The role of an academic institute in setting national environmental policy: The case of Israel

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy 32 (2007) 927–934 www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

The role of an academic institute in setting national environmental policy: The case of Israel Ofira Ayalon, Yoram Avnimelech Samuel Neaman Institute, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel

Abstract Two major players are active in determining the development of environmental policies: the government and ‘‘the public.’’ These diverse players have intrinsic limitations and are often driven by different agenda, different aims, and different means. Therefore, inconsistent actions and lack of a clear agenda and action plan characterize the environmental policy. There is an essential role for a third player, namely, a team that is as professional and as objective as possible. The Samuel Neaman Institute (SNI) has taken it upon itself to serve as this third party, and has been providing the scientific background needed to develop and propose a rational and environmental set of priorities for Israel since 1998. In this paper, we evaluate the contribution of the SNI to environmental policy making in Israel. We shall determine the relationship between the recommendations and suggestions presented by SNI and the subsequent actions adopted by the various authorities. A very clear advantage of the activity described here is that it serves as a bridge connecting scientists and other professionals to the general public, and raises awareness of the practical and political problems that need to be solved in order to maintain proper environmental quality in the country and the community. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environment; Policy; Decision making

1. Introduction The state of the environment in Israel requires urgent and immediate action. In many places, air pollution is significantly above accepted standards, resulting in thousands of cases of disease and even death [1]. The country’s very limited land resources are being developed extensively, almost ignoring consideration of future—or even present— national interests, thereby depleting the country’s open spaces and natural landscape. Water quality is deteriorating and the state of other resources is worsening. Proper environmental planning, policy, and plans of action are badly needed. However, decisions regarding the actions necessary to preserve and maintain environmental quality are neither trivial nor simple, in Israel or elsewhere. In this paper, we discuss a model for achieving an objective set of priorities, and present initial results obtained after five Corresponding author. Tel.: +97 248292190; fax: +97 248231889.

E-mail address: agofi[email protected] (O. Ayalon). 0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.12.004

years of using this model. Even though developing environmental priorities in Israel, as in any other country, is inherently site-specific, we believe that the experience gained here may be relevant to other countries, as well. Two major players are conventionally active in determining the development of environmental policies. The primary player is the government. In Israel, one of the major problems in establishing environmental policies is that the responsibility for environmental issues is divided among many governmental and public agencies. Thus, for example, water quality issues are controlled by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE); the Water Commission, which is currently under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Infrastructure and was until recently under the Ministry of Agriculture; and the Ministry of Health (in charge of drinking water quality and standards in all cases of human exposure, such as swimming areas, and the like). In addition to these three ministries, which share direct responsibilities over water quality, other involved parties include the Ministry of Defense, which is in charge of water

ARTICLE IN PRESS 928

O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934

issues in the West Bank (connected hydraulically to Israel, regardless of political borders); the Ministry of Infrastructure, which deals with oil pollution, regulating, for example, fuel stations; the Ministry of Agriculture, on issues of irrigation water, building irrigation systems, water quality, and pricing; and the Ministry of Interior, which is responsible for municipal water systems and waste water treatment. Above them all, the Ministry of Finance decides on almost every budget expenditure. Each of these agencies has a different agenda, a minister belonging to a political party, and its own set of priorities. The complexity of governmental control and the fact that the ministers dictating the policies are replaced every election (nominally following a four-year period, but in practice, every one to three years, due to the country’s political situation) creates an intrinsic instability in the process of development and implementation of environmental policy. In addition, the civil service system faces objective obstacles to maintaining a consistent policy in the different ministries. In many cases, policies are determined with the aim of pleasing interest groups and responding to the populist mood, often with no regard for long-range considerations. Policy makers frequently ignore environmental issues, such as minimizing pollution or preventing irreversible damage, and justify their neglect by citing budget constraints [2]. In a small country like Israel, with stretched budgets and higher priority given to other areas over environmental quality, there is limited ability to form a strong professional body covering the different fields of the environment within the governmental units. This situation is further exacerbated by the dispersion of relevant professionals among the different agencies. As a result, even with the best intentions, the development of a coherent environmental policy by the government suffers from intrinsic instability and inconsistency. The second important player can be defined broadly as ‘‘the public’’. This group is very heterogeneous, but may be broadly divided into two conflicting subgroups, the business community and the environmentally-aware public. The business community is composed of industry, land developers, real-estate interest groups, transport-affiliated companies, and the like. In several cases, particularly when it comes to land development and infrastructure, some governmental ministries (e.g., the ministries of industry and trade, infrastructure, and agriculture) and local authorities have common alliances with the business community, or even belong to the same interest groups. In general, the intention (often a legitimate interest) of the business community is to relax environmental standards and to postpone and ease their enforcement. An important feature of this group is that it usually has, and is willing to invest, vast resources to support its causes, since changes in planning and legislation may offer the opportunity for tremendous financial gain. It is not surprising, then, that the struggle of this group against environmental limitations can be relentless, and often receives the backing of political entities.

