Thursday, 27 June 2002  
The widest coverage in Sri Lanka.
Features
News

Business

Features

Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Government - Gazette

Sunday Observer

Budusarana On-line Edition







 




Environment, development management and "Gaping chasms"

by Prof. C. Suriyakumaran

For long years now and in any event since the Stockholm Conference of 1973, we have gone on creating, promoting and supporting an Environment Program for ourselves countrywide. We have sought to refine it from time to time, particularly with Summits such as that of Brazil in 1992. Catch phrases have come in their course, in particular that of Sustainable Development, welcome, indeed suitable, and even a 'visiting card' to our respectabilities.

As in my preface to my 1991 Lectures at the LSE 'The Environment as a topic is a top draw worldwide, the new 'Goddess', and our ticket to the new 'harmonizing culture' that we want to claim for ourselves, for all the trespasses that we committed in the past. A Goddess, it seems, understood by some, not understood at all by many and, as for all Goddesses, more worshipped than followed. As for development, we still continue to live in our own ways, with the 'Holy Grail' of 'Steady State' growth, as elusive as ever'. Along with this also came the tool of Environmental Assessments, riding with evangelical fervour into the hitherto sole constituency of economics and economic primacy.

The clash became inevitable the way both set about their perceptions of their Missions and Tasks. Environment and Environment Assessment (EA), despite lip services to the link with Economic Development, rode it as a thing apart, and so never learnt how to link organically with Development. As we all know there were EA obiter dicta pronouncements against Development, becoming thus often a) opponents of each other and b) unable to establish mutually provident policies together for themselves. EA as practiced never realized its own limits, and only irritated thereby development decision makers and making. Already, a Western specialist had noted long ago, 'One could have an EA which made perfect sense at micro level, which made equally perfect nonsense at the macro level'.

And Sustainable Development could not be equilibrium at some lesser level of development, a 'Low Level Equilibrium Trap' as I had termed it, but at essential, highest, feasible development.

The literature, at one time scanty, is now much more solid and expanding. To be very brief, the gaps were on both sides as National Resources endowments were always each the basis for Economic Development as also the objects of Environmental Management. As recorded in a preliminary "Environment 2000 Global Letter" from the United Nations/UNEP - Sasakawa World Environment Prize Winners to the Peoples of the World, "neither side has met, or even thought of meeting together professionally, and seriously, within their country to consider their questions together!" On the economic side, as a noted US economist indeed observed "For too long, Environmental concerns have not been integrated into development policies.

Economists have failed to consider legitimate (repeat 'legitimate') Environmental concerns which could have been easily subsumed in a well designed and undertaken, wider, cost benefit approach". In turn, this led also to environmentalists having adopted "sledge hammer approaches to environmental improvements" that stalled Development.

Indeed, as the Global Letter observed, "the task of our future is not even a shared task but the same tasks which cannot be performed except together!" In these, both for environment and development, methologies involving joint environment - economic models of resources, management, comprehending as much 'conservation', of resources as 'conversion' of resources, were never adequately considered in development or environment decision-makings. All these required not just one, simplistic, EA but a set of four tools, as follows:

A-Ex Ante,

(i) Joint Enviro-Economic Resources Balance Sheets (subsuming initial Sectoral Assessments, new Alternative Resources/Technology inputs, and harmonizing of both (Economic) Demand and (Environment) Need. (cf. CRDS Sp. Publicn., 1995, "Resources Balance Sheets - Essential Tool for Environment and Development Management")*

* Among the listings of National/Area Resources, all Residues (Natural/Human) are a distinct, new and major resource category.

(ii) Integrated Environment - Economic Cost Benefit Systems (replacing traditional economic C/B models, and its EA equivalent)

(N - These two, Ex Ante steps are indispensable in any project or program before a truly beneficial decision may be had) B-Ex Post,

(iii) A fully, integrated 'development sensitive' Environmental Audit System to be had along side traditional Financial Audit, optimizing Technology and Resource uses 'along the line, and indeed enhancing profits; (cf. CRDS Sp. Publicn., 1995, "Environmental Audit - A Development Sensitive Methodology For Environmental Management").

(iv) The UN led System of Expanded Environment Economic Accounting (SEEA), to serve as a 'concurrent barometer' along with the well heeled GPD indices, for 'continuous' macro level monitoring and policy making.

Rounding these, but at global level - and thus a prime Third World agenda for the coming Jo'burg Summit - is an indispensable, first world acceptance of Technology as centre piece of Third World resolution and so of a Global Environmental Technologies Marshal Aid Program" in a Global Insurance to both Worlds - in which also the developing countries instead of being partners in the products of technology become now, partners in the Process of Technology. As a tail piece one must record the marginality, sometimes even diversionary nature, of so called environmental awards as centre piece of incentives, so much advertised, and sadly also embraced by Government and other sectors.

The glamour private programs of various labelled ISO awards fall in this category, giving cosy satisfaction to recipients and profitable earnings to promoters. A recent different initiative, the UNIDO National Cleaner Production Centre Program, consisting of trite goals, and loose "work contents", can become another similar diversionary problem.

Those in Authority need to develop thinking and take decisions into their own hands. Whether these will happen, and a real meeting of Environment Development Harmonization and Management will be attained is another matter.

The writer is Depy.Ex.Secy. UN Econ. Comn. Asia Pacific; Global Dir.Ed., Tr., T. A. UNEP; Regional Director Asia/Pacific; Member UNEP/Prep. Panel J'burg Summit; United Nations/Sasakawa World/Env. Prize Laureate, 1995; Hony.Fellow Chd.Institute of Envt. Management (U.K.)

Affno

HNB-Pathum Udanaya2002

www.eagle.com.lk

Crescat Development Ltd.

www.priu.gov.lk

www.helpheroes.lk


News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |


Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager


Hosted by Lanka Com Services