Full download ebook at ebookname.

com

Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks 2 A

Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate
Change Ozone Depletion Andacid Rain Social
Learning Group
https://ebookname.com/product/learning-to-manage-global-
environmental-risks-2-a-comparative-history-of-social-
responses-to-climate-change-ozone-depletion-andacid-rain-
social-learning-group/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Telling Stories to Change the World Teaching Learning

Social Justice 1st Edition Solinger Fox Ir

https://ebookname.com/product/telling-stories-to-change-the-
world-teaching-learning-social-justice-1st-edition-solinger-fox-
ir/

Global Social Change Historical and Comparative

Perspectives 1st Edition Christopher Chase-Dunn

https://ebookname.com/product/global-social-change-historical-
and-comparative-perspectives-1st-edition-christopher-chase-dunn/

Governing Environmental Flows Global Challenges to

Social Theory 1st Edition Gert Spaargaren

https://ebookname.com/product/governing-environmental-flows-
global-challenges-to-social-theory-1st-edition-gert-spaargaren/

Climate change and the course of global history a rough

journey John L Brooke

https://ebookname.com/product/climate-change-and-the-course-of-
global-history-a-rough-journey-john-l-brooke/
Ozone Depletion Chemistry and Impacts 1st Edition Sem
H. Bakker

https://ebookname.com/product/ozone-depletion-chemistry-and-
impacts-1st-edition-sem-h-bakker/

Understanding Sustainability Principles and ESG

Policies A Multidisciplinary Approach to Public and
Corporate Responses to Climate Change 1st Edition Colin
Read
https://ebookname.com/product/understanding-sustainability-
principles-and-esg-policies-a-multidisciplinary-approach-to-
public-and-corporate-responses-to-climate-change-1st-edition-
colin-read/

Learning to innovate learning regions Oecd

https://ebookname.com/product/learning-to-innovate-learning-
regions-oecd/

Building a Global Learning Organization Using TWI to

Succeed with Strategic Workforce Expansion in the LEGO
Group 1st Edition Patrick Graupp

https://ebookname.com/product/building-a-global-learning-
organization-using-twi-to-succeed-with-strategic-workforce-
expansion-in-the-lego-group-1st-edition-patrick-graupp/

Future of the Internet Social Networks Policy Issues

and Learning Tools Social Networks Policy Issues and
Learning Tools 1st Edition Rick D. Sullivan

https://ebookname.com/product/future-of-the-internet-social-
networks-policy-issues-and-learning-tools-social-networks-policy-
issues-and-learning-tools-1st-edition-rick-d-sullivan/
Cover
Page i

Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks

Page ii

Politics, Science, and the Environment

Peter M. Haas, Sheila Jasanoff, and Gene Rochlin, editors

Shadows in the Forest: Japan and the Politics of Timber in Southeast Asia
Peter Dauvergne

A View from the Alps: Regional Perspectives on Climate Change

Peter Cebon, Urs Dahinden, Huw Davies, Dieter M. Imboden, and Carlo C. Jaeger, editors

People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance

Clark C. Gibson, Margaret A. McKean, and Elinor Ostrom, editors

Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Volume 1: A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid
Rain
The Social Learning Group

Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Volume 2: A Functional Analysis of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid Rain
The Social Learning Group
Page iii

Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks

Volume 1

A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid Rain

The Social Learning Group

Page iv

Disclaimer:
This book is part of a volume set netLibrary may or may not have all the companion volumes in eBook format.

© 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each chapter © 2000 by the authors of that chapter.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information
storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.

This book was set in Times by Interactive Composition Corporation, and printed and bound in the United States of America.

Printed on recycled paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data

Learning to manage global environmental risks / the Social Learning Group.

p. cm.—(Politics, science, and the environment)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. A comparative history of social responses to climate change, ozone
depletion, and acid rain
ISBN 0­262­19444­9 (v. 1: alk. paper)—ISBN 0­262­69238­4 (v. 1: pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Environmental policy. 2. Environmental management. 3. Global environmental change. I. Social Learning
Group. II. Series.

GE300 .L43 2001

363.7'05—dc21
00­038665
Page v

To the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,

for early and continuing promotion of social
learning about the global environment.
Page vi

This page intentionally left blank.

Page vii

Contents
VOLUME 1

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes xiii

Editors and Authors xv
Series Foreword xvii
Foreword xix
Preface xxi
I OVERVIEW
1 1
Managing Global Environmental Change: An Introduction to the Volume

William C. Clark, Jill Jäger, and Josee van Eijndhoven

2 21
Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion, and Climate Change: An Historical Overview

William C. Clark, Jill Jäger, Jeannine Cavender­Bares, and Nancy M. Dickson

II STUDIES OF ARENAS
Introduction to Part II 57
3 61
Developing a Precautionary Approach: Global Environmental Risk Management in Germany

Jeannine Cavender­Bares and Jill Jäger with Renate Ell

4 93
Institutional Cultures and the Management of Global Environmental Risks in the United Kingdom

Brian Wynne and Peter Simmons with Claire Waterton, Peter Hughes, and Simon Shackley
Page viii

5 115
Finding Your Place: A History of the Management of Global Environmental Risks in the Netherlands

Josee van Eijndhoven with Gerda Dinkelman, Jeroen van der Sluijs, Ruud Pleune, and Cor Worrell
6 139
Turning Points: The Management of Global Environmental Risks in the former Soviet Union

Vassily Sokolov and Jill Jäger with Vladimir Pisarev, Elena Nikitina, Alexandre Ginzburg, Elena Goncharova, Jeannine
Cavender­Bares, and Edward A. Parson
7 167
Catching up with the International Bandwagon: The Management of Global Environmental Risks in Hungary

Ferenc L. Tóth with Éva Hizsnyik

8 191
Shifting Priorities and the Internationalization of Environmental Risk Management in Japan

Miranda A. Schreurs
9 213
Southern Skies: The Perception and Management of Global Environmental Risks in Mexico

Diana Liverman and Karen O'Brien

10 235
Leading While Keeping in Step: Management of Global Atmospheric Issues in Canada

Edward A. Parson with Rodney Dobell, Adam Fenech, Donald Munton, and Heather Smith
11 259
Civic Science: America's Encounter with Global Environmental Risks

William C. Clark and Nancy M. Dickson

Page ix

12 295
A Regional Approach to the Management of Global Environmental Risks: The Case of the European
Community

Michael Huber and Angela Liberatore

13 323
Amplifiers or Dampeners: International Institutions and Social Learning in the Management of Global
Environmental Risks

Peter M. Haas and David McCabe

14 349
Issue Attention, Framing, and Actors: An Analysis of Patterns Across Arenas

Miranda A. Schreurs, William C. Clark, Nancy M. Dickson, and Jill Jäger

APPENDIX
A 365
About the Authors
Author Index 369
Subject Index 371
Page x

VOLUME 2

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes xiii

Editors and Authors xv
Series Foreword xvii
Foreword xix
Preface xxi
III STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
Introduction to Part III 3
15
Risk Assessment in the Management of Global Environmental Risks 7
Jill Jäger with Jeannine Cavender­Bares, Nancy M. Dickson, Adam Fenech, Edward A. Parson, Vassily Sokolov,
Ferenc L. Tóth, Claire Waterton, Jeroen van der Sluijs, and Josee van Eijndhoven
16
Monitoring in the Management of Global Environmental Risks 31
Jill Jäger with Nancy M. Dickson, Adam Fenech, Peter M. Haas, Edward A. Parson, Vassily Sokolov, Ferenc L. Tóth,
Jeroen van der Sluis, and Claire Waterton
17
Option Assessment in the Management of Global Environmental Risks 49
William C. Clark, Josee van Eijndhoven, and Nancy M. Dickson with Gerda Dinkelman, Peter M. Haas, Michael
Huber, Angela Liberatore, Diana Liverman, Edward A. Parson, Miranda A. Schreurs, Heather Smith, Vassily Sokolov,
Ferenc L. Tóth, and Brian Wynne
18
Goal and Strategy Formulation in the Management of Global Environmental Risks 87
Marc A. Levy, Jeannine Cavender­Bares, and William C. Clark with Gerda Dinkelman, Elena Nikitina, Ruud Pleune,
and Heather Smith
Page xi

19
Implementation in the Management of Global Environmental Risks 115
Rodney Dobell with Justin Longo, Jeannine Cavender­Bares, William C. Clark, Nancy M. Dickson, Gerda Dinkelman,
Adam Fenech, Peter M. Haas, Jill Jäger, Ruud Pleune, Ferenc L. Tóth, Miranda A. Schreurs, and Josee van Eijndhoven
20
Evaluation in the Management of Global Environmental Risks 147
Josee van Eijndhoven, Brian Wynne, and Rodney Dobell with Ellis Cowling, Nancy M. Dickson, Gerda Dinkelman,
Peter M. Haas, Jill Jäger, Angela Liberatore, Diana Liverman, Miranda A. Schreurs, Vassily Sokolov, and Ferenc L.
Tóth
21
Knowledge and Action: An Analysis of Linkages Among Management Functions for Global Environmental
Risks 165
Jill Jäger, Josee van Eijndhoven, and William C. Clark
IV CONCLUSION
22
The Long­term Development of Global Environmental Risk Management: Conclusions and Implications for
the Future 181
Josee van Eijndhoven, William C. Clark, and Jill Jäger
APPENDIXES
A
Research Protocol for the Project 199
B
About the Authors 215
Author Index 219
Subject Index 221
Page xii

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xiii

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Volume 1
Tables
2.1 Chronology of global environmental change 22
2.2 Ozone chemistry in the stratosphere 34
2.3 Trace gases involved in global environmental change 36
IIA Comparative data for countries studied, 1975 59
7.1 Acid rain­related emissions in Hungary 179
7.2 Ozone­depleting­substance emissions in Hungary 179
7.3 Carbon dioxide emissions in Hungary 179
12.1 Reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions in the Large Combustion Plant Directive 301
13.1 Core groups of experts involved in the climate change issue 331
13.2 Institutional features of major international institutions engaged in managing global atmospheric risks 338
13.3 Environmental expenditures by major international institutions 341
Figures
1.1 A taxonomy of hazard management 10
2.1 Scales of global change 23
2.2 Processes of global change 24
2.3 Human forcing of global change 25
2.4 International environmental agreements 26
2.5 Attention to global atmospheric issues 27
2.6 Emissions 28
2.7 Environmental loadings 29
2.8 Environmental change 30
3.1 Trends of emissions and CFC production 62
3.2 Attention to dominant issue frames and global atmospheric issues in the Federal Republic of Germany: Acid rain
and forest dieback 64
3.3 Attention to dominant issue frames and global atmospheric issues in the Federal Republic of Germany: Ozone
depletion 66
3.4 Attention to dominant issue frames and global atmospheric issues in the Federal Republic of Germany: Climate
change 70
4.1 Attention to global atmospheric issues in the United Kingdom: Acid rain 98
4.2 Attention to global atmospheric issues in the United Kingdom:
Ozone depletion 100
4.3 Attention to global atmospheric issues in the United Kingdom:
Climate change 102
5.1 Attention to global atmospheric issues in the Netherlands: Acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change 116
Page xiv

7.1 Frequency of environmental articles in Népszabadság, 1960 to 1992 169

7.2 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Hungary: Acid rain 170
7.3 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Hungary: Ozone depletion 171
7.4 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Hungary: Climate change 172
8.1 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Japan: Acid rain 196
8.2 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Japan: Ozone depletion 199
8.3 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Japan: Climate change 201
9.1 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Mexico: Acid rain 217
9.2 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Mexico: Ozone depletion 219
9.3 Attention to global atmospheric issues in Mexico: Climate change 221
11.1 Trends in environmental policy in the United States 261
11.2 Attention to global atmospheric issues in the United States 217
11.3 Emissions of selected pollutants in the United States 219
12.1 Dominant issue frames in the European Community: Acid rain 304
12.2 Dominant issue frames in the European Community: Ozone depletion 305
12.3 Dominant issue frames in the European Community: Climate change 306
13.1 Acid rain information flow 334
13.2 Ozone depletion information flow 335
13.3 Climate change information flow 335
14.1 Country comparison of newspaper attention to acid rain 351
14.2 Country comparison of newspaper attention to ozone depletion 352
14.3 Country comparison of newspaper attention to climate change 353
Boxes
1.1 Key definitions and terminology 7
1.2 Management functions 12
1.3 Criteria for evaluating efforts to link knowledge with action 15
Volume 2
Tables
17.1 Chronology of major option assessments 50
17.2 Principal options addressed, 1957–1992 56
17.3 Criteria for evaluating option assessments and their products 59
18.1 A taxonomy of goals and strategies 92
19.1 Actions and instruments 118
Figures
IIIA A taxonomy of hazard management 4
21.1 The issue of acid rain in Europe: Risk management events and linkages 171
21.2 The issue of stratospheric ozone depletion: Risk management events and linkages 174
21.3 The issue of climate change: Risk management events and linkages 176
Boxes
17.1 Options addressed in global environmental risk management 58
18.1 Classification of goals and strategies 91
18.2 Local responses to global goals 100
Page xv

Editors and Authors

(Superscripts refer to institutional affiliations listed on the right)
Editors Institutional Affiliations of the Authors during the Project (1991–1999)
William C. Clark11
Jill Jäger12,13,38,14 1. Academy of Sciences, Russia
Josee van Eijndhoven21,36 2. Academy of Sciences, Union of Soviet Socialist
Nancy M. Dickson11 Republics
3. Budapest Institute for Environmental Studies, Hungary
Authors 4. Budapest University of Economics, Hungary
Jeannine Cavender­Bares11,13 5. Centre for Inland Waters, Canada
William C. Clark11 6. Commission of the European Communities, Belgium
Ellis Cowling17 7. Consortium for the International Earth Science Information Network,
Nancy M. Dickson11 United States
Gerda Dinkelman9,36 8. Department of the Environment, Canada
Rodney Dobell35 9. Energy Research Center, The Netherlands
Renate Ell14 10. European University Institute, Italy
Adam Fenech8,5 11. Harvard University, United States
Alexandre Ginzburg1 12. International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Germany
Elena Goncharova22 13. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
Peter M. Haas31 Austria
Éva Hizsnyik19,13,3 14. Jäger International, Germany
Michael Huber27,10 15. University of Michigan, United States
Peter Hughes28 16. North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
Jill Jäger12,13,38,14 Canada
Marc A. Levy7,37,20 17. North Carolina State University, United States
Angela Liberatore6,10 18. Pennsylvania State University, United States
Diana Liverman24,18 19. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
Justin Longo35 20. Princeton University, United States
David McCabe15,31 21. Rathenau Institute, The Netherlands
Donald Munton33,25 22. Russian Information Agency
Elena Nikitina1,2 23. Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden
Karen O'Brien34,16,18 24. University of Arizona, United States
Edward A. Parson11 25. University of British Columbia, Canada
Vladimir Pisarev1,2 26. University of Economics, Hungary
Ruud Pleune36 27. University of Hamburg, Germany
Miranda A. Schreurs30,15 28. University of Lancaster, United Kingdom
Simon Shackley29,28 29. University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Peter Simmons28 30. University of Maryland, United States
Heather Smith33 31. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, United States
Vassily Sokolov1,2 32. University of Michigan, United States
Ferenc L. Tóth19,13,4 33. University of Northern British Columbia, Canada
Jeroen van der Sluijs36 34. University of Oslo, Norway
Josee van Eijndhoven21,36 35. University of Victoria, Canada
Claire Waterton28 36. Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Cor Worrell36 37. Williams College, United States
Brian Wynne28 38. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy Policy, Germany
Page xvi

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xvii

Series Foreword
As our understanding of environmental threats deepens and broadens, it is increasingly clear that many environmental issues cannot be understood, analyzed, or acted
on simply. The multifaceted relationships between human beings, social and political institutions, and the physical environment in which they are situated extend across
disciplines as well as geopolitical confines and cannot be analyzed or resolved in isolation.