‘‘The public’’ also includes the environmentally concerned public, represented mainly by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which are highly active in Israel. These environmental organizations range in scale from the Society for Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI)— established in 1953 and having a current membership of over 50,000 [3], to smaller, yet very active national and local organizations, often focused around ad hoc local or national issues [4]. A common feature of NGOs is their subjective, often narrow and/or emotional choice of goals. They are not geared toward the objective, scientificallybased development of a broad national agenda of environmental priorities. The situation outlined above generates an inconsistent array of actions by all players, often leading to the investment of significant efforts in topics of secondary importance and at the same time, negligence of major topics, as well as the lack of a clear agenda and action plan. Taking this constellation of players into account, the need for a third entity that would balance the decision-making structure and help reach a better national agenda and action plan was recognized. The idea was to add an objective, scientifically oriented player that would be able to contribute unbiased, objective, nonopportunistic, and longer-range input into the process of environmental policy formulation. The role of such a player is to help the NGOs and concerned public better orient their efforts and to present the governmental agencies with tools for the development of balanced environmental policies. The Samuel Neaman Institute (SNI) for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology is a public-policy research institute and ‘‘think tank’’ affiliated with the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology [5]. The SNI has taken upon itself to serve as this third party, and has been providing the scientific background needed to develop and propose rational environmental priorities for Israel since 1998. In this paper, we attempt to evaluate the contribution of the SNI to environmental policymaking in Israel. It must be recognized that it is very difficult to objectively and definitively evaluate the outcome of the SNI’s work since there is, of course, no control to prove what would have happened if it did not take place. In addition, quite naturally, all players claim credit for all positive changes, and attribute negative changes to others. 2. The state of the environment in Israel The environmental sustainability index (ESI), an international trial designed to quantify changes in solving environmental issues, is based on five core categories, or components of sustainability: environmental systems, reducing environmental stresses, reducing human vulnerability, social and institutional capacity, and global stewardship (for a full description of the methodology, see [6]).

ARTICLE IN PRESS O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934

For this purpose, 76 data sets are integrated into 21 core ‘‘indicators’’ to produce an overall ESI for 146 countries. These indicators enable comparison across the five core categories. The higher the country’s ESI score, the better positioned it is to attain more favorable environmental conditions in the future. Specific parameters—the core categories and the selected indicators, are presented in Table 1. Finland is ranked at the top of the list, with an ESI score of 75.1 and North Korea, in the 146th place, with a score of 29.2. The numerical scores represent the percentage of countries expected to have a lower level of environmental sustainability than that particular country, assuming a normal distribution of environmental sustainTable 1 Comparison of Israel and the top-ranking countries in ESI components and indicators scores, 2005

Component Environmental systems Reducing environmental stress Reducing human vulnerability Social capacity to respond to environmental challenges Global stewardship

