I. Environmental protection in the UK

different regulatory schemes for hazardous materials in the US. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates drags and food additives. The statutory mandate is for assurance of safety (to the user). In practice, FDA has attempted to balance benefits and risks in regulatory decisions on the introduction of new drugs (even if there is evidence for cancer inducing potential). For food additives, however, Congress enacted the so-called Delaney amendment, in 1958. This prohibits addition to food of any material found to induce cancer in man or in animals by appropriate laboratory tests. The regulatory history of the Food and Drug Administration predates environmental and health advocacy. Consequently, FDA has relied heavily on its own scientists and countless ad hoc scientific advisory committees as essential parts of their decisionmaking. Recent events, such as cyclamates, residual vinyl chloride in polyvinylchloride for packaging, and red dye No. 2 have brought public and advocacy pressures toward the concept of absolute safety and literal zero exposure to a carcinogen. Congress authorized a different approach toward water pollution by deciding on a national goal of zero discharge of pollutants. However, the regulatory prescription was a feasibility

standard, best available technology, rather than a health or environmental threshold standard. Controversies have evolved around new concepts such as retrofitting, forcing technology by regulatory decree, the costs of developing technology, and job displacements. In reality, EPA is much more an assessor and decisionmaker in economics and technology than in health or environment in administering the water law. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) administers several laws relating to the hazards of the wide spectrum of products found in homes and public institutions, for example, matches, lawn mowers, and aerosol sprays. CPSC must administer a provision for citizen petitions. Most petitions to the Commission have been sponsored by advocacy groups and have requested, for example, banning of aerosol products and certain aerosol propellants like fluorinated hydrocarbons, and the development of safety standards. In 1975, CPSC requested a 50% increase in their approximately $40 million budget because the citizen petitions had created such an administrative load that the Commission could not tackle the job of establishing the standards they had prioritized for development and promulgatio, n.

The statutes for these three agencies illustrate not only an emerging trend, but a number of collision courses between regulatory style and science. Congress has prescribed more public participation in the regulatory process, and greater legislative discretion in agency decisionmaking. The result has been more involvement of specialized advocacy groups and earlier public concern with the regulatory decision. Frequently, polarization of interested parties has occurred early in the regulatory process. Legal type proceedings and hearings have resulted in the selection of data to support a position rather than to understand a situation. Senator Muskie recently referred to the "need" for "one-handed scientists". He was piqued because scientific witnesses qualified their statements with "on the other hand". The proposed toxic substances legislation contains few, if any, really new statutory concepts for regulation. They have been referred to as "Christmas tree bills" because of their additive nature. It is this amalgamation of broad power, early stage regulation, and the advocacy process which will create great conflicts and incompatibilities with innovation and science. We will examine some of these incompatibilities in depth. [To be continued in the next issue]

New EEC Directive: Two Stances

i. Environmental Protection in the UK by E R I C T. LUMMIS* The United Kingdom "s approach to environmental protection has developed gradually over the last hundred years. It is by nature pragmatic. As new threats to the environment arose, as scientists became aware o f new hazards or as either government or public expressed concern over the potential effects o f pollutants, so appropriate measures were introduced. Today the UK is comparatively advanced in the development *Administrator, Department of Environment, Central Unit on Environmental Pollution, London, UK. © British Crown Copyright 1976.

Environmental Policy and Law, 2 (1976)

and adoption o f policies to protect the environment. It is the purpose o f this article to describe what these policies are, why they have developed, what they have achieved and how they may evolve in the future.

Organisation Most pollution problems in England are dealt with by the Department of the Environment. Up to eleven other ministries may be involved in any one issue, but the Secretary of State for the En-

vironment has general responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's activity in this field. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland similar functions are exercised by the respective Secretaries of State. In fact, a good deal of legislation applies to the whole of the UK, but some variation is necessary because of different circumstances in each country.

