Agenda 21 - United States
Click here to go to the following issues:
Economic Aspects | Natural
Resource Aspects | Institutional
Aspects | Social
Aspects |USA
NATURAL RESOURCE ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Click here to go to these sections:
AGRICULTURE
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the leading US agency charged
with implementing US policies for the provision of food, fiber and forest products. This
includes responsibility for research, development, and dissemination of knowledge about
managed ecosystems and sustainable methods of producing food, fiber, and forest products.
To accomplish this mission, the USDA works with many other groups including the
President's Council on Sustainable Development, the National Science and Technology
Council, the Committee on Food Safety and Health, other Federal agencies, State
agricultural and forest experiment stations, State land-grant colleges and universities,
extension services, non-profit organizations, among others. A number of associations and
non-governmental organizations (NGOS) are involved in the process associated with USDA
programmes as well as the legislative process pertaining to the periodic domestic
agricultural legislation ("farm bills") developed and enacted by the Congress,
in consultation with the Administration.
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
The 1990 "Farm Bill", the US Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 (7 USE 3101) defined sustainable agriculture as "an integrated system of
plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over
the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the
natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends; make the most efficient
use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate,
natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operation;
and enhance the quality of life for farmers and members of rural communities, and society
as a whole." The USDA policy on sustainable development (SM 9500-6), established in
1996, states: "USDA will balance goals of improved production and profitability,
stewardship of the natural resource base and ecological system, and enhancement of the
vitality of rural communities."
The US government continuously reviews policy, research programmes, extension
programmes and other activities related to food, fiber, and forestry production, marketing
and consumption. The most recent national legislation on agricultural and rural
development was the 1996 Farm Bill (the Federal Agricultural and Improvement Act).
This legislation extended the Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve
Programmes until the
year 2002. It also established the Environmental Quality Incentives Programme (EQIP) which
combines functions of earlier conservation programmes, and improving community-based
priority-setting for natural resources problems at the watershed level, including criteria
for funding. Examples of critical resource issues which are being addressed include water
quality, salinization, nutrient management, livestock management, water conservation, and
soil erosion.
The US government began national efforts to slow farmland loss and protect important
agricultural lands with the passage of the Farmland Protection Policy Act in 1981. Federal
regulations to implement the law were finally adopted in 1994. The 1996 Farm Bill created
the Farmland Protection Programme, which provides matching federal funds for State and local
farmland protection programmes. This programme compensates farmers for voluntarily limiting
future development on their land through a "conservation easement." The programme
enables landowners to sell development rights on their land to a government agency while
retaining full ownership. A Farmland Information Center (FIC) was also established to
provide information resources to federal, state, and local officials, conservation
professionals, farmers and ranchers, agricultural organizations and concerned citizens.
The FIC is available through the Internet at: http://www.farmlandinfo.org;
technical assistance staff are available by phoning: 413-586-4593.
The periodic re-authorization of US national agricultural legislation (the "Farm
Bill") has provided opportunities to improve national land conservation and
rehabilitation efforts. The 1996 Farm Bill simplified several existing conservation
programmes and created new programmes to assist landowners in addressing high-priority
national environmental protection goals.
Decision-Making: Strategies, Policies and
Plans
In 1996, USDA further committed all USDA agencies toward integrating economic,
environmental, and social sustainability into all policies and programmes, particularly
through interagency collaboration, partnerships, and outreach. A Director of Sustainable
Development was appointed to represent USDA in both domestic and international arenas on
issues relating to sustainable development.
In early 1999, The US released a National Action Plan on Food Security: "Solutions
to Hunger" which was a joint effort between a Federal Interagency Working Group
and the non-governmental Food Security Advisory Committee of the Board for International
Food and Agricultural Development. This plan outlines the means, through priority
strategies and actions, by which the United States will address the World Food Summit's
goals. These include a policy environment that supports economic and food security and
food and water safety, trade and investment liberalization, and improved decision making,
through inventory, research, education, and integration of environmental and
sustainability concerns. The National Action Plan is available at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/summit/usactplan.pdf.
The USDA Community Food Security Initiative was created to implement the domestic
components of the US Food Security Action Plan. The Food Security Initiative is designed
to help communities build their local food systems in order to decrease hunger, improve
nutrition, and help families move from poverty to self-sufficiency. The Initiative is
building links directly between USDA and non-profit groups, private businesses, and
citizens, as well as with state, local, and tribal governments to help communities end
hunger.
Integrated Pest Management in US Agriculture
The US Government's research and education on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) includes
research on pests, pesticide resistance, biological controls, cultural controls and
sterile insect release programmes. IPM involves the exploration and utilization of
biological cycles and genetic diversity of agricultural pests, host resistance, naturally
occurring pathogens and parasites. It also includes the study and use of reduced toxicity
pesticides. IPM involves training and education to foster a variety of pest control
techniques in order to keep pesticide intervention to a minimum.
The President has established a goal of IPM adoption on 75% of US cropland. The USDA
Economic Research Service , in a recent report [Green Technologies for a More Sustainable
Agriculture, 1999] shows that this goal has been reached for pest scouting in fruit and
vegetable crops, and projects the goal for full implementation will be reached in
vegetable production between 2008-36, and in fruit acres by 2005.
Decision-Making: Major Groups involvement
In support of resource based rural development, farm legislation was established and
supports local Resource Conservation and Development Councils throughout the nation. These
Councils which consist of citizen volunteers, design, fund, and implement a wide range of
demonstration and capacity building projects in their rural communities. Examples of
recent projects include: timber bridge construction, dry fire hydrant installation, oyster
bed seeding, local value-added food processing systems, no till seeders, solar powered and
animal operated pumps for rotational grazing system demonstrations, etc.
The Sustainable Agriculture Task Force of the President's Council on Sustainable
Development, with extensive input from the public and a wide range of interested
individuals and groups, completed and released its 1996 Report, which included goals and
recommendations for policy actions to be implemented by the public and private sectors.
Recommendations addressed supporting environmentally sound and economically viable
agricultural production, revitalizing rural farming communities, producing a safe and
high-quality food supply, encouraging research on integrating productivity, profitability
and environmental stewardship, and achieving international harmonization of intellectual
property rights.
Programmes and Projects
Under the 1996 Farm Bill, a new Farmland Protection Programme has been
implemented, and works through existing State and county rural land preservation efforts
to limit non-agricultural uses of land. A new Wildlife Habitat Incentive Programme,
which funds wildlife habitat restoration, restored 1.7 million ha to date. Through the Wetlands
Reserve Programme, almost 524,000 ha of wetlands and wetland buffer areas are being
restored on farmland. These programmes administered through USDA complement State, local,
non-governmental, and other Federal efforts. The 1996 Farm Bill also continued existing
natural resource conservation efforts which require preservation of existing wetlands on
agricultural land, and require the use of special conservation plans to control erosion on
highly-erodible soils for landowners to continue receiving farm programme benefits.
To encourage the economic development of rural communities, the US Government has an
alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Programme. This programme
seeks to enhance farm income by developing and commercializing non-food, non-feed uses of
traditional and non-traditional agricultural products. A revolving loan fund, established
to encourage this work has granted loans for purposes as diverse as the establishment of
standards and common terminology for biofuels, the manufacture of paper from straw, the
manufacture of high quality furniture from low-quality and small diameter logs, the use of
kenaf as a mat for seeding lawn grass and making newsprint and fiberboard, and the use of
milkweed as a filler for pillows and comforters.
One example of the US Government's effort to establish land reclamation programmes for
degraded land is the Conservation Reserve Programme. The purpose of the programme
is to assist land owners in the restoration of grass or trees on highly erodible or
fragile cropland, (including land with associated ground or surface water that may be
vulnerable to contamination). Through ten-year contracts, approximately 89 million ha (36
million acres) have been removed from production and revegetated in this programme. The
USDA also provides various natural disaster relief programmes to assist farms and ranches
that have suffered losses.
The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducts research on sustainable
plant nutrition and increasing food production, availability, and safety. All aspects of
agricultural research from germplasm conservation to human nutrition are addressed in 23
national programmes. Sustainability is an important element of all these national research
programmes. All ARS national programmes [details can be found on the Internet at: http://www.ars.usda.gov]
seek to enhance productivity while minimizing impacts on the environment. National
programmes in the Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems area in particular
address topics such as water management and quality, soil quality, rangeland health,
manure management, climate change, and integrated farming systems. The Integrated Farming
Systems (IFS) National Programme is the focal point for research activities that take a
holistic approach. IFS research takes into account the interacting components a producer
must balance, how the farm or ranch as a whole ban best be managed, and how the farm
functions within the larger landscape.
Status
Agriculture in the United States (US) today is both diverse and complex, and its
description requires more than a compilation of facts on farm numbers, farm sizes, and
farm production. National averages often mask the variation and interactions that are key
to understanding the roles of major participants in US agricultural production. Such an
understanding is essential to assessing the sustainability and the economic health of the
agricultural sector, and the effects of government programmes and Federal laws on farming
systems and rural areas across the country.
Land Conservation and Rehabilitation
Of the existing total land area in the United States of 4.7 billion hectares (ha) [1.9
billion acres], about 1.5 billion ha [600 million acres] physical characteristics
favorable to crop production: sufficient rainfall, adequate topsoil depth with good
water-holding capacity, and gentle slopes. Results from the USDA National Resources
Inventory indicate that on the nation's non-federal cropland, erosion decreased by 42
percent between 1982 and 1997.
About 1.6 billion ha (660,000 acres/year) of cropland and pastureland were converted to
urban uses in the US during the period 1982 to 1992. Although the cropland base is fairly
stable at 939 million ha (380 million acres) since 1992, more than half of the cropland
converted to developed land between 1982 and 1992 was considered prime agricultural land.
Land converted to cultivated cropland between 1995 and 1997 was generally lower in quality
(steeper and more erodible) than the existing cropland area.
Sustainability of Freshwater Resources for Agricultural Production and Rural
Development
The United States is a water-rich country overall, but there is significant variation
is water availability from one place to another and from one year to the next. Irrigation
constitutes almost 85% of consumptive use, with the remainder going to domestic use (7%),
industry (5%), and power generation (4%). Since the early 1970s, considerable progress has
been made in improving the quality of US waters, but much remains to be done to achieve
water quality goals stated in the US Clean Water Act.
In 1997, USDA released a report: Water Quality and Agriculture: Status, Conditions,
and Trends. The report addresses soil quality, sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus,
pesticides, salinity, agricultural resource management, water quality, and agricultural
policies and programmes.
In 1998 the U.S. government released a Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and
Protecting America's Waters. A key element is a new cooperative approach to watershed
protection in which state, tribal, federal, and local governments, and the public identify
priority watersheds with critical water quality problems and then work together to focus
resources and implement effective strategies to solve those problems. An interagency
Animal Feeding Operation Strategy to combine clean water goals with animal and crop
nutrition has been released and is undergoing extensive public review.
Challenges
The 1999 Rural Conditions and Trends released by the USDA Economic Research Service
reports that rural areas continue to lag urban areas in earnings and income, with a
disproportionate share of minorities economically disadvantaged. However, falling
unemployment, growing per capita incomes, and rising earnings indicate a positive economic
climate in rural areas.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
The USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Programme administers a
competitive grants programme that has advanced sustainable agriculture systems in the United
States. The SARE programme works through four regional Councils to identify information
needs and select projects in a competitive process. The SARE programme also supports
Sustainable Agriculture Working Groups, and a Sustainable Agriculture Campaign. SARE has
funded nearly 1,400 projects to explore and apply economically-profitable,
environmentally-sound and socially-supporting farming systems. The SARE website is: http://www.sare.org.
The USDA Small Farm ,Programme with a goal to improve the income levels and economic
viability of small farm enterprises, convened a National Conference in 1996 to discuss
research, extension, marketing strategies, economic opportunities, social issues, small
farm policy, and programme impacts, accountability, and delivery. Proceedings were published
in 1997 and USDA is working to implement the recommendations in that report. The USDA
Small Farms website is: http://www.usda.gov/oce/sdsf/
Diversifying Rural Employment
To help rural Americans build globally competitive businesses and cooperatives, the
USDA administers a variety of business programmes including grants, commercial lending and
revolving loan funds as well as technical assistance, which are usually leveraged with
commercial, cooperative, or other private-sector lender resources. Guarantees or direct
loans are available for businesses that create or maintain employment and improve the
economic and environmental climate in rural communities.
These programmes are delivered by a nationwide field staff serving 50 States, the US
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Western Pacific Territories. In Fiscal Year 1998, a
total of 983 loans and 435 grants totaling US$ 1.3 billion were disbursed. This resulted
in over 70,000 jobs either being created or saved in rural America.
Information
The US Government has many programmes that collect data, establish databases, and
provide network access to these databases. Databases are developed and maintained for
germplasm information, pests, pesticide and fertilizer use, production practices, soil
types, forest types, insect infestations, and crop coverage/production. Economists analyze
the data to compare input use and profitability of different production practices. Many of
these databases can be accessed worldwide by research scientists, extension agents,
farmers, and the general public.
The US Government is dedicated to making available all necessary knowledge
and technology to farmers, extension agents and planners. The Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN) is the outreach arm of the USDA Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) programme. The Sustainable Agriculture
Network disseminates information about sustainable agriculture through
electronic and print publications. For example, in 1997 it published the Source
Book of Sustainable Agriculture for Educators, Producers, and other Agricultural
Professionals: A Guide to Books, Newsletters, Conference Proceedings, Bulletins,
Videos and more. Other SAN books address cover crop use, weed management and
organic agriculture. SAN publishes informational bulletins about sustainable
agriculture, including dairy, crop diversification and on-farm research. It also
sponsors a mail group on the Internet called sanet-mg, where 900 subscribers
discuss sustainable agriculture philosophy and practices. SAN maintains most of
its information on the World Wide Web, where more information about the SARE
grant programme can also be found ( http://www.sare.org).
USDA websites with information on sustainable agriculture include:
US National Agricultural Library: http://www.nal.usda.gov/
AgNIC (Agriculture Network Information Center): http://www.agnic.org/
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/
ATTRA - Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas: http://www.attra.org/
USDA Sustainable Development and Small Farms: http://www.usda.gov/oce/sdsf/
Agricultural Research Service (ARS): http://www.ars.usda.gov/
US National Cooperative Soil Survey: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nsdaf/
US Natural Resources Inventory: http:// www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/background.html,
and http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/home.html,
respectively .
The National Agricultural Library (NAL), [ http://www.nal.usda.gov],
part of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), provides world leadership in
developing and applying information technologies that ensure that agricultural knowledge
and information are available to those who need it. AGRICOLA (AGRICultural OnLine Access),
NAL's ever-growing bibliographic database of over 3 million records, provides onsite and
remote users with the information they need, quickly and easily. National and
international customers seeking information are served through AgNIC, a virtual
information center established in collaboration with several land-grant university
libraries to provide a focal point for seamless Internet access to distributed
agriculture-related information, subject area experts, and other resources. AgNIC includes
AgDB, a database directory of quality agriculture-related databases, datasets, and
information systems, [ http://www.agnic.org/agdb/].
