FEATURE
HEALTH OF A CONTINENT MARIA BURKE
A massive new report on the environmental condition of Europe is a feat of data analysis and a challenge to policy makers.
T
he most comprehensive assessment ever conducted of Europe's environment has confirmed the existence of serious environmental degradation in many countries, especially in states of the former Soviet Union. The report identifies numerous problems that threaten further degradation and sets forth responses and policy options for the 46 countries in modern Europe. Surprisingly, the landmark 676-page study—the first effort to combine environmental information from every nation on the continent—has received little attention in the scientific media in the United States. The lavishly illustrated report, Europe's Environment: The Dobfis Assessment (i), which originated in a 1991 meeting of environmental ministers at Dobfis Castle in the former Czechoslovakia, is a gold mine of environmental data and analysis. Even in Europe, few outside a select band of policy makers and policy watchers have seen or even heard of Dobfis, which was officially released last year. Few academics ES&T approached, even those who had contributed to or reviewed the report, had seen a copy. Among those familiar with it, the consensus is that it was a heroic effort, a creditable and valuable first step toward understanding the state of the environment in Europe. "The report identifies for thefirsttime, through the data it makes available, the key environmental issues which face our continent as a whole," said Domingo Jimenez-Beltran, executive director of the European Environmental Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen. "The information contained in this report, though still incomplete and able to be improved, already provides the basis for efficient action. The longer we wait the harder and more costly it will be." The EEA and the European Commission prepared the report in cooperation with United Nations agencies, individual European countries, and other agencies. It is reminiscent of the annual "state of the environment" reports issued in the United States by the President's Council on Environmental Quality. One contributor, Steve Nixon of the United Kingdom's Water Research Centre in Maidenhead, termed it the first serious look at the environmental situation in eastern Europe. He hopes Dobfis will raise awareness in the European Parliament about groundwater pollution and other problems. An air quality specialist from the U.K. Department of the Environment said Dobfis' was the first study of its kind prepared and reviewed by such highly regarded environmental scientists. "This lent it credibility," he noted, adding that the report is an important reference for scientists and policy makers.
1 6 2 A • VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
0013-936X/96/0930-162A$12.00/0© 1996 American Chemical Society
One assessment, 46 countries Overcoming politics and geography was a major challenge in crafting a continent-wide environmental assessment. Although the involvement of the 15 members of the European Union (shown in bold) was guaranteed, gathering national data from non-E.U. countries required forging new communication channels. Parts of the assessment focused on four major regions of Europe.
Dealing with data gaps Dobfis pointedly avoids a single summary statement that answers the obvious question, How healthy is Europe's environment? It comes closest by stating that the assessment "confirms the poor quality of Europe's environment," and indicating that some problems appear more serious than anyone assumed in the past.
The report also readily acknowledges the lack of "comparable, compatible, and verifiable data" needed to bolster and elaborate on that conclusion. European countries use different methods of collecting data, different terminology, and they differ greatly in the level of sophistication of environmental monitoring. Data gaps are greatest in countries of the VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 6 3 A
Air trends: Acidifying compounds Emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia have increased in Europe since the beginning of the century, although the locations of major sources have changed. The Dobfis Assessment reports that S0 2 "hot spots" have shifted from western Europe to the East and South; N0 X emission densities are also expected to move from west to east "in the immediate future."
