LAHORE - The Lahore High Court last week ordered the Punjab government to make functional the Environment Protection Council which has been dysfunctional for the last 20 years.
The court ordered the government to devise the council’s rules and to complete the strength of 35 members for its functioning. The court also instructed the government to call a meeting within one month.
The LHC announced the decision on a petition moved by a local citizen Ahmad Qayyum, who contended that the Environment Protection Council regulates the Environment Department as well as the Environment Protection Agency. But, he said, it had been dysfunctional for past two decades.
The bureaucrats, according to the petitoner, were a hurdle and did not want it to be functional. The council was mandatory for the environment, because it would highlight the problems being faced by the citizens, he added.
The petitioner requested the court to order the government to make it functional at the earliest.
In June last year, the LHC had ordered the Punjab Environment Protection Agency to make central laboratory functional. Now it has been almost one year but still it has not been made functional. And, now the functioning of Environment Protection Council has been ordered.
It is also to be noted that many petitions are already lying with the Lahore High Court against Environment department, Environment Protection Agency as well as climate change. But the real question is would the court orders ever be implemented?
During the week, another citizen approached the Lahore High Court seeking preservation of forests in Pakistan. He said the forests were essential for clean air and oxygen and to keep the planet alive.
Forests act like shields against the adversities of climate change, the petitoner stated, but the situation in Pakistan is different where there is no serious plan to preserve the forests. He pointed out that there were some factors that why the country was losing forests sharply. “Lack of awareness, exploitation of forest resources for private incentives and ownership among the masses are the major factors to damage the forests in the country,” he said in his petition.
The timber mafia was another factor behind the loss of forests, he added.
He also pointed out that total area of forests in Pakistan was 4.224 million hectares which was 4.8 per cent of the total land area, whereas this percent age should be more than 25.
The petitioner stated the government set up a number of ministries and departments devoted to environment protection but there was no serious effort to save the forests. “Bad environment is as threat as the terrorism,” he said, regretting that the federal and Punjab governments were doing nothing.
Holding the authorities responsible for loss of forests in the country, the petitioner requested the court to order both the governments to make some serious efforts to preserve forests for better environment.
After hearing initial arguments, Justice Ayesha A Malik issued notices to the federal and Punjab government and sought replies.
Also, there is another petition which was filed aimed implementation of‘Framework for Implementation of National Climate Change Policy 2013’ to meet challenges of climate change.
Asghar Leghari, a farmer, said in his petition that two governments and the concerned authorities were not taking steps to develop the required flexibility to climate change as per Framework for Implementation of National Climate Change Policy, 2013. He submitted that extreme weather events, with erratic monsoon rain were causing floods and droughts in the country. It was actually the result of climate change, he held.
Leghari stated the country was under serious threat of climate change but the government was not focusing on it. Water inflows into Indus River system was disturbed due to global warming and carbon soot deposits from trans-boundary pollution sources, he said, adding that the decline of Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayan glaciers due to these factors.
Rising temperatures resulting in enhanced heat and water-stressed conditions, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions, were leading to reduced agricultural productivity, the petitioner asserted. He told the court that the increased intrusion of saline water in the Indus delta, was adversely affecting coastal agriculture, mangroves and the breeding grounds of fish.
He submitted that the threat to coastal areas due to projected sea level rise and increased cyclonic activity due to higher sea surface temperatures, increased stress between upper riparian and lower riparian regions in relation to sharing of water resources, increased health risks, and climate change induced migration.
These threats would lead to major survival concerns for Pakistan, particularly in relation to the country’s water security, food security and energy security. He requested the court to order the government to take steps to combat climate change for being the major threat to the country.
A government lawyer told the court that there were differences among the four provinces due to which a unanimous water policy was not adopted and now it would be presented before the Council of Common Interest during its next meeting.
After hearing both sides, Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah sought the National Water Policy approved by the Council of Common Interest. The CJ also directed the federal government to come up with report on what steps had been taken up to overcome the challenge of water that goes waste every year and the issue of floods.
The most surprising fact is that petitioner Asghar Ali is fighting this legal battle for last four years.
In a petition for protection of wildlife, especially for Houbara Bastard, the federal government failed to submit a reply in the court. At this, the CJ expressed serious concerns and directed federal government to submit parawise comments that how the foreign dignitaries belonging to Qatar were issued permits for hunting of internationally protected houbara bustard.
During the hearing, the World Wild Life Federation (WWF) submitted its reply saying that the overall population of houbara bustard was decreasing over the past twenty years as its hunting was unsustainable; therefore, the hunting permits should be banned.
The Houbara foundation president, Brig (r) Mukhtar expressed his concerns regarding the backwardness of the areas and lack of economic development in the areas where hunting permits have been issued.
Sheraz Zaka, the counsel for the petitioner, argued that in exchange, an undertaking was given to the governments of developing countries that economic development would take place in those areas where exploration of resources and licensing permits of hunting was granted. He argued that it was unfortunate that in Jhang and Bhakkar, no economic development had taken place despite the fact that the Supreme Court had already issued directions that economic development of those areas would take place where hunting permits were given.
Sardar Kaleem Ilyas, another counsel for the petitioner, alleged that the permits for hunting were issued prior to the approval by the cabinet. He said that the cabinet’s decision could not be implemented retrospectively.
The counsel further said that the permission of hunting Houbara Bustard amounted to killing them. He alleged that the government violated several international laws by awarding the hunting permits to Qatari princes. The government had issued the permits without the approval of cabinet, a mandatory act under the law, he added.
The court would resume hearing on June 15.