PROLOGUE
Man's Universe is his microcosmic environment, a closed system; the test of the Universe is a collection also of such closed systems, apparently independent of each other, yet it is the interdependence of all microcosmic Universes that makes what we call the Mega-Universe. Thus symbiosis of existence of molecular aggregation was carved into our existence when the first spark of energy began expanding into various forces and the process of Creation began. Bringing this philosophy closer to our survival, we realize how we depend on the solar system, the movement of weather modulators and other natural tribulations; however, a myopia set is when considering things much closer to us which are more critical to our survival--our biodiversity.

The concept that ought to be ingrained is that we live in a symbiotic system, which, in its entirety must depend on contributions of all species, albeit, remote and least appreciated. Even though man may not draw direct and immediate benefit, each species is important for one simple reason--evolutionary homeostasis. Unless we can formulate a better theory of our survival and existence, we can not argue with the theory of symbiosis.

For millions of years, the question whether one species affects other species was not important and perhaps redundant. If an species affected another species to extinction, it was not a reason to ponder on the repercussions because the slow pendulum of evolution allowed for these adjustments. It was the instinct to survive that made other species important--there had never been any thing sacred about keeping other species alive.

However, something happened about 500,000 years ago. Man, suddenly, through a quantum leap in the evolution of his brain, acquired knowledge that was to make him the mightiest of all species. And now, the slow clock of evolution was challenged. Man's impact on his environment began with the discovery of fire some 500,000 years ago. The time scale from friction to fission, from Homo erectus to Neanderthal and then to civilized man, is of evolutionary order. The industrial revolution of the 19th century significantly changed the evolutionary clock in that man was now able to inflict damage to his environment and other species in a few years what may have otherwise taken him perhaps thousands of centuries. The leap from evolutionary theory to industrial prowess may have been too much for this planet to handle.

The issue of biodiversity must be examined in the context of man's most important activity--industrial production--to evaluate what needs to be accomplished to assure continual survival of the human race.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
Biodiversity, maintaining the number and variety of living species, is the principal objective of nature conservation. Habitat protection and pollution control are the predominant interactive strategies, both of which are predominantly affected by the industrial activities. Conversely, the entire industrial infrastructure depends on the biodiversity to exist and operate.

We should examine, first, why there is there a discord between Nature and man's industrial ventures. The destruction of flora and fauna, as we see today, is a consequence rather than an intention of human activity. We need biodiversity protection to protect the human race. The biologic wealth we are trying to preserve also provides the food and economic chain for humans and it is not right to draw an immutable position on this topic. In developing countries like Pakistan, the discord is more fundamental dealing with hunger and poverty. The growing population of Pakistan (at 3%+) needs to be fed, housed, clothed and employed while the natural resources are diminishing, the number and variety of plants, wildlife and other organisms are declining, toxic and radioactive wastes are spreading fast. The relationship of people to the land, the management of waste and sanitation, deforestation and economic growth all have different perspective in this part of the world--though the basic need remains same.

The industry, producing goods and services, relies and impacts on biodiversity directly. Much of the raw material that goes into industrial operations is a by-product of biodiversity. The trees, the animal organs, the microbial culture are just a few examples of sources of raw materials. In the pharmaceutical industry, the dependence becomes much more direct. Most of the drugs in use today have come through plant or animal sources. Many more remain to be discovered. The plant and animal kingdom harbor billions of different chemical molecules that wait to be discovered as a panacea to illnesses of mankind. A species destroyed may mean an opportunity lost to cure a serious disease. Who knows the cure of AIDS may just be down the road coming from the root of a remote plant. Or perhaps, that plant does not flourish any more on the surface of this planet. And we are doomed.

Unfortunately, the appreciation of dependence of industry on biodiversity is not reflected in conversion scheme of industry, turning raw materials into finished products. We use raw materials faster than they can be replenished because of our ability to process has skyrocketed. It is this large volume of conversion that we has wrought the problems in dissipation of waste products---the menace of pollution, which stands to harm biodiversity. Therefore, the very action of conversion reduces the supply of what is being converted--sort of a negative feedback loop system-a catch 22. Unfortunately, in a planet where five billion people must be clothed, housed, fed, treated for ailments, educated and then provided opportunities to earn living, the pace of industrial activity can not be slowed down. And it is this self-defeating spiral that must be defeated by making industrial operations biodiversity- and environment- friendly.

