Environmental Research To Go International In Wake Of June's Earth Summit Agreement

The recent Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero may have raised worldwide consciousness on the seriousness of global environmental problems, but it did not raise a lot of cash to study and act against the problems. So, environmental scientists in the United States should not expect to see a flood of new funding or a preponderance of new research directives in the wake of the June meeting, according to environmental policy experts. There are budget difficulties in Congress. There is a presidential election looming. And many Washington, D.C., observers also report that there is a power struggle among diverse components of the executive branch--including the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vice president's Council on Competitiveness--over who will translate the summit agreements into action. Moreover, the real story coming out of the summit, according to many who attended, is that the "new world order" in environmental research means setting up international collaborations and building up the scientific capacity of developing nations, as measured in buildings and training programs. And that is where much of the growth in funding and opportunities will occur, they say. Even if there were no political issues in Washington clouding the translation of the Rio summit into research, the process would still be daunting. A CEQ spokesman says that the summit agreements are "so big and so comprehensive, it's going to take months to come to terms with everything." And six weeks after the summit's conclusion, there still is no interagency team in place to ensure that the Rio agreements are implemented, as EPA administrator William Reilly told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on July 28. "After Rio will equal before Rio," in terms of funding for U.S. environmental scientists, says Michael Glantz, program director of the environmental and societal impacts group at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Glantz, who attended the summit--officially titled the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)--says that despite a recognition of the profound environmental problems facing the world, most leaders failed to ante up much new money for environmental programs--including the U.S. He says the joke bandied about at the summit was: "Never have the rich countries claimed to be so poor." At best, the postsummit atmosphere will serve only to maintain U.S. environmental research funding at current levels, he says. Reacting to a perceived environmental policy quagmire at the White House, some congressional representatives want to guarantee that the Earth Summit agreements are vigorously transformed into action, including new research funding. Rep. John Porter (R-Ill.) has introduced legislation to establish a "Rio Commission" to monitor U.S. and international progress toward the policy goals produced at the summit. "The Rio Commission will help ensure that the promise of the Earth Summit will not be forgotten, but fulfilled," Porter says. The commission would be the U.S. equivalent of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development that is being set up in the summit's wake to coordinate worldwide efforts to implement Agenda 21--a 42-chapter, 800-page wish list of programs to help save the world environment. Of particular relevance to environmental researchers is chapter 35 of Agenda 21, which calls for "an increased output from the sciences in order to enhance understanding and facilitate interaction between science and society. An increase in the scientific capacity and capability to achieve these goals will also be required, particularly in developing countries." Under Porter's legislation, the U.S. commission would be composed of four members each from the House and Senate and three executive branch members, such as the heads of EPA and CEQ, and the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. "We're serious about this bill," says one Porter aide. "We have to get something in place this Congress, or we'll have another excuse to do nothing." Optimistically, the bill could be passed by November, says the aide. Also interested in rapid action to implement Agenda 21 and other Rio agreements is Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has drafted the U.S. International Environmental Leader- ship Resolution. The resolution calls for the U.S. to adopt a national strategy for sustainable development--one of the buzzwords emerging from the Rio summit. Sustainable development essentially means using natural resources--and the planet in general--in a way that does not diminish their usefulness for future generations. Pelosi's resolution also says that "the research and policy initiatives urged in Agenda 21 should be pursued in order to contribute to a transition to a sustainable U.S. economy, including research on sustainable consumption and production patterns." Funding to carry out these goals would come from the redirection of defense spending. As part of the move toward international collaboration, Sens. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) and Pete Domenici (R-N.Mex.) have introduced legislation "to coordinate activities at the Department of Energy's national laboratories, to help poorer countries and emerging democracies develop in an environmentally sound manner," according to a joint statement by the senators. Under the legislation, DOE's national labs will submit proposals that involve ed- ucation, exchange, and collaborative partnerships with scientists and institutions in developing countries. The program, to be called Assisting Deployment of Energy and Environmental Practices and Technology (ADEPT), "will allow [developing countries'] best scientists to work with the best scientists in our national laboratories and universities and with the entrepreneurial genius of our U.S. industry," Domenici told the Senate in introducing the bill June 18. The bill is designed to fund and facilitate more collaborations, such as the one between Los Alamos National Laboratory and Mexico's Instituto Mexi-cano de Petr"leo to define Mexico City's air pollution problems and develop a computer model to analyze options for cleaning it up. This Los Alamos effort is now being extended to a similar collaborative effort