SOURCE: KF3775 .Z9 C275 AUTHOR: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government DOCTITLE: Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Federal Infrastructure SECTITLE: Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Federal Infrastructure DATE: 1992 SUBJECT: technology policy United States government policy R&D environmental research infrastructure S&T science and technology PUBLISHER: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government DOCTYPE: Book TITLEID: CC4055 ISBN_ISSN: 1881054055 Text: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE December 1992 CONTENTS FOREWORD PREFACE 1.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 S&T as Sources of Innovation 1.2 Improving the Federal Effort 1.3 Recommendations 1.4 The Way Forward 2.0 R&D FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 2.1 The Environmental Challenges of Today and Tomorrow 2.1.1 People and Global Environmental Change 2.1.2 Population Growth and Increasing Consumer Demand 2.1.3 Scale of Environmental Damage 2.1.4 Economic Benefits, Environmental Costs 2.1.5 The Key Role of Environmental R&D 2.1.6 S&T as Sources of Innovation 2.1.7 Natural and Social Sciences 2.1.8 Global Effort Needed 2.1.9 Goals and Priorities 2.1.10 An Effective Federal Environmental R&D Program 2.2 The Present R&D System: Why Improvements are Necessary 2.2.1 R&D Missions of the Major Departments and Agencies 2.2.2 Improving the Federal R&D Effort 2.2.3 Weaknesses of the Present System 2.2.4 Technology Development 2.2.5 U.S. Technology Policy and the Environment 2.2.6 Matching Resources with Problems 2.2.7 Organizational Considerations 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL R&D SYSTEM 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Leadership and the Research Agenda 3.2.1 The Office of Environmental Quality 3.2.2 Institute for Environmental Assessment 3.2.3 Environmental Research and Monitoring Initiative 3.2.4 Office of Science and Technology Policy 3.3 Strengthening the Federal R&D Infrastructure 3.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency 3.3.2 Environmental Monitoring Agency 3.3.3 National Center for Environmental Information 3.3.4 Environmental Technologies Program 3.3.5 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3.3.6 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 3.3.7 Department of the Interior 3.3.8 National Park Service 3.3.9 Bureau of Land Management 3.3.10 Department of Agriculture 3.3.11 Department of Energy National Laboratories 3.3.12 Department of Defense 3.3.13 Hazardous Waste R&D 3.4 Linking and Coordinating Programs 3.4.1 Strengthening Linkages 3.4.2 International Cooperation 3.4.3 Multidisciplinary Communication and Collaboration 3.4.4 Links with Nongovernmental Organizations 3.4.5 Links with Industry 3.5 Building a Strong Intellectual Base 3.5.1 National Science Foundation 3.5.2 Improving Education 3.6 Conclusion: Knowledge and Leadership for the Future 3.6.1 Knowledge and Progress 3.6.2 Supporting Agency Missions 3.6.3 Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Policy Development 3.6.4 Better Monitoring and Information Storage 3.6.5 Maintaining a Strong Science and Technology Base 3.6.6 Creating Linkages 3.6.7 The Importance of Leadership 3.6.8 The Paradox of Progress 4.0 APPENDIXES 4.1 Appendix A: Federal Environmental R&D Programs 4.2 Appendix B: Biographies of Task Force Members 5.0 NOTES AND REFERENCES 6.0 MEMBERS OF THE CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT 7.0 MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL, CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT 8.0 MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL R&D PROGRAMS FOREWORD Environmental protection is an issue that cuts across the missions of more than a dozen major federal departments and agencies. Consequently, environmental research and development programs are highly decentralized, and directing and coordinating these diverse efforts is a particular challenge for policymakers. Few would disagree that environmental protection and sustainable development will be among the highest priorities on the national agenda in the decades ahead. Since research and development programs will generate much of the intellectual basis for the environmental policies and actions of the future, it is essential that these programs be well organized, adequately funded, and closely linked with the policymaking process. The earth may be viewed as an interacting set of complex biological and physical systems, and a host of human actions can adversely affect them. Consequently, federal environmental R&D encompasses a broad range of programs housed in numerous departments and agencies. Today, the federal environmental R&D system is a loose collection of laboratories and programs, most of which were established to respond to the problems and priorities of the past. While many of these problems remain today, we also face a new set of challenges, and responding to them requires a more dynamic, interrelated organizational structure and more effective assessment and policymaking processes. Over the past two years, a task force of the nation's leading experts on environmental R&D focused their attention on the organizational and decision-making needs of the federal government in this area. Their findings and recommendations, presented in this report, were adopted by the Carnegie Commission in September of 1992. More than three decades ago, President John F. Kennedy spoke eloquently of the challenge facing the nation and the world: "It is our task in our time and in our generation to hand down undiminished to those who come after us, as was handed down to us by those who went before, the natural wealth and beauty which is ours."[*] This report was developed in that spirit. William T. Golden, Co-Chair Joshua Lederberg, Co-Chair Endnote [*] Address at the dedication ceremonies of the National Wildlife Federation Building, March 3, 1961. PREFACE This report was approved by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government in September of 1992. It was prepared by the Task Force on the Organization of Federal Environmental R&D Programs: Robert W. Fri, Co-Chair H. Guyford Stever, Co-Chair Douglas M. Costle Edward A. Frieman Stephen J. Gage Bruce W. Karrh Gordon J. F. MacDonald Gilbert S. Omenn David P. Rall Gilbert F. White Mark Schaefer, Senior Staff Associate Steven J. Kafka, Consultant The Task Force wishes to acknowledge the excellent analytical assistance of Michael Kowalok and Paul Locke. We are grateful to Jeffrey Porro for providing the Task Force with research and editorial assistance, to commission staff member Jeannette Aspden for editing the final document, to A. Bryce Hoflund and Jane Godshalk for assistance in producing the final report, and to Bonnie Bisol for aiding in the report release and distribution. We would also like to express our appreciation to Kathy Gramp and her colleagues at the American Association for the Advancement of Science for their thorough analysis of federal funding for environmental R&D. We wish to thank Jesse Ausubel, Jonathan Bender, David Beckler, and David Robinson for their helpful suggestions throughout the task force's work. We also thank Harvey Brooks, J. Clarence Davies, Jeanne Gorman, and K. Elaine Hoagland for providing the Task Force with helpful comments and suggestions. 1.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Over the past three decades considerable progress has been made in recognizing the seriousness of the world's environmental problems. Although many positive steps have been taken to ameliorate them, we are only beginning to understand the complexities of the problems we face. In the years ahead, continuing struggle is likely because the two most significant forces of environmental degradation -- the ever-growing world population and the drive for worldwide industrial and agricultural development -- continue unabated. The pressing and widespread threats to the biosphere appear more closely linked with the functioning of the world economy than they ever have before. Today's global economy has reinforced the geographic separation of resource extraction, production, and consumption. Hence, those who reap the economic benefits of using natural resources are often different from those who bear the environmental costs. This complex of issues was brought into sharper focus by the preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and by the conference itself. This new awareness led to an international agenda for research on environment and development and various nonbinding agreements, but much more must be done to stem global environmental degradation. 1.1 S&T As Sources Of Innovation Our ability to respond to the environmental and economic challenges of today and tomorrow is strongly dependent on the quality of the information produced by a well-organized and productive federal research and development system. This report addresses the research and development organizations and the decision-making processes that the federal government needs to enable it to work toward national and global environmental objectives. Until recently, a "catch up, clean up" approach has dominated U.S. environmental policies. Little attention has been paid to developing a proactive analytical and policymaking system that can identify trends, anticipate problems, and address causes instead of symptoms. Our policies are beginning to change, but leadership and innovative approaches to solving problems based on strong research and development programs are essential. More than twenty years ago the first images of the surface of the Earth as seen from the Moon helped people to visualize our planet as a unit, an integrated set of systems -- landmasses, atmosphere, oceans, the plant and animal kingdoms -- and to realize that threats to one could harm them all. Since then, considerable progress has been made in solving some of the problems facing the biosphere, but other threats to the environment persist, and new ones have emerged: the thinning of the ozone layer, the destruction of the rain forests, climate change, the contamination of groundwater, and new threats to wetlands, farmland, and other renewable resources. Most of our problems are due to human actions, especially those related to population growth and increased consumption of resources. These problems pose a special challenge to the world's scientific and engineering communities, one that evokes the image of the first human steps on the moon: Can scientists and engineers generate the kind of large-scale and highly focused effort that took us into space and apply it to developing the understanding necessary to protect our global environment? The environmental challenges that we face today demand a concerted international effort. Our ability to respond to these challenges is defined by what research is conducted, how it is organized, and how well it is presented and used in establishing and implementing environmental policy. A wide range of research advances will be needed if "sustainable development" is to be achieved -- growth that is a product of efficient consumption of energy and materials, minimizing waste and maximizing recycling, stabilizing land use, and assuring growth that does not damage the future environment on which further growth depends. The United States must play a leading role in this effort, and doing so requires a vital, well-integrated federal environmental R&D system. Unfortunately, the existing federal environmental R&D infrastructure was built for another time and for a set of issues that no longer correspond to today's problems. If the federal government is to provide the scientific resources and leadership that a national and global environmental protection effort requires, a careful examination and rethinking of its R&D effort is essential. 1.2 Improving The Federal Effort At first glance, the federal environmental research enterprise seems impressive. More than a dozen federal departments and agencies conduct environment-related R&D; total spending is some $5 billion a year (see Tables 1 and 2). The bulk of these expenditures is devoted to the physical sciences, with most of the remainder directed to engineering and the biological and health sciences (see Figure 1). Largely because of its origins as a series of individual programs initiated in response to specific problems, much of our current R&D system is diffuse, reactive, and focused on short-range, end-of-the-pipe solutions. And, because mechanisms to coordinate the products of environmental research conducted by federal, state, academic, and nongovernmental institutions are weak, it is difficult to develop the comprehensive information necessary to evaluate significant changes in the state of the environment. Today's complicated and urgent environmental challenges cannot be addressed in the piecemeal fashion of the past. At a time of intense international economic competition and growing federal budget deficits, careful matching of resources with problems is vital. The end of the Cold War and limitations on defense spending offer opportunities to focus more attention on other societal needs, such as environmental protection. We believe that the federal environmental R&D effort must be broadened, its agencies and programs better coordinated, and its resources more focused on identifying root causes and anticipating emerging problems. As a nation, we face enormous environmental challenges. Strong and effective federal R&D programs are a prerequisite to attacking these problems successfully and, in doing so, providing hope and a means of action for today's generation and those of the future. 1.3 Recommendations If the federal government is to meet the environmental and natural resources challenges of the future, the distribution of R&D responsibilities across all departments and agencies must be rethought. Key guiding organizational considerations include effective support of department and agency missions; a capacity to conduct strategic planning, anticipate future R&D needs, and undertake comprehensive policy analyses; effective monitoring, information storage, and retrieval capabilities; a strong science and technology base; and effective linkages with other federal and international environmental R&D programs. Our recommendations that follow are grouped into four broad categories: - Leadership and the research agenda - Strengthening the federal R&D infrastructure - Linking and coordinating programs - Building a strong intellectual base Leadership and the Research Agenda Leadership starts at the top, and the Executive Office of the President needs new mechanisms to foster cooperation between departments and agencies in their efforts to address high-priority problems. The President relies upon several entities within the Executive Office in setting the research agenda. These organizations must be strengthened in order to provide effective analysis and advice to the President on environmental issues. - The White House apparatus for establishing environmental policy and for guiding federal environmental R&D programs should be strengthened by expanding the responsibilities of the existing units in the Executive Office of the President and by establishing a new institutional capability to assess scientific and technical information and analyze environmental issues from the standpoint of economic, social, and political considerations. - The mission of the existing White House Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) should be expanded, giving it broad responsibility for developing environmental policies in the context of other considerations, particularly economic. The office should also work to identify ways in which the activities of all federal departments and agencies can be directed toward sustainable development and risk-reduction objectives. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. Shortly afterward, the White House Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) was established by the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. CEQ has always been the dominant organizational entity. However, over the past four years, CEQ has operated not as a council, but as an office administered by a chairman who also serves as the director of OEQ. We believe that the activities of CEQ should be integrated into the Office of Environmental Quality. We considered other organizational mechanisms to provide a focal point for environmental policymaking in the White House. Building on the existing OEQ, rather than establishing an entirely new entity is, in our view, the most efficient approach. We believe that OEQ's mission should be expanded and that it should be administered by a director who serves simultaneously as the Assistant to the President for the Environment. In this capacity the director should lead efforts in the White House to develop environmental policy options, presenting proposals to the President and the Cabinet for their consideration. The director should also be responsible for looking across all departments and agencies and identifying ways in which federal activities can be directed toward the environmental objectives of the President. As discussed in an earlier Commission report, actions should be taken "to assure the stable and sustained functioning of a high-level mechanism concerned with linking environment, energy, and the economy." [1] OEQ should work with OSTP to identify major R&D needs, to promote the improvement of risk assessment and risk management procedures, and to coordinate major R&D initiatives. In addition, OEQ should work closely with the Office of Management and Budget in guiding the budget process with respect to environmental programs. - An Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEA) should be established to evaluate global and national environmental problems and to develop alternative approaches to them. The federal government currently lacks a critical mass of individuals who can assess the information resulting from our natural science research efforts in the context of current economic, social, and political considerations. We recommend the establishment of an Institute for Environmental Assessment dedicated to the evaluation of global and national environmental problems, the analysis of research and monitoring data pertaining to them, the assessment of emerging environmental technologies, and the development of economic, legal, and social analyses to aid in the development of environmental and risk-related policies. The institute should be administered by a director who reports to the Director of the White House Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), or, alternatively, to the Secretary of a Department of the Environment. We recommend that the IEA be provided with funds to undertake analysis within the institute itself and to support the work of individuals and institutions outside of the federal government through grants and contracts. At least half the institute's funding should be devoted to extramural studies conducted within nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions. Depending on its size and mission, an IEA could be located in the Executive Office, or in the Environmental Protection Agency or a proposed Department of the Environment. Alternatively, it could function as a quasigovernmental institution operated by a nongovernmental organization but reporting to the OEQ in the Executive Office. - The President, with the guidance and support of Congress, should undertake an Environmental Research and Monitoring Initiative, a long-term effort to bring all federal environmental R&D programs into a common policy framework. The Initiative should be guided by the Director of the Office of Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and should involve the key administrators of federal R&D programs, as well as the Office of Management and Budget. The group should work to devise coherent short- and long-term R&D plans for each agency and department, including explicit goals and milestones. [2] Such an initiative could be a component of a broader National Environmental Strategy, which we understand the National Commission on the Environment will recommend in their upcoming report. [3] - The Office of Science and Technology Policy should coordinate a broader array of environmental R&D activities. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President is the science advisory unit of the White House, and is home to the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET). The Council has proved to be an effective mechanism for coordinating the management of certain federal R&D programs. We recommend that OSTP use FCCSET to aid in the development of coherent federal environmental R&D programs and to address problems that cut across departments and agencies. Close interaction between OSTP as it coordinates R&D programs, the Office of Environmental Quality as it develops environmental policy and identifies research needs, and the Office of Management and Budget as it devises budget priorities, is essential if the federal government is to achieve an integrated, forward-looking environmental protection program. Strengthening the Federal R&D Infrastructure Our federal environmental R&D system is broad, diverse, and highly decentralized. There is a need to strengthen the individual and collective R&D efforts at the nine major departments and agencies with environmental R&D programs, and to expand their capacity to contribute to the evaluation and implementation of environmental policies. - The federal environmental R&D infrastructure should be strengthened by improving and streamlining EPA's existing laboratory organization, by supporting a group of nonfederal Environmental Research Institutes, by organizing a new U.S. Environmental Monitoring Agency and a National Center for Environmental Information, and by enhancing R&D capabilities in several key federal agencies (see Section 3.4). - The Environmental Protection Agency's existing laboratory structure, now comprised of 12 laboratories, should be consolidated to create a National Ecological Systems Laboratory, a National Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, a National Environmental Engineering Laboratory, and a National Health Effects Research Laboratory. We recommend several substantial changes in the EPA laboratory structure to accommodate the growing need for integrated environmental systems research and monitoring. The first is the incorporation of EPA's six environmental processes and effects laboratories into a single national laboratory with multiple field locations. The second is the merging of EPA's two environmental monitoring support laboratories and the agency's other monitoring activities into a single national laboratory. [4] (See Figure 6). In addition, EPA's environmental engineering laboratories should be merged to form a single laboratory. The existing Health Effects Research Laboratory should be upgraded and designated a National Health Effects Research Laboratory. - EPA should establish and support up to six major Environmental Research Institutes (ERIs) associated with academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations across the country. EPA's current Centers of Excellence program supports four university- based Environmental Research Centers (ERCs), each specializing in a particular research topic of agency interest. The work of the ERCs is severely limited by inadequate funding, currently averaging about $1 million per center per year. We believe that this program should be phased out and replaced with a set of major Environmental Research Institutes. In order to have a real impact on the environmental challenges facing the nation and the world, we believe that each ERI should be funded at the level of $10 to $15 million annually for at least five years. We further propose that, after considering the views of a full range of experts from within and outside government, the EPA Science Advisory Board make recommendations to the EPA Administrator regarding the missions of the institutes. The institutes should operate cooperatively with the four EPA National Laboratories described above. It might be advantageous to choose problem- oriented themes for the institutes that cut across the missions of the intramural National Laboratories. Since the institutes should operate on a five-year cycle, this would allow the periodic modification of the institutes' priorities. In this manner, the institutes would function as a more flexible, problem-oriented, multidisciplinary component of the EPA or a proposed Department of the Environment, thereby complementing the structured, discipline-oriented, intramural National Laboratories. We envision a two-way flow of personnel between the National Laboratories and the institutes. This would give government scientists and engineers -- and social scientists -- an opportunity to benefit from the career growth and educational opportunities offered in the university setting. It would also enhance the National Laboratories by bringing some of the best scientists and engineers in the nation into government laboratories for extended periods. - A new federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Monitoring Agency (EMA), should be organized by combining the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, now within the Department of Commerce, with the U.S. Geological Survey, now within the Department of the Interior. Monitoring, mapping, inventorying, and forecasting with respect to our national and the global environment are the cornerstones of our federal environmental protection efforts. The present and future missions of NOAA and USGS are more similar to each other than they are to the missions of the departments in which they now reside. We believe that both organizations would operate more effectively together. The proposed Environmental Monitoring Agency (EMA) should maintain close ties with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in order to link NASA Earth Observing System (EOS) and related environmental monitoring efforts with its own activities. The EMA should make use of data from a wide range of other agencies, including EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Services. We believe that the EMA could operate as an independent federal agency; however, if a Department of the Environment is established, the EMA should be part of it. [5] - A National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) should be established within the proposed U.S. Environmental Monitoring Agency. Such a center would serve as a focal point for the storage and retrieval of environmental information generated from a range of sources, primarily federal departments and agencies, but also state and local governments, academia, industry, and nongovernmental organizations. The Center should be responsible for developing policies to ensure that environmental data are properly stored and readily accessible to all users (see Section 3.3). The NCEI should build strong ties with the National Library of Medicine (NLM), whose Board of Regents recently approved expansion of its efforts in toxicology and environmental health. [6] The R&D capabilities of several key federal agencies should be strengthened. The following recommendations are discussed in more detail in the report: - A federal interagency Environmental Technologies Program should be established to promote and support the development of advanced technologies by federal agencies, universities, industry, and nongovernmental organizations (see Section 3.3). - The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should link its environmental monitoring activities closely with those of other federal departments and agencies and of other nations (see Section 3.3). - The new research and training programs at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences should be expanded, and the Institute should establish closer ties with EPA's health research program (see Section 3.3). - The Department of the Interior should develop a long-range plan for its environmental R&D activities and should work to integrate and focus its programs in the context of clearly defined goals (see Section 3.3). - The National Park Service should establish a strong environmental research and monitoring program to build the knowledge base necessary to protect the resources of the National Park system (see Section 3.3). - The Bureau of Land Management should expand its environmental monitoring and technology programs and should seek the assistance of other federal agencies in devising land use, biological resources management, waste management, and monitoring programs to protect public lands and to ensure their productive use in the future (see Section 3.3). - The Department of Agriculture should continue to strengthen its environmental R&D by following the recommendations recently made by the National Research Council and the congressional Office of Technology Assessment that call for a substantial increase in funding for competitive research grants and for a more structured, integrated, and coordinated R&D planning system (see Section 3.3). - The R&D activities of the Department of Energy National Laboratories should be evaluated to determine their potential to make future contributions to national and international environmental R&D programs (see Section 3.3). - Department of Defense environment-related research and development efforts should be integrated with those of other federal departments and agencies. Alternatively, some of these activities could be transferred to environmental R&D programs within other departments and agencies (see Section 3.3). - A larger proportion of the funds devoted to the cleanup of hazardous waste at federal facilities should be directed to research and development (see Section 3.3). Linking and Coordinating Programs The global nature of environmental problems requires that U.S. environmental R&D programs operate in concert with those of other nations. Furthermore, the federal environmental R&D effort will operate most effectively if it is closely linked with complementary programs in academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. Since the environmental R&D