Israel’s score

First country’s rank

32 (place 132) 34.3 (place 136)

Guyana (90.4) P.N. Guinea (70.4) Finland (81.5) Finland (91.7)

77.1 (place 17) 66.4 (place 30) 66.8 (place 33)

Madagascar (87.3)

Indicator Air quality Biodiversity

þ0:26 (place 48) þ013 (place 56)

Land

1.72 (place 140)

Water quality Water quantity Reducing air pollution Reducing ecosystem stress

þ0:18 1.20 1.06 þ1:82

Reducing population pressure Reducing waste and consumption pressures Reducing water stress Natural resources management Environmental health Basic human sustenance Reducing environment-related natural disaster vulnerability Environmental governance Eco-efficiency Private sector responsiveness Science and technology Participation in international cooperative efforts Reducing greenhouse gases Reducing trans-boundary environmental pressures

þ0:11 (place 83) 0.21 (place 107)

þ2:17 (Moldova) þ0:89 (Trinidad & Tobago) þ1:52 (Mauritania) þ1:64 (Norway) þ2:96 (Guyana) þ1:56 (Congo) þ1:82 (Uruguay, Oman) þ1:20 (Moldova) þ1:14 (Nigeria)

2.25 (place 146) 0.83 (place 137)

þ1:03 (Angola) þ1:00 (Croatia)

þ0:92 (place 18) þ0:97 (place 14) þ0:34 (place 70)

þ0:95 (Sweden) þ1:00 (Poland) þ0:77 (Finland)

þ0:56 0.21 þ0:27 þ1:07 þ0:32

(place (place (place (place

(place (place (place (place (place

56) 143) 131) 1-3)

34) 97) 40) 22) 53)

0.31 (place 95) þ1:29 (place 9)

þ1:65 þ1:92 þ2:12 þ2:15 þ1:74

(Iceland) (Congo) (Finland) (Sweden) (Germany)

þ1:97 (Chad) þ2:13 (Madagascar)

Adopted from [6]. The ranks are presented as averages of the constituent variable values (zero indicating the mean, 1 representing one standard deviation above or below the mean).

929

Table 2 Population growth and population density in Israel Year

1950

1970

1990

2006

Population (thousands) Annual increase (%) Population density (per sq. km)

1258

2,898 11.5 131

4514 7.7 204

7026 9.8 328

57

Source: [10].

ability scores. The ESI score of Israel in 2005 was 50.9, placing it in 62nd place among 146 countries. This represents almost no changes compared with the 2002 data: a total score of 50.4, placing it in 63rd place among 142 countries in 2002 [7]. Israel has failed to reduce air pollution or water stress, as well as consumption pressures (it ranks last in this indicator [6]). Furthermore, Israel has not succeeded in increasing water availability or in protecting its land. On the other hand, Israel has managed to improve environmental health and to increase technological innovation and achievements. Israel was ranked first in reducing ecosystems stress [7], sharing the same score with Uruguay and Oman in the 2005 report [6]. In this context, it is noteworthy that population growth (natural and immigration) and population density are two of the most severe environmental problems in Israel [8,9], as shown in the data and forecast in Table 2. The natural population growth rate is one of the highest in the developing world, and compared with the world’s more developed regions (OECD countries). In addition, according to a United Nations report [10], the average population density in Israel is 10 times higher than the global average of 23 inhabitants per square km. Studies show that in 2000, 91.6% of the population in Israel lived in urban areas, most of them in the extended coastal metropolitan area [11,12]. In the developed regions of the world, 75.4% of the population lives in urban areas. The high rate of population growth (with immigration as an important factor) and the resulting population density are key factors influencing Israel’s environment. 3. Establishing priorities and an action plan: The role of the SNI in setting environmental policy 3.1. Mode of operation The SNI adopted a working methodology based on the involvement of as many environmental experts as possible and presentation of consensus papers, while creating an open forum for discussion and professional debate. Experts in each major fields of environmental policy (air quality, water quality, transportation, open spaces, solid and hazardous wastes, agriculture, marine environment, environmental education, and so forth) prepared background papers in their respective areas, including a description of the existing situation and a proposed set of actions, prioritized according to importance and feasibility.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 930