Customers seeking specific information about alternative, organic, or sustainable
agriculture are served by NAL's Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC).
USDA maintains a number of databases available to all users through the National
Agricultural Library. Extension agents in virtually every county of the United States
provide information and technical assistance to farmers and citizens. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has natural
resource planning specialists in virtually every county, to assist landowners with
resource planning. Through the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SANET) funded by the SARE
programme, information is being provided in many forms, including printed reports and
databases that demonstrate research findings to farmers with computers and to information
providers world wide. The Department of Agriculture operates the Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) programme which transfers information about sustainable
agriculture to farmers. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have formed a partnership
with a number of groups and companies representing agricultural and non-agricultural
pesticide users to promote environmental stewardship of pesticide use in the United
States.
In 1999 the U.S. General Accounting Office released the report, Food Security: Factors
That Could Affect Progress Toward Meeting World Food Summit Goals. This report is
available at: http://www.gao.gov. Factors that
were investigated include: trade reform, actions to reduce conflict, increasing
agricultural production, and safety net programs and food aid. The report also addressed
the need to develop a food security information system and improved coordination.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey and the Natural Resources Inventory contain
information on soil types and natural resources conditions and trends on non-federal
lands. Information about these databases and their uses can be found at: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nsdaf/,
http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/backgriound/html,
and http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/home.html.
Research and Technologies
Rural Energy Transition
USDA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Department of Energy
(DOE) have supported numerous research, demonstration, and pilot projects on producing
alternative energy from agriculture, including, for example, methane capture from
livestock operations, production and use of biomass crops, and solar and wind power
generation. By a recent (August 1999) Executive Order, federal efforts to develop 21st
century bio-based industries that use trees, crops and agricultural and forestry wastes to
make fuels, chemicals, and electricity will be further coordinated and accelerated. A goal
of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bioenergy by 2010 was established by the
Executive Memorandum. This could create $15 billion to $20 billion in new income for
farmers and rural America, and reduce fossil fuel emissions by an amount up to 100 million
metric tons of carbon.
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources
The National Plant Germplasm Advisory Committee has been in operation for over 20
years. The US Government maintains the world's most extensive germplasm storage network.
The base collection is housed in the National Seed Storage Laboratory. Active genebanks
are located in more than 20 locations around the country. Compared to plant germplasm
initiatives, the conservation and sustainable utilization of animal genetic resources for
sustainable agriculture is in its infancy. The US, however, has begun collecting a
national inventory of available animal genetic resources.
The USDA National Plant Materials Programme selects and develops plant materials for
commercial distribution. These plants, for use in land conservation, are increasingly
selected from among native plant species.
Financing
Since 1988, the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research Extension (SARE) Programme has
provided funding for approximately 1400 projects in the areas of research and education,
producer grants (for on-farm, farmer/rancher initiated research), and professional
development.
Cooperation
The US Government participated in the exchange of scientific personnel for education,
training and cooperative efforts related to sustainable agricultural practices in
developing countries. It also provides scientific, technical and educational assistance
addressing issues of agricultural sustainability. USAID has supported sustainable
agriculture practices through the International Agriculture Research Centers (IARCs),
which receive their funding through the Consultative Group on International Agriculture
Research (CGIAR). The US is also one of CGIAR's leading contributors. The US has also
worked at FAO to support greater diffusion and action on programs that promote sustainable
agricultural practices.
* * *
This information was provided by the Government of United States of America to
the 5th and 8th Sessions of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development. Last Update: December 1999.
For country reports on Plant Genetic
Resources, click here.
For
information on the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force of the President's Council on
Sustainable Development, click here.
For national information on
pesticides, click here.
To access the FAOSTAT Data Base for
information by country, item, element and year, click here:
Click here to go to the Web Site of the BSS
(Biotechnology and Scientific Services) maintained by APHIS (Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service) of USDA (United States Department of Agriculture, which contains a
complete database (1987-present) for movement permits, release permits, notifications, and
petitions of Genetically Modified Organisms in the U.S.A.
Click here to link to the Biosafety
Information Network and Advisory Service (BINAS), a service of the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which monitors global developments in
regulatory issues in biotechnology.
Click here to link to Country and
Sub-regional Information on Plant Genetic Resources of the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations.
Click here to go
to Web Site of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which includes information on the Codex
Alimentarius and the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.
Click here to access the Web Site of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
Click here to access the sixteen
international agricultural research centers that are members of the CGIAR.
| United States | All Countries | Home |
ATMOSPHERE
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Energy, and the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office are full-fledged members of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development and are primarily responsible for the
"protection of the atmosphere".
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
The Clean Air Act and its amendments have
been reviewed. The Government, scientific community and NGOs have conducted studies on the
impacts of air pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer on public health.
Regarding the programme area of preventing
stratospheric ozone depletion, national goals concerning the phase-out of CFCs and other
ozone depleting substances are outlined in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.
Decision-Making: Strategies, Policies and
Plans
The President's Climate Change Plan includes nearly 50 different initiatives
designed to reduce greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. It is estimated
that these efforts will save $260 billion in energy bills by the year 2010 while promoting
economic efficiency and competitiveness. Many initiatives are largely voluntary programmes
designed to spur cost-effective actions without additional regulations and bureaucracy.
One of these, The US Initiative in Joint Implementation, jointly chaired by the Department
of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, is a voluntary pilot programme designed
to contribute to international understanding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
different geographic regions through joint US and foreign partnerships.
In July 1996, the US announced interest in achieving a binding agreement to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases. The US government will attempt to reduce emissions through
market-based solutions such as pollution trading permits and energy efficiency measures.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
The private sector and the government have developed methodologies to identify
threshold levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The Pollution Pilot Project is led by a core group from the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Amoco Petroleum, The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company,
Rayanier and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The group has begun to
identify opportunities to cut production and environmental costs while reducing and
preventing pollution at two chemical manufacturing facilities - a Dow Chemical plant in La
Porte, Texas and a Monsanto plant in Pensacola, Florida.
Programmes and Projects
The US Government promotes policies and programmes in the areas of energy efficiency,
environmentally sound and efficient transportation, industrial pollution control, sound
land-use practices, sound management of marine resources and management of toxic and other
hazardous waste. The government, scientific community and NGOs have conducted studies on
the cumulative impacts of air pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer on public
health. To date, one of the most important studies conducted is the EPA's Regulation
Impact Analysis which was undertaken in 1994.
Regarding the programme area
of energy, transport and industry, the US Government has reviewed current energy supply
mixes.
Money-saving pollution prevention initiatives have been implemented at the facility
level.
Status
No information is available.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training and Awareness-raising
The national early detection system, the national capacity to predict changes and
fluctuations and capacity building for performing systematic observations and fluctuations
are rated "good". These actions are primarily governmental and undertaken by the
private sector. The US Government has provided training opportunities in the area of
transboundary atmospheric pollution control and encourages industry to develop
environmentally safe technologies. The country's capacity for observation and assessment,
research and information exchange are rated "very good". The US Government
actively participates in strengthening the Global Climate Observing System at national
levels.
Information
In the area of environment
and transport, emissions monitoring is comprehensive and systematic. In the area of
transboundary atmospheric pollution control, the government has facilitated the exchange
of data and information at national and international levels
Research and Technologies
The US Government is involved in the development and use of terrestrial and marine
resources and land-use practices that will be more resilient to atmospheric changes and
fluctuations. The US government supports the conservation and enhancement of sinks and
reservoirs of greenhouse gases, including biomass, forests and oceans, as well as other
terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. The US
Government has also strengthened early warning systems and response mechanisms for
transboundary air pollution resulting from industrial accidents and natural disasters.
Financing
In 1994, the US contributed US$34 million to the Montreal Protocol. Air pollution
abatement and control expenditures in the United States were estimated at $31.9 billion in
1993.
Regarding the programme area of transboundary atmospheric pollution, the US acceded to
the UN/ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Pollution in 1979. In October 1993, the
US announced the US Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI) to, among other
things, encourage the development and implementation of cooperative, cost-effective
voluntary projects between US and foreign partners, especially projects that promote
technological cooperation and sustainable development. USIJI also aimed at fostering
private sector investment and innovation in the development and dissemination of
technologies for reducing or sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. One of USIJI's
objectives is to encourage participating countries to adopt more complete climate action
programs, including national inventories, baselines, policies and measures, and
appropriate specific commitments. Complementing USIJI is the US Country Studies Programme
(CSP), an interagency programme designed to provide technical and financial support to
developing countries and countries with economies in transition for climate change
studies. In 1994, USAID funding for projects to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions was
at approximately $143 million, a more than 200 percent increase over similar funding
expended in 1991 before UNCED.
Cooperation
The Montreal Protocol (1987) was signed in 1988, the London Amendment
(1990) was signed before 1992, and the Copenhagen Amendment (1992) was signed after
1992. The latest reports to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat were prepared in 1996. The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992 and the latest
report to the UNFCCC Secretariat was submitted in 1994.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997
For national information on global
warming, click here.
For national information on air
and radiation, click here.
For national
information on energy and transport, click here.
For national information about
the Energy Star Programme for pollution prevention, click here.
Click here for national information from the Web
Site of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
For the access to the Web Site of the Ozone
Secretariat, click here:
| United States | All Countries | Home |
BIODIVERSITY
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
In the US, all levels of government, the private sector and individuals share major
responsibilities for conservation and biological diversity. The federal government has
broad responsibility for managing terrestrial and marine biodiversity of public lands
(approximately one-third of the US land area), coastal waters, as well as specific
responsibilities for regulating private uses of resources of national interest that have
important biological values (e.g. estuaries, wetlands, floodplain, critical habitat for
endangered species). State governments have broad responsibilities for regulating uses of
land and natural resources (e.g., hunting and fishing) not subject to Federal reservation.
In 1993, the White House Office of Environmental Policy established the Interagency
Ecosystem Management Task Force to coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive
Ecosystem Management Initiative. The Task force seeks to promote a consistent approach
to environmental management by learning from large scale ecosystem-based management
efforts, and strengthening the ongoing development of an ecosystem management approach for
federal lands and federally managed programmes. This approach entails involving multiple
agencies within larger ecological boundaries. It also relies on finding ways to increase
voluntary participation of state, tribal, and local governments as well as nongovernmental
organizations and the public. Through the Ecosystem Management Initiative, multi-agency
Ecosystem Management Teams are being established to work with local and regional
stakeholders in developing "New Initiatives Laboratories" as cooperative
demonstrations of ecosystem management in areas where such management is not well
developed, yet where significant opportunities for demonstrating integrated management
exist.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
Ecosystem management strategies have been adopted in the Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture, Defense and Energy, as well as in the USEPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In some cases, broad-scale organizational
frameworks are being implemented. For example, the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the
Department of the Interior has defined approximately 50 ecosystem "units" across
the country as a basis for future planning related to sustainable management and
endangered species conservation.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
State and local parks and reserves are important in biodiversity conservation. In states
that lack large federal landholdings, NGOs, private institutions and individual landowners
protect large numbers of tracts, maintain significant ex situ facilities such as
arboreta and zoological parks and play an increasing role in conservation.
Cooperative efforts involving various levels of government and the private sector are
underway to implement the biosphere reserve concept in several regions. For example, in
the diverse forest ecosystem of the southeastern highlands, the Southern Appalachian Man
and the Biosphere (SAMB) Programme is being implemented as a joint undertaking of the SAMB
Cooperative and the SAMAB Foundation. The former organization includes representatives
from Federal and state agencies, and the latter from private institutions, nongovernmental
organizations, and local communities. Working together, these organizations enable
ecosystem stakeholders to consult, share capabilities, and pool resources to address
conservation and development problems in a biologically diverse and culturally distinctive
area that includes territory of six states. The International Sonoran Desert Alliance is a
public-private partnership, established in 1992 in an area of the western Sonoran desert
that includes a cluster of biosphere reserves in northwestern Mexico and Arizona. The
Alliance includes residents, business leaders, state and federal resource managers and
conservationists from the United States and Mexico, and offers an ecosystem-based forum
for local communities to develop shared goals and joint projects for community development
and protection of the cultural and biological diversity of one of the largest intact arid
ecosystems in the world. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), has pioneered development of
methods and data systems to support biodiversity conservation.
Status
No information is available.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Programmes and Projects
Post-UNCED domestic policy has focused on promoting partnerships among Federal, state
and private programmes concerned with biological diversity, coordinating government-wide
research, data systems, and technology development, and demonstrating ecosystem-based
management approaches, while concurrently establishing protected areas, maintaining ex
situ repositories for genetic resources and improving public education. Federal
systems of national parks, forests, grasslands, wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries,
wilderness areas, and other management categories and special designations play a major
role in situ conservation of biodiversity. Federal programmes and facilities also play a
major role in collection and ex situ preservation of crop germplasm and other
genetic resources of potential or actual economic importance.
The State Department has coordinated development of the interagency Coral Reef
Initiative to build domestic and international partnerships, provide coordination and
integration of existing and new activities, and develop the technical and human resources
needed to conserve, protect, and manage coral reef ecosystems in the United States and the
world. The CRI was launched through an international workshop in early 1995. By 1996,
plans called for implementation of an expanded Coral Reef Research Programme, a global
monitoring programme, a comprehensive programme of research and conservation of reef
ecosystems under US jurisdiction and an international programme of capacity-building
focusing on partnerships for effective management of coral reef ecosystems, taking into
account the full range of threats from local land-based pollution to the potential effects
of global change.
Information
National Biodiversity Databases on Ecosystems include: National Wetlands Inventory,
National Coastal Wetlands Database, Wetlands Creation and Restoration Database, Gap
Analysis Database, Global Ecosystems, Biospherics Programme, Earth Resources Observation
Systems, Data Atlases (Coastal/Marine Ecosystems) and the National Estuarine Inventory.
Databases on Species include: Wetland Plant List and Species databases, Candidate Plant
and Animal species, Endangered Species Country List, BIOS, Federal Interagency Sensitive
Wildlife Information System, National Contaminant Biomonitoring, National Biomonitoring
Inventory, North American Breeding Birds, Bird Banding and Band Recovery, Waterfowl
Breeding Populations, Waterfowl Harvest, Winter Waterfowl, Marine and Waterbird Colonies,
Fisheries Statistics, Living Maritime Resources Programme, Forest Inventory and Analysis.
Other Databases include: Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring Programme, National
Resource Inventories in National Forests and Grasslands, National Park flora, National
Park Fauna, Land Condition and Trend Analysis (US Army). Taxonomy Databases include:
Smithsonian Taxonomic Databases, Plant List of Accepted Nomenclature, Taxonomy and
Symbols, EPA Taxonomic and the National Oceanographic Data Center Code System. Regional
databases include: Endangered Plants of Northwestern states, New England Animal Species,
raptors, Fish Stocking, Commercial Fish Catch. In 1991, 4,542 Ph.D. Awards were granted in
the biological sciences.
The
Federal government launched an interagency effort in 1993 to develop a baseline synthesis
of the current knowledge of major eco-regions in the US.
