Introduction - Comparing Environmental Policies in 16 Countries - page 11

this is a major variable in many comparative studies, its impact on the
environment is slight.
Political scientists like to analyze the roles of the chief executive and
legislature. A presidential system such as in the United States, France, Brazil,
Mexico, and Russia authorizes more power to that branch. In contrast,
parliamentary systems like Britain, Canada, and Australia have the
prime minister selected from the party holding the majority of seats in
the parliament. For Britain and its former colonies, this is referred to as the
Westminster system. Most other European countries have the parliamen-
tary system, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden.
It is the system in Australia and India as well. In terms of environmental
issues, the presidential versus the parliamentary system does not make
much difference. Both chief executives and prime ministers tend to have
other issues that preoccupy them such as war and peace or the economy.
Their attention to the environment is sporadic and general.
The bureaucracy that implements environmental laws is crucial. Exam-
ples are the US Environmental Protection Agency; the British Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and the German Environmental
Ministry. Looking around the world, these agencies tend to have similar
names and histories. Most were established in the Environmental Decade
of the 1970s, often directly copying agencies in other countries. Besides
their function of implementing new legislation, they fulfilled a symbolic
function. Their creation demonstrated to voters that the politicians were
doing something. Once in existence, they attacked the problems with the
techniques of science and administration. They analyzed the problems,
devised solutions, started programs, and promulgated regulations. They
were specialized, technical, and autonomous. While these offer important
skills, bureaucrats sometimes overconform, block new approaches, and
move slowly.
In all countries, different agencies will have responsibility for differ-
ent areas, and they may conflict. For example, in the United States, the
Office of Surface Mining has jurisdiction over reclamation of coal mines,
but EPA is to set the standards for the water discharged from the mines.
In Australia, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry shares
responsibility for water quality with the Department of the Environment.
The final government structure to consider is the court system. In the
United States, courts have been very influential. They have often inter-
vened directly in the inner workings of agencies and carved out new and
unexpected rights. For example, in 1960, the US Supreme Court ruled that