Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs

Transcription

1 Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs European Politics with a Scientific Face: Transition Countries, International Environmental Assessment, and Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Stacy D. VanDeveer E September 1998 Global Environmental Assessment Project Environment and Natural Resources Program

2

3 CITATION, CONTEXT, AND REPRODUCTION PAGE This paper may be cited as VanDeveer, Stacy D European politics with a scientific face: Transition countries, international environmental assessment, and long range transboundary air pollution. ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-9, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. No further citation is allowed without permission of the author. Comments are welcome and may be directed to the author at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, telephone (617) , fax (617) , stacy_vandeveer@harvard.edu. The author is a GEA post-doctoral fellow. The Global Environmental Assessment (GEA) project is a collaborative team study of global environmental assessment as a link between science and policy. The Team is based at Harvard University. The project has two principal objectives. The first is to develop a more realistic and synoptic model of the actual relationships among science, assessment, and management in social responses to global change, and to use that model to understand, critique, and improve current practice of assessment as a bridge between science and policy making. The second is to elucidate a strategy of adaptive assessment and policy for global environmental problems, along with the methods and institutions to implement such a strategy in the real world. The Global Environmental Assessment (GEA) Project is supported by a core grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No. SBR ) for the Global Environmental Assessment Team. Supplemental support to the GEA Team is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute for Global Environmental Change. Additional support is provided by the Department of Energy (Award No. DE-FG02-95ER62122) for the project, Assessment Strategies for Global Environmental Change, the National Institute for Global Environmental Change (Awards No HAR, LWT ) for the project Towards Useful Integrated Assessments, the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Integrated Assessment Center at Carnegie Mellon University (NSF Award No. SBR ) for the project The Use of Global Environmental Assessments," the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Harvard s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and Harvard s Environmental Information Center. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by any of the supporting institutions. Publication abstracts of the GEA Project can be found on the GEA Web Page at Further information on the Global Environmental Assessment project can be obtained from the Project Associate Director, Nancy Dickson, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, telephone (617) , telefax (617) , nancy_dickson@harvard.edu by Stacy D. VanDeveer. All rights reserved.

4

5 FOREWORD This paper was written as part of the Global Environmental Assessment Project, a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to explore how assessment activities can better link scientific understanding with effective action on issues arising in the context of global environmental change. The Project seeks to understand the special problems, challenges and opportunities that arise in efforts to develop common scientific assessments that are relevant and credible across multiple national circumstances and political cultures. It takes a long-term perspective focused on the interactions of science, assessment and management over periods of a decade or more, rather than concentrating on specific studies or negotiating sessions. Global environmental change is viewed broadly to include not only climate and other atmospheric issues, but also transboundary movements of organisms and chemical toxins. The Project seeks to achieve progress towards three goals: deepening the critical understanding of the relationships among research, assessment and management in the global environmental arena; enhancing the communication among scholars and practitioners of global environmental assessments; and illuminating the contemporary choices facing the designers of global environmental assessments. It pursues these goals through a three-pronged strategy of competitively awarded fellowships that bring advanced doctoral and post-doctoral students to Harvard; an interdisciplinary training and research program involving faculty and fellows; and annual meetings bringing together scholars and practitioners of assessment. The core of the Project is its Research Fellows. Fellows spend the year working with one another and project faculty as a Research Group exploring histories, processes and effects of global environmental assessment. Academic year focused specifically on the past three decades of climate change, long-range transport and tropospheric air pollution assessment experience with special attention to Europe and North America. These papers look across a range of particular assessments to examine variation and changes in what has been assessed, explore assessment as a part of a broader pattern of communication, and focus on the dynamics of assessment. The contributions these papers provide has been fundamental to the development of the GEA venture. I look forward to seeing revised versions published in appropriate journals. William C. Clark Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Policy and Human Development Director, Global Environmental Assessment Project John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

