Water Resources Management

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 2005–2013 | Cite as

Avoiding Tragedies of the Intellectual Commons through Integrated Impact Assessments

Article

Abstract

This paper suggests that an ex ante assessment of future social, environmental, and economic impacts – i.e., an Integrated Impact Assessment, as advocated by the European Commission – might be precisely the sort of interdisciplinary and numerate analytical tool to give administrative reality to the principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). For these assessments to be an effective administrative tool for IWRM, the general public must be able to use them to transparently compare environmental, social, and economic values and to compel states to pursue policies consistent with their underlying analyses. In making this argument, this paper compares the use of integrated assessments by the European Union and the United States in addressing mercury pollution.

Key words

environmental models integrated water resources management integrated impact assessment mercury 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brouwer R (2006) Economic methods and models for the implementation of the water framework directive (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Commission of the European Communities (2002) Communication from the commission on impact assessment, COM(2002) vol 276 (final)Google Scholar
  3. Commission of the European Communities (2005) Commission Staff Working Paper. Annex to the communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament on community strategy concerning mercury, extended impact statement, COM(2005) vol 20 (final)Google Scholar
  4. Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekstrom E, Morel F, Benoit J (2003) Mercury methylation indepdendent of the acetyl-coenzyme a pathway in sulfate-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:5414–5422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23rd October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official journal 22nd December 2000 L 327/1. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2006a) Impact assessment guidelines (with 15 March 2006 update), SEC(2005) vol 791. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2006b) Annexes to impact assessment guidelines (with 15 March 2006 update). European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster J (ed) (1997) Valuing nature? Ethics, economics and the environment. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Funk W (2005) Political checks on the administrative process. In: Duffy J, Herz M (eds) A guide to judicial and political review. American Bar Association, Chicago ILGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardin G (1998) Extensions of ‘The tragedy of the commons’. Science 280:682–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pascual P, Sunderland E. Stiber N (2003) Draft guidance on the development, evaluation, and application of regulatory environmental models. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ord/crem/library/CREM%20Guidance%20Draft%2012_03.pdf
  14. Pascual P (2005) Wresting environmental decisions from an uncertain world. Environ Law Report 35:10539–10549Google Scholar
  15. Renda A (2006) Impact assessment in the EU: the state of the art and the art of the state (ISBN 92-9079-600-6). Centre for European Policy Studies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21: the United Nations programme of action from Rio (ISBN No. 92-1-100509-4). UN Publication-Sales No. E.93.1.11Google Scholar
  18. United Nations (2006) Water: a shared responsibility, The United Nations world water development report 2 (ISBN UNESCO: 92-3-104006-5)Google Scholar
  19. US EPA (2005) Regulatory impact analysis of the final clean air mercury rule. EPA-452/R-05-003Google Scholar
  20. World Wildlife Fund (2006) Conflicting EU-funds: pitting conservation against unsustainable development (ISBN: 3-901458-20-4). WWF Global Species Programme, WienGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CREM, US EPAWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations