HARMONISING the management of environmental and trade interests is like blending east and west -- the twain shall never meet. Not, at least, in the foreseeable future. Yet, this is the central pursuit of the authors of this elegant publication, a compendium of papers read at an international symposium.

Each contributor seems to recognise the reality of the prefatorial question: Are trade and environmental protection mutually reinforceable or are they antagonistic? However, their prescriptions and perceptions on ensuring effective and fair management of environment and trade vary. Much of what they say is, at best, poetry, for its feasibility is far away.

The world today is nowhere near allowing Bangladesh have an equal say with Britain. Even Brussels had its nose punched by Washington. We should have no illusions about management being "fair". Equity among unequals is a mirage. Environmentalists should look for conflict resolution rather than unified management of the two policies. This process would resist, if not reduce, inequity or unfairness.

But can management be "effective" even if the demand for "fairness" is eschewed? The prospects of realising this seem even harder. Corporate goals for trade and environment can be reconciled only if the very impetus of trade -- profit at all cost -- is surrendered. Even in the land of plenty they recognise this: What is good for General Motors may not be good for USA. And, the post-war world has taught us what is good for USA may not be good for all parts of the world.

This is not to say there will be no adjustment at the margin. But the protection of environment interests through effective management cannot be meaningful if trade interests are required to fall in line.

The little countervailing power the united South of yesterday could have exercised is now lost. Each Southern country has now decided to deify the market and turn to it for miracles. Already, in India, there is the likelihood of environmental issues being crushed by the spokespersons of the market. We are being asked to accept that the market is not only the more efficient, but also the more enlightened custodian of our destiny.

Not only that, we have enhanced our dependence on "globalisation" for economic decision-making. Little environmental Davids would thus have to cope with global trade Goliaths.