When Mr Asif Zardari was appointed de facto head of the environment ministry some time ago, we were quite pleased. The possibility that he might have other than an altruistic interest in the environment was slight. The ministry needed to be strengthened and there could be no more suitable man for the job than the PM’s powerful spouse. Mr Zardari is known for his winning ways with the lumbering bureaucracy when he sets his mind to it — a case in point being the recent textile agreement hammered out with APTMA when Mr Zardari is said to have swept aside the red tape and clinched the deal to the delight of businessmen.
Unfortunately, however, Mr Zardari has been so busy zooming all over the world with the PM, leading business delegations here and there, and lending his counsel to sundry ministers and committees, that he hasn’t had a moment to spare for environment concerns. When he can find the time, he should ask for an update on where matters stand. In that context, a recent development merits special mention because it has the potential to set the ground rules for cleaning up the environment.
Last month, the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), an Islamabad-based NGO, objected to the proposed import of a Chlor-Alkali plant (which uses mercury cells for the production of chlorine and caustic soda) by Ravi Alkalis Ltd. If the import went ahead and the plant were commissioned, argued the SDPI, it would prove extremely hazardous for the environment.
Ravi Alkalis denied the charges, saying that the government’s Environment Protection Agency (EPA) as well as a Senate Committee on the Environment had approved the project.
But SDPI wasn’t convinced. So it solicited the support of other concerned NGOs including Greenpeace — the international environment protection watchdog — to support its position. In due course, the local press also became an ally of SDPI. Ravi responded by taking out advertisements and handing out press briefs explaining its point of view and assuring the public that the proposed plant was environmentally safe.
If Ravi had wanted to be bloody minded, it could have chosen to ignore the public outcry and gone ahead with importing and installing the plant. After all, a number of such plants are already operating in the country, the EPA was on its side, the Senate had cleared the proposed plant and a sprinkling of bribes in relevant quarters would have eased Ravi’s headache.
But it is to Ravi’s credit that when it acted decisively to resolve the deadlock, it did so in support of a cleaner environment. An honourable compromise was effected two weeks ago when Ravi sat across the table with SDPI and Greenpeace and agreed to undertake a number of measures to allay public fears. Among these: a commitment to eliminate mercury cells and mercury-contaminated equipment from the scope of the plant; and changing the process of manufacture of chlorine to cleaner membrane-cell technology. Ravi has also invited SDPI and its international partners to set up a monitoring programme with the objective of complying with acceptable environmental standards for the installation and operations of chemical industries in general and the Ravi Chlor-Alkali plant in particular. By so doing, Ravi has set an excellent example of the sort of responsibility and self-restraint which we expect other industries to demonstrate.
The role of the EPA, however, leaves much to be desired. Throughout the controversy, the representatives of the agency appeared to be more interested in guarding the interests of industry than those of the environment they are expected to defend. The EPA’s performance, in support of industry, before the Senate committee was shocking, to say the least.
Mr Zardari, therefore, has an immediate, three-fold task at hand. First, the current lot of bureaucrats in the EPA, who seem suspiciously charitable towards industry, should be chopped forthwith. They should be replaced by officials who are better informed and more caring about the environment. Second, the EPA must be beefed up. It needs greater resources to efficiently monitor and evaluate violations of environment protection laws. Third, the law ministry, in close association with NGOs, must take a hard look at the existing set of environmental laws to determine their suitability and adequacy in existing conditions. Where necessary, amendments to the law may be tabled.
A comprehensive National Conservation Strategy Policy already exists. The problem is that its implementation has been painfully slow. This would suggest that environmental protection is low on the government’s agenda. Mr Zardari could change all this by taking a serious crack at his official job.
When he was asked by the PM to take care of the environment, Mr Zardari sent a brief letter to various editors informing them of his concerns and soliciting their cooperation. On our part, we are pleased to confirm our unstinting support for such endevours. However, Mr Zardari has to demonstrate a measure of seriousness by urgently coming to grips with the problem. If he likes to make headlines, and if he is anxious to earn the public’s goodwill, there can be no better cause to do so than the greening of Pakistan.