Cover Image

HARDBACK
$74.95



View/Hide Left Panel


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Environmental Goals and Science Policy: A Review of Selected Countries KONRAD von MOLTKE Institute on International Environmental Governance, Dartmouth College, and World Wildlife Fund Contents     COMPARING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY   194     The Framework for Environmental Policy,   194     Existing Related Legislation,   196     Political and Administrative Culture,   197     Environmental Conditions,   198     Past Emissions,   199     Economic Conditions and Social Preferences,   200     Differing Pressures on the Environment,   201     Criteria for Comparing Environmental Management,   202     Comparing Legislation,   203     Comparing "Standards",   204     Comparing Procedures,   207     Comparing Costs,   210     Environmental Quality,   213     Implications for Science and Technology Policy,   215     THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICIES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES   216     Canada,   217     Environmental Policy,   217     The Research Community,   218     Science Policy,   218     Environmental Considerations,   219

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals     France,   220     Environmental Policyx,   220     The Research Community,   220     Science Policy,   221     Environmental Considerations,   221     Germany,   222     Environmental Policy,   222     The Research Community,   223     Science Policy,   223     Environmental Considerations,   224     United Kingdom,   225     Environmental Policy,   225     The Research Community,   226     Science Policy,   226     Environmental Considerations,   227     European Community,   228     Environmental Policy,   228     The Research Community,   230     Science Policy,   230     Environmental Considerations,   231     Japan,   233     Environmental Policy,   233     The Research Community,   234     Science Policy,   234     Environmental Considerations,   235     CONCLUSIONS   235     Interdisciplinary,   236     Network Formation,   236     Government Laboratories,   237     Policy Support or Technology Development,   237     Industrial Research and Development,   237     SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS   238

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Science and technology play an unusual role in environmental policy. Science makes the environment speak. Many environmental threats would be unknown without scientific research, or known too late to permit appropriate policy action. In other words, environmental policy rests on a foundation of scientific research without which it would not even exist. This creates a unique and uneasy relationship between scientists and policy-makers. The ethics and process of scientific research are not geared to the needs of policy-making. Science seeks to prove or disprove hypotheses as a strategy for reaching enduring answers. Policy is limited in time and location: decisions must be made at a given time for a specific jurisdiction, so policy-makers are seeking the best possible answers to issues they have chosen not because they may be susceptible to being answered but because there is a constituency that requires an answer. Thus for policy-makers any answer is better than no answer. Because environmental policy needs science to identify its objects but science is not normally organized to provide information that can be used in policy-making, most countries have developed specialized procedures for science assessment. This generally involves a process rooted in science and the values of scientific investigation but is not itself a scientific undertaking. It involves a review of available evidence and provides an assessment of what is known about a specific issue at a given point in time. Scientific assessments are not readily transferable from one jurisdiction to another because they already incorporate certain aspects of the policy environment for which the assessment is being undertaken. Even while science and technology are at the heart of environmental policy, they are also widely perceived as being at the origin of the environmental crisis. Without many scientific developments of the past century, and their adaptation by technology to practical uses, even 10 billion humans would be incapable of threatening the natural fabric of the planet. The extraordinary magnification of the human presence through technologies, ranging from fossil fuel combustion to organic chemistry, from medical and biological interventions to electronics, is a precondition of threats to the environment that are qualitatively different from the historical impact of humans on the planet. The population explosion itself is fundamentally a product of simple technologies relating to sanitation and nutrition, which have expanded average human life expectancy beyond anything dreamed of but a century ago. Finally, no solutions short of human catastrophe are conceivable without further resort to science and technology. The modern human condition has created a dependence on technology which implies that only technology holds the prospect of saving us from technology, a paradox often barely perceived and never resolved. Each of these reasons would link science and technology closely with environmental policy. All three taken together cause them to be in an almost ''symbiotic" relationship. The stakes are extraordinary high, ranging from the universal to the prospects of individual material benefit:

