Editorial by the writer, The News, Oct 11, 2006

No to island cities


What does one say when a country as underdeveloped and backward as Pakistan wishes to develop supposedly state-of-the-art cities in two uninhabited islands off its coastline and even hands them over to a foreign development firm? Should one be delighted at this, given that this means that foreign investment will come into the country, that jobs will be created when the project gets underway and that once completed it will provide the country with cities just like that pearl across the Gulf, Dubai? The recent announcement that the two islands have been handed over to a reputed UAE-based developer by the Port Qasim Authority (PQA) has already become controversial -- but that was only to be expected given the scope and nature of the project and the secretive manner in which the deal has been completed. Not all the opposition has come from NGOs, environmental groups, concerned citizens and fisherfolk groups and communities. In the days following the announcement, the Sindh chief minister himself told reporters that he was not too sure whether a federal government body could give the islands -- situated off Karachi’s coast -- to a foreign firm for development. However, a couple of days later he was quoted in the press as saying that there should be no problem with the project. But then other officials of the Sindh government raised issue over the project saying that the islands in question did not belong to the PQA and that their ownership needed to be ascertained since in all likelihood it could well lie with the provincial government.

In any case, these are procedural objections. Various NGOs, environmental groups and especially the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum have more basic and well-grounded objections to the project and these should have been considered before deciding to hand over the islands to a foreign developer. For instance, it has been rightly pointed out that the development on the islands may well have a very adverse impact on the local fishermen communities because of the construction activity that will take place. Also, once the project is in place it is bound to pollute the area around the islands and it is likely that the pollution will spread far beyond the islands affecting the marine life in the area and the potential catch for local fishermen. Another argument that goes against such development is that it does nothing for the ordinary person who lives along the city’s coastline and is geared for providing entertainment and leisure activities to the very affluent. Besides, of all places why choose two uninhabited islands off the city’s coast for setting up such cities? Could a better site not have been chosen, one that would have lesser environmental impact and not threaten the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and their families?

One has to say that the whole rather hurried manner in which this project has been undertaken and awarded to a foreign developer smacks of a complete lack of transparency as well as insensitivity to the needs of all stakeholders concerned. Most regrettably, this is the way most infrastructure and development projects are being planned in this country: by bureaucrats or ministry officials sitting behind closed doors handing over vast tracts of land to foreign or local developers without conducting the legally-mandated environmental impact assessments and without taking into consideration the views of ordinary people who would be directly affected by the project’s construction. This lack of transparency in decision-making and formulation of policies, and the generally opaque manner of implementing these policies, especially with regard to development, needs to change or else the balance of power within the country -- heavily stacked currently in favour of the elites -- will become even more imbalanced and tilted in favour of the powerful.