ABSTRACT: Ecology, like rivers, has no boundaries. Policies aimed at the protection of the environment must necessarily be transnational.

(IL PARTITO NUOVO, Issue 1 of January 20th, 1993)

The Rio Conference was possibly the last opportunity to start an effective and responsible international environmental policy. The summit had seemed to open up prospects of a wider and more responsible policy for the administration of the environment and of the resources and for an improvement of the quality of life both in the South and in the North of the world; a policy, in other words, capable of consolidating and extending the principle of "subsidiarity" which already exists, albeit at an initial stage, in the European Community, for instance, and which had come to be regarded as a means to regulate social issues and problems. The summit had opened up prospects, in other words, of creating a policy of the environment and resources which, in addition to the policy of sustainable development - according to a pattern which applies especially to the developed North - could also, at this stage, be a policy based on a global intervention on the problems of poverty and starvation, on a controlled population gr

owth and, especially, on the strengthening of the democratic institutions.

A policy of this kind could only be guarantied in the framework and under the aegis of the United Nations.

We strongly fear that this new environmental policy is doomed to remain a mere hope. The United Nations has not succeeded in setting up even a rudimental system to monitor environmental situations and their positive or negative developments, nor of creating a mechanism to repress violations committed and issue supranational deliberations and decisions.

Most of the blame for the unsatisfactory way in which major global environmental problems are tackled lies precisely with the inadequate culture and policy of the environmentalist forces, in Italy, in Europe, and possibly throughout the world. We have long been pointing this out. Ours means to be a constructive warning, to enhance the sharing and developing of common objectives and initiatives. In many of its forms and expressions, the policy of the European and Italian Greens has shown more or less explicit (and unacceptable) elements of nationalism and of fundamental neutralism. These thrive on the deception that the damage caused to the environment can be mended, and that a true, modern ecology can be achieved while continuing to address only national problems. This culture might have been good for Northern countries, but it is indifferent to the problems of the rest of the world except by way of lip-service.

If we look at Europe, for example, we can see the narrow-mindedness of that negative utopia. Chernobyl is only one of a series of environmental and structural disasters which would call for a major trans- and supra-national intervention, and an openly federalist and strongly democratic approach. One example: after centuries of relative freedom of use, one of the most important trade routes, as well as a cradle of culture and civilization, the Danube, is torn between petty nationalisms and selfishness which could render it unusable and in fact destroy its complex ecosystem. This is a problem that affects not just the countries of the Danube, or the Austrian and Slovakian environmentalists, if there are any. This is a problem which, in cultural, environmental and economic terms, affects the whole of Europe if not the world at large. There are countless environmental issues and problems which can be solved only at the trans- and supra-national level. A large part of the European and Italian environmentalists de

ceive themselves by believing that they can neglect such issues and concentrate on their mediocre local interests. They are mistaken. A modern, responsible and effective environmentalism calls for totally different solutions. It calls for an enhancement of the transnational "values" and of the supranational and federal practices and policies, guarantied by strongly democratic institutions. These policies will be respectful of the values of localism precisely because they are incapable of inserting them, adjusting them and developing them within a wider and more general context. Only projects based on largely supra- and trans-national juridical and institutional structures can be valid and effective also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

The Greens should come to believe that it is no longer possible to talk about "sustainable development" without tackling, at the same time, and in operative and political and not just in declamatory terms, the issues and problems of the world, both in the North and in the South. Failure to do this will result in a loss of credibility. Regretfully, at present the environmentalist movement is capable only of producing strongly nationalist and fundamentally neutralist grass-roots initiatives, which are unwilling to assume trans- and supranational responsibilities. This refusal relegates the greens to be "cosmopolites" at the most, with a culture and actual behaviours which are totally inadequate to face the reality of today's world and all the more so the issues and requirements of a successful far-reaching environmental policy. This is the situation in Italy and elsewhere, in European and non-European countries. It is disheartening to see such a vast patrimony of presence and campaigns, which the Radical Party

has contributed so much to, being ill-used. As far as it can, the Radical Party will do all it can to prevent this decay. But if the transnational, federal values of dialogue and tolerance are abandoned, and if the transnational radical party is closed, how, where and with what means will it be possible to address problems of this scope and discuss them in their adequate dimension, instead of in the narrow and misleading dimension that would inevitably arise?