6

7 ABSTRACT This paper examines the integration and participation of peripheral European states many of them formerly communist "transition" states -- in assessment processes and organizations. It examines participation patterns and their ramifications in international bodies involved in the construction of consensus positions around scientific, technical and policy questions concerning transboundary air pollution in Europe. The paper describes the level and nature of these countries participation in international environmental and scientific cooperation processes designed to build scientific consensus and convert it into international environmental policy within the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) regime, within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Numerous forms of environmental assessment and formal modeling have been used within the LRTAP organization. These assessment activities are often credited both by analysts and practitioners as having encouraged state policy makers and some publics to take stronger actions in pursuit of environmental protection. The research presented here focuses on the role of international assessment products and processes in shaping policy on the European periphery. In general, research presented in this paper suggests variance between big players and peripheral ones along a number of factors associated with international LRTAP-related assessment: (1) the relative contribution to construction of multilateral scientific and technical consensus particularly in the form of differential levels of effects research; (2) the use of multilateral assessment processes to assist in the formulation of foreign policy positions and assert policy positions to other states; (3) the existence of domestic institutions to link assessment processes to policy making; and (4) the relative salience of LRTAP issues as compared to larger political and economic ones. Lastly, regarding the notion of assessments and communicative processes, this research suggests that a major component of what is being communicated via international LRTAP assessment perhaps the major message is the direction of the big players in European environmental politics and policy plan to take policy in the foreseeable future. When these big players reach consensus around what types of assessments they need and what kinds of policy goals such assessment serves, officials on the periphery read into this that European policy is moving in certain directions and states on the periphery best pay attention.

8

9 1. INTRODUCTION: QUESTIONS INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT AS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS PARTICIPATION RESEARCH PARTICIPATION AND ASSESSMENT RESEARCH DESIGN: WHERE AND HOW TO LOOK THE CHALLENGE: TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION LRTAP STORIES: BIG SCENES, MAIN PLAYERS, CENTER STAGE SETTING THE SCENE LRTAP: EARLY HISTORY The Air Management Research Group Stockholm OECD and SNSF Negotiating the LRTAP Convention REGIME DEVELOPMENT: LRTAP PROTOCOLS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Protocols The Organizational Structure LRTAP EXPLAINED: BIG PLAYERS, BIG SCIENCE, BIG EMISSIONS CUTS Big Players Big Science Big Emissions Cuts FINDING THE OTHER EUROPEANS SETTING THE SCENE: IN THE CHORUS, IN THE AUDIENCE OR BACK STAGE? ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE PARTICIPATION IN LRTAP AND EMEP LRTAP Participation at the Working Group Level LRTAP Participation at the TF Level Qualitative vs. Quantitative Dimensions: Delegation Support and Size PARTICIPATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING ASSESSMENT IMPACTS ON THE EUROPEAN PERIPHERY ASSESSMENT ON THE PERIPHERY: WHAT IT DOES Impacts and Functions of Assessment Uses of Assessment ASSESSMENT ON THE PERIPHERY: WHAT IT DOES NOT DO FUTURE POLICIES AND RESEARCH: ALL NEW ROADS LEAD TO BRUSSELS CONCLUSIONS: PERIPHERAL COUNTRIES AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REFERENCES TABLES FIGURES... 61

10 ENDNOTES... 63

11 ACRONYM LIST AMRG CSFR CEE EB EC EMEP EU FRG GDR GEA HMs ICP IIASA IO LRTAP MARC NGO NIS NOx OECD POPs SNSF SO2 TF UK UN UNECE US USSR VOCs WGAT WGE WGS WHO WMO Air Management Research Group Czechoslovak Federal Republic Central and Eastern Europe Executive Body (of LRTAP) European Community Cooperative Program for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long- Range Transmission of Air Pollution in Europe European Union (post-1992 name for the European Community) Federal Republic of Germany ( West Germany ) German Democratic Republic ( East Germany ) Global Environmental Assessment Project Heavy Metals International Cooperative Programme International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis International Organization Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Meeting of Acidification Research Coordinators Non-Governmental Organization Newly Independent States (of the former Soviet Union) Nitrogen Oxide Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Persistent Organic Pollutants Norwegian Interdisciplinary Research Programme Sulfur Dioxide Task Force United Kingdom United Nations United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United States Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Volatile Organic Compounds Working Group on Abatement Techniques (of LRTAP) Working Group on Effects (of LRTAP) Working Group on Strategies (of LRTAP) World Health Organization World Meteorological Organization