This series addresses the increasingly complex questions of how societies come to understand, confront, and cope with both the sources and the manifestations of
present and potential environmental threats. Works in the series may focus on matters political, scientific, technical, social, or economic. What they share is their
attention to the intertwined roles of politics, science, and technology in recognizing, framing, analyzing, and managing environment­related contemporary issues and their
relevance to the increasingly difficult problems of identifying and forging environmentally sound public policy.

Peter M. Haas
Sheila Jasanoff
Gene Rochlin
Page xviii

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xix

Foreword
More than a hundred years have gone by since an awareness of human­induced changes of the environment emerged. Air pollution became a political issue when
industrial development and uninhibited emissions of smoke and gases in the United Kingdom caused serious social problems. Legislation became necessary in order to
protect people's health and living conditions. The first law to prevent damage was passed by the British Parliament in the 1870s. Nevertheless, the use of coal as the
prime source of energy continued to increase, and pollution was by no means eliminated. The solution of industrialists was of course to increase the height of chimneys
and to spread the pollution over greater distances. Studies of turbulence and mixing in the lowest layers of the atmosphere became a profession of its own of obvious
practical importance. The environmental problem of local pollution had been recognized, and means for solving it were developed, but the full scope of the issue was
not yet understood. It took until the early 1950s before regional problems were gradually brought into focus. The seriousness of the issue was recognized early in the
Los Angeles area, where special meteorological and climatic features of the region were of central importance, as well as in the industrialized parts of Britain and
Western Europe. Some may still remember the disastrous smog that hit the London area in December 1954. Still, progress in mitigating and preventing serious incidents
of this kind was slow. Damaging emissions often could not be seen far away from the source area and, after all, the incidents were temporary.

Similarly, people were generally unaware of the risk of emissions from nuclear plants. The accident at Windscale in England in October 1957 changed the public
attitude drastically. Radioactive iodine originating from the accident was discovered far from the source over the European continent. The invisible radioactive threat
became a reality, and the safety problems for the nuclear industry a political issue. Still the regional pollution due to everyday human activities was in general not thought
about much.

In the mid­1950s C. G. Rossby recognized the importance of the natural large­scale dispersion by the winds of key chemical trace components of the air. A network of
observational sites was established in northwest Europe to determine the chemical composition of the air and precipitation. It was soon shown that the long­distance
transport of nutrients was of basic ecological significance. Nitrogen compounds emitted from agricultural activities in Denmark were of some importance for the farmers
in southern Sweden. Similarly, it was realized that boreal forests to some extent depend on the supply of airborne nutrients in addition to what nature provides by
chemical weathering of the bedrock. This network of observations also provided the data that later were used to study the regional dispersion of sulfur pollution, which
led to the discovery of the acidification of precipitation and fresh water systems. The conclusion was obvious: The atmosphere must not be treated as an unlimited
wastebasket for human activities. Regional pollution emerged as an important issue for the future. This development was largely science­driven. The pollution could not
be seen, and the dangers remained abstract to the general public for a long time. Matters changed when fishing in the lakes of Scandinavia deteriorated and when the
forests in central Europe were damaged in obvious ways.

At about the same time, another global environmental issue emerged, again not visible to the general public, and its appearance on the political agenda was therefore
completely
Page xx

science­driven: The ozone layer might be damaged because of the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In this case there were not even data that could validate
the theoretical deductions by scientists, but if true it meant a serious threat to life on earth. It was difficult to reach agreements on whether protective actions should be
taken now or later. Some modest measures were agreed on, and negotiations for a convention on the protection of the ozone began. Progress was slow, and an
agreement of a framework convention, however with no legally binding commitments, was not settled until 1985. The public awareness of the issue was slight. Merely a
year later the ozone hole over the Antarctica was discovered. Scientists were able to explain the reason for its temporary appearance, and observations were now
available that could validate the theory. Major reductions of the emissions of CFCs were called for, and an agreement was reached within a year. The issue still
remained a mystery for most people, except in a few countries in the Southern Hemisphere, where there was a need for protective measures.

A possible global human­induced change of the environment—that is, the composition of atmosphere—already had been recognized implicitly by Svante Arrhenius in
1895, when he showed that changes of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide might change the climate of the earth. The prime aim of his analysis was,
however, to explain the last glaciation that had been discovered a few decades earlier, not to warn about human­induced climate change.

A possible human­induced climate change was not generally recognized outside the scientific community for many years. C. D. Keeling was the first to demonstrate
clearly that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was increasing by about 0.5% per year and must have increased significantly (about 10%) above the
preindustrial level. It remained, however, exclusively a scientific issue until the middle of the 1970s. At that time—that is, eighty years after Arrhenius's original
analysis—Syukuro Manabe showed convincingly that Arrhenius was largely right. From then on, the threat of a possible human­induced global climate change, "global
warming," gradually received more attention, first in scientific circles and then also in the political realm.

Global warming is undoubtedly the most complex environmental threat that we have been confronted with so far. Observations now provide considerable evidence that
human­induced climatic change is occurring. Although more detailed scientific analyses of what happens now and may happen in the future are needed, the real
challenge now is rather to try to understand better how countries and people will respond. How will different segments of society with different interests react? What
will be the road from recognition of the issue to concerted action? How can controversies between developed and developing countries and between rich and poor be
prevented? What key technical developments will be needed? Which institutions, nationally and internationally, will be required to manage their development without
imposing unduly on people and the global market?

The present book does not provide answers to these questions. But it does contribute to a better understanding of the long­term development of efforts to manage
interactions between society and the environment. The study looks in depth at the three issues discussed above—acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climatic
change—and traces the evolution of efforts to deal with these issues over the period extending from the International Geophysical Year in 1957 to the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992. By taking this long­term perspective and by looking at developments in a range of countries as well as in
international institutions, the study is able to illustrate the basis on which current efforts to respond to global environmental change can build. An important contribution
of the study is the inclusion of a wide range of actors, rather than just focusing on scientists and legislators. The book itself is an important contribution to social learning
about the management of global environmental risks.

Bert Bolin
Stockholm
Page xxi

Preface.
This book emerged from the growing recognition during the late 1980s of the need for better understanding of how human societies might perceive, evaluate, and
respond to global environmental change. As participants in a number of early attempts to articulate those needs and the research that would be necessary to meet them,
we were particularly struck by three shortcomings of existing work. First, although experts, advocates, and political leaders in different parts of the world clearly
encountered global environmental change in very different ways, most of our understanding reflected the perspectives of a very narrow range of countries and groups.
Second, although society's response to global environmental change was clearly a long­term process unfolding over decades, most of our understanding focused on key
discoveries and decisions and paid little attention to the historical connections among them. Third, although most debates on how to improve social response were
replete with analogies and lesson drawing, there was little critical discussion of what might be appropriately learned from the experiences of other problems and places.
The need to develop a long­term, comparative perspective on the evolution of social responses to global environmental risks—and of the role of learning in that
evolution—therefore seemed evident.

The broad outline of the study reported here was developed by one of us, Bill Clark, with planning support from the Stockholm Environment Institute and the U.S.
National Science Foundation. At an early stage, the project was taken under the wing of the Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change of
the U.S. Social Science Research Council (SSRC). The project benefited substantially from the tough but constructive criticism of the remarkable group of scholars
committed to promoting excellence in cross­disciplinary research that the SSRC had assembled. The development and implementation of the project as a truly
international team effort, however, was made possible by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The Collaborative Studies Program that the Foundation
began in 1990 was virtually unique at the time in providing opportunities for sustained multinational, interdisciplinary research teamwork on global environmental
problems. We used the opportunity of Clark's stay as Jean Monnet Visiting Professor at the European University Institute in the spring of 1990 to bring together a team
of coprincipal investigators for the purposes of developing a proposal to the MacArthur Foundation for a study on Social Learning in the Management of Global
Environmental Risks. These individuals—the three of us plus Ida Koppen, Vassily Sokolov, and Brian Wynne—provided an initial core to the Social Learning Group
that eventually grew into the collaborative network of scholars listed in the front of this volume. Shortly after notification by the MacArthur Foundation of favorable
action on our proposal, the core group accepted an invitation by Dr. Peter de Janosi, director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), to
use the Institute's facilities for a retreat to develop detailed plans for implementing the project.

The basic design to emerge from the IIASA meeting was a project organized around teams recruited by the core group members. Each team ultimately consisted of
senior scholars, junior faculty, and graduate students in various proportions. Each was selected to allow research on the history of social responses to global
environmental risks in a specific
Page xxii

arena—initially Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, the European Community, and the family of international
institutions. In particular, we decided to have each arena study develop a comparative analysis of the response of that arena to the three risks of acid rain, stratospheric
ozone depletion, and climate change. In addition, a series of management functions were identified that would be addressed in each arena history through a common
research protocol. The results would then be synthesized into cross­cutting "function" chapters for the final report, authored by groups consisting of contributors from
the arena teams.

The substantive aspects and rationale of this design are described in chapter 1. Procedurally, the project adopted an iterative strategy to promote design and
implementation of a truly comparable and comparative approach to research. The core element in this strategy was an annual summer study that brought all project
participants together for a week of intensive discussions in plenary and smaller drafting group sessions. For the first iteration of the strategy during the spring and early
summer of 1991, the draft research protocol developed by the core group at the initial IIASA meeting was applied by each arena team to the case of climate change.
Our first summer study, held in 1991 at Bad Bleiberg in Austria, reviewed these results, revised the research protocol, recommended improvements in project
management and direction, and planned a series of smaller meetings on cross­cutting topics for the following year. In an effort to expand the range of countries studied
by the project, scholars familiar with the response to global environmental issues in Japan, Hungary, and Mexico were invited as observers to Bad Bleiberg and, based
on their contributions there, were subsequently asked to join the group as full partners. Subsequent summer studies were held in 1992 at Canada's Dunsmuir Lodge
(focused on the ozone case), in 1993 at Germany's Wuppertal Institute (focused on the acid rain case), and in 1994 again at Dunsmuir Lodge (focused on cross­case
comparisons and further work on the climate change case). Within the broad structure provided by the annual projectwide summer studies, smaller and shorter
meetings were held periodically to advance work on particular cross­cutting themes and chapters. From the earliest (pre­Internet) days of the project, an active
electronic network was used to bind the group together between meetings.

In parallel with our largely internal cycle of summer studies and smaller technical meetings, we engaged in a continuing program of outreach to bring the insights of a
larger community of scholars and practitioners to bear on the project's evolution. As already noted, the SSRC organized an early critical review of the conceptual
foundations of the study. A few outsiders were usually invited to our summer studies and provided valuable independent criticism—at least until they were coopted into
the project as full­time participants. In May of 1993 we brought together at the European University Institute a small group of distinguished scholars who had written on
various aspects of social learning—Emanuel Adler, Klaus Eder, and Sheila Jasanoff—and asked them to review the project's preliminary findings and to advise us on
potential orientations and audiences for what has become the present book. A presentation to Canadian government officials after the 1994 summer study provided
valuable feedback on some of our emerging conclusions about the practical implications of our study for risk management. The synthesis chapters were initially
presented in draft form at the First Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community at Duke University in 1995. An
even broader audience was addressed through a panel presentation organized at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
1996.

Taken together, our joint activities at these internal and external project meetings forged the Social Learning Group—a multidisciplinary, multinational collaborative team
that, though replete with differences of opinion, perspectives, and research styles, nonetheless developed a shared set of concepts, data, methods, and commitment to
the larger project. More prosaically, the meetings produced continuing refinements of the research protocol and project design, began drafting and reviewing the cross­
cutting studies of management
Page xxiii

functions, and added an arena study on Canada to the overall project. By the end of the 1994 summer study we had reached decisions on a table of contents for the
project's final report, adopted length targets and editorial guidelines for the written material, negotiated responsibilities for completing those chapters, decided how
credit would be allocated to contributors, and designated an editorial board consisting of the three of us plus Nancy Dickson to shepherd the final report to publication.
Over the next two years, first drafts of most of the chapters included in this volume were completed, subjected to internal review, and revised extensively. The editors
met again at IIASA in the summer of 1995 to review progress and—in light of the research results then emerging—to prepare a substantially revised outline of three
synthesis chapters to pull results of the study together. This outline was circulated to other Group members for suggestions, with drafting of the revised synthesis
chapters beginning in early 1996.

