By Najib Saab, Issue 32, November 2000

The Syrian economy is on the brink of a new era, signified by the government's program to create some 500,000 new job opportunities, which entails encouraging investment and revitalizing management methods in the public sector, along with modernizing industrial and agricultural production processes. The new regulations to support private investment facilitate procedures, at the central government level as well as at the provincial scale, through establishing investment commissions whose job is to study project applications and issue final decisions within 48 hours.

All this is welcome and overdue news, and should prompt an inflow of capitals. Syria is a country rich in natural and human resources, strategically located, and enjoys high competitive qualities. Modernizing the laws, adopting dynamic management approach and training qualified personnel, are elements that will attract investors and guarantee a speedy surge in industry and production. This will effectively spread the course of development and ensure that its benefits reach all sectors of the society.

However, a hasty drive towards development may occur, in many cases, at the expense of the environment. Responding to the immediate needs by increasing production and creating additional income, to relieve the suffering of the populace, might often destroy natural resources and harm people, thus affecting the two fundamental elements of production and development. Contemplating other country's experiences that rushed into procedures to increase production while neglecting the environment, we find examples of what is to be avoided. In most cases, curing the environmental damage will be more costly than taking steps to prevent it in the first place.

As the investment commissions in the Syrian provinces embark on their work, some alarming signs started to emerge. These commissions include representatives from the environment directorates in the provinces, reporting to the Ministry of Environment, which makes for a very positive element. However, the question is whether these newly established departments are qualified and equipped to inspect, evaluate and monitor, basing their work on clear standards and guidelines? Can they assess the environmental impact of a certain project in 48 hours, as required? Some of these departments do not even have access to cars that their representatives can use to visit sites of proposed project, let alone certain specialized environmental skills. As a result, many projects are being approved with an incomplete environmental report or no report at all.

I am not questioning the exigency of economic and social development, and thus do not advocate any form of environmental fundamentalism that opposes industries and development in general. I might even go as far as acknowledging that sometimes a short-term environmental damage could be tolerated, if it were necessary to provide basic needs and improve living standards. Realizing this theory, which may look simple, requires complex measures that prevent overstepping some red lines and causing irreparable damage. Environmental policies should observe a sequence of priorities that takes into consideration, by order of importance: the urgency of the problem, the irreparable damage, the impact on health and the quality of life. In this regard, any action that will result in irreparable environmental damage should be immediately halted, even if that caused a delay in certain economic processes.

Environment is a valuable commodity, and environmental vandalism entails a fiscal bill, besides affecting the quality of life. A recent World Bank study shows that the losses caused by environmental deterioration in Syria are over US$ 700 million per year. This is caused by four main factors: US$ 310 million due to the deterioration of soil productivity due to unsound agricultural practices, including irrigation systems, fertilizers, pesticides and overgrazing; US$ 290 million due to contaminated water and the depletion of water resources, most of which is used to treat health complications; US$ 60 million resulting from health problems caused by air pollution; US$ 40 million due to random urbanization. These figures show that unless environmental management is included as a main ingredient in development equations, the losses resulting from environmental destruction would be enough to eliminate any gains generated by development. The cost of preventive measures against these four main environmental problems was estimated at US$ 350 million per year over a period of 10 years, which means that the cost of prevention is less than the losses incurred by neglecting environmental aspects. However, the solution is not that simple, as money needed for prevention measures should be available beforehand, to be used in long-term environmental measures, which might hinder other necessary development projects having the potential of generating faster results. Again, compromises are needed between development plans and environmental requirements.

Appropriate technology is necessary to serve the environment and the economy at the same time. Reaching higher standard of living and better quality of life, through economic development, often causes environmental stress. However, a prosperous and technologically advanced society is better equipped to find solutions to environmental problems. Still the key word is balance. Sustainable investment programs should be accompanied by investment in the environment and the quality of life, because that's what will ensure a bright future for Syria.