IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research article
erdPreliminary Social and Environmental Assessment ofZulfikarabad: a New Coastal Mega City Project inPakistan
JUNAID ALAM MEMON*
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, Pakistan
E-mail: memon@gmx.us
Received 16 December 2011

Accepted 12 March 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract This article presents the preliminary social and environmental assessment ofZulfikarabad Mega City Project that is underway in the coastal region of Sindh Province inPakistan. Four parameters comprising the existing land use, hazard profile at the site,
occupational structure of the local communities and existing land property rights are
examined. Data sources included remote sensing imagery, questionnaire survey, rapid
appraisals, literature survey and official records. Findings of the land use analysis revealthat most parts of the City would be built by clearing the mangrove areas which have been
declared protected forests since 1950s. Besides, the location is prone to the modest
frequency of earthquakes and cyclones which in some cases were not only devastating forthe lives and properties of local people but also had brought significant economic losses tothe regional economy. Numerous villages of varying sizes are located on the proposed sitewhere the majority of the population ekes out their living from agricultural and fishingactivities. There is a clear indication that  the  Government’s  prime  attraction  towards  this  location is the ‘availability’ of so-called ‘wastelands’. This standpoint is contested in thelight of land use analysis. Considering that the City is still in its planning stage, the findingof this study will serve as a useful guide for more in-depth studies on some of theemerging concerns over the megacity project.
Keywords coastal mega cities, city and regional planning, Indus delta, mangroves
clearance, Zulfikarabad

INTRODUCTION
Megacities, on one hand are recognized as global junctions, engines of economic growth,
agglomerations for cost-effective provision of facilities to civilians, and markets of surplus rurallabor; while on the other hand, these geographies are portrayed as unmanageable, subjects ofpoverty and disparities, and polluted environs impressing heavy footprint on local environments(Haiqing, 2003; Juha I, 1998). Over the last few decades, rapid urbanization has resulted in the
proliferation of megacities in hazardous regions of the developing countries and has left billions ofpeople exposed to natural disasters (Juha I, 1998; Wenzel, Bendimerad and Sinha, 2007). A natural
disaster can be conceptualized as a function of natural hazard, exposure or propinquity of humans
or their properties to a hazard, and vulnerability or propensity to suffer a loss (Juha I, 1998).
Occurrence of a natural hazard is almost always beyond the control of humankind and little can bedone in this regard at least in the short run. Ideally, however, exposure to a hazard can be
minimized for existing megacities but various practicalities limit the prospect to relocate these huge
masses in safer zones. The only front where humans can intervene is the vulnerability; whereentities exposed to hazards can be made resilient and prepared through improved construction
techniques, early warning systems and specific disaster preparedness measures. Although various
practicalities limit the prospect of reducing the exposure of existing coastal megacities to natural
hazards, any new urban development should be allowed only in safer zones so as to preempt futuredisasters. Nevertheless, in some regions such as the Arabian Gulf, countries like UAE, Qatar, SaudiⒸ ISERD