Any project as wideranging and multifaceted as that undertaken here faces enormous challenges of quality control. The basic housekeeping of fact checking, sequence
verification, and secondary sources confirmation have been daunting—all the more so given the absence of consolidated archives for the relevant documents and the
long historical time span and multiple languages involved in the study. Well aware from our initial research of the high proportion of elementary factual errors in the
literature dealing with the history of global environmental change, the Group imposed on itself early on an especially rigorous program of peer review. For each of the
core arena and function chapters, this has meant not only critical reading by a cross­section of project members and editors but also an external blind review by at least
three external reviewers. These reviewers were selected by the editors in consultation with Group members for their familiarity with both the factual and conceptual
aspects of the chapter. Care was taken that the reviewers selected for each chapter represented a wide range of national and disciplinary backgrounds. The reviews
were blind in that only the editors, not the authors, were aware of the reviewers' identities. Beginning in the summer of 1996, most chapters had passed internal review
and were ready for this external process. Reviewers were given a set of specific questions to answer and asked to reply in writing. They did—often at great length. The
editorial board returned reviews to the chapter authors and monitored revisions to make sure that reviewers' concerns were addressed. Many of these revisions were
relatively minor matters of fact, attribution, and emphasis. Several, however—especially in the function chapters—constituted major rewriting of the material. Revisions
to reflect outside review were carried out through 1997. Final work on the synthesis chapters to incorporate those revisions was completed the following year. Along
the way, results were critiqued by participants at the 1997 Bologna Summer School in Environmental Policy, participants in the 1998 meeting of the European Forum
on Integrated Environmental Assessment, and members of a panel on Learning and Belief Change among Policy Elites held at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association.

The final product that emerged from the Group project in the form of this book is a uniquely collaborative endeavor. The question of authorship therefore merits special
comment. One of the toughest challenges in running any collaborative project is to balance the individual scholar's need for individual credit, the project's interest in
getting collaborators to share their ideas and criticism with one another, and the practical requirement that someone have incentive and authority to focus and complete
a multicontributor work. This challenge is particularly acute in projects such as this one that involve collaborators ranging from senior professors to junior graduate
students. But to the extent that it cannot be satisfactorily resolved, collaborative research will remain the exception rather than the rule. This project took very seriously
the need for collaboration and the challenges of devising appropriate incentives and credits to promote it.

We concluded, reasonably amicably, as follows. The chapters in this book grew out of multiple working group meetings by our arena teams and at our summer studies
and other
Page xxiv

meetings. Each has drawn on the primary research memos and draft text of many individuals. In the end, however, one or a few individuals have taken responsibility for
giving the chapter its present form. These individuals are listed as the lead author(s) on each chapter. In most cases, they share credit "with" a second group of authors
who contributed to the conceptual content, but not the specific language, of the chapter. Finally, most chapters list in their first endnote a series of acknowledgments to
others who contributed primary research or criticism on which the chapter is built but who did not shape the chapter in its present form. The resulting impression that
many members of the Group contributed in multiple ways to multiple chapters is both intended and true. The book as a whole is presented and cataloged as a work of
the corporate author the Social Learning Group in recognition of the collaborative character of not only the writing but the design and execution of the overall study. All
of the contributors listed at the front of this volume are members of the Group and thus authors of the book. Finally, the designation of editors for the book as a whole
reflects the Group's recognition of the extra effort needed from a few people in drawing the physical book together and ensuring consistency throughout.

A gratifyingly large number of people and institutions have supported this project in a variety of ways. Core funding, as already noted, was provided by the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Other major supporters of the project included the U.S. National Science Foundation, Canada's University of Victoria, the
Netherlands Energy Center, the IBM Foundation, the Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service, the German Ministry for Research and Technology, the European
University Institute, the Stockholm Environment Institute, and Utrecht University. Additional support was provided by the German Research Society, the U.S. Social
Science Research Council, the USSR (later Russian) Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Institute for Global Environmental
Change, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Germany's Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy, the Mobil Foundation, the U.K.
Economic and Social Research Council, the Fulbright Foundation, and the Hungarian National Scientific Research Fund. Finally, the home institutions of the Group
members, listed at the front of this volume, contributed more than most of them know to making the project possible.

For their contributions as participants in the external reviewer process, the project is indebted to Robert Boardman, Harvey Brooks, James Bruce, Tom Brydges,
Lynton Caldwell, Peter Chester, Ellis Cowling, Peter Fabian, Tibor Farago, Carlos Gay, Anver Ghazi, George Golitsyn, Len Good, Loren Graham, Hartmutt Grassl,
Nigel Haigh, Maarten Hajer, Leen Hordijk, W.J. Kakebeeke, Yoichi Kaya, P.M. Kelly, Jeremy Leggett, Ronnie Lipschutz, Mike MacCracken, Gordon MacDonald,
Margaret McKean, Erno Meszaros, Alan Miller, Mario Molina, William Moomaw, Tsuneyuki Morita, Friedemann Mueller, Stephen Mumme, Ted Munn, Hiroshi
Ohta, Michael Oppenheimer, Tim O'Riordan, Ian Rowlands, Milton Russell, Roberto Sanchez, Peter Sand, Rolf Sartorius, Steve Schneider, Toni Schneider, Ian
Simms, Udo Simonis, Rob Swart, Peter Thacher, Arild Underdal, Peter Usher, David Victor, Arpad von Lazar, Konrad von Moltke, Helmut Weidner, Gilbert White,
Pieter Winsemius, George Zavarzin, and Charles Ziegler. Numerous other individuals contributed critical insights on individual chapters and are named in those
chapters' acknowledgments.

The production of a volume involving dozens of authors, several languages, numerous time zones, and a variety of word processing programs is a task that no personnel
officer would allow in a job description. Fortunately, this project has been supported by a cast of the least flappable and most efficient, resourceful, and downright nice
people we have ever had the pleasure of working with: Kristen Eddy, Nora O'Neil, Bonnie Robinson, Rebecca Storo, and Ingrid Teply­Baubinder. This is their
product, too, and we are immensely grateful for their support and good cheer through the toils of bringing it to fruition.
Page xxv

The Social Learning Group itself was a unique collection of scholars. This collaboration has had its own decade­long social history—one marked by trials and errors,
hurrying and waiting, job changes and promotions, and unprecedented changes in the worlds inhabited by our Russian and Hungarian colleagues. Through it all, the
Group's inventiveness, energy, commitment to understanding one another, and willingness to subsume individual agendas within a common endeavor defined for us a
new standard for international, interdisciplinary collaboration. That many Group members did this while they completed dissertations and as their families grew at rates
far exceeding those at which the study progressed is all the more testimony to the remarkable cast of characters the project entrained. Finally, we must single out for
special mention our coeditor of this volume, Nancy Dickson. She joined the Group as project manager at its first summer study and, surviving that baptism under fire,
has been its chief cat herder ever since. But she did far more than the complex and often thankless tasks of designing and maintaining our communications, organizing
our meetings, pushing our schedules, and supervising the production of this book. She also emerged as a resourceful and accomplished researcher in her own right, as
indicated by her coauthorship of several of the chapters in this volume.

For what they have accomplished, and for the colleagues and friends they have become, we are grateful to Nancy and all the members of the Group in more ways than
we will ever be able to express.

William C. Clark
Jill Jäger
Josee van Eijndhoven
Page xxvi

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 1

I
OVERVIEW
Page 2

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 3

1
Managing Global Environmental Change: An Introduction to the Volume

William C. Clark, Jill Jäger, and Josee van Eijndhoven

We live in an era of global environmental change and interdependence. The era is a young one, making its fundamental scientific discoveries, building its core
institutions, and coming of political age almost entirely during the latter half of the twentieth century. The study reported in this book constitutes a historical
reconnaissance of the formative years of the global environmental era—a period taken here as extending from organization of global environmental science with the
International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957 to the celebration of international environmental politics that was the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) of 1992.1 Over this interval—a single professional lifetime—the idea that human activities could transform the environment at continental and
even planetary levels grew from its origins in the minds of a handful of individuals to spawn a billion­dollar international scientific research program and to reshape public
values, private actions, and political agendas around the world. The Rio Declaration signed at UNCED constituted a formal recognition by 110 heads of state of
humanity's conscious engagement in an effort to manage its interactions with the global environment (Caldwell 1996).

Much has been written about particular scientific discoveries, international institutions, and political negotiations bearing on issues of global environmental change. And
thematic literatures are beginning to emerge on topics ranging from earth­system science, to international environmental policy, and global environmental politics.
Lacking, however, has been much in the way of a long­term, large­scale, multinational perspective on global environmental management—a term we use broadly in
this book to encompass the interplay between ideas and action in processes ranging from problem definition and goal articulation to the design and implementation of
policies and other responses.

Some would argue that this is just as well—that the notion of global environmental management is at best technocentric hubris, at worst new clothes for old colonialist
politics, and in any case infeasible. Efforts to manage humanity's interactions with the global environment may indeed turn out to be all of these things. They will almost
certainly be partial, contentious, and prone to failure. But the management of global environmental risks is also what an increasing number of political leaders, advocacy
groups, scientific experts, and international organizations find themselves doing, not uncommonly with the best of motivations and the greatest of trepidation. Without
denying the darker sides of global environmental management, much less presuming its effectiveness, a broad understanding of what its avowed practitioners have been
up to, and to what effect, would nonetheless seem better than the alternative. Such a strategic perspective could offer at least three benefits: a context for the design and
interpretation of more narrowly targeted scholarly studies; a framework within which particular proposed actions could be appraised; and a vantage point from which
individual scientists, advocates, and politicians could reflect on the larger play within which they are seeking to learn their particular roles.

The research reported here seeks to contribute to such a strategic perspective. It does so by comparing the historical development of efforts to manage interactions
between society and the global environment for a number of countries and issue areas and by exploring some of the factors and forces that may have been important in
shaping that development.

1.1 Challenges for Management

Environmental problems at the local, regional, or even national level have been known and addressed for centuries. And a smattering of important transboundary­
pollution and shared­resource debates substantially predate the postwar period that is the focus of our study. But the idea that human activities are systematically
transforming the environment on continental and global scales is relatively new (Turner et al. 1992). DDT in Antarctic penguins, radionuclides in human breast milk,
acidic degradation of remote lakes, and the gaping hole in the planet's protective ozone layer only suggest the range of global environmental concerns unimagined by
earlier generations that have emerged onto the international agenda during the lifetimes of today's
Page 4

environmental scientists, policy professionals, and political advocates.

Despite the novelty of the idea that human activities might adversely affect the environment on a large scale, significant programs of action have already been undertaken
at the local, national, and international levels. The variety of such programs is remarkable, ranging from consumer boycotts and transformed school curricula, to
comprehensive national legislation, to a growing body of international law that already contains more than 200 treaties and conventions dealing with regional and global
environmental affairs. As a result, a number of problems—including, for example, those posed by DDT and oil pollution at sea—are now under at least partial control.
And some—such as the problem of chronic, global radionuclide exposures, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), or threats to the Antarctic—even seem to be relatively well in
hand (Young 1999). In short, society's management of its interactions with the global environment has grown in recent decades almost as dramatically as its
understanding of the global environment itself.

Global environmental management nonetheless remains limited in ways that pose enormous challenges for the future:

• Wholly new concerns for the impact of particular human activities on the global environment will doubtless emerge in the future. Some of these new concerns, together
with others already recognized, will eventually turn out to be less alarming than originally thought. Others almost certainly hold in store surprises that will be unpleasant
indeed. Global environmental management will therefore continuously be confronted with new challenges, requiring an ability both to utilize existing knowledge despite
its inevitable uncertainties and incompleteness and to generate new understanding of unprecedentedly complex systems.

• For the global environmental problems that are now recognized, most management actually remains far from global in scope. Relatively few of the world's nations,
firms, or other potentially relevant actors are yet effectively engaged in collective management endeavors. Notions of the proper goals, objectives, and means of
management differ among many of these actors and can be expected to change with time. Truly global environmental management will have to become much more
inclusive than it is today by reaching out to engage both the knowledge and the politics of those affecting and affected by the changes that are under way.

• Finally, few of the management regimes now in place will work quite as planned, and some will fail outright. Even those that do work relatively well will rarely make
the issues they address disappear, any more than efforts to manage global economic development or weapons proliferation can be expected to produce final solutions.
The significant progress of the last several decades notwithstanding, the world has only begun learning to manage its interactions with the global environment. Enhancing
social capacity to manage those interactions will require learning how to learn not only from research but also from actual management experiences—successes and
failures alike.

How well is society prepared to meet the challenges of global environmental management? What approaches have evolved in different countries and problem areas?
What are their strengths and weaknesses? In what ways can their effectiveness be enhanced?

These are some of the pragmatic questions that motivate the present study. Efforts to illuminate them are important if for no other reason than the increasing prominence
of global environmental issues in international affairs. Beyond such immediate justifications, a better understanding of the history of global environmental management—
rich in its multiple actors, dependence on science and information, and creation of powerful new international norms—could well contribute to broader efforts to
comprehend the changing role of governance in an interdependent and complex world (Mathews 1997; Jervis 1997).

1.2 Challenges for Understanding

The world hardly lacks for plausible ideas and opinions on how to achieve better international environmental policy. Some critical scholarship has even begun to
examine the relative efficacy of different institutional designs and management approaches (e.g., Young 1999; Victor, Raustiala, and Skolnikoff 1998; Keohane and
Levy 1996; Haas, Keohane, and Levy 1993). A number of scholarly case studies have focused on particular global issues and how they have been approached by
particular countries or institutions (e.g., O'Riordan and Jäger 1996; Rowlands 1995; Mitchell 1994; Litfin 1994; Haas 1992). There is a growing comparative literature
on environmental policy addressing transboundary issues (e.g., Desai 1998; Janicke and Weidner 1997; Anderson and Liefferink 1997; Weale, Pridham, Williams, and
Porter 1996). But it is surprising how little is actually understood about the long­term development of society's efforts to manage its interactions with the global
environment.

