While speaking at her first exchange of views programme, Adviser for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Syeda Rizwana Hasan said that from now on high court directives on environmental protection will be implemented on a priority basis.
She further elaborated on the issue by saying that in order to prevent - rampant use of polythene and single-use plastics, bring down air pollution, noise pollution caused by vehicle horns, prevent river pollution, develop waste management system, protect hills, preserve forests and water bodies - appropriate high court orders will be issued and effectively implemented. Moreover, her ministry will exchange views regularly with international and national organisations, civil society, mass media, private sector, academics, professionals and others , so to increase deeper engagement of all stakeholders related to environment related issues.
We wholeheartedly welcome this much needed move.
The point, however, our actions to protect the environment should not be confined to just one day. We must collectively commit to protect our environment every day of the year, so to ensure healthy and responsible living.
Now that HC directives on environment issues are to get a top priority, needs be reminded that quite remarkably Bangladesh has more than 200 environmental protection laws. Yet, our environment continues to experience unimaginable scale of pollution, encroachment and degradation.
Despite hundreds of laws there exist some self-contradictory ones, those which are problematic at the very core in their designs aimed to protect and benefit humans, but not the environment within which humans live.
Let's take the Environment Conservation Act 1995 for instance, as voiced by some experts, a close reading of some of this law's provisions reveals its pivotal role in legitimising environmental destruction while produce and permit harmful practices that contribute to create and perpetuate unjust environmental conditions.
The law reflects an "injury-therapy" model by allowing degradation of the environment (injury) on one hand while restrict detrimental activities done to the environment (healing therapy) on the other. The law prohibits cutting or razing of any type of hills and hillocks by any individual or institution. But it provides an exception allowing the Department of Environment (DoE) to issue a clearance certificate in favour of cutting or razing hills for the sake of 'national interest.' Similarly, the filling of reservoirs (river, canal, wetlands, etc) is prohibited, subject to an exception on the grounds of 'national interest.'
Interestingly, the law, however, does not provide any definition or explanation of the term 'national interest.'
Naturally, this term, being exceedingly broad and vague, leaves enough room for biased and arbitrary interpretation while providing space for manipulation. Moreover, a number of provisions regarding environmental pollution and degradation are too wide ranging lacking clarity and precision.
We urge environment authorities to quick reform all self-contradictory and ambivalent legal codes of conduct on environment protection related issues.
