KARACHI, Jan 14: While the controversy between the federal and Sindh governments over the ownership of the two islands Bundal and Buddo, handed over to a UAE-based firm ‘Emaar Group’ still remains unresolved, it has become a matter of provincial autonomy, and survival for a vast majority of the fishing community.

Without prejudice to the stated position that the islands did not belong to the Port Qasim Authority and the federal government had no locus standi to strike a deal with a foreign company for the land that actually belonged to the provincial government, sources opposed to the deal also accused the federal government and the PQA of ignoring the procedure for such transactions.

They also maintained that the Sindh chief minister’s recent outburst was mere eyewash to hoodwink the people of Sindh. In this context they also pointed out that despite chief minister’s repeated opposition to the deal, which they claimed was more influenced by his problems with the MQM, the Sindh Cabinet had on October 3, 2006 decided to support the mega project on the two islands. The chief minister taking a U-turn had said that the land was not superior to development so the project would not be opposed.

According to sources, the Port Qasim Authority had spelt out certain criteria for allotment of plots, within its jurisdiction. According to that policy one acre of land would cost Rs400, 000 during 1991-96.

In 1996 the price was raised to Rs600,000 per acre. Again in 1998 it was enhanced to Rs1 million. In 2000 two blocs were created — eastern and north western blocs. Cost of one acre land in the eastern bloc was fixed at Rs1.5 million and for the north western it was Rs2 million per acre. The cost of land in these blocs had not been raised but a premium of Rs500,000 had been added to the cost against fast track charges.

Sources claim that none of this was followed in the islands’ transaction and maintain that if it was assumed that the property in question belonged to the PQA, what right it had to pass on more than 12,000 acres of land, free of cost to a foreign developer, who would remit 85 per cent of the income generated from the activities on the controversial islands.

The Port Qasim Authority would retain only 15 per cent. Out of 12,000 acres,

5000 was on the island and the rest would be reclaimed from the sea, the sources claimed.

They pointed out that under the MoU basic amenities, water, power, gas and infrastructure would be provided by the Pakistan government.

Sources pointed out that if the land would have been given under the establish-ed allotment policy at Rs2.5 million per acre, it would have fetched Rs30 billion to the PQA. But it was not done although recently the PQA auctioned half acre land for a petrol pump for about Rs58 million. The sources estimate that if the laid down policy would have been followed it would have yielded Rs15.92 trillion.

They pointed out that the PQA board of directors was reconstituted without the approval of the National Assembly.

They also alleged that the no-confidence move against the town nazim of the area was also part of the ruling coalition partner’s policy of removing all stumbling blocs.

They demanded that investigation should be carried out to determine who actually benefited from this “shady deal” and how much of the country’s money has been siphoned out offshore.

Sources also claimed that while handing over the two islands to a foreign company, country’s coastal security issues had not been given due consideration nor had it been explained who would be responsible for passenger handling on the island city. They pointed out that for security reasons initially Pakistan Navy had pitched its outpost on these islands because they were at the mouth of a network of creeks that could be used by infiltrators from the sea. They alleged that the ruling coalition had plans to sell the coastal belts to distant owners under the garb of privatisation. “Selling borders is alarming,” said a source in the fishing community which had been protesting against the deal.

The Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) was constantly opposing this project as it believes that it will cast a negative impact on the lives and livelihood of the local fishing communities.

Besides the destruction of basic and traditional source of livelihood of the poor fishing communities, it would render the entire marine ecological system unsustainable. Hundreds of fishing grounds would be annihilated. The unemployment ratio among poor fisherfolk will also increase.