is senior fellow at the UN Foundation and former chief executive officer-chairman of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), which promotes government efforts to implement environmentally-friendly policies in developing countries. He secured spectacular inroads for GEF during his term, transforming what was a pilot programme with no more than 30 member states into a fully fledged 173-member organisation. In 2002, donors granted GEF an astounding $3 billion. But with the United States controversial decision to cut GEF funding from $428 million to $224 million, El-Ashry is at a loss to explain Washington's "attempt to dismantle GEF". Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly , he said: No one can explain the reason behind the US attempt to dismantle GEF. What the US fails to see is that -- unlike the World Bank, for example -- GEF is not a development assistance organisation. Rather, it assists in implementing treaties. So, in essence, the US is exercising pressure directly on member states. My suspicion is that we are being dragged back into a situation where the aid you get depends on your political alliances -- this is how USAID has been functioning, at least. And it's how the US came to support dictators regardless of their brutality. GEF is getting caught up in this neo-conservative vision. What is worse is that, if Washington continues to uphold this attitude, other donors will follow suit -- such a shift in the burden sharing arrangement could cost GEF millions more in cuts, which have tremendous implications across the board. There is nothing small countries can do to improve environmental policy without the necessary resources. All of which undermines the tremendous progress we have been making -- on biodiversity, land-degradation prevention, ozone issues -- in many developing countries. In the mean time Washington's Asia Pacific Partnership -- on no more of a budget that $28 million -- promises to be little more than nonsense. Millions of people urgently require an improvement in their standards of living. There is a great need for renewable energy resources -- which would both accomplish this and protect the environment. Environmental questions are downplayed in the UN and elsewhere -- the environment is but a catchword to which you pay lip service while nothing is being done. Sadly the US continues to harbour a mentality that dates back to World War II, and Vietnam: that the economy functions better in times of war. This is particularly true of the notion that a state cannot be powerful without its share of aircraft and missiles and so on -- all of which require a large reserve of oil... The truth is that it is no longer the case that arms production helps economies develop. The resources are much better utilised in the mass production of alternative energy generation tools. At the same time, we are confronted with one relevant fact: non-renewable energy resources will soon run out. Yet, without access to the necessary information, the UN is incapable of broaching a crucial subject: the fast-approaching end of oil. The only tangible result is that corporations like Exxon Mobil are making greater profit as oil becomes less and less available. It is precisely this insecurity of supply -- no world power has seriously attempted to reduce oil consumption -- that gave way to crises such as those of Iraq and, impendingly, Iran. At present it is the even more basic commodity, water, that is likely to generate crisis. Judging by current rates of sea level rise, up to a third of the Nile Delta may well disappear, incidentally. So serious is the water issue that when the Ethiopians announced plans to build a dam on the Nile River, Egypt said it would bomb them. My own feeling is that Egypt would have done better to share benefits rather than placing Ethiopians in a position where they feel they must capture resources to survive. We are after all in an era of rapid population increase against a backdrop of resources depleted by climactic change. Where water is concerned, desalination may be the answer for the future. But there is a cost involved. Egyptians have a perception that water should be free. So it is well to remember that the cost can be reduced by using solar energy.
