By Najib Saab, Issue 26, May 2000

There is a general tendency to always blame others for environmental deterioration. So the public accuses neighbors, industrialists, farmers, politicians and even other countries. This attitude is no more restricted to the public, as it also characterizes the behavior of many environmental groups. But when environmentalists lay the blame solely on other people and external factors, they relinquish their primary responsibility to find solutions and devise realistic and applicable environmental policies to be promoted among decision makers and the general public.

This inclination to transfer the blame and responsibility to others, has also become the norm among many newly established ministries of environment in Arab countries, and has in some cases reached the level of paranoia.

Psychology textbooks define paranoia as: "A mental disorder in which the sufferer believes that other people despise or persecute him." This feeling prevents such an individual from addressing the source of the problem, since he limits its causes to outside factors that are conspiring against him. Such a negative and defensive attitude is a major cause of the lack of meaningful environmental action on the part of government and civil organizations alike. Good environmental policies are the result of a dialogue between environmentalists on one hand, and supporters of development on the other. So, if the environmentalists are lagging in defending and marketing their cause, they should not blame others for their failure.

Examples of this trend are abundant. The environmental law (code of the environment), remains under revision in Lebanon by the Judicial and Administrative Committee of the Parliament, six years after the Ministry of Environment started working on it, spending over one million dollars of international and government funds. The Committee rejected the proposed law on the grounds of constitutional errors and contradictions, legitimate remarks that we have already raised. Instead of revising the draft at an earlier stage to present a viable version, the experts accused the chairman of the committee of conspiring with the "enemies of the environment."

However, the chairman's comments about the proposal were more professional than the defense of those supporting it. He stated that the articles of the code were lengthy and could be cut down by half; the draft had overlooked some constitutional fundamentals; the text contained contradictory articles, which would cause a conflict in the jurisdiction of different ministries and administrations; the wording appeared to be a bad and confusing translation of selections from laws of other countries; the articles were of a general nature which prevented proper implementation. One article, for example, stipulates that every building permit should be approved by the Ministry of Environment, which would means, if passed in this obscure terminology, that whenever a citizen in the remotest of villages needs to build a wall, a room, or even a window, he will need the approval of the Ministry of Environment. Did the experts take into account the administrative consequences to enact such a law, while the Ministry of Environment is already suffering from lack of funding and personnel? And, after all, should those simple matters be handled at the central ministerial level, or by local municipal authorities?

In a similar case, the Ministry of Environment rushed into setting detailed implementation procedures for environmental impact assessment, in the framework of an internationally financed program, only to discover too late that none of these procedures could be executed before the law was passed. Again, the consultants blamed a mysterious group of "enemies" for hindering the application of environmental impact assessment, whereas they would have been better off revising their strategy and developing clear environmental policy, in order to devise a realistic "environmental business plan" with specific targets.

Such a business plan may include, for example:

-Immediate termination of construction along the coastal line.

-Developing environmentally-sensitive zoning and land use schemes within 2 years.

-Creating 25% extra urban green areas and parks in the coming 10 years.

-Increasing forest area by 100,000 hectares in the coming 10 years.

-Cutting solid waste by half, and recycling 30% of it in the coming 5 years.

-Reducing industrial waste by 40% in the coming 7 years.

-Cutting down the price of unleaded fuel by 10% and increasing the price of leaded fuel by 10% effective immediately, and converting to unleaded fuel entirely in the coming 10 years.

Unless the Ministry of Environment sets a plan with goals such as these, and puts them forward for discussion with other ministries and the public, it cannot accuse anyone of hindering its job. Whereas some people demand that the Ministry of Environment be given an executive role, it had better assume its planning and advisory role first. For instance, we never heard that the Ministry of Environment had developed a national plan for waste management or proposed a proper land use scheme, or at least suggested guidelines.

In an attempt to make up for lack of official policies and action, some enthusiasts rush to propagate alternative projects with public initiatives that in many cases lack practical and professional grounds. In the absence of comprehensive programs to tackle forest fires, for example, an initiative was launched to collect donations in order to buy a plane that would extinguish forest fires using seawater. But it had skipped the attention of those good-intentioned planners that saline water would destroy those trees that survive the fire, and require seasons of rain to clean up the soil from salt water, before it is again suitable to grow new trees. The airplane was promoted in Lebanon on the basis that it would utilize seawater for its tanks, whereas in its country of origin it uses fresh water from lakes. Specialists know that the way to handle forest fires lies in an integrated forest management plan, that includes protecting the forest, cleaning dry weeds and bushes, installing a network of artificial lakes, establishing specialized monitoring centers run by trained forest rangers, and implementing a serious reforestation program.

We have repeatedly observed environmentalists blaming contractors for squandering and high cost of programs, such as waste treatment. However, since it is the legitimate purpose of the contractor to use his expertise and experience to obtain the highest profit, it remains the job of the environmental administration to be the competent consultant and supervisor. When the contractor proves technically superior to the advisor, he can turn the situation to his advantage in order to increase his profits. If we grant concession to garbage contractors to collect and treat waste on basis of weight, and allow them the upper hand in setting the technical plan, can we expect them to work on decreasing the amount of waste and thus cutting on their income? Do we blame the contractor, or the administration that neglected to set a national waste management plan, and was satisfied with first aid treatment through emergency plans?

Environmental bodies are the ones responsible for setting policies and plans, and thus they are not permitted to blame others before they fulfill their designated role. A chemical or cement factory performs its duty and exercises its right by enlisting the aid of the best scientists to develop its products, and the best lawyers to protect its interests. Environmental bodies should secure the assistance of first-class scientists and legal advisors who are able to withstand the confrontation, instead of hiding behind conspiracy theories and paranoia to cover up incompetence.

Environmental bodies, be them governmental or NGO's, should let go of their paranoia and embrace positive fighting tactics. They should realize, once and for all, that they couldn’t face the professionalism embraced by industrialists, traders and developers to protect their profits, with the mentality of amateurs. It is high time to ask: who did prevent the Ministry of Environment from developing national environmental policies and setting specific goals and execution plan with clear priorities and time-table, like any business plan set by major companies or even other ministries responsible for development and money-generating services? Who prevented them from bringing in the best specialists and experts to establish effective environmental institutions, instead of relying on political, party or personal allies, regardless of proper qualifications? And who prevented non-governmental organizations from setting work plans based on facts, and playing the role of a real watchdog, instead of restricting their activity to occasional pointless statements in the media?

Environmentalists are required to defend the environment seriously and professionally. That is their duty against the defense which polluters exercise to protect their industries and businesses. In order to secure compromise solutions leaning to the advantage of the environment, defenders cannot challenge professional enemies with ad-hoc tactics.