former Soviet bloc, where environmental problems are the most acute. According to many observers, a key accomplishment of Dobfis was knitting together the first Europe-wide network of governments, nongovernment organizations, and experts that can serve as a continuing source of environmental data. Much of the information in Dobfis was scattered among government agencies and other sources when the project began. The 1991 Dobfis meeting was attended by 36 environment ministers or their deputies from almost all European countries and representatives of international organizations and environmentally oriented nongovernmental organizations. The conference was regarded as historic in European environmental circles. Ministers requested a study of Europe's environment, hoping it would speed development of a continent-wide environmental program and inform the public about existing environmental problems. The report identifies 56 specific environmental problems in the continent. It then narrows the list to 12 especially serious problems: climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, technology-related accidents such as oil spills, acid deposition, photochemical smog, freshwater management, forest degradation, coastal zone problems and management, waste reduction and management, urban environmental problems, and human exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. The report 1 6 4 A • VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
admits to neglecting areas such as rural environments, the service sector, and the impact of land disturbance from activities like mining. It omits nonrenewable resources and the impact of military activities. Threats to Europe's environment The report begins with a description of Europe's climate and geography and explains how demographic and economic growth are affecting the continent. It then attempts to assess each environmental medium and larger units such as landscapes, nature and wildlife, and urban areas. It goes on to focus on environmental pressures such as waste and noise, and the source of these pressures, such as industry and transportation. The report places Europe in a global context: It is the second smallest continent, consists of about 7% of Earth's land surface, and contains 12.8% of the world's population. The report then presents a range of statistical data on environmental quality, much of which covers the late 1980s to 1993. For instance, Europe accounts for 25% of global emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, 35-40% of emissions of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons and halons, 25% of carbon dioxide, and 16% of methane. European countries abstract, or use, an average of 15% of their total renewable freshwater resources each year, compared to a world average of 8%. About 65% of Europe's population depends on groundwater, a resource that the report described as overexploited in nearly 60% of European industrial and urban centers and threatened by pollutants. The major threats are salt water intrusion and high concentrations of pesticides and nitrate. Despite improved sewage treatment and reduction of phosphates in laundry detergents, eutrophication continues in many rivers and lakes. All the seas in Europe, except those in extreme northern regions, are subject to eutrophication and algae blooms resulting from increased nitrate and phosphorus levels. The Black Sea has been most affected by human activity, so that in some coastal regions nitrate has increased by a factor of 2-3 and phosphate by a factor of 7. About 500,000 acres of land are contaminated with industrial wastes. The report documents many improvements in environmental quality, especially in western Europe, most of which parallel improvements made in the United States since the 1970s. These include reduced airborne emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulates, and lead, and improved water quality resulting from advanced sewage treatment technology. But Dobfis says that such reductions often are insufficient to protect natural resources and improve environmental quality. Dobfis also notes that reductions in emissions are not always reflected in improvements in environmental quality. Sometimes existing levels of degradation are profound enough to hide modest improvements. An "academically rigorous" effort Assembling a continent-wide environmental assessment was a challenge both from the perspective of integrating data from many different national systems and assuring that the result was scientifically
sound. According to Peter Kristensen of the Danish National Environment Research Institute, the effort was "academically rigorous." As a first assessment, it necessarily includes a lot of background information, he said, but it is the first to compile a sciencebased overview. Kristensen, who contributed to the surface water chapters, believes that specialists may find Dobfis useful because it contains new information in their area and opens their eyes to problems outside their own expertise. Every chapter was reviewed by the national "focal points," the study's contact points in each country, which usually included one or more representatives from the environment ministry or department. EEA did its own separate review, according to David Stanners, who edited the report with Philippe Bourdeau. Many chapters were reviewed by additional "experts" in the area. Each chapter on media, such as air and water, was reviewed by a committee and was sent out to individuals for comment. Stanners won't go as far as calling it formal peer review, but says the process was "pretty exhaustive." Some critics, however, question the accuracy of Dobfis's data. Karl Tietman of the German Federal Environmental Agency claims that the statistical compendium that accompanies Dobfis contains old data on some air pollutants in Germany and some mistakes. The result is confusing, he says, and possibly detrimental to countries that have to meet national performance targets under international conventions.
Establishing a data baseline Dobfis researchers started the massive task of data collection with the European Commission and other international bodies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Conservation Union, and the United Nations Environmental Programme. The EEA also gathered information from research and independent sectors. A major goal of Dobfis was to establish some kind of data baseline and improve data quality for updated assessments, which EEA plans every 2-3 years. To assemble all this data, the EEA worked through its focal points in each country, presenting the focal point with a "wish list" of desired national data. The focal points organized national reference centers to coordinate air, water, and soil data collection. When the EEA was created in October 1993, one of its main tasks was to establish and coordinate the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) for the European Union. EIONET brings together environmental information organizations using focal points in the 17 member countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The report acknowledges that data availability and quality throughout Europe remain patchy, which made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. Data, terminology, and methodology were not always comparable, let alone standardized. Dobfis fulfilled one of its major goals by identifying these deficiencies. Many factors contribute to the paucity of sound
The condition of Europe: Major findings AIR • Urban air quality is a continuing problem. Concentrations of sulphur dioxide, particulates, and lead are declining, but nitrogen oxides and tropospheric ozone are not. • Sulphur and nitrogen oxides emission levels need to be reduced by 90% and emissions of ammonia by 50% to prevent excessive acid deposition in highly populated and industrialized regions. INLAND WATERS • It is estimated that the European Union standard for total pesticides (0.5 pg/L) is exceeded in soil water in 60-75% of agricultural land. • River and lake eutrophication caused by excess phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural, domestic, and industrial effluents is a panEuropean problem of major concern. SEAS • Except for the northern seas, all European seas are facing eutrophication problems in some areas with related adverse effects, such as algal blooms. • Contamination by organic micropollutants affects the fauna in almost all of Europe's seas. Concentrations of DDT and PCBs in fish are 3-10 times higher in the Baltic than in the northern Atlantic. SOIL • Soil erosion is increasing in Europe, affecting an estimated 115 million hectares and causing important loss of fertility and water pollution. • Critical values for acidification are estimated to be exceeded in about 75 million hectares of Europe's forest soils. LANDSCAPES • In many places, European landscapes are undergoing changes or disappearing because of agricultural intensification, abandonment, urban expansion, and increasing infrastructure and transportation. • About 6% of Europe's land is under landscape protection but generally with a weak legal status. NATURE AND WILDLIFE • Forests once covered 80-90% of Europe's territory. They now account for 33% of land cover. • Extinction threatens 53% of fish, 45% of reptiles, 42% of mammals, 30% of amphibians in Europe. URBAN ENVIRONMENT • Traffic flows have increased in all European cities in terms of the number and length of trips. The share of public transport has fallen in most cities by 20%. HUMAN HEALTH • Air pollution affects a significant proportion of Europe's population. Suspended particulate matter is estimated to pose the greatest burden to health, provoking asthma and obstructive airway disease. • Lead remains a health problem. It may be responsible for mental impairment in at least 400,000 children in eastern parts of Europe.
