Background 

I would like to begin with a quote from the humanist Albert Schweitzer who said , "If  I am to expect others to respect my life, then I must respect the life I see, no matter how strange it may seem to mine."

The Kirthar National Park is the first and largest national park in  Pakistan and forms the core of a complex of protected areas in the region. It has the distinction of being the first of its kind in Pakistan to be included in the United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. Kirthar's defining features are its outstanding natural beauty, its species diversity and its cultural heritage. Thanks to the devoted efforts of the Sind Wildlife Department and IUCN, impressive successes have been achieved in species preservation.  For example there are substantial and documented increases in populations of threatened species such as the ibex and the urial. Kirthar is also home to various archaeological sites like the tombs at Taung and the Rannikot fort, and supports a human population (estimated between 10,000 and 15,000 people) with strong tribal traditions.

Conservation efforts in the Kirthar Park originated in the extensive research and documentation carried out by conservationists, such as Alexander Burns, in the early 20 century. Over a period of fifty years they recorded between them 426 species of birds in Sind. Thanks to their inspiration and efforts, the Wild Birds and Animal Protection Act was approved by the Sind government. This was followed by an improved Sind Wild Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act of 1940.  The act was further reconstituted and updated in 1959 as the West Pakistan Wildlife Protection Ordinance.  In 1966, Guy Montfort led two WWF sponsored expeditions to Pakistan, which resulted in far reaching recommendations for the government. In addition, his book, "The Vanishing Jungle" brought environmental conservation concerns to the attention of the intelligentsia. The combination of the two led to the repeal of the 1959 Ordinance and its replacement by the more dynamic Sind Wildlife Protection Ordinance of 1972. 

The Legal Dimension

Recent attempts by Shell-Premier to make inroads into the national park area for commercial gain have drawn criticism from the national press. A compliant federal government appears bent upon legitimizing such intrusions. It is, therefore, imperative that a solid legal bedrock be constructed for the protection of Kirthar National Park.  Fortunately, the Sind Wildlife Protection Ordinance has proved to be an ironclad constitutional guarantee. I will elaborate a bit on the provisions of this Ordinance because, basically, the law is the only credible defense against the global onslaught of oil and gas giants such as Shell-Premier. 

The Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972, section 15, authorizes the government to notify any area of outstanding scenic merit and natural interest to be a national park. The provisions of the act ban the firing of guns, felling, and breaking up of land for cultivation and mining.  The intent of these provisions is to protect indigenous species and habitats. The provisions have both a direct and an indirect aspect. Firstly, they explicitly ban mining. Second, in as much as exploratory and production activities are likely to disturb and damage local fauna and flora, they again violate the provisions of the act.  An EIA also falls within the ambit of this law in as much as precedes and can lead to the act of exploration and mining itself.

Similarly, under section 14 of the Ordinance the government may declare any area to be a Wildlife Sanctuary (sub-section 1).  The conditions are even more stringent than in a national park as they authorize entry only for purposes of aesthetic enjoyment and improving the scenery. In effect, a wildlife sanctuary is a higher form of a protected area. The government may, for 'scientific purposes' or for the 'betterment' of
the national park, allow prohibited acts.  This particular clause is being adroitly manipulated by Shell-Premier. Given the inevitable destruction of park resources that follow exploration - both underground and above ground - betterment can mean no more than the  control and repair of damage already inflicted. Other sweeteners, such as schools, hospitals and jobs tend to stem from ulterior motives rather than pure altruism. In fact, this a carrot and stick approach often resorted to by oil and gas companies.  Continued resistance by communities often ends up in flagrant human rights violations, with the companies implicitly colluding in such acts. Cases in point are the brutal murder of a prominent environmental activist, Ken Saro-Wiwa, in Nigeria and the induction of slave labor to construct the Tennasarim gas pipeline, being forced through a tropical rain forest in Burma; escaped slaves tell of beatings, torture, rape and murder of captives by the army. Shell-Premier have been privy to such excessess and have been cavalier in their reactions. By the same token, supporting activities, such as EIAs can hardly be construed as scientific activities.  Rather than being inspired by a dispassionate quest for scientific knowledge which, by definition is incrementally acquired, they are more prone to ease the path for
subsequent exploration by oil and gas companies.  The record is replete
with cases where EIAs have been distorted to suit the interest of the
companies which employ them.

Environment and ecology are on the concurrent list in the constitution of
If the federal government has not deemed it necessary to pass
any legislation in respect of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, and
the provincial government has passed such legislation, then all government
functionaries, federal or provincial must abide by it. Accordingly, the
exploration license issued under Rule 17 of the Pakistan Petroleum
(exploration and production) Rules, 1986 is illegal, as no federal
authority can issue an exploration license in violation or disregard of
laws of the land, whether federal or provincial.

This brings us to the issue of resolving apparent conflicts with federal
laws. Where a subject is on the concurrent list, conflicting statutes
allow a provincial act to be struck down by federal legislation. However,
a legal expert engaged by IUCN has determined that there is no such
conflict, especially as there is no extant federal legislation on national
parks. As such the provincial wildlife act takes precedence over
administrative decisions, such as those taken under the Pakistan Petroleum
(Exploration and Production) Rules, 1986.

The Development Argument

When the law is so unequivocally clear on the issue, why then have
Shell-Premier pressed on with securing the exploration license and the
NOC. One would have expected the company and, by extension, its clients
Hagler-Bailly, Pakistan to at least seek legal clarification before
proceeding into the park area. That they did not could be put down to an
extreme, but not improbable, attitude that Pakistani laws are meant to be
more honored in the breach than in the observance.

A more charitable view revolves around the development argument. Pakistan
is presently confronted with dwindling gas supplies.  Kirthar offers the
prospect of new and huge reserves.  Natural gas, as a direct and indirect
energy source, is considerably less polluting than coal or oil.  Further
more, gas would substitute for biomass and slow down  deforestation.
Infusions of foreign capital are likely to have ripple effects, triggering
investment in other areas.  In the Park area itself, the company would
provide critically needed jobs, social services and infrastructure.
Finally, there are mining technologies on the shelf that would minimize
adverse environmental and social impacts.

While such arguments can not be disclaimed, they also deserve closer
scrutiny. My primary concern relates to the decision making process which,
predictably, has been top-down and highly centralized.

First, no effort has been made to consult or elicit the consent of the
local tribal communities.

Second, had the EIA gone through, it would have preempted more detailed
surveys to determine baseline conditions, pertaining to geology, air and
water quality, ecology, cultural resources and socioeconomics. At best
these surveys would have been done concurrently rather than in the
prescribed sequential manner. Also, the EIA would be a rushed job as there
is a mandatory requirement to complete it within three months, followed by
a 4-month assessment period. The transparency of the EIA firm selection
process is important, but it takes second billing to the non-consultative
manner in which the EIA was planned in the first place.

Third, who would be the real beneficiaries of the additional gas supplies.
Would the gas grid be extended to the remote-or even adjoining - rural
areas, or would it bypass them, as in the case of Sui?

Fourth, have cost-benefit studies been conducted on alternatives to
Kirthar gas, such as energy conservation, loss reduction and renewables
options.

Fifth, have alternatives, such as community managed tourism, been examined
from a social, cultural and environmental sustainability.

We welcome your comments, suggestions and contribution.
Amjad Bhatti  afbhatti@hotmail.com
Phone: 92 51 8 088, 8 009
Duryog Nivaran dnnet@itdg.lanka.net
Journalists Resource Centre jrc@syberwurx.com

Phone: + 92 42 6666404 - 6687827
 

 

 
E-mail: jrc@syberwurx.com