LAHORE: Increasing forest cover was the only solution to cope with the vulnerability of climate change that was prevailing in the country. This was stressed by the speakers during a symposium “Forests on the verge of extinction” arranged by Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association (PSCBA) and Echo Watch here on Saturday.
Speakers said that there was a dire need to devise a strategy for afforestation in the country as it was the only possible way to deal with global warming and climate change issues. They also announced to move the court against the negligence of the authorities for their failure to control deforestation in Pakistan.
Eminent environmental lawyer Sardar Aasif Sial while stressing the need for climate justice said that climate change had directly been affecting the hydrologic cycle and thus the quality, quantity, and timing of streamflows. He said that climate change was shifting forests borders and was having a negative impact on livelihoods and biodiversity.
“With the rise in temperature, the rate of evaporation increases and recharge to groundwater decreases. As a result, the availability of drinkable water resources is reducing,” he said and added that these changes were expected to intensify in the future and have large impacts on forests and water.
Sial further said that warmer temperatures and less water could cause changes in vegetation and increase forest mortality, as well as fire, were expected.
Each, he said, had serious implications for people and ecosystems.
Former Meteorological Department DG Dr Qamaruz Zaman said that deforestation did not just add to the vulnerability of climate change, but it also adversely affected the national economy. He lamented that the government was cutting trees in the name of development projects it ignored planting new trees to cope with climate change.
PSCBA President Syed Kaleem was of the view that deforestation was hampering the overall progress of the country but the timber mafia had the leniency to cut trees. He said that he would move the court over the issue because “this was a matter of public interest”.
