By Najib Saab, Issue 24, March 2000

"There is no middle ground in environmental issues", said a very enthusiastic friend, in objection to a number of Arab and international initiatives that he considered to be much less than the ultimate aspirations of environmentalists. He went on describing some politicians and environmental officials as mercenaries and traitors, for accepting compromises in environmental policies and treaties. I had to remind the friend that resonant environmental slogans are meaningless, unless coupled with a realistic action plan. The time is long past when general talk about the environment, to generate applause and excitement, was considered a heroic deed and a fight for the public good. And so is gone the time of demagogic slogans that have pushed politics, economy, and intellect in our societies, into a state of decay. So let us not repeat that bitter experience with respect to environmental issues.

Environmental management is based on environmental policies. When all the nations came together in Basel, Switzerland in 1989, to endorse a treaty prohibiting the transboundary export of hazardous wastes, it was impossible to reach an agreement unless some compromises were accepted. This allowed for the infiltration of shipments of toxic waste during the subsequent years under the pretext of recycling. Even though that created a loop hole through which huge amounts of wastes were leaked into developing countries as recyclable material, the real question remains: how would the situation be if the Basel convention had not been endorsed, waiting for the “ideal” deal? The definite answer is that negotiations would be sttill ongoing to date, with the absence of a legal framework that controlled the transfer of toxic wastes, making the amounts going across the borders a hundred fold more.

The realistic solution was to accept the best possible conditions in Basel, while continuing to work on a parallel path to reach a better deal. And that is exactly what happened. A couple of months ago, an agreement was signed in Basel to establish an independent fund for emergency action against accidents involving toxic pollution. It also included measures for better implementation of the prohibition of transporting hazardous wastes from industrial countries to developing countries, and to support the development of clean industries that generate less wastes. We should acknowledge that the Basel convention created an international framework in the past years that restricted trading in hazardous wastes, and whose benefits reached several Arab countries. In Lebanon alone, several shipments of industrial and chemical wastes, which were imported under the cover of raw material, were returned to their country of origin in Germany, Belgium and Canada, in conformity with the terms of the Basel Convention.

The Basel convention is not the only example on the necessity of compromises, as all other international environmental treaties and conventions were the result of negotiations that ended, temporarily, with the best possible compromise, in anticipation of another “fight’. Without accepting middle grounds, it wouldn't have been possible to achieve any progress in finding solutions for the issues of climate change, ozone depletion, combating desertification and preserving bio-diversity. Progressing one step at a time, while continuing the work and effort to arrive at a state of equilibrium that protects the environment without strangling development, is the policy that will produce the positive results of environmental action, and not demagogy and turmoil.Politics are to a large extent the product of compromise. The same goes for the environment, as well as the economy and even the tobacco industry. Months ago, international tobacco companies submitted to severe penalties and sanctions imposed by the American government, after years of court battles. During that period, the tobacco industry appointed the best lawyers and public relations firms, and developed friends among important research centers through donations. All of that was to support their position that diminishes the dangers of tobacco while it stresses the importance of the tobacco industry towards for the national economy.At the same time, anti-tobacco groups also appointed prominent lawyers and provided funds for scientists and research centers to prove the severe effects of the tobacco on human health and the economy, highlighting the huge expenditures on health services to treat cases related to smoking. Even though it was clear that cigarettes were a hazard, it took years of scientific and court confrontations before the anti-smoking advocates won, and tobacco factories conceded defeat.

The environmental issue faces similar situation. Polluting industries have the money and the influence to impose their plans and hire the best lawyers and entice some scientists to support their point of view. In return, ministries of environment and environmental groups should seek to attain legal and scientific capacities that are superior to those of the industries, so that in the end the compromise will be to the benefit of the environment and balanced development.

Until such a time that environmental groups gain scientific and legal superiority, they will remain the underdog in their struggle against polluting industries. Their plans, programs and development strategies will continue to be cries of pain and disability that deal with the ideals, while failing to accomplish the realistic.