|
|
|
What we need is a sensible approach
A Rs. 780 million Tidal link was proposed by a foreign consultant to save the costal belt near Badin (mostly salt plains with no agriculture) from the out falling saline drainage water from the LBOD. This area is very close to the sea and has few dhands (shallow lakes) with partly fresh and partly saline water. The main argument for building the Tidal Link was to save these dhands from saline water and save the incoming Siberian birds, which settle on the dhands in winter. However in the context of Pakistan’s economic scenario the whole project built with a loan at a high rate of interest from the World Bank would appear to be an environmental extravagance for a very poor Pakistan. Unfortunately no Pakistani was qualified to question the wisdom of the knowledgable west, and those who raised the question were ridiculed for ignoring such an “environmental treasure.” Perhaps it was not in the hands of WAPDA, the Irrigation Department of Sindh to question the wisdom of the donor agencies of the World Bank. However the wisdom of the environmentally conscious consultants came crashing down within three years when the main Chorli wear on the Tidal Link crashed to the channel bottom (1998) and then soon after the Tidal Link washed away. Now there is no Tidal Link except for few broken discontinuous banks and the saline drainage water is spreading all over. Thank God, the Sindh government rejected World Bank’s offer to rebuild the link with yet another loan. The argument that the Tidal Link is not an unavoidable environmental necessity worth Rupees 780 million rupees has been validated. The Siberian birds are still coming and the dhand waters even if affected, still continues with marine life with a slight change from sweet water to saline water marine life. It would take another generation for Pakistan to pay back Rs. 780 million with the compound interest, for a premise based on un-judicious evaluation of an environmental issue.
Now we come to a present problem in which a sensible decision could save Pakistan Rs300 million and a potential risk to the safety of Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD) now under construction on the Indus’s right bank. It is feared that a decision made for saving a questionable archaeological site would not only raise the cost of the project but put it under the constant threat of the Indus. The RBOD itself is a grand environmental project to save millions of acres of Right Bank agricultural land from water logging, the Manchar Lake from salinization and the river Indus from pollution from the discharge of saline drainage water into the river, downstream of Sehwan. RBOD at village Amri passes through two archaeological sites in the shape of earthen mounds. These mounds are likely ruins of a habitat dating back to Indus civilization. There are three alternatives available for the RBOD route around Amri. The first alternative is to pass the drain in between the two mounds, which are 380 ft apart. The surface width of the drain is 150 ft leaving a distance 115 ft from the edge of the drain to each mound. The total digging involved is to a depth of 15 ft from the surface. For this alternative a mitigation measure to save the mounds, A and B, has been proposed, to hand-dig this reach of the channel for 1000 ft under the guidance of the Archaeological department. If anything is found it will be saved for the museum and if need, stop the digging and go for alternative 2 or 3. Further the channel for this 1000 ft length would be lined to protect the site from any potential seepage. Second alternative is to totally bypass the site and take RBOD on the left side. This would take RBOD into the flood plain of the river Indus and very close to the main river channel. It would be under constant attack from the river in flood. This would also result in it cutting through the agricultural lands of the poor farmers resulting in their dislocation. For this option, as a mitigation measure special structures would be required to protect the RBOD from floods to provide a large number of foot bridges, for the affected lands, which would cost Rs300 million more than alternative one. Further a large sum would be added in resettlement costs. The third alternative is to take it on the right of Amri, which would cause dislocation of the railway line and national highway and cost Rs. 350 million more than the first alternative, plus dislocation of farmers. The clients on the insistence of archaeological department are considering alternative-2. Alternative one should be accepted on the following grounds. i) Would cost less by 30 to 40 crore rupees. ii) The risk involved to the Archaeological site is not of the level of the range of Rs. 30 crore. iii) There is no risk involved to the safety of RBOD in alternative 1 and therefore is the safest route, as compared to route 2. iv) Compromise between environmental and economical considerations based on the principles discussed above, the best choice for Pakistan would be alternative 1. v) The damage being done to humans by displacement in alternative 2 and 3 is of greater significance than possible damage with questionable risk to an archaeological site. vi) Should a poor country like Pakistan ape the affluent west in environmental policies. Surely not, we have to adapt to our own economic ground realities. Therefore a wiser decision would be to go for alternative 1, even at some risk to the archaeological site. It is time decision makers learn to take a balanced decision on environmental issues. | ||
Pakistan needs to sensibly adopt a middle-of-the-road way by applying environmental mitigation measures that should take an overall view of the economy, development, as well as environmental issues |
|
|
|