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Science policy must ensure research is undertaken that is essential to identify environmental threats in a timely fashion so as to avoid the kind of crisis caused by "unknown" natural events. Science policy must ensure that science itself respects limits that are defined by the environmental impacts of unknown applications of scientific discoveries. Science policy must contribute to developing technologies that redirect human efforts from environmentally damaging to environmentally benign activities. Science policy can give direction to future social and economic development, providing extraordinary comparative advantages to the individuals, corporations, and societies that take the "right" decisions earlier than others and thereby define the parameters of future development and reap the social and economic benefits associated with this paradigm shift that may follow. While all countries face the need to articulate science and technology goals for environmental research and policy, each will tend to go about this process in characteristic ways. Environmental policy is confronted by essentially the same agenda in all countries. In the temperate zone, the environment will be more forgiving than in extreme climates, but everywhere the basic need is to protect air, water, soil, fauna, and flora from the impacts of human interventions. Everywhere the extraction of natural resources, their transport and transformation, their use, and the wastes attendant upon these processes are the stuff of environmental policy. Despite these basic similarities, due to the universality of nature, environmental policies differ widely from one country to the next because they reflect specific environmental conditions, because differing social and economic priorities exist, and because they can only be expressed through the existing political and administrative culture of each country. COMPARING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY1 The Framework for Environmental Policy Environmental policy represents a relatively recent development. In most Western industrialized countries, systematic attention was first given environmental management in the late sixties and early seventies. The problems were everywhere the same: economic growth had reached a stage where the consequences of emissions could be felt over large areas, affecting significant segments of the population. Public pressure increased to limit the risks associated with the practice of using the ambient environment for waste disposal. The responses were also everywhere quite similar: the adoption of laws regulating emissions to air and water, the establishment of procedures for environmental management, and legislation concerning the control of hazardous wastes and toxic substances. Table 1 shows the early pattern of regulation in selected countries. It is most remarkable for the overall symmetry of responses.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table 1 Major National Environmental Laws in Some OECD Countries   Type of Law   General Water Wastes Air Impact Statement Other Canada   1970     1973 1975a United States 1970 1972 1965 1963 1969 1976b     1977 1970 1970           1976 1977           1984       Japan 1967 1958 1970 1962   1973c   1970 1970   1968    1973c Australia 1974       1974   New Zealand   1967   1972 1972       1974     1977   Austria   1959       1973 Belgium   1971 1974 1964     Denmark 1973 1978 1978     1978d     1980       1979b     1982         Finland   1961 1978 1982   1923d     1979       1965e France 1976 1964 1975 1974 1976 1977b Germany   1957 1972 1974 1975 1976d     1976         Greece 1976 1977   1983   1977l   1980 1978       1985g Iceland             Ireland 1976 1977   1977 1976   Italy   1976   1966     Luxembourg 1982 1961 1980 1976   1976j Netherlands 1952 1969 1976 1970   1963h   1979 1975 1977     1979             1983i Norway 1981         1977b Portugal 1976 1977   1980   1976d             1983b   1983         1983k Spain     1975 1972     Sweden 1969 1969 1975 1969 1969l 1964d   1981 1981   1981 1981 1973b     1983         Switzerland 1983 1971       1966d             1969b             1979k Turkey 1983 1960       1983d     1971         United Kingdom 1974 1961 1974 1956   1974j     1974   1968   1975c         1974   1981d

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The State of the Environment 1985. Paris OECD, 1985, p. 242. a Some federal countries such as Australia and Austria have laws at state level. b Law on the general control of chemicals. c Law on compensation. d Law on nature conservancy. e Law on public health. f Law on protection of forests and forest areas. g Law on noise and air pollution from motor vehicles. h Law on nuclear energy. i Law on soil. j Law on noise. k Law on territory planning. l Essentially a specific administrative procedure. Given the similarity of the problems and the symmetry of responses, it might be expected that environmental management is essentially the same in industrialized countries. In fact, it is difficult to compare environmental policies between countries because newly emerging environmental policies did not develop in a void. A number of important factors have created a framework that contributes to the specificity of responses. Existing Related Legislation In most countries, legislation concerning water supply and quality dates to the 19th century.2 Initiated at widely differing times, ranging from the earliest such legislation in the Netherlands where water management represents an existential need, to the United Kingdom in the 19th century, to the United States, which—blessed with abundant resources—felt compelled to address this issue at a relatively late date. Similarly the regulation of industrial nuisances, essentially the impact of industries on their neighborhoods, follows the pattern of industrialization itself. The United Kingdom, having been the first to industrialize, first confronted industrial pollution. Germany followed at some distance, and many countries did not address this issue until the early 20th century. Countries also began to address issues of workplace safety and health. In the United States these issues were not tackled until a relatively late date. Despite these differences, early linkages already existed between countries regarding these newly emerging policy areas, particularly through trade. Indeed, the United States first moved on pesticide safety in response to a trade ban for reasons of environment and public health: a British embargo imposed in 1925 on apples from the United States. Forced to comply with British requirements concerning arsenical residues on apples or lose an important export market, the United

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals States adopted the British standard for exported apples. It could hardly provide its own citizens with less protection than it afforded British consumers and proceeded to impose the standards on its own production, despite vigorous opposition from apple growers.3 Land use planning represents an important forerunner of environmental policy. Most European countries have known land use controls for decades, growing out of a limited concept of property in societies subject to monarchical rule. In the United States, federal land use planning does not exist and state programs are restricted by traditional reluctance to limit individual property rights and the Constitutional doctrine of "taking," which requires compensation for the diminution of rights through certain public actions. The great surge of environmental legislation in the United States in the late sixties and early seventies is often seen as the beginning of modern environmental policy and is usually interpreted as a signal act of US leadership. Seen in a comparative perspective, the major acts—the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977—contain important legislative innovations. They have been used as benchmarks worldwide. At the same time, these acts filled a legislative void which had been allowed to continue longer than in most other developed countries and represent belated recognition of necessities that had been addressed elsewhere over longer periods of time. The United States had a strong tradition of conversation, a relatively short tradition of industrial safety regulation, and almost no tradition of land use planning. In the western United States, extraordinarily large areas of federally owned lands permitted the federal authorities to act directly in a manner that was impossible elsewhere. The resultant environmental legislation reflected these pre-existing circumstances. In particular the environmental assessment requirement of NEPA is comprehensible only in the context of a country that had neglected land use planning and consequently did not dispose of the basic data and decision-making structures that had existed elsewhere for decades. In this respect, the United States of 1965 resembled the countries of the developing world more than those of Western Europe or Japan. Political and Administrative Culture The policy areas that were ultimately to form a core of environmental management—water supply, neighborhood protection, worker safety, and public health, as well as land use planning—developed independently of each other. Each responded to a particular need, and while linkages may have been recognized, it did not seem essential to the success of each endeavor to undertake them jointly. As a consequence, each of these policy areas was typically housed in separate administrative units, often with incommensurate hierarchical structures. For example water quality aimed at integrating river basins, worker safety was