General philosophy Pollution tends, at least at first, to affect only a limited area. Consequent87

ly, successive governments have acted on the principle that the primary responsibility for dealing with the problems it causes should rest, as far as is practicable, with local or regional bodies. Central Government, therefore, lays down the statutory framework within which controls are to be applied but implementation and enforcement are in general delegated to local authorities or to the regional water authorities. These bodies are largely free to exercise their own discretion in imposing limits on the release of pollutants in their areas. They can take into account local resources and priorities, the land use of surrounding areas and the capacity of the particular environment to absorb pollutants. Central Government does, however, retain responsibility in certain respects. On matters of national concern it issues guidance, advice, requests, etc., to the appropriate local or regional authorities. In a limited number of cases it sets national standards, for exposure to radio-active materials, for example, and for polluting products that have more than a local effect because they are sold or transmitted throughout the country or move from place to place. Noise or air pollution by motor vehicles, pollution by ships and some airborne pollutants fall into this category. Controls over them are generally exercised by central government or national agencies. Environmental standards In many other industrial countries legislation provides for uniform standards, and both specific emissions and general environmental quality are controlled by detailed regulations. Apart from the national standards described above, the UK has no such system. Instead, central and local authorities are expected to operate according to the principle that standards should be reasonably practicable. (In the case of HM Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate and HM Industrial Pollution Inspectorate they must be the best practicable.)* This principle governs the use and maintenance of equipment and the operation and supervision of processes. It requires them to be carried out in such a way as to ensure that any pollution is controlled as far as is practicable *Her Majesty's Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate is responsible in England and Wales for control of some 60% of the most noxious of offensive emissions to air from industrial processes. Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate has similar responsibilities in Scotland. 88

given the local circumstances, the financial implications and the current state of scientific, technical and medical knowledge. This makes it possible to set up individual standards for emissions from particular factories. As technology advances and environmental needs change these can be made more stringent to achieve greater flexibility than under a system of statutory standards.

gow, winter sunshine has increased by 60% in the last 20 years. Ground level concentrations of sulphur dioxide continue to decline steadily. Although cement production increased by 60% from 1958 to 1974, total emissions were reduced by 64%. In the same period power stations burnt 35% more coal but emitted 82% less grit and dust.

Assimilative capacity of the environment

Water

The UK takes the view that it will always be necessary to permit the discharge of wastes. As long as the environment is capable of assimilating these substances, this can be a legitimate and a sensible use of resources. Moreover, nuisances can be significantly reduced by careful physical planning for different kinds of development. Changes in the comprehensive system of land use planning since the last war have, in fact, considerably contributed to the proper containment of industrialisation and urban development. They have made possible the wise use of physical resources along with increasingly effective control of environmental pollution. "Polluter pays" principle

The UK adheres strictly to the principle that the polluter pays, i.e. whoever creates the pollution must be financially responsible for controlling it. No specific grants are given towards machinery, etc., to control pollution. Results

Some other countries have suffered acute pollution problems. They have taken drastic measures to cope with them. The gradual development of UK policy combined with the physical controls of the land use planning system have meant that Britain has, in general, been able to avoid such extremes. And the pragmatic approach has enjoyed considerable success. It has done much to make the environment cleaner and more pleasant. The record in controlling air and water pollution is only a small part of the total picture, but it nevertheless suggests how many advances have been made. Air

A dramatic reduction of air pollution has been achieved. Major metropolitan areas - London, Manchester, Sheffield, etc. - now have as much winter sunshine as the surrounding countryside. In Glas-

Capital expenditure on improved pollution control systems and sewage works coupled with controls on active discharges to rivers have improved the quality of the country's waterways. Between 1958 and 1973 some 4,500 km of non-tidal rivers in England and Wales were upgraded to the category of unpolluted. Nearly 80% of the 36,000 km of non-tidal rivers are now in this category. During the same period the lowest category of grossly polluted rivers was reduced from 6.4% to 3.6% of the total. The country's water and sewerage services have recently been reorganised. Under the new system there are ten regional water authorities each of which is responsible for managing the whole hydrological cycle within a river basin area. They are able to take a more comprehensive approach to the related problems of water resources and supply, sewerage and sewage disposal and prevention of pollution. The future Although proud of its achievements the UK is by no means complacent. There is an awareness that earlier industrialisation has left a legacy of pollution and dereliction still to be cleaned up. The need for constant vigilance against new hazards is also recognized. And the government ~s sensitive to public demand for an overall improvement in the environment. British research establishments are actively seeking new ways to combat pollution and anticipate new hazards. There are also bodies such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. This is a permanent and independent advisory body of eminent individuals with wide experience in pollution matters. It looks at issues which it considers to be of particular importance and makes recommendations for future action. One of the Royal Commission's most recent recommendations concerns the need for a comprehensive approach to Environmental Policy and Law, 2 (1976)