Research and Technologies
In 1993, the Federal Government established the National Biological Service
(NBS) to provide information and technology for managing biological diversity. NBS is a
catalyst for developing methods and protocols for biological inventory, monitoring,
research and data management. Through partnerships with other agencies and private
organizations, the NBS will coordinate access to biological information by Federal, state
and other land managers and other sectors of society, document diversity trends, and
feature the causes of biological impoverishment. In 1994, the NBS began to develop and
synthesize biological information to support cooperative management of 10 ecosystems and
initiated a review of national and regional biodiversity issues and trends based on
existing data sources. Under the auspices of the Interagency Committee on the
Environment and Natural Resources established by the White House in 1993, a
Subcommittee on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics has been charged with developing an
integrated government-wide strategy and implementation plan for R&D on biodiversity
and ecological dynamics to support management and conservation of renewable resources.
Financing
The Biodiversity Conservation Network, funded by the US Agency for International
Development (USAID), works with NGO and private sector partners in host countries to
develop and implement economically viable approaches for conserving biodiversity at the
local level. Grants support development and marketing of new sustainable nonforest timber
products, ecotourism enterprises, cooperative biodiversity prospecting and other
innovative projects. In cooperation with the World Bank, USAID in 1994-1995 helped
establish funding organizations to strengthen country institutions and support
biodiversity activities in Indonesia (Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation) and Mexico
(Mexican Conservation Fund), and recently provided a $3 million grant to Conservation
International to conduct rapid biodiversity assessments in the Andean region of South
America and insular Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Through the International Cooperative
Biodiversity Groups Programme, USAID is collaborating with the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation to award grants to US and developing country
partners for discovering bioactive agents for the pharmaceutical industry while
encouraging biological conservation and sustainable economic development.
Cooperation
The Convention on Biological Diversity was signed in 1993 but not yet ratified.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
was signed in 1993 and already ratified.
The US expanded participation in international programmes to support the conservation
of native migratory species that require seasonal habitats in multiple countries through
the Partners in Flight Programme. Government agencies and private organizations are
establishing national, regional, state, and physiographic working groups to coordinate
monitoring, research, and public education efforts to conserve neotropical migratory birds
and their habitats, and to link these efforts with those of other nations in the
Hemisphere. In 1994, the US, Canada, and Mexico signed an update to the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan that expanded their commitment to restoring continental
waterfowl populations and conserving the biological diversity of critical wetlands. From
1990 through 1993, the cooperative programme to implement the Plan has protected,
restored, or enhanced 2.26 million acres in the US and 1.19 million acres in Canada, and
launched 15 projects in 9 Mexican states (1990 - 1994), as well as implemented mapping,
planning and educational projects covering an additional 3 million wetland acres.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997
For
information on the Natural Resources Task Force of the President's Council on Sustainable
Development, click here.
For national information on sustainable
ecosystems and communities, click here.
For access to the Web Site of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, click here:
For access to the Web Site of
the CITES Convention, click here:
For the Web Site of the CMS
Convention, click here:
For the Web Site of the Convention on the
Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage, click here:
For the country-by-country, Man in the Biosphere
On-Line Query System, click here:
Click here to go to the Web Site of the BSS
(Biotechnology and Scientific Services) maintained by APHIS (Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service) of USDA (United States Department of Agriculture, which contains a
complete database (1987-present) for movement permits, release permits, notifications, and
petitions of Genetically Modified Organisms in the U.S.A.
Environmental Releases Database
for the U.S.
Click here to link to the Biosafety
Information Network and Advisory Service (BINAS), a service of the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which monitors global developments in
regulatory issues in biotechnology.
Click here to go to the Web Site of UNEP's
International Register on Biosafety.
Agricultural Genome Information System
| United States | All Countries | Home |
DESERTIFICATION AND DROUGHT
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
The US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior, in coordination with other
US agencies, actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention
to Combat Desertification and co-sponsored an International Symposium and Workshop on
Desertification in Developed Countries in October of 1994. The departments are currently
developing a number of ecosystem-based demonstration projects in the arid and semi-arid
areas of the United States. An International Symposium and Workshop on Desertification in
Developed Countries was proposed for May 1997.
There is a wide variety of federal agencies involved in combatting desertification and
drought in the western part of the United States. These agencies include the Bureau of
Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Geological Survey, the National Biological
Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science
Foundation, and the Soil Conservation Service. There are thousands of professional staff
members in these agencies whose jobs involve combatting desertification and drought in one
form or another.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
In August 1993, legislation was revised to combat desertification and drought. In order
to raise the overall level of knowledge of the causes and effects of drought and
desertification, the Departments of Interior, Commerce (through the National Atmospheric
and Oceanic Administration - NOAA), and Agriculture, in coordination with other
appropriate US agencies, agreed to explore the feasibility of a domestic demonstration
programme aimed at the optimum management of drylands for sustainable use.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
There is a significant number of state, local and tribal units of government and a wide
variety of non-governmental organizations involved in combatting desertification and
drought. NGOs are advisory participants at the field/grassroots level and ad hoc
participants at national planning and middle levels. Women are ad hoc participants
at national, district and grassroots levels. Youth are involved in national or district
level planning but seldom at the grassroots level.
Programmes and Projects
No information is available.
Status
Significant areas susceptible to desertification comprise approximately 37% of the
United States. Numerous federal, state and local land use plans have been prepared for
areas susceptible to desertification. These plans generally fall into three broad
categories: functional or sector-specific plans, such as highway construction plans;
resource specific plans, such as plans to manage fishery resources or plans to reduce soil
erosion; and local comprehensive land use plans. The US has only begun to undertake
planning on an ecosystem-wide basis. There are no national or regional plans or strategies
to combat desertification.
The impact of improper farming, land use, natural causes and water withdrawals on
desertification is modest. Grazing has a moderate impact; fuel wood collection is
insignificant. Improper grazing practices in the 1800's and early 1900's resulted in the
degradation of large areas of the western part of the United States. These areas have been
slow to recover.
Challenges
In order to address identified problems associated with desertification, Federal
natural resource agencies, in cooperation with State, Tribal and local governments,
non-governmental organizations and private land owners are gradually developing
ecosystem-based approaches to restore degraded areas. Social, economic and cultural
incentives exist so that farmers undertake conservation and regenerative measures.
Rangeland Reform '95 reduced grazing fees for good stewardship on federally-owned grazing
lands.
Information
There are approximately 25,000 hydrological monitoring stations with good coverage and
adequate staff dealing with desertification issues at the Federal and State levels. There
is, however, a shortage of trained field level staff.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
No information is available.
Cooperation
The Fifth International Rangeland Congress was held in July 1995. The major
international, regional and bilateral programmes active in the US include UNESCO's Man and
the Biosphere Programme (MAB); National Science Foundation LTER sites; US / Mexico Border
Environmental Issues Field Committee and the International Sonoran Desert Alliance.
The International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing
Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa was signed in 1994 but not yet
ratified.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997
For access to the Web Site of the Convention to Combat
Desertification and Drought, click here:
| United States | All
Countries | Home |
ENERGY
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
No information is available.
Programmes and Projects
No information is available.
Status
No information is available.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
No information is available.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
No information is available.
Cooperation
No information is available.
* * *
| United States | All Countries | Home |
FORESTS
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
The US has a highly decentralized federal system of government and a mix of forest land
ownership. About 60% of US forests (180 million ha) are privately owned by 11 million
owners. The 50 states are individually responsible for guiding and regulating management
of these private forests. The states also manage state-owned forests, and at the local
level, hundreds of counties and many cities own and manage forest areas. About 35% of
forest land (105 million ha) is federally owned and managed by several agencies of the
federal government, including: the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service; the US
Department of the Interior US Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs; and, the US Department of Defense. In
view of decentralized forest regulation and extensive private ownership, the actions of
state and local governments and non-government parties, such as small non-industrial
forest owners, industry, local communities and environmental advocates, have a profound
effect on how forests are managed in the US and the progress made domestically towards
forest conservation and sustainable management. In addition, US citizens are part of the
natural resource public decision-making process at local, regional and national levels
throughout the country.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
There are numerous organized advocates in the US for forest conservation and use that
have a profound effect on US forestry and forest policy. This is illustrated by forest
legislation that has been revised or enacted in the last decade alone includes the Forest
Stewardship Act of 1990, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1990, American the
Beautiful Act of 1990, National Indian Forest Resources and Management Act of 1990, the
1995 and 1998 Farm Bills, and regular reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (RPA), the US Forest
Service publishes an "Assessment of US Forests" every ten years, with five-year
updates. The corresponding programme, also published every five years, provides broad
guidance for more specific national forest plans, statewide resource plans and research
plans.
In July 1998, the President signed into law the Tropical Forest Conservation Act
(TFCA), which authorizes the reduction of official debt owed the US by countries with
tropical forests in exchange for forest conservation measures. The law expands the 1992
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative which led to the signing of agreements with seven
Latin American countries that were undertaking macroeconomic and structural adjustment
reforms to cancel $875 million in their official debt, generating substantial local
currency for child survival and environmental projects. Seven countries have requested
debt buyback or debt-for-nature swaps under the TFCA; many more have expressed interest in
debt reduction should funding become available.
There are a number of standards and certification schemes, such as the International
Standards Organization and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), involved in a growing
trend for wood products certification. This trend is reflected in the increasing number of
lumber mills seeking and receiving "chain of custody" certificates, and a number
of large corporate retailers such as Home Depot, the world’s third largest lumber
retailer, selling certified wood products. To date, about 179 companies throughout the US
carry FSC chain-of-custody certification and 52 US forest management companies are
FSC-certified.
Decision-Making: Strategies, Policies and
Plans
The Forest Service is incorporating the concept of sustainable forest management, and
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, into this mandated planning.
This includes maintenance of biodiversity, forest productivity, forest health, soil and
water protection and maintaining a viable forest economy, as well as the policies and
institutions necessary to implement the desires of society regarding forests.
The best example of policy following UNCED Forest Principles is the ecosystem
management approach to the stewardship of public forest lands. The President's office has
established an interagency coordinating committee for ecosystem management.
By using this approach, concerted efforts have been made in the Pacific Northwest to
resolve issues centered on forest protection and timber harvest, the preservation of old
growth ecosystems, scenic values, and the livelihoods of local communities. In April 1994,
following a process of participation with all stakeholders and the completion of an
environmental impact statement, the President's Forest Plan was adopted for all federal
lands in the Pacific Northwest region.
The President's Forest Plan has three components: An Aquatic Conservation Strategy
aimed at restoring and maintaining the ecological health of the region's watersheds, a
Terrestrial Conservation Strategy aimed at maintaining late successional and old growth
species habitat and the biological diversity associated with such ecosystems, and an
initiative to help local communities adjust to new forest ecosystem protection management.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in the implementation of conservation and management programmes for forest dwelling neotropical birds. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has developed partnerships with dozens of federal and State agencies,
private conservation organizations and local governments to restore and manage forest habitats for these migratory species. The Texas Gulf Coast Wood Lot
Initiative (important to migrating birds crossing the Gulf of Mexico) and the 12 million
hectare Tennessee Valley Project are examples.
Decision-Making: Major Groups involvement
Respect and recognition of traditional rights of indigenous people, including Native
Americans, Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives, is an ongoing effort by the US. Since 1992
numerous actions have been taken by the Government, including issuance of Executive Orders
regarding consultation and coordination with Indian governments and Indian sacred sites
and of directives on government-to-government consultations with federally recognized
tribal governments.
State Foresters are responsible for the establishment of State Stewardship Committees
in every state, which include representation from a range of natural resource disciplines
as well as the public and private sectors. Each state has also developed and is
implementing state resource plans, which will ultimately bring millions of hectares of
non-industrial private forest lands under stewardship management.
There are numerous organized advocates in the US for forest conservation and use that
have a profound effect on US forestry and forest policy. For example:
The Nature Conservancy (TNC), an NGO dedicated to preservation of the nation’s
biodiversity, has acquired over 3.64 million hectares of wildlife habitat and manages over
1,500 reserves. TNC is currently focusing on developing agreements with the business
community and have come to an agreement with the timber company Westvaco to conduct a
biodiversity inventory of its 562,000 hectares of land.
In October 1994 the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA), which represents 95%
of the industrial forest land in the US, approved a set of Sustainable Forestry Initiative
Principles and Guidelines (SFI), which includes performance measures for reforestation and
the protection of water quality, wildlife, visual quality, biological diversity and areas
of special significance. In 1998 the programme was expanded to include public and
non-industrial private lands.
The US-based International Wood Products Association (IWPA), which represents major
timber exporting and importing companies, has established membership-approved voluntary
"Codes of Conduct" for trade in wood products and forest management, similar to
the SFI.
The National Woodland Owners Association, together with the Association of Consulting
Foresters, has recently accepted sustainable forest management as a goal and the concept
of certified wood products as a tool to accomplish that end. This is reflected in their
"Green Tag Programme, which certifies wood products produced by small non-industrial
wood producers.
The Conservation Fund is working with state foresters and recently acquired over
100,000 hectares of forest land in the states of New York, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Programmes and Projects
Within the US Forest Service, the State and Private Division serves the nation’s
non-federal forest owners with a number of focused programmes, including the Stewardship
Incentives Programme (SIP), a companion to the Forest Stewardship Programme. The SIP, which
began in 1992, provides cost-share assistance for private landowners to implement a broad
range of practices recommended under their Stewardship Management plans, including
wildlife and fish habitat improvement, soil and water improvement, forest recreation
enhancement, riparian and wetlands protection and reforestation. Over 1.16 hectares of
private lands were in stewardship management by 1998. Plans to fund this programme
from
other sources than federal funds are now being created.
The US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is involved in the
implementation of conservation and management programmes for North American forest dwelling
neotropical birds. FWS has developed partnerships with dozens of federal and state
agencies, private conservation organizations and local governments to restore and manage
forest habitats for these migratory species. The Texas Gulf Coast Wood Lot Initiative
(important to migrating birds crossing the Gulf of Mexico) and the 12-million hectare
Tennessee Valley Project are working examples.
The US Forest Service has a national programme to address urban forest issues. It is a
cooperative community-based programme designed to bring an understanding of natural
resources concepts and careers to city dwellers. The first Urban Tree House Programme,
inaugurated in Atlanta, Georgia, serves as a working model for several other cities
interested in their own Programme, such as Washington, DC; Portland, Oregon; Nashville and
Memphis, Tennessee, among others.
Status
On October 13, 1999 President Clinton announced plans to protect an additional
16,194,000 ha of federally owned forestlands from road building and commercial
development. A year-long process soliciting public comments will determine the specific
areas selected. This is considered one of the biggest land conservation efforts in
America’s history.
In September 1999 the US Forest Service issued new draft planning regulations that will
give greater emphasis to the sustainable management of National Forest Systems. The
regulations provide direction for working towards the goal of sustainability and
acknowledge the importance of Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management,
emphasizing monitoring activities designed to develop a desired future condition. Under
these new regulations, the US Forest Service will allocate $11.5 million to engage more
actively in partnerships with states, NGOs and industry in pursuit of its goals.
