Note: Countries that have formally ratified, acceded, approved, or accepted the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as of October 31, 1992. Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 1992. depletion may be occurring more rapidly and widely than previously believed, President Bush took the following actions: • Accelerated the U.S. phaseout ⚫ Called on other nations to ratify the By early 1992 U.S. production of CFCs had dropped more than 40 percent below 1986 levels largely as a result of innovative market-based mechanisms such as fees and tradable allowances. Parties to the Montreal Protocol created the Interim Multilateral Fund in 1990 to assist developing countries undergoing the transition to CFC replacement technologies. Total contributions to this voluntary 3-year fund rose from $160 million in 1991 to $200 million in 1992 and likely will increase substantially in 1993. Technology Cooperation. The United States supports technology cooperation with developing countries and countries with economies in transition to help them find environmentally sound paths to economic growth and development. Technology cooperation takes the following forms: • Information Exchange. A new • Training and Technical Assis- Institute shares U.S. environmental advances with developing countries by providing training courses to foreign executives. At UNCED, President Bush proposed an Environmental Technology Cooperation Corps to engage the U.S. private sector with counterparts abroad in the diffusion of environmentally sound management and technology. • Capacity Building. The United States has established an Energy Efficiency Center in Russia to complement similar centers previously established in Eastern Europe. The purpose of the centers is to reduce energy-related wastes by increasing indigenous expertise and resources devoted to energy efficiency. Technology Transfer and Development. The United States promotes technology transfer and development through efforts that include the following DOE programs: - ADEPT. The ADEPT program (Assisting Deployment of Energy Practices and Technology) encour ages joint ventures between U.S. - America's 21st Century. U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership. In January 1992 President Bush announced the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP), involving U.S. and Asian businesses, governments, and community groups in a program that includes technology cooperation, environmental fellowships and training, and conservation of regional biodiversity. More than 25 Asian countries are eligible to participate in the partnership, coordinated by a working group co-chaired by USAID and the Department of Commerce and including 17 other federal agencies. National Environmental Policy Act T he National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the nation's environmental magna carta. With passage of NEPA in 1969, the United States adopted a national policy to "encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and the environment" and to direct federal agencies, to the fullest extent possible, to interpret and administer U.S. policies and laws in accordance with this policy. NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to advise the President and assist federal agencies with compliance, and the act mandated procedural requirements to fulfill its substantive goals. Conditions and Trends To help ensure that consideration of environmental values is systematic in federal decisionmaking, NEPA section 102(2)(C) requires preparation of a "detailed statement" for "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The "detailed statements" have come to be called environmental impact statements (EIS), and the process underlying the preparation of those statements by federal agencies has come to be called the environmental impact assessment or NEPA process. CEQ has promulgated regulations to implement the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The primary purpose of these regulations is to ensure that federal agencies consider the substantive goals of NEPA in the course of decisionmaking and that the public and environmental agencies are involved in that process. Over the years, some observers have come to associate NEPA implementation more with documentation of environmental analysis than with the substance of the analysis itself. However as CEQ regulations state: Ultimately, of course, it is not bet- agency within that department. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also nominated agencies in both categories based on its experience in reviewing environmental impact analyses. Award recipients will be recognized in future CEQ annual reports. Policies and Programs As part of its NEPA oversight responsibilities, CEQ sponsored a number of initiatives during 1992. A sampling follows. NEPA Regional Conferences During 1991 and 1992 CEQ hosted five regional conferences that focused on ecological issues in NEPA analyses. The conferences, cosponsored by EPA with assistance from the Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, were held in Denver, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and Anchorage. They afforded CEQ the opportunity to meet with NEPA practitioners in the field to discuss methods for implementing national policies that relate to conserving biodiversity. Experts in biodiversity conservation spoke at each conference, and NEPA practitioners presented papers and case studies on methods of incorporating ecological principles into the NEPA process. Methods include geographic information systems (GIS) and data available through The Nature Conservancy's Natural Heritage Program. In addition, CEQ devoted a segment of each conference to the purpose, theory, and practice of preparing environmental assessments. After reviewing information gained from the conferences, CEQ will issue a report on biodiversity in NEPA analyses. CEQ intends to issue guidance to the federal agencies on NEPA consolidation in the EA process. Environmental Assessment Survey In 1992 CEQ surveyed federal agencies to determine whether EAs are facilitating effective NEPA compliance. The survey, which covered 45,000 EAS prepared during the year, also showed that while the EA process often facilitates mitigation, many agencies do not use EAs as originally envisioned by the regulations in three significant respects: • Agencies rarely use an EA to determine whether an EIS is necessary; • Agencies prepare EAs that are often quite lengthy and correspondingly costly; • Agencies appear to rely heavily on mitigation measures to justify EAS and FONSIS. The survey results suggest that some agencies have avoided preparing EISS based on the erroneous perception that preparation of EAS does not require public involvement. However, the results also indicate that increased reliance on EAs may be attributed in part to early NEPA integration in agency planning, which results in mitigation measures being incorporated into a project site and design, with adverse environmental effects consequently reduced or eliminated. The survey results are available in their entirety from CEQ. Cumulative Impact Analysis While most federal managers recognize the need to assess the cumulative impacts of agency actions, EISS are often limited in scope. As a result, EISS frequently miss the big-picture effects of individual proposals, and litigation ensues. While a consensus exists on the need to evaluate cumulative effects, |