By Najib Saab, Issue 15, November-December 1998

As fires were devouring Lebanese forests, reducing millions of trees to ashes in one of the most outrageous environmental and natural disasters in the country, the Ministry of Environment was vocally celebrating Arab Environment Day on 14 October, publishing a newsletter about its "achievements", and declaring 16 November a national environment day. It seemed that the priority during this hellfire was to create another occasion for public statements and speeches.

Among the publicized "achievements" was a $2.5 million project to manage three natural reserves and a study on biodiversity, which was a repetition of previous studies, complete with dozens of invitations to generous banquets and eloquent speeches all over Lebanon. As much as we support natural reserves and biodiversity studies, we are worried that all of those may, in the near future, become a section in natural history books, speaking about species that once existed and were destroyed by fires. Before spending millions of dollars from international funds on studies with no focus and biodiversity banquets, did the Ministry identify priorities for basic environmental needs of the country, and was forest fire protection strategy among those priorities? Or was it occupied with subjects as the "Emergency Plan for Metn", a study commissioned last year which ended up with recommendations such as proposing fire-escape stairs for buildings? Are projects being planned to meet national requirements or to suit local opportunists and "environmental orientalists" from international organizations?

Forest fires occur in countries of nature and climate similar to Lebanon, during dry season and heat waves. The scandal lies in the absence of this issue from the priorities list of the government, and specifically the Ministry of Environment, which is supposed to be the authority for environmental planning, supervision, coordination and pressure on other ministries. Who has set priorities for the natural reserve projects, biodiversity studies, climate change, ozone and others? Why should environmental priorities of a country building its infrastructure after 20 years of destruction and stagnation, be dictated by "global experts", who often promote ready-made solutions of their agencies at the expense of actual local needs. And, finally, who decided that the purchase of four-wheel-drive automobiles, often used by senior and junior officials for show-off driving inside the city, and the employment of private drivers and entourage staff from public funds, are more important than the simplest measures to protect forests? What are the achievements of those who roamed the world, at the expense of international and local public funds, to attend workshops on conserving forests?

Where are the plans which they were supposed to develop and implement?

Or is it within forest protection priorities to construct a palace-like mansion for an NGO in a remote mountain area, with international funds and the active support of the Ministry of Environment, under the title of forest development? Wasn't it more sensible to use public funds in a humble and efficient way, and develop?

Meanwhile, in the midst of the forest fire foray, the Ministry of Environment declared that it has completed the installation of a biofilter plant costing more than $4 million, for treating stinking odors in the Quarantina composting complex at the outskirts of Beirut. Following public protests against the stench, the biofilter was marketed as the only and final solution to the problem. However, news are being circulated today that the smell will remain, because it comes from other sources. It was known from the outset that the basic problem was in the design of the aeration system and the capacity of the composting plant. This cannot be solved by fixing a biofilter. Such an advanced system comes at a later stage, after solving all other waste problems, including collection, separation and treatment. Its application today is restricted to countries with advanced environmental technology. Using it now for Beirut wastes is like spraying costly perfumes on a baby before changing his dirty diapers.

Who has set these emergency plans, and according to which technical considerations and priorities? Shouldn't those problems have been foreseen before? When statements by officials encouraged neighboring residents to destroy outdated waste incinerators just refurbished with millions of public funds, did they have the viable alternative? After all, who are the waste management experts who decided to adopt landfilling solution only, and not an integrated approach which includes: reduction, re-use, re-cycling, composting, incineration and landfilling? Does the World Bank loan which is restricted to landfills include reserve funds for their treatment in the future? And on which basis was it decided to drop emissions of cement and chemical plants from priority issues, and concentrate on quarries only? Is the real crisis, in waste management, forest fires and general environmental policies, one of resources or that of knowledge, will, management and institutions?

In the aftermath of the fires, there were calls for an emergency plan. We hope it will be different from the waste emergency plan, and the emergency title will not be used as a pretext for duplicate studies accompanied by declared and concealed contracts.

We need to develop from a state governed by occasional power conglomerates to a state of institutions. Otherwise, all solutions will, at best, remain first aid experiments, leading from one environmental catastrophe to another.