C l i n t o n ' s C o m m i t t e e o n t h e E n v i r o n m e n t and Natural R e s o u r c e s BY ALAN NEWMAN
D
etails of how the Clinton administration will review and redirect federal spending on environmental research under the newly announced National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) (see Feb. ES&T, p. 57A) are beginning to emerge. "We need a vision of where we want the environment to be in 10, 20 years," said Robert Watson of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) at the American Meteorological Society's January meeting in Nashville, TN. "This should not be a top-down government approach. All relevant stakeholders need to be brought in." One of the NSTC's first actions will be to dissect a federal research and development budget estimated to be $76 billion; $1.4 billion is slated just for global change research. Current policies aimed at developing technologies are increasing some research programs, but other programs face cutbacks. In addition to evaluating programs, the NSTC will look for ways to pool the activities and monies of various agencies. It also could identify gaps in research programs that need to be addressed, Watson says. Most of the environmental research issues will be tackled by the environment and natural resources research committee, one of nine committees under NSTC that will report to President Clinton and OSTP head John Gibbons. Federal spending on the environment has recently been criticized as being too near term and too regulatory in its focus, whereas the overall global change research program was characterized as too long term to provide policy makers with the information they need. "I believe that both criticisms are correct," said Watson. To tackle these problems the environment committee will structure its deliberations through seven "theme" subcommittees: global change research, biodiversity and ecosystem research, air quality research, resource use and management, water resources— coastal-marine, toxic substanceshazardous substances-solid 116 A
waste, and natural disasters. In addition, there are committees on social and economic science, technology and engineering research, and risk assessment. The environment committee will be chaired jointly by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin¬
The subcommittees will view their mandates broadly. For instance, the air quality subcommittee will tackle indoor air, water resources will address land use on the Mississippi River in light of this year's flooding, and natural resources will attempt to place an economic value on biodiversity. "This cuts across disciplines and is not a 'neat' organization," said MacCracken. Moreover, the environment committee will try to link the science and policy to broader impacts on people's lives. "Each of these subcommittees will look at socioeconomic driving forces and will be discussing the consequences of actions." For instance, the climate change group will evaluate the costs of inaction versus mitigation. The issue of translating science into policy also concerns the committee. A group will be formed to look at federal policy formulation and will be chaired by Watson; Kathleen McGinty, Clinton's environmental policy advisor; and Joseph Stiglitz from the White House Council of Economic Advisors. One obvious criticism of the committee structure is that it seems to increase the bureaucracy rather than streamline it. However, MacCracken counters that if die structure had fewer subcommittees, "then the representation goes higher and further from actual centers of activity." The complex structure also fits the consensus-building style of the Clinton administration, which puts great energy into trying to formulate policies that balance many factors. As Watson pointed out, "Many times when we discuss a policy it is clear that we don't have the science and technology."
" W E NEED A VISION OF WHERE WE WANT THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE IN10,20
YEARS" istration head D. James Baker, the yet-to-be-named head of the National Biological Survey, and Watson. This unusual three-person chair is designed to balance the perspectives of the White House and agencies. According to Michael MacCracken of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, die chair of each environment subcommittee will be from a science agency and will have two vice-chairs, a science expert and a policy expert. The hope is that rather than one group trying to dictate to the other, some consensus will form.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 3, 1994
Alan Newman is associate editor on the Washington staff of ES&T.