78

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Arabia, Dubai and Bahrain has developed various new townships without considering their
exposure to natural hazards (Kumar, 2009).
Pakistan is busy with its second planned city after independence following the conventional
justification of reducing pressure from the unmanageable Karachi megalopolis (Government of
Sindh, 2011). After considering the ‘availability’ of one million ha of land, the location of
Zulfikarabad is finalized at four coastal sub-districts of Thatta district in Sindh Province (District
Government Thatta, 2010). This paper presents the preliminary social and environmental
assessment of Zulfikarabad Mega City site based on four parameters comprising the existing landuse, hazard profile, the occupational structure of local communities and existing land property
rights. The next section describes the methodology and is followed by a section on the results offour analyses as mentioned above. The last section makes discussion and draws important policy
implications and recommendations. The study highlights some of the emerging concerns about thesafety of future inhabitants of the new coastal city and livelihoods of the communities currently
living in the area.
METHODOLOGY
Required information was collected using primary and secondary sources. For land use analysis,
five classes namely: Mangrove vegetation, Agriculture and non-mangrove vegetation, Deltaic
land/wet mudflats, Inland residential and uncultivated agricultural areas, and Water, were
determined. Classification was performed on satellite image LT51520432011058KHC00 fromLANDSAT TM dated: 27th February, 2011 using a hybrid classification approach that combined
unsupervised and supervised classification techniques. At first, the selected image was classified
into 100 classes using Iterative Self-Organizing Data Analysis Technique Algorithm (ISODATA)
of unsupervised classification method. Signatures obtained through ISODATA classifier wereidentified and labeled based on the maps given in Memon (2011) and high resolution satellite
imagery of Google Earth. Merging of signatures was conducted in accordance with thepredetermined classes. Since the histograms of all bands were normally distributed, the finalclassification was performed through Maximum Likelihood method. The classification accuracy
was assessed based on 256 randomly selected Ground Control Points which indicated the overall
accuracy of 85.16 percent and Kappa Coefficient of 0.80 suggesting the acceptability ofclassification results.
Information on the occurrence of two kinds of hazards, earthquakes and tsunamis, wasgathered from various secondary sources as indicated in Table 3 and elsewhere in the text. Records
on different categories of land rights were obtained from the District Revenue Office, Thatta.
Information on the occupations of the local communities was obtained from two sources. Out of
total 343 households (Table 4), the occupational affiliation of 107 households representing thecommunities which live on the fringes of the active delta was extracted from the raw dataset
compiled for a study on mangroves conducted by Memon (2011) in 2009. The occupational
affiliation of the remaining 236 households was obtained through rapid appraisals in four randomly
selected inland villages where the village heads, in consultation with their advisers, reported theoccupations of each household in their village registers. Since, only one parameter, namely theoccupational engagement of local communities was to be assessed, this method was deemed
appropriate all in terms of time, human and financial resources.
RESULTS
Existing land cover of Zulfikarabad site
Zulfikarabad is planned in the Indus Delta located along the southeastern coast of Pakistan (Fig. 1).
The site is under the administrative jurisdiction of District Thatta. A little more than two-thirds ofthe site area falls in the intertidal zone (Fig. 1), which comprises mangroves on 7.2 percent, wetmudflats on 40.2 percent and water in major and minor creeks on about 20 percent (Table 2).
Ⓒ ISERD

79

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Mangrove vegetation is dominated by Avicennia marina species (locally called Timir) while small
stands of planted Rhizophora mucronata species could also be found. The deltaic mudflats remain
empty for most part of the year, until monsoon and subsequent freshwater regimes in the Indus
River facilitate the natural growth of Porterasia coarctata species (locally called Sohan) in thenorthern part of the site (Fig. 1). The remaining one third of the site is located further inland and isa part of abandoned delta that comprises agriculture and inland vegetation on about 09 percent anduncultivated agricultural and residential areas on 24 percent (Table 2). The major crops cultivatedin the area include sugarcane, vegetables, banana and sunflower while the wild vegetation
comprises shrubby stands of Prosopis juliflora (locally called Devi or Kekar).

Fig. 1 Location of Zulfikarabad, its existing land use and the demarcation of protected areas
Almost half of the mangroves cover, significantly higher than one third of wet mudflats andabout one third of the water bodies constituting Zulfikarabad site are declared protected areas since1956 (Table 2) and are managed by Shah-Bandar Subdivision of Sindh Forest Department (Memon,
2011).
Table 2 Existing land use of Zulfikarabad  site  and  land  under  ‘Protected  Area’  category
Entire Site
Area (ha)%a54,7087.20
66,6888.77
305,87040.25
182,67524.04
150,053
19.74
759,995
100

Major Land Cover/Land Use
Mangroves vegetation
Agriculture and non-mangrove vegetation
Deltaic land/ wet mudflats
Inland Residential and uncultivated agricultural areas
Water
Total
a.

b.

Protected
Area (ha)%b26,726
48.85
1,088
1.63
114,98737.59
14,355
7.86
47,42631.61
204,581
26.92 aPercentage of the total
Percentage of relavant land cover class

Hazard profile of the region
Zulfikarabad site is exposed to extreme geological and atmospheric disturbances and has witnessedvarious cyclones, tsunamis and earthquakes in the Past. Although the locations and magnitudes ofsome ancient earthquakes are doubtful (Ambraseys, 2004; Bilham et al., 2007), various others arewell documented. For example, in 1819, Allah Bund Fault (ABF) generated an earthquake of 7.7
Mw that formed a 90 km long dam across Kori Creek (Jordan, 2008; Khan, Abbasi, Hadi, Laghari
and Bilham, 2002) – flowing 10 km south of Zulfikarabad site. Furthermore, the ABF earthquake
caused a crustal displacement of 7-9 meters that generated a large tsunami submerging Sindri town
in India (Jordan, 2008). The ABF created another earthquake in 1896, causing extensive damage inShah Bandar town (Pararas-Carayannis, 2006) that is the headquarters of one of the constituting
sub-districts of Zulfikarabad. In the northwest of Zulfikarabad, the Makran Subduction ZoneⒸ ISERD

