Saga of Lal Pul Part III
September 17, 2007
The Lal Pul is no more. The forces of development have swallowed it up and are about to present the citizens of Lahore with another dubious urban-planning achievement in its place. In the past two articles, I attempted to put the “development” of Lahore into a wider context and have questioned the efficacy of the roads, underpasses and overpasses laid and constructed by the Sharif and Chaudhry governments.
The results of the experiment in investing only in hard, gray transport infrastructure at the expense of public transport are plain for all to see. Yet, despite the clear evidence and lessons of the past, this government remains committed to this failed template of unsustainable and haphazard urban development. This is not just poor planning, it is also a violation of the law.
The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, is one of a host of contingencies Pakistan was required to meet in order to remain eligible for foreign loans. PEPA was enacted to make Pakistan compliant with the Rio Declaration produced at the UN Earth Summit in 1992. The basic purpose of this Act is to bring environmental and sustainable development considerations into play in the decision-making process and to provide citizens with access to information, the right to participation in the process and to access to justice. PEPA does this by authorising the EPA to enforce environmental quality standards and by requiring project developers to carry out environmental impact assessments, sharing the reports of such EIAs with the public and submitting these EIAs to the EPA for further action.
None of this has been done on any of the underpasses and overpasses built by the present government on Lahore’s Canal.
In 2003, when construction of the Mall Road underpass was inaugurated, concerned citizens and environmentalists approached the Environmental Tribunal in Lahore with complaints that the development had been allowed to commence without an EIA of the project, without public participation and without EPA approval. These were not senseless objections to the underpass, but valid concerns about the environmental affects of development policy.
In its Order dated Feb. 20, 2006, in Complaint No. 76/2003 (Sumaira Awan v. Government of Pakistan), the tribunal found that the proponents of the Mall Road underpass had violated the express and mandatory provisions of the law.
However, since the underpass had been completed in the time it took the tribunal to reach its decision (the slow turning wheels of our courts and tribunals render one of the fundamental principles of access to justice – an efficacious remedy – useless), its powers to remedy the complaints were limited. It did, however, issue warnings to all of the government respondents, including the C&W Department, in their individual personal capacities, and ordered them to ensure that all future transport plans would be carried out based on a 20-year master plan of the city (which itself, the tribunal noted, would have to be subject to an EIA and a public hearing). Needless to say, no such plan has been made, let alone subjected to an environmental assessment.
It was during the proceedings of the tribunal that the underpasses near FC College, Jinnah Hospital, Doctors’ Hospital and Dharampura were started and completed. In none of these did the C&W Department – which oversaw, and claimed credit for, these developments – undertake a single EIA, hold a public hearing or obtain the approval of the EPA. As a result, it is estimated that some 5,000 trees were felled for these underpasses without so much as a token examination of environmentally friendly alternatives.
Urban deforestation has had adverse effects on Lahore’s heat island effect and on the ecology of the city. For instance, with old nesting places now no longer, large populations of birds have been forced to migrate to other areas in the city. Now, if news reports are to be believed, the Governor can no longer have his tea in the leafy, palatial gardens of Governor’s House without fear of becoming the target of thousands of bird-droppings. EIA reports for these projects and public hearing would have brought this matter to the attention of the EPA, which would then have been in the position to pass orders to mitigate these affects.
Despite the clear warnings issued by the tribunal, the Government of Punjab was unaffected. Within a few weeks of being given personal warnings by the tribunal, officers of the C&W Department were putting finishing touches to the proposal to construct a massive overpass at the far end of the Canal at Thokar Niaz Beg. This involved the felling of all of the trees on the Canal between the Canal View Society and Thokar Niaz Beg, as well as the destruction of Lalazar Park, a small recreational garden complete with a mosque that provided nearby residents with some serenity and calm amidst the chaos of the city. Again, no EIA of the project was conducted and none of the people who live in the area were given an opportunity to comment on possible alternatives. On March 13, 2006, the construction and felling began.
In the week prior to the beginning of construction, I wrote to the EPA, informing them that, under the law, this overpass project required an EIA and that it was being undertaken without following due legal procedure.
Given the EPA’s natural propensity not to question the government, the notice, dated March 7, 2006, went unheeded and unanswered and constrained an approach to the tribunal. Complaint No. 48/2006 was filed on April 22, 2006, and is still pending final adjudication.
In the midst of all of this, in May last year, Lahoris awoke to find large red “X” marks on the trees lining both sides of the Canal from Dharampura all the way to Thokar Niaz Beg. It transpired that this was an attempt by the City District Government of Lahore and TEPA to widen the Canal area to accommodate the increased volume of traffic (never mind the fact that the Shahbaz Sharif development projects clearly show this is not the correct approach to managing traffic congestion). Estimates vary, but it is accepted that such a proposal would have entailed the felling of an additional 8,000 trees. No EIA report had been prepared and no analysis of environmentally friendly alternatives discussed. The citizens of Lahore were roused into action and formed the Lahore Bachao Tehreek. Due to their efforts, and to the publicity given to the issue, in June last year the chief justice of Pakistan took suo motu notice of the proposed widening of the Canal. The chief secretary of Punjab was summoned to the Supreme Court and he submitted that no action would be taken on the Canal without under the provisions of the law and the PEPA.
Where does Lal Pul figure in all of this? The current construction work on the Canal at the site of the old Lal Pul is the most recent of this government’s acts of evading the provisions of the PEPA. This is ironic, because if the government’s claims are true, then these developments are being undertaken for the people. But what sort of commitment to the concerns of the citizens is it when the government itself is loath to have the environmental consequences of these developments discussed by the very public it says they are for?