THE DILEMMA IN PAKISTAN
Whereas in the West some 60% of the people would rather see a restriction in economic growth to protect environment and biodiversity, such is not the case in Pakistan where we have only just begun the journey to industrialization. Worldwide the public has demanded and getting safer industrial operations and conservative use of resources, nevertheless, much of today's problems remain, due to cost and difficulties of modernizing old plant, methods and attitudes and also of carrying additional burden of installing operations that reduce impact on environment and replenish raw materials used. Pakistan also lacks the resources for the enactment, implementation and enforcement of laws to reduce pollution and mandate use of resources which produce lesser strain on biodiversity. We have also not reached the maturity of awareness as found in the West. Thus the industry in Pakistan is not under the same public pressure as the developed countries. Environmental considerations are seen hindering economic growth and the most readily available biodiversity products are consumed copiously only because of cost considerations. As a result, while the developed countries are reducing pollution, it continues to rise in Pakistan, unabated. While other countries have begun to turn the table on the biodiversity issue, we have yet to make full detrimental impact.

GETTING THE BULL BY THE HORN
There is a great deal of difference in the abilities of small firms, large national companies and multinational companies to manage the environmental and biodiversity challenges. Traditionally, industry has been defensive and reactive to initiative (principally health, safety and environment) that are likely to increase operating costs, leaning heavily on the argument of the law of diminishing returns and cost benefit. Industry's concerns are qualified by economic considerations. Despite these shortcoming, we must come to agreement on these issues, if not for tomorrow then certainly for the day after that. The arguments must be repeated oft and the industry educated repeatedly and in the end regulated strictly.

The economic feasibility of attempts to reduce the impact of industrialization on biodiversity begins with understanding fully the role of biodiversity in our economy. Though short-term economic gains can be made at the expense of nature, these cannot be sustained. The living species, ranging from 5 to 30 million (1.4 million identified) play a key role in maintaining and regenerating natural vegetation, providing the habitats for their own survival, as well as serving mankind. A crude awakening to the importance of species around us comes from the realization that the synthetic chemical solutions promoted by science and medicine provide only a technical fix, and that the potential value of natural herbs and oils is immeasurable. A sustainable future will depend on a more equitable balance between science and the natural world.

ASCERTAINING THE STAKES
Besides making indiscriminate use of raw materials, the industry makes its impact through its effluent and waste which pollute the hydrological cycle and just about everything else. Examples of industrialization that affected human health and caused ecological imbalance include the destruction of wildlife by the uncontrolled application of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides containing highly toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons. Millions of birds and other species perished ingesting benzene hexachloride, mercury, heptachloride and Dieldrin. Adaptive resistance of insects and lower organisms resulted in greater chemical concentrations being applied with decreasing efficacy and the cumulative effects of chemicals and their toxic persistence in the food chain affected human and animal life dramatically.

The presently inequitable balance between man and nature is complicated by the human cost in death and injury in the interest of economic and industrial development. A large segment of our population is exposed to higher risks than are necessary in order to achieve commercial profitability. The point is that the human cost of industrial activity is too high, as is the cost that we exact from nature.

The most serious problems affecting public health involve untreated sewage and contaminated water. Though human and other organic wastes are fully biodegradable, sewage contaminating fresh water and coastal systems, causes serious problem of public health and oxygen depletion. Industrial and agricultural chemicals and toxic wastes add considerably to sewage and contribute to the destruction of this finite resource. In developed countries water for human consumption is relatively safe but under serious threat, while in the Third World the mechanisms of distribution, protection and conservation are woefully inadequate. (In Pakistan, 40% of all deaths are attributed to water-borne diseases.)

A single 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plant, uncontrolled, emits 275 kg of carbon dioxide, 14 kg of particulates and 5 kg of sulfur dioxide per second and a volume of nitrogen oxide equivalent to about 150,000 vehicle- exhausts. The taller smoke stacks to reduce local exposure resulted in broader exposure of pollution.

