Join our Whatsapp channel

       PAKISTAN’S environmental journey since 1947 reflects the complex evolution of governance structures, policy frameworks and institutional responses to sustainability challenges. Though products of the same colonial legacy, India and Pakistan have developed fundamentally different approaches to ecological governance.

       Genesis: Both embarked upon their sustainability journeys after the 1972 Stockholm Conference, where they were represented by Indira Gandhi and Nusrat Bhutto respectively. Their responses established divergent trajectories. India created a National Council for Environmental Policy and Planning, culminating in the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976.

       This embedded environmental protection in state responsibilities through Article 48A and made it a citizen duty via Article 51A(g). The foundation provided an enduring strategic framework guiding policy through multiple political transitions.

       Progression continued with legislative milestones. The Water and Air Pollution Control Acts established regulatory bodies and created the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. The 73rd and 74th Amendments created the three-tiered Panchayati Raj systems, integrating governance structures from national to village levels. Each step built upon previous foundations.

       Pakistan chose administrative action over constitutional amendment. It creating an Urban Affairs Division in 1972, which focused on urban pollution. However, the UAD remained largely inactive for two decades. It has since been reorganised at least six times under different names or mandates.

       Environmental challenges require patience that comes from clear direction.

       Later legislation — the Environmental Prot-ection Ordinance (1983) and Act (1997) — represented guidance by iconic environmental leaders like Dr Parvez Hassan but lacked the components of a coherent, long-term strategy. The superior courts then stepped in, expansively interpreting ‘right to life’ of Article 9 to include environmental rights in the landmark 1994 Shehla Zia vs Wapda case.

       While this judicial innovation provided the foundation for environmental jurisprudence, it also highlighted the absence of clear executive and legislative direction in policy development.

       Pakistan demonstrated early climate leadership by chairing the G-77 at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The country pioneered climate justice through the 2015 Leghari case, becoming the first nation to establish climate change as a fundamental rights issue. Pakistan’s ’Ten Billion Tree Tsu-nami’ was one of the world’s most ambitious reforestation programmes, while significant renewable energy additions of over 1,300 MW since 2015 showed progress towards the 30 per cent renewables target by 2030.

       Institutional evolution: India’s federal structures enabled expansion of ecological capabilities, with the central ministry providing national coordination and states developing complementary frameworks. This approach created space for synergies with initiatives like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which simultaneously provides livelihood security while protecting biodiversity and enhancing climate adaptation through water conservation and watershed management.

       However, India’s system faces significant challenges. Implementation gaps persist between constitutional mandates and ground reality, with persistent air quality crises in Delhi and major cities, along with industrial water contamination.

       Enfor-cement varies dramatically between states, while federal-state coordination complexities create bureaucratic delays. Courts sometimes substitute for policymaking through judicial activism, creating inconsistent governance patterns that undermine the systematic approach that constitutional clarity was meant to provide. Several state-level climate action plans remain unimplemented.

       Pakistan’s institutional journey is a different story. Repeated restructuring consumed valuable time and energy while disrupting institutional memory and stakeholder relationships.

       The 18th Amendment devolved powers to the provinces without adequate coordination mechanisms. While decentralisation offered benefits, implementation created fragmentation challenges. The 2017 Climate Change Act attempted to recentralise functions by creating an authority, thus undermining federal ministry mandates and creating duplication.

       It added to federal-provincial tensions that remain unresolved in climate-related policy documents: National Climate Change Policy, Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plan, Policy Guidelines for Trading in Carbon Markets, National Climate Finance Strategy and Pakistan Green Taxonomy. Despite the challenges, Pakistan has come up with notable innovations.

       Resource mobilisation: India’s constitutional mandate facilitated integration of sustainability considerations into domestic budgeting, enabling resource allocation that has grown. International cooperation supplements rather than substitutes domestic investment, maintaining autonomy in policy direction.

       Pakistan’s financing shows a drift through external dependency, though the country recently initiated budget-tagging. Provin-cial programmes remain underfunded, creating cycles where donor preferences override national goals. This dependency exposes challenges in boosting sustainable domestic capabilities.

       India’s enforcement benefits from frameworks created with constitutional clarity and systematic institutional development. Courts operate within the established law, providing interpretation that supports long-term planning. Despite enforcement challenges, the approach perhaps creates cumulative improvements in compliance and institutional capacity. Pakistan’s enforcement reflects a broader strategic drift. The judiciary plays a central role, filling gaps left by inadequate policy frameworks. While the environmental protection tribunals represent innovation, they operate within uncertain policy direction parameters and insufficient resources, resulting in crisis-driven enforcement.

       The strategic compass: The basic difference lies in strategic direction: clear guidance enabling ins-titutions to navigate challenges while maintaining progress. India’s constitutional framework provi-ded this compass. Pakistan’s journey, despite im--pressive institutional innovation and policy creativity, lacks consistent long-term direction.

       This creates patterns of starting initiatives, changing course and restarting. Both countries face mounting pressures requiring sustained responses. Pak-istan’s experience demonstrates that success dep-ends on developing strategic clarity to guide consistent progress.

       The tale of these two environmental journeys demonstrates that in governance, as in navigation, knowing your destination and staying the course may be more important than the speed of travel. Environmental challenges require patience that comes from clear direction. As both countries face mounting pressures from transboundary climate challenges, the need for strategic clarity becomes even more critical for their shared environmental future.

       The writer is a climate change and sustainable development expert.

       Published in Dawn, August 14th, 2025