O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934

These papers were reviewed by five to 15 additional experts, whose responses and comments were also published. Subsequently, workshops were conducted to discuss the proposals and recommendations. Nearly 100 experts in the diverse environmental fields participated in discussions, which led to the establishment of a list of priorities and a recommended course of action to address environmental issues in Israel. The SNI published four position papers outlining the evaluations and recommendations for national environmental policy, in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2004 [5]. Following each publication, a conference or series of workshops were held. The purpose of these meetings was to bring together and help policy makers, academic scholars, NGOs, and others make informed decisions regarding crucial environmental policy issues. 3.2. Effectiveness of actions It is widely acknowledged that policy issues, especially those concerning the environment, are not the first priority in a country like Israel, which struggles on a daily basis with other problems. The political situation in Israel is instable and the average lifespan of a government is no longer than two to two and a half years. These circumstances make it difficult to implement a rational and sustainable environmental policy. In addition, the time needed for implementation of environmental policy and analyzing its effects is rather long. Therefore, in this paper we focus on analyzing and tracking the recommendations presented in the first and second policy position papers [13,14]. 3.3. Environmental education and public awareness A point that was consistently raised during discussions on several topics was the essential role of the public in the environmental arena. Activities designed to educate the public about environmental issues are a prerequisite for implementing environmental policies, even if they do not directly solve environmental problems. 3.3.1. Raising public awareness and the public’s right to know Public awareness and support of environmental groups are vital for achieving environmental targets. Powerful business interest groups very often back activities, such as urbanization of open space, development of urban development projects along the seashore, roads, and the like. The strength of environmental policy management depends largely on the counter force of a large and powerful environmental lobby. This entails establishing popular political lobbies for environmental issues, supporting active neighborhood committees for the improvement of local environmental quality, promoting changes in the use of private cars, solid waste treatment, and so forth. Thus, the establishment of public environmental bodies is a high

priority objective, which requires resource allocation and governmental assistance. Konisky and Beirele [15] discuss the classic pattern of public participation, as well as new approaches, such as citizens’ juries and roundtable talks. The principle of the public’s right to know should be rigorously enforced. All information concerning environmental polluters and activities having environmental impact should be transparent and available to the public [16]. Furthermore, for effective public action to take place, technical and scientific support must be accessible. The involvement of scientists and other experts in helping the NGOs establish rational priorities is essential. Effective environmental education is required at all levels [17–20] and should take place from kindergarten through universities. Beyond the fact that individuals living in the twenty-first century may need assistance in understanding complex environmental issues, environmental education also leads to increased public involvement in influencing environmental policy. Since most of the future generation of leaders, engineers, economists, and educators will go through the university education system, investing in environmental education at the university level will hopefully lead to a more environmental-friendly leadership in the future. As a third player, the SNI can make recommendations, build consensus, and serve as a bridge between conflicting players. However, in some fields, the SNI can also play a leading role in implementing environmental policy. Following the SNI’s recommendations to promote community environmental activities, the Technion, where the SNI is situated, initiated a Green Campus system [21], which was soon adopted by other universities. As an educational institute for engineers and scientists, the Technion undertook to incorporate the environmental perspective in its daily activities and operations. It was assumed that if the new generation of engineers and other academics were environmentally aware, the future planning, development, and management of the country would be environment-friendly. The Green Campus activities and projects encompass the entire Technion community (students, academic and administrative staff). It covers a broad range of issues, including water conservation in the campus buildings and as part of the campus landscaping, energy conservation in buildings throughout the campus, recycling and resources conservation (paper, ink cartridges, bottles, and the like), promoting public and bicycle transportation within the campus, and collecting used batteries. The Green Campus program also includes a sponsored ‘‘Green Day’’, lectures and discussions, and an ecological garden, designed to develop environmental awareness among its visitors. Most universities in Israel have adopted similar programs, following the example set by the Technion. All the activities are reported through the campus newspaper and a website [21]. The SNI plays a significant role in raising public awareness. Workshops, conferences, open lectures, reports

