As a result, we can see the development of environmental law form a sectoral, reactive stance to a proactive, integrated approach. When the environmental problem is treated integrated, ‘identification of a type of environmentally harmful activity’ as the first step of whole command and control regulation system is now somewhat outdated.
　　(b) Standards Setting
　　British pollution control has a tradition of discretionary, local decision-making and a system based on pragmatism, in which the effects on the environment are balanced with social, economic and political factors. As a result, the environmental standards are differentiated and statutory standards absent.
　　The public interest objective of environmental pollution control system is to achieve the socially optimal level of pollution, which should be set at a level at which the total benefits exceed the total costs by the greatest amount, and at which the marginal benefits are equal to the marginal costs.　There are a number of different standards in environmental law, but a crude division can be made into those which are set by reference to the target which is being protected (e.g. environmental quality standards) and those which are set by reference to the source of the pollution (e.g. emission standards, process standards, process standards).　
　In Britain, at the standard-setting level, the discretion is usually given to the relevant regulatory body. Mainly individualized standards negotiated between firms and regulatory agencies.　Parliament rarely sets firm policies and standards in legislation, allowing for these to be defined in delegated legislation or through administrative guidance. For example the environment Agency has discretion over the setting of standards for discharges to water and in the definition of ‘best available techniques not entailing excessive cost’ (BATNEEC).
　　The environmental standard-setting power is decentralized by being given to a wide range of bodies and by geographical decentralisation, which lead to incoherent environmental policy with very little uniformity across the country. Firstly, environmental law has been split amongst a number of statutes, as a result, also were the rule and policy-making power and enforcement entrusted to a bewildering array of agencies. (1) There is a range of bodies exercising environmental responsibilities, such as the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, the Cabinet Committee on the Environment, Green Ministers Committee, and Greening operations. (2) There are many decisions and policies which have important environmental effects have been made by different departments in central government including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Trade and Industry, and Treasury.　Secondly, local authorities also have wide-ranging environmental protection powers (e.g. air pollution, contaminated land, noise control, town and country planning and environmental health), set and change the standards reference to local environmental quality. The public interest justification for differentiated performance standards is that, as a consequence of geographical and other circumstances, there are often significant variations in the damage costs arising from a particular discharge and in the costs of abating it.　Over the years, this decentralisation of power has trended to result in a rather incoherent environmental policy, with very little uniformity across the country.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页