England's green and pleasant land?

Martne Pollution Bulletin, Volume 21, No. 6. pp. 261-262, 1990. Printed in Great Britain.

England's Green and Pleasant Land'?. Over the last 18 months, Great Britain has at last struggled into the environmental age. While this change has at least partially been brought about through Margaret Thatcher's famous 'Green Speech' in mid1988, other factors clearly lie behind this new trend in British politics and in the national attitude to environmental protection. One major driving force for this belated emergence of an environmental awareness in Britain has been the existence of such an ethic overseas. It may be argued that Britain has lagged significantly behind much of the rest of the western world in its attitude to environmental protection (the other notable laggard being Japan). This is the case both with respect to governmental attitudes and in terms of general public awareness. In Australia, the USA, and parts of western Europe, environmental issues have been high on the public and political agendas for a decade or more, and an informed and vociferous public exists in each of these regions. By contrast, environmental issues in Britain have frequently taken a back seat to matters of apparently greater significance to the British public, such as industrial unrest, the economic deficit, and Princess Di's latest hat. As a result, the environmental battle in Britain has been largely fought to date by local or international pressure groups, with such organizations as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace being predominant. The forging of a cohesive Europe through the development of the European Community has undoubtedly had a major impact on the general environmental awareness in Britain. Environmental initiatives arising from Brussels since the mid-1980s have been both comprehensive and far-reaching, and have forced national, regional, and local authorities to finally make coherent plans to 'clean up their acts'. Whether or not one considers specific single initiatives from Brussels (such as the control of nitrates in drinking water) to be justifiable either scientifically or in terms of costeffectiveness compared to other needs, there can be little doubt that the plethora of directives from that source has been of great importance in overcoming British inertia on environmental matters. The fact that other Member States in the E E C boast 'Green Parties' of one form or another with significant political representation in regional and national governments is also relevant to the British situation. Cynics may say that Margaret Thatcher simply saw an opportunity to get her foot in the door before her political opponents in Britain; however, the effect has undoubtedly been beneficial, whatever the motives. The winds of change have been blowing through Westminster for over a year now, and the environmental movement has been fuelled by further pressure both at home and abroad, and by such events as the privatization of many of the larger service industries in Britain.

0025-326X/90 $3.00+0.00 ,~ 199(} Pergamon Press plc

The 'green movement' in Britain has been transformed almost overnight from the status of a pressure group (apparently represented exclusively by young men with aggressive attitudes and unkempt beards) to that of a fully-fledged political party. The wisdom of this change in status is questioned by some, believing that greater success may be had through the Greens remaining independent from the central political stage and continuing to 'moan loudly from the wings'. However, even in the absence of proportional representation (which denies minor parties any reasonable chance of attaining seats in Westminster), the Greens have clearly already had a dramatic impact on party politics in Britain. This has come about through the tendency of all British politics to rotate about the centre, and hence through the emergence of a progressive environmental awareness in the parties which continue to hold the bulk of the seats in Parliament. Tories and Socialists now vie with each other to be 'supergreen', and no party broadcast is complete without extravagant promises on at least local and preferably global issues, measures to deal with the Greenhouse Effect and destruction of the ozone layer being the most popular. Several problems exist here, and one in particular is fundamental to the future of environmental science and to the political growth of environmental protection movements. On a personal level, it is of course somewhat bemusing to have espoused and encouraged environmental protection 'from the sharp end' for over two decades and to suddenly have so many latter-day home-grown experts appearing around one. However, any tendency towards personal cynicism can be reduced by attending less cocktail parties where n o u v e a u x verdes can be found, or perhaps by drinking more (or less?) heavily at such events, in an attempt to keep one's temper tolerably intact. The television can also be silenced (during Sarah Parkin's interminable mumblings in particular) through the judicious use of a rarely-employed switch. The serious environmental scientist, so recently considered (at least in British circles) a curious and somewhat interesting cross between Jacques-Yves Cousteau and David Attenborough, should therefore be able to adapt to this new wave of environmental awareness. The fundamental problem is an extension of this more personal dilemma. Thus, environmental issues appear to be fair game for any and all to pontificate upon, whatever their qualifications or (usually) lack thereof. It is strange that the ordinary member of the public is prepared to rely totally on their family doctor in times of illness, or even on a solicitor in matters of any legal import, and yet feels completely at eas8 holding forth on environmental issues (most of which are far more complex than either curing a cough, or buying a house). This tendency is emphasized in local and national government, where representatives who know at least as little as the Man in the Street find they now have to talk even more than the latter about issues relating to the environment. As a result, and using the 261

