projected population growth rates the developing-world population will likely double in less than 40 years. The developed-world numbers will grow much more slowly, so that the population ratio of developing-world to developed-world will be more like eight or ten to one.

Our own vigorous economy has depended on exploitation of our natural resources. Our people have been industrious and innovative, and the developing countries want to emulate our success. Yet we know that if they do, the impact on the world environment will equal our own but multiplied ten times over. This is a formula for environmental catastrophe. Nonetheless, how can we deny those billions of people in other parts of the world the same opportunities we have had? How can we help them avoid our mistakes? Research must help identify development pathways that are environmentally sustainable.

The nation's system to address these environmental challenges consists of hundreds of programs in twenty or more agencies that invest about $5 billion a year in research and development related to the environment. This system has substantial strengths and substantial weaknesses, in the opinion of our committee. The agency research programs are mission-related, for the most part, and many of these programs support the missions well. On the other hand we find many weaknesses in this system. These weaknesses are outlined below.

(a) The research establishment (including most universities as well as federal agencies) is poorly structured to deal with complex, multidisciplinary research on large spatial scales and long-term temporal scales.

(b) With important exceptions (National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey) most federal environmental research and development is narrow, supporting either a regulatory or a management function.

(၁)

There is no comprehensive national environmental research plan to coordinate the efforts of the 20 or more agencies involved, and no agency is charged with development of such a plan.

(d) The lack of an integrated national research plan weakens the ability of the United States to work creatively with governments of other nations in addressing global

(e)

problems.

The nations's environmental efforts have no clear leadership. The absence of a cabinet-level environmental agency is evidence of lack of commitment to the environment. The environment is regarded as less

important than defense, health, transportation and other governmental functions.

(f) Although individual agencies and groups of agencies analyze data to provide a base for strategy and action decisions on mission-related problems there is no over-all integrating agency or "think tank" for assessing data to create models, determine trends and propose policy options.

(g) Bridges between policy, management, and science are weak. There is no organized system for communicating environmental problem assessments to decision makers and policy setters.

(h)

Long-term monitoring and assessment of environmental trends and of the consequences of environmental rules and

regulations are seriously inadequate. We have a poor understanding of our biological resources and how they are affected by human activities.

(1) There is insufficient attention to the collection and management of the vast amounts of data being developed by the twenty relevant agencies.

Education and training in the nation's universities are strongly disciplinary, whereas environmental solutions require broadly-trained people and multidisciplinary approaches.

(k) Biological-science and, particularly, social-science components of environmental research are less well supported than are the (still inadequately supported) physical sciences.

(1)

(m)

Research on engineering solutions to environmental problems is seriously underfunded, reducing our ability to protect and restore damaged ecosystems and jeopardizes our ability to derive maximum economic benefit from new technologies.

The Government operates in an adversarial relationship with industry and the general public with regard to environmental matters, to the detriment of integrated planning and maintenance of an atmosphere of mutual

trust.

We organized our thinking about environmental research problems around the three goals of protecting the environment for present and future generations, restoring damaged environmental functions (so that they are once more ecologically productive and

able to provide such environmental services as assimilation of wastes, production of food and provision of an aesthetically satisfying context for human interactions), and managing our natural, economic, cultural and human resources in ways that encourage the sustainable use of the environment.

To achieve these goals and to correct the deficiencies we see in the present system we suggest two types of change: 1) changes that are systemic, i.e. pervade the entire environmental research system, changes we choose to call "cultural", and 2) organizational changes.

The word "cultural" defines the institutionalized beliefs, values, and practices that characterize the administration of an agency's environmental research system and the nation's overall effort. For example, it refers to an agency's use of intramural as opposed to extramural research and to an agency's focus on mission-oriented as opposed to broader, more fundamental research.

