The River Ravi Urban Development Project (RRUDP) is a long conceived “Green City” aimed at rehabilitation of the River into a perennial freshwater body. It is expected to become the largest fresh water river front in the world. Amongst the numerous economic advantages, the Project is projected to achieve, such as creation of jobs, urban development, and beautification of the city, the problem of smog, and greater access to fresh water through the banks of the River is sought to bring positive about positive impacts on the environment. The project spans across 102,074 acres and is governed by the RUDA Act 2020. However, ever since its construction in 2020 the impact of the project remains largely contested by the environmentalists and the legal fraternity. A major concern for both the stakeholders is the limited impact of the new settlement in wake of the ongoing problems as well as its adverse impacts on the environment, quite contrary to how the project is being branded. Taking this forward, this blog tends to dig deeper into analysis of the project from a legal and environmental lens depending largely on the Writ Petition. No.9249 of 2021, and the Report of the Environment Assessment Authority (EAA) which is ongoing in the Lahore High Court.
The first issue raised in the public interest writ petition was of the violations of the law with respect to usurpation of powers under Article 140-A of the Constitution. The Project had a controversy surrounding its Maser Plan which was not consulted with other stakeholders and hence has sought to endanger the environment with the creation of boundaries extending on agricultural land. The Lordships in the said case used the seminal case of Imarana Tiwana (attach link to where our website shows it) to conclude that the where such projects of mass impact on the environment and urban population are concerned, authorities like RUDA cannot take decisions on their own accord. Deliberations and consultations should be duly made with the Local Government. The court has held that since the people residing in the area of the RUDA should also be empowered to elect their representatives who could voice their concerns directly. However, no consideration of the locals has been taken in account by the authorities, where actually it is the local residents who will have their lives changed forever.
The second and most pressing issues in connection with the first one is undoubtedly the impact on the environment. Most of the project (75.78% of the land) is agricultural covering approximately an area of 77,357 acres. The EIA reports that approximately 82.8% of the population depends on the land for agriculture, sustenance and livelihood. The area also houses seven forests spanning over 577 acres, 789 of which are under the riverbed. 1235 with the Pakistan army while 3697.5 acres of forest is under the control of the Forest Department and the rest is encroached upon. It is unfortunate to note that only 1882 acres of forests have been planted. This shows the prioritization of environment by the government departments.
Moreover, the report reveals that most of the agricultural land will be lost within 30 years and that almost 225 of forest lands are expected to be lost because of the expansion of the river channel. In addition to this, there are 14,351 households with a buildup area of 1199 acres, with additional 2343 households with the area of 71 acres. To mitigate the resettlement impact, only settlements will in the riverbed will be relocated. This seems as an underwhelming promise as those people are who are not residing in the riverbed may not be accounted for.
Amidst this discussion it is pertinent to note that there has been enormous loss of agricultural land to cater to the needs of urban expansion even before the RUDA project. The Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: Environment and Earth Institute published in 2014 revealed some striking information. The share of agricultural land decreased from 54% in 1972 to 35.7% in 2009. The expanding urban housing replaced the natural vegetation cover with the urban infrastructure. The same time duration recorded a loss of 85% forest land in the study area. Lahore is bounded by river Ravi in North and India in the east. Over the past few decades, urban expansion of Lahore has significantly modified the land use patterns of the area. The built up area has increased remarkably at the expanse of agricultural as well as forest land. This rapid expansion has resulted as haphazard growth, high density population, air, water and noise pollution and unplanned expansion along canal road.
These already ongoing devastating impact on the environment coupled with the projected loss of land under RRUDP violates Article 9, which is security of person. In PLC 2011 SC 619, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has noted that ―right to life implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter”. Moreover, Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2018 Lah.364) the Court held that fundamental rights like right to life include a right to healthy and clean environment. The EIA report concluded “that prime agricultural land will be converted to urban area and that thousands of forests are going to be felled. There will be a loss of certain natural species especially in the river Ravi”.
Ironically, the RRUDP boasts about mitigating the impact of smog in Lahore. However, the EIA does not mention the number of trees that are to be felled from the already dwindling forests, how the smog cloud over and around the city of Lahore will be impacted by another city on its borders and what will be the effect in food and ecological pattern by consuming an increased amount of agricultural land for urban use. The report is also silent and fails to calculate the actual perceived impact on what type of flower, fauna, crop and natural habitat will be affected.
This is a cause of concern especially in regards to the ongoing food scarcity and security in wake of the flooding in Pakistan. Pakistan ranks 80 out of 113 countries on the Global Food Security Index. On food safety specifically, Pakistan scores a 43.5, The fear that the conversion of fresh agricultural land into urban land will lead to food shortage, deprivation of life extending to having a clean environment has been observed as a violation of fundamental rights in Masood Ahmad Wassan v. Govt. of the Punjab (2020 YLR 2597).
In summary, Mubashar Ahmad Almas v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2021 Lah. 720) suggested that in order avoid the disastrous effects of urban sprawling, campaigns should be initiated to attract people to high rise buildings and avoid the extra use of agricultural land. Moreover, Federal Government Employees Housing v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa (2021 SCMR 201), has also suggested an uniform mechanism to compensate those displaced because of housing schemes in RUDA. It is also of no surprise that the Environment Report has also been written by a backlisted consultant which was the previous employer of the CEO of RUDA. Such attitudes only reflect the importance given to environmental related projects. In a country where one of hand, Pakistan is grappling with growing urban population and on the other, severe environmental degradation – due care should be given to such projects.
