No would ever dare suggest the need to privatize the air that we breathe since it is a well established principle that the atmosphere does not belong to a single individual or a single artificial entity such as a corporation for that matter. This idea that many of the most vital and valuable environmental resources form a “global common” forms a corner stone in the efforts to protect the natural resources from abuse and thus check ecological degradation and promote environmental sustainability.
An equally valuable concept in the global struggle to protect environmental assets within the borders of the state can be traced as far back as the Roman Emperor Justinian. The idea that was originally promoted by Justinian in order to maintain access to rivers and the like for his citizens has evolved into what is commonly known as the “Public Trust Doctrine”. Very simply stated the PTD guarantees unimpeded access for all citizens to rivers, beaches and other natural assets. The principle has been in effect enshrined by the Stockholm Declaration, the first United Nations Conference on Human Development in 1972:
“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural system, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management as appropriate”.
and has been applied with varying degrees of success in numerous countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Environmental Law rests on this concept in its global struggle to prevent privatization of rivers and to keep public beaches open to all.
The Government of Lebanon has a duty to maintain and preserve the natural capital for the eventual enjoyment of the future generations. As such, the state has the responsibility to hold in trust these natural assets and must take all measures to prevent their abuse, destruction or privatization.
If this principle is to be upheld then we have no choice but to question the logic behind such major projects on the Lebanese shore as the Movenpick Hotel, the Edde Sands. The entire private beach clubs in Beirut and above all the supposed plan to construct an architectural monstrosity over the sea opposite to the St George Hotel.
In a private enterprise world, owners have the right to commission any architect that they choose and thus are free to complete any plans that they deem to be appropriate as long as such plans are not in violation of the applicable local zoning and ordinances. Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder and yes ownership has its privileges. But to allow a private company to build on property that is owned by the Lebanese people as a group in perpetuity is nothing short of a violation of the trust that the government is supposed to uphold. No one, not even the government, is allowed to profiteer by selling our natural legacy.
Those who are so cynical as to dismiss such concerns as being “peripheral” when the very foundation of the state is in peril need to be reminded time and again that environmentalism transcends politics and addresses the problematic that arises at the intersection of human activities and the natural world. The future generations will not forgive us if we bequeath them an unhealthy and a sick natural world. If we fail to protect our natural legacy then that would be the height of arrogance, hubris and selfishness. Then we would have made some short term gains at the expense of the future and that is tantamount to a gross violation of intergenerational equity.
I am hopeful that no member of this cabinet will ever condone the “takings” of what is lawfully the common property of the present and future generations of the Lebanese people. And if for any reason the PTD is not adhered to then I hope that the Lebanese citizens will take the government to court over violating the trust that we are supposed t uphold for the future generations.
3 comments:
In times of political and economic stress nations often make irrational decisions concerning the environment. We can see this today in the U.S., as concern for our natural landscape has waned since the start of the recession. It is very difficult to remove oneself from the present crisis and rationally think about the environmental issues that will affect future generations.
JACKSON
I view the Lebanese situation as a great argument for conservatism in general. By empowering the state and government to make decisions on behalf of the public, it allows room for error in judgment. If the majority of people in Lebanon do not support the privatization of the public lands, they should vote for a representative that agrees with them. This is why in the U.S. there is not just the President calling the shots, but a House of Representatives and Senate comprised of officials elected by the people to represent them.
Relating this to the current situation in the U.S., with the massive spending resulting from the stimulus bills, we will be forced to rely on the judgment of elected officials, perhaps more than ever before. What happens if they decide to spend this money on the wrong things, such as large building projects? (maybe promoting wind energy at the expense of national parks - I heard something recently about a debate from wind energy supporters that power lines must be run through national parks in order to work most efficiently, I am not sure of the details though) By giving the money and the power to the government, these sort of decisions are taken out of the hands of the public. And today, with all of the power in the hands of the democrats, who show no signs of working with republicans on major issues, it is a scary thought that public outcry may no longer have any affect on decision-making, for the next two years anyway. By increasing the power of the central government, while the number of different ideas and voices being considered is decreasing (democrats controlling house and senate - able to pass such a large spending bill with 0 republican votes in the house, and just 3 in the senate), a dangerous situation may be resulting. The country was built upon checks and balances, but it seems that the current administration may serve as a rubber stamp for anything proposed by Congress.
While there are many liberals and conservatives who disliked Bush, at least he made many of his controversial decisions with at least some support from those across the aisle. You can also look back to the Clinton era. Clinton's two worst years were his first 2, where the democracts controlled the house and senate, his most productive 6 years were with republicans controlling the house and senate (many people give clinton all of the credit for a sound economy, but newt gengrich, a republican, may be deserving for some of it, most notably for being the first speaker in a generation to balance the budget). This speaks volumes for the importance of bi-partisanship, or at least the importance of listening to both sides of an issue before making a decision.
-Mike Fitzgerald
While reading this article, the argument is not clear how these endeavors will erode the environement. The private hotels on the mainland shouldn't destroy the beaches. Even public beaches have areas where vendors can set up shop to sell their goods. This just happens to be a large building instead of a small shack.
As for the hotel over the sea, I would need to know the impact it would have on the environment before I could make a decision whether or not it is desirable. Whenever we produce there will be certain consequences, but the alternative is that we do not produce and that is unacceptable. Maybe the government intends these hotels to bring money and jobs to the people of the area so that they can earn a living. That's not such a bad thing.
Your argument "The Government of Lebanon has a duty to maintain and preserve the natural capital for the eventual enjoyment of the future generations" does not account for the fact that all land is natural capital. What makes the beach any different from the land on which I build my house. The need we have to put a shelter over our heads outways the destruction to the land it is built on. The eastern coast of the US is full of beaches both private and public. Are the private beaches any less preserved than the public ones. If anything the private beaches are probably more pristine than the public ones because of the tragedy of the commons. For this reason, New York makes you pay for the right to enjoy its public beaches on Long Island.
I don't want to intimate that saving beaches is wrong but I do think that somewhere in the middle is a good compromise.
Post a Comment