Marine Pollution Bulletin

aforementioned examples of global issues, we are advised that ozone holes give rise to melting polar ice caps, and refrigerators which are not recycled lead to horrendous skin cancers. In these circumstances, despair is surely a close companion of the career environmental scientist. The remedy, however, is clear. We must be prepared to educate both the public and the politicians that they cannot become au fait with the more complex environmental issues overnight, any more than they can instantaneously become brain surgeons or astronauts. Environmental decisions of any importance must be based upon sound advice, from highly-qualified professionals. The onus is on the qualified environmental scientist to drive such decisions, and this implies not only a greater effort in the political arena per se, but also a higher profile at cocktail parties (which the voters attend). Unless this occurs, we risk a major credibility problem in the environmental arena, and all the gains, in Britain or elsewhere, will be lost. DAVID J. H. PHILLIPS

Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 21, No. 6, pp. 262-263, 1990. Printed in Great Britain.

0025-326X/90 $3.00+0.00 © 1990 Pergamon Press plc

Whither the East Asian Seas ? In 1981 the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand adopted the Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Seas Region (EAS Action Plan). With that was born another regional seas programme under UNEP's Programme Activity Centre for Oceans and Coastal Areas or O C A / PAC (although in 1981 it was still the RS/PAC). Initially limited in membership to the five original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the programme is theoretically open to future membership of the other littoral states in the southeast Asian region. Nearly a decade after its inception, the programme seems to be in the doldrums. Although focused on one particular area, the observations in this article may well apply to other regions as well, particularly in the developing world. Following the regional seas programme approach, the EAS programme started with six assessment type projects with the intention that activities would eventually shift towards management. The projects were farmed out to four of the five countries with the provision that each project involve participation of the others. In the early days of implementation, there was much enthusiasm although it was apparent that the financial resources available were limited. Nevertheless, after some start up difficulties, all six projects got underway. It soon became apparent, however, that national focal points had little appreciation for UNEP's procedures in project management. Implementation of projects faltered as individual countries tried to learn 262

the ropes of project accounting. The growing pains were further complicated by the forced transfer of O C A / PAC from Geneva to Nairobi barely two years after the start of the EAS programme. But through all this, one important factor became increasingly apparent. A champagne programme was being supported with a beer budget. The programme had limited success after half a decade of implementation as revealed in an evaluation report published in 1987 (UNEPReg. SeasRep. &ud. No. 86). Is the situation hopeless? Most definitely not. The region is not without its environmental scientists and a good deal of work on various aspects of marine environmental protection and management is going on. Refer, for example, to the special issue of Arnbio (Vol. 17, No. 3, 1988) on the East Asian Seas. The problem appears to be focused on the lack of adequate integration of effort and the insufficiency of funding for the EAS programme. The EAS programme is funded from two sources: UNEP's Environment Fund and the EAS Trust Fund set up by the five countries. It was clear from the inception of the programme that funding from the UN System was to be at the initial stages, i.e. it was meant to be catalytic and diminishing with time. The government representatives to the managing body (Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia, or C O B S E A ) may have failed to grasp and appreciate this. It was impressed on them time and again that their contributions to the Trust Fund must increase with time. In all the years that that fund has existed, it was increased only once by 10% so that it now stands at less than SI00 000 per year. The U N E P Environment Fund more than generously matched whatever contributions the governments made. However, U N E P has apparently reached a point of exasperation, waiting for a pledge from the governments to make a significant increase in their contributions. It has been giving signals that its support to the programme may diminish considerably in the near future. Government representatives have not been happy with this. Instead, they have asked U N E P to increase its support, perhaps not realizing that U N E P is not a funding organization. They have also asked U N E P to source funds for them from third parties. For one reason or another, U N E P has not been able to do this although some attempts were made. The question is, have the governments themselves taken any concrete steps in this direction? The answer seems to be mainly in the negative. Certainly, not as COBSEA. One wonders whether the environmental agencies in the region are ready to take on marine environmental problems in a big way. Indications are to the contrary. Aside from the above, it will be noted that concern for the environment in general in the region is many rungs below concerns for economic development, poverty alleviation and population issues, security, and other priorities. When it comes to environmental concerns, the orientation of the officials is terrestrial. Is it therefore any wonder that the EAS Trust Fund has stagnated ? Even as the environmental bureaux are looking for a