To begin reaching for such understanding, an essential first step is to move beyond simple models of a "management system" or "policy process" (Sabatier 1999). In
particular, neither problem definition nor goal specification can be taken as external to the processes of global
Page 5

environmental management. Indeed, the very idea of global environmental risks is a recent and highly contested invention (Yearley 1995; Rayner and Malone 1998).
Both the processes by which certain environmental changes become viewed as global environmental risks while others do not and the processes by which such risks
become framed in terms of one set of causes and effects instead of others are almost certainly central to the understanding we seek. Likewise, the goals for
management of interactions between society and the global environment have seldom been self­evident. Rather, they have been invented and shaped as part of the
same process that has defined the problems, sometimes following from specific problem definitions and sometimes driving such definitions. To understand the evolution
of global environmental management, we therefore need a sufficiently broad perspective on social action and change that puts problem definition and goal formation,
along with policy, squarely at the center of what is to be explained. Scholarship on the politics of problem definition (Rochefort and Cobb 1994), agenda setting
(Kingdon 1984), and issue dynamics (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; True, Jones, and Baumgartner 1999) provide one point of departure for such an analysis.
Literatures on the stages of policy development (e.g., Jones 1984; von Prittwitz 1990; deLeon 1999) and functions of risk management (Kates, Hohenemser,
Kasperson 1985) furnish another. Modern views of risk assessment as a social process (e.g., NRC 1996; Beck 1992; Wynne 1995) constitute an additional
perspective.

A concern with where conceptions of global environmental risks and management goals come from and how they change immediately implies the need for a long­term,
multinational perspective. Understanding how particular negotiating strategies or political coalitions brought about particular treaties or forms of legislation is surely
important. But many of the global environmental issues noted above spent years, even decades, as the concern of a few scientists and administrators before finally
emerging onto the policy agenda of a single nation or international organization. The work of Weiss (1975) and others demonstrates that tracing the impacts of ideas on
action in domestic arenas commonly requires analytic perspectives extending over a decade or more. To capture the spread of ideas across national boundaries surely
requires that even longer periods be addressed. Beyond this, a conceptual framework is needed that allows both exploration of the conditions in which ideas transform
action in the global environmental arena and comparison of these conditions with circumstances in which ideas do not transform action. This is the sort of question that
has been effectively addressed through the comparative analysis of how different countries and other entities have responded to the same basic discoveries and
program proposals (e.g., Lundqvist 1980; Brickman, Jasonoff, and Ilgen 1985; Vogel 1986; Boehmer­Christiansen and Skea 1991).

The need for a broad conception of social action extends to the treatment of actors and agency. Global environmental management is an intensely political process, and
no understanding of its development could be complete that did not take interests and their politics seriously. This is likely to be a complex task, for in the development
of global environmental management both domestic and international politics—and the interactions between them—are likely to matter. Moreover, as important as state
actors may be in this political play, influential parts have clearly been performed by a variety of nonstate actors as well. Experts, the private sector, nongovernmental
"green" organizations, and the media also need to be considered in our explorations of society's encounter with global environmental change. A vigorous body of recent
scholarship suggests that it will be important to explore the coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins­Smith 1993, 1999), communities (Haas 1992), and networks (Keck and
Sikkink 1998) formed by such actors, rather than to focus on particular groups or sectors in isolation.

The long­term, multiactor orientation of the perspective sketched above poses particular challenges to the treatment of institutions. Viewed in the narrow sense of
organizations, institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have certainly been important in the evolution of global environmental
management. On the other hand, few of the organizations central to global environmental management at the close of the twentieth century even existed when global
environmental concerns began to receive increasing attention from scientists a generation earlier. A focus on specific organizations, however valuable in itself, can
therefore capture only parts of the overall story. A broader view of institutions as regimes—sets of rules and procedures that structure relations among relevant
actors—is more consistent with this study's interest in the long­term development of society's effort to manage its interactions with the global environment. Even here,
however, it is important to recognize that the management process may be spread across multiple regimes in space and time. Studies focused on single regimes, just as
studies focused on single organizations, will provide partial perspectives on the overall story. An active program of research on institutions for global environmental
management provides useful guidance on how to think about questions of effectiveness and the factors that shape it (Kay and Jacobson 1983; Keohane and Levy
1996; Young 1999).

Finally, if obviously, an understanding of the long­term development of global environmental management

Page 6

demands a focus on dynamics and change. The interests, institutions, and ideas noted above can all be treated in dynamic perspective, with particular attention to the
ways in which they influence change in one another. But the knowledge­intensive, diffuse character of global environmental management emphasizes as well the need for
attention to the role of learning as an agent of change. Broadly conceived, the need is to understand how discoveries, experience, and innovations present in one part of
the management system spread to others. This spread may be across actors within a country. It may be across countries. It may involve lesson drawing from
management experience with one global environmental problem to inform management of another. One need not prejudge the extent, fidelity, or utility of such learning
to be interested in assessing its actual role in the history of global environmental management and its potential for the future (Parson and Clark 1995; Lee 1993; Bennet
and Howlett 1992).

In summary, with this study we seek to better understand the long­term development of efforts to manage interactions between society and the global environment. We
conceive of management broadly to include problem and goal definition, as well as the formulation and implementation of action programs and policy. We explore the
impact and interactions of ideas, interests, and institutions on the development of management practice. We want to know the extent to which, and means by which,
efforts at global environmental management entrain multiple actors in multiple national and supernational arenas. Similarly, we are interested in the extent to which the
management capacity for dealing with any specific global environmental concern is affected by the management capacity developed for dealing with other issues.
Finally, we ask to what extent and in what ways learning has played a significant role in the development of society's approach to the management of its interactions
with the global environment.

This view of the evolving management of humanity's interactions with the global environment leads to a set of specific conceptual questions for this study that
complement the more immediate and pragmatic ones posed earlier:

• What has been the interplay among scientific research, policy analysis, and political action in the development of approaches to managing interactions between society
and the global environment?

• How have some global environmental changes come to be characterized as risks worthy of management attention while others have not?

• To what extent, in what ways, and under what conditions have institutions, interests, and ideas shaped the development of global environmental management?

• Which pathways and mechanisms have been most important in spreading new ideas and experience throughout the community of actors engaged in global
environmental management?

1.3 The Design of This Study.

This study traces the evolution of efforts to address the issues of acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change over a period extending from the IGY of
1957 through the UNCED of 1992. It offers a comparative exploration of the development of these issues across a range of national and international settings
consisting of Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the former Soviet Union, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Canada, the United States, the European Union, and
the family of international environmental organizations. It describes the development of management response along two dimensions: one focusing on problem framing,
agenda setting, and issue attention; the other on management functions of risk assessment, option assessment, goal and strategy formulation, implementation, evaluation,
and monitoring. It analyzes the impact on the management process of key ideas, interests, and institutions. The study seeks to fashion a long­term, large­scale overview
of how the interplay between ideas and actions has laid the foundations on which contemporary efforts in global environmental management are now building.

The study was conducted by the Social Learning Group, a team of thirty­seven members whose names and institutional affiliations are given in the front matter of this
book. The Group's members came from ten countries and reflected disciplinary backgrounds including the natural sciences, political science, science studies, and policy
analysis. Organization of the research can be visualized as a matrix in which the columns are the individual arena (country) studies that make up part II of this book, and
the rows are the management function studies that make up part III of the book. Research teams were initially assembled to conduct the individual arena studies,
drawing largely on individuals from the relevant arena. Function studies were then designed to include one or more individuals from each arena. Integration was
provided through extensive electronic exchanges, periodic small meetings of particular "chapter" teams, and annual week­long summer studies.

Group members collaborated in the design of a detailed research protocol to guide the research and ensure comparability across cases, arenas, and functions. That
protocol is included as appendix A in volume 2. Data were drawn from interviews with key actors, primary­source material (ranging from assessment reports to internal
strategy documents), and the secondary literature.
Page 7

Box 1.1
Key definitions and terminology

Actor is a term used here to encompass government, industry, nongovernmental environmental organizations (NGOs), expert communities,
and the media.

Arena is a term used here to encompass the nations we studied (Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the former Soviet Union
and its successor states, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Canada, and the United States), plus the European Community and the family of
international institutions.

Issue is a term used here to encompass the three cases of environmental change we studied—acid rain, climate change, and stratospheric
ozone depletion.

Management is a term we use here to encompass the range of self­conscious actions undertaken by actors to grapple with the issues of
global environmental change. It is broader than policy to the extent that the latter implies activities of government only. It is not intended to
imply comprehensive or successful action or intent.

The data sets emerging from implementation of the protocol, plus intermediate working papers of the project, are stored in the project archives, deposited and
cataloged at the Harvard University Library. The rationale behind our major research­design choices is reviewed in the sections that follow. Key definitions and
terminology used throughout the book are summarized in box 1.1, which is meant to serve as a convenient point of reference for use in reading other chapters.

1.3.1 Issue Histories

This study addressed its central questions through a comparative examination of three environmental issues that emerged from basic scientific research onto the
international political agenda during the latter half of the twentieth century. Although the processes of problem defining, framing, and naming are central to our study, we
refer to these issue areas throughout the book by their popular names of acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change. As described in detail in chapter
2, each of these issues involves human activities emitting substances to the atmosphere, transport of those substances over continental to global scales, and potential
impacts on humans and things that they value.

The study addressed multiple issues because we wanted to understand how the development of global environmental management was contingent on issue
characteristics rather than simply on underlying political and institutional relationships. We chose similar issues rather than comparing, say, marine oil pollution and
endangered­species management, for two reasons. First, prior scholarship suggested that large differences in issue structure were likely to be associated with large
differences in management responses. We therefore sought finer resolution, in hopes that we could begin to sort out how relatively small differences in issue
characteristics led to differences in the evolution of management response. A second reason for picking similar issues was our interest in exploring cross­issue learning.
The absence of much cross­referencing of other issue experiences in the existing literature on global environmental management, combined with the more general
literature on social learning, led us to suspect that such cross­issue lesson drawing would be rare. Through our study design we sought to maximize the chances that we
would find some significant cross­issue learning to examine. Obviously, this choice meant that our study would be able to conclude relatively little about the prospects
for learning across larger issue differences.

We picked the particular atmospheric issues of acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change for a number of reasons. First, as described at length in
chapter 2, all have relatively long histories, with scientific attention dating back at least three decades. Second, all have relatively unproblematic transboundary or
commons dimensions. Climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion are truly global phenomena, with materials emitted from one part of the planet potentially
influencing the environment everywhere in the world. The physical and chemical transformations associated with acid rain are of somewhat smaller scale but still extend
across multiple nations and thousands of kilometers. We were interested to discover whether, and if so how, relatively early experience with the transboundary issue of
acid rain had furnished lessons for society's later and larger­scale engagement with the issues of climate and ozone. Finally, the histories of all of these issues were
strongly grounded in science, again providing ample opportunity for learning and sharing across issue histories. These properties of our three issues are common to
many pollutantlike environmental problems of the air, water, and land, opening the prospect for broad applicability of our findings. They are less clearly common to
many renewable­resource problems with an international dimension, making us less confident that our studies will illuminate this important class of cases.

Our interest in tracing the impact of causative, instrumental, and normative beliefs on the management of these three issues led us, following Weiss (1975) and others, to
adopt a multidecade time horizon for our study. Substantively, our interest was in tracing evolution of the acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change issues from
their initial discussion in the natural science community to their arrival on the international political agenda. Though no precise delineation of this interval is
Page 8

possible, we elected to bound our study with the IGY of 1957 and Rio's UNCED of 1992. Of course, scientific research relevant to each of our issues had begun well
before the IGY and continues today. And the politics of their management will extend well into the twenty­first century. Nonetheless, the IGY­to­UNCED frame
captures both substantively and symbolically the transition from primarily scientific issues to significantly political issues that is the focus of our concern.

1.3.2 Arenas and Actors

The basic histories of our three global environmental issues start with ideas and initiatives initially held only by a few individuals or groups. They proceed to the adoption
of shared beliefs and commitments across much larger communities around the globe. For this study's initial reconnaissance of the development of global environmental
management practices, we did not want to assume the primacy of particular actors, levels of political organization, or nations in the process.

We therefore designed the study to examine the historical roles that might have been played by a wide range of potentially relevant groups: experts, governments,
private­sector organizations, "green" nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the media. We tried to stay especially alert to emergence of the communities,
coalitions, and networks of actors that the literature suggests are likely to be important as agents of policy learning and management change.

The levels­of­organization question was harder. Given the widespread trend over our study period away from the nation state as the sole focus of policy making, we
wanted a design that would let us explore the respective roles and contributions to global environmental management of actors at multiple levels of organization.
Looking up from the level of the state, we identified two supernational sites for analysis. One was the family of international environmental organizations represented by
UNEP, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). The second was the European Community (later
European Union), interesting both for its particular contributions to the development of our issues and as a representative of the new forms of transnational governance
developing around the world.

Individual countries constituted our primary locus of analysis. Previous comparisons of national approaches to environmental management and regulation suggested that
the appropriate comparative country design would let us explore the significance of differences in such factors as perceived vulnerability to or responsibility for the
environmental problem in question, deference to science in state decision making, openness of the state policy apparatus to interventions from domestic NGOs or
international actors, and role of the media.

Within countries, we focused on the "elite" discourse of professionals and political leaders, rather than the views of lay or grassroots groups. We did this for both
theoretical and practical reasons. The perception of global environmental issues by lay publics and the role of such publics on both the cause and effect sides of global
environmental change are topics of enormous importance and some stimulating scholarship (e.g., Kempton 1995; Collier and Lofstedt 1997; Lipschutz and Conca
1993). But the general literatures on agenda setting, issue framing, and policy making suggest that accounting for lay perspectives is unlikely to be essential for
explaining many of the questions that most concern us here. Moreover, for the long time periods and comparative perspectives that interest us, the practical difficulties
of reliably assessing lay perceptions and responses are overwhelming. In our research, we therefore looked down from the perspective of policy making and
management at the national level, picking up subnational actors, interests, and ideas only as they appeared on the stage of national discourse. In practical terms, we
focused our data collection on discourse occurring in national media, legislatures, professional journals, and the like. When the ideas or actions of substate actors
surfaced at this national, elite level, we noted them and explored their origins and impacts. When they did not, we ignored them—and thus rendered ourselves blind to
global environmental change and management as they are experienced by the vast majority of the world's citizens.