pollution problems rather than one which is based on the conventional separation o f treatments for air, water and solid wastes, since means o f controlling pollution in one medium may well lead to equally severe pollution of another. The Commission advocates a national unified Pollution Inspectorate which would work with industry on all difficult problems of pollution abatement. It would have a high degree of technical competence and be able to take a comprehensive approach to all forms of pollution. The aim would be to build on and extend the principle of the best practicable means and, by taking account of the total pollution from a process and the technical possibilities for dealing with it, to seek the best option for the environment as a whole.

Attitude to international organisations The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the work o f international environmental bodies and plays a considerable part therein. As a member o f the European Economic Community it fully supports the aims of the Community Environment Programme. Its experts have contributed greatly to the basic fact finding so necessary to the Commission's work. There has been much publicity recently over British opposition to a Commission proposal on uniform emission standards.* Although the difference of views in this case was not over the need for control but over the means by which control was exercised, the United Kingdom was criti*Proposal for a decision of the Council on the reduction of pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community COM(74)1706 Final 21 October 1974.

cised quite unjustifiably- as holding up progress in making environmental improvements. Agreement has now been reached on this proposal and it has been accepted that quality objectives on which the Community Environment Programme is partly based - are an appropriate means of control in this case.

uniform emission standards would provide an incentive for continuing to locate industry in the worst sites from an environmental point of view. It would mean that all should behave in the manner appropriate to the most disadvantaged and it would imply that all industry should incur the same labour costs per unit of output as those o f the least efficient firm.

Issues Discussion of this and other proposals has raised some important questions on which there have been differing views. One is the question of the best use of resources. Unnecessary increases in expenditure, and the setting back of more important priorities, as a result of an insistence on the application of uniform emission standards (which do not take account of varying circumstances) is not in the best interests of the Community. Another important point is the issue of distortion of competition. There appears to be a widely accepted view - without economic foundation - that in order to ensure equal competition, all industries must be subject to identical environmental constraints. Examination of this idea shows its falsity. It disregards the basic economic principle of "comparative advantage"4 which involves questions o f international trade and is in particular fundamental to the operation of the Common Market. Application of

Conclusion This article offers only a general introduction to British policies. Much more could be said about their effectiveness, the ways in which they will develop and hopes for their continued improvement. It will have succeeded in its purpose if it has brought a clearer understanding of these policies; if it has explained why they are appropriate for a unitary state within which systems of law and the organisation of local government differ from place to place and where there is a strong tradition of executive responsibility from central government to local agencies. The UK will continue to do all it can within its own shores and as a member of the European Community to maintain and improve the already high quality of its environment.

4According to this principle, the welfare of all concerned is maximised if countries specialise in producing those goods which they can produce relatively more cheaply than in other countries and then trade with other countries, exchanging these relatively cheaply produced goods for imports from the other countries which would have cost relatively more to produce at home.

!1. Representative View for the Others Statement made by State Secretary Dr. G. Hartkopf at the Round Table Discussion of the NATO CCMS on 27th April 1976 The following is a reply to the British statement, given by the German delegation at the recent NA TO CCMS Round Table Discussion. It is offered as a counterpoint to the preceding article. The German delegation welcomes the exchange of ideas on the subject "The assessment of pollution hazards a n d t h e determination of environmental startEnvironmental Policy and Law, 2 (1976)

dards" which is taking place today within this Committee. In particular, we would like to thank the British delegation for having suggested this discussion and for having furnished a detailed description of the subject in an introductory paper. I do not believe that our discussion can lead to concrete solutions of problems, that is to say, to any 'patent recipes'. I do think, however, that an explanation of national basic principles will contribute to mutual under-

standing. Moreover, initiatives in the sense of a review and further development of national concepts could result from such explanation. In its paper the British delegation has laid focal emphasis on the following thesis as a criterion for the determination of environmental standards: "Pollution should be abated to the point where extra benefit to society from further abatement just equals the extra cost to society of this abatement." 89