The cultural changes we believe necessary are the following:
(a) Provision of a national-level mechanism to provide
leadership and coordination of the nation's entire
environmental research program.
(The entire
environmental program: research, operation, regulation,
etc. should also have such leadership). We have no such
over-all leadership now and it is badly needed.
Excellent coordination is now provided in some programs
(the global change program, for example, through the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and
Technology--FCCSET). FCCSET cannot set the overall
objectives for the entire national program encompassing
the efforts of scientists, state and local governments,
the public and the private sector. We suggest that an
Environmental Council in the Office of the President,
under the leadership of the Vice President, similar to
the organization of the Space Council, might be a model.
Development of a National Environmental Plan to form the
basis for coordinating environmental research
responsibilities of federal agencies. The plan, which
identifies the nation's environmental research agenda,
should be reviewed and updated at regular intervals as
conditions change. The Environmental Council would have
responsibility for ensuring the development of the plan
and monitoring the plan's execution.

(b)

(c) Linkage of environmental research and policy. We recommend the establishment of an Environmental Assessment Center in which large environmental issues that cross agency mission boundaries can be assessed and policy options developed. It is important that the best

scientific information is translated into strong and defensible policies for protection, restoration and management of the environment.

We recommend further fundamental changes in the performance of environmental research, as follows:

(a)

Emphasis is required on fundamental research to broaden and deepen our understanding the behavior of environmental systems and their components, to deepen our understanding of how transfers of energy and materials occur among those components and to improve our knowledge of the interactions among components. Research to achieve these objectives necessarily extends beyond the mission-oriented goals most of the agencies now pursue. (b) High quality research requires stable funding bases to ensure the ability to undertake studies of long temporal scales. It should be pluralistic in approach and be supported by multiple funding strategies, with proper regard to balance between intramural and peer-reviewed extramural support. It must provide for education of the next generation of scientists and it must provide the necessary facilities and instrumentation.

(၁)

Balance is required between disciplinary research and increased emphasis on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research directed toward the goals of protection, restoration and management of environmental resources. In the past the physical sciences have been emphasized to a greater degree than biology, and both the physical and biological sciences have fared better than the social sciences and engineering. We believe a more balanced program is important.

(d) More extensive monitoring of the nation's environmental status is required. We must know the status of, and changes in, our natural resources if we are to protect, restore and manage them. We believe that a National Environmental Status and Trends Program, to be coordinated by the National Environmental Council we suggest, is essential. This Program would function as an integrated cooperative program among the federal agencies to inventory and monitor the status and trends of our natural resources. A biological survey of appropriate scope would be a valuable part of this Program.

(e)

We need an organized system to collect, store and distribute the environmental information necessary to ensure efficient research and to inform the development of sound environmental policy. We recommend the creation

(f)

of a National Environmental and Information System to be coordinated by the National Environmental Council.

We recommend the establishment of new and expanded educational and training programs to produce the next generation of environmental scientists and engineers. We also recommend increased attention to the promotion of the understanding of environmental issues by the general public.

While we are not experts on governmental organization we believe that there are organizational arrangements and grouping of functions that facilitate the kinds of "cultural" changes we see as important. Environmental agencies and programs were created largely in the 1970s and the nature and scope of environmental problems have since changed dramatically. The human population has changed by half, and many of the issues that dominate today's environmental agenda were not widely perceived as urgent in the 1970s. Then, the degree of damage that we could do to the Earth's ozone shield was not fully recognized. We were aware that a some species in the country were in danger of becoming extinct but few of us expected that human activities might cause the extinction of a million species during the next half century.

Twenty years ago environmental problems were viewed as single medium problems, i.e. they were viewed as water problems, or air problems and the legislation and the organization was built around these concepts. Now we know that the problems are much more complex and involve complex interactions. It is appropriate to look to organizational changes that reflect this changing perception of environmental problems.

present We set

We think there are a number ways to modify organization to achieve the goals we see as desirable. forth four frameworks, any one of which would be a major improvement over the present system. We prefer the first and the fourth of these frameworks.

FRAMEWORK A. This arrangement preserves the identity and functions of existing agencies. Added, where essential, are new offices to perform functions absent in the current organization but required to implement the cultural changes that we recommend. With refinements and strengthening in individual agencies' programs and with additional effort devoted to interagency coordination, significant improvement can be made in the nation's environmental research program.

The cultural changes we recommend provide for a National Environmental Plan as a road map for the organization of environmental programs, including more emphasis on fundamental research, and coordination in the use of the road map by the National Environmental Council. Essential programs for information