In July 1998 the Chief of the US Forest Service initiated the Roundtable on Sustainable
Forests, bringing together representatives of federal, state and local government
agencies, non-government organizations and industry to discuss how best to implement the
Montreal Process C&I for both public and private forests. The Roundtable has drawn up
a charter and plan of action, established working groups on communications/public outreach
and technical issues. The communications working group has created a website and taken the
Roundtable message to key domestic forestry and sustainability meetings. The technical
working group is organizing workshops for early 2000 that will address each Criterion and
its Indicators, assessing what has already been done on data collection and what still
needs to be accomplished.
The United States is the fourth most forested country, with 8% or 300 million hectares
(ha) of the world's forests, exceeded only by the Russian Federation, Brazil and Canada.
These forests range from the dry chapparal "forests" of the Pacific southwest to
the oak-hickory forest of the east and the old growth Douglas fir and Sitka spruce forests
of the Pacific coast rainforest.
Forest Cover The success of US conservation policies put in place in response to
public concerns at the turn of the century left the US well positioned to implement
UNCED’s Agenda 21. An extensive educational, management and policy infrastructure now
exists to support scientific forest management. The US experienced a net growth in the
area covered by forests since the 1920s. Today, 33 % (298 million ha) of the US is
forested, constituting two-thirds of the forest at the time of European settlement.
Substantial natural and artificial reforestation has taken place and now exceeds forest
temporarily lost from harvesting. Populations of many forest wildlife species have
substantially increased, as have recreational and other public uses of forest land.
Wood production. The efficiency of wood utilization has greatly improved. The
average volume of standing timber per acre has increased 32 % since World War II, and
forest growth nationally currently exceeds harvest by 21 %. About 82 % of total wood
harvest occurs on private lands. Federal, State and local governments spend $6.4 billion
annually on forest management, including $3.2 billion by the US Forest Service, which
manages 190 million acres of national forests and rangelands and employs 32,000 people.
State forestry agencies assist non-industrial private forest land owners to manage their
land in a sustainable manner, producing multiple resources. Government, universities and
industry are all actively involved in research to produce faster and better growing
forests. New and innovative ways are constantly being developed to use wood products more
efficiently.
Forestry profession The Forestry profession is changing in the US. Since 1968 the
number of foresters graduating with associate or bachelor’s degrees has dropped by
half. This trend may not reflect a decline in interest in forestry but rather an expansion
and diversification of natural resource management degrees related to forestry, such as
conservation biology and ethnobotany. The last decades have seen a growing interest by
students and employers in recruiting young professionals with broader resource skills to
address ecosystem management. The Society of American Foresters, the US professional
society for foresters, calculates that there are approximately 62,000 professional
foresters working in the field and that over time this number will decline but the
professional training of the average forester and the number of forestry related
professionals will broaden.
Challenges
Forest health Forests in the US are considered productive and provide for most of
the country’s needs. Although there are areas of local concern regarding forest loss,
deforestation is not perceived as a national problem. However, current assessments of the
health and conditions of US forests show that in some cases resource conditions are not
satisfactory. For example, tree mortality as a result of exotic forest disease is so
extensive that the composition of forest ecosystems across the US has changed.
Acid-forming airborne chemicals are having observable impacts on tree health. Large
forested landscapes have an unnatural distribution of trees of different ages because of
previous harvesting practices. Although older age forests are important to the
biodiversity of forest ecosystems, the growing number of aging and overstocked forest
landscapes are becoming vulnerable to insects and disease. The national list of threatened
and endangered species is increasing and some fish habitat populations are limited by
problems of water quality and quantity.
Capacity-building, Education, Training and Awareness-raising
The cooperative function of the US Forest Service and the USDA Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) is to educate, train and assist private
landowners and the States in conservation and sustainable management of forest lands. The
USDA CSREES Logger Education to Advance Professionalism Programme (LEAP) promotes
silviculture and environmental education for loggers to better understand the logic and
philosophy involved in sound forest management.
Federal forestry extension programmes are more than equally matched by state university
and private funds. State forestry agencies receive federal funding to provide incentives
and training to landowners through the Forest Stewardship Programme. NGO forest owners
associations, such as the National Woodland Owners Association, Forest Landowners
Association and the American Tree Farm Programme, provide both continuing education and
professional forestry counsel. Wildlife, recreation and fish conservation NGOs such as the
Izaak Walton League, Ducks Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation are doing
similar work.
The US Forest Service has initiated a national programme to establish a network of
Urban Tree Houses. The Urban Tree House is a cooperative community-based programme
designed to bring an understanding of natural resource concepts and careers to urban
children. The first Urban Tree House, inaugurated in Atlanta, serves as a working model
for several other US cities that are interested in operating their own Urban Tree House
Programmes such as Washington, D.C.; Portland, Oregon; Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee,
among other locations. The US Extension Service's Logger Education to Advance
Professionalism Programme (LEAP) promotes silviculture and environmental education for
loggers so they better understand the logic and philosophy involved in sound forest
management. Currently, the majority of timber harvesting operations on private lands are
carried out without the assistance or guidance of a professional forester of any kind. It
is estimated that as much as eighty percent of all harvesting operations are planned and
executed by only the logger, who is often unaware of the impact logging activities have on
soil or water quality. Another institutional improvement has been the use of electronic
mail networks which is proving to be a very powerful communication tool for NGOs,
government agencies and business.
Information
Domestic
- In June 1999 the Office of the US Trade Representative and the White House Council on
Environmental Quality sponsored an initial study on the potential economic and
environmental effects of tariff liberalization in the forest products sector. The study
was released in October 1999.
- The US Government cooperated with a consortium of environmental NGOs and the Ford Motor
Company in an initiative led by the World Wildlife Fund US to prepare a comprehensive
"Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America,"
including forests, which was published in May 1999.
- In June1998 the US Forest Service committed to prepare a comprehensive national
assessment of the status and trends of US forest conditions and management based on the
Montreal Process criteria and indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management. The
report will be released in 2003 as part of the mandated national assessments, released
every five years, of all forest lands and trends in the forest sector, which the US
undertakes within the framework of the Resources Planning Act of 1974. The resulting
Presidential report to Congress will be organized using the Montreal Process C&I. Also
in July 1998 the US Forest Service officially institutionalized the Montreal Process
C&I as the framework for all future forest inventories, assessments, monitoring and
performance accountability from the field level to the national level for the 76 million
hectares of national forests managed by the Forest Service. Several of the 50 States have
since agreed to take similar steps for state and private forest lands.
- The US Forest Service is in the process of integrating and expanding its two existing
national forest monitoring systems: the Forest Health Monitoring programme (FHM), which
includes a systematic assessment of numerous indicators of environmental health, and the
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) programme, which provides data on forest extent, type,
growth and other timber values. The Forest Service also has fully staffed the National
Inventory and Monitoring Institute chartered in 1996 to coordinate national and
subnational application of inventory systems, including the Montreal Process C&I.
States in the Northeast, Northwest and Great Lakes regions are using the Montreal Process
C&I to develop subnational C&I to do assessments for their regions.
- The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is re-evaluating the data it provides
federal agencies to determine how that data can be augmented and organized to better
contribute to national forest assessments. The NASF has just completed a state-by-state
nationwide survey on the status of available data for each of the Montreal Process
C&I.
- The US Forest Service, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of the
Interior Bureau of Land Management and the States have begun an annual assessment of the
health and vitality of the nation’s forests, which will serve as an early warning
system for the broad areas affected by insects and diseases, atmospheric deposition,
meteorological events, human activities and climate change. The programme expanded from 14
states to 32 in 1999.
- The US Forest Service, in partnership with 13 other federal agencies, is leading the
development of scientific protocols for implementing national and regional scale
ecological assessments. The protocols will be tested in the Columbia River Basin, the
Southern Appalachian Mountains and the Mid-Atlantic states. The Southern Appalachian and
Columbia assessments are complete; the Mid-Atlantic assessment has been expanded to
include the Delaware River Basin. In 1999 a new assessment for the entire Southeastern US
will begin, which will include the southern Appalachians. This will augment the current
forest inventory system of over 100,000 plots that are sampled on an 11-year cycle.
- In July 1998 the US Forest Service completed its submission to the Enquiry for the
UN-ECE/FAO Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment (TBFRA) 2000, providing data
on general forest resources, biological diversity, protection status, wood and carbon
supply, forest condition and socio-economic function of the forests. The Forest Service is
now looking at strategies to provide crosslinks among the Montreal, Helsinki and TBFRA
process indicators. Under the auspices of the North American Forestry Commission, the US,
Canada and Mexico have chartered a new study group on inventory and monitoring.
International
- In July 1998 the US Forest Service convened a North American workshop on how to carry
out the UN’s Forest Resource Assessment (FRA 2000) remote sensing survey in North
America, which FAO will use as a model for other regions. Agreed to assist Mexico to carry
out its remote sensing survey. Through the International Institute for Tropical Forestry
in Puerto Rico, coordinated the remote sensing assessment for the Caribbean region,
including country capacity building.
- In 1998 and 1999 the US Forest Service provided consultants to FAO to assist with the
development of strategic and implementation plans and organization for FRA 2000 and is now
providing technical assistance for the remote sensing component (project design, image
acquisition and analysis) and the assessment of non-wood goods and services.
- The US Forest Service acquired the necessary satellite imagery and completed the remote
sensing component of FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000).
- The US Forest Service has initiated work with the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) to develop forestry databases for Russia and analytical
assistance with the Russian "First Approximation Report" on data availability
for C&I implementation. The Forest Service is also providing technical advice for
establishing or revamping national scale inventories in the Baltics, Argentina, Mexico and
Indonesia.
- The US will host the 11th Meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group on
Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and
Boreal Forests in November 1999 in Charleston, South Carolina. The US is the current chair
of the Working Group's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which is tasked to develop
concepts for the application of C&I.
- In 1998 the US posted timely satellite data (images, graphs, maps) on the World Wide Web
(1-2 days after observation) on the fires in the Amazon, Indonesia and Mexico to support
government and stakeholder forest fire management, prevention and suppression efforts; in
June 1998 reprogrammed its PPG-7 contribution to support Brazil’s fire monitoring and
prevention programme (PROARCO); in July launched an extensive training and extension
programme with $1 million spent on community training in the Amazon during the fire season.
- The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) hosted an
"Intercomparison Workshop" in March 1999 to review the 1998 Brazilian forest
fire monitoring campaign, using the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
(GOES), Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) and the Defense
Meteorological Satellite Programme (DMSP). Brazilian scientists participated in the workshop
to analyze lessons learned during the 1998 fire campaign and improve preparations for the
next fire season.
- Building on the 1998 fire season, US and Brazilian government agencies have drawn up a
well coordinated plan of fire management activities for 1999. These activities, which
include -- among others -- satellite fire detection, airborne imagery and computerized
fire forecasting models, are designed to refine further Brazil’s fire management
capabilities.
- In June 1998 the US Department of State launched a new $3.3 million East Asia and
Pacific Environmental Initiative to help address the devastating fires and related haze
problems in the region and reduce the extent of future fires. This included funding a
study by CIFOR and ICRAF on the underlying causes of the 1997-98 conflagration.
- The US Government assisted Mexico with fire emergency planning and preparation,
including training sessions in November 1998. In March 1999 the US co-sponsored a fire
experts meeting on use and management of fire in agro-pastoral and forestry programmes
in
Mexico. In 1998, the US established an $8 million fire prevention and restoration fund
with Mexico NGOs.
- In July 1998 the US Department of State hosted the 1st international
conference of senior experts from 35 countries and international organizations to help
launch a Global Disaster Information Network (GDIN) to reduce disaster losses by
establishing a virtual network that facilitates timely dissemination of accurate
information for the prevention, mitigation and response to natural disasters. In May 1999,
the US and Mexico co-sponsored the 2nd GDIN meeting in Mexico City to discuss specific
goals and objectives for the Network. Subsequent meetings are scheduled for April 2000 in
Ankara, Turkey and for 2001 in Canberra, Australia.
- The G-8 has begun work on a US-proposed collaborative initiative as a tool for forest
assessment and management, including monitoring threats to forest health such as fire.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
Funding for forest management at the state and federal levels has not increased in the
last few years, as of April 1997. With inflation, actual budgets have decreased. Federal,
state and local annual spending on forest management is approximately $6.4 billion.
In 1998 the US Department of Energy and AF&PA expanded their cooperative
"Technology Vision and Research Agenda 2020" to include the US Forest Service.
Agenda 2020 is designed to promote sustainable forestry practices across the US by
identifying and funding high priority research projects aimed at increased efficiency,
biotechnology and sustainable forestry. Thus far, Agenda 2020 has attracted $13 million in
joint public-private financing, including eight new projects funded with US Government
support. A fourth round of projects was proposed in March 1999.
In October 1998 the Chief of the US Forest Service allocated $2 million in grant
funding under the "Natural Resources Agenda for the 21st Century," a major
natural resource initiative that will use sustainable forest ecosystem management as its
unifying theme, with special emphasis on restoring degraded watersheds and improving
recreation services for visitors to national forests.
Cooperation
The United States also has major interests at the international level. With its vast
forest resources, the US is today the world's largest producer, consumer and trader in
wood products, accounting for 15% of world trade in forests products. The forest products
sector, although small in comparison to the rest of the US economy, is significant on a
global scale, as demonstrated by the fact that the US exports and imports of wood products
total $150 billion yearly. In addition, the US provides substantial forest-related
assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition through the
US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other federal agencies, as well as
through contributions to international organizations and financial institutions, such as
the World Bank, and various innovative debt reduction initiatives. Several of the largest
multinational forest and paper companies are US-owned, and many US-based environmental
organizations and academic institutions undertake forest field activities and projects
abroad.
U.S. bilateral assistance, through USAID, USDA and other federal agencies includes more
than 150 projects in 95 countries throughout the world. Of particular interest is the
focus on assistance to Russia which possesses 20 percent of the world's forests. The Peace
Corp's environmental programmes have been expanded to include 900 volunteers working in 51
countries through all regions of the world. Nearly 50 percent of these volunteers are
assigned to forestry related projects. As a member of the North American Forestry
Commission (NAFC), institutional strengthening and capacity building for sustainable
forestry has been a focus through training and technical exchanges. General projects
include training and cooperating in fire suppression, cooperation to develop monitoring
projects for migrating species, increasing the populations of endangered species, e.g.
protection of monarch butterfly habitat, reintroducing the Mexican Grey Wolf, and
improving neotropical bird habitat. Participatory management, important in the United
States, has become the mechanism for including the perspectives and needs of all members of local communities. The International Intertribal Conference on
Sustainable Forest Management, jointly sponsored by the US Forest Service and USAID, also
promotes participation and sustainable forest management by indigenous people.
The US is active in a wide variety of intergovernmental agreements, organizations,
initiatives and other fora that undertake forest related work and policy discussions. Key
among them is the UN CSD Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). The US is an active
member of the 12-country Montreal Process Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests and hosted the
11th Meeting of the Working Group in November 1999 in Charleston, South Carolina. The US
initiated the G-8 Action Programme on Forests, which world leaders launched at the Denver
Summit in 1997 and endorsed a year later. A progress report on implementation of the G-8
Action Programme will be submitted to G-8 leaders at the Okinawa Summit in 2000.