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals linked to economic policy-making, and land use planning needed a strong local base. In addition to their independent development, these institutions tended to reflect political and administrative traditions of the respective country. Bureaucracies in different countries, while exhibiting well-known structural similarities, also reflect characteristic differences determined by history, the constitutional framework, and the educational system. As a result, essentially similar administrative procedures as basic as the issuance of identity papers or the description of factual information are undertaken in a distinctive manner in different countries. Permits with equivalent effect will tend to be structured differently, rendering comparison difficult.4 One of the major innovations inherent in the concept of "environmental policy" is the recognition of linkages that exist between seemingly disparate policy areas and of the fact that their joint management is a condition of success in each of them. This requires close coordination between the existing areas and new issues such as air pollution, toxic substances control, waste management, or global phenomena such as climate change. In most countries, environmental agencies were formed in several stages, and certain aspects of environmental policy are frequently still managed outside the environmental agency. In the United States, for example, marine pollution is in the Commerce Department, nature protection in the Department of the Interior, and there are no land use planning functions at the federal and few at state level; in Germany, marine pollution is in the Ministry of Transport and new chemicals must be notified to a unit attached to the Ministry of Labor, while land use planning is the responsibility of a third ministry; in the Netherlands, water quality is handled by the environmental authorities but all other aspects of water management by the Ministry of Transport. In Japan, the Ministry for Industry and Trade (MITI) plays a central role in most aspects of environmental policy that concern industrial production. There exists no universally recognized definition of the responsibilities that need to be assigned to a ministry to qualify it as "environmental." Frequently, the name preceded the reality of administrative authority as it is easier to identify the issues that need attention than to reorganize the structure of government. Environmental Conditions The natural environment varies from region to region. To the extent that environmental policies are designed to achieve certain environmental outcomes, they may be expected to be different from one region to the next. In economic terms, these differences appear as elements of comparative advantage. In other words, a company producing in Ireland with emissions primarily to the open ocean should face less stringent environmental controls than a company producing in the Ruhr region whose emissions affect densely populated regions, sensitive

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals ecosystems, and rivers utilized by others. In practice it is not possible to finetune policies to reflect all variations in each environmental medium. Moreover, few emissions have no environmental impact whatsoever and many can have long-range or long-term impacts that are difficult to identify. Moreover, governments must maintain consistent policies for all affected persons to avoid arbitrary decisions and ensure predictability. Different policies may sometimes even be needed to achieve identical environmental outcomes. An example is the preservation of lobster stocks in the United States and Canada through size limitations.5 In this case, a smaller size limitation in Canada achieved better conservation than larger US limits because lobsters mature faster (i.e., at smaller size) in Canadian waters, which are warmer on account of the Gulf Stream. Other examples concern the control of photochemical smog in Southern California, which experiences long periods of sunshine and limited atmospheric exchange. Western Europe has less sunshine, lies at more northerly latitudes and has greater wind movement, and consequently experiences different smog events. In some instances the impact of environmental conditions can be observed in the phasing of environmental measures or in differences in priority-setting. The United Kingdom (like Japan but unlike the rest of Europe) is an island with short, swift-flowing rivers. Modest levels of water treatment can achieve dramatic improvements in water quality, as demonstrated by the Thames. In continental Europe, even vigorous water treatment can still result in limited water quality, as demonstrated by the Rhine.6 Even though the lack of water treatment in the United Kingdom is essentially transferring pollution to the oceans, it has taken twenty years to demonstrate the impact of such policies and to induce a shift in priorities to more closely resemble those of the countries most affected by deterioration of the North Sea. Certain chemical substances react differently under different ambient conditions. For example, pesticides will typically volatilize more rapidly under hot climatic conditions, requiring larger applications to achieve comparable levels of receptor exposure. These differences in environmental conditions are frequently overlaid by long distance effects of emissions, which are hard to detect and have tended to be identified only when they reach crisis proportions, as in the case of acid rain in Europe or the transport of toxic substances into the Great Lakes region of North America, or when their presence is very unusual, as with particulates from the United Kingdom found in remote Swedish lakes in the late 1960s or industrial chemicals in the tissue of Arctic and Antarctic animals. Past Emissions Environmental policy does not originate in a pristine environment. In many countries, accumulated environmental impacts, some of which are reversible only