The major harmful chemicals, gases and particulates emitted into atmosphere from industrial and transport operations include: arsenic, benzene, cadmium, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine, chlorofluorocarbons, fluorides, formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide, hydroxyl radicals, lead, manganese, mercury, methane, nickel, nitric oxide, ozone, peroxyacetyl, silicon tetrafluoride, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid. Levels of these pollutants at which remedial measures to be taken have already been established by the WHO.

BEING REALISTIC
The elimination of all forms of pollution is unrealistic in economical and practical terms. Yet the extremes of ecological argument demand the elimination of all known poisons and contaminants, at least to levels not exceeding those produced by nature. Such demands assert that all substances which are not part of the natural ecological background in which living species have adapted are intrinsically harmful. Moreover, naturally occurring biologically active substances should not be increased beyond the levels which already appear in nature. We need to arrive at a consensus, "What is the acceptable level of pollution."

The question of what is the optimal level of consumption of raw materials is best resolved on our ability to replenish these resources. If the cost of replenishing is high then perhaps we have not calculated our real cost of raw materials.

Regulation of industry begins by first establishing standards, evaluating the current status of abuse, assessing the economic impact of legislation and evaluating the short-term and long-term effects on consumers.

The evaluation of impact of industries should be made first through Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). It is a method which can be adopted by organizations and governments to review the impact of their operations or actions, either at the planning stages of new projects or retrospectively considering ecological, health, safety and socioeconomic effects of the existing industry.

Unlike the developed world where the onus of responsibility to environment lies squarely on the industry, the government in Pakistan must share the cost of this additional burden but mainly through incentives, tax and tariff rebates on measures required for compliance.

MOLDING THE PUBLIC OPINION
What an industry can afford to invest in removing pollutants, and using rationally the raw materials and what it should invest depends to a great degree on what the public wants, demands and can afford. This has worked eloquently in the West where many "Green" movements have forced industries to follow safe suites. In Pakistan, much remains to be done about educating public as well as the industry. Consumers mostly do not know the hazards in the industrial operations and in the use of products. The pollution hazards are often camouflaged because of lack of labeling of proprietary information, of chemicals that may be hazardous, yet form the basis of a product.

EPILOGUE
Pakistan is faced with water and air pollution, severely depleted croplands and a range of infrastructural problems which are both the cause and consequences of poverty. These problems have significant economic, political and ecologic significance, and their solutions can be found only in fundamental changes in the style of national economic management (i.e., less direct government control) and the development of appropriate technology and investment strategies to allow us to increase our asset base which is environment friendly.

RECOMMENDATIONS
It is unlikely that stringent government controls to reduce industrial pollution will be effective in Pakistan. This should be monitored by the industrial community itself. The multinational companies, specially those in the field of energy, chemicals, pharmaceutical and petroleum can and should make significant contribution by setting up the guidelines for industrial manufacturing practices. An agency comprising private and government agencies should be established to legislate these guidelines which may include:

1. Environmental Impact Assessment of all major existing industries and for all new industries to be established.

2. The cost of environmental controls must be subsidized by the government. (This is in contrast to the PPP, Polluter Pays Price, principal applied in the West.) This can be accomplished by eliminating all duties and custom tariffs on import of equipment and supplies related either to pollution control or to replenishing raw material supply where threatened.

3. Ban manufacturing and import of chemicals proven hazardous to human health and for which substitutes have already been developed in other countries. These may include: dyes, pesticides, fungicides, food additives, etc. Since most of these chemicals are imported, their distribution and use in the country can be quickly controlled.

4. Require scrubbing of all industrial exhausts. A model for this was has been developed in the Ankelshwar district of Maharashtra, India.

5. Require that no untreated waste be dumped into any water ways.

6. Set up monitoring cells for the level of pollutants in the air and waterways.

7. Educate the public, particularly the school children, to publicize the hazards of industrial pollutants. This is essential to build public pressure on the industries.

8. Require labeling of hazardous components on packages with appropriate use warnings.

9. Ban commodities that directly affect the environment because of their inadequate disposition like polyethylene bags and disposable packaging commodities. The infrastructure for disposition of garbage is not fully ready to accommodate new garbage components.

10. Require industrial investment in the "green issues" development like done in the West. The consortiums of multinational companies in particular and large national companies in general should be required to dedicate part of their profits to these causes. The government must make it lucrative to invite investments, first by staying totally out of the financial management of these movements and secondly by encouraging it at the tax incentive level.