The US Government is committed to the goal of forest conservation and sustainable
management at home and abroad. International political commitments such as the Montreal
Process on Criteria and Indicators, the G-8 Action Programme on Forests and the Proposals
for Action agreed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), as well as a number of
national initiatives, provide an action-oriented framework for meeting this goal.
The US is actively pressing the G-8 and other industrialized countries to establish
environmental guidelines for export credit agencies along the lines of the
"Environmental Procedures and Guidelines" used by the Export-Import (EX-IM) Bank
of the United States to evaluate applications for financial support for foreign projects
sponsored by US business. Proposed forest sector projects, such as pulp and paper mills,
are evaluated by EX-IM for ecological soundness and mitigation measures. Project sponsors
are required to develop forest management plans that considers, among other things,
impacts on water resources, endangered/threatened species, and local communities from
construction and operation.
The US Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI), part of the US Government’s
Climate Change Action Plan, encourages US businesses and non-governmental organizations to
use their resources and innovative technologies and practices to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and promote sustainable development worldwide. The USIJI, working with partners
in the US and 14 other countries, supports projects dealing with, among others, carbon
sequestration, reforestation, national park preservation, reduced impact logging and
community silviculture. For example, US and Dutch power corporations and IWPA
(International Wood Products Association), are working with the Sabah Foundation in Sabah,
Malaysia on demonstration projects to improve forest management practices while
contributing to carbon emission reductions.
USAID and the US Department of Commerce are working with AF&PA under the auspices
of AF&PA’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) to restore areas in Central
America devastated by Hurricane Mitch in May 1999. This partnership will include a pilot
programme on the Honduran Island of Guanaja designed to establish the infrastructure needed
for long-term sustainable forest management.
In 1998 the US Government, through USAID and contributions to the International
Tropical Timber Organization, supported initial projects on low impact logging in tropical
forests of Brazil and Indonesia, which are being implemented by the Tropical Forest
Foundation, an NGO comprised of representatives from industry, environmental groups,
professional forestry associations, and academia.
In June 1998 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), working in
cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, increased the number of ports of entry
available to accept timber species listed on CITES appendices to facilitate and respond to
the Appendix III listings of Swietenia Macrophylla (a commercially traded tropical timber
species) undertaken by Bolivia, Brazil and other major range states.
In 1998 USAID, through its Proarca Capas programme, provided financial support to
undertake studies in Central America and Mexico on the distribution and status of mahogany
(Swietenia Macrophylla) harvesting activities, illegal logging and illegal trade.
The US considers all the above as contributory to US implementation of the IPF
Proposals for Action, both at home and abroad. The US Government has also initiated a
process of consultation with stakeholders on implementing the IPF Proposals for Action. As
part of this process, the US is exploring linkages between the IPF Proposals for Action
and the Montreal Process C&I. A report on the status of US implementation, including
next steps, will be developed.
* * *
This information was provided by the Government of United States of America to the 5th
and 8th Sessions of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
Last Update: December 1999.
| United States | All Countries | Home |
FRESHWATER
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
In the United States, 32 federal executive agencies in 10 cabinet departments,
including the Executive Office of the President, are actively involved in the policies and
programmes to manage and protect the quality and supply of the Nation's freshwater resources
- 25 separate water programmes in all. Each agency approaches the task from a particular
perspective based on its legislative mandates.
In
Congress, on the legislative side of the federal system, 12 standing committees in the
House and Senate have direct jurisdiction over various components of federal water
resource policy, and this excludes the responsibilities of the Appropriation Committees,
the Budget Committees, the Ways and Means and the Finance Committees, or the House
Government Reform and Oversight, and the Senate Government Affairs Committees which all
have ongoing interests in water. In essence, the complex federal executive
responsibilities for water resources reflect the multiple congressional legislative
responsibilities, which in turn mirror the multiple competing interests for water in the
U.S.
The major federal water resource agencies are the following :
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements a wide range of programmes
to protect
the nation's freshwater resources. The core of these is a series of regulatory
programmes to
protect the quality of the nation's waters, under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These
programmes are augmented by nonregulatory efforts targeted to minimize nonpoint sources of
pollution and improve aquatic ecosystem vitality. EPA also administers the Safe
Drinking Water Programme and several other regulatory programmes that are relevant to
freshwater issues including programmes dealing with toxic substances and waste disposal. EPA
works with the states to implement these water programmes. In the vast majority of states,
the state has been delegated lead implementation and enforcement responsibility for these
water programmes by EPA. EPA also capitalizes state revolving funds for clean water and
drinking water infrastructure. The EPA increasingly provides assistance and works
cooperatively on water issues in the international arena to share experiences and
solutions.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the nation's largest public water resources
development and management agency. The Corps also has an important regulatory function in
that most work in waterways and wetlands must have prior approval of the Corps.
- The Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) water resources programmes
focus on
upstream watershed protection and management and on improving water management on farms,
in rural areas, and in small communities.
- The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has the responsibility of providing water in the
17 western states, much of which is arid land.Today with a major network of water supply
and power generation infrastructure in place and settlement of the West realized,
Reclamation has shifted emphasis to integrated water resources management which promotes
more efficient use of water, water marketing and water transfers strategies, protection of
environmental values, and efficient operation and maintenance of the existing water
infrastructure in the West.
- The U.S. Geological Survey (Survey) has the principal responsibility within the federal
government to provide the hydrologic information needed to achieve the best use and
management of the nation's water resources.
- The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the primary institution within
the U.S. government responsible for providing financial support and technical assistance
to further global sustainable economic development. USAID's programmes are carried out
primarily through country-level missions -- located throughout the developing world -- in
which local projects are often implemented in cooperation with centrally organized,
worldwide projects such as the Water and Sanitation for Health (WASH) Project of USAID's
Research and Development Bureau.
- The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a wholly owned federal government corporation
established in 1933 by Congress. TVA built and manages a system of dams in the Tennessee
River basin to provide flood control, electric power, navigation, and recreation.
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), working with the other federal agencies,
states, tribes, and private organizations, conserves, protects, and enhances fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Relating to
water quality, the Service takes the Clean Water Act goal of water quality that is both
"fishable and swimmable" seriously and strives to enhance conservation and
protect habitat for freshwater species.
Water resources authorities and responsibilities are shared by many different
government agencies who coordinate informally among themselves. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in the Executive Office of the President serves as the principal federal
agency concerned with water resource coordination, with preparation of the President's
Budget annually, and with the review and coordination of all water programmes, as well as
with all regulations and Executive Orders.
Disaster preparedness is the joint responsibility of local, state, and federal
government. Officials at the local level have primary responsibility. At the federal
level, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), working in conjunction with other
federal agencies that have specific preparedness authorities, has the responsibility to
coordinate the overall federal preparedness effort. The Corps of Engineers has principal
responsibility for preparedness for floods. Other agencies, such as the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority, have similar but small flood preparedness assistance programmes.
For droughts, no single agency has responsibility for coordinating the federal effort,
although FEMA has been tasked to do so during several recent droughts. Numerous agencies
have authorities that may be applied under certain specific conditions.
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
There are more than 200 sets of federal
rules, regulations, and laws which provide the legal framework for freshwater. The competing interests for water affects all economic, social and environmental
activities today.
In fact, most decisions relating to surface
water uses are made at the state level in the United States according to a variety of
common law and state statutory schemes that differ greatly from state to state. State law
on surface water can be grouped generally into three doctrines of water law: riparian,
prior appropriation, and hybrid systems. Groundwater decisions and disputes in the United
States are also largely handled at the state level, again generally according to common
law and state law. Often state surface and groundwater statutes are managed independently
of each other and thus may not link surface and groundwater resources activities. In
addition, a number of states have entered into compacts (specific legal agreements between
states) to allocate and manage water. Examples include the Colorado River Compact in the
West and Connecticut River Compact in the East.
The legal and regulatory framework for water management includes the following:
- Water Pollution. The principal law governing pollution of the nation's waterways is the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act , or Clean Water Act . Although enacted
in 1948, it was amended in 1972, 1977, 1981 and in 1987. The Clean Water Act's objectives
are the restoration and maintenance of the "chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters."
- Drinking Water Quality. The major law which controls the quality of drinking water in
the United States is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It requires EPA to set
standards for contaminants in drinking water in addition to providing regulations and
guidance on treatment technologies, monitoring of drinking water quality, reporting of
results, protection of drinking water sources, control of underground injection,
protection of aquifers, and compliance and enforcement actions. Along with issuing
standards to control quality, EPA provides technical guidance and some financial resources
to assist state, tribal and territorial drinking water programmes to deliver safe water to
their customers. The 1996 amendments to SDWA strengthened the Act's public health
protection by broadening its scope of action and level of public involvement. The
amendments also provided new tools to address changing demands and increased scientific
and programmatic complexities.
Although state law generally controls the use of water and the states are pre-eminent
in determining water rights, the federal government has a significant role to play in
water allocation because of its financial support of major water development projects, its
ownership of vast federal lands, and the primacy of the federal government in matters
concerning navigation and international treaty obligations. Much of the federal law on
water allocation is derived from the recognized right of the federal government to
regulate uses of water that would interfere with navigation.
The Safe Drinking Water Act does not require water providers to have disaster
preparedness plans. Fortunately, however, most states do require these, specifying
communications plans, coordination efforts, provisions of alternative supplies, spare
parts, and so forth. EPA and the Corps of Engineers are frequently brought in to advise
state.
The Clean Water Act does not require waste water treatment providers to have disaster
preparedness plans. However, treatment plants constructed under Title II (Construction
Grants Programmess) were required to design facilities so that treatment would be maintained
up to the 100 year flood level. The treatment plant owners are also required to maintain
disaster insurance as part of the grant conditions and many plants have developed
contingency plans in the event of a disaster. Under certain conditions Title VI (State
Resolving Loan Fund) the Clean Water Act, may be used by the states to provide funds to
help local officials reconstruct facilities damaged by natural disasters.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
Pricing policy:
There is no single pricing policy for water in the United States. In most cases water
for municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes is provided by local entities and pricing
is established by that entity. The fact that Americans excpect to receive water of the
highest quality, at the lowest price, and in unlimited quantity - everywhere and at all
time should affect pricing, but that is so often not the case. Generally, it is federal
and state water subsidies that change this economic equation. Thus, improper pricing of
water, rather than inadequacy of supply, is most often the reason the United States
experience water shortages.
In recent years at the federal level, there are some standard economic and pricing
policies which are generally adhered to, as follows:
- Agricultural use: Costs are recouped for the capital federal costs relating to that
share of the project's costs allocated to irrigation. Nationally, variable irrigation
water costs for ground water and off-farm surface are about equivalent, averaging about
$14 per hectare.
- Municipal and industrial use: Costs are recouped for the capital federal costs relating
to the share of project's costs allocated to municipal and industrial use, again through
long-term contracts although interest is generally charged for M&I water
- Household use: Full costs are generally borne by the user when the water is privately
developed using groundwater resources.The rates themselves are set by individual water
providers, typically under the overall regulatory authority of individual state Public
Utility Commissions (PUC), which generally ensure rates that are "just and
reasonable."
Traditional federal water agencies have slowly been transforming their focus from
project construction to systems management. On a related manner, during its consideration
of setting drinking water standards, EPA does consider the costs of treatment as one
important input to setting standards which protect public health.
For disasters stemming from oil spills or releases of hazardous substances into
freshwater, the United States has promulgated a National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300) that maps out the responsibilities and response authorities of various federal
agencies including EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard to such disasters.
Decision-Making: Major Groups involvement
All citizens have extensive legal rights to fully participate in rule making and
decision making under federal and state laws in the United States. These rights are part
of the Administrative Procedures Act , the National Environmental Policy Act ,
other public participation and right-to-know sections of many state and federal statutes.
EPA works with a designated National Drinking Water Advisory Committee which represents
all major interests among the Committee's five designated Working Groups. EPA has, in
addition, set up more than 30 recognized stakeholder coordination groups focusing on all
aspects of data collection, research, standard-setting, outreach, and so forth. EPA also
uses its Web pages to assure wide dissemination of its policies, both during development,
as well as during implementation.
Programmes and Projects
In addition to federal level activities, there are hundreds of state and local water
programmes being carried out with the cooperation of nongovernmental organizations, private
sector enterprises, and individual citizens.
Status
Broadly stated, federal water development policy has been successful in economic and
social terms during the past 200 years. By the mid-1980's the federal government had spent
$400 billion for capital investments addressing water resource development, developed over
40,000 kilometers of inland waterways, built 83,000 reservoirs and dams, installed over
88,000 mega-watts of hydroelectric capacity. More than 52,000 public water utilities
supplied 86 billion liters of freshwater each day to domestic users, more than 23 million
hectares of land were irrigated, more than 15,000 municipal sewage treatment plants were
in operation, over 60,000 water pollution control permits (end-of-pipe) had been issued to
industry and other point sources of pollution around the country, and the frequency of
flooding on several thousand streams had been curbed.
End-of-pipe water pollution has been greatly decreased as a result of federal control
and financing during the last 25 years, although it remains a serious problem in many
areas. However, non-point source water pollution from agriculture, suburban development,
and urban runoff has grown rapidly in recent years and is not regulated at the federal
level. While the United States struggles to provide so much water to so many at such a low
cost, nearly 40 percent of the rivers and lakes remain polluted to varying degrees;
groundwater in many areas is subsiding; many of the fish and wildlife are endangered;
developers and private citizens continue to build homes and businesses in the path of
devastating floods; new water supplies are limited; sewage systems are expensive, and
public funds are becoming increasingly scare for new water project development and for
ongoing management of existing freshwater resources. Cleaning up the past water resource
problems is expensive and will continue into the foreseeable future in the United States.
The good news is that as a nation, the United States is using less water today. Total
water withdrawals for offstream use were 10 percent less during 1995 than during 1980.
This is a significant decline considering that the population increased 16 percent during
the same period. The decline signals that freshwater resources are managed more
effectively, that water use does respond to economic, environmental, and regulatory
factors, and that the public has an awareness about water and conservation issues.
While significant progress has been made, much remains to be done to sustainably manage
the national freshwater resources. As a matter of fact, more than 60 percent of the 87
million hectares of inland wetlands in the country have been converted to other uses,
nearly 50 percent of the country's 2.4 million kilometers of streams and an unknown
percentage of the nation's groundwater are polluted to a significant degree, and the
nation continues to experience ever-increasing flood damage losses, particularly during
the last several decades. A significant number of freshwater plants and animals are now
threatened or endangered and "dead zones" are just now being discovered along
the coastlines.
During the twentieth century, seven different types of arrangements have been tried in
the U.S. for jointly planning and managing water in its large federal system and varied
hydrologic conditions. The early twentieth century was dominated by two approaches:
inter-state compacts (which are similar to treaties among sovereign entities) and
adversarial court cases. As population in the U.S. shifted, as Native American tribal
demands grew, and as new uses (such as in stream flow and environmental quality) appeared,
allocations under compacts proved too inflexible to be effective. In the 1980's, the U.S.
moved away from this approach toward the market norm. Attempts were made to use more
realistic pricing which was closer to marginal costs for water through a variety of market
mechanism.