Our choice of which national perspectives to pursue in the study was also a joint product of theoretical and practical considerations. Our initial research design was
simply to sample the world's experience with global environmental management, choosing cases from among countries of the industrialized nations of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the formerly communist countries of Europe, and the developing world. We sought to select countries varying
with respect to their international standing in politics, science, and environmental leadership and with respect to their domestic treatment of science input to the policy
process. These design principles were matched against practical considerations of where we could mobilize effective study teams. From the formerly communist
countries, we selected the (former) Soviet Union and Hungary.2 For Western Europe, in addition to the supernational arena of the European Union, we selected the
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany (West Germany before the reunification, united Germany thereafter). Sweden, with a central role in the issue histories
Page 9

we studied, was included in the initial research design but was dropped when the research team scheduled to address it failed to materialize.3 Of the industrialized
countries of Asia, we selected Japan. North America was covered fully, with studies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico—the latter intended as a "bridge"
between northern and southern perspectives on the project's central research questions.

Our greatest source of discomfort with this entire study is that the developing world turned out to be beyond our grasp and—taking most of humanity with it—is absent
from the story about the evolution of global environmental management reported here. The reason, if not excuse, for this omission is that we started to develop our
research protocol for the countries we knew best. In the interests of generating reliable and comparable data, this protocol presumed extensive use of documentary
sources and media accounts to supplement interviews with relevant individuals still available for comment. Our preliminary effort to extend this protocol to more
recently developing countries through our Mexican case study strongly suggested that such documentary sources simply did not exist at anywhere near the density we
were working with in countries that had industrialized earlier.

We could, of course, have applied the interview portion of our protocol to individuals currently active in the developing world's substantial engagement with issues of
global environmental management. And we could, as we did in Mexico, have found some documentary material. We could, and perhaps should, have changed the
entire research protocol to a version more appropriate for a truly global study of global environmental management. But given the people, resources, time, and
imagination available to us, we reluctantly decided that we could not reliably document in a useful cross section of developing countries a long­term history of global
environmental management for the atmospheric issues we had selected. The density and comparability of the histories we have assembled clearly benefited from this
decision. The scope and potential relevance of the overall study has clearly suffered, leaving many crucial questions about global environmental management unasked
and unanswered.

1.3.3 Describing Issue Development

The empirical work of this study was organized around the construction of descriptive histories of each issue's evolution within each of the arenas investigated. In
addition, special attention was given to cross­arena and cross­issue interactions. These histories were intended to capture not just changes in scientific knowledge and
public policy but also variation in the relevant beliefs, interests, norms, and actions of a changing array of actors and institutions. The long time scales and multiple arenas
addressed in the study made it particularly challenging to design a research protocol that would ensure comparability of data across time and political cultures, thus
providing a firm foundation for subsequent fact­finding and explanatory efforts. We addressed this challenge by borrowing from existing research traditions frameworks
for data collection on three broad topics: what level and kind of concern people exhibited about global environmental issues and their management, what people talked
about when they addressed global environmental issues and their management, and what people did when they worked on understanding and managing the interactions
between society and the global environment. We summarize these descriptive frameworks below. Details are provided at the end of volume 2 in the project's Research
Protocol (appendix A). As noted earlier, data were assembled covering the historical development of each of the three global environmental issues in each of the ten
national and supernational arenas addressed in the study.

The Dynamics of Concern Our first framework provides for an essentially social characterization of the level and kind of concern shown by society for global
environmental issues. It draws from the political science literature on issue­attention cycles (Downs 1972), agenda setting (Kingdon 1984; Cohen, March, and Olsen
1972), and the politics of problem definition and issue framing (Rochefort and Cobb 1994; Schon and Rein 1994; Hajer 1995; Jachtenfuchs and Huber 1993).
Generally, this literature led us to expect that though attention paid to global environmental issues by scientists and technical experts might be sustained or slowly grow
through time, public and political attention would come in relatively rare and short­lived bursts. These bursts of attention, however, were likely to provide important
opportunities for institutionalizing and acting on the issues in question. To provide the basic empirical foundations for theorizing about the causes and consequences of
such attention cycles, we therefore sought to document the rise and fall of public attention to each of our issues within each of our study arenas.

Following Baumgartner and Jones (1993), we quantitatively tracked coverage of each issue through time in the newspapers read by each arena's elites. Where possible
and relevant, we complemented the data on media coverage with quantitative measures of the amount of attention devoted to the issue in legislative forums and
professional publications. Other media and measures would have been possible. But none provided as much comparability and
Page 10

continuity across the long time periods and multiple arenas addressed in this study. Results for individual arenas are reported in the chapters of part II of this book, with
cross­arena patterns analyzed in chapter 14.

The quantity of attention paid to global environmental issues is only one measure of public concern. A second is quality or content. The literatures noted above also
emphasized the potential importance of how issues are characterized, defined, or framed in scientific, political, and public discourse.4 Too much of the literature on
issue framing, however, has been undercut by its failure to construct a formal structural framework or taxonomy for objectively classifying the different ways in which
different groups characterize developing issues. Some such formal taxonomic framework seemed to us especially important for a study seeking to compare issue
framings across multiple languages, nations, and time periods. Its development therefore became a central task of our research strategy. The result is described in the
next section.

A Taxonomy of Hazard Management One of our most fundamental requirements was for a common taxonomic framework to characterize and classify the content
of discourse about global environmental issues and their management. Did scientists present end­to­end, "integrated" assessments of the issue, or did they concentrate
on particular facets of the overall story? Did policy advocates focus on measures to address causes or effects? Did controversies range over all aspects of the issue, or
were they more narrowly confined? The beginnings of a taxonomic framework that would allow classification of empirical evidence relevant to such questions had been
developed in the 1980s by scholars of technological hazard analysis (Kates, Hohenemser, and Kasperson 1985) and environmental impact assessment (Beanlands and
Duinker 1983). Initial applications to problems of global environmental change were carried out by Schelling (1983), Clark (1985), and Crutzen and Graedel (1986).
This early work was generalized into a taxonomy of environmental hazards by Norberg­Bohm et al. (2000), who applied it to a wide range of issues and national
contexts. Figure 1.1 summarizes the elaboration of these previous hazard taxonomies developed by this project and applied throughout the present volume.5 As can be
seen in the figure, our taxonomy is divided into several parts.

Panel A of figure 1.1 lists our categories for classifying discourse about environmental issues. Our use of these categories is intended to be purely descriptive; no
ordering or priority in how or when society addressed them is assumed:

• Demand for goods and services Any environmental concern (such as energy) may be traced back to origins in human demands for goods and services. Conversely,
the environmental implications of particular social demands for goods and services may be explored.

• Choice of technologies or practices The implications for the environment of particular technologies or

Demand for Choice of Valued Exposure of Consequences to

Flux of
A. Issues goods and technologies environmental people and people and the
materials
services and practices properties things things they value

Change Change Change Change

B. Actions (options) Change choice Change flux
demand environment exposure consequences

C. Groups of actions (options)

Emissions Environment Impacts
used in this study

D. Other groups of actions used Mitigation options Adaptation options

by actors documented in this study Preventive Offset Adaptation

E. Framing categories used in this

Causes Environment Impacts
study

Figure 1.1
A taxonomy of hazard management
Page 11

practices (such as coal versus natural gas fuels) may be discussed, with selection driven by interest in the technologies themselves, or in a means for meeting basic
demands, or in source of pollutants of concern.

• Flux of materials The release of certain materials to the environment (such as sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and carbon dioxide) to the environment may
become the subject of attention—perhaps in their own right, perhaps as a possible threat to valued environmental properties, or perhaps as a possible consequence of
certain development choices people make.

• Valued environmental properties Certain properties of the environment (such as global climate, stratospheric ozone, and precipitation acidity) are singled out by
scientists, advocates, or political leaders as meriting concern.

• Exposure of people and things Discussions of global environmental change (such as coastal localities exposed to global sea­level changes) may highlight the
exposure of specific local places to different sorts of stresses.

• Consequences to people and things they value People may discuss possible impacts of global environmental change (such as crop loss and health implications) on
themselves or on other things they value.

Panel B of figure 1.1 lists our basic categories for classifying discourse about actions that might be undertaken in response to concern for environmental issues. It simply
reflects the obvious but important fact that actions could in principle be undertaken within every one of the categories used to characterize the issue itself (Schelling
1983). We employed this symmetrical classification in our basic research protocol and analysis.

In the course of our investigations, however, we discovered two things that made our descriptive taxonomy of actions less straightforward than our taxonomy of issues.
First, discourse about actions to address global environmental issues tended to group multiple categories into larger clusters. For example, we commonly encountered
discussions of preventive options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that included in a relatively undifferentiated way measures for both demand reduction and
technology switching. This tendency to group and apply common labels to discussions of different types of response options would not have been problematic except
for the fact that different actors and different arenas employed different groupings. In addition, however, we discovered that the labels applied to these groupings by the
actors themselves were often strategically selected. At one point in the climate debate labeling options as adaptive had become so out of favor that virtually all actions
considered were described as mitigation, independent of which aspect of the climate issue they were addressing. Such strategic naming is, of course, of substantial
interest in a study such as this. But it was important for us to distinguish what advocates of particular actions were actually talking about from how they were seeking to
package their proposals. We therefore focused our descriptive taxonomy of action proposals on the same basic categories outlined above. When grouping was called
for, we adopted the relatively neutral and descriptive terms shown in figure 1.1, panel C:

• Emissions This category captures measures (such as energy taxes and bans on CFC propellants) that would directly affect emissions of pollutants of interest through
changing demand or changing the choice of technologies and practices.

• Environment This category captures measures (such as carbon sequestration though forest plantations and liming of acidified lakes) that would directly affect the
amount of emissions remaining in the environment or would directly alter valued environmental properties.

• Impacts This category captures measures that alter the impact of changes in the environment on people and things they value. Such measures (such as shielding
people from ultraviolet radiation and air conditioning places where people work) can work by changing exposure or changing vulnerability.

Panel D of figure 1.1 shows how our descriptive taxonomy relates to various categories of actions used by the actors we studied in their discussions about global
environmental problems.

Finally, panel E introduces terminology employed in our analysis of issue framing and relates this to the other categories and to the underlying descriptive taxonomy.

A Functional Framework for Describing Global Environmental Management Our final framework constituted a functional characterization of issue development.
It drew largely from the literatures of policy analysis and risk management. These emphasize the stages of issue development and the tasks that are performed in each
(Jones 1984; von Prittwitz 1990; Winsemius 1986). While sharing modern skepticism (e.g., deLeon 1999) regarding the linear or sequential relations among stages and
functions that are assumed in much of the policy literature, we nonetheless found particularly useful the common functional categories adopted by works as different as
Kates, Hohenenser, and Kasperson's (1985) studies of technological hazards and Kay and Jacobson's (1983) early work on international environmental policy. As
shown by Kay and Jacobson, this functional framework's focus on what is done rather than who does it is
Page 12

particularly appropriate for long­term, comparative studies in which comparability of actor groups and institutions might otherwise be problematical. Our functional
framework for the description of issue development, somewhat modified from that of Kates and Kay and Jacobson, addresses the following six management activities:
monitoring, risk assessment, option assessment, goal and strategy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. These functions are summarized in box 1.2 and
constitute the focus for part III of this book.

1.3.4 Analyzing Issue Development

We reiterate that our primary goal in this study was to provide a preliminary historical reconnaissance of the development of selected management problems during the
formative years of the global environmental era. Our intent has been that the resulting rich descriptive account will provide the empirical puzzles and factual foundations
without which most attempts at causal inference on the factors responsible for the development of global environmental management practices will remain unconvincing
and premature. These limited ambitions notwithstanding, we also sought in our empirical work to document patterns in some of the variables and processes that prior
studies have suggested are likely to be involved in the shaping of issue development.

Variables Due to the iterative character of issue evolution, many of the potentially explanatory variables turn out to be similar to those we use to describe issue
evolution in the first place. Rather than signifying a conceptual weakness in our study, this is simply a reflection of Wildavsky's (1979) observation that policy—which
we would expand to issue development—more often than not becomes its own cause. Our principal focus, as described earlier, has been on the roles of ideas,
interests, and institutions.6

Ideas Two presently distinct but potentially complementary literatures on the role of ideas in issue development provide points of departure for the present study. The
first, grounded in the policy­science and science­studies literatures, emphasizes the importance of issue images and frames for defining what knowledge matters and
who feels concern (Nelson 1984; Stone 1988; Schon and Rein 1994; Hajer 1995). The second, based in international relations, emphasizes the importance of shared
beliefs in stabilizing coalitions of actors that often provide the motive force behind policy change (Hall 1989; Haas 1990; Goldstein and Keohane 1993; Blyth 1997).
Neither tradition has been particularly successful in showing how or under what conditions such ideas affect issue development. We nonetheless attempted to be alert

Box 1.2
Management functions

Risk assessment Research on this function traces changes in understanding the nature, causes, consequences, likelihood, and timing of the
risk in question. Particular attention is paid to the subset of all causes and consequences addressed by particular actors.

Monitoring Research on this function traces the evolution of efforts by any of the actors to document actual changes in aspects of the
environment affected by the risk in question, relevant emissions, human responses, and results of management strategies and specific
implementation measures.

Option assessment Research on this function documents and explains changes in the assessment of possible options for responding to the
problem in question. Options are particular measures that an actor might undertake to help manage a risk. Assessments of options are
systematic examinations of the feasibility, costs, or benefits of particular options.

Goal and strategy formulation Research on this function traces changes in management goals, the design of a package of options
appropriate for achieving them, and the selection of modes (such as command and control, incentives, and persuasion) for implementing
those options. Goals are statements of objectives or of conditions that an actor wishes to bring about. Strategies are plans for how—in
what combination and at what time—particular response options will be combined to achieve a goal. Strategies thus organize particular
means (options) to achieve particular ends (goals).

Implementation Research on this function traces changes in the actions actually taken by various social actors with regard to management
of the issue in question. Implementation may include persuasion through normative pronouncements, educational activities, the exchange or
dissemination of information, rule making, provision of incentives, supervision or enforcement of compliance, and coordination of programs.

Evaluation Research on this function documents self­conscious efforts of actors to reflect on and evaluate their own and others'
performance in contributing to management of the risk under consideration.

for impacts of powerful images and shared beliefs in our empirical studies.

