Sidelining environmental concerns

Earlier this month, the World Resources Institute (WRI) along with The Access Initiative (TAI), launched the Environmental Democracy Index. The Index measures the ability of a country’s legal statutes to protect environmental rights.  In particular, the Index assesses the countries on implementation of legislation, on access to information, public participation, and access to justice in environmental matters. Pakistan was ranked 59th, out of a total of 70 countries that were evaluated in the Index. According to the evaluators, the low ranking was primarily due to the lack of legislation requiring public participation at all levels of decision and policy-making, as well as restrictions on access to environmental information.

Pakistan’s Environmental Protection Ordnance was promulgated in 1983, and enacted in 1997 by the Parliament. By 1999 National Environmental Quality Standards were in place to guide the government in monitoring pollutants considered hazardous to the environment and health. The Planning Commission now includes a detailed section on the Environment as part of its Five Year Plans. Environmental Impact Assessments are legally required as part of the planning process when it comes to development projects. Yet, when it comes to the implementation of laws and recommendations in the environmental arena, we are laggards. The American author John O’ Hara might succinctly ask, “What gives?”

One reason for the dissonance in legal structures and on-ground practice is our penchant for following the money rather than collective wellbeing. The environmental laws in Pakistan were developed, in part, to meet the requirements set forth by international financial organizations as well as multinationals operating inside Pakistan. These laws were to be followed in letter but not the spirit, by design. Environmental legislation was seen then, as it is today, to be a hindrance to development. For example, rarely is the Environment Section of the Planning Commission allowed to have a say in the proceedings of key national decision-making bodies, the CDWP or ECNEC. In essence, we have done what is minimally required to be relevant in a world that is focusing on sustainable development.

Such shortsightedness over the years necessitated restriction of environmental information. The federal and provincial Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) were given a mandate to protect the nation’s environment but with have curtailed human and material resources. Unable to fulfill their original mission, the EPAs have become little more than clearing houses for pro forma Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). I am aware of cases where government officials tasked with evaluating EIAs conducted the assessments themselves, in contravention of laws. The conflict of interest in such cases is difficult to overlook. While the EIAs mandate public hearings, they are usually conducted as an afterthought. The announcements of these events are relegated to the back-pages of newspapers and are usually attended by usual suspects from government, the consulting firms and interested NGOs. Even if stakeholders from a community are able to find their way to such a hearing, they are confronted with technical information as part of power point presentations in English. Furthermore, by the time such hearings are conducted, the project-planning is at a stage where valid recommendations are hard to put into practice without altering the project. Now that the environment is a provincial subject following the 18th Amendment, the regional Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) are even more so at the whim and command of business-oriented political leadership.

We need to change our outlook in terms of development projects and their environmental impact. Legal requirements such as EIAs should be seen as a means to a greater good rather than an end unto themselves. EPAs should be strengthened with human, technical, and financial resources to meet the demands of a growing economy. The right to information is an important aspect of participatory democracy. Rather than a hindrance, availability of information will enhance the legitimacy of decisions and reduce the potential for conflict. Moreover, the resultant transparency will serve as a check and balance against potential misuse of power by relevant authorities. A more open environmental outlook has the potential to induce behavioral change among the people particularly in terms of water management, urban planning, and ecological conservation, areas of grave concern in Pakistan today. Creative decision-making necessitates that in all aspects of governance, not just development projects, the public be involved from in planning and implementation. Such forward thinking can help us avoid controversies such as those over the recently proposed route of China Pakistan Economic Corridor.  Pakistan is facing challenges as varied as climatic change, terrorism, educational crisis, and political instability. Our ability to respond to them hinges upon the trust and participation of the public in all facets of policy-making.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 13^th,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.