ARTICLE IN PRESS O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934

in scientific and popular journals, articles in broadcasted media, and free information on the SNI web site are some of the means its employs to disseminate knowledge and create a wide basis of information. 4. Preventing environmental pollution in Israel 4.1. Water (quality and quantity) management Water in Israel is scarce and its quality is endangered. The coastal aquifer, which is the largest water reservoir in the country, is deteriorating due to intensive pumping, intrusion of salty water, and percolation of contaminants such as heavy metals and organic pollutants. The groundwater quality is deteriorating and high salinity and high concentrations of organic pollutants have been observed [20,22,23]. The mountain aquifer and the Sea of Galilee are in better condition, although the danger of pollution still exists. One of the recommendations of the water quality task group was to pump and treat polluted wells rather than close them (which was the common action taken), thereby avoiding buildup of hydraulic head and expansion of the pollution hazard. This recommendation has been accepted and is now being put into practice. In addition, the deterioration of water quality has led to the need to treat water before it is supplied to the consumer. The SNI recommended immediate implementation of these water treatment operations, rather than waiting for an emergency situation, when the need for urgent action might preclude rational consideration of all options. As indicated earlier, the shortsightedness of the government and the difficulty in implementing long-term policy are the main reasons that this recommendation was only partially adopted. A recommendation that both the NGOs and the government have accepted relates to the principle of the right to know, guaranteeing citizens access to comprehensive information regarding the quality of their water supply. However, the implementation of this recommendation is still only partial, and only a few municipalities transparently publish the quality of the water. 4.2. Waste management Up until the early 1990s, dumping of waste in nearby sites, without any measures to prevent groundwater contamination and air emissions, was common. This was the cheapest way for municipalities to dispose of waste. One of the major changes induced by the activities of the SNI program is the inclusion of external costs (or benefits)1 in the accounting and consideration of the different options for solid waste disposal. When externalities are included in 1 Externalities are a form of market failure that arises in an unconstrained market [24–26], defined as ‘‘the costs and benefits which arise when the social or economic activities of one group of people have an impact on another, and when the first group fails to fully account for their impacts’’ [27].

931

the budget, dumping becomes the most expensive, rather than the cheapest option. As a result of this change, the MOE has managed to significantly reduce the number of these dumps, and to gather all the municipal solid waste (MSW) in a few central, constructed landfill sites. It has to be noticed that even the Ministry of Finance has acknowledged the need to include external costs in the total cost of waste management, although, due to political constraints, it has not yet implemented a landfill tax. A landfill tax will enable to upgrade the waste disposal sites to comply with accepted modern environmental standards and will promote other waste management technologies, such as recycling and energy recovery, which are currently more expensive. Nevertheless, there is no long-term policy regarding MSW; the local municipalities object to most alternatives since their interest is to maintain the least costly option; the residents want their neighborhood clean, but they generally object to nearby MSW facilities (the Not In My Back Yard-NIMBY-syndrome). The public favors recycling, but since these schemes are generally more expensive than landfill, the local municipalities object to them [28,29]. The scientific approach to bridging the gap, as suggested by the SNI panel of experts, is to evaluate each MSW treatment alternative, including its direct and external costs [28]. In addition, using methods such as life cycle analysis may help promote rational decision making [30]. Another important issue raised by the SNI waste team was the need to focus waste management efforts on the organic fraction of waste. Since Israeli waste is rich in biodegradable materials, the waste sector contributes 12% of total national greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, for a time horizon of 100 years [31]. As discussed below, this is important in the context of international agreements, such as the Kyoto protocol. 4.3. Environmental taxation A different approach to the prevention or reduction of environmental pollution is the imposition of environmental taxation. In many countries, traditional command and control regulations are being replaced by, or implemented together with, economic measures. These are environmentally effective and their economic efficiency is higher (see, e.g., [32,33]). Environmental taxation reflects the real price of natural resources or environmental damages. This mechanism is useful for regulating demand, and complies with the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle. An important feature of environmental taxes is the ‘‘double dividend hypothesis’’ [34], which has made them attractive to governments. These taxes could, in principle, replace or reduce other taxes in the economy, such as those on labor (e.g., income tax) and capital (e.g., corporate tax). The SNI reports suggest several possible fields where environmental taxation should play an important role (mainly in waste management and energy production and use). Recently, several governmental departments, including the Ministry