Interests Questions of who pushes issue evolution are clearly central to our concerns. Who provides the problem definitions and policy proposals that eventually are
adopted? Who furnishes the energy that moves and motivates policy change across the long periods and large scales that concern us here? How do whose interests
affect the management of global environmental change? We have sought in this study to remain sensitive to the influence of the traditional state and nonstate actors
delineated earlier. In addition, however, we have taken seriously recent work stressing the importance of adhoc groups composed of different kinds of actors in
Page 13

promoting particular directions for issue development. Where possible, we have documented the activities of such issue networks (Heclo 1978; Keck and Sikkink
1998), advocacy coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins­Smith 1993, 1999), or epistemic communities (Haas 1990) as have been active on the stage of global
environmental management.

Institutions Modern institutional approaches to issue development focus on the ways in which relatively stable rules, procedures, and operating practices structure the
interactions among interested parties (e.g., Koelbe 1995). Institutions can influence the distribution of power among actors, actors' perceptions of their own interests,
and thus the goals that shape issue evolution. Research at the domestic level has emphasized the historical grounding of institutional capacity in past experience and the
importance of that historically bound capacity in both framing and resolving new issues (e.g., Skopol and Finegold 1983; Steinmo, Thelen, and Longstreth 1992). At
the global level, a substantial body of scholarship in recent years has attempted to trace how and under what conditions international institutions promote effective
environmental management. Keohane, Levy, and their colleagues (e.g., Haas, Keohane, and Levy 1993; Keohane and Levy 1996) have proposed that such institutions
exert their influence on policy through increasing concern among advocates and policy elites, enhancing the contractual environment for enforceable agreements, or
strengthening the capacity of the management system to perform its various functions. We have sought to document evidence of such causal pathways in the work
reported here. At the same time, we have attempted to avoid the static bias of many institutional analyses and to remain alert for the ways in which the profound
changes in institutions bearing on global environmental issues have affected their management over the decadal scales.

Processes In addition to documenting variation in the ideas, interests, and institutions that might be expected to shape the development of global environmental
management practices, this study attempted to trace some of the most important processes and pathways through which their influence occurs. Where do the ideas and
beliefs about the management of global environmental risks come from? Why do particular actors come to see themselves as interested parties in the development of
some global environmental issues but not others? How do institutions promote changes in concern, capacity, and contractual environment that affect the management of
global environmental risks?

Efforts to probe such deeper questions about the factors and processes shaping issue development must be sensitive to a variety of possible answers that have little to
do with the global environment. The most obvious are overarching political changes, such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union or the coming of Reaganism and
Thatcherism to the world stage. Less dramatic but potentially important nonetheless are explanations grounded in the bureaucratic politics of the relevant organizations
and institutions (e.g., Allison 1974). While addressing such processes where they seemed particularly interesting or relevant, this study focused on the possible
complementary role of learning. In particular, we followed Harvey Brooks (1977, 243) in asking in what sense, and in what ways, the development of global
environmental management can usefully be viewed as "a sustained social learning process."

The analysis of issue development as a process of social learning stems from early work of Deutsch (1963) and Heclo (1974). It has more recently produced
illuminating studies of the development of democratic politics (Eder 1987), Keynsian economics (Hall 1989), international quarantine practices (Cooper 1989), and
norms for nuclear arms control (Nye 1987; Adler 1992). In the environmental realm, social learning processes figure prominently in Peter Haas's (1990) analysis of
international cooperation on the Mediterranean Action Plan and other international environmental issues (Haas and Haas, 1995), Kai Lee's (1993) groundbreaking
work on sustainable development, Sabatier's studies of policy change (Sabatier 1999), and Harvey Brook's (1977) call for a broader approach to scholarship on the
management of global environmental risks. All of this work emphasizes the "fundamentally messy, contingent, and ambiguous intermingling of knowledge, power,
interests, and chance in the workings of the world" (Parson and Clark 1995, 457). None of it suggests that learning approaches are yet ready to generate tight theories
or crisp predictions of social change. Rather, viewing long­term issue development through a "learning" lens may highlight significant processes and relationships that
complement other equally partial explanations (Sabatier 1993, 1999). Our approach to the study of learning in the development of social approaches to the
management of global environmental risks can be summarized in terms of its answers to three questions posed by many students of learning: Who learns? What is
learned? What counts as learning?7

Who Learns? Much of most peoples' intuitive feel for learning focuses on learning by individuals. Such learning is clearly important. Moreover, in keeping with this
study's focus on the multiple actors and groups involved in global environmental management, we have attempted to distinguish which of these actors learns which
lessons. In addition, however, we have extended our reach to
Page 14

include the likelihood of learning within—and perhaps by—various organizations and institutions. Finally, we have kept in mind that learning often involves would­be
teachers as well as potential learners. Discovering who is trying to promote lessons about global environmental management, as well as who is trying to learn them, is
almost certainly an important part of explaining issue development.

What Is Learned? Much of the ordinary discussion and formal literature on learning concentrates on the incorporation of new knowledge or experience into existing
practices, causal models, and decision­making processes. Increasingly, however, it has become clear that some of the most important learning involves changes in
higher­order concepts including norms, goals, and the overall interpretive frameworks that Hall (1993, 279) has called policy paradigms and we have treated under
the heading of issue frames.8 Our approach adopts this larger view of learning. We treat it as a process that may help to bring about cognitive changes at multiple
levels ranging from issue frames (Vig 1997, 1) and basic beliefs (Keohane and Nye 1989, 264), through goals (Hall 1993, 278), strategic perspectives on one's
relationships with other actors (Haas 1990; Haas and Haas 1995), and behavioral intentions (Sabatier 1988, 19), to more elemental concepts including cause­and­
effect relationships, appraisal of the efficacy of particular management interventions, and basic skills of management practice.9

What Counts as Learning? Much social science literature presumes that learning is synonymous with increasing one's ability to cope with the world. We found this
conception too broad to be analytically useful. At the other extreme, we share the view of Breslauer (1987, 432), Keohane and Nye (1989, 264), and others that
learning should not be definitionally restricted to processes that lead to better outcomes.10 A less restrictive view of policy­oriented learning has been promoted by
Sabatier and his colleagues, building on the work of Heclo (1974). This focuses on cognitive changes "that result from experience and are concerned with the
attainment (or revision) of policy objectives" (Sabatier 1988, 19). Two further expansions of this answer to the "What counts?" question are important for the study
reported here. First, along with other students of learning, we found that focusing on experience alone as a source of cognitive change is too narrow a view and have
broadened ours to encompass experience and new information (Hall 1993, 278; see also Keohane and Nye 1989, 264). Second, in view of this study's concern
with the long­term development of not just policy but rather the broader­range activities involved in the management of global environmental risks, we have substituted
management objectives for the more restrictive phrase policy objectives in Sabatier's answer to the "What counts?" question. In this study, we have therefore
counted as learning those processes that deliberately utilize experience or information to bring about cognitive changes that are concerned with global environmental
management. We have left questions regarding the instrumental effectiveness and normative implications of learning to be treated empirically rather than definitionally
(see below).

Norms To what extent did the actors, institutions, and societies addressed in this study learn better management of global environmental risks? This wholly reasonable
question introduced normative dimensions into the study with which we remained uncomfortable from beginning to end.

As noted earlier in this chapter, our study sought to remain open on the question of whether the issues in question merited more or less attention and action. We
focused instead on documenting and understanding how actors and arenas came to give particular management responses to the issues. This meant that we rejected
from the outset evaluative criteria that would have defined "better" management in terms of more success at raising the political profile of the issues or taking action on
them. Moreover, we both expected and observed in our initial empirical work a great variety of different views on what constituted better management of the issues at
hand. These differences reflected not only contrasting perspectives of various actors (such as scientists, NGOs, and industry) but also systematic differences among
arenas based on both interests in the issue at hand and more general orientations regarding the use of scientific findings in policy contexts (e.g., Brickman, Jasanoff, and
Ilgen 1985).

Faced with this variety of evaluative perspectives, our study group was unwilling to impose on our empirical material a rigid normative framework of our own making.
We were also, however, unprepared to give up on the normative discussion by simply assuming that all outcomes are equal. Ultimately, we found an uneasy middle
ground in Ravetz's (1971) historical studies on the application of expert knowledge to social problems. In essence, Ravetz argued that despite differences in the specific
norms applied by particular parties in particular circumstances, it was possible to discern across multiple cases and circumstances a channeling of critical debates along
lines that could be captured by a small number of metacriteria. As further developed in Clark and Majone's (1985) empirical study of normative criteria employed in a
wide variety of energy and environmental debates and in Guston's (1997) work on science advising, metacriteria for addressing knowledge­action dynamics have been
summarized under the headings of adequacy, value, legitimacy, and
Page 15

Box 1.3
Criteria for evaluating efforts to link knowledge with action

Adequacy The role of criteria of adequacy is to permit the accumulation of certified "facts," thus providing what historian Oscar Handlin (1979, 408) has called the
"grounds for peaceful discourse." Two potential uses of such criteria stand out as particularly relevant for efforts to link knowledge with action in the management of
global environmental risks. The first is the simple posting of known pitfalls: methodological blunders and inappropriate use of data that immediately vitiate any
assessment that fails to avoid them. The second is the channeling of disputes into well­defined categories where focused and informed discussion can be carried out.

Value The role of criteria of value is to help channel inquiry into important areas where it has some prospect of making contributions that extend beyond the
immediate gratification of those performing the inquiry. At one level, such criteria address such commonsense notions of worth or relevance. At another, somewhat
deeper level, they include evaluations of feasibility, encompassing exhortations from a number of fields that temper inclinations to attack only the really important
problems with due respect for "the art of the possible." Without well­developed criteria of value to root intellectual activity in issues of the world, there is a great
tendency to concentrate on what John Passmore has called the "charmed circle" of presently exciting problems. There is also little defense against the internal
criteria of adequacy developed by some intellectual field displacing any external social reference point in the evaluation of good work.

Legitimacy As Lindblom has noted, "A deep conflict runs through common attitudes to policymaking. On the one hand, people want policy to be informed and well
analyzed. On the other, they want policymaking to be democratic. . . . In slightly different words, on the one hand they want policymaking to be more scientific; on
the other, they want it to remain in the world of politics" (Lindblom 1980, 12). In political contexts, legitimacy rests on questions of majority and minority and how to
control the treatment of the latter by the former. In scientific contexts, it has been centrally bound with "the fair play of ideas" and how skeptical questioning of
accepted interpretations can be simultaneously encouraged yet kept from arbitrarily dismantling consensual understanding.

Effectiveness The role of criteria of effectiveness is simply to evaluate whether knowledge­ or action­based efforts undertaken to help resolve problems actually do
so. Efforts to develop such criteria must contend at the outset with what Carol Weiss (1975), commenting on the problems of evaluating policy, has called the
dilemma of "little effect." With depressing regularity, evaluations of policies produce verdicts that they have left the world "out there" pretty much the same. In part,
this doubtless reflects the real difficulties of bringing about change in the world. In part, it also reflects a naive view of the processes by which both scientific ideas and
public policies develop. Recent scholarship has shown that in both science and policy, critical findings that radically and unambiguously change the existing order are
in fact rare. Effectiveness is better viewed not just in terms of the creation of solutions but rather in a broader context that includes the ability of a given endeavor to
shape the agenda or advance the state of the debate (see Majone 1980; Keohane 1996).

effectiveness. Our use of these terms is defined in box 1.3. We employ the Ravetz criteria throughout this book as framework for critical discussion on the question of
what might be meant by improvements or progress in the management of global environment.

1.4 The Organization of This Book

This book is organized in four parts.

Part I introduces the study. This chapter (chapter 1) summarizes the work's motivations, the questions it seeks to address, and the research approach it follows.
Chapter 2 follows with an overview of the three issues addressed in the study: acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change.

Part II reports on our arena studies. Chapters 3 to 13 describe how our three atmospheric issues were managed in single arenas. Individual chapters have been written
for Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the former Soviet Union, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Canada, the United States, the European Community, and the
family of international environmental institutions. Chapter 14 presents an analysis across arenas of our findings on issue attention, framing, and actors.

In volume 2, part III reports on our function studies. Individual chapters describe the development of a single management function, drawing on experience from all our
arenas and issues. Chapters are presented for risk assessment, monitoring, option assessment, goal and strategy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Chapter
21 closes part III with an analysis of our findings on linkages among management functions. Part IV concludes the study with a single forward­looking synthesis chapter
22.

Appendix 1A. Acronyms

CFC chlorofluorocarbon
ICSU International Council of Scientific Unions
IGY International Geophysical Year
NGO nongovernmental organization
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WMO World Meteorological Organization
Page 16

Notes

1. We agree with those such as Lipschutz and Conca (1993) who point out that global environmental change and global environmental management are only two of
many possible constructions of what is going on in the environmental realm today. Moreover, these are indeed constructions that privilege the position of elites—global
technical actors such as scientists, senior civil servants, big nongovernmental organizations, and the like. But this just means that there are other stories to be told. Global
environmental change is a real discourse, with real people doing work on it. Global environmental management is something that lots of actual people think they are
doing when they get up each day. Our goal is not to say these are or should be the only frames for contemporary discussions of environmental affairs. Rather, we
propose that it would be worthwhile to understand what is actually going on in the communities of global change elites whether one's goal is to help, critique, or
comment on those activities.

2. Our study period carried on across the democratic revolutions that swept these countries in the late 1980s. The respective country studies address the possible
significance of those revolutions for the nation's participation in the management of global environmental change.

3. Swedish contributions to the development of management approaches to our issues are touched on where possible in the relevant chapters of the book.

4. Drawing on a presentation by Sheila Jasanoff, Global Environmental Assessment (GEA 1997, 107) notes that "the concept of framing is employed in the social
sciences as a means of drawing attention to the processes of selection, emphasis, and presentation through which a particular view of an issue or problem comes to
dominate other possible ones over particular periods and for particular groups. The framing of an issue in a particular way—for example as 'the CO2 problem'—tends
to carry with it an implicit choice of what matters. . . . Likewise, it points to where solutions are to be sought."