80

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1(MSZ) is also seismically very active. On 28 November 1945, MSZ generated an earthquake of 8.1
Mw with its epicenter at the distance of about 450 km from Zulfikarabad. The quake and Tsunami
killed more than 4,000 people along the Makran Coast and a few in Kachchh and Mumbai (Jordan,
2008; Pararas-Carayannis, 2006). The Tsunami generated by the MSZ earthquake swept 12
fishermen (Pararas-Carayannis, 2006) and destroyed various fishing villages near Dabo Creek of
Keti Bandar that is another sub-district constituting Zulfikarabad (Jordan, 2008; PararasCarayannis, 2006). Some recent disasters, for which statistics are considerably reliable, are moreindicative of the nature and magnitude of natural hazard exposure and vulnerability of the site
(Table 3). The Tropical Cyclone 02A of 1999 and the Bhuj earthquake of 2001 created disasters
which went unparallel in the 20th Century (Table 3).
Table 3 Some recent natural hazards and disasters in the coastal region
HazardCycloneTC – 02A,
May 19, 1999
Category 3 hurricane

Bhuj Earthquake,
January 26, 2001
(7.9 Mw on the Richterscale) in India

Cyclone Yemyin, June
21-26, 2007 causing
severe flood

Disaster‒ The cyclone had landfall near Keti Bandar and caused widespread anddestruction in 160 km coastline of Sindh Province. It caused 56 breaches inthe tidal link, wiped away 73 settlements1, collapsed 75,000 houses andpartially damaged 59,000 houses2. At least 168 people and 10,000 livestock
died1, 2. It inundated 0.16 million ha of farmlands2, destroyed 1,800 boats andpartially damaged 642 boats1. The loss to infrastructure and fishing assets of thelocal communities exceeded PKR 1,000 million1‒ Negligible human loss along Sindh Coast but the quake devastated almost
everything within 300 km radius of the epicenter3 in India. The aerial distance
between epicenter4 and Zulfikarabad was less than 150 km. Reportedly5 20,000
persons died, about 166,000 injured of whom 20,700 sustained serious injuries
and 247 persons were missing. Livestock deaths also exceed 20,0005. In India,
it affected 21 districts, destroyed about 187,000 houses and partially damaged
500,000 houses5 in 800 villages. Together with these losses, severe damages tothousands of schools, about 750 km of the Indian National Highway andtelecommunication networks suffered an estimated loss of INR 214,620
million5.
‒ The cyclone caused 460 deaths in Baluchistan, 89 deaths in Karachi and 38
deaths in Thatta and Badin6. Reportedly in Keti Bandar7, it killed three persons,injured a dozen more, collapsed 750 houses totally and 1,050 houses partially.
Besides, it destroyed 26 boats completely and 174 boats partially7. An estimatedpopulation of 22,424 living in 2,822 households7 in the northern part ofZulfikarabad site was affected.

Sources: (NDMA, 2007b)1, (Khan and Nomani, 2002)2, (Khan, M.A. et al., 2002)3, (Indian Metrological Department in
Malik, Nakata and Sato, 2001)4, (Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India in CESNED, 2001)5, (NDMA, 2007a)6(WWF-Pakistan, undated) 7

Occupational structure of the local communities
Zulfikarabad site is sparsely inhabited with a population density of not exceeding 40 persons per
km2. Nevertheless, about 275,888 persons are living in 277 villages in four sub-districts identified
as the site of Zulfikarabad (District Government Thatta, 2011). Furthermore, various small
settlements may also exist on the site as the village list prepared for Sindh Rural Development
Project (SRDP) in 2005 indicates 709 settlements in the four sub-districts ranging between two andfour hundred households. The majority of the local people earn their livings from surrounding
natural resources comprising sea, mangroves and land. Marine fishery is a major primary andsecondary occupation followed by crop cultivation and livestock herding as the second and third
important occupations, respectively (Table 4). Besides these major occupations, some people werealso formally employed as non-fishing laborers or were engaged in other occupations such as
venders and village artisans (Table 4). It was gathered that almost half of them had a secondary
occupation that was almost always the marine fishery, crop cultivation or livestock herding (Table4). The majority of marine fishers and livestock herders (specialized in camel herding) were settled
on the fringes of the delta while those engaged in agriculture were settled further inland.
Ⓒ ISERD

81

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Table 4 Occupations of the local communities residing on Zulfikarabad site
Occupation

Dependent households (N=343)
Primary
Secondary
54.23
26.53
12.24
7.87
4.08
–
16.91
12.24
6.12
–
3.21
–
3.21
2.62
–
50.73
100
100