environmental information across Europe. Environmental monitoring, for instance, often is driven by sectorial or thematic considerations and confined within strict geographical boundaries. In their longterm plans, individual countries often do not consider information needs at the European or global levels. The result is fragmented data that cannot be integrated into a single comprehensive, reliable picture of the environment. Exacerbating the situation are wide differences in the sophistication of environmental monitoring and data collection technology. For example, the chapter in Dobfis on emissions VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 6 5 A
Freshwater quality: A regional view The sparsely populated and humid Nordic countries have generally better freshwater conditions than the rest of Europe. The Dobfis Assessment points out, however, "that there are areas of concern within all of the four European regions." A range of conditions can be found in most regions.
Source: Modified from World Health Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, 1991.
is particularly incomplete, according to co-editor Stanners. It had to focus mainly on water, air, and pesticides because other data were unavailable. "We just don't know what's getting into the environment, but this is the reality. There is very little information, and this inhibits what we can say about what we can and should do," said Stanners. But even with less-than-complete data, Stanners is confident that Dobfis succeeds in making its points. Coordinated data collection system needed Dobfis concludes that Europe needs a fully coordinated data collection system. The report identifies information weaknesses and strengths. For example, in central and eastern Europe, industry's contribution to emissions is not separated from total emissions figures. Likewise, biological assessments of river quality are carried out using a variety of methods from country to country, so they are not comparable. Strengths include good data on industrial production, employment and trade, and internationally harmonized classification systems for nature and wildlife ecosystems in much of Europe. Dobfis also emphasized the importance of forging links with countries such as Poland and the former Czechoslovakia, which remain outside the European Union. At present, the EEA has no official links with key people in these countries to provide environmental data. The EEA recognizes that it must improve and formalize its fledgling information network and concentrate on standardizing data monitoring and assessment. European environment ministers addressed this point at Sofia, Bulgaria, during their October 1995 meeting. After praising Dobfis, they agreed in principle to establishment of a network beyond the Union 1 6 6 A • VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
boundaries. But they failed to fund the project and probably will withhold funding until eastern European countries become full members of the Union. Meanwhile, the EEA says it will try to maintain its informal links. Brian Wynne of the University of East Anglia said the western ministers showed a lack of commitment to central and eastern regions by not promising financial help for the network. Wynne is an EEA board member and Dobfis contributor. He believes that eastern Europe collaborated with the EEA on Dobfis because it assumed funding would follow. Now Wynne thinks funding problems will stop the EEA from perfecting its network. Individual countries are also concerned about the situation. Germany's Tietman points out that Germany receives considerable pollution from Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak republics. Tietman thinks western Europe must help the East to monitor and collect data so future reports are more accurate. Policy issues left unanswered Although Dobfis presents its version of an action plan for each of the major environmental problems, these are not detailed legislative or regulatory proposals characteristic of reports from U.S. agencies such as the National Academy of Sciences. The Dobfis proposals are framed in the most general terms. Listed first among the recommended responses to air pollution, for instance, is the following: "Promoting energy conservation, increased use of renewable energy resources, good housekeeping practices, reductions in road transport emissions, increased use of clean technologies." Among the responses to degradation of inland water resources is: "Introducing or strengthening integrated water resource management." Dobfis does not propose policy details, specific funding levels, or timetables. Also left hanging is the question of who pays the multi-billion-dollar bill for environmental improvement in the cashstrapped countries of central and eastern Europe. Although it did not lay out a detailed plan of action, some observers were pleased because Dobfis takes a much-needed critical look at what policy makers have achieved. David Wilkinson of the Institute for European Environmental Policy in London said it highlights the extent to which current policies are inadequate, for example, in groundwater pollution and soil erosion. He hopes that Dobfis will focus attention on these problems. Critics of the report charged that it did not go far enough in addressing the important policy issues that Europe faces. "The state of Europe's environment is
For more information To order Europe's Environment: The Dobfis Assessment in the United States and Canada, contact UNIPUB, 4611-F Assembly Dr., Lanham, MD 207064391; telephone (800) 274-4888. A summary of the assessment is available on the European Environment Agency World Wide Web home page at http:/ /www.eea.dk/products/reports.