5. We emphasize that our use of this taxonomy is for classification purposes only. We use it to describe and categorize what various actors were talking and writing
about at specific times and not to imply anything about the truth, intent, or relevance of their assertions. In particular, we have been at pains to avoid imposing through
the taxonomy any assumption that good management (whatever that might be) necessarily involves attention to any or all of the categories or that the categories are
connected or sequenced in any particular order.

6. For a review of the changing relationships among ideas, interests, and institutions in modern thinking about public policy and administration, see Majone (1996).

7. E.g., Bennett and Howlett (1992). For a look at how participants in this study have developed our somewhat pluralistic perspectives on theories of learning, see
Parson and Clark (1995), Liberatore (1993), Jachtenfuchs and Huber (1993), and Huber (1993).

8. See also Jachtenfuchs and Huber (1993) on the closely related concept of policy frames.

9. Many authors have proposed distinct hierarchical levels for classifying what gets learned—for example, Argyris and Schon's (1978) single versus double loop
learning and Hall's (1993) three types of learning. We have no quarrel with any of these classifications, but neither did we find our own evidence sufficiently compelling
to postulate discrete categories as opposed to a continuum of answers to the "What is learned?" question.

10. Leaving aside the operational problems of assessing better outcomes, it is surely true that people learn the wrong lessons from experience and learn to do bad
things well.

References

Adler, Emanuel. 1992. The emergence of cooperation: National epistemic communities and the international revolution of the idea of nuclear arms control.
International Organization 46(1): 101–145.

Allison, Graham. 1974. The Essence of Decision. Boston: Little Brown.

Anderson, M.S., and D. Liefferink. 1997. European Environmental Policy: The Pioneers. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Argyris, C., and Donald Schon. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.

Baumgartner, F.R., and B.D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Beanlands, G.E., and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Halifax: Institute for Environmental
Studies, Dalhousie University.

Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Bennett, Colin J., and Michael Howlett. 1992. The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences 25: 275–294.

Blyth, M.M. 1997. Ideas and institutions. Comparative Politics 29(2): 229–250.

Boehmer­Christiansen, Sonja, and Jim Skea. 1991. Acid Politics: Environmental and Energy Policies in Britain and Germany. London: Belhaven Press.

Breslauer, G. 1987. Ideology and learning in Soviet third world policy. World Politics 39: 3–432.

Brickman, R., S. Jasanoff, and T. Ilgen. 1985. Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.

Brooks, Harvey. 1977. Potentials and limitations of societal response to long­term environmental threats. In W. Stumm, ed., Global Chemical Cycles and their
Alterations by Man. Berlin: Dahlem Konferenzen.

Caldwell, Lynton K. 1996. International Environmental Policy: From the Twentieth to the Twenty­First Century (3rd ed.) Durham: Duke University Press.

Clark, William C. 1985. On the practical implications of the carbon dioxide question. Working Paper WP­85­42. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
Laxenburg, Austria.

Clark, William C., and Giandomenico Majone. 1985. The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications. Science, Technology, and Human Values
10(3): 6–19.

Cohen, Michael, James March, and Johan Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25.

Collier, Ute, and Ragnar Lofstedt. 1997. Cases in Climate Change Policy: Political Reality in the European Union. London: Earthscan.
Page 17

Cooper, Richard N. 1989. International cooperation in public health as a prologue to macroeconomic cooperation. In R.N. Cooper, B. Eichengreen, C.R. Henning, G.
Holtham, R.D. Putnam, eds., Can Nations Agree? Issues in International Economic Cooperation. Washington: Brookings.

Crutzen, Paul J., and Thomas E. Graedel. 1986. The role of atmospheric chemistry in environment­development interactions. In William C. Clark and R.E. Munn, eds.,
Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

deLeon, Peter. 1999. The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going? In Paul Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 19–
32). Boulder: Westview Press.

Desai, U., ed. 1998. Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing Countries: Economic Growth, Democracy, and Environment. Albany: SUNY Press.

Deutsch, Karl. 1963. The Nerves Of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. London: Free Press.

Downs, Anthony. 1972. Up and down with ecology: The "issue­attention cycle." The Public Interest 28: 38–50.

Eder, Klaus. 1987. Learning and the evolution of social systems: An epigentetic perspective. In M. Schmid and F.M. Wuketits, eds., Evolutionary Theory in Social
Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Global Environmental Assessment (GEA) Project. 1997. A critical evaluation of global environmental assessments: The climate experience. Calverton, Md.:
CARE. Also available at http://environment.harvard.edu/gea.

Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane, eds. 1993. Ideas in Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Guston, David H. 1997. Critical appraisal in science and technology policy analysis: The example of "Science, the endless frontier." Policy Sciences 30(4): 233–255.

Haas, E. 1990. When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Haas, Peter M. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

———. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1–36.

Haas, Peter M., and Ernst B. Haas. 1995. Learning to learn. Global Governance 1(3): 255–285.

Haas, Peter M., R.O. Keohane, and Mark A. Levy, eds. 1993. Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection.
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hajer, M.A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse, Ecological Modernization, and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hall, P., ed. 1989. The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

——— 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.

Handlin, Oscar. 1979. Truth in History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Heclo, H. 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven: Yale University Press.

———. 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In Anthony King, ed., The New American Political System. Washington: American Enterprise
Institute.

Huber, Michael. 1993. Comments on the use of a theory of social learning. Working Paper of the Project on Social Learning in the Management of Global
Environmental Risks. Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Jachtenfuchs, M., and M. Huber. 1993. Institutional learning in the European Community: The response to the greenhouse effect. In J.D. Liefferink, P.D. Lowe, and
A.P.J. Mol, eds., European Integration and Environmental Policy. London: Belhaven Press.

Janicke, M., and H. Weidner, eds. 1997. National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of Capacity Building. Heidelburg: Springer.

Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. 1995. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage.

Jervis, R. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jones, Charles O. 1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. (3rd ed.). Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

Kates, Robert W., Christoph Hohenemser, and Jeanne X. Kasperson, eds. 1985. Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder: Westview
Press.

Kay, D.A., and H.K. Jacobson. 1983. Environmental Protection: The International Dimension. Totowa, N.J. Allanheld, Osmund.

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kempton, Willett. 1995. Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Keohane, Robert O. 1996. Analysing the effectiveness of international environmental institutions. In Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy, eds., Institutions for
Environmental Aid. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Keohane, Robert O., and Mark A. Levy, eds. 1996. Institutions for Environmental Aid. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 1989. Power and Interdependence (2nd ed.). Boston: Scott, Foresman.

Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown.

Koelbe, T.A. 1995. The new institutionalism in political science and sociology. Comparative Politics 37: 231–243.

Lee, Kai N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington: Island Press.

Liberatore, Angela. 1993. Social learning and the management of global environmental risks: An interpretive framework. Working Paper of the
Page 18

Project on Social Learning in the Management of Global Environmental Risks. Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, Cambridge.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1980. The Policy Making Process, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Lipschutz, Ronnie D., and Ken Conca, eds. 1993. The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Litfin, Karen. 1994. Ozone Discourses: The Politics of Science in International Environmental Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lundvist, Lennart J. 1980. The Hare and the Tortoise: Clean Air Policies in the United States and Sweden. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Majone, Giandomenico. 1980. Policies as theories. Omega 8: 151–162.

———. 1996. Public policy and administration: Ideas, interests and institutions. In Robert E. Goodin, and Hans­Dieter Klingemann, eds., A New Handbook of
Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mathews, Jessica T. 1997. Power shift: The changing role of central government. Foreign Affairs 76(1): 50–67.

Mitchell, R.B. 1994. Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea: Environmental Policy and Treaty Compliance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington: National Academy Press.

Nelson, Barbara. 1984. Making an Issue of Child Abuse: Political Agenda Setting for Social Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Norberg­Bohm, V., W.C. Clark, B. Bakshi, J. Berkenkamp, S.A. Bishko, M.D. Koehler, J.A. Marrs, C.P. Nielsen, and A. Sagar. 2000. International comparisons
of environmental hazards, in Jeanne X. Kasperson and Roger E. Kasperson, eds., Global Environmental Risk. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Nye, J.S. 1987. Nuclear learning and U.S.­Soviet security regimes. International Organization 41(3): 371–402.

O'Riordan, Tim, and Jill Jäger, eds. 1996. Politics of Climate Change: A European Perspective. London: Routledge.

Parson, Edward A., and William C. Clark. 1995. Sustainable development as social learning: Theoretical perspectives and practical challenges for the design of a
research program. In Lance H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light, eds., Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New
York: Columbia University Press.

Ravetz, Jerome R. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rayner, Steve, and Elizabeth L. Malone, eds. 1998. Human choice and climate change. 4 vols. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.

Rochefort, D.A., and Roger W. Cobb, eds. 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rowlands, I.H. 1995. The Politics of Global Atmospheric Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Sabatier, P.A. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy­oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.

———. 1993. Policy change over a decade or more. In P.A. Sabatier and H.C. Jenkins­Smith, eds., Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition
Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

———. ed. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P.A., and H.C. Jenkins­Smith, eds. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

———. 1999. The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Paul A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166). Boulder: Westview
Press.

Schelling, Thomas C. 1983. Climatic change: Implications for welfare and policy. In National Research Council, ed., Changing Climate. Washington: National
Academy Press.

Schon, Donald A., and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.

Skopol, T., and K. Finegold. 1983. State capacity and economic intervention in the early New Deal. Political Science Quarterly 97: 256–278.

Steinmo, S., K. Thelen, and F. Longstreth, eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in a Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Stone, Deborah A. 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.

True, James L., Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 1999. Punctuated­equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in American policymaking. In Paul
A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process, (pp. 97–115). Boulder: Westview Press.

Turner, B.L., II, et al., eds. 1992. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past Three Hundred
Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Victor, David, Kal Raustiala, and Eugene B. Skolnikoff. 1998. The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory
and Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Vig, Norman J. 1997. Toward common learning? Trends in U.S. and E.U. environmental policy. Lecture presented at Summer Symposium on Innovation of
Environmental Policy, Bologna, Italy, July.

Vogel, D. 1986. National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Von Prittwitz, V. 1990. Das Katastrophenparadox. Elemente einer Theorie der Umweltpolitik. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Weale, A.G. Pridham, A. Williams, and M. Porter. 1996. Environmental administration in six European states: Secular convergence or national distinctiveness? Public
Administration 74: 255–274.

Weiss, Carol H. 1975. Evaluation research in the political context. In E.S. Struening and M. Gutentag, eds., Handbook of Evaluation Research. London: Sage.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little Brown.
Page 19

Winsemius, P. 1986. Gast in eigen Huis, Beschouwingen over Milieumanagement (Guest in your own house, reflections on environmental management). Alphen
aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Samson H.D. Tjeenk Willink.

Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Jasanoff, Markle, Petersen, and Pinch et al. (1995; 361–388).

Yearly, Steven. 1995. The environmental challenge to science studies. In Jasanoff, Markle, Petersen, and Pinch (1995, 457–479).

Young, Oran R., ed. 1999. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Page 20

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 21

2
Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion, and Climate Change: An Historical Overview.

William C. Clark, Jill Jäger, Jeannine Cavender­Bares, and Nancy M. Dickson1

This chapter provides an overview of the three cases of global environmental management explored in the book—acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate
change. Toward that end, it

• Sketches the state of scientific knowledge and management action regarding each issue at the close of the twentieth century;

• Traces the origins of this modern situation back to early research and regulatory programs, many of which date from the first half of the century or earlier; and

• Summarizes some of the most important intervening discoveries and events.

The chapter is thus meant to provide before and after contexts for the story of the 1957 International Geophysical Year (IGY) and the 1992 Rio United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Earth Summit that constitutes the focus of our study. It is not a substitute for more general treatments of
global environmental change and policy, of which a number of excellent versions exist.2 Nor does it summarize the detailed accounts of global environmental
management presented in the chapters that follow. Rather, it aims to provide enough of the relevant science to ease the way for readers whose first perspective on
global environmental management is political, legal, or social. And it sketches enough of the relevant background policy and politics so that readers who come from a
science perspective can more easily keep their bearings through the book's discussion of management issues.

The chapter begins with an overview of the earth system. The next three sections present accounts of the individual cases analyzed in this volume—acid rain,
stratospheric ozone depletion, and global climate change. We close with a brief note on the connections among the three cases and their embedding within broader
issues of global change.

2.1 Global Change

2.1.1 Geopolitical Context3

The second half of the twentieth century—a period that symmetrically encompasses the 35 year span of the histories reported here—has been a time of global change
in much more than the environmental sense.

In 1950, a world still emerging from the aftermath of World War II had already aligned itself along the east­west and north­south divisions that would dominate
international affairs for most of the rest of the century. But the bipolar, security­framed character of the immediate postwar world became progressively more complex
and interdependent as the century progressed. Of particular relevance for our study is the recovery and emergence onto the international economic scene of postwar
Europe and Japan; the formation of the Common Market in 1957; the sobering effects of foreign military debacles involving France and Britain in the mid­1950s, the
United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the Soviet Union in the 1980s; and the democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union that began
in the late 1980s and were still trying to work themselves out at the end of the century.

During the fifty years of postwar geopolitical realignments, world population more than doubled. The size of the global economy increased by a factor of 4; energy, by a
factor of 6. Substantial welfare gains accompanied this growth. During the period addressed in our study, average life expectancy around the world increased by nearly
twenty years, and infant mortality was cut in half. Per capita income more than tripled. Primary school enrollments increased by nearly two­thirds. Global averages,
however, hide substantial and often increasing disparities among the people of the earth. Over our study period, the ratio of the income share of the richest 20 percent
to the poorest 20 percent doubled. By century's end, the richest 20 percent of the world's population consumed more than 60 percent of its goods and services and
almost as large a fraction of its energy.4 And between a fifth and a sixth of the population—more than a billion people—were poor or hungry.

Beneath the statistics, a number of underlying transitions shaped the second half of the twentieth century. Global population growth rates reached their modern peak—
about 2.2 percent per year—in the early 1960s and then began to fall almost everywhere. Patterns of habitation shifted from being predominantly rural everywhere but
Europe at the beginning of the period toward
Page 22

becoming predominantly urban almost everywhere by the end. Trade between nations grew at more than twice the rate of the economy as a whole, with the result that
by the end of our study period perhaps a quarter of the world's goods and services passed over a border in the course of their production and consumption (Brown,
Kane, and Roodman 1994). Finally, if less tangibly, the postwar period has seen major changes in widely held attitudes and beliefs. Ideas about freedom and self­
determination of nations that had been growing before World War II continued to spread. Of central importance to an interpretation of our findings was a growing
recognition of environmental limits to human activity, the need for society to actively practice coexistence with the natural world, and the importance of more widely
sharing the benefits of human activity (Kempton, Boster, and Hartley 1995; Dunlap, Gallup, and Gallup 1993).