Marine fishery
Livestock herding
Boat driving
Crop cultivation
Formal jobs (Govt, NGO and Private sectors)
Daily wage labor (other than marine fishing)
Other occupations
No Occupation
Total

Land property right on the proposed site
The State is the major landholder owning more than three-fourths of the land in the four coastal sub
districts constituting Zulfikarabad (Table 5). Two other categories of land which can havesignificant influence of the state are Running Grants and the land for Public Purposes. Running
grants are the lands which the government has allotted to any individual but the actual transfer ofrights to the allotted party remains pending till they complete installments payable against theallotment. Meanwhile, the allotted party can take the possession of land and cultivate it. The landfor   ‘Public   Purpose’   is   the   one   that   is   utilized   for   villages,   schools,   hospitals,   roads   and   similar  purposes and was reserve for the welfare of local inhabitants. Thus the remaining one fourth of theland which comprises the land for Public Purpose (3.02 percent), Private Land (7.44 percent),
Private land for which Transfer Orders (TO) has been issued (6.94 percent) and Running Grants(5.38 percent), is the land where local communities has a direct stake (Table 5). Besides, it is also
noteworthy that 204,581 ha or roughly 35 percent of the state owned land that is considered as‘available’  for  Zulfikarabad  City  is  the  area    declared  as  ‘Protected’  mangrove  areas  since  1950s  (Fig. 1 and Table 2).
Table 5 Land property rights in four coastal sub districts of Thatta district

Keti Bandar

Total area of
sub district inhectares1
61,885

Kharo Chan

92,366

Shah Bandar

295,453

Jati

266,880

Total2

716,584

Name of sub
district

Major categories in Land Register – area in hectares (%)
PublicPrivatePrivate land Running
State
Other
purposeland
T.O issued
grants
Land
Land
2,969
14,952
2,340
4,967
37,253162(4.80)(24.16)(3.78)(8.03)(60.20)(0.26)
2,834
5,766
1,643
3,876
79,154–(3.07)(6.24)(1.78)(4.20)(85.70)
3,583
20,205
17,208
11,987
239,605
5,547(1.21)(6.84)(5.82)(4.06)(81.10)(1.88)
12,26812,45728,571
17,749190,325–(4.60)(4.67)(10.71)(6.65)(71.31)
21,65453,38049,762
38,579546,337
5,709(3.02)(7.44)(6.94)(5.38)(76.24)(0.80)

Source: (ZDA, 2011)1.
Area as per the land register which is different from the total geographical area of the sub district2.
A small difference of 1,165 ha bringing about a difference of 0.16% is due to typographical errors in the official
records

DISCUSSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSIn the wake of climate change, hazard exposure and disaster vulnerabilities of existing coastal
megacities are already a major concern for researchers and policy makers. Nevertheless, somecountries such as those located in the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean are establishing new
coastal townships and cities in the regions which had experienced a number of severe atmosphericⒸ ISERD