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals over very long periods, severely limit the options available to policy-makers. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe are a dramatic demonstration of the manner in which environmental liabilities can destroy the capital base of enterprises that appear to be going concerns. It is often said that current generations must not appropriate the possibilities of future generations to utilize environmental resources. In practice, the current generation already faces a situation where past practices have elimited numerous options that might otherwise have been available. This may require appropriate investments to remediate environmental problems and sometimes can produce rapid results. It may also foreclose any possibility of using certain substances. For example, it is well known that the characteristic London smog that persisted throughout the first half of this century was attributable in large measure to the practice of burning coal in open fireplaces to heat private residences. The smog events were successfully curtailed by banning this practice. Less well known is the fact that the burning of coal also involved emissions of trace amounts of lead. Since lead is not very mobile once emitted into the environment, these lead emissions have accumulated in the soil and are to be found in dust. As a consequence, the London environment is intolerant to additional emissions of lead—for example, from gasoline—and the United Kingdom presses for a more rigorous elimination of lead from other products than is advocated by most other EC countries. Even while the United Kingdom began to confront the health hazards posed by this lead reservoir, Germany assessed the health risks of lead in the environment and concluded that they were not sufficient to push for the elimination of lead additives in gasoline; however, the desire to limit sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions from automobiles to reduce acidification (and to permit forests to recover from the accumulated acidifying deposits) caused the German government to advocate the introduction of unleaded gasoline almost simultaneously with the British, but for other reasons. The United States failed to adopt the White Lead Convention when it was agreed to by the International Labor Office in 1921. As a result, paints laced with lead continued to be used in US dwellings for fifty more years, creating a huge reservoir of lead, which will be released into the urban environment over centuries and create conditions similarly intolerant of additional lead burdens, albeit for different reasons again. Economic Conditions and Social Preferences There has been a vigorous debate in Western countries concerning the association of strong environmental policies and elevated levels of economic activity, particularly as measured by gross domestic product. Some observers view environmental quality as a luxury good for which demand rises as disposable income rises.7 Many of these observations are based on empirical data derived from the past twenty years of environmental policy showing that levels of sulfur dioxide emissions started to fall as GDP grew beyond a "threshold" of approximately

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals $5,000 per capita. The assumption is that increasing economic activity will have the effect of increasing demand for environmental quality and consequently lead more or less directly to environmental improvement. These arguments are flawed for two principal reasons. The empirical data are derived from a period when environmental policies are known to have been inadequate. Consequently their interpretation is liable to be misleading since they reflect a period during which significant environmental costs continued to be deferred. Moreover, they reflect a period when environmental management and economic policies were inadequately integrated, thus increasing the cost of environmental measures. On the other hand there exists a level of economic development at which no resources beyond those required to meet basic human needs are available—essentially a subsistence economy. At this level, the trade-off between environment and economic activities is akin to the farmer faced with the need to consume the next year's seed stock to assure immediate survival. At all levels of economic activity, however, social preferences for environmental quality may differ. Most developed societies have come to tolerate certain levels of environmental risk and actual pollution. Social choices concerning these risks are liable to differ depending on a wide range of factors. Countries (and even jurisdictions within countries) must remain free to determine these preferences through their own processes of social choice, insofar as these decisions do not have impacts on others. Differing Pressures on the Environment The intensity of human pressures on the environment varies widely. Some regions, centers of population and economic activity for the most part, are the focus of intense pressures. Those who live and work there benefit from the advantages of their location and suffer its disadvantages. Other regions, rural areas not used for agriculture for the most part, are characterized by an absence of human pressures on the environment, again resulting in specific advantages and disadvantages. It is difficult to determine how these differences are to be taken into account when comparing environmental management. One approach is to focus on the areas of greatest intensity of use, which generally are also considered the motors of economic activity in the country or region, and to compare policies and practices for these areas. In most countries, special rules apply to areas like Southern California or the US East Coast, the Tokyo region, or the Ruhr area, reflecting the special circumstances of these regions. This generally requires analysis that goes well beyond the national level and takes into account the role and the discretionary flexibility of local authorities and regional government. Another approach is to focus on national rules, on the assumption that they represent an average or at least a minimum standard that must be universally