12

13 1. INTRODUCTION: QUESTIONS 1 Does it matter who participates in international environmental cooperation and assessment institutions? This paper examines the integration and participation of peripheral European states many of them formerly communist "transition" states -- in processes and organizational assessment bodies. It examines participation patterns and their ramifications in international bodies involved in the construction of consensus positions around scientific, technical and policy questions concerning transboundary air pollution in Europe. The paper describes the level and nature of these countries participation in international environmental and scientific cooperation processes designed to build scientific consensus and convert it into international environmental policy within the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) regime, within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Numerous forms of environmental assessment and formal modeling have been used within the LRTAP organization. These assessment activities are often credited, by analysts and practitioners, with having encouraged state policy makers and some publics to take stronger actions in pursuit of environmental protection. The research presented here focuses on the role of international assessment products and processes in shaping policy on the European periphery. Absent overt imposition, influential global or regional integrated assessments require global or regional consensus on the content and procedures associated with such assessments. The extent to which transition states are "integrated" into processes associated with integrated environmental assessment and transnational consensus building provides a regional test for the viability of "global assessment." As the list of global and regional environmental issues grows and with it the international demand for scientific and technical assessment what interesting lessons can be drawn about the relationship of national participation and policy making from the LRTAP experience? Are East and Central Europeans participating in international integrated assessment within the LRTAP regime? In what ways? Why or why not? Does participation in assessment matter for policymaking? In other words, does the level of national participation influence the development of environmental policy at the state level? These broad questions drive this research. The major transatlantic and global scientific bodies involved in assessment activities for air and atmospheric pollution issues originated in the West. Global assessment processes exist around issues such as climate change and stratospheric ozone protection (GEA, 1997), desertification (Corell, 1998) and international hazardous waste trading (Krueger, 1998). Most, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), remain dominated by western scientists and policy makers (Sagar and Kandlikar, forthcoming). Such individuals, and the states and scientific communities from which they come, tend to define agendas and pay for programs. Similarly, most environmental and technology assessment models and tools originate in a handful of Western countries. In short, environmental assessment and international scientific consensus often have a "western face." As European political, economic and social integration accelerates, one might ask whether the formerly communist states and the scientific and technical experts who frequently represent them are integrated into western institutions such as LRTAP s integrated assessment processes? How much effort is directed at collecting and reviewing scientific and technical publications (and other information) which exists in East and Central European languages? Are certain types of low-level participation in international assessment processes 1

14 particular to East and Central Europe, or do they represent a broader phenomenon? What effects do assessment processes have on policy-making processes (at various levels)? Are these similar across states and/or types of states? East-West integration of international scientific activities and assessment methods provides an excellent test for potential challenges to global integrated assessment. It offers opportunities for research regarding the relative importance of varying levels of participation in multilateral assessment processes. International scientific and technical consensus cannot be separated from politics when global and pan-european consensus positions are constructed primarily among and by Western scientific and technical experts. Western European expertise, interests and resources drive the LRTAP agenda. Thus, one might ask whether this matters for the impact on policy of these assessment processes in Eastern and Central Europe? The next section outlines of what is meant by environmental assessment processes at the international level. Section three describes this research project, connecting the focus on nation participation to the study of assessment and policymaking. Following a short primer on the sources and impacts of acidifying deposition in section four, section five reviews the early history of LRTAP cooperation, scholarly analysis of LRTAP-related international cooperation, and the international regime s structure and content. Particular attention is paid to the different roles played by individuals and groups from various peripheral European states. Section six presents data on national participation within LRTAP, discussing quantitative and qualitative aspects of participation. Section seven draws out some impacts, functions and uses of international assessment products and processes in Central and East European countries, paying special attention to the relationship of the role of assessment in the context of European integration. Section eight presents a brief summation and draws some still tentative conclusions. 2. INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT AS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS The Global Environmental Assessment Project (GEA) defines assessment as the entire social process by which expert knowledge related to a policy problem is organized, evaluated, integrated and presented in documents to inform policy or decision-making (GEA, 1997: 35). The GEA Project s initial findings include the following propositions: (1) Assessment is most helpfully viewed as a social process, including but not restricted to its formal products; (2) The context within which that process occurs provides constraints and opportunities that significantly affect the outcomes of assessment efforts; and (3) Assessment is most helpfully seen as an intrinsically dynamic, iterative affair rather than a one-time act of decision advice (GEA, 1998: 11-12). Assessment activities associated with long-range transboundary air pollution issues in Europe adhere to these general propositions and fall within the project s definition of assessment. As practiced within LRTAP, assessment is explicitly iterated and organized around a somewhat complex committee structure consisting of a number of long- standing bodies, as well as other groups established on an ad hoc basis. Generally, individual states -- and occasionally an international organization (IO) -- take lead administrative roles for each area of assessment. (The overall organizational structure of LRTAP 2

