Resolving regulatory uncertainty: legislative language for potentially invasive bioenergy feedstocks

Concerns about invasions by novel bioenergy feedstocks are valid, given the parallels between the traits of energy crops and those of many common invasive plants. As the bioenergy industry is poised to introduce nonnative bioenergy crops to large acreages in the United States under state and federal mandates, it is important to consider these concerns – and not simply in an academic sense. Instead, the prevention of invasions should be codified in statutes and regulations pertaining to bioenergy production on both the state and federal level. Unfortunately, this is not occurring regularly or consistently at this time. The few existing regulations that do consider invasiveness in bioenergy systems suffer from vague terminology that could have major economic, environmental, and legal consequences. Here, we discuss existing regulatory challenges and provide solutions to address invasion potential of bioenergy crops. We provide model definitions and provisions to be included in revised or new state and federal regulations, including an invasion risk assessment process, a permit and bond system for high‐risk crops, and a risk mitigation provision for all novel crops. Our proposal provides a consistent and transparent system that will allow the industry to move forward with minimal risk of invasion by novel feedstocks.     

Socioeconomic and Racial Disparities in Environmental Health: Is Risk Assessment Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

The term “environmental justice” is a relatively recent addition to the lexicon of public health and risk-based decision making. Although it is currently a prominent public policy issue, there is no consensus-derived definition, nor is there general agreement about viable mechanisms for putting worthwhile social goals (e.g., fairness, equity, and justice) into operation. Nevertheless, the concept of environmental justice has focused attention on important questions of whether economically and politically disadvantaged communities bear a disproportionate burden of environmental pollution, and whether past environmental policies, programs and practices have been fair and equitable. Among individuals and organizations involved with issues of environmental justice there is a spectrum of strong and often contradictory convictions about the nature and role of risk assessment. Critics are convinced it is part of the problem and are inclined to see it as an ethically suspect, resource-intensive, elitist, never-ending process used to maintain the status quo. Advocates, on the other hand, contend that risk assessment is an essential policy and regulatory tool for identifying, evaluating, and resolving instances of environmental injustice, and that it provides a unifying conceptual framework and a common language for constructive dialogue on the issue. This article argues that, in practice, risk assessment has contributed to both the reality and the perception of environmental justice problems because of the overly narrow and restricted manner in which it has been applied. In principle, however, risk assessment is part of the solution to environment injustices because it provides a beneficial construct for framing key questions and fostering constructive debate about how to answer them. Well-designed research studies and high-quality risk assessments are necessary to define the dimensions of the problem, to understand the root causes, and to identify effective, efficient, and equitable solutions. Ultimately, attaining the goal of environmental justice depends on putting risk assessment principles into practice.     

Monetary Valuation of Emissions in Implementing Environmental Policy

At various levels of environmental policy making there is a demand to translate polluting emissions into monetary units. In the so-called reduction cost approach, based upon policy targets, polluting emissions are expressed in monetary terms by determination of the marginal unit reduction cost at the emission target level. This approach provides shadow prices for emissions by which it can be established whether a certain measure or technology belongs to the most efficient set of measures by which the policy targets can be reached. This article argues that, if clear (generic) government targets such as national emission reduction targets exist for an emission, shadow prices derived by this method are to be preferred to shadow prices derived by other methods for decisions at the project (implementation) level. By application of the reduction cost approach, implementation decisions can be made that are both cost-effective and consistent with government policy.     

Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence-based framework

1. There is a mismatch between broad holistic questions typically posed in policy formation and narrow reductionist questions that are susceptible to scientific method. This inhibits the two-way flow of information at the science-policy interface and weakens the impact of applied ecology on environmental policy.
2. We investigate the approaches to building policy in the health services as a model to help establish a framework in applied ecology and environmental management by which reductionist science can underpin decision making at the policy level.
3. A comparison of policy documents in the health and environmental sectors reveals many similarities in identifying approaches and specific interventions that might achieve policy objectives. The difference is that in the health services, information on the effectiveness of potential interventions is far more readily available through the collaborative process of systematic review.
4. Synthesis and applications . Decision makers are increasingly looking to produce policies that are shaped by evidence through evidence-based policy making. The approach that we outline here provides a framework for structuring systematic reviews to deliver the evidence on key policy issues in a way that will see a faster return and provide better use of the systematic review methodology in environmental management.     