in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Scientific Capacity Building Boosting the capability of scientists in developing nations-- through training, collaboration, and money for buildings and equipment--is a growing focus in the postsummit era, according to many in the environmental research community. "The time is over for scientists from sophisticated nations to walk in to a less sophisticated nation, collect data, and then go back to their ivory towers and publish their results. This is no longer a valid model," says Hassan Virji, deputy director for natural sciences for an international program called the System for Analysis, Training and Research (START), which recently opened an office in Washington. "Policy-making in large portions of the developing world is divorced from scientific knowledge," says Virji. The best way to make government leaders take science seriously is by supporting the work of local scientists, he says. START's purpose is to facilitate the creation of regional environmental science centers, such as the Inter-American Institute for Global Change (IAI). IAI was established at a pre-UNCED meeting in May. The program is still in its formative stages, so its structure and location have yet to be set, Virji says. START activities will not translate directly into funding for U.S. researchers, he says. "It will instead translate into a very huge range of possibilities for collaboration for U.S. researchers on global change." U.S. Forest Service Expansion Forestry research, particularly in an international setting, stands to benefit the most in the postsummit environment, especially following President Bush's announcement at the summit of the Forests for the Future Initiative. The U.S. initiative promises $150 million in new money next year for forest management assistance, although it is still unclear where and when that money will surface. Jeff Sirmon, deputy chief of international forestry at the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), says the initiative has raised the status of and given the green light to a number of projects his division has had in the works. For instance, on June 12, Sirmon signed an agreement with Brazil's major environmental agency, the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Renovais (IBAMA), to cooperate in socioeconomic assessments of rain forest development, participate in scientific exchanges, and provide technical support to Brazilian foresters. "Some of the research facilities in Brazil are in terrible shape," says Sirmon. "So, a good deal of money could go to modernizing research labs, particularly in the Amazon." Money for scientific infrastructure could come from the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), he says. International forestry is the newest of the four missions of the Forest Service, he says, with research, extension, and national forest management being the older, more established missions. Today Sirmon has about 75 people working in or associated with his division, including not only forestry scientists but also economists. With the increased emphasis on international assistance, he expects to add about 35 more positions. But even as the Forest Service was signing agreements to help the rest of the world manage its forests, it also announced it was putting its own house in order. On June 4, Forest Service chief Dale Robertson declared that clearcutting--cutting down every standing tree in an area, followed by replanting with a single species--will no longer be a standard practice in U.S. national forests by timber companies allowed to harvest there. "The new policy, in conjunction with the Forest Service's new ecological approach to land management, can reduce clearcutting by as much as 70 percent from 1988 levels," Robertson said. He said that selective harvesting, coupled with leaving standing green trees and downed woody material, would reduce the silting of streams and other environmental disruptions, and would yield a more aesthetically appealing aftermath. Research into making selective harvesting work as an alternative to clearcutting is and will continue to be a strong focus of the service, say USFS officials. Save A Forest, Save A Life On another front, the National Institutes of Health, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation and AID, is also getting into the spirit of international collaborations in global environmental research. This consortium, called the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups, announced on June 15 that $1.5 million will be available annually to fund up to five projects, spread over three to five years, aimed at saving biodiversity while developing new drugs. The NIH solicitation for the proj-ects states: "It is the intent of this RFA [Request for Applications] to promote the conservation of biodiversity through the discovery of bioactive agents from natural products, and to ensure that equitable economic benefits from these discoveries accrue to the country of origin. The RFA is seeking proposals that will build institutional relationships with developing countries that will continue beyond the life of the RFA and will serve as effective models for others to develop similar relationships." Noted biologist Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis, already has his hand in a number of biodiversity research projects around the world, such as an extensive collaboration with Chinese scientists to catalog their country's plants. He sees the internationalization of research as critical to solving the environmental crisis. Says Raven: "Eighty percent of the world's biodiversity is in developing countries, and they have 77 percent of all the people, but only about 6 percent of the scientists and engineers. And most of that 6 percent is restricted to India, China, and Brazil." In terms of biodiversity research, Raven is optimistic that action will be forthcoming. "We're already heavily involved all around the world," he says, "but the question is: How are we going to get more funds to do more of it? "We're now waiting to see how the postsummit will affect us. But I think things will move forward and are moving forward. "We're on the verge of a huge renaissance of scientific activity in biodiversity."

Environmental Research To Go International In Wake Of June's Earth Summit Agreement

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of