15 is discussed further below.) One important design component of assessment as practiced within LRTAP, is that it lacks a focus on a final report or final product so common a feature of North American approaches to assessment. Thus, there are few glossy reports for analysts to mistake for the assessment of issues associated with air pollution and related economic, technological and policy questions. Occasionally, issue-specific state of the art reports are issued, however much of the assessment activity within LRTAP remains vaguely documented. Regular reports of task force meetings and activities are presented in the form of brief summations. The details of debates, differences and social learning process among task force members remain largely unexamined and within the memories of the groups active members. LRTAP assessment activities, understood as a relatively complex system of related assessment processes, encompass a large scope of issues associated with transboundary air pollution (with particular attention to acidification concerns). Over time, assessors have become more mindful of connections between acidification issues and related environmental concerns such as tropospheric ozone pollution and eutrophication, as well as transboundary heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) pollution. 2 New research, not all of it formally peer reviewed prior to inclusion, is used during assessment. However, new research is commissioned rarely by LRTAP bodies. The formal modeling work done by individuals at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis stands as a partial exception (Hordijk and Amann interviews, 1998). LRTAP assessment is explicitly policy relevant, often driven by requests to participating individuals and task forces by the so called political or administrative LRTAP bodies. While such requests are usually formal made by an administrative body as a whole and issued publicly informal requests prior to important meetings and official negotiations are not uncommon. Of course, [a]ssessments take place in the context of existing knowledge, research communities, politics, institutions and history (GEA, 1997: 55). For example, LRTAP assessments political context includes the over-arching European political environment (e.g. East-West divisions, détente, construction of the European Union, the collapse of communist regimes and the current drive toward greater East-West political and economic integration). Of interest for this research is the effect of institutional context on who can, and does, participate in assessment. Students of assessment processes also note that assessments may be best understood as communicative processes, suggesting that analysts of assessments roles in policy making focus on who is communicating what to whom through assessment (GEA, 1997). International level assessment processes are inextricably linked to international political relations. Internationally sponsored environmental assessment processes such as those found within the UNECE LRTAP regime is best understood as both political and scientific cooperation. Such assessment lies within the realm some have called trans-science or post-normal science a realm of co-production of scientific-political consensus (see Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998). Members of assessment working groups and task forces know their activities have policy (or political ) consequences and/or intentions. These assessors interact with official policy makers, developing an iterated dialogue between the allegedly separate groups. Participants in LRTAP assessment groups report frequent contact with state officials, citing numerous occasions where they altered the direction and goals of assessment activities to better respond to policy makers. 3 Under such conditions, scientific consensus is not constructed in the absence of 3

16 numerous political considerations and identifiable influences. As such, it matters who is participating in processes of consensus construction. As shown below, participants in the political, scientific and post normal science realms come largely from a small subset of states and national technical communities. Too often in the study of international cooperation, the social (or "political") aspects of scientific consensus-building are ignored. Frequently, science is viewed as prior to politics, as constructed in the absence of political influence. The epistemic communities literature, for example, relies on a conceptual and empirical separation of scientific consensus formation from policy making (Haas, 1989; VanDeveer, 1997). In general, epistemic community literature fails to critically examine the construction of the scientific consensus and its associated community of adherents (Jasanoff, 1997), particularly in reference to the roles played by political actors in driving scientific agendas, participation and research methods. Haas application of his epistemic community concept primarily traces the influence of science and scientists on policy (though he grants that actors and decisions in the political realm likely affect science). The epistemic communities literature has contributed greatly to contemporary understanding of the role of expertise groups in international negotiations and policy making (see, e.g., Haas, 1992). Such work can now be pushed further, to explore the extent to which science and policy are interactive over time each influencing the other. Patterns of participation within scientific and policy communities (and across their interface) are important aspects of such mutual influence. Few examples of policy-relevant international scientific consensus exist in the absence of political or policy making institutions able to financially and normatively support the networks, information sharing and dialogue required to build and identify consensus positions let alone publicize them as such. International scientific consensus is frequently afforded greater credibility among policy makers at the international level than is national-level or domestic science, because it is often seen by state officials as less infused with particular national interests. Although science is alleged to be above particular interests and bias, "international scientific consensus" is somehow even more objective or apolitical (Jasanoff, 1996). Thus, "scientific opinion" which is contrary to international consensus is often accused of being "national" and/or "political." Within the LRTAP experience, international assessment has been employed -- and its products used much more frequently than national assessment. 4 In fact, international assessment under LRTAP has largely replaced national scientific and technical assessment, except in association with LRTAP. National and international assessments are not mutually exclusive, however. They frequently overlap. Some LRTAP assessment activities, such as the regular forest surveys, are conducted nationally but are designed, reviewed and published internationally (see Iles, 1998). As argued below, LRTAP s international assessment processes tend to be framed, driven and shaped by a small subset of states (or their nationals). Thus, international assessment may avoid bias, utility and credibility problems associated with particular national assessments at the international level, and still infuse assessment processes and products with understandings shared only by a small number of the involved countries. As designed and practiced by Western Europeans, international assessment of technologies, strategies, pollution sources and emissions, and environmental impacts and policy proceeds from 4

