Hunting of houbaras

Published July 31, 2015
The SC declares that the Foreign Office, which issued the licences, did not “prima facie” have the authority to do so.—AP/File
The SC declares that the Foreign Office, which issued the licences, did not “prima facie” have the authority to do so.—AP/File

THE humble houbara bustard on one side versus the rapacious Arabs and supine Pakistani governments on the other – it was always a no-contest.

Now, however, the Supreme Court, in response to a petition, has weighed in on the issue of foreign dignitaries from the Arab world being granted licences every year to hunt the internationally protected bird in various parts of the country.

The court made its objection to the practice very clear and added that the Foreign Office, which issued the licences, did not “prima facie” have the authority to do so.

Know more: SC criticises grant of licences for houbara bustard hunting

The court, which raised questions of violation of sovereignty and the decimation of environmental assets in the leeway being given to the Arabs, ordered the centre and provincial governments to submit detailed reports on the situation by Aug 11.

Failure to do so satisfactorily, it said, would result in the foreign secretary being summoned to explain why such permits were being granted.

The crescendo of voices from civil society objecting to the arrival of the bustard-hunting parties from Gulf countries has been growing louder each year.

Giving the protests further impetus is evidence that the visitors brazenly flout even the nominal constraints placed on them by their host country.

In early 2014, for instance, a Saudi prince hunted 2,100 houbaras during the course of 21 days, whereas the permit limits the holder to a maximum of 100 birds over a 10-day period.

Last year, the high court in Balochistan decided to take up the gauntlet by cancelling the permits awarded to foreigners for hunting the bird in the province. Nevertheless, the hunters were welcomed with open arms, with the Balochistan government itself challenging the ban.

That is where the problem lies: those who are responsible for upholding the law and protecting this country’s assets — whether environmental or otherwise — are themselves either beholden in myriad ways to international parties or else want to pander to them for future gains.

Until that changes, the courts are our only hope.

Published in Dawn, July 31st, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play

Opinion

Editorial

Afghan turbulence
Updated 19 Mar, 2024

Afghan turbulence

RELATIONS between the newly formed government and Afghanistan’s de facto Taliban rulers have begun on an...
In disarray
19 Mar, 2024

In disarray

IT is clear that there is some bad blood within the PTI’s ranks. Ever since the PTI lost a key battle over ...
Festering wound
19 Mar, 2024

Festering wound

PROTESTS unfolded once more in Gwadar, this time against the alleged enforced disappearances of two young men, who...
Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...