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE 6 Scientific Content and Means of Implementation, EC Environment and Climate Work programme, 1994–1998 Theme 1 Research into the Natural Environment, Environmental Quality, and Global Change Area 1.1 Climate change and impact on natural resources     1.1.1 Basic processes in the climate system     1.1.2 The climate system in the past     1.1.3 Climate variability, simulations of climate, and predictions of climate change     1.1.4 Impact of climate changes and other environmental factors on natural resources       1.1.4.1 European water resources       1.1.4.2 Agriculture, forestry, and the natural environment       1.1.4.3 Land resources and the threat of desertification and soil erosion in Europe Area 1.2 Atmospheric physics and chemistry, interactions with the biosphere, and mechanisms of environmental change impacts     1.2.1 Atmospheric physics and chemistry       1.2.1.1 Stratospheric chemistry and depletion of the ozone layer       1.2.1.2 Tropospheric physics and chemistry     1.2.2 Biospheric processes       1.2.2.1 The functioning of ecosystems       1.2.2.2 Alterations of processes as a result of UV-B radiation       1.2.2.3 Biodiversity and environmental change   Theme 2 Environmental Technologies Area 2.1 Instruments, techniques, and methods for monitoring the environment Area 2.2 Technologies for assessing risks to, and protecting and rehabilitating, the environment     2.2.1 Methods of estimating and managing risks to the environment and to humans       2.2.1.1 Risks to human health       2.2.1.2 Risks to the environment       2.2.1.3 Industrial safety     2.2.2 Analysis of the life cycle of industrial and synthetic products     2.2.3 Technologies to protect and rehabilitate the environment     2.2.4 Technologies to protect and rehabilitate European cultural heritage Area 2.3 Technologies to forecast, prevent, and reduce natural risks     2.3.1 Hydrological and hydrogeological risks     2.3.2 Seismic risk     2.3.3 Volcanic risk     2.3.4 Forest fires   Theme 3 Space Techniques Applied to Environmental Monitoring and Research Area 3.1 Methodological research and pilot projects     3.1.1 Methodological research     3.1.2 Pilot projects Area 3.2 Research and development work for potential future operational activities Area 3.3 Center for Earth Observation   Theme 4 Human Dimensions of Environmental Change Area 4.1 Socio-economic causes and effects of environmental change Area 4.2 Economic and social responses to environmental problems—towards Sustainable Development Area 4.3 Integration of scientific knowledge and of economic and societal considerations into the formulation of environmental policies Area 4.4 Sustainable development and technological change

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals The EC legislative process is largely controlled by high-level bureaucrats from the Member States. Because many decisions are taken with minimal public accountability, the EC legislative process is particularly prone to capture by interest groups. The European Parliament has a mainly advisory role, which can involve co-decision under certain complex circumstances.42 These general observations also extend to the determination of environmental policy priorities and their linkage to science and technology policy. Japan Environmental Policy Environmental policy in Japan reflects a characteristic interaction between private interests and public authorities at various levels. Binding codification of environmental norms generally only occurs after a lengthy period during which less formal (but still constraining) negotiations between public authorities and affected enterprises continue. Consequently in Japan, environmental law and published standards are only an incomplete reflection of environmental policy at any given moment in time.43 Major local government agencies such as the prefectures and metropolitan authorities have considerable autonomy.44 The prefectures (and under certain circumstances the metropolitan authorities) are responsible for compliance with national regulations. In practice, however, they have the authority to apply their own standards, and this leads to a "three tier environmental control strategy."45 The first level is a "recommendation" (also frequently known as administrative guidance). The Tokyo Metropolitan Authority currently expects industrial boilers to achieve 50 percent of the NOx emissions permitted by national law. These recommendations are adjusted to the state of technology on a continuous basis. After several years of experience with a particular recommendation, the local authority will transform the recommendation into a local ordinance that is legally binding and enforced against all facilities. The third tier is a contractual agreement between the local authority and companies, under which the latter agree to achieve certain levels of environmental performance that may deviate substantially from the national norm. As a result, Japanese environmental policy is subject to a ratcheting process, much of which is not visible in the public domain. At the national level, environmental authority is divided between many agencies, with the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and the Environment Agency sharing responsibilities but MITI wielding far more power on account of its close ties to industry and its organizations. A recent observer summed up the process as follows: "In summary, environmental rule-making at the national level displays an interlocking set of processes in operation: the Environment Agency's technical hearing system, which ensures that all relevant information is considered prior to legislation and then formally repeats the process