17 institutional assumptions more applicable to western countries (e.g. property rights, contract law, stable economic growth levels, aggregate levels of technology, rule of law and the existence of public institutions designed to translate assessment information into policy). In addition, as illustrated in the brief history of LRTAP presented below, the organizational nexus of assessment related to transboundary air pollution changes over time, but always from one international organization to another. The western face of international science and pan-european scientific consensus, such as constructed around LRTAP, could conceivably disregard contrary policy and scientific positions advocated by Easterners. Furthermore, air pollution issues may be framed differently across cultures and societies. For example, lake acidification or forest damages may not have the political cachet in other countries that these concerns invoked in Scandinavia and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), respectively. Furthermore, the LRTAP regime and its participation patterns developed around acidification issues. These are of widely varying levels of concern across Europe. As LRTAP engages a greater number of air pollution issues for which patterns of interest and capacity vary from those associated with acidification, the participation patterns and issues framings constructed around acidification may not serve the needs of the new issues. Marc Levy (1993: 85) notes, Because virtually no decisions are made by a secretariat, but rather by national officials representing their government, LRTAP has been accurately called a permanent negotiating process. From perspectives informed by social constructionist understandings of group interactions and the construction of consensus, one would want to include a more inclusive understanding of negotiating than is often used in international relations literature. Certainly, representatives of states negotiate common policies and agreements. However, groups of experts also negotiate around issues such as research agendas, language, scenario development and the meaning of new and existing knowledge and data. In addition, assessment participants of all kinds continually negotiate and renegotiate boundaries between policymaking and assessment. In this sense, all LRTAP bodies (like all groups) can be characterized as iterated negotiating processes. Therefore, that which is being communicated through iterated assessment processes is likely to change over time. It is also likely to vary among participants. In sum, when individuals, groups and organizations participate in international assessment, they participate in "politics." This participation shapes approaches to, and the results of, scientific assessment. As such, scientific and technical assessment may be political in at least three ways: (1) through the deliberate actions of those articulating science; (2) through calculated consequences of framing and/or distributional effects; and (3) through unanticipated (and often unexamined) effects of framing and/or distributional effects largely or wholly beyond the notice of participants. 5 Note that the agents of all three types of science as politics remain unspecified. Each might involve participants traditionally placed in scientific or policy making spheres (or both). The research presented below includes numerous examples of all three political aspects of scientific and technical assessment. The politics of assessment processes are not the only type of social interactions and context in operation vis-à-vis LRTAP. LRTAP, as situated within the UNECE, exists in organizational and geopolitical contexts, as well. European geopolitics has changed dramatically in the last 25 years. After a brief discussion the whys and hows of research on participation in LRTAP (section 5

18 3), the next section reviews the scientific and technical bases the sources and impacts -- of transboundary air pollution in Europe. Section 5 reviews scholarly work on LRTAP, highlighting important influences of the larger sociopolitical contexts within which LRTAP assessments have been carried out. 3. PARTICIPATION RESEARCH Why conduct research on the variance of national participation in international assessment processes? This section briefly reviews a few of the issues within debates over the relative importance of participation in international assessment. It also describes the empirical research presented below. 3.1 Participation and Assessment In the US policymaking context, discussions about the nature, design and implications of broad versus narrow participation in scientific and technological assessment frequently revolve around debates between technocratic and democratic visions of the science-policy domain (Jasanoff, 1990). Both visions view the nature and quality of participation as a key component of regulatory success. Yet, they see participation very differently. Technocrats focus attention of the quality of expert participation and the processes by which it is organized and used. Supporters of the democrat approach argue for a broad understanding expertise and participation. They push for the inclusion of many types of citizens and stakeholders, often arguing that legitimacy and quality are enhanced through broad participation. Much recent analyses of scientific and technical information in domestic and international settings views scientific and technological information, including most facts, as socially constructed (e.g. Haas, 1992: Jasanoff, 1990; Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998). Such knowledge is viewed as contingent upon personal views and the social institutions involved in its creation. Particularly relevant are questions associated with who is involved in knowledge creation how they participate. Participation-related issues are seen as important factors in the credibility and legitimation of knowledge. The GEA project has focused attention on the importance of participation and its relation to issue framing, influence on forms of input, connection to effective action and other issues (Botcheva, 1998; Cash, 1998; Farrell and Keating, 1998; GEA, 1997; Iles, 1998; Keating and Farrell, 1998; Miller, 1998). Many debates around credibility and quality issues surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also have pointed to participation as an important factor in understanding the credibility and influence of international assessment process around the world (Agrawal, 1997; Agrawal and Narain, 1991; GEA 1997; Sagar and Kandlikar, forthcoming) Research Design: Where and How to Look This research endeavors to determine how and why Central and East Europeans (CEE) participate in LRTAP assessment processes. In order to trace the influence of multilateral assessment processes on peripheral European states, empirical evidence was gathered to address the following questions: How much CEE participation was there in early air pollution-related 6