Risk communication and decision tools for children's health protection

Scientific discovery linking the environment to beneficial and adverse health children's health outcomes is rapidly expanding, leading scientists and health professionals to call for timely action to prevent harm and secure benefits. A robust method to synthesize what is known about the environmental drivers of health is a foundational step to making the science actionable by individuals and decision‐makers. To meet this need, a methodology called the Navigation Guide was crafted by a collaboration of 22 clinical and environmental health scientists. The Navigation Guide proceeds from methods of research synthesis used in clinical settings but accounts for differences between environmental and clinical health sciences related to the evidence‐base and decision‐context. The methodology can be used to develop evidence profiles that provide simple, transparent summaries, such as practice guidelines or other evidence‐based recommendations for prevention. Establishing proof‐of‐concept of the method is underway. Development of the Navigation Guide is extremely timely as it coincides with growing recognition of the need for updated methods in risk assessment. The costs in 2008 to the US healthcare system for treatment of childhood illnesses linked to toxic environmental exposures is conservatively estimated to be over $76 billion, and it is anticipated that US healthcare policy decisions will increasingly rely on systematic reviews of the evidence. The Navigation Guide is poised to provide a methodological bridge to link healthcare decision‐making to efforts to reduce toxic environmental exposures. The institutionalization of the Navigation Guide would provide a concrete mechanism for linking science to action to protect children's health. Birth Defects Research (Part C) 99:45–49, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Aspects of wetland law and policy in Australia

The existence of laws and policies in Australia that affect wetland protection and rehabilitation has been ascertained. There is a diverse range of environmental legislation, primarily at the state level, that potentially affects wetlands. There are environmental planning instruments made under legislation in New South Wales and Western Australia, which are specifically directed to the protection of wetlands. These are legislative-backed mechanisms providing legal protection to wetlands. Whilst there is no national policy on wetlands, a draft Commonwealth policy has been circulated and is expected to be released in final form in February 1997. New South Wales is the only state with a current wetlands policy, whilst some other states have draft policies. These policies do refer to wetland rehabilitation. The present federal government indicated it wished to finalize a national wetlands policy in the lead up to its election in March 1996. This is not likely to happen soon and any national policy will probably be an implementation framework for the policies of individual governments. It is suggested that a commonwealth policy, whilst useful in providing consistency in commonwealth government decision making affecting wetlands, does not go far enough. Given that only one state in Australia has a wetland policy, it may take the formulation of a national policy to get the remaining states and territories in Australia to finalize their own policies.     

Applying legal sunshine to the hidden regulation of biological control

This article identifies a serious legal gap in current United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy concerning decisions about the review and release of biological pest control agents. Currently, most of the critical documents and the quantitative evidence underlying USDA decisions and policy related to the petition, review, and release of biological pest control agents (biocontrols) for weeds are inaccessible. Current practices do not provide sufficient information for biologists or an informed public to understand or evaluate policy decisions and environmental outcomes. The USDA needs to comply with federal law by making all relevant documents and data available on the internet. Federal law and policy requires that the USDA release all relevant information, and make it readily accessible to all interested parties. Public disclosure of all relevant documents, along with the scientific evidence related to the review and release of biocontrols, is required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Disclosure of this information will impose at most a trivial financial and administrative burden on the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or the Division of Plant Protection and Quarantine. The importance of full information and open debate in the pursuit of both scientific knowledge and sound environmental management far outweighs any administrative burden.     

Applying legal sunshine to the hidden regulation of biological control

This article identifies a serious legal gap in current United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy concerning decisions about the review and release of biological pest control agents. Currently, most of the critical documents and the quantitative evidence underlying USDA decisions and policy related to the petition, review, and release of biological pest control agents (biocontrols) for weeds are inaccessible. Current practices do not provide sufficient information for biologists or an informed public to understand or evaluate policy decisions and environmental outcomes. The USDA needs to comply with federal law by making all relevant documents and data available on the internet. Federal law and policy requires that the USDA release all relevant information, and make it readily accessible to all interested parties. Public disclosure of all relevant documents, along with the scientific evidence related to the review and release of biocontrols, is required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Disclosure of this information will impose at most a trivial financial and administrative burden on the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or the Division of Plant Protection and Quarantine. The importance of full information and open debate in the pursuit of both scientific knowledge and sound environmental management far outweighs any administrative burden.     