ARTICLE IN PRESS O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934

932

of Finance, have realized the need of this principle, but no such a tax has been implemented, yet. On the other hand, the Public Utility Authority—Electricity of Israel (PUA) has decided, by the end of 2004, to issue direct incentives (through premiums) for the production of renewable electricity. 5. Actions mandated by international environmental policy 5.1. Reduction of greenhouse gas emission As a Non-Annex 1 country, Israel is obligated under the Kyoto protocol to analyze all GHG emissions [9]. The Israeli government has complied with the demand for the inventory list [35], but since the reduction of GHG emissions was not compulsory, no action towards this end has been taken yet. Due to lack of information and interest in this topic, the public is largely indifferent. The SNI has recommended that the MOE implement a national GHG reduction plan, not only because of the benefit of reduced emissions, but also in light of other environmental benefits of such reductions [5]. Table 3 summarizes the results of the relevant study. It can be seen that, even in the pessimistic scenario, onequarter of the GHG emissions can be reduced, contributing to additional environmental benefits. Moreover, complying with international agreements can improve Israel’s position in the area of global stewardship.

Recently, SNI established the Energy Forum, which will serve as a hub for discussions among government officials and representatives from industry, the energy sector, the transportation sector, fuel companies, and consumer groups. The Energy Forum has also become affiliated with the Global Energy Network of the US Department of Energy [5]. The Energy Forum holds focused discussions regarding specified themes, and teams of subject-matter experts are invited to participate. The aim of these focused debates is to deliberate over specific and relevant questions; enable dialogue and coordination between participating bodies; and develop recommendations on implementation strategies for advancing the subject at hand that could then be presented to decision-makers. 6. Discussion The thesis that served as the motivation to design, formulate, and periodically publish policy papers on environmental priorities is that an objective third party is needed to balance the environmental arena, in Israel and elsewhere. Has the addition of the third player been helpful? Has the effort described here led to better policymaking, environmental decisions, and actions? It is very difficult to reach an objective, scientific conclusion regarding these questions. First, as scientists, we seek a comparison between an experimental treatment vs. a control, or a number of related variables where we can

Table 3 Summary of policy recommendations to reduce GHG Measure

Expected reduction of emissions (Percent of total)

Additional advantages

Pessimistic scenario

Reasonable scenario

Optimistic scenario

1. Waste and sewage sludge treatment (e.g. by better management of the organic fraction of the waste) 2. Switch to natural gas in power stations 3. Energy production in combined cycle

8

10

12

Solution of waste problem in Israel

3

8

11

Reduction of air pollution

2

5

7

4. Co-generation (combined electricity and heat production)

2

3

4

5. Energy conscious building

3

5

7

6. Improvements in transportation planning, fuels and fleets.

2

4

6

7. Improvements in industry (without co-generation)

4

7

10

8. Agricultural management

0.5

1

2

Use of fuels with higher efficiency. Postponing of building power generation plants Use of fuels with higher efficiency. Postponing of building power generation plants Energy savings and postponing of building power generation plants Reduction of air pollution. Improvement of environment in cities Improvement of air quality. Postponing of building power generation plants Reduction of underground water and air pollution

ARTICLE IN PRESS O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934

judge the existence of statistical relationships. In this case, these procedures are not relevant. The mere fact that a series of suggestions was eventually accepted does not imply a unique interpretation. Very often, the agency carrying out these changes disputes any relationship between suggestions from an external body and its action. Nevertheless, we do have very strong indications that the activities described here did have an impact. The Israeli authorities have adopted many of the SNI’s proposals and furthermore, following the publication of the SNI’s environmental priorities position papers, the MOE and other agencies came out with their own priority lists. However, the contribution of an objective scientific player depends, to a large extent, on how it is perceived by the other players. The activity of such a third party increases if the governmental agencies regard it as a friend and supporter, and not as an antagonist. Furthermore, the public’s regard of the expert opinions is a very important factor for the third party’s success. A very clear advantage of the activity described here is that it serves as a bridge connecting scientists and other professionals to the general public, and raising awareness of the practical and political problems that must be solved in order to maintain proper environmental quality in the country. This alone seems to be an important justification for this effort. Some of the essential recommendations for environmental policy do not require additional funding. For example, if the Ministry of Education, and not just the Ministry of Environment, would give priority to sustainability, and take the lead in implementing environmental education, the odds for success towards the goal of a just and sustainable future would increase. Another example is integrated planning, which takes into consideration land uses, open spaces, roads, and other modes of transport. This type of planning should be agreed upon and implemented in national and local decisions. In the meantime, many of the SNI’s recommendations will not be implemented until there is a broad recognition of their importance, and the ability to make decisions and set clearcut policies in Israel. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Prof. Arnon Bentur, former director of SNI. Prof. Bentur established the field of environment as one of the core research activities of SNI, enabling scientific and objective research. The authors would also like to thank Prof. Nadav Liron, the present director of SNI, for his fruitful comments and continuous support.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[7]

[8] [9] [10]

[11]

[12] [13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17] [18]

[19]

[20]

[21] [22]

[23]

[24]

References [1] Ministry of Environment, Israel Union for Environmental Defense and the US Environmental Protection Agency 2003. A comprehensive assessment of air pollution public health risks in two Israeli

[25]

