Canal urban heritage park: ‘Draft legislation leaves development loopholes’

Environment lawyers say proposed law would allow the government to de-notify protected area at any time.

LAHORE:

Environment lawyers have expressed concern at the draft Urban Parks Heritage Bill 2012, saying it leaves loopholes that will allow the government to carry out development works on the green belt along the Canal at will.

The draft law, which was approved by the cabinet last week and is to be presented in the Punjab Assembly soon, came about as a result of a legal challenge to the expansion of Canal Bank Road last year.

Several environmentalist groups had challenged the project on the grounds that it would result in the deterioration of the city’s environment. The Supreme Court set up a mediation committee to suggest a compromise solution. One of the committee’s proposals was to declare the green belt along the Canal a protected park. Ultimately, the court allowed the government to expand Canal Bank Road, but also directed it to implement the committee’s proposals.

Two environmental lawyers who looked at the draft law said they were concerned that it left the government the power to allow further expansion of the road and denuding of the green belt; that the advisory committee that would manage the park would not be independent; and that it didn’t go far enough to protect natural resources.

“I am disappointed at the draft. It could have covered more ground and been more bold an attempt at protecting Lahore’s precious natural resources from politicised development,” said Rafay Ahmad Alam, who served as secretary of the mediation committee.

He said that the Supreme Court had declared the green belt along the Canal as protected under the doctrine of public trust, meaning that it was held in trust by the government to be used for the benefit of the public-at-large and not private or profit-driven interests.

But Clause 4 the draft Canal Urban Heritage Park Bill, he said, allowed the government to modify the area to be protected by notification. “The Supreme Court’s decision was to protect the entire length of the Canal from the BRB Link Canal to Thokar Niaz Beg for all times in perpetuity from any further road expansion. The draft bill, however, permits the government to declare parts of the Canal green belt as ‘de-notified’ and paves the way for more misdirected development of the type we have recently seen in Lahore,” Alam said.

According to Clause 5 of the draft bill, the advisory committee shall consist of the director general of the Parks and Horticulture Authority, a representative each from the Punjab Environment Protection Agency, the World Wide Fund for Nature-Pakistan, the Irrigation Department, the Local Government and Community Development department, and four representatives of civil groups.

Alam said that the committee would be “stuffed with ex officio posts”, with eight of the 12 seats occupied by government officials.

He said the committee should have more members from the private sector so it could remain independent and dedicated to the Canal Park and the city’s environment rather that to political interests.

He also suggested improved tree planting schemes. “They should include legislative requirements to establish and oversee tree master plans and tree management plans, as they are best practice in countries where urban heritage park legislation exists.

Such master and management plans would bring order and form to the apparently random tree-plantation drives that we often hear about,” he said.

Nusrat Jehan Nabeela, an environment lawyer with the Lahore Bachao Tehreek, said the draft bill paid “mere lip service” to environmental concerns.

“The draft bill bypasses its purpose, which was to protect the Canal area from further meddling and destruction in the name of development,” she said.

The draft law prohibits “construction or any other infrastructure development work” and “felling, burning, destroying, and removing of plants and trees”, but gives the PHA the power to allow the prohibited acts. Nabeel said that no parameters had been laid down as to when the PHA could give such permission.

Nabeela objected to the PHA being put in charge of the park as it was a government body. She said the draft bill did not specify how it would take decisions and what would happen in case committee members dissented.

She also objected to the draft bill’s provision prohibiting a person who was not an authorised officer to go to court against any decision of the advisory committee. According to the draft, causing harm to trees or birds in the park could be punishable with a fine of Rs30,000 to Rs50,000 or imprisonment of a year to five years, or both. It also says that no entry fee should be charged. Environment Minister Manshaullah Butt said that any proposals the lawyers make could be considered by the assembly standing committee looking over the draft Canal Urban Heritage Park Bill 2012.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 14^th, 2012.