82

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

and geological hazards in the recent past (Kumar, 2009). Surprisingly, the location of Zulfikarabad
Mega City Project in Pakistan is also guided by the   ‘availability’   of   the   land. Government's
tendency to build new cities in hazardous zones seems unabated and ignorant of the pastexperiences. For example, Islamabad – the first planned city and capital of Pakistan – was also built
in a high seismic zone that experienced an unprecedented earthquake in 2005 causing 87,000
deaths and destroyed about 32,335 buildings in various towns and cities including the collapse of
Margalla Towers in Islamabad (USGS, 2011). Even the argument that   “the   land   required   forZulfikarabad   City   is   available   in   the   Indus   Delta”   also   cannot be justified since the major
proportion of the said government land is ‘Protected Mangrove Areas’ while the remaining land isunder some form of private or communal property (Table 2). Drawing on the mangrove coverstatistics provided by Memon (2011), this study gathers that Zulfikarabad will cost the clearance ofabout 50 percent of the mangrove cover of Pakistan, half of which are already declared as protected
forests by the government (Table 2). Furthermore, the City is going to be constructed in a region
that is more exposed to the oceanic disturbances and seismic activities of Kachchh than the
coastlines of the Arabian Gulf.
Loss of mangroves coupled with the large scale ‘development’ on account of Zulfikarabad
City may further aggravate the ferocity of meteorological and geological hazards and pose a threat
to the lives and properties of future inhabitants of the proposed city. These findings of the  site’s  exposure to meteorological and geological hazards are consistent with Bilham et al. (2007) andPararas-Carayannis (2006) who suspected that the seismic disturbances originated in Kachchh
region of India could endanger Karachi megalopolis (located 300 km Northwest of Kachchh) andthus are valid threats for Zulfikarabad site that is juxtaposed to the source of various past quakes.
Regardless of the disaster vulnerability of Zulfikarabad site, the local livelihoods primarily arelinked with the surrounding natural resources including mangroves, marine fishery and agriculture.
Memon (2011) reported that upstream diversion of the Indus River has already resulted in loss of
livelihoods of erstwhile paddy farmers and camel herder who coped with the situation by shifting
their occupation to marine fishery. Certainly Zulfikarabad will make it impossible for them tocontinue their fishing activities and thus push back them in a similar position where they were left
few decades ago following the construction of dams and barrages. Considering that thedevelopment work of the city is still in its planning stage, it is recommended that more in-depth
studies on the above mentioned aspects need to be carried out before starting the onsite
development of Zulfikarabad Mega City.
REFERENCES
Ambraseys, N. 2004. Three little known early earthquakes in India. Current Science, 86(4), 506-508.
Bilham, R., Lodi, S., Hough, S., Bukhary, S., Khan, A.M.and Rafeeqi, S.F.A. (2007) Seismic hazard in
Karachi, Pakistan: Uncertain past, uncertain future. Seismological Research Letters, 78(6), 601-613.
CESNED. 2001. Some statistics of January 26, 2001 Earthquake for India. Newsletter Cowasjee Earthquake
Study Centre NED, 1(2), 4.
District Government Thatta. 2010. Upcoming Mega Projects in Thatta District. District Government Thatta.
(http://www.districtthatta.gos.pk/Mega_Projects.htm).
District Government Thatta. 2011. Taluka (Sub District) Adminstration of District Thatta. (http://www.
districtthatta.gos.pk/Taluka%20Administration.htm).
Government of Sindh. 2011. Zulfikarabad to lessen pressure on Karachi, says CS, Press Release by Chief
Secretary, Sindh, Dawn.
Haiqing, L. 2003. Management of coastal mega-cities - a new challenge in the 21st century. Marine Policy,
27(4), 333-337.
Jordan, B.R. 2008. Tsunamis of the Arabian Peninsula a guide of historic events. Science of Tsunami
Hazards, 27(1), 31-46.
Juha I, U. 1998. The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: A theoretical framework. Applied
Geography, 18(1), 7-16.
Khan, F.Q. and Nomani, U. 2002. Corporate social responsibility and natural disaster reduction in Pakistan.
Sustainable Development Policy Institute.

Ⓒ ISERD

83

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Khan, M.A., Abbasi, I.A., Hadi, S., Laghari, A. and Bilham, R. 2002. Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001:
effects in the Thar-Nagar Parkar region of Sindh, SE Pakistan. Geological Bulletin University ofPeshawar, 35, 9-26.
Kumar, A. 2009. Reclaimed islands and new offshore townships in the Arabian Gulf: Potential natural
hazards. Current science, 96(4), 480-485.
Malik, J.N., Nakata, T. and Sato, H. 2001. January 26, 2001, the republic day (Bhuj) earthquake of Kachchh
and active faults, Gujarat, western India. (Active Fault Research) 20, 112-126.
Memon, J.A. 2011. Management, utilization and status of mangroves in the Indus River Delta of Pakistan.
PhD Dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
NDMA. 2007a. Disaster management in Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan: Flood-2007. Islamabad: National
Disaster Management Authority, Government of Pakistan.
NDMA. 2007b. National disaster risk management framework Pakistan: National Disaster Management
Authority (NDMA), Government of Pakistan.
Pararas-Carayannis, G. 2006. The potential of tsunami generation along the Makran Subduction Zone in thenorthern Arabian Sea. Case study: the earthquake and tsunami of November 28, 1945. Science of
Tsunami Hazards, 24(5), 358-384.
USGS. 2011. Earthquakes with 1,000 or More Deaths since 1900. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths.php.
Wenzel, F., Bendimerad, F.and Sinha, R. 2007. Megacities - megarisks. Natural Hazards, 42(3), 481-491.
WWF-Pakistan. (undated) Keti Bundar: Disaster, rescue and rehabilitation. Indus For All Programme WWFPakistan (Ed.). Karachi.
ZDA. 2011. Zulfikarabad : Proposed land use. Presentation to the President Islamic Republic of Pakistan on
31-12- 2010 (at Karachi) & 28-01-2011 (at Islamabad). Zulfikarabad Development Authority.

Ⓒ ISERD

84