system should be more than the sum of its parts, more effective interactions between all parties engaged in environmental R&D should be promoted. - In order to strengthen the link between environmental R&D and policy development, assessment capabilities across federal agencies should be expanded. Furthermore, U.S. environmental R&D programs should be coupled more closely with those of other nations. Greater cooperation among scientific disciplines and among federal, nongovernmental, and industrial research programs should be encouraged (see Section 3.4). - The linkages between environmental R&D and policy development should be strengthened, and the federal government should substantially increase its support of multidisciplinary policy studies and assessments designed to forge and evaluate these linkages. The development of effective environmental policy requires interaction among the natural sciences, economics, political science, and law, as well as many other disciplines. To date, however, federal agencies have focused their environmental R&D efforts on the natural sciences: no single institution is responsible for pursuing funding authority to advance multidisciplinary research involving the social sciences. We recommend that the federal government devote a larger percentage of total environmental R&D dollars to policy research and assessment, including studies of the economic, social, legal, and political aspects of environmental problems from regional, national, and international perspectives. - The United States should couple its environmental research and development efforts more closely with those of other nations. International agencies, including the United Nations Environment Program and specialized agencies such as the World Meteorological Organization, as well as key nongovernmental scientific organizations, are promoting a range of international collaborative R&D efforts. World Health Organization programs like the International Program on Chemical Safety make important contributions to public health throughout the world. The United States should actively support programs of this kind. The United States should also collaborate with the European Community countries and with academic institutions abroad to develop and share new technologies. Collaborative relationships between the research institutions of various countries would be particularly worthwhile. Other recommendations are discussed in more detail in the report: - Communication and collaboration between the ecological and environmental health research communities should be enchanced in order to evaluate and address environmental problems in an integrated fashion (see Section 3.4). - The environmental research and policymaking linkages between federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations should be strengthened (see Section 3.4). - Environmental R&D programs within the federal government and industry should be linked more closely, and the federal government should continue to provide incentives for environmental R&D efforts in industry in order to advance common goals (see Section 3.4). Building a Strong Intellectual Base An improved R&D system will survive only if it is built on a strong foundation. Implicit in the recommendations above is the assumption that there must be a pool of highly trained professionals to carry out the research and development activities that are crucial to our environmental protection programs. There is a critical need for a continuing supply of well-trained professionals and state-of-the-art facilities and equipment to support their research efforts. - The science and technology base that underpins our environmental R&D programs must be strengthened to ensure the availability of environmental scientists and engineers, social scientists, and policy analysts, and to ensure adequate facilities and equipment to support their work (see Section 3.5). - The National Science Foundation and other government agencies should take steps to strengthen the base upon which our national environmental R&D programs are built. The scope and direction of grant programs in NSF and other agencies that support environmental R&D activities in universities, nongovernmental organizations, and elsewhere should be examined carefully to determine if additional funding is needed to support certain kinds of research activities. We believe that the NSF, in particular, should substantially expand extramural grants programs devoted to research designed to integrate the thinking across multiple disciplines, including policy research and assessment. NSF should pay particular attention to the adequacy of the nation's environmental science and technology disciplinary base. In addition, NSF, with the assistance of the National Research Council, should undertake a study of the future environmental R&D-related human resource needs of the nation. - Both government and the private sector should take deliberate steps to improve educational programs in the environmental sciences. Undergraduate biological, physical, engineering, business, and economics educational programs should include an environmental science component in their curricula. Graduate and postdoctoral training programs in the environmental and social sciences should be expanded. 1.4 The Way Forward It is clear that wealth and physical resources alone will not be enough to solve the daunting environmental challenges we face. Advanced knowledge of earth's systems and processes is crucial, and developing it requires a strong federal effort in environmental R&D. If adopted, our recommendations would aid in accomplishing several objectives, including a strengthening of the contribution of environmental R&D to the missions of federal departments and agencies. Monitoring and information storage would be improved, as would the government's ability to engage in assessment, strategic planning, and more effective environmental policy development. Better linkages among federal entities and with outside organizations will yield new knowledge, and investments in a strong science and technology base will help to ensure a continuing flow of high-quality environmental R&D. Fundamentally, however, the federal government's environmental R&D effort suffers from weak leadership. It is a lack of direction, focus, and coordination that most limits the federal R&D enterprise. The United States has the ability to remain at the forefront of environmental R&D and consequently to meet the global environmental protection needs of the 21st century, but significant improvements must be made in our present system. 2.0 R&D FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 2.1 The Environmental Challenges Of Today And Tomorrow For most of those who watched the first moon landing in July 1969, two indelible images remain. The first is the television picture of the surface of the moon as Neil Armstrong stepped from the lunar lander. The second is the image of the surface of the Earth, that breathtaking picture of our planet as seen from our closest celestial neighbor. The first image was a triumphal one, summarizing a decade of American technological achievements in space. But for many the second image was a warning. At a time when public awareness of environmental problems was very much in its infancy, that image of our planet helped people to understand that the Earth is an integrated set of systems -- landmasses, the atmosphere, oceans, the plant and animal kingdoms -- and that a threat to one could harm them all. As one observer has written, "The image brought home as never before that our home is, after all, a planet -- small, self- contained, and in some ways perhaps, fragile." [7] In the more than twenty years since the nation first saw the images from the Moon, scientific knowledge about the components of the earth's biosphere and the effects of human activity on them has increased, public concern has grown, and national, state, and local governments have enacted a wide range of environmental programs. As a result, progress has been made in some of the problem areas that first attracted widespread attention in the late 1960s. A 1991 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) listed a number of achievements. These included reduction of urban air pollution by lead, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter; reduced pollution of waterways by organic substances as a result of treatment of household and industrial wastewater; a decrease in the number of accidental oil spills; increases in the area of protected land and habitats; increased forest resources; better protection of a number of game species; a growing population of several threatened species; and reduction in the release into the environment of certain dangerous chemicals, such as DDT, PCBs, and mercury compounds. [8] Some time after the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Environment, however, a review by the United Nations Environment Program found that human interventions in natural systems had increased on a massive scale, and that there was an urgent need for remedial and preventive action. Those interventions had been accompanied by momentous advances in industrial activity and agricultural production and in human longevity and health. [9] The past two decades have thus seen the persistence of some threats to the environment and the emergence of dangerous new ones. While there is less sulfur dioxide in the air in some cities, nitrogen oxides, urban smog, and fine particulates continue to be major problems. Growing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten to raise global temperatures. In the middle and late 1980s, the discovery of a thinning in the ozone layer over Antarctica led to the judgment that the Earth's protective ozone layer is being depleted much more quickly in some regions than had been thought. About 27 million acres of tropical forest are estimated to be disappearing each year, taking with them a wealth of biological diversity that can never be replaced. Groundwaters, once thought to be invulnerable to contamination, have deteriorated because of salinization and pollution from urban runoff, pesticides, and seepage from contaminated industrial sites. Soil continues to be degraded by erosion and pollution from a wide range of sources, and development is putting pressure on critical environmental areas such as coastal regions and wetlands, farmland, and natural preserves. Many areas are becoming more vulnerable to extreme events such as droughts and floods. In short, our planet is still very much in danger. 2.1.1 People And Global Environmental Change Although each of these problems has unique characteristics, all have a common cause -- the actions of humans. The Earth's environment has experienced dramatic changes in its five-billion-year history, but most have resulted from natural events: the movement of continents and oceans, the coming and going of ice ages, changes in the magnetic orientation of the Earth, the evolution and extinction of plant and animal species. These natural forces continue to work today, but as a recent National Research Council study stressed: "The earth has entered a period of hydrological, climatological, and biological change that differs from previous episodes of global change in the extent to which it is human in origin. Humans have always sought to transform their surroundings. But, for the first time, they have begun to play a central role in altering global biogeochemical systems and the earth as a whole." [10] 2.1.2 Population Growth And Increasing Consumer Demand Human population growth and increased and more diverse consumer demand are the chief driving forces for this stress on the biosphere. Population growth has been dramatic. Human population did not reach the one billion mark until about 1830. It reached two billion in the 1930s, four billion in 1975, and will probably reach six billion in 1997. The rate of future growth and the times at which population may be expected to stabilize vary greatly from region to region and are determined by social and economic factors that affect development in each country. With current growth rates, world population would double again in 40 years, but the doubling figure may come much sooner or later, depending upon policies adopted in the meantime. [11] More people consume more resources. Although technological advance can help alleviate the stresses imposed by population growth, technical fixes and economic expansion alone cannot be relied on to solve the population problem. [12] But population growth per se is only part of the problem. The quantity and diversity of goods consumed by many of the Earth's people have been rising. While this means that some people are better off, many of the processes that raise living standards deplete the vital resources -- soils, forests, species, water -- on which future populations depend. Thus, while population growth is slowing in wealthier countries, these nations continue to use more energy and other natural resources and produce more contaminants than do developing nations. The combination of population growth and rising consumer demand has particularly ominous implications for the future. The people in poorer nations want and deserve living standards more like those of the developed world. However, the challenge is to raise their living standards without further damaging the environment and making them more vulnerable to natural disaster. As William Ruckelshaus has warned, "If the four-fifths of humanity now in developing nations attempt to create wealth using the methods of the past, at some point the result will be unacceptable world ecological damage." [13] 2.1.3 Scale Of Environmental Damage The scale of environmental damage has also increased dramatically. Human- induced environmental damage was once characterized by local episodes of pollution that were confined to discrete geographical areas. Now cause and effect often lie in different parts of the globe. For example, pollutant emissions from factories in one part of the globe may cause acid rain half a continent or more away. Introducing irrigated farming in one part of the world may reduce the productivity of marine fisheries elsewhere by altering water quality and flow patterns through damming or consumption. The use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the developed world affects the atmosphere for people on every continent. The need to address environmental problems in the context of local communities, each with its distinctive combination of resources and people, is becoming more and more urgent. Significant environmental degradation is taking place over decades and years, not centuries. Moreover, the actions of humans today can have effects far into the future that will be difficult to reverse in the short run. Some, such as the extinction of species, are irreversible. Because environmental systems are operating closer to their limits, the problems are likely to occur sooner, and systems are likely to take longer to recover. For example, the CFCs we emit today will continue to deplete stratospheric ozone for decades, and arresting the growth of emissions of greenhouse gases still leaves us with the possibility of global climate change for years into the future. 2.1.4 Economic Benefits, Environmental Costs The pressing and widespread threats to the biosphere appear more closely linked with the functioning of the world economy than ever before. Today's global economy has reinforced the geographic separation of resource extraction, production, and consumption. Hence, those who reap the economic benefits of using natural resources are often different from those who bear the environmental costs. This complex of issues was brought into sharper focus by the preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and by the conference itself. This new awareness led to an international agenda for research on environment and development and various nonbinding agreements, but much more must be done to stem global environmental degradation. 2.1.5 The Key Role Of Environmental R&D The nation will be able to deal much more effectively with environmental problems once they are better understood. Our ability to understand earth processes and human dynamics is determined by what research is conducted, how it is organized, and how well it is assessed and presented in establishing and implementing environmental policy. And our ability to identify, control, prevent, and clean up pollutants is limited by the effectiveness of the technologies we develop and our ingenuity in finding sound means of promoting the widespread adoption of those technologies. Environmental problems pose a special challenge to the world's scientific and engineering communities, one that evokes the image of the first human steps on the Moon: Can scientists and engineers generate the kind of large- scale and highly focused effort that took us into space and apply it to developing the understanding necessary to protect our global environment? 2.1.6 S&T As Sources Of Innovation We believe that our ability to respond to the environmental and economic challenges of today and tomorrow is strongly dependent on the information produced by a well-organized and productive federal research and development system. But we also recognize that protecting the environment will require a new and more effective application of scientific and technological skills. Many of the accomplishments of science and technology that have helped achieve a higher standard of living in the past have been geared to using more and more resources to produce more and more goods and services. As Congressman George E. Brown, Jr., recently described the problem: "If we embrace the belief in science and technology as the great contributors to progress, then are we also embracing resource depletion, environmental degradation, and economic disparity in the name of this progress?" He points out that the solution is to "begin to think of science and technology in entirely different terms -- not as mechanisms to increase our wealth and comfort through exploitation of material resources, but as sources of innovation that can drive us to less consumption, less pollution, less depletion of resources, and lower rates of population growth." [14] Technology has already allowed us to use resources more efficiently, but meeting the future demands of both developing and developed countries will require new technologies that are highly efficient and that result in little or no waste (see Box 1). BOX 1: Low-Waste/No-Waste Technologies -- the Key to Attaining Global Environmental Goals If global environmental goals are to be attained, governmental policies must encourage development of low-waste/no-waste technologies. The efforts of the Du Pont Company provide one example of the potential of American industry to promote environmentally benign technologies. Du Pont invented nylon and has produced it in the United States for more than 50 years. The processes by which the final product as well as the major intermediate compounds are made have been improved continually in terms of yield, quality, and waste minimization. Currently, two U.S. plants make the primary intermediate compounds through essentially identical processes, resulting in the same yield and quality characteristics and about the same waste generation and emission. A new, advanced plant is now being built by Du Pont in Singapore to produce the key nylon intermediate, adipic acid. It will use the same process, based on cyclohexane technology, as the two U.S. plants. The process has, however, been improved so that there is a higher yield of product, less consumption of energy, and considerably less waste generated (about 20 percent less waste water alone); air emissions have also been reduced, by 97 to 99 percent. A material that was formerly waste has also been turned into a beneficial product for commercial sale. Greenhouse gases, now emitted from the plants in the United States, will be reclaimed or destroyed, and not released to the atmosphere. Overall, the Singapore plant will be less energy-intensive and much more environmentally friendly than the existing plants. Du Pont's next-generation adipic acid plant is being planned for Europe, where the company plans to use a step change in technology that will bring further improvements to the product and reduce the potential environmental load from the plant even more than the Singapore plant. This technology will achieve considerable reductions in air and water emissions, and by- products will be converted back to feedstock and recycled into the process. No oxides of nitrogen or waste water will be released into the environment. Commercialization of this facility is expected within the next 4 to 6 years. After the new technologies have been proven in commercial operations, the process and environmental improvements both the Singapore and European plants will be considered for retrofitting into the U.S. plants. * * * * * 2.1.7 Natural And Social Sciences Meeting the challenges of the future requires research in both the natural and social sciences, as well as multidisciplinary studies that cut across fields of science. A major research goal in the natural sciences, for example, is to advance our knowledge of earth systems so that environmental processes can be better modeled. This will require sophisticated technology, including space-based and earth-based observation systems to collect data and to verify model predictions, and information management systems to maintain comprehensive databases. Advances in the biomedical sciences will cast light on the susceptibilities of humans to environmental risks. More knowledge of the basic mechanisms of initiation, promotion, and prevention of diseases and disorders will allow us to anticipate, and respond to, environmental health threats. Similarly, advances in all areas of environmental engineering, earth systems, and social sciences are needed in order to identify and develop new pollution prevention techniques and to promote mitigation measures. Perhaps most important, a wide range of research advances will be needed if "sustainable development" is to be achieved -- growth that is a product of efficient consumption of energy and materials, minimizing waste and maximizing recycling, stabilizing land use, and ensuring that no damage is done to the future environment on which further growth depends. Society, however, cannot apply a quick technological fix to every environmental problem it encounters. The social sciences have a vital role to play in understanding how human activities influence the physical, chemical, and biological processes of the earth system and in devising means of changing patterns of human behavior. Finding more effective ways to promote stable population is especially important. Since environmental degradation is closely linked with industrialization, we must explore ways to harness economic forces to work for environmental protection, not against it. 2.1.8 Global Effort Needed Ultimately, ensuring that our planet will sustain the human family in perpetuity will take a global effort with keen sensitivity to geographic diversity. The importance of international collaboration in environmental R&D is underscored by the past record of research accomplishments. U.S. R&D efforts in many areas have been influenced strongly by the accomplishments of scientists and engineers in other nations. For example, much of the original research on major environmental problems, such as acid rain and global climate change, was done by investigators in Europe and Scandinavia. [15] The United States, as a major source of scientific and technological know-how, will have to play a leading role, in concert with other major developed countries. 2.1.9 Goals And Priorities Finally, it is important to articulate our environmental goals clearly and to set well-defined priorities. To achieve a sustainable society, we must have a clear understanding of our environmental objectives and a strategy for achieving them. This is especially true at a time when both developing and developed countries are faced with major economic challenges. Since not all environmental problems can be solved at once, we must determine which are the most important. A close linkage between the needs of policymakers and the research enterprise is essential for this purpose. 2.1.10 An Effective Federal Environmental R&D Program As a nation, we face enormous environmental challenges, and strong and effective federal R&D programs are a prerequisite to attacking these problems successfully and, in doing so, providing hope and a means of action for today's generation and those of the future. As the chapters that follow will show, the existing federal R&D structure was constructed for a time and set of issues that no longer correspond to today's demands. An examination and rethinking of the federal government's environmental R&D effort is essential in order to ensure the scientific resources and leadership that a national and global environmental protection effort requires. 2.2 The Present R&D System: Why Improvements Are Necessary 2.2.1 R&D Missions Of The Major Departments And Agencies Although the definition of environmental R&D can vary widely, we define it as research and development directed to maintaining environmental quality, including monitoring, testing, evaluation, prevention, mitigation, assessment, and policy analysis. This definition includes - Investigations designed to understand the structure and function of the biosphere and the impact that human activities have on it - Research to understand the conditions necessary to support human existence without destroying the resource base - Research to define the properties and adverse effects of toxic substances on human health and the environment - The development of technologies to monitor pollutants and their impacts - The development of pollution-control technologies - The economic and social research directed at understanding the many complex, interrelated factors that influence environmental quality. [16] Using this definition, we examined federal R&D programs in the natural and physical sciences devoted to understanding both the pristine and degraded states of our air, land, water, and biological resources. We also considered programs directed at understanding the impacts of pollution on public health, as well as social science activities focusing on the human causes of and responses to resource depletion and environmental change. Much environmental R&D is not directly related to the impacts of pollution. A large proportion of the federal effort is devoted to understanding earth systems, including air, land, and ocean resources. Understanding these systems is critical to national and global environmental protection efforts. Many federal agencies support environment-related research and development. The federal government spent more than $5 billion on environmental R&D in fiscal year 1992. The bulk of this research was in the environmental sciences ($3.6 billion) and engineering ($1.1 billion) areas; information sciences ($195 million) and work in the social sciences ($40 million) made up the remainder (see Figure 1). Table 1 shows estimated federal support for environmental R&D by field of science, and Table 2 shows funding for environmental R&D by department and agency. Major environmental research programs support the missions of numerous federal departments and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Defense. [17] The activities of these departments and agencies are described in Appendix A and are summarized in Box 2, and it is on the programs of these agencies that our analysis focuses. BOX 2: R&D Missions of the Major Departments and Agencies More than twenty governmental organizations house R&D programs related to environmental quality. Specific environmental research programs support the missions of nine major federal departments and agencies.[*] Depending on how broadly one defines "environment," the federal government spent nearly $5 billion on environmental R&D in fiscal year 1992. In the descriptions that follow, the budget figures for particular years refer to fiscal years. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has a strong applied research program and is the de facto "lead agency" for environmental R&D, overseeing several programs that comprise the largest internal environmental research effort in the federal government. Regulation has been its dominant concern. The agency operates its research programs within the Office of Research and Development (ORD). ORD's eight offices and twelve laboratories had a 1992 budget of $502 million. ORD's Office of Exploratory Research coordinates a small extramural program in basic, long-term research. EPA has traditionally devoted a small proportion of its resources to basic research. In real dollars, EPA's R&D budget declined by about 11 percent between 1980 and 1992. National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic scientific and engineering research, education, and training in the environmental field through competitive grant programs. Two major divisions, covering a wide range of disciplines, funded research totaling more than $540 million in 1992, making NSF the largest source of extramural grants in the environmental field. The major directorates of NSF fund research in biotic systems and resources, biosciences, geoscience, and the anthropogenic causes and effects of ecological change. This funding supports research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a number of oceanographic centers. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within the Department of Commerce, maintains an environmental research program that focuses on oceanic and atmospheric technology. The program includes work in applied weather research, water quality and coastal ecosystem management, marine life, and global climate change. Some $319 million was spent in 1992 for environment- related research at NOAA, an increase of more than 50 percent over the $216 million appropriated just three years ago. (This figure does not include $265 million to support the National Environment Satellite, Data, and Information Service.) Department of Energy. The Department of Energy (DOE) operates a program in Biological and Environmental Research that aims to identify, understand, and anticipate the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy use. Many of the key programs are carried out through the Office of Energy Research and the Fossil Energy Division; also involved are the National Environmental Research Parks and the National Laboratories system. DOE spent nearly $800 million on environmental R&D in 1992. DOE plans to devote tremendous resources to the cleanup of waste generated at federal facilities engaged in weapons research. However, only a small proportion of these resources can be classified as R&D. Department of the Interior. The bulk of environmental R&D at the Department of the Interior (DOI) is located in three of the department's five divisions, with the largest programs at the U.S. Geological Survey ($367 million in 1992), and the Fish and Wildlife Service ($85 million). USGS conducts research to gather, classify, and analyze information on land, water, mineral and energy resources; FWS manages the nation's fish and wildlife resources and conducts research through a system of National Research Centers and Cooperative Research Units. Small programs exist in the National Park Service, the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Bureau of Land Management, and in other units, including the Bureau of Reclamation. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's environment-related R&D is largely devoted to monitoring changes in land surface, oceans, and atmosphere through space-based observations. Through its Earth Observing System (EOS) program NASA coordinates international efforts to monitor global change. NASA devoted $826 million to environment-related research programs in 1992. Department of Health and Human Services. The focal point for government research in the environmental health field is the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) within the National Institutes of Health. NIEHS supports several university-based Environmental Health Science Centers and supports pre- and post-doctoral training in environmental health sciences. Research funding at NIEHS in 1992 was $303 million. Like other NIH institutes, it sponsors a large extramural grants program. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control (CEHIC), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also engage in environmental health research. ATSDR is responsible for conducting applied research on the health effects of exposure to hazardous substances, while CEHIC engages in basic toxicology research. NIOSH's mission is to conduct research to ensure safe and healthful working conditions.[+] In 1992, $93 million was spent on research at NIOSH. In addition, the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), located within the Food and Drug Administration, conducts research on food contaminants and is working to advance risk assessment methodologies. Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) houses the majority of its environment-related research in three program areas: the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the Cooperative State Research Service. For fiscal year 1992, the Forest Service research program focuses on "national problem" areas, including tropical forestry, recycling, and the ecological and social values of forest land. The Forest Service's 1992 R&D budget was about $115 million. Soil erosion, irrigation, and pesticides and fertilizer studies constitute the bulk of the research program of the Agricultural Research Service. Funding for the ARS was $162 million in 1992. The Cooperative State Research Service budget was $119 million. Department of Defense. All three branches of the military in the Department of Defense (DOD) have programs in environmental R&D. The largest of these efforts is in the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in the Department of the Navy. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has an active wetlands study program and coordinates the Strategic Environmental Resources and Development Program. Research at DoD is divided into two major categories: the natural environment and environmental quality. The budget for environmental R&D within DoD was $577 million in 1992. Smithsonian Institution. Though relatively small, with a budget in FY 1992 of $33 million, the Smithsonian's environmental R&D effort covers a wide range of areas, including biodiversity, ecology, conservation, and the history of the interaction between people and nature. Other Agencies. Small environmental R&D programs are also found at the Agency for International Development, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Department of Transportation. Endnotes [*] For a detailed discussion see Steven J. Kafka. [16] [+] NIOSH FY1992 Budget Justification, p. 487. * * * * * 2.2.2 Improving The Federal R&D Effort At first glance, the federal environmental research and development effort seems impressive. More than a dozen federal departments and agencies conduct environment-related R&D, and total annual federal funding is more than $5 billion. Unfortunately, the scope, quality, and organization of this effort are unequal to the increasingly complex challenges to environmental R&D that we outlined earlier. FIGURE 1: 1992 Federal Environmental R&D Expenditures, by Field of Science TABLE 1: Estimated Federal Funding for Environmental R&D, by Category ($ billions, Fiscal Year 1992) Environmental sciences 3.6 Physical 2.2 Biological 0.9 Health 0.5 Engineering 1.1 Information Sciences 0.2 Social Sciences <0.1[a] 5.0[b] Endnotes [a] Approximately $40 million. [b] Total reflects rounding. Source: Based on an analysis by Kathleen Gramp, Albert H. Teich, and Stephen D. Nelson, American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Federal Funding of Environmental R&D," a report to the National Academy of Sciences and the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. TABLE 2: Estimated Federal Funding for Environmental R&D by Agency million, Fiscal Year 1992) Environmental Protection Agency 502 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 319 National Science Foundation 541 Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 303[a] National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) 93 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 55[b] National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) 3[c] Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 367 Fish and Wildlife Service 85 Other 72 Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service 162 Cooperative State Research Service 119 Forest Service 115 Other 7 Department of Energy 799 Department of Defense 577 Department of Transportation 17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 826 Smithsonian Institution 33 Agency for International Development 45 Tennessee Valley Authority 31 TOTAL 5,071 Endnotes [a] Includes $51 million transferred under Superfund from EPA to NIEHS. [b] Funds are transferred to ATSDR from EPA through Superfund program. [c] The entire NCTR budget is about $30 million. An estimated 10 percent of the center's budget is devoted to environment-related R&D. Source: Based on an analysis by Kathleen Gramp, Albert H. Teich, and Stephen D. Nelson, American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Federal Funding of Environmental R&D," a report to the National Academy of Sciences and the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. Our present environmental R&D system is the product of its origins and so is organized to deal with the simpler issues of the past. It began as a series of individual research programs that were undertaken in response to specific problems such as urban smog and the pollution of lakes and rivers. The first programs tended, therefore, to be short-term and crisis-oriented, focusing on mitigating dangers to the public health. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, much of our attention was devoted to hazard identification: many chemicals had been used in commerce since the 1940s, but we knew little or nothing about their effects on human health or the environment. Over the years, many federal laboratories were established in response to specific environmental concerns. Today, however, these laboratories do not meet the nation's needs. D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, recently described the need to rethink the missions of federal research laboratories There are over 700 federal laboratories, and we invest over $20 billion a year in them. They embrace an astonishing breadth and depth of science and technology, including some of the best science and technology to be found anywhere in the world. Many of these laboratories were established in the immediate post-World War II period, and they originally had very specific missions and objectives. Many of these original missions were satisfied years ago, so that the laboratories are having to adjust their programs to remain in close touch with evolving national needs. As components of the federal R&D enterprise, federal laboratories engaging in environmental R&D must redefine their missions in the context of evolving national needs. [18] 2.2.3 Weaknesses Of The Present System Ten or twenty years ago, questions about whether current land and water use could be maintained in the foreseeable future received relatively little attention. A "catch up, clean up" approach dominated the environmental protection agenda. Little attention was paid to developing an integrated, forward-looking R&D system that would identify trends, anticipate problems, and address root causes instead of symptoms. [19] As a result, two decades later our R&D system remains diffuse, reactive, and focused on short-range, end-of-the-pipe solutions. Mechanisms to coordinate and integrate the products of environmental research conducted by federal, state, academic, and nongovernmental institutions are weak. Until recently, pollution reduction and prevention have received relatively little attention. We have difficulty developing the comprehensive information necessary to evaluate the state of the environment, the subtle ways in which it is changing, and the opportunities to help human populations become more resilient. Limitations in our ability to coordinate, assess, and disseminate research information hamper the public and private sectors' efforts to attack environmental problems. Finally, research to date on the international aspects of environmental conditions has received a relatively low priority in the federal government. [20] A number of organizations, such as Resources for the Future and the World Resources Institute, have invested in international research on the social and ecological consequences of U.S. environmental policy, but relatively little has been done directly by federal agencies. Insufficient resources are devoted to environmental biology, and there is a need for more interdisciplinary studies. Most ecological processes are inadequately understood, and several organizations have recommended increased federal funding in this area. Geographical studies of the interrelation of land, water, and biota in landscapes and regions are conspicuously weak. At both regional and local scales, economic, social, and political studies of environmental issues must be better integrated with studies in the natural sciences. [21] 2.2.4 Technology Development In discussing these issues, it is important to emphasize the "D" of environmental R&D -- that is, technology development as separate from scientific inquiry. While research into the fundamental causes and processes of environmental problems is crucial, equally important is the technological research undertaken to develop methods of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. In other words, technology development seeks to offer solutions to the environmental problems that environmental research has uncovered and analyzed. Costs and Benefits of Technology Historically, more advanced technology has often had detrimental environmental impacts; witness the widespread use of fossil fuels with the advent of the industrial age, the development of synthetic materials and their toxic by-products, or the soil erosion that accompanies more mechanically intensive farming practices. Technology development need not result in more pollution, however; on the contrary, technologies today are central to our efforts to protect the environment. The most promising areas for realizing the gains of environmental technology today relate to energy use and the development of alternative fuels, to agricultural practices that use less harmful pesticides developed through biotechnology, and to the reduction and prevention of pollution in industrial production processes. Industry Role Private industry is a major player in environmental R&D, particularly in applied research on environmental technologies. It is estimated that private industry funds more than half of all the R&D in the nation and that it conducts another 20 percent of the total through government contracts. In all, private industry is responsible for more than 70 percent of all R&D in the United States. [22] And although it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how much privately funded research is related to the environment, a recent report by the World Resources Institute on environmentally critical technology states that up to half of industry R&D budgets is directed toward environmental technology R&D. [23] For quite some time, industry's efforts in environmental R&D were limited to developing technologies and processes aimed at meeting the requirements of environmental regulations. Today, however, industry's focus on environmental concerns results not only from the need to meet governmental standards; an even greater incentive is the potential for seizing new business opportunities and realizing economic gains. Industry is moving quickly to develop environmentally sound technologies that will use energy more efficiently and generate less waste, leading in turn to lower production and disposal costs. The potential market for new and emerging technologies in air pollution control, composite materials, nonfossil fuels, bioengineering, and other fields is large, and industry is racing to capture it through its environmental technology R&D efforts. "Environmentally friendly" has become a powerful marketing tool as well, as producers aim to attract consumers with products that have less harmful impacts on the environment. Federal Role in Industrial Technology Technology development was originally thought to be exclusively in the private sector's domain. But beginning with technological research in defense, space, and energy, a consensus has developed that government does have a role in promoting technology development, primarily at the precompetitive stage or the stage at which knowledge is nonproprietary and broadly applicable. [24] Technology is recognized as vital to economic development, and so is intricately wrapped up in public policy considerations. The 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act committed the government to supporting technology development that is "essential for long-term security and economic prosperity." Today it is becoming clear that environmental technologies fit this description. The federal government is involved in promoting industrial efforts in environmental R&D in several ways. Besides the direct federal funding of R&D through contracts, the government also promotes industrial efforts in environmental R&D through economic incentives. A 20 percent tax credit for increments to R&D, enacted in 1981, aims to encourage R&D by reducing the overall cost of R&D by up to 4 percent. The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 allows private companies to form research alliances without facing antitrust allegations. The government is also a major purchaser of industrial products. Government procurement policies and specifications can have a significant impact on industrial programs. The Carnegie Commission's report Technology and Economic Performance cited the need for government to provide incentives for private-sector R&D through a stable regulatory environment to decrease investment risk and uncertainty, and through opportunities for the commercialization of technologies developed under government contract. [25] Public-Private Partnership The idea of a more explicit public-private partnership in environmental R&D is only beginning to take shape. The National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation (NETAC) is an example of such a partnership. Established in 1988, NETAC is a nonprofit consulting company set up through a cooperative agreement with EPA to focus on environmental technology commercialization. NETAC has programs directed at the evaluation of new technologies, international technology transfer, and technology development, demonstration, and evaluation, among others. It works to combine a private-sector profit orientation with a thorough understanding of the demands and goals of government regulation. We believe that this kind of partnership, focused on the needs of both the public and private sectors, is a step in the right direction. 