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals to determine the best time scale for implementation; a similar but less formal dialogue between MITI (and sometimes others) and industry, which allows MITI to determine the optimal time scales for implementation, where it has that responsibility; finally, the local authorities, again maintaining a detailed, open dialogue with industry and providing a direct route for the public's concerns to be fed back to firms as an obligation to continuously reduce their impacts on the environment.'' 46 This policy-making structure permits extraordinary levels of consultation and the integration of research, policy, and industrial development. The Basic Law for Environmental Pollution of 1967 was replaced in November 1993 by a revised version. This places the concept of sustainability at the heart of Japanese environmental policy and for the first time incorporates significant elements of international and global responsibility. It also codifies the previous procedure by introducing an obligation to undertake voluntary pollution reduction beyond the requirements of the law: "Corporations are responsible for making voluntary efforts to conserve the environment such as reduction of the environmental loads in the course of their business activities."47 The Environment Agency is required to draw up a Basic Environmental Plan (of course in consultation with other agencies, industry, and local authorities) that sets out measures to achieve the goals of the Basic Law. In recent years, Japan has devoted increasing attention to the international dimension of environmental policy. Nevertheless, the strong influence of Japanese industry on the formulation of environmental policy and the absence of any significant commodity production in Japan itself lead to a strong emphasis on manufacturing industry and management of the waste cycle (emissions and other waste disposal) and a comparative disregard for environmental management issues associated with commodity production, the extraction cycle in which natural resources are turned into economic goods. The Research Community In comparison with other countries, research in higher education in Japan is weak, while research in government and industry scientific institutions is strong. Science Policy In early 1992, the Council for Science and Technology, an advisory body to the Prime Minister and the principal national deliberative body for science and technology policy in Japan, recommended a basic national science and technology policy. On this basis, the Japanese government established the "Basic Policy for Science and Technology" in April 1992. The fundamental goals of this policy are coexistence of humans in harmony with the Earth, expansion of the stock of knowledge, and construction of a society where people can live with peace of mind.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals The government science budget has expanded by 5.3 to 6.2 percent in each of the years 1990–1993.48 Total expenditures in FY 1993 ¥ were 2,266 billion, or 2.7 percent of general budget expenditure. Proportionately, this places Japan at the lower end of the spectrum of major OECD countries although comparisons are complicated by the existence of countries (such as Germany, Italy, or the United States) with significant levels of expenditure at the level of federal sub-units. The largest proportions of these funds are disbursed by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (almost 50 percent), the Science and Technology Agency (more than 25 percent), and MITI (13 percent). Funds are disbursed to a number of semi-independent institutions with program responsibilities. Environmental Considerations In recent years, environmental considerations have loomed large on the Japanese research and technology agenda. While the research budget of the Environment Agency remains modest (about 6 percent of the total government research budget in 1993), its growth rates have been above average in most of the past years. Because "coexistence of humans in harmony with the Earth" is the first of three priorities of the new Basic Policy for Science and Technology, environmental research is by now spread throughout the government's research budget. There are no formal avenues for public participation at the national level in the determination of science policy priorities. Local authorities participate in this process and are considered to be representative of the interests of the general public. The Diet has a marginal role in this process as well. The driving interests are representatives of the research community and of government agencies and private institutions with ties to industry. The increased emphasis on environmental science and technology in all Japanese government programs reflects an assessment by these groups, in particular by industry, that taking account of environmental considerations will be a major factor of future production technologies and even constitutes an area of important competitive advantage.49 A recent review of Japanese environmental policy did not discuss science and technology policy issues.50 This suggests that the Environment Agency plays a relatively marginal role in the determination of science and technology priorities, even when these are directly relevant to environmental policy. This task is largely undertaken by groups with close links to industry. CONCLUSIONS In each of the countries considered, a balance exists between similarities that derive from commonalities in the issues confronted by policy-makers and differences based on specific characteristics of the respective environmental policy, research communities, and science policy. Nevertheless a number of issues emerge.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Interdisciplinarity Environmental science is a quintessentially interdisciplinary field of endeavor. This is universally recognized. Indeed, in several countries the promotion of more interdisciplinary research is seen as a goal of science policy, apart from the special needs of environmental policy. Nevertheless most countries struggle to realize these goals. The difficulties in supporting interdisciplinary research are by now well known. The range of topics covered is typically wide so that peer groups are correspondingly small, with all the problems that entails. Academic organization, and the related rewards structure, are still prominently disciplinary in orientation. Training is still typically based on disciplinary specialization. Young researchers devote some of their most productive years to meeting the requirements of advancement rather than pursuing interdisciplinary topics. More senior researchers are then established in their disciplines and many see little advantage in taking the risks entailed in launching interdisciplinary work. These problems all exist in relation to interdisciplinary work within broad fields of research such as the natural sciences or the social sciences. They become even more pronounced when dealing with issues that may require interdisciplinary approaches across natural and social science boundaries, as policy-related environmental research typically does. No country has found a clear answer to these problems. However, increasing emphasis on cooperative research patterns may represent the most promising approach for science policy. Network Formation Many countries, particularly smaller ones or those with widely dispersed research communities, have been seeking to foster the development of wider networks of cooperation. In many instances, these are internationally oriented in that their membership is recruited internationally and the standards of excellence are based on international criteria. These networks respond to the difficulty in addressing complex environmental issues, because of both the dimensions of the needed research and the interdisciplinary nature of the work. Networks have the added advantage that they can draw on the particular strengths of several institutions. No research institution, no matter how large and accomplished, is capable of covering all aspects of environmental research. Indeed no single research institution will have the capability to undertake high quality research on all aspects of a single environmental issue. On the one hand the issues are typically complex and require a range of skills not generally to be found in a single institution. On the other hand, even when these skills are all represented in a research institution, the standing of individual researchers within their peer group can vary widely. While some may be internationally recognized, others may have a lesser reputation.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Government Laboratories Most countries have laboratories that were created at a time when scientific research was expected to expand in a predictable fashion. Many of these research establishments were government funded and designed to support a putative transition to nuclear energy or were engaged in military research. The collapse of the nuclear energy industry, combined with the end of the Cold War, has created a crisis for these institutions, many of which are very large and some of which have scientists with permanent contracts. The maintenance of these laboratories represents a challenge for many governments, and the emergence of environmental issues represents a unique opportunity to redirect at least some of the research effort of these establishments. Experience in several countries indicates, however, that it is not easy to redirect the work of these laboratories. Many researchers are disinclined to change the focus of their professional activities, and many who may be inclined to do so bring a prospective defined by their past work, which can be inappropriate to the new agenda they are being asked to address. The presence of these large scale facilities puts significant pressure on the available research funds, pressure that is felt acutely in periods of stagnating or declining funds or in periods when new issues—in this instance, environmental needs—require attention. Policy Support or Technology Development The research requirements of policy support and technology development are notably different. Essentially the former focuses on issues identification and specification while the latter seeks to develop responses to known issues. In some instances, research on issue identification can lead to the development of applicable new technologies but this is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. The audiences for policy oriented and technology developing research are quite distinct. Increasingly, countries appear to be moving away from publicly financed technology development and increasing support for policy oriented environmental research. This reflects an assessment that the needs for policy oriented research remain pressing while the use of scarce public resources for technology development is less efficient than the use of private resources. Industrial Research and Development For many years, public authorities have felt a need to promote the development of environmental technologies. Industry long questioned the existence of cost-effective solutions to many publicly mandated programs, and research was needed to prove out basic technologies and to support their initial application in practice. Countries appear to be reducing their involvement in industrial research and development (apart from the continuing provision of tax breaks, which are