Today as a result of severe flooding losses (in the billions of dollars annually for
the last several years), increased loss of biodiversity (protection of threatened and
endangered species), and the multiple needs for more water, interest is emerging in
additional water resources coordination.
Pollution prevention is becoming an increasingly important goal of agencies, because
certain increasing forms of pollution are too costly and difficult to clean up after the
fact. While the Clean Water Act controls pollution from pipes, there is no federal
regulation of polluted run-off or groundwater contamination. Nutrient runoff from farmland
along the Mississippi River and its tributaries has caused a large area dead zone of
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, severely damaging the fishing industry.
Groundwater/drinking water contamination by pesticides and herbicides in the agricultural
regions is a growing problem. Farmers are being encouraged to plant buffer strips along
stream banks to control erosion and run-off, and they are being encouraged to minimize
chemical use and switch to chemicals that have a shorter life.
The design capacity of all the publicly owned waste water treatment facilities in the
United States in 1996 was 160 thousand cubic meters per day. The average flow treated per
day in 1996 was 122 thousand cubic meters. Based on U.S. Geological Survey information in
the United States, about 3-5 percent of all the waste water flows are recycled. Under the
Clean Water Act all discharges to surface waters of the U.S. must be treated to the level
of secondary treatment. In 1996 about 72 percent of the U.S. population received publicly
owned central collection and waste water treatment. The waste water from more than 90
percent of the population receiving collection was treated to at least secondary treatment
level.
Challenges
Decision-making is becoming more difficult today in federal and state water agencies
with increased law suits, downsizing, fewer dollars to spend, micro-management by
legislative bodies, and increasing demands coming from all directions - water users,
municipal interests, agricultural interests, development interests, environmentalist, and
the public. In summary, the United States has made great progress in managing its
freshwater resources during the last 200 years, yet the country faces many very
significant challenges in water as it moves into the 21st Century.
Today as a result of severe flooding losses (in the billions of dollars annually for
the last several years), increased loss of biodiversity (protection of threatened and
endangered species), and the multiple needs for more water, interest is emerging in
additional water resources coordination. Examples such as the Everglades in southern
Florida, the Bay-Delta in central California, and Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania along the mid-Atlantic coast, serve as model approaches to coordinated,
sustainable, integrated management of water and related land resources, and ecosystems in
the United States.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
Approximately 1,100 sources of water-related information are presently available across
the nation with few apparent data gaps, but the present information system falls short of
effectively distributing the water resources information that it has, although there are
exceptions. This is a continuing shortcoming, a result of ineffective programmes
coordination under the diverse federal water resource mandates.
At present, the U.S. Geological Survey manages three principal federal data bases:
water quality at fixed monitoring stations, reconnaissance during storms and floods, and
cause and effect studies on specific reaches of streams and rivers. In addition, USGS is
the repository for streamflow and groundwater data and has the ability to access a variety
of water-related data bases from other sources. Water use data are collected, compiled,
and reported at 5-year intervals by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Environmental Protection Agency has a water information data storage and retrieval
system which contains water quality and quantity data for more than 750,000 sites around
the nation. The EPA system is called STORET. For drinking water, data on compliance with
drinking water regulations are collected by state agencies and aggregated by EPA in a
system denoted as the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Financial,
administrative and managerial data on public systems are collected every few years by
EPA's Community Water System Survey. Infrastructure needs are also surveyed periodically.
EPA has also created an Internet site at: www.epa.gov/surf that allows anyone to obtain
information about any watershed in the United States. EPA's Office of Water is located on
the Internet at: www.epa.gov/water. Efforts are under way to link the vast water data
bases so that water information can be used for decision making at all levels of
government.
The third major water-related data system is administered by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce which has responsibility for
managing meteorological information central to the hydrological cycle
Research and Technologies
The Clean Water Act is considered to be a technology-based statute. In addition to the
BAT national standards, states are required to implement control strategies for so-called
"toxic hot spots" -- waters expected to remain polluted by toxic chemicals even
after industrial dischargers have installed the best available cleanup technologies
required under the law. States are required to develop water quality-based standards for
all bodies of water within a state. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDEs)
permit may include limits based on these water quality standards when a more stringent
limitation is needed to protect local water quality than is included in the
technology-based standards. Certain responsibilities are delegated to the states, and this
Act, like other environmental laws, embodies a philosophy of federal-state partnership in
which the federal government conducts research and sets the national standards for
pollution abatement while many states carry out day-to-day activities of implementation
and enforcement. Here again, states perform many of these tasks while the federal
government retains and exercises a role in both implementation and enforcement. As of the
end of 1997, 41 states had delegated authority for the NPDES programme.
Financing
The U.S. federal capital investment in water resources has steadily decreased during
the past 20 years. Most of the spending on non-capital expenditures goes to maintaining an
aging water infrastructure. Most of the budgets of the traditional infrastructure agencies
are now going to operations and maintenance.
Title II of the CWA established a grant programme for the construction of wastewater
treatment works. The 1987 Amendments replaced this programme with the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) programme. Under this programme, the federal government provides
grants to the states to capitalize these revolving loan funds, with a 20 percent matching
fund requirement from the states. The SRF provides low-interest loans to municipalities to
construct and upgrade wastewater treatment works. The federal government has provided $68
billion from 1972 through 1998 for these two programmes. The Clean Water Act also regulates
discharges into wetlands, both freshwater and coastal.
The percentage of costs recovered for drinking water varies by size of the system. In
1995, while only about 60 percent of the very smallest systems recovered their costs, the
number of profitable systems rose in the larger size categories (serving over 50,000
customers per system) that serve the vast majority of U.S. citizens. Revenues for
approximately 84 percent of publicly owned and 94 percent of privately owned systems were
sufficient to meet or exceed expenses. Financial security for the larger systems has
improved over the last 20 years, in contrast to the rather static picture for the smaller
systems.
Under provisions of the Clean Water Act, federal funding contributed about one-half to
three-quarters of the investment cost of local waste water treatment facilities of those
communities receiving grant assistance during the period from 1972 to 1998. During this
period federal funds provided nearly $68 billion in federal assistance for the
construction of local waste water treatment systems; and state and local governments
contributed more than $20 billion. A portion of these federal funds helped poorer
communities provide basic sewage treatment. Since 1990, EPA's State Revolving Fund has
provided low interest loans for the construction of waste water facilities.
In the United States there is a wide variety of private sector involvement in water
supply services. In 1995, approximately 34.3 million people in the U.S. received drinking
water from privately owned systems, as compared to more than six times that figure being
supplied from publicly owned systems. Privately owned water systems in the U.S. represent
a major financial component of the utility business, with over $14 billion in annual
revenues in 1995. Private financing contributions to projects is now also growing
According to EPA's 1995 Community Water System Survey, the $20 billion U.S. drinking
water industry continues to make large investments for water quality improvements
(averaging 19 %), repairs or replacement (averaging 31 %), and system expansion (averaging
50 %). The average "large system" serving over 100,00 people has invested nearly
$54 million in these areas since 1987. EPA and the water industry are concerned, however,
over the costs needed to maintain and improve drinking water services to the public. EPA
estimated infrastructure needs of $138.4 billion over the next 20 years (in constant 1995
dollars), comprising needs of $77.2 billion (56 percent) for transmission and distribution
systems, $36.2 billion (26 percent) for treatment, $12.1 billion (9 percent) for peak
storage facilities, $11 billion (8 percent) for source rehabilitation and development, and
$1.9 billion (1 percent) for all other needs.
Over the next twenty years it is expected that the percentage of the U. S. population
receiving central waste water treatment will increase from 72 percent (1996) to about 88
percent (2016). The cost needed over the this period to reach this level of treatment is
$120 billion in 1996 dollars. This is broken down as follows: $44 billion for treatment;
$10 billion for sewer repairs and rehabilitation; $21 billion for new sewers; and $45
billion to correct combined sewer overflows.
Today the United States uses in excess of 1.8 million liters of freshwater per capita
per year. This amount of water is currently made available at a low price averaging 5
cents per 1000 liters, and most of the water goes to agriculture. Costs to the typical
U.S. household for drinking water are higher due to expenses for treatment and
distribution, yet they are still affordable and represent only about one percent of median
household income.
Cooperation
The United States is party to two bilateral agreements concerning the use of
international watercourses: the U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission (IJC) under the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 , and International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC) under the U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 . In addition, EPA is undertaking
additional actions on the Mexican Border Infrastructure under the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The IJC acts as a quasi-judicial body to consider applications
for approval to build and operate certain works in boundary water and in rivers that flow
across the boundary. The IJC also, at the request of the parties, examines and provides
non-binding recommendations on specific transboundary issues of mutual concern. In
addition the IJC has critical duties under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement .
This has been a highly successful effort to combat toxic contamination, promote an
ecosystem approach to stewardship of the resource, and press for remedial action.
On the southern border, under the U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944, the two countries
have established an International Boundary and Water Commission to address bilateral
boundary and water problems. The IBWC divides the use of these international waters,
benefiting peoples in both countries economically and socially. The IBWC has constructed
and operates water conservation and flood control projects, and it constructs and
maintains boundary markers on the land boundary and at international bridges. As a result
of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Congress provided $450 million to EPA to be
used in support of drinking water and sewage infrastructure projects on both sides of the
U.S.-Mexican border.
* * *
This information was provided by the Government of the United States to the fifth
and sixth sessions of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Last
Update: April 1998.
For national information on
freshwater, click here.
For information about any watershed in the United
States, click here.
| United States | All Countries | Home |
LAND MANAGEMENT
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
Land and growth management in the United States is largely addressed at the local and
state levels, driven by a wide-range of issues and concerns. Many of these concerns in
recent years are associated with the concept of "sprawl" and pit expansion of
suburban and peri-urban development against protection of open space areas, agricultural
activities, and aesthetic values. Local and state policies to respond to these concerns
are diverse.
Many federal activities, policies and programmes affect rates and patterns of growth and
the ability of local and state governments to address them. Periodically, the question
arises as to whether the federal government should take steps to influence growth patterns
and support local and state efforts to respond to growth management concerns, especially
with respect to sprawl.
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
Recently, the Clinton Administration has attempted to address the issue through a
nationwide "Livability Agenda" that promotes, among other things, the concept of
"smart growth". The aim of the agenda is to help communities across America grow
in ways that ensure a high quality of life and strong, sustainable growth. Under the
agenda, the Administration is proposing new investments to provide communities with ways
to preserve green space, ease traffic congestion, and pursue regional smart growth
strategies.
The United States Government, pursuant to the 1996 Farm Bill and earlier legislation,
maintains a "Conservation Reserve Programme" which enables private farm producers
to bid to retire highly erodible or environmentally sensitive cropland, usually for 10
years. Participants receive rental or cost sharing payments and technical assistance for
this programme through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As of late 1998, the Conservation
Reserve Programme contained approximately 30.5 million acres.
Decision-Making: Strategies, Policies and
Plans
THE LIVABILITY AGENDA: A NEW U.S. INITIATIVE TO CONSERVE LAND RESOURCES
Over the past few years, the Clinton Administration has attempted to address land
degradation concerns related to either to urban areas under a nascent
"brownfields" programme, as well as "green communities " programmes
and
"smart growth" concepts related to both urban and "sprawl" concerns.
In January 1999, in an effort to coalesce and build upon these early notions of promoting
land rehabilitation and conservation efforts, the Clinton Administration announced
initiatives that address the related land management issues of resource protection, sprawl
and growth management. A "Livability Agenda" and "Lands Legacy
Initiative" were unveiled as a means to help states and local communities address
burgeoning land management challenges. The "Livability Agenda" would:
- provide federal tax credits
in lieu of interest for state or local bonds (totaling
$9.5 billion over 5 years) to buy park land, preserve farmland and wetlands, and clean up
abandoned industrial sites (brownfields);
- increase a portion of federal transportation grants
for projects other than road
building (including $6.1 billion for mass transit , $1.6 billion to improve air quality by
easing traffic congestion, and $50 million for a pilot projects on regional transportation
planning programmes) ; and,
- provide matching funds to assist in regional planning
and to assist communities in
developing land-use plans, to encourage community participation in planning for education,
and to fund the sharing of certain regional data ($150 million).
The "Lands Legacy Initiative", among other things, would:
- increase federal land acquisition funding
(to total $413 million in FY2000) using
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and designate 5 million acres of wilderness at
specified locations, including in the Mojave Desert, northern New England and the
Everglades;
- provide grants to state and localities
to acquire land and plan for open space ($150
million in FY2000);
- expand funding for other resource protection efforts
including the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, the Forest Legacy Programme, Urban and Community
Forestry Programme grants and the Farmland Protection Programme ($220 million in FY2000).
- Fund "smart growth" partnerships
using programmes at the Department of the
Interior and the USDA to support acquisition of land and easements in rural areas.
The Congress is not expected to adopt the proposal submitted by the Clinton
Administration. Nevertheless, the Administration believes that the growth management
proposals that it has put forward respond to increasing public interest in
"sprawl" and other land policy challenges. According to a recent Brookings
Institution report, such issues, often characterized as a "quality of life
issues" were addressed in 240 referenda in 31 states last year, and 72 percent of
these were reportedly passed in the November 1998 election.
Further and more comprehensive information on the Clinton Administration’s livable
communities initiatives can be found on the web at www.livablecommunities.gov.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
As of 1996, only 10 states had statewide growth management plans with land management
components. Another two had growth management plans limited to coastal areas alone. One
state, Maryland, received considerable publicity when it adopted a "smart
growth" strategy under legislation adopted in 1997. Under this legislation, state
road and sewer project spending to assist development is to be concentrated both to
revitalize approved urban areas and to curb sprawl by minimizing spending in other areas
of the state. In addition, more than $70 million is to be used by 2002 to purchase
development rights on land with high environmental value in the state. The State of
California, with the California Coastal Conservancy and Coastal Commission and the State
of New York with its Hudson River Valley Greenway Act are also touted as examples of
states trying to address land management challenges in a sustainable manner. The State of
Colorado also had an initiative to allocate funds from the state lottery for land
acquisition, easements, and other conservation measures.
There are also numerous initiatives at local levels throughout the United States that
have has land management and growth as key issues. Included among these were the
Sustainable City Plan for Berkeley, California, the Sustainable Cambridge (Massachusetts)
coalition, Sustainable Chattanooga (Tennessee), Sustainable Seattle, and many others. The
National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors cooperate in
maintaining a "Joint Center for Sustainable Communities" that seeks, among other
things, to encourage more communities to become sustainable through responsible land use
design, brownfields redevelopment, appropriate transportation, "true cost"
accounting, and other smart growth initiatives.
Programmes and Projects
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ON AMERICA’S PRIVATE LANDS
Conservation of soil and water resources has been a public policy issue in the United
States for over 60 years. U.S. agricultural exports expanded rapidly through the 1970s to
record levels, and U.S. producers responded by bringing additional land into production.