Navigating uncertainty in environmental composite indicators

Composite indicators (CIs) are increasingly used to measure and track environmental systems. However, they have faced criticism for not accounting for uncertainties and their often arbitrary nature. This review highlights methodological challenges and uncertainties involved in creating CIs and provides advice on how to improve future CI development in practice. Linguistic and epistemic uncertainties enter CIs at different stages of development and may be amplified or reduced based on subjective decisions during construction. Lack of transparency about why decisions were made can risk impeding proper review and iterative development. Research on uncertainty in CIs currently focuses on how different construction decisions affect the overall results and is explored using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Much less attention is given to uncertainties arising from the theoretical framework underpinning the CI, and the sub-indicator selection process. This often lacks systematic rigour, repeatability and clarity. We recommend use of systems modelling as well as systematic elicitation and engagement during CI development in order to address these issues. Composite indicators make trends in complex environmental systems accessible to wider stakeholder groups, including policy makers. Without proper discussion and exposure of uncertainty, however, they risk misleading their users through false certainty or misleading interpretations. This review offers guidance for future environmental CI construction and users of existing CIs, hence supporting their iterative development and effective use in policy-making.     

Applying USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance in the 90s

Over the past decade, risk assessment has become increasingly relied upon for helping to make environmental management decisions. This trend has been accompanied by research and refinements in basic risk assessment methodologies to improve our ability to understand and evaluate the human health risks associated with chemical exposures.Despite this progress, significant uncertainties continue to be associated with the risk assessment process. These uncertainties typically derive from gaps in available data regarding chemical toxicity, and from difficulties in reliably estimating the magnitude of chemical exposures. Given these limitations, risk assessment is generally most valuable in evaluating relative risk; for example, when comparing alternatives to achieving a specified goal, setting priorities for protecting human health, or establishing procedures for properly allocating resources. Risk assessment can also be useful for developing regulatory benchmarks such as permit limits for air or water. In many cases, however, the limitations of the risk assessment process make it difficult (if not impossible) to reliably estimate an absolute level of risk, especially for a specific individual in an exposed population. In such cases, risk assessment can be seriously misapplied, and its results misinterpreted.This paper discusses some of the challenges that have been faced by the field of risk assessment during the 1990s. Current trends in risk assessment, and its use by regulatory agencies in making risk management decisions, are also described.     

Agricultural land use changes – a scenario-based sustainability impact assessment for Brandenburg,Germany

Decisions for agricultural management are taken at farm scale. However, such decisions may well impact upon regional sustainability. Two of the likely agricultural management responses to future challenges are extended use of irrigation and increased production of energy crops. The drivers for these are high commodity prices and subsidy policies for renewable energy. However, the impacts of these responses upon regional sustainability are unknown. Thus, we conducted integrated impact assessments for agricultural intensification scenarios in the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany, for 2025. One Irrigation scenario and one Energy scenario were contrasted with the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. We applied nine indicators to analyze the economic, social and environmental effects at the regional, in this case district scale, which is the smallest administrative unit in Brandenburg. Assessment results were discussed in a stakeholder workshop involving 16 experts from the state government.The simulated area shares of silage maize for fodder and energy were 29%, 37% and 49% for the BAU, Irrigation, and Energy scenarios, respectively. The Energy scenario increased bio-electricity production to 41% of the demand of Brandenburg, and it resulted in CO₂ savings of up to 3.5 million tons. However, it resulted in loss of biodiversity, loss of landscape scenery, increased soil erosion risk, and increased area demand for water protection requirements. The Irrigation scenario led to yield increases of 7% (rapeseed), 18% (wheat, sugar beet), and 40% (maize) compared to the BAU scenario. It also reduced the year-to-year yield variability. Water demand for irrigation was found to be in conflict with other water uses for two of the 14 districts. Spatial differentiation of scenario impacts showed that districts with medium to low yield potentials were more affected by negative impacts than districts with high yield potentials.In this first comprehensive sustainability impact assessment of agricultural intensification scenarios at regional level, we showed that a considerable potential for agricultural intensification exists. The intensification is accompanied by adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts. The novelty lies in the multiscale integration of comprehensive, agricultural management simulations with regional level impact assessment, which was achieved with the adequate use of indicators. It provided relevant evidence for policy decision making. Stakeholders appreciated the integrative approach of the assessment, which substantiated ongoing discussions among the government bodies. The assessment approach and the Brandenburg case study may stay exemplary for other regions in the world where similar economic and policy driving forces are likely to lead to agricultural intensification.     