933

metropolitan areas 1995–1999. See also: hhttp://www.iued.org.il/ page.aspx?pid=53&cid=0&menu=7i. Barrett J, Segerson K. Prevention and treatment in environmental policy design. J Environ Econ Manage 1997;33(2):196–213. Society for the protection of nature. See: hwww.spni.org.ili. Life and environment. See: hwww.sviva.neti. Samuel Neaman Institute. See: hwww.neaman.org.ili. Esty DC. Environmental sustainability index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network and Columbia University, 2005. See also: hhttp://www.yale.edu/esi/ ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf#search=%22Esty%20DC.%20Environmental%20sustainability%20index%22i. Esty DC. Environmental sustainability index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network and Columbia University, 2002. See also: hhttp://www.yale.edu/esi/i. Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. See: hwww.cbs.gov.ili. Israeli Ministry of Environment. See: hwww.sviva.gov.ili. United Nations Secretariat. UN Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Population Prospects: the 2002 revision and world urbanization prospects—the 2001 revision. See also: hhttp://esa.un.org/unppi. Melloul AJ, Wollman SH. Qualitative hydrological and land-use planning tool for the Israel Coastal aquifer. Sci Total Environ 2003;309(1–3):1–17. Feitelson E. Social norms, rationales and policies: reframing farmland protection in Israel. J Rural Stud 1999;15(4):431–46. Avnimelech Y, Ayalon O. English abstract. In: Avnimelech Y, Ayalon O, editors, National environmental priorities of Israel—first position paper. SNI and the Israel Economic Forum for the Environment: Haifa; 1999. Avnimelech Y, Ayalon O. English abstract. In: Avnimelech Y, Ayalon O, editors. National environmental priorities of Israel— second position paper. SNI and Life and Environment: Haifa; 2001. Konisky DM, Beirele TC. Innovations in public participation and environmental decision-making: examples from the Great Lakes region. Soc Nat Resources 2001;14(9):815–26. Khanna M, Quimio WRH, Bojilova D. Toxics release information: a policy tool for environmental protection. J Environ Econ Manage 1998;36(3):243–66. The US Environmental Protection Agency. See: hhttp://epa.gov/ enviroedi. Keser OF, Ozmen H, Akdeniz F. Energy, environment, and education relationship in developing countries’ policies: a case study for Turkey. Energy Sources 2003;25(2):123–33. Dietz T, Stern PC (Eds.). New tools for environmental protection: education, information and voluntary measures. Washington, DC: National Research Council Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. New York: National Academy Press; 2002. Melloul AJ, Collin ML. Harmonizing water management and social needs: a necessary condition for sustainable development. The case of Israel’s coastal aquifer. J Environ Manage 2003;67(4):385–94. The Technion Green Campus. See: hhttp://greencampus. technion.ac.ili. Gordon E, Shamir U, Bensabat J. Optimal management of a regional aquifer under salinization conditions. Water Resources Res 2000; 36(11):3193–203. Collin ML, Melloul AJ. Assessing groundwater vulnerability to pollution to promote sustainable urban and rural development. J Cleaner Prod 2003;11(7):727–36. Cambridge Econometrics in association with EFTEC and WRc. A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain, 2003. See: hhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/landfill/pdf/ landfill_disamenity.pdfi. Rabl A, Spadaro JV, Desaigues B. Usefulness of damage cost estimates despite uncertainties: the example of regulations for

ARTICLE IN PRESS 934

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

O. Ayalon, Y. Avnimelech / Energy 32 (2007) 927–934 incinerators. Environmental risk. Final report 1 annex 7: COSTS, 1998. See also: hhttp://www.arirabl.com/PUBLICATnew.htmli. Krewitt W, Friedrich R, Heck T, Mayerhofer P. Assessment of environmental and health benefits from the implementation of the UN-ECE protocols on long- range transboundary air pollution. J Hazardous Mater 1998;61:239–47. Rabl A. Summary, Methodology, vols. 1 and 2. In: Extern: externalities of energy. The European Commission, DirectorateGeneral XII, Science Research and Development. Luxembourg; 1999. ISBN 92-827-5210-0. See also: hhttp://externe.jrc.es/reports. htmli. Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y, Shechter M. Issues in designing an effective solid waste policy: the Israeli experience. In: Sterner T, editor. The market and the environment: the effectiveness of market based instruments for environmental reform. UK: Edward Elgar; 1999. p. 389–406. Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y. On the pattern of decision making of municipal solid waste management. In: Kocasoy G, Atabarut T, Nuhoglu I, editors. Appropriate environmental and solid waste

[30]

[31]

[32] [33]

[34] [35]

management and technologies for developing countries. Turkey: Bogazici University Library; 2002. p. 183–90. Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y, Shechter M. Application of a comparative multidimensional life cycle analysis in solid waste management policy: the case of soft drink containers. J Environ Sci Policy 2000; 3(2–3):135–44. Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y, Shechter M. Alternative MSW treatment options to reduce global greenhouse gases emissions—the Israeli example. Waste Manage Res 2000;18(6):538–44. Tietenberg T. Environmental and natural resource economics, 6th ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 2003. Parry IWH, Bento AM. Tax deductions, environmental policy, and the ‘‘double dividend’’ hypothesis. J Environ Econ Manage 2000; 39(1):67–96. Bovenberg L, de Mooji R. Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. Am Econ Rev 1994;84(4):1085–9. Ministry of Environment (MOE). Israel national report on climate change, 2000. See: hhttp://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/ Binaries/index_pirsumim/p0110en_1.pdfi.