Three problems ensued. One was high levels of soil erosion, the second was overproduction,
and the third was providing water to agriculture in sufficient quantity and quality to
enhance production. Federal programmes before 1985 allowed U.S. farmers to receive payments
for acres not planted, referred to as annual set asides, but did not include any
multi-year efforts that could provide more sustained benefits for conservation purposes.
In 1985, Congress enacted a farm act that created the "Conservation Reserve
Programme" (CRP) to be managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The aim of
the CRP was to reduce excessive erosion, stabilize farm prices, and slow excess
production. Almost 34 million acres were enrolled in the programme by private producers from
1986 to 1990, under an enrollment cap of 38 million acres. During this time, the USDA
continued to adjust the programme’s formula for accepting bids from producer’s who
wanted to join the programme by placing a growing emphasis on environmental benefits. After
passage of the 1990 Farm Act, USDA started to compare bids using an evolving formula
called the "Environmental Benefits Index" (EBI).
In 1996, the Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 – more commonly referred to as the 1996 Farm Act. Under this law, provisions
were made to either reauthorize or introduce new programmes. The CPR and Wetlands Reserve
programmes were among those programmes reauthorized and readjusted, while new programmes
included the Environmental Quality Incentives Programme (EQIP). The EQIP programme’s aims
are to provide $200 million per year to be split evenly between crop and livestock
producers in addressing a range of conservation problems. While the EQIP programme
was to be
managed by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the CRP was to
be once again administered by the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA).
As noted above, private farm producers are allowed to bid to retire highly erodible or
environmentally sensitive cropland, usually for 10 years (or longer under limited
circumstances). Participants receive rental or cost sharing payments and technical
assistance for this programme through the FSA. As of late 1998, the Conservation Reserve
Programme contained approximately 30.5 million acres.
The CRP also has two other important ways to enroll land. One allows continuous sign-up
for individuals who wish to enroll portions of their fields with particularly high
environmental values. The second way is a state-initiated enhancement programme under which
higher rents are paid to attract eligible land. In 1997, the State of Maryland became the
first state approved for this programme. Maryland will contribute financial resources in an
attempt to enroll 100,000 acres of stream buffers, restored wetlands, and highly erodible
lands near streams in the Chesapeake Bay drainage. (The Chesapeake Bay is the largest east
U.S. coast estuary and is subject to harmful nutrient overloading brought about, in part,
from agricultural run-off.)
Under the revised CRP, there is a total maximum enrollment cap of 36.4 million acres
and no one single county in any given state may exceed a participation rate of 25 percent.
Numerous plains state counties are currently at capped enrollment.
Status
LAND UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION
While the overwhelming majority of Americans reside in urban and suburban areas, the
United States remains primarily an agricultural land. Nearly 71 percent of land in the
United States is in private hands or under state and local authorities. The remaining 29
percent of the land (657 million acres) is in federal hands and is administered primarily
by four federal agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service
(NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the U.S. Department of the Interior, and
the Forest Service (FS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The majority of these
federal lands (92 percent) are in 12 western states, including Alaska. Altogether, the
following four agencies manage over 95 percent of federal land in the United States and
the Clinton Administration has sought to ensure that all manage lands in a sustainable
manner involving public participation and stakeholders at local levels. And, of equal
importance, are managed in accordance with a range of U.S. environmental laws, including
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- BLM
: The Bureau of Land Management administers 264 million acres, or 40 percent of
all federal lands, as well as approximately 300 million additional acres of subsurface
mineral estate. The BLM manages these public lands for sustained yields of multiple uses
– livestock grazing, outdoor recreation, timber production, water supply, wildlife
and fish habitats, and wilderness. Its mission statement calls on the BLM: "To
sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the Nation’s public lands for the
use and enjoyment of present and future generations." Federal environmental laws
affecting the BLM, such as NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and
the ESA, require that the BLM involve the public and consider the needs of local
communities when taking land management decisions.
- FS
: The Forest Service manages a 192 million acre National Forest System (NFS),
consisting of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 112 other areas. Most NFS
lands are concentrated in the western United States and Alaska, but the FS manages more
than half of all federal lands in the eastern United States. NFS lands are generally
administered for sustained yields of multiple uses. The NS decides on permitted levels and
locations of the uses in land and resource management plans that are prepared by
interdisciplinary teams under the provisions of a wide-range of laws, including NEPA and
the ESA. The FS has committed to goal of ensuring the sustainable management of the
forests it manages wherever they are found in the United States.
- FWS
: The U.S. FWS manages 93 million acres in 512 national wildlife refuges,
including 198 waterfowl production areas, 50 wildlife coordination areas, and 114 other
sites in a "National Wildlife Refuge System" (NWS). The FWS mission is to work
"with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their
habitat for the continuing benefit of the American people." While the President or
the Congress can create new NWS units, most are established by the FWS under general land
acquisition authorities, especially the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and earlier related laws, direct the FWS to
administer the System primarily to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife and their
habitats. Only uses compatible with these general purposes are permitted.
- NPS
: The National Park Service manages 77 million acres in the 378 units of the
National Park System. There are many diverse categories of units, with 20 different
designations. The three largest units are the: (1) National Parks (e.g., Yellowstone and
Yosemite National Parks); (2) National Preserves; and, (3) National Monuments. The NPS
also administers other units, including some 19 National Recreation Areas. Some hunting,
fishing, livestock grazing and mineral extraction is allowed on certain NPS lands, but in
some areas these activities are expressly prohibited. Wherever such activities are
allowed, they must be compatible with the primary purpose for which the area was set
aside.
The NPS, FWS and BLM also are involved in managing three special management systems on
the lands that they administer that have been created to protect particular features or
characteristics. These include: the National Wilderness Preservation System (104 million
acres); the National Trails System (20 trails totaling nearly 40,000 miles); and, the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (155 rivers totaling over 10,800 miles).
There are also sometimes transfers of land between the agencies. For example, roughly 3
million acres of land were transferred from the BLM to the NPS due to the enactment of the
California Desert Protection Act of 1994, an act designed to help better conserve
environmentally sensitive desert areas in California.
Several other U.S. agencies are involved in administering approximately 4 percent of
U.S. federal land. These include the Department of the Defense (DOD), the Department of
Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureaus of Reclamation and Indian Affairs
in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and others. DOD has both pollution prevention and
conservation programmes established for lands that it manages and DOD installations are
required to produce Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans and Integrated Cultural
Resource Management Plans for the lands that they manage. DOD also maintains two funding
programmes, a sustainable forest management programme for DOD lands and a small-grants
programme for streamside restoration. DOE, together with all other US federal agencies must follow
NEPA requirements pertaining to environmental impact assessments related to land use
decisions. The Bureau of Reclamation’s mission is to "manage develop, and
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in
the interest of the American people. In addition to managing reservoirs in western United
States, the Bureau of reclamation also manages over 300 recreation areas for public
benefit.
DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has jurisdiction over more than 56 million
acres, of which more than 45 million acres are under tribal trust and about 10 million
acres are individually owned. DOI is legally obligated to ensure that American Indian and
Alaska Native resources and lands are properly managed, protected and conserved. DOI
bureaus provide an array of services to American Indians. For example, in addition to
BIA’s activities, the BLM provides survey and mineral management programmes
for tribes,
DOI’s Office of Surface Mining provides tribal grants for reclamation of abandoned
mines and restoration of water quality affected by acid mine drainage. The Bureau of
Reclamation provides financial and technical assistance to the tribes in the planning,
design, construction, and operation of water resource needs on reservations. FWS partners
with tribes in restoring and improving fishery resources, training conservation law
enforcement officers from Native American tribes, and technical assistance for tribal
resource conservation and management plans. DOI’s U.S. Geological Service conducts
research on water and mineral resources of environmental, economic or subsistence
importance to Indians. NPS provides technical assistance to tribes on preservation of
their endangered heritage and sacred places.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), through its Urban and Economic
Development Division, is coordinating the "Smart Growth Network", a coalition of
private sector, public sector and NGO partners "seeking to create smart growth in
neighborhoods, communities and regions across the United States." The partnership
programme will conduct several projects to encourage more environmentally responsible land
use, regional growth and development. USEPA is also involved in helping direct a
"Brownfields National Partnership Partnership Action Agenda". This Agenda calls
for the selection of 10 showcase communities across the nation to demonstrate that through
cooperation, federal, state and local and private efforts can be concentrated around
brownfields to produce environmental cleanup, stimulate economic development, and
revitalize communities. The Agenda encompasses more than 100 commitments from more than 25
organizations, including more than 15 U.S. agencies. These commitments represent a $300
million investment in brownfields communities by the Federal government.
USEPA also sponsors a green community programme, including a "Green
Communities" assistance kit that takes users through a five-step process towards
achieving "Green Community" status. A Green Community is one that provides open
space, complies with environmental regulations, reduces consumption of natural resources
and practices pollution prevention, actively involves all citizens and incorporates local
values in decision-making and encourages all elements of civil society to work together
with government to promote a healthy environment, a strong economy and a high quality of
life.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also uses some of the core
programmes that it funds to support livability and regional development initiatives,
including "smart growth"and brownfields projects, at the levels of neighborhood,
city, region and state. HUD’s strategy is to lead in three dimensions: (1)
identifying and working to promote livability and effective regional action; (2) adding
new activities and policies that promote sustainable, equitable; and (3) building
knowledge and constituencies so that local choices are both informed and responsive to all
stakeholders.
Information
A coalition of developers, planners government officials, lending institutions,
community development organizations, architects, environmentalists and community activists
are part of the "mart Growth Network" (www.smartgrowth.org). This group hopes to
encourage more environmentally and fiscally responsible land use, growth and development
around the U.S. It provides a forum for facilitating smart growth in neighborhoods,
communities, and regions. Those who become members of the Network reportedly receive a
membership kit featuring two primers – one on "Best Development Practices"
and "Why Smart Growth". The group has also produced a video for educating
citizen groups or city councils about smart growth concepts and relevant land use and
development issues.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
No information is available.
Cooperation
With the support of HUD, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, and other agencies together
with the American Planning Association (APA) has launched a "Growing Smart"
initiative. The initiative will be pursued in three phases. The first phase focuses on
intergovernmental relationships and works to help design statutes that enhance regional
planning and cooperation. The second phase develops model legislation dealing with local
planning. A third phase will provide model legislation for creating the implementation
tools communities need to manage change. As part of Growing Smart, the APA has prepared
summaries of planning statutes of all 50 States, as well as the first of a series of
working papers, entitled Modernizing State Planning Statutes, that addresses various
aspects of local, state, and regional planning. More information on APA’s Growing
Smart efforts are available at: www.planning.org.
* * *
This information was provided by the Government of United States of America to the 5th
and 8th Sessions of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
Last Update: December 1999.
| United States | All Countries | Home |
MOUNTAINS
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
As in Land Management, most all decision-making is taken at state and local levels and
major groups are generally involved at these levels. Federal Agencies responsible for
federal lands in mountainous areas are pursuing ecosystem approaches to land management.
See information under Land Management.
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) was established in 1965 pursuant to the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965. Its purpose was to help build a better economy and
better quality of life for the people in the Appalachian Mountain region.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
An important
element of the programme is its unique partnership of federal, state and local governments.
This structure helps put responsibility in the hands of citizens at the local level. In
this process, initiatives from local citizens become part of each state's annual overall
plan that is then approved by the ARC. This results in a "from the bottom up"
approach to addressing local needs, rather than from the top down.
Programmes and Projects
No information is available.
Status
In 1965, one in three people living in
Appalachian Mountains were considered impoverished. Since then, the overall poverty rate
has diminished to closer to that of the federal average. The number of adults who have
received high school educations in the area has risen from one in three in 1965, to two in
three; and the infant death rate has been cut in half over that same time period.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
No information is available.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
Funds that have been
distributed through ARC programmes have been used for improving water and sewer systems,
work force training programmes, adult literacy programmes, improving access to health care,
and in construction of the Appalachian highway system. Since 1965, the 13-state region
within the ARC has received $6.5 billion in special federal funding, which in turned has
leveraged funds from state and municipal sources.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997.
| United States | All Countries | Home |
OCEANS AND COASTAL AREAS
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
The National Security Council (NSC) Interagency Working Group on Global Environmental
Affairs, including but not limited to all US maritime and coastal agencies, has primary
responsibility for ensuring the integrated planning and implementation of costal
management policy. The NSC is fully integrated in the President's Council on
Sustainable Development. Major Groups have an advisory role in the national and local
agenda-setting processes. These groups include the private sector, small-scale artisanal
fishermen and indigenous people. The US Mineral Management Service coordinates with
counterpart agencies abroad with respect to offshore oil and gas operations.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
Prior assessment of the impact of major
activities on oceans is required under the National Environmental Policy Act and
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Under the programme area of marine
environmental protection, a tradeable permits programme for SO2 emissions and a
cradle-to-grave hazardous waste management scheme has been introduced.
Since the 1972 enactment of the Coastal
Zone Management Act, environmental assessments of coastal and marine areas are
undertaken at least every two years.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
The US has a national policy on oceans as well as an integrated coastal area management
programme. Existing coastal zone and area management plans encompass all marine activities
within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Government has
access to technologies that serve to identify the major types of pollution of the marine
environment from land-based sources.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
No information is available.
Programmes and Projects
No information is available.
Status
No information is available.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
The Government participates in the development of socio-economic and environmental
indicators, systematic observation systems, mussel watch programmes and clearing-houses,
as well as capacity building and training programmes. The US National Oceanic and Atmosphere
Administration is working on a number of indices of nutrient enrichment, including an
algae index. The US noted, however, that an algae index alone, without other indices, is
not very useful. There are several databases (National Estuarine Inventory, National
Coastal Discharge Inventory, National Status and Trends Programme, etc.) used by the US
Government, private sector or universities. These databases cover all relevant issues in
coastal zones and are rated as "adequate". The US is able to measure improvements and changes in
the coastal and marine environment primarily through the National Status and Trends
Programme.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
Bilateral and multilateral financial assistance has been provided by the US Government
since 1992 to implement activities to address the sustainable development of small islands
and developing states (SIDS).
Cooperation
The US supports the Clearinghouse Concept in the Global Plan of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. Adoption of a UNGA
resolution would facilitate coordination among the UN agencies and international
organizations. The ratification and implementation of IMO treaties also requires
international cooperation. The United States fully supports the Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, as well as the 1993 Agreement to promote
Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on
the High Seas. The US also fully supports the Code of Conduct of Responsible
Fishing which impacts the conservation and management of marine fisheries within the
US EEZ.
The Government recently helped launch a process to establish a multinational initiative
for an International Research Institute (IRI) and network dedicated to world-class
scientific research and education on forecasting on year-to-year climate variability. The
US took the lead on developing the clearinghouse activity called for in the Global
Programme of Action (GPA) on land-based activities and hosted the conference in 1995 which
developed and adopted the GPA. The US plays a significant role in the IOC, IPCC, World
Weather Watch, Earth Watch, and International Mussel Watch. The US notes the importance of
para. 17.118 of Agenda 21 that calls for the UNGA to provide for regular consideration
within the UN system on general marine and coastal issues, including environment and
development items. The US Government participates in the Global Ocean Observing System.