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals non-selective in character). This presumably reflects an assumption not only that industry is a better location for this kind of research but also that industry is now willing to invest in the development of environmentally sound technologies, either because this is the most cost-effective way to meet public mandates or because this is viewed as a promising market in its own rights. SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS This paper began by pointing out that science is the bedrock of environmental policy. There is no greater threat to the environment than our continuing ignorance about the consequences of human interventions. We know next to nothing about the species with which we cohabit on the planet. We remain remarkably ignorant about the effects of new chemical substances that we introduce into the environment, including their long-term effects on humans. While conclusive proof of climate change remains elusive, it is hard to avoid the overwhelming impression that climate change is under way and we know little about the likely effects of the experiment we are undertaking with the climate system. The success stories in the short history of environmental management—the control of organic emissions to water, reduction in emissions of acidifying compounds to the atmosphere, protection of the stratospheric ozone layer—all are based on a mixture of systematic research and happenstance. In particular the story of the ozone layer contains several fortuitous elements without which we would be emitting ozone depleting substances without limit: that the initial ozone depletion hypothesis was formulated by a scientist who pursued it beyond the limits of scientific etiquette, and that the British Antarctic Expedition chose to undertake (theoretically meaningless) ozone measurements that happened to uncover the "hole"—and that they had the courage to publish their results. It is not unreasonable to wonder whether there are phenomena that are not being pursued with comparable determination. No country has yet confronted the systemic challenge implicit in the environmental imperative. What is most disturbing is that everywhere the incentives for research are environmentally insensitive. Interdisciplinary research remains the exception rather than the rule. In industry the development of environmentally benign technologies is evaluated by economic criteria that force innovation in one direction and render environmental benefits an added value rather than the principal outcome. It needs to be recognized that industrial societies "underproduce" environmental quality and "underproduce" environmental innovation. When faced with such problems, society has previously developed creative approaches to changing the incentive structure, for example, by introducing protection of intellectual property as an inducement to innovation in general. What is needed is a structure that gives an environmental direction to the processes of scientific investigation, technological

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals development, and economic change, which are currently driven by rewards structures that are environmentally insensitive. NOTES 1.   The following is based in part on: Konrad von Moltke, Comparison of Regulatory Trends in the West and Central and Eastern Europe. Report for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London, 1993. 2.   J.C. Day et al., "River Basin Development," in: Robert Kates and Ian Burton, eds., Geography, Resources, and Environment (vol. II: Themes from the Work of Gilbert White). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986. 3.   James Wharton, Before Silent Spring. Pesticides and Public Health in Pre-DDT America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 133–137. 4.   Konrad von Moltke et al., "Rechtsvergleich deutsch-niederländischer Emissionsnormen zur Vermeidung von Luftverunreinigungen," Bonn: Institute für Europäische Umweltpolitik, 1985. Konrad von Moltke, Handbuch für den grenzüberschreitenden Umweltschutz in der Euregio Maas-Rhein (Schriftenreihe Landes-und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen—Landesentwicklung Band 1.045). Dortmund: Institute für Landes-und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1987b. 5.   Daniel C. Esty, Greening the GATT, Trade, Environment, and the Future. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1994, p. 272f. 6.   Graham Bennett, Dilemmas: Coping with Environmental Problems. London: Earthscan Publications, 1992. 7.   G.H. Grossman and A.B. Krueger, "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," paper prepared for a conference on the U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, Princeton University, October 1991. 8.   The Conservation Foundation, State of the Environment: A View toward the Nineties. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987. 9.   Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Control Policies for Specific Water Pollutants. Paris: OECD, 1982. 10.   Nigel Haigh, Manual of Environmental Policy: The EC and Britain. London: Longman (looseleaf), 3.1–3.10. 11.   Konrad von Moltke, Possibilities for the Development of a Community Strategy for the Control of Lead. Bonn: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 1987. 12.   Richard Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. 13.   Haigh, loose-leaf (see fn. 10), 6–12.2. 14.   Office for Official Publications of the European Community, Treaties Establishing the European Communities (Abridged Edition). Luxembourg: EC, 1987, p. 282. 15.   Nigel Haigh and Frances Irwin, eds., Integrated Pollution Control in Europe and North America. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1990. 16.   Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Environmental Data Compendium. Paris: OECD, 1985, p. 285. 17.   Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Pollution Control and Abatement Expenditure in OECD Countries, A Statistical Compendium. (OECD Environment Monographs No. 38). Paris: OECD, 1986, pp. 11–12. 18.   Christopher J. Duerkson, Environmental Regulation of Industrial Siting: How to Make It Work Better. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1982. 19.   Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment (VROM), et al., Interim Evaluation of Acidification Policy in the Netherlands (VROM 80148/4088). The Hague: VROM, 1988, National