In the next article, I shall examine Lal Pul and the motives at work in its destruction and reincarnation.
The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning. Email: ralam@nexlinx.net.pk
The results of the experiment in investing only in hard, gray transport infrastructure at the expense of public transport are plain for all to see. Yet, despite the clear evidence and lessons of the past, this government remains committed to this failed template of unsustainable and haphazard urban development. This is not just poor planning, it is also a violation of the law.
The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, is one of a host of contingencies Pakistan was required to meet in order to remain eligible for foreign loans. PEPA was enacted to make Pakistan compliant with the Rio Declaration produced at the UN Earth Summit in 1992. The basic purpose of this Act is to bring environmental and sustainable development considerations into play in the decision-making process and to provide citizens with access to information, the right to participation in the process and to access to justice. PEPA does this by authorising the EPA to enforce environmental quality standards and by requiring project developers to carry out environmental impact assessments, sharing the reports of such EIAs with the public and submitting these EIAs to the EPA for further action.
None of this has been done on any of the underpasses and overpasses built by the present government on Lahore’s Canal.
In 2003, when construction of the Mall Road underpass was inaugurated, concerned citizens and environmentalists approached the Environmental Tribunal in Lahore with complaints that the development had been allowed to commence without an EIA of the project, without public participation and without EPA approval. These were not senseless objections to the underpass, but valid concerns about the environmental affects of development policy.
In its Order dated Feb. 20, 2006, in Complaint No. 76/2003 (Sumaira Awan v. Government of Pakistan), the tribunal found that the proponents of the Mall Road underpass had violated the express and mandatory provisions of the law.
However, since the underpass had been completed in the time it took the tribunal to reach its decision (the slow turning wheels of our courts and tribunals render one of the fundamental principles of access to justice – an efficacious remedy – useless), its powers to remedy the complaints were limited. It did, however, issue warnings to all of the government respondents, including the C&W Department, in their individual personal capacities, and ordered them to ensure that all future transport plans would be carried out based on a 20-year master plan of the city (which itself, the tribunal noted, would have to be subject to an EIA and a public hearing). Needless to say, no such plan has been made, let alone subjected to an environmental assessment.
It was during the proceedings of the tribunal that the underpasses near FC College, Jinnah Hospital, Doctors’ Hospital and Dharampura were started and completed. In none of these did the C&W Department – which oversaw, and claimed credit for, these developments – undertake a single EIA, hold a public hearing or obtain the approval of the EPA. As a result, it is estimated that some 5,000 trees were felled for these underpasses without so much as a token examination of environmentally friendly alternatives.
Urban deforestation has had adverse effects on Lahore’s heat island effect and on the ecology of the city. For instance, with old nesting places now no longer, large populations of birds have been forced to migrate to other areas in the city. Now, if news reports are to be believed, the Governor can no longer have his tea in the leafy, palatial gardens of Governor’s House without fear of becoming the target of thousands of bird-droppings. EIA reports for these projects and public hearing would have brought this matter to the attention of the EPA, which would then have been in the position to pass orders to mitigate these affects.
Despite the clear warnings issued by the tribunal, the Government of Punjab was unaffected. Within a few weeks of being given personal warnings by the tribunal, officers of the C&W Department were putting finishing touches to the proposal to construct a massive overpass at the far end of the Canal at Thokar Niaz Beg. This involved the felling of all of the trees on the Canal between the Canal View Society and Thokar Niaz Beg, as well as the destruction of Lalazar Park, a small recreational garden complete with a mosque that provided nearby residents with some serenity and calm amidst the chaos of the city. Again, no EIA of the project was conducted and none of the people who live in the area were given an opportunity to comment on possible alternatives. On March 13, 2006, the construction and felling began.
In the week prior to the beginning of construction, I wrote to the EPA, informing them that, under the law, this overpass project required an EIA and that it was being undertaken without following due legal procedure.
Given the EPA’s natural propensity not to question the government, the notice, dated March 7, 2006, went unheeded and unanswered and constrained an approach to the tribunal. Complaint No. 48/2006 was filed on April 22, 2006, and is still pending final adjudication.
In the midst of all of this, in May last year, Lahoris awoke to find large red “X” marks on the trees lining both sides of the Canal from Dharampura all the way to Thokar Niaz Beg. It transpired that this was an attempt by the City District Government of Lahore and TEPA to widen the Canal area to accommodate the increased volume of traffic (never mind the fact that the Shahbaz Sharif development projects clearly show this is not the correct approach to managing traffic congestion). Estimates vary, but it is accepted that such a proposal would have entailed the felling of an additional 8,000 trees. No EIA report had been prepared and no analysis of environmentally friendly alternatives discussed. The citizens of Lahore were roused into action and formed the Lahore Bachao Tehreek. Due to their efforts, and to the publicity given to the issue, in June last year the chief justice of Pakistan took suo motu notice of the proposed widening of the Canal. The chief secretary of Punjab was summoned to the Supreme Court and he submitted that no action would be taken on the Canal without under the provisions of the law and the PEPA.
Where does Lal Pul figure in all of this? The current construction work on the Canal at the site of the old Lal Pul is the most recent of this government’s acts of evading the provisions of the PEPA. This is ironic, because if the government’s claims are true, then these developments are being undertaken for the people. But what sort of commitment to the concerns of the citizens is it when the government itself is loath to have the environmental consequences of these developments discussed by the very public it says they are for?
In the next article, I shall examine Lal Pul and the motives at work in its destruction and reincarnation.
The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning. Email: ralam@nexlinx.net.pk