USAID's Water and Coastal Resources Programme addresses the vital and strategic interests
in promoting the sustainable development of freshwater, coastal, and marine resources.
USAID is playing a leadership role in providing direction and impetus to international
efforts to address the needs for integrated coastal and freshwater resources management,
preservation of aquatic biodiversity and reduction of pollution from land-based
activities. As part of its strategy, USAID is actively supporting the International
Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), which stems in part from a US initiative. In addition
USAID actively supports the sustainable management of mangrove and other coastal
ecosystems.
The U.S. hosted a UNEP organized conference on landbased sources of marine pollution in
Washington in November 1995 that resulted in a Global Plan of Action to deal with this
serious problem. The U.S. spearheaded international efforts in 1993/94 to call for a ban
on radioactive waste dumping at sea.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was signed but has not yet been ratified
by the US. The Convention continues to serve as a comprehensive framework with respect to
the uses of the oceans. It creates the structure for the governance and protection of all
marine areas, including the air space above and the seabed and sub-soil below. The US
signed the accompanying Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the
Convention on July 29, 1994, and intends to apply the Agreement provisionally pending
ratification.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997.
To access the Web Site of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, click here:
| United States | All Countries | Home |
TOXIC CHEMICALS
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
In response to growing public awareness and concern over environmental threats to human
health posed by toxic chemicals and substances, the US Congress has established over the
past 25 years a number of agencies to address different aspects of environmental health
issues. The network of federal agencies, moreover, involves numerous constituent and
participating groups. At the national level, the federal agencies - including USEPA, the
Department of Labor's Occupational and Health Administration and seven different agencies
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), USDA, and the Department of
Transportation -- play a large role in defining and pursuing environmental health goals
pertaining to toxic chemicals and substances through research, administration and service
programmes, as well as via regulation and enforcement activities. These agencies also
provide valuable assistance to state and local environmental departments and health
agencies. State and local agencies must address many of the same environmental health
issues as the federal government. The scope and responsibilities of state agencies are
extremely diverse and vary from state to state.
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
In 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was adopted, amending
FIFRA. The
new law establishes stronger health-based safety standards for pesticide residues in all
foods. It uses a "reasonable certainty of no harm" as a general safety standard.
The single, health-based standard eliminates long-standing problems posed by multiple
standards for pesticides in raw and processed foods. It requires USEPA to consider all
non-occupational sources of exposure, including drinking water, and exposure to other
pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity when setting standards.
The foundation of the chemicals control programmes in the United States is based on the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Non-pesticide chemical uses are covered by TSCA, which requires
pre-manufacture notification and testing in some cases. FIFRA requires the registration,
based on the review of testing data, of the domestic use of any pesticide. A related
statute, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) establishes tolerance levels for
pesticides residues on foods, including imported foods. The Consumer Product Safety Act
(CPSA) and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) address consumer exposure to
hazardous chemicals and products, including those manufactured abroad. Occupational
Safety and Health Act and the Mine Safety and Health Act address occupational
exposures to hazardous chemicals.
The most significant innovations in chemical management in the past 10 years have been
the result of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and
the Pollution Prevention Act. EPCRA set up networks of local and state-level
committees with the mission to develop plans to prevent, prepare for and respond to
chemical accidents. EPCRA also established the toxics release inventory (TRI), which is a
publicly available national database of routine annual emissions of over 300 toxic
chemicals to air, water, land and off-site disposal. Early in 1993, the President ordered
previously exempted federal facilities, including military installations, to report TRI
emissions as well as stockpiles of chemicals stored on-site. EPCRA, complemented by
related voluntary programmes, has, in many instances, resulted in greater reductions in
environmental risk than more traditional command-and-control approaches. A significant
change in the FHSA since UNCED has been the inclusion of guidelines for evaluating chronic
hazards from the exposure to carcinogenic, neurotoxic and reproductive/developmental toxic
substances. These guidelines facilitate better interagency and international coordination
of policies regarding exposure to such substances. The Pollution Prevention Act
established a bold national objective that "Pollution should be prevented or reduced
at the source whenever feasible." The USEPA Administrator has made this ethic a
central consideration of all EPA programmes.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Major Groups involvement
Environmental NGOs are also actively involved in national and
local debates involved in governmental efforts aimed at addressing problems posed by
toxics.
Non-government entities, predominately
from the science and technological community as represented by colleges and universities,
address a range of environmental health research and policy issues related to toxic
chemicals and substances.
Programmes and Projects
No information is available.
Status
No information is available.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
No information is available.
Research and Technologies
By and large, the United States is a world leader in development and utilizing the
latest state-of-the-art technology related to administering toxic chemicals and
substances.
Financing
The total amount of federal financing related to research, administration and
regulation is not available at this time, but increasing resource constraints are of
concern.
Cooperation
The United States has been successful in having fundamental democratic principles
accepted as part of the foundation for international toxic chemical work in numerous fora,
including OECD, UNEP, UNECE, and IFCS. In contributing to the CSD process, the United
States co-hosted with Mexico a workshop on lead. The results of that workshop were
instrumental in getting the CSD to call for governments to phase out the use of leaded
gasoline.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997
For national information on
toxic chemicals, click here.
| United States | All Countries | Home |
WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Solid Waste and Sanitation
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
State and local governments in the United States continue to have the primary
responsibility for municipal solid waste management. Invariably, based on the strong
democratic system of government in the US, various stakeholders are included in the
decision-making structure at the State and local levels. Solid waste management is
typically provided or regulated by local governments with funding from general tax
revenues. The federal government, through the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
establishes performance standards for State and local efforts to ensure protection of
human health and the environment and also cooperates with these communities in a number of
programmes to improve solid waste management and prevent pollution. One example of
technology cooperation deals with underground storage tanks.
Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations
At the federal level, the US continues to pursue the environmentally sound management
of solid wastes through implementation of key federal laws including, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) also known as the Superfund Act.
More than 30 States have quantitative recycling targets for municipal solid
waste ranging from 15 to 30 percent. Once a State has put into place the means to oversee
and enforce RCRA rules, it may petition the federal government for the right to operate
the RCRA programme. To date, 46 States have received this right.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
The federal government is helping States and localities plan for safe and cost-effective
waste prevention, recycling and disposal by facilitating information exchange, providing
technical assistance, setting minimum standards governing the safe management of municipal
waste, as well as loans and other support for efforts to promote source reduction and
recycling.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
USEPA is
implementing a national programme for businesses that provides extensive guidance on waste
prevention and recycling, and for improving and expanding markets for recycled products.
Business and industry, the
scientific and technological community, and environmental NGOs tend to be the most active
of the major groups on solid waste management issues in the United States.
Programmes and Projects
Under
current policy, it is estimated that the RCRA programme will cost $234 billion between 1990
and 2020. The national goal for solid waste management continues to be the reduction of
the amount of wastes through source reduction and recycling programmes.
Status
The US still records the largest per capita generation of municipal solid waste among
OECD countries. Municipal solid waste is expected to decline slightly on a per capita
basis by 2000 mostly as a result of source reduction efforts. The pursuit of the RCRA goal
of promoting waste reduction, reuse and recycling is succeeding in gradually reducing
quantities of municipal waste being incinerated and landfilled: the proportion of waste
recovered tripled between 1970 and 1993 and now stands at about 22 percent. Despite the
fact that 38 States have enacted more than 140 recycling laws, with some having also
established tax incentive programmes for recycling, overall US recycling rates are lower
than those seen in other OECD countries. For example, nationwide about 34 percent of paper
and 22 percent of glass were recycled in 1993 as compared to other OECD countries who have
reached 40 percent and more in their paper and glass recycling efforts. The RCRA goal of
cradle-to-grave management of waste is broadly being met. In spite of some slow efforts in
some localities, most municipal waste is now disposed of in lined landfills, incinerated,
or composted. Unsound disposal operations have been shut down. The share of incineration
is not expected to grow and is likely to remain at about 16 percent, while landfilling is
projected to decrease by about 10 percent between 1993 and 2000.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
No information is available.
Research and Technologies
No information is available.
Financing
With respect to sewerage issues, the federal response continues to focus on
implementation of the Clean Water Act. Under this Act, federal funding contributed
about three-quarters of the investment cost of local waste water treatment facilities.
Over the past two decades, the Clean Water Act's Construction Grants Programme provided a
total of nearly $60 billion in federal assistance for the construction of municipal sewage
treatment works, while states and local governments contributed over $20 billion. This has
resulted in the US as a leader among OECD countries with respect to state-of-the-art
sewerage treatment. In 1991, the US ceased dumping sewerage sludge in coastal waters.
Cooperation
The United States cooperates with its neighbors, Canada and Mexico, in addressing solid
waste and sewage-related issues as they may arise. USAID strives to alleviate problems
arising from poor sanitation and contaminated drinking water by assisting local
governments in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition to
improve and expand urban environmental services and related infrastructure, primarily
water supply, sanitation and drainage, and solid waste management. USAID programmes
are
aimed at increasing the volume of wastewater collected and treated from poor
neighborhoods; introducing municipal and industrial performance standards for disposal of
waste; and increasing capacity for compliance and enforcement of pollution standards.
USAID activities have resulted in improved access to waste collection services and
supported private-public cooperation in solid waste management. These activities have
resulted in better sanitation, particularly for the urban poor. The United States adheres
to the OECD Council Decision governing trade in recyclable waste with other OECD
countries.
* * *
Hazardous Wastes
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
CERCLA is designed to promote clean-up of sites
and other areas where past disposal practices of hazardous substances may now pose a
threat to the environment and/or human health. Under this law, a large portion of the
cleanups are conducted by the polluters; States participate in the cleanups as well, but
there is no delegation of authority in CERCLA that permits States to administer the
programme.
Since UNCED, the Clinton Administration has made pollution prevention, including waste
minimization, one of its highest priorities for the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). To further this goal, USEPA has pursued several policies, including issuing new
guidelines for hazardous waste reduction programmes that include community right-to-know
features; convening a task force of USEPA and State officials to develop economically
sound source reduction strategies and technical controls; and restructuring hazardous
waste recycling programmes.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
At the federal level, the United States continues to pursue the environmentally sound
management of hazardous wastes under key laws, including the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) also known as the "Superfund" Act.
Most States and many localities also have their own laws and regulations
concerning hazardous and solid waste disposal. Current disposal capacity is sufficient to
handle expected amounts of hazardous waste safely until at least 2013. Combustion rules
for hazardous waste were considerably tightened in 1994.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
No information is available.
Decision-Making: Major Groups involvement
The US is strongly committed to public participation in environmental decision-making,
and believes that federal programmes dealing with hazardous waste issues are run better when
there is significant public input into the process. There are both federal programmes
as
well as many state and local government programmes that address hazardous waste issues.
Federal agencies have established programmes to encourage development of new hazardous waste
cleanup technologies. Major groups play a key role in policy, scientific and
technological issues involved with hazardous waste issues at federal, state and local
levels. The predominant major groups involved include environmental NGOs, business and
industry, and those from the scientific and technological field.
Programmes and Projects
RCRA is a
nation-wide programme to protect human health and the environment from the risks of improper
management of hazardous and solid waste, and it provides a "cradle-to-grave"
system of regulations for hazardous waste to promote the cleanup of sites that have been
contaminated with hazardous substances while ensuring that, to the extent possible, the
polluter pays principle is adhered to. This programme is, to a large extent, administered by
State governments with federal oversight.
Status
USEPA has also focused RCRA initiatives since UNCED on environmental justice through
siting, permitting, public involvement, corrective action, disproportionate impacts and
Native American tribal issues. For example, the USEPA expanded public involvement and
improving its own ability to include environmental justice in public health considerations
and to assure that priority-setting methods adequately address environmental justice
concerns. Much of the USEPA action related to environmental justice is done in line with
the Executive Order issued by President Clinton in February 1994 on Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
Challenges
No information is available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
No information is available.
Information
No information is available.
Research and Technologies
The US is generally recognized as a world leader in the development and
utilization of advanced technologies associated with both pollution prevention
and hazardous waste treatment.
Financing
No information is available.
Cooperation
The US has worked closely with its North American neighbors to address hazardous waste
issues. Although the US has not ratified the Basel Convention, it actively participates in
Basel technical meetings and has attended every meeting of the Basel Conference of Parties
held to date.
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal was signed in 1990, but not yet ratified.
* * *
Radioactive Wastes
Decision-Making: Coordinating Bodies
The Federal agencies involved in radioactive waste issues are the Department of Energy
(DOE), the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
United States policy continues to emphasize the safe storage of radioactive wastes, the
development of permanent solutions to radioactive waste disposal and the present
generation's accountability for current radioactive waste inventories. The US Department
of Energy is continuing its efforts to develop a waste-management system for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste from both civilian and government facilities. The
system will consist of a geologic repository, a monitored retrievable storage (MRS)
facility, and a transportation system to support storage and retrieval. The NRC will
license civilian facilities. A conceptual design has been completed for the MRS, which
will handle and store fuel until it is permanently disposed of in a repository.
Decision-Making: Legislation
and Regulations
US radioactive waste policy and programme missions continue to be mandated by legislation
passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Major legislation governing US
radioactive waste policy includes
- the Atomic Energy Act;
- the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act;
- the Energy Reorganization Act;
- the Department of Energy Organization Act;
- the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act;
- the Low-level Radioactive Waste Act;
- the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; and
- the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Through these and other legislation, the storage and disposal of most commercially
generated low-level waste is assigned to the States, and all other wastes, including
low-level waste of non-commercial origin and all greater than class C low-level waste, are
the responsibility of the federal government.
Decision-Making: Strategies,
Policies and Plans
Information is not available.
Decision-Making: Major
Groups involvement
Environment NGOs, business and industry and scientific and technological
community are involved at various levels of debate (i.e., local, state and national).
Programmes and Projects
Information is not available.
Status
The US has not dumped low-level radioactive
waste in the ocean since 1970. In November 1993, the US called for an international
prohibition of ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste which was subsequently adopted
by most parties to the London Convention.
Challenges
Information is not available.
Capacity-building, Education, Training
and Awareness-raising
Information is not available.
Information
Information is not available.
Research and Technologies
Scientific
feasibility investigations continue at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which Congress has
selected as a candidate for the geologic repository. The construction of an underground
Exploratory Studies Facility is underway at Yucca Mountain to enable scientists to examine
the geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical characteristics of the potential host rock.
Financing
Information is not available.
Cooperation
The US cooperates in the IAEA, the London Convention, the NEA, and under numerous
bilateral cooperation agreements.
* * *
This information is based on the United States of America's submission to the 5th
Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1997. Last update: 1 April
1997
For national information on
hazardous waste, click here.
For direct link to the Web Site of the Basel
Convention, click here:
| Economic Aspects | Institutional Aspects
| Social Aspects |
| United States | All Countries | Home |