA. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 300:248-253.
Key points of discussion:
- Highlights the long history of thinking about
EBM, even if it wasn’t called EBM
- How much can reforming fisheries management
be applied to marine ecosystems generally?
- Fluharty argues for implementing EBM opportunistically
rather than trying to get all the pieces in
place before proceeding
Need and Limits
This course, as evidenced by the overwhelming
response to the 1 unit reading group of the
same title in Spring 2007, fills an important
need for CEM students in particular. It will
be one of very few marine-focused courses offered
on main campus in Spring 2008 and will thus
be a great benefit to first year CEM students,
as it should fulfill their “Science and Policy
Synthesis” requirement.
Several requests by students and faculty were
made after the Spring 2007 reading group to expand
it to a 3 unit course. There are three reasons
why this expansion is justified:
- The 1 unit course did not allow for a solid
background on the general topic to be presented.
In the 3 unit course, the first week will be
spent establishing a baseline level of knowledge
(see “Readings” below) for the higher level
discussions to follow.
- The student run format for discussions engulfed
nearly all of the class time in the 1 unit
course, forcing our practical exercise into
a single class period, which is inadequate.
The 3 unit format will allow us to complete
the introduction and facilitated discussion
sections of the course in the first two thirds
of the semester, leaving adequate time for
the practical exercises, which are essential
to understanding the complexity of turning
science into policy.
- I discovered that the writing component,
which I consider essential to the learning
outcomes, was impossible to fully implement
in the 1 unit course. Students must have adequate
time to produce thoughtfully different versions
of their synopses and there must also be adequate
class time to discuss and critique this writing.
I would like to cap the course at 20 students.
However, there are 23 first year CEM students
this year, to whom I would like to make the course
available on a priority basis (expanding the
cap to 23 if necessary). Should fewer than 20
CEM students enroll, I would offer additional
places--up to 20 total--to graduate students.
I would also consider enrollment from Beaufort-based
students with a video link to the marine lab.
Evaluation
Students will be evaluated based on:
- Class Participation (40%):
- Leading a sustained discussion with relevant
questions and a demonstrated ability to balance
adapting to the direction of the class while
avoiding drift
- Participating with thoughtful comments
that reflect an understanding of the topic
and respectful listening to other class comments
- I will meet with students individually
to discuss their performance as facilitators
and how they might change or improve their
organization.
- Article synopses (30%)
- Each essay will be evaluated with detailed
comments
- We will discuss how the student approached
the two different synopses after their presentation
of the paper in class.
- By final revision these must be clear and
concise and must reflect two truly different
voices appropriate for the intended audiences
- Group exercise (30%)
- Students must fully participate in group
planning and play an active role in the mock
Congressional meetings
- Students must participate in the summary
discussions of the performance of the other
groups.
|