2.1.2 Knowledge of the Earth System

The basic idea of a biosphere—a "material and energetic structure [constituting] the only terrestrial envelope where life can exist" (Vernadsky 1945, 4)—has been
around since at least the 1920s, when the Russian mineralogist Vladimir Ivanovitch Vernadsky delivered his lectures on the subject at the Sorbonne.5 Tantalizing
support for these early intimations of an earth system began to accumulate over the first half of the twentieth century. This included radioactive dating of the earth's age
(1906); formulation of hypotheses on continental drift (1915), ice­age cycles (1920), and stratospheric ozone production (1930); the beginnings of numerical weather
prediction (1948); and the measurement of energy and materials budgets for simple ecosystems (1955). These foundations, together with emerging technologies for
studying the upper atmosphere and near space environment, gave rise in 1957 to the IGY, one of the first coordinated, multinational efforts to study the earth as a
dynamic system.6

Over the remainder of the twentieth century, the initial investments made in the IGY were nurtured through a variety of national and international research and
monitoring programs. Some of the high points of those programs are listed in table 2.1. The result was, quite simply,

Table 2.1
Chronology of global environmental change (Italic font denotes action entry; roman font denotes knowledge entry.)

1905 Ionosphere revealed by trans­Atlantic radio transmission

1906 Radioactive dating of the age of the earth
1915 Continental­drift hypothesis: evidence but no mechanism
1920 Milankovitch theory of ice ages
1930 First comprehensive theory of ozone layer
1938 Trail Smelter case establishes law on transboundary air pollutants
1948 Beginning of numerical weather prediction
1957 Beginning of International Geophysical Year (IGY) and the space age
1957 Odum theory on trophic structure and productivity
1957–8 International Geophysical Year
1958 Discovery of Van Allen radiation belts by Explorer 1
1958 Initiation of long­term measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide
1959 Publication of accurate map of North Atlantic sea floor
1960 First satellite images of the earth
1960s Recognition of lithospheric plate structure and mechanism for continental drift
1964 International Biological Program begins
1968 Paris Conference on Rational Use and Conservation of Resources of the Biosphere
1968 United Nations General Assembly resolution on Problems of the Human Environment initiates Stockholm Conference
1970 Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) established by the International Council of Scientific Unions
1971 Age of earth­moon system confirmed at 4.5 billion years by moon­rock dating
1972 Launch of LANDSAT 1 for land­surface observations
1972 Limits to Growth report presented to Club of Rome
1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm
1972 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established
1970s Recognition of destruction of stratospheric ozone by catalytic cycles
1977 Discovery of anaerobic life within ocean spreading centers
1978 Launch of Seasat and Nimbus 7 for oceanic and atmospheric observations
1979 First World Climate Conference held in Geneva
1981 Study of the earth's aurora from space
1983 Direct measurement of continental drift by Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)
1980s Intensive study of Antarctic "ozone hole"
1986 International Geosphere­Biosphere Program (IGBP) endorsed by the International Council of Scientific Unions
1987 World Commission on Environment and Development releases report on Our Common Future
1989 G­7 Communiqué concerning the World Environment issued in Paris
1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro
1995 Initiation of observing program for earth system science

Source: Based on NASA (1986, fig. 2.2, p. 25), and Caldwell (1996, Appendix C).
Page 23

a revolution in our understanding of the earth as a dynamical, integrated system.7 A wealth of data extracted from the planet's rocks, sea floor, and ice caps and from
orbiting sensors established the earth as above all a system of change—change over temporal scales ranging from seconds to billions of years and over spatial scales
extending from the local to the global. The individual processes underlying these changes in the earth system span a comparable range of scales (see figure 2.1).
Significantly, however, modern explanations of global change in the earth system invoke not just individual processes but also the complex linkages among the earth's
atmosphere, ocean, soil, and biota. One common thread weaving through these systems is the flow of energy that drives the circulation of oceans and atmosphere,
generates the climate, powers photosynthesis, and surrounds us with light, heat, and ionizing radiation. Another is the flow of the major chemical compounds of carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus. A third is the global hydrological cycle. Finally, modern views of the earth system recognize the ubiquitous influence of life on
the planet's interacting flows of energy and materials (e.g., Schlesinger 1997).

Ongoing research continues to deepen our understanding of the complexity and subtlety of all these earth­system interactions. Nonetheless, the basic conceptual
framework captured in figure 2.2 is now well established. Major research efforts on global change are being pursued both nationally and through international ventures
such as the World Climate Program, the International Geosphere­Biosphere Programme, the International Human Dimensions of Environmental Change Programme,
and Diversitas.8

Figure 2.1
Scales of global change
Source: From NASA (1986, fig. 2.3, p. 27).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The reign of
King Oberon
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: The reign of King Oberon

Author: Walter Jerrold

Illustrator: Charles Robinson

Release date: July 19, 2024 [eBook #74076]

Language: English

Original publication: London: J. M. Dent & Co, 1902

Credits: Charlene Taylor, Joeri de Ruiter and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE REIGN OF

KING OBERON ***
The Reign of King Oberon
 The True Annals of Fairyland

The
Reign of
KING
OBERON

Edited by
Walter Jerrold
Illustrated by
Charles Robinson

London & Toronto

J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
 Preface
My Dear Young Folks,

Here are some more stories from the wonderful Annals of

Fairyland. How they were first told at the Court of King Oberon, and
how they came to be recorded you will learn at the beginning, and
much as you love the little people you will, I think, like them even
better when you have learned all that this volume has to tell. Mr
William Canton has told you the stories properly belonging to “The
Reign of King Herla,” Mr J. M. Gibbon showed you how a famous
merry old soul and his court found entertainment in story-telling in
“The Reign of King Cole,” and now it is my pleasant privilege to put
before you, from the inexhaustible Annals, those tales which
properly belong to “The Reign of King Oberon.”
Of course you may have already met some of these stories before,
for most of our best writers have been made free of Fairyland and
have written of the wonderful things they learned there; Hans
Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm have long since been
famous for all that they have told of their visits to the marvellous
land, and some of the stories which they brought back will be found
to belong to the reign of Oberon and Titania, while others have been
told by Ben Jonson, by Thomas Hood, by Charles Perrault, by
Thomas Crofton Croker, by Douglas Jerrold, by Benjamin Thorpe and
by Sir George Dasent—but old or new all have the perennial
youthfulness of the fairies themselves, and as long as we can truly
enjoy them we shall not grow old.
The Editor.
 Dedication
To My Children

One time I chanced upon a fairy ring

Wherein Titania’s lieges held their court,
And watched the fairies merrily disport,
While sweetly the near nightingale did fling
His magic music over everything,
Till all in me was to that wonder wrought
Where feeling reaches heights unknown to thought,
Where spirit unto spirit seems to sing.

My heart ached when too soon one fairy went

To rest ’mid flow’rs, and yet it came to pass
In that green world there seemed no room for fears,—
By dancing joys fresh joy to me was sent,
Though ever more that vacant place there was,
When dews befell, and in my eyes were tears.

W. J.
 Contents
PAGE
The Reign of King Oberon 1
The Gifts of the Dwarfs 12
Thumbeline 22
The Young Piper 37
Rumpel-Stilts-Ken 48
Karl Katz 55
The Wild Swans 65
The Herd-Boy 84
The Nose-Tree 99
The Pranks of Robin Goodfellow 109
The Golden Lantern, the Golden Goat, and the Golden Cloak 117
Hansel and Grethel 129
The Magic Bottles 144
Princess Rosette 157
 PAGE
The Bear and Skrattel 179
The Goose-Girl 193
The Water of Life 203
The Troll’s Hammer 215
The Three Little Crones, each with Something big 223
The Queen’s Song 232
The Three Sneezes 234
The Elf-Hill 243
Riquet with the Tuft 254
The Benevolent Frog 265
Allwise the Dwarf 298
The Fairy at the Well 305
Dolly, draw the Cake 313
The Little Glass Shoe 315
East o’ the Sun and West o’ the Moon 322
Queen Mab 336
 List of Illustrations
PAGE
Coloured
King Oberon
frontispiece
Queen Titania 1
A small Indian prince had been stolen 2
And a fairy baby left in its place 3
“I do but beg a little changeling boy” 4
“The Fairyland buys not the child of men” 5
At once all the little people were hurrying to obey
8-9
the monarch’s behest
The Scandinavian dwarf 11
His long red beard waved in the sky as he drove in
12
his goat-drawn chariot
Loki descending into the cave of the dwarfs 17
 PAGE
Loki’s punishment 20
The fairy prince 21
Right in the middle of the flower sat a little tiny girl 22
The old toad made a deep curtsey in the water
24
before her
Every snowflake which fell upon her was like a
27
shovelful on one of us
It was not dead but lay in a swoon 30
Fiddle-de-dee said the field mouse 32
What was her astonishment to find a little man in
35
the middle of the flower
The Irish fairy 36
A big laughing potato in their hands 37
Sitting cross-legged on the top of a wave 44
Jumped clean off the cart over the bridge down
45
into the water
The gnome 47
The miller’s daughter 48
The king came in the morning 51
Dashed his right foot so deep into the floor that he
was forced to lay hold of it with both hands to pull 53
it out
The gnome 54
On he went scrambling 55
Twelve strange old figures amusing themselves
59
very sedately with a game of nine-pins
 PAGE
The strange-looking man with the long grey beard 63
Fairy Peaseblossom 64
He laid his head against her bosom 65
The Saviour looked down and little angels’ heads
69
peeped out above His head and under His arms
Even on her way to her death she could not
81
abandon her unfinished work
Moth 83
He found it was a pair of very small shoes 84
The young herdsman advanced boldly 93
Tailpiece 97
Puck 98
Three poor soldiers set out on their road home 99
Still it grew and grew 103
“We will follow it and find its owner” 105
As for the doctor, he put on the cloak, and was
108
soon with his two brothers
Robin Goodfellow 108
The pranks of Robin Goodfellow 109
“What revel rout” 110
“There’s not a hag or ghost shall wag” 111
“And call them on with me to roam thro’ lakes,
112
thro’ bogs”
“The maids I kiss” 113
“I them affright with pinchings, dreams, and ho,
114
ho, ho!”
 PAGE
“And elf in bed, we leave instead” 115
“So vale, vale, ho, ho, ho!” 116
The Swedish Troll 116
There appeared a strong light as of fire 117
Pinkel seized her by the feet and cast her headlong
121
into the water
They went again before the king 125
His brothers continued to be helpers in the stable
128
as long as they lived
The German Fairy 128
On one of the branches sat a little child 129
Lingering behind to drop one pebble after another
131
along the road
I will eat off the roof for my share 135
Fastened him up in a coop 137
Tailpiece 142
Robin Starveling 143
Mick found that he hadn’t enough half to pay the
144
rent
“Here take the bottle” 148
Mick went home muttering prayers and holding fast
149
the bottle
In a moment the landlord was tumbled on the
floor, and all were roaring and sprawling and 153
shrieking
In jumped the men into the new bottle 156
 PAGE
The French Fay 156
“Welcome! what would you ask of me?” 157
Fretillon started barking at them 168
Fretillon 177
The Norwegian Dwarf 178
Away they went 179
He lets them loose 182
The bear would throw him in the air 187
The elf was one moment on the bear’s back 191
The second German Fairy 192
She set off on her journey 193
Falada, Falada, there thou hangest 197
Tailpiece 201
The fairy sat down again 202
He was found to abide spellbound 203
He came to a room where a beautiful lady sat upon
208-9
a couch
The friendly dwarf with the sugarloaf hat 214
The dwarf from Sweden 214
Niels wandered forth 215
See here is a hammer 217
The blade struck him in the face 222
The Norwegian Fairy 222
The three little crones 223
 PAGE
Mother Bigfoot 228
The Queen was so enraged that her eyes flashed
229
fury
Nymphidia 231
Round about, round about, in a fine ring-a 232
Bottom 233
He took the glass and drained it 234
Billy found himself sitting on horseback the wrong
237
way
Billy danced the Rinka 241
The Danish Elf 242
Some lizards were running in and out of the clefts
243
in an old tree
Preserve us how nimble they were on their legs 249
“I like the boys better,” said the earthworm 252
The French Fay 253
It was doubted whether his form were really
254
human
There came forth a band of cooks 259
Tailpiece 263
The French Fay 264
The cap of roses 265
Placing the queen on her back she carried her to
268
her cave
A little princess had been born to her 275
The audience 280-1
 PAGE
A dragon half a league long coming through the air 293
Tailpiece 296
The Scandinavian Dwarf 297
Thou art pale about the nose 298
Allwise the dwarf and Thor 301
The dwarf was suddenly turned into a figure of
304
stone
Quick 304
She held it up to the woman 305
How is this my daughter 307
Tailpiece 309
Pink 310
They put the cake into the oven 312
St Dolly slept on a flour sack 313
Tailpiece 313
Seated himself firmly on the stool 314
He ran away with it 315
Tailpiece 318
John understood too well the nature of his crop 319
The dwarf from the North 321
What should he see but a big white bear 322
He was so worn out he had to rest many days
331
before he could get home again
Queen Titania 335
But when a bad child goes to bed 336
 PAGE
And from the moon she flutters down 337
Tailpiece 338
Tailpiece 339
 The Reign of King Oberon
n all the annals of Fairyland nothing is more
wonderful—and the annals are found in many
hundreds of volumes—than that chapter which
tells of the reign of the true fairy King Oberon and
his beautiful wife Titania, who is sometimes called
Queen Mab. Marvellous are the doings of Oberon’s little subjects in
every land—good fairies and bad fairies, dwarfs, elves and sprites,
brownies, pixies and gnomes, pucks, trolls and kobolds and Robin
Goodfellow—and marvellous are the tales which have been told of
them by travellers in the fairy realms.