2.2.5 U.S. Technology Policy And The Environment Despite the growing importance of environmental R&D in private industry and the undeniable connections between technology development and economic health, to date there has been little prominence given to environmental issues in U.S. technology policy. While other nations around the world support technological development as a way of solving national economic problems, some devoting entire government departments to issues of technology, the United States lacks even a "comprehensive coordinating mechanism within the Federal government to evaluate the Federal effort in developing technology." [26] The lack of Federal support in basic technology development and the lack of a long-term technology policy led the World Resources Institute to conclude that the "need for the new technology to solve the environmental problems has been inadequately recognized and that the government's role in encouraging such technologies is underdeveloped." [27] 2.2.6 Matching Resources With Problems Environmental protection efforts are expensive, and at a time of intense international economic competition and growing federal deficits, it is important to match resources carefully with problems. Over the past twenty years, the United States (combined government and private efforts) has spent close to $1 trillion on pollution control. It is estimated that environmental regulations imposed additional costs totaling $109 billion in 1992, and that these costs will increase to $184 billion annually by 2000. [28] The economic benefits are more difficult to quantify but may exceed the costs by a large margin. FIGURE 2: Federal Environmental R&D Spending vs. All Other Federal R&D Spending (1992) Although regulatory costs are very large, the federal environmental R&D effort represents just 7 percent of total government R&D expenditures and 14 percent of total nondefense R&D expenditures (see Figure 2). With a budget deficit estimated at nearly $400 billion for fiscal year 1992, and large deficits expected in future years, the federal government will be constrained in its ability to address environmental needs. As in the past, federal funding for environmental protection is not likely to keep pace with environmental problems and the expense of addressing them. [29] However, if we are to attain the goal of reducing environmental regulatory costs while simultaneously improving environmental quality and addressing emerging problems, a robust environmental R&D effort is essential -- one that carefully directs expenditures so that they yield maximum returns. 2.2.7 Organizational Considerations The structure and function of federal R&D programs are largely determined by the organization and mission of the federal departments and agencies they support. The federal environmental R&D infrastructure is shown in Figure 3. Federal agencies and departments cannot carry out their missions without the scientific and technological foundation created by research and development. Clearly, federal R&D programs must be organized in such a way that this fundamental requirement can be met. We do not believe, however, that a mere rearrangement of existing agencies and programs will solve the problem of directing environmental R&D toward its new and larger challenges. To be sure, reorganization may improve the management of current programs. But it is precisely this intimate -- and necessary -- connection with existing agency missions that most inhibits environmental R&D in tracking new problems. FIGURE 3: Current Federal Environmental R&D Infrastructure Thus, while we take as given that environmental R&D should continue to support existing agency missions, we have been guided by other, broader principles in developing our recommendations -- a capability to conduct strategic planning, to anticipate future R&D needs, and to undertake policy analyses; effective monitoring, information storage, and assessment capabilities; a strong science and technology base; and effective linkages with other federal and international programs. The key to achieving all of these objectives is leadership, particularly at the White House level. We discuss these principles briefly before moving on to our recommendations. Structural Fragmentation Structural fragmentation of environmental R&D hampers the strategic planning and policy coordination needed to establish and attain environmental goals. This problem is highlighted by the few instances in which it has been successfully addressed. For example, the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET), administered through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has played a key role in coordinating U.S. research efforts in global climate change. FCCSET oversees the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a $1.3 billion research effort involving eleven major departments and agencies (see Box 3). The task is daunting, but FCCSET has been successful in bringing together many diverse programs and agencies in an effort to understand and attack one of the more complex global environmental problems facing us. BOX 3: U.S. Global Change Research Program The Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET), through its Committee on Earth Sciences (CES) established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in 1989. Beginning with funding of $134 million in FY89, USGCRP has grown to $1.3 billion in 1992. The space- and ground-based observation and assessment capabilities are provided by a large number of federal agencies. Contributors to the focused research program include NASA, NSF, NOAA, DOE, USDA, DOI, and EPA. The Defense Department participates in contributory research as well. Representatives from the Council on Environmental Quality, the Departments of State and Transportation, the Office of Management and Budget, and the White House offices of Science and Technology Policy and of Policy Development help provide executive oversight in addition to the participatory agencies. The primary objectives of the research program are to - Document the global Earth system - Study the physical, geological, chemical, biological, and social processes of the Earth system - Develop models of this system for predicting future trends and impacts Research priorities include studies of greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, agriculture and ecosystems, and water policy. The goal of the program is to develop a scientific understanding of these phenomena and their potential impacts on human health and the environment. * * * * * In general, strategic planning and policy coordination remain a problem. There is no focal point for setting broad environmental policy for all federal agencies. It is important to note that EPA in particular is not such a focal point at present. Although EPA is the leader in implementing laws and regulatory policies, its research program is not now the centerpiece of the federal environmental R&D system, and its current programs devote little attention to sustainable development. Furthermore, although FCCSET is a useful mechanism for coordinating agency research programs, it is less useful for setting new research goals. Lack of Coordination: Consequences and Costs Without a central coordinating mechanism, it is also difficult to establish budget priorities, conduct research efficiently and effectively, and then communicate the resulting data to those who can assess it and mold it into policy. For example, it took a multiagency panel, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, more than ten years to address the many associated problems of acid rain, and the results of the project provided only weak guidance for policy directions. [30] Convening a multiagency panel for each potential issue is not an efficient way of establishing a coordinating mechanism to address environmental problems. One consequence of a fragmented federal environmental R&D system is the difficulty of obtaining timely and useful information. Relatively new environmental concerns such as acid rain and stratospheric ozone depletion have brought to light the need to improve environmental monitoring and statistical capabilities at the federal level. Without a system for compiling, analyzing, and disseminating the massive amounts of statistical information generated by existing monitoring and research efforts, important data and findings are at risk of being used inappropriately, or being overlooked altogether. The capacity both to meet regulatory needs and to provide data and information for basic research requires a strong environmental statistical and monitoring capacity. A new economic statistic is published in the U.S. virtually every day, and $1.9 billion was spent in 1989 to maintain this information system. [31] Comparatively little broad statistical information is readily available in the environmental field, despite the fact that environmental trends can strongly influence public policies and may have an impact on our everyday lives. Changing Problems, Different Responses In assessing the scientific and technological base that undergirds environmental R&D programs, it is important to keep in mind the changing characteristics of environmental issues. The problems of today demand a more complex, coordinated, and flexible R&D structure than did those of twenty years ago. More disciplines must be recruited to the effort. In addition, just as our perspective must be broadened from a local to a national and ultimately to an international one, environmental R&D must also be expanded beyond the traditional natural and physical science disciplines. Environmental policy requires more than an understanding of the ecological and health effects of particular actions and pollutants; it demands an understanding of the effects of changes in population and consumption patterns, of the potential economic and social implications, and of the two-way interactions between human activities and environmental quality. Of particular importance in this regard, federal environmental R&D programs must provide a solid scientific foundation for making environmental policy decisions based on risk assessment. The public perception of problems and the political process for addressing them may sometimes deflect attention from what are truly the greatest threats to human health or the environment. Effectively combining public perceptions of risk and scientific assessments of risk can lead to better policy and enhanced environmental and health quality. In order to determine which problems pose the greatest risk, however, the resources must be in place to identify and respond to scientifically determined risk. The ability of scientists, policymakers, and others to communicate information on health hazards and help the public understand environmental problems is an equally important part of the process. Environmental research must be broadened and linkages established in other ways, too. Many of the existing research programs focus on treating symptoms. There is a need to enhance and link basic, long-term research with the applied research of the regulatory agencies. An understanding of environmental processes and technologies can allow problems to be addressed at their source and perhaps mitigated or eliminated before they require remedial actions. Also, the federal R&D effort must take into account the variability of geographical regions of the United States. As the EPA's Unfinished Business report recognizes, national priorities do not necessarily reflect local situations. Analysis of problems on the local level is necessary for setting environmental research and protection goals and priorities. [32] Links with Other Nations and Other Institutions Aside from the need to coordinate research and policy internally, federal environmental R&D programs would benefit from stronger ties to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities, and industries. [33] Researchers in these institutions, both in the United States and in foreign countries, often conduct the most forward-looking, cutting-edge research, but their work is often not well integrated into the policymaking process. And, because of the increasingly global nature of environmental issues, the federal research effort should create and support mechanisms that will connect U.S. scientists and engineers with those of other nations in order to share knowledge and allow all parties to take advantage of the best data available. Not only can the United States benefit from solutions developed in other countries, and vice versa, but the magnitude of impending global environmental problems may require the resources of more than one country. Depth and Effectiveness Needed The federal environmental R&D effort covers a wide range of environmental problems, but the question before this Task Force is less one of breadth than it is one of efficiency and depth. Having been designed for a set of problems that no longer exists in its original form, our current federal environmental R&D effort is not structured in the most effective and comprehensive way to address either emerging problems or the increasingly complex interrelation of environmental issues that we face today. Change is needed, and in formulating our recommendations we have sought to pay particular attention to organizing federal R&D efforts so that they reflect an inclusive and forward-looking strategic philosophy, ensure effective monitoring and information management, contribute to a strong science and technology base, and enhance linkages within and outside the federal effort. Strong leadership from the President down will be the key to improving the environmental R&D effort. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL R&D SYSTEM 3.1 Introduction Our recommendations for strengthening federal environmental R&D programs fall into four categories: leadership and the research agenda, strengthening the R&D infrastructure, linking and coordinating programs, and building a strong intellectual base. We first suggest several organizational and process modifications that we think would substantially improve the capacity of the Executive Office of the President and senior department and agency officials to direct federal R&D efforts. Effective leadership is essential in a highly decentralized research and development system. This is particularly true for environmental R&D programs, which require carefully orchestrated multidisciplinary and interagency programs. Our second set of recommendations is directed at the individual departments and agencies that comprise our federal environmental R&D system. Every federal department and agency has a mission (although these missions often overlap and are sometimes not well defined), and each relies on R&D programs to varying degrees to support that mission. We present a series of recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness of several of the major federal R&D programs. Our third set of recommendations points to a number of mechanisms to link federal programs to each other and to related programs in academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. We also underscore the importance of strong linkages between U.S. R&D programs and those of other nations. The national and global environmental problems facing the United States and the world are enormous and cannot be solved by one federal agency or even one nation. With this in mind, we suggest several ways to strengthen cooperative R&D efforts, both national and international. Finally, we examine ways to ensure that the intellectual base of our environmental protection efforts is of adequate depth and breadth. Our educational system, from kindergarten to twelfth grade, to undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral training, must improve substantially if we are to meet the environmental challenges of the future. Although there are notable bright spots in our present educational system, there is much that can and must be improved in the years ahead. As part of our examination of federal environmental R&D programs we considered a variety of organizational proposals, including suggestions to establish a National Institute for the Environment (NIE). We agree with several of the objectives of the NIE proposal: more support for environmental research, including ecological and interdisciplinary studies; improved storage of and access to data on environmental quality; and greater training opportunities for environmental scientists. [34] However, in working to find ways to achieve these and other objectives we have attempted, wherever possible, to build upon the existing federal infrastructure, improving and expanding established institutions. We recommend below that EPA establish and support up to six centers for environmental research. These centers would have some of the features of an NIE. In the past twenty years a number of proposals to reorganize the federal government have been advanced. These have ranged from grouping all federal entities with environmental or natural resources responsibilities into a Department of Natural Resources, to elevating the Environmental Protection Agency to a cabinet-level department. The former would alter the organization of R&D programs substantially, while the latter would have less impact on them. In preparing our report we have assumed that a major federal reorganization is not likely and have consequently thought about changes in the R&D system in the context of the present general departmental and agency structures and the possible establishment of a Department of the Environment. 3.2 Leadership And The Research Agenda In guiding federal departments and agencies in their efforts to protect the environment, the President relies on several entities within the Executive Office to provide analysis and advice -- most notably the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisors. Our recommendations in this section focus on the critical roles of White House policymaking offices, and on the means to provide these organizations with the information and analysis they need to advise the President on environmental policy issues and to direct federal environmental programs toward national objectives. - The White House apparatus for establishing environmental policy and for guiding federal environmental R&D programs should be strengthened by expanding the responsibilities of existing units in the Executive Office of the President and by establishing a new institutional capability to assess scientific and technical information and to analyze environmental issues from the standpoint of economic, social, and political considerations. 3.2.1 The Office Of Environmental Quality - The mission of the existing White House Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) should be expanded, giving it broad responsibility for developing environmental policies in the context of other considerations, particularly economic. The Office should also work to identify ways in which the activities of all federal departments and agencies can be directed toward sustainable development and risk-reduction objectives. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. Shortly afterward, the White House Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) was established by the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. [35] CEQ has been the dominant organizational entity. However, over the past four years, CEQ has operated not as a council, but as an office administered by a chairman who also serves as the director of OEQ. We believe the activities of CEQ should be integrated into the Office of Environmental Quality. We considered other organizational mechanisms to provide a focal point for environmental policymaking in the White House, but building on the existing OEQ, rather than establishing an entirely new entity is, in our view, the most efficient approach. A robust, analytically sophisticated, and influential Office of Environmental Quality is a critical component of the White House policymaking apparatus. Several fundamental changes are needed in the operations of the Office if it is to address the challenges of the 1990s and beyond. We believe that OEQ's mission should be administered by a director who functions simultaneously as the Assistant to the President for the Environment. In this capacity the director should lead efforts in the White House to develop environmental, sustainable development, and risk- related policy options, presenting proposals to the President and the Cabinet for their consideration. The director should be given broad authority to look across all departments and agencies and identify ways in which federal activities can be directed toward the environmental objectives of the President. In developing policy proposals, the OEQ should work to integrate environmental, energy, and economic considerations. As discussed in an earlier Commission report, actions should be taken "to assure the stable and sustained functioning of a high-level mechanism concerned with linking environment, energy, and the economy." [36] We reaffirm the recommendations of that report: an expansion of staff expertise, particularly in the areas of science, engineering, energy, and economics, and a capability to develop integrated environment, energy, and economic policies. OEQ should also work with OSTP to identify major R&D needs, to promote the improvement of risk assessment and risk management procedures, and to coordinate major R&D initiatives. In addition, OEQ should work closely with the Office of Management and Budget in guiding the budget process with respect to environmental programs. 3.2.2 Institute For Environmental Assessment - An Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEA) should be established to evaluate global and national environmental problems and to develop alternative approaches to them. Meeting the enormous environmental challenges of the future will require not only a major commitment to research and development, but the development of innovative environmental protection policies. The federal government currently lacks a critical mass of individuals who can assess the information resulting from our natural science research efforts and consider its implications in the context of current economic, social, and political realities. Although various federal agencies have offices devoted to policy planning and evaluation, these units are relatively small, and they appropriately devote their resources to issues pertinent to the missions of the agencies they support. With the exception of a small staff within the President's Council on Environmental Quality, there is no federal organization devoted to the comprehensive analysis of environmental policy. We believe that the federal government's effectiveness in addressing environmental problems is severely limited by this lack of analytical and planning capability. Assessment is the bridge between science and policy. [37] Two major discontinuities now exist between the two: "One is that policy-makers fail to understand the limits of what science can determine. And the second is that scientists very frequently fail to understand what the policy community really needs to know." [38] The federal government needs a mechanism to bridge the gap between science and policy. We therefore recommend the establishment of an Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEA) dedicated to the evaluation of global and national environmental problems, the achievement of sustainable development, the assessment of research and monitoring data, the evaluation of emerging environmental technologies, the development of economic, legal, and social analyses of mechanisms to address environmental problems, and the development and assessment of integrated strategies to address environmental problems. The IEA could convene environmental assessment committees to bring individuals from various federal departments and agencies together to evaluate specific environmental problems and ways to respond to them. [39] Consistent with the successful approach of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the IEA should consider optional strategies and policies to address environmental problems. It should not, however, recommend particular courses of action. These decisions are the responsibility of the Executive Office of the President, Congress, and the heads of federal departments and agencies. The institute should be administered by a director who reports to the Director of the White House Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ). We recommend that the IEA be provided with funds to undertake analyses within the institute itself and to support the work of individuals and institutions outside of the federal government through grants and contracts. At least half the institute's funding should be devoted to extramural studies conducted within nongovernmental organizations and academic institutions. Depending on its size and mission, an IEA could be located in the Executive Office, or in the Environmental Protection Agency or a proposed Department of the Environment. Alternatively, it could function as a quasigovernmental institution operated by a nongovernmental organization but reporting to the OEQ in the Executive Office, or to the Secretary of a Department of the Environment. 3.2.3 Environmental Research And Monitoring Initiative - The President, with the guidance and support of Congress, should undertake an Environmental Research and Monitoring Initiative, a long-term effort to bring all federal environmental R&D programs into a common policy framework. Through an Environmental Research and Monitoring Initiative the President can take the actions necessary to develop an integrated federal environmental R&D program, an essential step toward better directing federal scientific and engineering resources toward national and global problems. This initiative could be a component of a broader National Environmental Strategy, which we understand the National Commission on the Environment will recommend in its upcoming report. [40] The Initiative should be guided by the Director of the Office of Environmental Quality (discussed above) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and should involve the key administrators of federal R&D programs, as well as the Office of Management and Budget. The group should work with the Office of Management and Budget to devise coherent short- and long-term R&D plans for each agency, including explicit goals and milestones. [41] These plans should include a description of the contributions of agencies and departments to broad federal program objectives, keeping in mind the R&D requirements of individual agencies and departments in pursuing their missions. To be successful, an initiative of this scope will require the guidance and support of Congress. Congressional authorization, appropriations, and oversight responsibilities with respect to federal environmental programs are divided among numerous congressional committees and subcommittees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If federal environmental R&D programs are to be properly coordinated and directed at well-defined goals, Congress, like the President, must provide clear and decisive leadership. The Carnegie Commission's Committee on Congress will soon be issuing a report on the challenges Congress faces in addressing science and technology issues of this kind. A high-level initiative of this kind would give environmental R&D a higher priority in federal activities, would provide leadership to this critical area of science and technology policy, and would coordinate the diverse activities of federal departments and agencies. In the recommendations below, we suggest mechanisms to achieve these ends. 3.2.4 Office Of Science And Technology Policy - The Office of Science and Technology Policy should coordinate a broader array of environmental R&D activities. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President is home to the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET), which has proven to be an effective mechanism for coordinating the management of certain federal R&D programs. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, for example, is administered under FCCSET through its Committee on Earth Sciences. In fiscal year 1992, the $1.3 billion program coordinated federal R&D activities in eleven departments and agencies and served as the focal point for interactions with the international scientific community, agencies of other governments, and the private sector. [42] We recommend that OSTP use FCCSET to aid in the development of coherent federal environmental R&D programs to address problems that cut across departments and agencies. Close interaction between OSTP, as it coordinates R&D programs, the Office of Environmental Quality, as it develops environmental policy and research needs, and the Office of Management and Budget, as it devises budget priorities, is essential if the federal government is to achieve an integrated and forward-looking environmental protection program. 3.3 Strengthening The Federal R&D Infrastructure Our federal environmental R&D system is broad, diverse, and highly decentralized. Led by the intramural programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey, and complemented by the extensive extramural programs of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Science Foundation, the principal federal environmental R&D infrastructure is comprised of programs in numerous departments and agencies, each with a different mission and a different set of strengths and weaknesses. The recommendations below are aimed at strengthening the individual and collective R&D efforts of these organizations, as well as their ability to contribute to the evaluation and implementation of environmental policies. - The federal environmental R&D infrastructure should be strengthened by improving and streamlining EPA's existing laboratory organization, by supporting a group of nonfederal Environmental Research Institutes, by organizing a new U.S. Environmental Monitoring Agency and a National Center for Environmental Information, and by enhancing R&D capabilities in several key federal agencies. 3.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency New National Laboratories - The Environmental Protection Agency's existing laboratory structure, now comprised of 12 laboratories, should be consolidated to create a National Ecological Systems Laboratory, a National Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, a National Environmental Engineering Laboratory, and a National Health Effects Research Laboratory. The efforts of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) are critical to achieving the nation's environmental protection objectives. Since its inception, EPA has struggled with the optimal organization of the research units within the ORD and the agency as a whole. Several years ago William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA's first administrator, described the challenges the agency faced when it was first organized in 1970: Our efforts to establish the scientific base presupposed by the environmental laws were hindered by the difficulties of managing the six different scientific establishments that EPA had inherited. Our scientific resources were housed in 56 separate laboratories scattered across the country. From the first, it was extremely difficult to convey to EPA's scientific cadre the urgency of our need for authoritative findings to support the regulations we were obligated to turn out to the beat of those timetables in the legislation.[43] If a Department of the Environment is established, the conflict between the need for information to support regulatory needs and the necessity to support long-term basic and applied research will remain. It will be critically important to achieve the proper balance between the two. Our recommendations below were developed with this concern in mind. In recognition of the need to improve the scientific basis of its regulatory decisions, EPA has recently taken a number of steps to enhance the quality of its R&D programs. In responding to a recent report by an expert advisory panel, EPA is working to develop a more coherent science agenda, expand the use of science advisors within the agency, attract and retain outstanding scientists and engineers, and improve its interactions with other agencies and with academic and industrial research organizations. [44] These are important initiatives, and we applaud and support them. However, we believe that organizational innovations are also needed to advance EPA's R&D efforts. In addition, funding for ORD remains a chronic problem. In 1984, the leaders of ten major environmental organizations and the CEOs of five major chemical companies wrote to Congressman Edward P. Boland, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies and strongly urged him to increase the fiscal year 1985 budget to EPA's Office of Research and Development by $101 million more than the Administration's request. The group spoke of their "deep concern that the scientific base on which the agency's regulatory decisions are founded has been seriously eroded in recent years by severe cuts in the research and development budget of the EPA." [45] They pointed out that as measured in constant dollars, the ORD budget for FY 1985 was 15 percent less than in 1973 when ORD was created, even though Congress had passed several laws requiring additional R&D support during that period. Today, severe funding constraints continue to limit ORD's effectiveness. [46] Despite substantial increases in R&D responsibilities ORD's budget, in constant dollars, has increased only modestly over the last decade, and because of severe limitations on full-time equivalents, a disproportionate share of the workforce at ORD laboratories is on-site contractors. [47] Although our report focuses on organizational issues, it is clear that organizational changes alone will not lead to improvements in the scientific capacity of EPA. Substantial funding increases will be required as well. A National Ecological Systems Laboratory An EPA National Ecological Systems Laboratory (NESL) should be formed by combining the six existing EPA R&D laboratories. A new headquarters site would be established for the national laboratory, with some of the existing laboratories continuing to operate as field sites under the direction of the national laboratory (see Figures 4 and 5). The existing laboratories are located at Corvallis, Oregon; Duluth, Minnesota; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Narragansett, Rhode Island; Ada, Oklahoma; and Athens, Georgia. This organizational arrangement would offer numerous advantages. First, it would create a critical mass of researchers and resources focused on understanding how environmental insults propagate through ecosystems. Research programs would be cross-media (air, water, terrestrial) and multidisciplinary in orientation. Through the creation of such a national resource, EPA's Office of Research and Development should be able to attract a nationally prominent scientist- administrator to direct the laboratory. The director should report to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (or the Assistant Secretary for Research and Development in the proposed cabinet-level Department of Environment). By creating this laboratory and attracting a prominent director, EPA would bring into existence a powerful counterbalance to the constant pressure from the regulatory offices for continuous emergency response support. Given the critical needs of the regulatory offices in dealing with science- and technology-driven problems, it does not make sense to separate such a national laboratory from EPA or a Department of the Environment. It is necessary, however, to moderate the surges in demand for support from the regulatory offices. Because of its critical mass and its perceived greater importance, a national laboratory should be better positioned to compete for limited resources. At this time, each of the six small R&D laboratories must compete individually for its funds and staff. Justification for increased support is difficult, given each laboratory's limited mission. Finally, because of its improved stature, such a national laboratory would operate on a more equal footing with other major federal laboratories and leading scientific organizations. The major disadvantage of combining the six EPA laboratories into a national ecological laboratory is the geographical distribution of the existing laboratories. This decentralization makes overall program management difficult, and it will take some time for the several parts of a new national laboratory to begin working in an integrated fashion. It will also require leadership to develop a vision of a truly national laboratory. This problem goes to the heart of the nation's environmental dilemma -- how to manage our national environmental resources while respecting the biodiversity encompassed in the nation. We think that it is more important to fashion an integrated ecological research program under a single administrative entity than it is to attempt to coordinate a highly decentralized system. Some may argue that this experiment has already been conducted, and that the attempt failed. In 1973, EPA's Office of Research and Development reorganized all of its laboratories into three National Environmental Research Centers (NERCs). One NERC, placed under the direction of the Corvallis laboratory, encompassed most of the ecological effects and processes laboratories identified above. Communications and coordination among the laboratories and between the NERC headquarters and the Washington- based ORD headquarters were judged to be ineffective. In 1975, the NERCs were abolished, and the ORD laboratory structure returned to its present configuration. In our opinion, the NERC experiment failed for several reasons. First, too much was attempted at one time, and the entire ORD organization was thrown into turmoil by the change. Second, the affected laboratories, which had previously operated quite autonomously under the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, had not been prepared to function as a team. Third, appointing one of the "peer" laboratory directors as NERC director exacerbated the competitive tendencies in the laboratories. The proposal outlined above is designed to avoid these shortcomings, while trying to achieve an integrated program. FIGURE 4: Current EPA Office of Research and Development Organization FIGURE 5: Recommended Future EPA Office of Research and Development Organization A National Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory We propose that three laboratories in EPA's Office of Research and Development devoted to environmental monitoring be combined to form a National Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (NEMSL). The three existing laboratories whose operations would be integrated are the Environmental Monitoring System Laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. A headquarters site should be established for the NEMSL, with the existing laboratories continuing to operate as field sites under its direction. The NEMSL would likely enjoy important synergies in monitoring technologies, analytical techniques, and statistical analysis, resulting in cost reductions, especially in cross-media monitoring efforts. The laboratory would also create a critical mass of researchers and resources focused on the technical foundations of environmental monitoring. A significant challenge in combining the three EPA laboratories is overcoming the cultural differences among the three groups of scientists and engineers. Although the underlying chemistry is essentially the same, the groups evolved under separate air, water, and radiological pollution agencies. These differences can be overcome in time, with many synergies developing as operations are integrated. If a U.S. Environmental Monitoring Agency is established, as recommended later in this report, some or all of the activities of the NEMSL should be integrated with those of, or transferred to, the new agency. A National Environmental Engineering Laboratory We recommend that a single National Environmental Engineering Laboratory (NEEL) be established by combining the existing EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Air and Energy Engineering Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The main laboratory, in North Carolina, would focus on air and energy engineering, and the Cincinnati component of the laboratory would focus on water-quality- related laboratory research and risk reduction. The NEEL should work to advance the development of innovative environmental technologies and should forge relationships with industry in advancing toward common goals. The laboratory should work in conjunction with other federal departments and agencies to promote the development and diffusion of environmental technologies through a federal interagency Environmental Technologies Program discussed later in this report (see Section 3.3). A National Health Effects Research Laboratory We recommend raising the EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to the same status as the other three proposed EPA national laboratories. This would involve no significant change in the mission or staffing of this laboratory. The National Health Effects Research Laboratory should work closely with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in planning and implementing research efforts. Leadership and Cooperation Each of the four proposed EPA national laboratories should be directed by an outstanding scientist or engineer of national stature who has the administrative skills necessary to direct programs of this scope. Every effort should be made to attract outstanding scientists, engineers, and other personnel to these organizations. Federal personnel should interact with individuals in the proposed Environmental Research Institutes (discussed in the next section) and in academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. In addition, it is essential that all four laboratories work closely with the proposed Institute for Environmental Assessment (see Section 3.2) in evaluating environmental problems and alternative approaches to addressing them. Environmental Research Institutes - EPA should establish and support up to six major Environmental Research Institutes (ERIs) associated with academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations across the country. Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides support to a set of four university-based Environmental Research Centers, or "centers of excellence." Each center specializes in a particular research topic of interest to the agency, receiving about $1 million per year from EPA. The work of the centers is severely limited by inadequate funding. Furthermore, they are typically organized as a component of a university or college, which presents both advantages and disadvantages. EPA's Centers of Excellence program was initiated during the Carter administration, when zero-based budgeting was used to prepare EPA's budget submission to OMB. While there was some support for longe