Losing trees

The recent cutting of thousands of trees in Islamabad has ignited a public outcry that the government would be unwise to dismiss as mere sentimentality. At stake is not just the capital's visual appeal, but a deeper question about environmental governance at a time when climate vulnerability is no longer abstract.

Responding to criticism in the National Assembly, Interior Minister Tallal Chaudhry admitted that 29,115 trees had been removed, but added that 40,000 trees taller than eight to ten feet had already been planted, with another 60,000 scheduled for plantation on March 30, when weather conditions improve. CDA has insisted that only paper mulberry trees were removed, citing their role in causing severe pollen allergies. These explanations, while not without merit, have failed to calm public anger — largely because of how the exercise was carried out and communicated. Social media users and residents allege that, besides paper mulberry, indigenous and mature trees were also felled, leaving areas such as Shakarparian looking alarmingly barren. Even if the official position is accepted at face value, the removal of more than 29,000 mature trees demands far greater transparency. Mature trees provide environmental benefits that saplings cannot immediately replace — from moderating temperatures to absorbing carbon. In a city already grappling with rising heat and deteriorating air quality, such losses cannot be treated lightly.

There is no doubt that invasive species like paper mulberry pose genuine health and ecological challenges. But addressing them requires careful planning, phased removal and a clear, verifiable replantation strategy that prioritises indigenous species. Blanket assurances after the damage has been done are not enough. Islamabad was conceived as a green capital. Preserving that vision is the foremost responsibility.