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals     Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), National Environmental Outlook 1990–2010. Bilthoven: RIVM, 1992. 20.   See Second Chamber of the States General, To Choose or to Loose, National Environmental Policy Plan. (session 1988–1989, 21 137 no. 2). 21.   Albert Adriaanse, Environmental Policy Performance Indicators. A Study on the Development of Indicators for Environmental Policy in the Netherlands. The Hague: Sdu Uitgeverij, 1993. 22.   Commission of the European Communities, Research and Technological Development. Achieving Coordination Through Cooperation. Communication from the Commission. COM (94) 438 final, 19. 10. 1994, p. 58. 23.   Commission of the European Communities, Research and Technological Development. Achieving Coordination through Cooperation. Communication from the Commission. COM (94) 438 final, 19. 10. 1994, p.55. 24.   German Bundestag, ed., Protecting the Earth's Atmosphere. An International Challenge. Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag, 1989. Konrad von Moltke, "Three Reports on German Environmental Policy," in: Environment vol. 33 no. 7 (September 1991), pp. 25–29. 25.   Kristy Hughes and Ian Christie, UK and European Science Policy. The Role of Cooperative Research Networks. London: Policy Studies Research Institute, n.d. (1995), pp. 50–80. 26.   Commission of the European Communities, Research and Technological Development. Achieving Coordination Through Cooperation. Communication from the Commission. COM (94) 438 final, 19. 10. 1994, p. 58. 27.   "Merger of Ministries Dismays Scientists," Financial Times, July 8/9, 1995, p. 4. 28.   See Konrad von Moltke, "Why UNEP Matters," Paper prepared for the Sustainable Resources Use Program of WWF International. 29.   Konrad von Moltke and Ginny Eckert, "The United Nations Development System and Environmental Management," World Development Vol. 20 No. 4 (1992), pp. 616–626. 30.   Konrad von Moltke, "The Last Round: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Light of the Earth Summit," Environmental Law Vol. 23 (1993), pp. 51–531; Konrad von Moltke, The Multilateral Trade Organization: Its Implications for Sustainable Development," Paper for the Workshop on Enforcement of International Environmental Agreements, University of California, San Diego, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, September 30, October 1–2, 1993. 31.   Konrad von Moltke, The Winnipeg Principles on Trade and Sustainable Development and the Maastricht Treaty. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995. 32.   See Nigel Haigh, Manual of Environmental Policy: The EC and Britain. Harlow: Longman (looseleaf), 12.1. Cameron Keyes, The European Community and Environmental Policy. An Introduction for Americans. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund, 1991. 33.   Commission of the European Communities, Towards Sustainability. A European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to Environment and Sustainable Development. Brussels: Commission, 1992. 34.   See above. 35.   Articles 130r-t. 36.   European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN); European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL); European Space Agency (ESA); European Southern Observatory (ESO); European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF); Institut Max von Laue-Paul Langevin (ILL); European Science Foundation (ESF); Joint Research Center (JRC) in Ispra. 37.   Figures for Austria, Finland, and Sweden are not yet available but these presumably also rank high. 38.   Commission of the European Communities, Research and Technological Development. Achieving Coordination Through Cooperation. Communication from the Commission. COM (94) 438 final, 19. 10. 1994. 39.   Commission of the European Community, Research and Technological Development, p. 2. 40.   European Commission, Environment and Climate 1994–1998 Work programme. Edition 1994.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals 41.   Commission of the European Community, Proposal for a Council Decision for the JRC Programme, COM (94) 68. 42.   See Konrad von Moltke, The Maastricht Treaty and the Winnipeg Principles on Trade and Sustainable Development. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995. 43.   Konrad von Moltke, Environmental Product Standards in the United States and Japan. Report for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London, 1993. 44.   The following is based on David Wallace, Environmental Policy and Industrial Innovation. Strategies in Europe, the US and Japan. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1995, pp. 95–110. 45.   Wallace p. 96. 46.   Wallace, p. 103. 47.   Cited in Williams, p. 104. 48.   Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Science and Technology Policy. Review and Outlook 1994. Paris: OECD, 1994, p. 73. 49.   Curtis Moore and Alan Miller, Green Gold. Japan, Germany, the United States, and the Race for Environmental Technology. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1994. 50.   Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Environmental Performance Review: Japan. Paris: OECD, 1993.

OCR for page 191
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals This page in the original is blank.