Comparing Clean Water Act Section 316(b) policy options

This paper develops a comparative framework for policy proposals involving fish protection and Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b) addresses the impingement and entrainment of fish by cooling-water intake structures used principally by steam electric power plants. The framework is motivated by examining the role of adverse environmental impacts (AEIs) in the context of Section 316(b) decision making. AEI is mentioned in Section 316(b), but not defined. While various AEI options have been proposed over the years, none has been formalized through environmental regulations nor universally accepted. Using a multiple values approach from decision analysis, AEIs are characterized as measurement criteria for ecological impacts. Criteria for evaluating AEI options are identified, including modeling and assessment issues, the characterization of ecological value, regulatory implementation, and the treatment of uncertainty. Motivated by the difficulties in defining AEI once and for all, a framework is introduced to compare options for 316(b) decision making. Three simplified policy options are considered, each with a different implicit or explicit AEI approach: (1) a technology-driven rule based on a strict reading of the 316(b) regulatory text, and for which any impingement and entrainment count as AEI, (2) a complementary, open-ended risk-assessment process for estimating population effects with AEI characterized on a site-specific basis, and (3) an intermediate position based on proxy measures such as specially constructed definitions of littoral zone, sensitive habitat, or water body type. The first two proposals correspond roughly to responses provided, respectively, by the Riverkeeper environmental organization and the Utility Water Act Group to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s proposed 316(b) new facilities rule of August 2000; the third example is a simplified form of the EPA's proposed August 2000 new facilities rule itself. The simplified policy positions are compared using the three dimensions of the comparative policy framework: (1) the role of CWA philosophy or vision, such as the use of technology-forcing rules, (2) regulatory policy implementation, and (3) the role for scientific information and the knowledge base. Strengths and weaknesses of all three 316(b) policy approaches are identified. The U.S. EPA's final new facilities rule of November 2001 is briefly characterized using the comparative policy framework and used to further illustrate the approach.     

Prospects for incorporation of epigenetic biomarkers in human health and environmental risk assessment of chemicals

Epigenetic mechanisms have gained relevance in human health and environmental studies, due to their pivotal role in disease, gene × environment interactions and adaptation to environmental change and/or contamination. Epigenetic mechanisms are highly responsive to external stimuli and a wide range of chemicals has been shown to determine specific epigenetic patterns in several organisms. Furthermore, the mitotic/meiotic inheritance of such epigenetic marks as well as the resulting changes in gene expression and cell/organismal phenotypes has now been demonstrated. Therefore, epigenetic signatures are interesting candidates for linking environmental exposures to disease as well as informing on past exposures to stressors. Accordingly, epigenetic biomarkers could be useful tools in both prospective and retrospective risk assessment but epigenetic endpoints are currently not yet incorporated into risk assessments. Achieving a better understanding on this apparent impasse, as well as identifying routes to promote the application of epigenetic biomarkers within environmental risk assessment frameworks are the objectives of this review. We first compile evidence from human health studies supporting the use of epigenetic exposure‐associated changes as reliable biomarkers of exposure. Then, specifically focusing on environmental science, we examine the potential and challenges of developing epigenetic biomarkers for environmental fields, and discuss useful organisms and appropriate sequencing techniques to foster their development in this context. Finally, we discuss the practical incorporation of epigenetic biomarkers in the environmental risk assessment of chemicals, highlighting critical data gaps and making key recommendations for future research within a regulatory context.     