19 international scientific activities such as conferences, workshops, exchanges? Who was participating and what were their relationships to state policy making? How influential do East and Central Europeans perceive themselves to be and why? How influential do secretariat officials and staff perceive Easterners to be? What factors aid and/or limit the nature of CEE participation? What types of assistance programs exist to enhance Easterners abilities to participate? Have the answers to these questions changed over time? In particular, has the level and/or nature of CEE participation changed in the 1990s, following the changes in economic and political institutions in the now formerly state-socialist states? With these questions in mind, my empirical research on the participation of CEE individuals and organizations in LRTAP-related multilateral scientific and technical assessment focused on four countries: Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. From these cases, I hope to derive some preliminary generalizations about assessment impacts on states not central to assessment processes. Case selection attempts to maximize coverage of economic and social diversity within the region. Hungary and Poland have higher levels of economic development and generally greater integration into West European institutions than do Romania and Slovakia. Thus, on the basis of available material resources and existing networks, one might expect to find higher levels of participation -- and capacity to participate -- in LRTAP assessment processes. Portugal also was included in the research design to help control for factors particular to CEE. Where possible, CEE 6 participation patterns and their ramifications for policy making are compared to other peripheral areas of Europe; namely Southern or Mediterranean Europe (e.g. Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) and the Newly independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union (e.g. Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and the central Asian countries). In addition to secondary sources, the research relies heavily on personal interviews of individuals from international governmental and non-organizations, scientific and technical research institutes and consulting firms, and state level environmental policy officials (see Annex A). 7 Interviewing East and Central European scientific experts and policy makers also offers opportunities to explore and compare the framings of acidic deposition issues among policy elite in the region. 4. THE CHALLENGE: TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION The burning of fossil fuels releases sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air. These can be deposited near their sources and they can travel hundreds of miles in atmospheric wind currents. Sulfur and nitrogen oxides form acids which, when deposited in wet form (in precipitation) or in dry form, may cause damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as well as materials. Potential damages, or impacts, of acidic deposition include the following: acidification of aquatic ecosystems such as lakes resulting in alterations of species composition as various species die off at increasingly higher levels of acidity; degradation of terrestrial ecosystems in the form of damage to flora and fauna and alterations in soil composition. 8 At high levels, possible in local areas of air pollution, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen can have direct negative human health impacts as a cause of respiratory illness. At the lower levels generally involved in atmospheric transport, human health impacts, when they exist, are generally indirect. As an example, over time and under certain soil conditions, acid rain can cause heavy metals to be leached into drinking water supplies (Levy, 1993). 7

20 Acidity is measured in terms of its ph. The lower the ph level, the more acidic is the substance (see Figure 1). Acidic deposition becomes problematic (i.e. has adverse impacts) over time if it exhausts receptors (such as lakes, forests, croplands or buildings) abilities to withstand it. Thus, because of their composition, some ecosystems or materials can continue to thrive at levels of acidic deposition which would destroy a more vulnerable ecosystem. This has important ramifications for environmental policy because deposition thresholds levels below which ecosystems are not damaged by acidic deposition vary widely across ecosystems and hence across Europe. 9 Of course, the transboundary element of the air pollution as framed in LRTAP has no chemical or ecological basis. To state the obvious: Air pollution becomes transboundary only in that transverses international borders constructed largely irrespective of ecosystem boundaries and meteorological phenomena. Thus, air pollution can travel only a few miles and become transboundary, as is common in much of Europe, or travel hundreds of miles and remain domestic, as in the US. The point here is that the political scale of air pollution issues is not determined by natural phenomenon, but by social institutions. The description of acidic deposition contained here -- its existence, components, sources and impacts reflects contemporary understandings of the phenomenon. What is now a commonly accepted description was once a set of scientifically and politically controversial propositions. It was a small group of Scandinavians, one Swede in particular, who began to articulate claims about acid rain in Europe in the late 1960s. Some parallel work was occurring in North America at approximately the same time (Munton, 1998). As discussed below, once such claims were articulated they entered the public realm, engendering great scientific and popular debate. By the early 1970s, Marc Levy notes, the central questions about acid rain could be desegregated into four distinct areas: (1) Did sulfur dioxide travel long distances? (2) Did airborne deposition of sulfur dioxide harm rivers and lakes? (3) Did airborne sulfur dioxide harm forests and crops? (4) Would proposed domestic abatement measures bring comparable improvements in foreign environmental effects? (Levy 1993: 80). The following section reviews the early history of international attempts to study issues related to these questions. Combating acidification is hardly the only long-range transboundary air pollution challenge facing European publics, scientists and policy makers. Furthermore, it is now clear that policies designed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides will not eliminate acidification alone. Since the late 1990s, LRTAP activities have moved away from a narrow focus on acidification-related concerns associated with SO2 and NOx, to include assessment and policy negotiations and protocols on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals (HMs), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), tropospheric ozone, and eutrophication. This paper focuses mostly on LRTAP s acidification-related activities because these constitute the bulk of participants work over the last twenty-plus years. Nevertheless, these recent changes in LRTAP s agenda are important given that the impacts of different environmental challenges vary across Europe in different ways. Furthermore, LRTAP s organizational structures, behavioral norms, framing of issues and participation patterns generally developed around acidification concerns framed as the initial challenge to LRTAP policy makers by the Scandinavian countries. Their fit for other environmental challenges may vary. 8

21 5. LRTAP STORIES: BIG SCENES, MAIN PLAYERS, CENTER STAGE There exists a large and growing body of literature on the international and domestic politics of transboundary air pollution control and acidic deposition (Albin, 1993; Churchill, Kutting and Warren, 1995; Connolly, 1997; di Primio, 1996; Levy, 1993; McCormick, 1985, 1989, 1997, 1998; Munton 1998; Shaw, 1993; Social Learning Project 1998; Soroos, 1997; Victor, Raustiala, and Skolnikoff, 1998; Wetstone and Rosencranz, 1983; Wettestad, 1996, 1997). Most such work focuses on the period from the emergence of acid rain as an international issue in the late 1960s to the signing of the Second Sulfur Protocol in Hence, most is sulfur-focused, leaving little analysis of LRTAP s non-sulfur-related activities and programs. 10 While many differences exist in approach and content of the work within this body of literature some of which are discussed below a review of scholarly work on the LRTAP regime reveals a number of common themes and findings. Regarding LRTAP history, published stories and analyses, as well as the oral histories of observers and participants tend to single out the big events and the most important players as significant influences on the regime s development. In the stories of international politics, the big players tend to be powerful states (and occasionally individuals, usually from these same states). The literature on LRTAP focuses on the role of these main players and the big scenes between them. Particular attention has been paid to the important role played by scientific experts and the large, multinational data gathering and analysis activities associated with LRTAP. Other common themes include the importance of the geopolitical climate between East and West and the significant influence of mitigating factors inhibiting or in support of international environmental cooperation such as changing institutions and incentives in national energy sectors, economic structure and domestic environmental activism. Because the international arena is socially constructed, with international principles, norms and laws as it normative superstructure, theater and the stage are sometimes used as analogies for it. Thus, this section on LRTAP s early history treats the analysis and stories of LRTAP s history in theatrical terms, highlighting analysts focus on big scenes, big stars and big science. This early history ends with the signing of the 1979 LRTAP Convention -- the finale of LRTAP s first act if you will Setting the Scene In the 19 th and 20 th centuries early interest in the ramifications or effects of air pollution (in general) and related effects of increasing acidity levels of precipitation (in particular) developed first in geographic areas and countries experiencing the effects. Since effects were observed locally, such issues tended to be framed, at least initially, as local. These processes, while perhaps unsurprising, capture important dynamics of early international efforts to address causes and consequences of acidic deposition: as downwind states began to realize that pollutants were coming across their borders they became the chief sponsors of early international, acid rainrelated activities. Once preliminary scientific studies suggested that acidifying substances could travel long distances and were doing so, downwind states introduced acid rain issues to the international agenda, calling for multilateral research, data gathering, analysis and policy- 9

