EDITORIAL: The controversy surrounding large-scale tree felling in Islamabad has exposed a troubling gap between official narratives and ecological realities.
While the Capital Development Authority (CDA) maintains that only paper mulberry trees were removed to mitigate pollen allergies, findings released by WWF-Pakistan strongly suggest that this explanation is, at best, incomplete.
The issue is not merely about one invasive species, but about how urban environmental decisions are made, justified, and implemented.
Paper mulberry has long been identified as a contributor to spring pollen allergies in Islamabad, and its management is a legitimate public health concern. However, public health cannot be pursued in isolation from environmental integrity.
Urban trees provide critical ecosystem services as they stabilise soil, regulate microclimates, absorb carbon, reduce urban heat, and support biodiversity. Any intervention that removes significant tree cover must therefore be based on transparent evidence, and clear ecological restoration plans.
WWF-Pakistan’s field inspections between December 2025 and January 2026 reveal a far broader pattern of vegetation loss than acknowledged by authorities.
According to its report, extensive tree cutting and land clearing occurred across multiple sites, many linked not to pollen mitigation but to major infrastructure projects, including construction of dual-lane roads and a monument.
Particularly concerning is the estimated loss of approximately five hectares of urban tree and vegetation cover along the H-8 Islamabad Expressway and the Margalla Enclave Link Road. Such losses cannot be dismissed as incidental or unavoidable.
This raises an important question: was the mulberry eradication programme used as a convenient cover for clearing land for some new road and housing projects? If so, it represents a serious breach of public trust. Islamabad’s identity as a planned, green city rests on the careful integration of development with nature.
Unchecked infrastructure expansion, especially in ecologically sensitive areas, undermines not only the city’s aesthetics but its long-term resilience to climate stress. While the authorities have pointed to compensatory plantation and reforestation efforts, WWF-Pakistan rightly notes that these measures lack visibility, consistency, and clear ecological design.
Tree replacement is not a simple numbers game. Saplings planted without regard to native species, soil conditions, water availability, or long-term maintenance often fail to survive.
Moreover, newly planted trees cannot immediately replace the ecological functions of mature urban forests that take decades to develop.
The way forward, as appropriately suggested by WWF-Pakistan, requires more than reactive explanations.
Decision-making around tree removal must be transparent, science-based, and subject to independent monitoring. Site-specific restoration plans should be publicly shared, prioritising native species and ecological connectivity.
Most importantly, development authorities must recognise that urban greenery is an essential component of sustainable urban living. Safeguarding the city’s green character is not a luxury; it is a responsibility owed to its residents— present and future.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026