Mars, Materials, and Three Morality Plays: Materials Flows and Environmental Policy

Although industrial ecology represents a captivating metaphor and rich repertoire of analytical tools, its impact on environmental policy has been marginal at best. This article examines the insights provided by the studies of three common materials in the US. economy-lead, arsenic, and silver-and the abilrty of such studies to illuminate some larger and looming challenges for future environmental policy. Three specific challenges are explored: the flow of materials across national borders, the increasing embodiment of emissions in products, and the dangers of unchallenged assumptions about the drivers of material flows. The article argues that industrial ecology can inform public policy but that it is time for the practitioners of industrial ecology, an applied science, to apply it in the often messy world of environmental policymaking.     

Genomics: Applications,Challenges, and Opportunities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Genomics information has great potential to enhance assessment of risks to human health and the environment. Although understanding genomic responses with respect to adverse ecological and human health outcomes is not, as yet, established, it is important to consider the likely future impacts of genomics technologies on risk assessment and decision-making. Four areas are identified as those likely to be influenced by the generation of genomics information within, and the submission of such information to, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): risk assessment, prioritization of contaminants and contaminated sites, monitoring, and reporting provisions. For each of these risk assessment and regulatory applications, representative activities are presented to illustrate the application. Three major challenges for the USEPA associated with genomics are also identified in the areas of research, technical development, and capacity. The USEPA's initial activities to address these challenges are discussed. The Agency recognizes it must be prepared to use genomics information, and that many scientific, policy, ethical, and legal concerns will need to be addressed. The USEPA also recognizes it is essential to continue to collaborate with other federal agencies, academia, the regulated community, and other stakeholders in order to benefit from ongoing advances in genomics in the wider scientific and regulatory communities.     

Using triage for environmental remediation in Antarctica

Remediation of sites impacted by human activity in Antarctica is a difficult and resource intensive process. With increasing activity and climate change, the extent of damage from human activities is expected to increase and it will not be feasible to protect the environment entirely. We recommend a triage process be used to provide informed and transparent management decisions for comprehensive and adequate environmental remediation in Antarctica. We provide examples that demonstrate realistic outcomes where we have avoided tying up resources on disturbed sites that will recover naturally, are stable, or too damaged to recover, and that also incorporate feasible operational practices. Not all disturbed sites will be remediated and many of those that are, are unlikely to be returned to pristine condition. The decisions around remediation are not based solely on the desired environmental outcome. In the absence of effective legal obligation, we recognize that financial, social, policy, health and safety, technological confidence, and operational feasibility are part of the decision‐making process.     

Incorporating Science,Technology, Fairness,and Accountability in Environmental,Health, and Safety Decisions

The Precautionary Principle is in sharp political focus today because (1) the nature of scientific uncertainty is changing and (2) there is increasing pressure to base governmental action on more “rational” schemes, such as cost-benefit analysis and quantitative risk assessment, the former being an embodiment of ‘rational choice theory’ promoted by the Chicago school of law and economics. The Precautionary Principle has been criticized as being both too vague and too arbitrary to form a basis for rational decision making. The assumption underlying this criticism is that any scheme not based on cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment is both irrational and without secure foundation in either science or economics. This paper contests that view and makes explicit the rational tenets of the Precautionary Principle within an analytical framework as rigorous as uncertainties permit, and one that mirrors democratic values embodied in regulatory, compensatory, and common law. Unlike other formulations that reject risk assessment, this paper argues that risk assessment can be used within the formalism of tradeoff analysis—a more appropriate alternative to traditional cost-benefit analysis and one that satisfies the need for well-grounded public policy decision making. This paper will argue that the precautionary approach is the most appropriate basis for policy, even when large uncertainties do not exist, especially where the fairness of the distributions of costs and benefits of hazardous activities and products are a concern. Furthermore, it will offer an approach to making decisions within an analytic framework, based on equity and justice, to replace the economic paradigm of utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.     

