Summary

U.S. agencies perform a variety of work that could potentially affect the environments of other nations. For example, they apply pesticides in foreign countries to control agricultural pests, store waste on overseas military bases, issue permits for ocean dumping, and negotiate international trade agreements with environmental consequences. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions, but the courts have not determined whether this requirement extends to these agencies' activities abroad. Executive Order 12114 specifically requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of "major" actions abroad but exempts other actions from this requirement. This report (1) compares the requirements for environmental impact assessments under the act and Executive Order 12114; (2) reviews federal agencies' implementation of Executive Order 12114; and (3) analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of applying the act's procedures to, or strengthening environmental impact assessment procedures for, federal agencies' activities outside the United States.

GAO found that: (1) Executive Order 12114 requirements for environmental impact assessments are more ambiguous and limited than NEPA requirements, particularly concerning the scope of federal actions and required analyses and participation; (2) the order does not fully describe the types of documents or analyses to be used in the assessment process or call for external review of the assessment process; (3) 21 federal agencies have established environmental assessment procedures and many have applied their procedures to projects abroad, but the order's ambiguities and the agencies' differing interpretations of the order's applicability to their projects have resulted in inconsistent application; (4) questions about NEPA applicability to trade agreements have arisen because of ambiguities in NEPA; (5) difficulties in applying NEPA procedures or strengthening environmental impact assessment procedures abroad include infringement of host countries' sovereignty, increases in the number of lawsuits and costs, and encroachment upon the President's flexibility in conducting foreign affairs; and (6) strengthening environmental impact assessment procedures abroad would be consistent with U.S. initiatives to strengthen foreign assistance agencies' and multilateral development banks' environmental impact assessment procedures.