not really the issue," says David Wallace, an environmental policy research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He terms Dobfiia comprehensive backgrounder, but argues that it failed to address the "real live issues" in Europe. According to Wallace, Europe's most pressing concerns are regulation excesses, drives to deregulate, finding ways to encourage voluntary industry compliance without new regulations, and drafting more sharply focused regulations. But, it is still uncertain how Dobfis will shape future policies or raise public awareness. At their October meeting, European environment ministers expressed concern at Dobfis's findings, noting that it "demonstrates the need for far-reaching action in a number of environmental sectors." The ministers endorsed the Environment for Europe program (EPE), an effort to encourage continent-wide cooperation in environmental protection. Jock Martin, of the United Kingdom's environment department, said EPE used Dobfis to set some of its key long-term environmental priorities. These range from promoting participation of all European countries in the EEA to developing codes of agricultural practice to reduce water use and soil degradation. But the public debate on the Dobfis findings has not yet begun, according to observers. The EEA is still struggling to spread the news that Dobfis exists. At the time of writing, there were no glossy copies available in languages other than English, although the EEA has now decided to translate it into 26 languages. The national focal points complain that they don't have enough copies. EEA says it plans a shorter, popular version of the report, a CD-ROM version, and an environmental atlas. Brian Wynne thinks that the EEA needs to make the report available beyond government channels so that it can generate wide-ranging debate. "As it is, there is no assurance that Dobfis will be taken up even by politicians and nongovernmental organizations. The response of policy makers will depend on the response they get from the public, and if it remains a semiprivate document and doesn't make waves, then it won't have any influence." Dobfis is like the Bible, observed Mike Chadwick, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. "You could argue that the Bible has exerted a tremendous influence over the centuries. But you could also maintain that it was the Church, not the Bible, that swayed people's lives and made history." Reference (1) European Environment Agency. Europe's Environment: The Dobfis Assessment, Stanners, D.; Bourdeau, P., Eds.; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1995.
Maria Burke is a science journalist in London and news editor of Chemistry & Industry magazine.
Filling the information gaps The first Europe-wide environmental assessment turned up a number of "weaknesses" in available data. Major deficiencies highlighted in
the DobffS Assessment (Appendix 2) include: AIR • Lack of detailed monitoring of toxic substances • Lack of detailed emissions inventories of substances throughout Europe INLAND WATERS • Comparable and reliable data on groundwater quantity and quality almost completely lacking • Comparison of surface water quality across Europe is very difficult due to lack of comparable and reliable data • No pan-European water quality database exists • Data on organic micropollutants, metals, and radioactivity are patchy and incomplete SEAS • Estimates of pollutant loads from different human activities and natural sources in general not available • No pan-European marine water quality database SOIL • Soil survey, sampling, analytical methods, and nomenclature vary between countries • Contaminated-sites inventory lacking • Data on soil fauna and flora, organic matter, and pollutants are poor and inadequate LANDSCAPES • Existing classification schemes are rudimentary and lack detail • No information on distribution and quality of landscape types NATURE AND WILDLIFE • Ecosystems: No data on ecosystem distribution for the whole of Europe • Species: Insufficient large-scale monitoring plan for internationally endangered, migratory, and indicator species URBAN ENVIRONMENT • Availability and comparability of environmental quality data limited because of different methods of collection and classification EMISSIONS • Direct emission measurements infrequent • Emissions into water bodies not quantified in detail; almost complete lack of data on catchment scale • Limited comparability of national emissions inventories • Limited integration of inventories between emission to air, water, land, human activities, and major environmental problems WASTE • Harmonized waste classification systems and harmonized inventories of waste generation and management lacking • Monitoring of landfills and emissions from waste treatment facilities and compliance with standards insufficient • European and national inventories of contaminated sites lacking
VOL. 30, NO. I, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 6 7 A