Predators and the public trust

Many democratic governments recognize a duty to conserve environmental resources, including wild animals, as a public trust for current and future citizens. These public trust principles have informed two centuries of U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions and environmental laws worldwide. Nevertheless numerous populations of large‐bodied, mammalian carnivores (predators) were eradicated in the 20th century. Environmental movements and strict legal protections have fostered predator recoveries across the U.S.A. and Europe since the 1970s. Now subnational jurisdictions are regaining management authority from central governments for their predator subpopulations. Will the history of local eradication repeat or will these jurisdictions adopt public trust thinking and their obligation to broad public interests over narrower ones? We review the role of public trust principles in the restoration and preservation of controversial species. In so doing we argue for the essential roles of scientists from many disciplines concerned with biological diversity and its conservation. We look beyond species endangerment to future generations' interests in sustainability, particularly non‐consumptive uses. Although our conclusions apply to all wild organisms, we focus on predators because of the particular challenges they pose for government trustees, trust managers, and society. Gray wolves Canis lupus L. deserve particular attention, because detailed information and abundant policy debates across regions have exposed four important challenges for preserving predators in the face of interest group hostility. One challenge is uncertainty and varied interpretations about public trustees' responsibilities for wildlife, which have created a mosaic of policies across jurisdictions. We explore how such mosaics have merits and drawbacks for biodiversity. The other three challenges to conserving wildlife as public trust assets are illuminated by the biology of predators and the interacting behavioural ecologies of humans and predators. The scientific community has not reached consensus on sustainable levels of human‐caused mortality for many predator populations. This challenge includes both genuine conceptual uncertainty and exploitation of scientific debate for political gain. Second, human intolerance for predators exposes value conflicts about preferences for some wildlife over others and balancing majority rule with the protection of minorities in a democracy. We examine how differences between traditional assumptions and scientific studies of interactions between people and predators impede evidence‐based policy. Even if the prior challenges can be overcome, well‐reasoned policy on wild animals faces a greater challenge than other environmental assets because animals and humans change behaviour in response to each other in the short term. These coupled, dynamic responses exacerbate clashes between uses that deplete wildlife and uses that enhance or preserve wildlife. Viewed in this way, environmental assets demand sophisticated, careful accounting by disinterested trustees who can both understand the multidisciplinary scientific measurements of relative costs and benefits among competing uses, and justly balance the needs of all beneficiaries including future generations. Without public trust principles, future trustees will seldom prevail against narrow, powerful, and undemocratic interests. Without conservation informed by public trust thinking predator populations will face repeated cycles of eradication and recovery. Our conclusions have implications for the many subfields of the biological sciences that address environmental trust assets from the atmosphere to aquifers.     

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT: TASKS AND OBLIGATIONS

Synthesizing, characterizing, and communicating the risk science information used in environmental decision-making depends in the first instance on the nature and quality of the technical analysis. At the same time, other important features of the risk analysis, features that require special attention to provide context for the analysis as a whole, are frequently overlooked in practice or in presentation. Now, as the field expands to meet new challenges and to include new participants, all practitioners — government, academics, industry, and interest groups — must give renewed emphasis to certain hall marks of sound risk assessment: identifying incomplete information and its influence on the risk assessment process, articulating alternative assumptions and the scientific or policy reasons for choices made among alternatives, describing process considerations and limitations as well as numerical results, and fully informing decision makers, the press, and the interested public. The resulting greater clarity and transparency in the scientific analyses that under lie environmental decision making can enhance credibility and public confidence in the scientific foundation for those decisions.     

Rapid policy network mapping: a new method for understanding governance structures for implementation of marine environmental policy

Understanding the relationships and dependencies in the development and implementation of environmental policy is essential to the effective management of the marine environment. A new method of policy network analysis called 'Rapid Policy Network Mapping' was developed that delivers an insight for both technical and non-technical users into the lifecycle, relationships and dependencies of policy development. The method was applied to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive in the UK. These case studies highlight the environmental policy challenges to protect the UK's marine coastal environment and they identify differences in the styles of policy implementation between the devolved authorities of the UK. Rapid Policy Network Mapping provides an opportunity to create a collaborative policy data environment with a relatively small investment. As a tool for civil society it should assist in their ability to understand and influence policy making and implementation.