22 making. Thus, the states that worked to internationalize issues associated with long-range transboundary air pollution were those in which ill effects had been observed. By all accounts, the most active early movers were Swedish scientists and public officials. With a history of interest in freshwater acidity and transboundary air pollution (previously considered quite separate areas of study), Swedish scientists, including Svante Oden, began to argue that a link existed between increasing levels of pollution in precipitation and the environmental damages observed by others in fields such as limnology, atmospheric chemistry, forestry and agriculture (Oden, 1967, 1968; Cowling, 1982; McCormick 1997). Oden published his arguments in scientific publications and the popular press, creating a flurry of popular (in the Nordic countries) and scientific interest in air pollution and acid rain issues (Cowling, 1982). Cowling argues that Oden achieved, the first major unification of knowledge about acid precipitation in the fields of limnology, agriculture and atmospheric chemistry (1982: 114A). Oden unified knowledge across disciplines with language that captured public and scientific attention, claiming that an insidious chemical war was being waged among European countries. In Karen Litfin s terms, Oden is the first politically salient knowledge broker around acid precipitation issues (Litfin 1995). Oden s ability to translate and interpret knowledge in accordance with new or pre-existing sets of linguistic practices which entail specific constructions of the world (Litfin, 1995: 453) instantly moved his scientific findings into realms of popular, scientific and political discourse. Previous to Oden s work, published attempts to raise scientific and/or public awareness of possible acidification phenomenon went unnoticed. 11 His arguments and the language he used to articulate them captured public and scientific interest and imagination in parts of Western Europe. The dedication of public resources to further research followed this interest, particularly in Scandinavian countries. Oden served as both an information producer and an information framer, brokering knowledge so that questions of value were rendered as questions of fact (Litfin, 1998: 255) LRTAP: Early History This subsection reviews the early history of multilateral scientific and technical cooperation around air pollution issues and LRTAP development. It discusses four crucial international arenas the big scenes -- of scientific and political cooperation and consensus building: (1) the OECD-sponsored Air Management Research Group (AMRG) in the late 1960s; (2) the 1972 United National Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm; (3) the data gathering, analysis and scientific assessment activities over the course of the 1970s simultaneously done by the OECD and the Norwegian Interdisciplinary Research Programme (the so called SNSF Project); and (4) the negotiation of the LRTAP Convention in These four big scenes are discussed below. The first three arenas contained little, or virtually no, CEE participation, while the fourth, by all accounts, involved the East and Central Europeans only as minor players generally doing the bidding of the USSR. In other words, Central and Eastern Europeans were not actually present at the creation of LRTAP The Air Management Research Group How much East, Central and Southern European participation was there in early air pollution related international scientific and technical activities such as political and scientific conferences, 10

23 workshops, working groups, assessments and data exchange programs? Beginning in 1968, the OECD sponsored the Air Management Research Group (AMRG). The AMRG and its activities provided the initial political networks and discursive foundation for OECD involvement in multilateral efforts to assess and address air pollution issues throughout the 1970s. A decade of OECD activities provided a substantial fraction of the political and scientific and technical groundwork for negotiation of the LRTAP Convention and for early LRTAP programs. The AMRG is often overlooked in histories of international cooperation to combat long-range air pollution, possibly because it existed at the same time as Svante Oden s higher profile work on atmospheric transport of acidifying components. AMRG s chief purposes were to survey OECD member states regarding air pollution policy interests and research needs, establish international networks of state officials and experts, and begin to survey the state of knowledge among participant states regarding air pollution measurement, management and control technologies (see OECD, 1968). Thus, the AMRG constitutes an early effort at multilateral assessment around air pollution issues. 12 The AMRG was intended to encourage and facilitate inter-state information sharing around air pollution issues. OECD membership consisted of United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the West European states. 13 Thus, among Europeans, only Westerners were involved in the AMRG. Non-OECD states were not invited to participate. In 1968, AMRG s 34 participants included 24 individuals from 15 states (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, FRG, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States) and seven people from five international organizations (Council of Europe, World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, European Communities and OECD Secretariat). In addition, there was one consultant and two staff persons. Reflecting the OECD s heavily state-centric approach, all individual AMRG participants were designated by their national OECD representative, and most were employed within state bureaucracies (or international organizations). The group s mandate was to report back to OECD member states. 14 Results of the AMRG survey of OECD states, using a questionnaire entitled Priority of Problems Related to Air Management, found a majority interest in ten areas (OECD, 1968: 3). 15 AMRG members grouped these areas into three categories: (1) research on measurement of air pollution, (2) research on effects of air pollution, (3) research on control technology and planning. These three areas were designated as areas selected for immediate study and evaluation and participants agreed to survey national research programs (and progress) in these areas and report to the group. Of particular interest were methods for desulphurization and the reduction of emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. In various specific areas of interest to AMRG members, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States agreed to prepare reports (or lead reports). 16 Also in response to the survey, AMRG established working groups of experts -- designated by OECD delegations -- on measurement research and on research on desulphurization of fuel and flue gases. For the latter topic, national experts from France, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States were requested to meet and report on research in progress and planned on desulphurization of fuels and flue gasses (OECD 1968: 3). The AMRG worked to establish and expand an international network, among officials in OECD states, of national experts on air pollution issues. The group coordinated its activities with other ongoing OECD 11