KARACHI: Already into the construction phase in violation of environmental laws, the Malir bund realignment/construction project of the Sindh irrigation department attracted severe criticism at an event held on Wednesday to share findings of its environmental impact assessment (EIA) report with public.

The public hearing was organised by the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) in the Awan-i-Sanat building of the Korangi Industrial and Trade Estate. The new embankment is to be constructed from the north side of the Malir river.

The EIA was conducted by the Global Environmental Manage­ment Services (Gems). The 5.6-km-long proposed embankment lies parallel to the existing right bank of Malir river starting from EBM causeway towards the Jam Sadiq bridge and ends up near the Parco pipeline crossing.

During the hearing, the project proponents as well as the private consultants that had carried out the EIA could neither convince participants in the meeting on the need of the project nor could they give a satisfactory explanation when asked about the problems with and performance of the present embankment.

Forest department not consulted for approval to cut down mangroves, Sepa hearing told

There was general consensus in the meeting that the Rs2.5 billion project lacked justification, given the fact that there was no flooding risk involved with the present Malir river embankment. And the Malir river, as stated in the EIA report, was seasonal and remained dry for most parts of the year.

It was suggested that the government should go for strengthening the existing embankment instead of creating a new one that wouldn’t only be a loss to the public exchequer but would also destroy mangrove forests. Senior environmentalist Dr Mirza Arshad Ali Baig said they didn’t have any problem with the Malir river but with the city’s drainage system carrying tonnes of toxic industrial effluent going directly into the sea. None of the nullahs in the city were functioning, he said. “A solution to this problem is to bound industries to set up treatment plants for their waste,” he commented.

He also questioned as to why the EIA report didn’t consider other alternatives to the project.

Sharing his concerns, Dr Waqar Ahmed of Karachi University’s Institute for Environmental Studies said since the Malir river would be narrowed down (under this project), the risk of inundation of localities along the bank would increase.

“The EIA report doesn’t explain why only the north side of the Malir river bund has been selected for the project while a flood could affect the whole area alongside the embankment,” he said.

The project area, he said, was ecological sensitive with a number of birds visiting the area and the presence of mangrove forests. “However, the EIA report neither specifies the area covered by mangroves nor gives an estimated number of trees and shrubs to be cut down due to the construction,” said Dr Ahmed.

The new embankment, he said, would not only destroy the mangroves coming in its way but also the ones on the other side as they wouldn’t receive water.

It was pointed out that strangely enough, the forest department had not been consulted for approval to cut down the mangroves and their feedback on the EIA despite the fact that mangroves were protected under the law.

Highlighting flaws in the EIA report, some participants said the document lacked key information about the project, included false statistics and had no data from the modelling studies, which was a scientific way to assess environmental impacts.

“The project should have been justified with the help of a study and made part of the EIA report. It lacks mention of the methodology adopted to carry out the EIA that seems to have been done without holding a meeting with stakeholders to determine the scope of the project,” said Dr M. Mansha, heading the environmental monitoring and modelling division at Suparco (Pakistan Space and Upper Atmos­phere Research Commission).

Citing Suparco’s studies, he said the EIA report wrongly stated that carbon monoxide levels were found to be zero in the project area, as there was no place in Karachi with zero levels of the toxic gas. There was no data on (particulate matter) PM2.5, besides the environmental management plan given in the report lacked specific details about activities, role and responsibilities of different agencies involved in the project, he added.

Some participants raised their concern about a huge piece of land to be reclaimed from the Malir river and said it would be used later for commercial housing purposes and the Malir Expressway.

Sepa technical director Waqar Hussain Phulpoto directed the project proponents to immediately stop construction on the project. Under the Sepa Act of 2014, he said, the EIA report had to be approved before project’s construction. “There are important gaps in the EIA report that needs to be revised and modified,” he said while directing EIA consultants to explore alternatives to the project and submit them in writing to Sepa.

He agreed with the participants that the project proponents couldn’t come up with a proper justification for the project and meetings with the stakeholders such as the forest department and non-governmental organizations working for nature conservation had not been conducted to get their views on the project.

However, he rejected the idea that another public hearing was needed to discuss the project’s justification. “It’s not allowed under the law. When they complete the due process, the EIA report would be discussed in the expert committee for approval,” he said in reply to a question.

Earlier, Abdul Basit of Gems briefed the audience about the project that he regarded as a positive development for Karachi.

“The project is needed to prevent the river from changing its course beyond its defined banks and to train the river flow along a safe course, thereby avoiding damage by flooding, erosion of valuable land and the nearby habitat,” he reasoned.

He also explained various phases of the project that included site clearance, de-watering and compaction of road works. His presentation also had information about the present physical environment of the project area, history of Malir river flooding and details about the flora and fauna of the project site.

Defending the EIA report, the Gems representatives argued that mangroves existing at the project site had stunted growth with no ecological benefit as they survived in highly polluted water. While the dominant species in the project area was mesquite, which could be found across the city, the mangroves loss would be compensated by new plantation of mangroves, they said.

However, they failed to share specific data on the area covered by mangroves and their number to be cut down during the construction of the embankment. They insisted that the project was conceived after two studies had been carried, they couldn’t share details of the studies with the audience.

Published in Dawn June 18th, 2015

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