Climate Change: Perspectives, Priorities and Challenges

Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal TI (M)*

*The author is Consultant Policy and Strategic Response, IPRI; he is a former Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force.

Abstract

Climate has always changed, however, now the concern is that the change, both in terms of scale and linkages, is unprecedented. The politico-economical motivation behind narratives of climate change, with extreme contradictions between alarmists and sceptics, increasingly frame our understanding of related global challenges—from poverty and health to the food-energy-water connects. Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that had legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets. The Agreement does not impose any consequences if countries do not meet their commitments. A consensus of this kind is rather fragile. Even a small number of states walking away from the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement. Pakistan should play its part in mitigating global warming through an inter-disciplinary approach. It should remain constructively engaged with the international community. Pakistan needs to approach the issue in a professional manner. It should take informed decisions based on credible data input and avoid swaying based on campaigns led by lobbyists. – Author)

Global Perspective

Climate Change has moved swiftly to the centre-stage of public concern. There is a great deal of intense debate on the subject, and a wide-range of literature, including numerous government response plans and documents, are easily accessible. Climate has always changed, however, the current concern is that the change, both in terms of scale and linkages, is unprecedented. The politico-security narratives of climate change increasingly frame our understanding of other global challenges—from poverty and health to the food-energy-water connects[i]. The challenge is to ensure that the new economic access that has come about because of global warming does not further destabilise the planet. Promoting ecosystem-based management and resource governance is now increasingly dominating the global agenda. Continued scientific investigation regarding snow, water, ice and permafrost changes is crucial to have resilient climate change policies[ii]. Over reaction may be as bad to global economy as under reaction could be to the global ecosystem. This phenomenon is global in expanse and does not recognise political borders. No barriers can be built to contain it or divert it. Though the current mess is, by and large, a making of industrialized countries, under developed and developing countries are often pressured to ‘do more’ for restoring an abstract status quo ante. The United States had earlier withheld ratification and virtually walked away from Kyoto Protocol – a 1997 international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Now, once again, President Trump may kill the spirit of the Paris Agreement 2015.[iii]

The Paris Agreement is an arrangement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and financing. This agreement was negotiated by 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015[iv]. The Prime Minister of Pakistan addressed the conference on November 30, 2015:-[v]

“We are meeting at a defining juncture; a crossroads that offers both a historic opportunity to act against the threat of Climate Change, and a strong global will to take that course. This is all the more important for countries like Pakistan, whose contribution to global warming is minimal, yet it remains one of the most vulnerable to its adverse effects. Stemming the tide of climate change is a global challenge that requires collective action. Our responsibilities, however, are not evenly spread. States with deep carbon footprints and history of large emissions should take the greatest responsibility in redressing the situation. Pakistan believes that a comprehensive and meaningful climate change agreement must be anchored around the principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’.

The agreement should be cognizant of the needs of the developing countries in pursuit of economic growth and development. It should also be holistic in scope and ambition, by taking a balanced view between mitigation and adaptation aspects. An effective ‘Loss and Damage’ mechanism also needs to be incorporated into the Agreement. Pakistan is committed to the cause of reducing global emissions. Several mitigation initiatives, including promotion of affordable renewable technologies, measures towards energy efficiency, implementation of mass transport systems and expansion of hydro-electricity potential, are already part of our development strategy.

For the effective implementation of our national programmes finance, technology transfer, and capacity building remain key enablers. As the main financial delivery mechanism of the agreement, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) holds the potential to provide a powerful stimulus towards low-carbon and carbon-resilient development solutions. We would also need to ensure transparency in support provided to the developing countries.

Pakistan remains committed to the development of a responsive global climate governance framework. Having made major strides towards this goal, what is now required is the right mix of flexibility and foresight by all parties, to secure convergence on all outstanding issues. In our deliberations today, we are encouraged by the positive affirmation of support to this objective. Pakistan looks forward to working closely with our global partners towards an Agreement, which enjoys both strong political ownership and broad social acceptability”.

By November 2016, 193 UNFCCC members had signed the treaty, and of these 115 had also ratified it. Once several European Union states ratified the agreement in October 2016, the criteria was met for the agreement to enter into force as countries that had ratified the agreement by then produced enough of the world’s greenhouse gases[vi]. The agreement became effective 4 November 2016[vii].

The contribution that each country should make in order to achieve the worldwide goal is determined by the countries themselves, individually, and is called “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs)[viii]. Article 3 requires them to be “ambitious”, “represent a progression over time” and set “with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement”. The contributions are to be reported every five years and are to be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat[ix]. Members are expected to follow the principle of ‘progression’, whereby every new goal is to be an improvement over the previous one[x]. Countries can also cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference serve—unless provided otherwise—as the initial nationally determined contribution.

The level of NDCs set by each country will set the respective country’s targets[xi]. However, the ‘contributions’ themselves are not binding as a matter of international law. Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[xii] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and there shall be no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met[xiii]. There will be only a “name and shame” system or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a “name and encourage” plan[xiv]. The agreement does not impose any consequences if countries do not meet their commitments. Consensus of this kind is rather fragile. Even a small number of states walking away from the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement[xv]. Hence, the Trump administration’s attitude towards the Paris Agreement would be the pace and trend setter for its implementation.

The negotiators of the Agreement had stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient, instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting “with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 giga-tonnes in 2030”, and “that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ̊C by reducing emissions to 40 giga-tonnes or to 1.5 ̊C”[xvi]. During the first half of 2016 average temperatures were about 1.3 °C (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in 1880, when global record- keeping began[xvii].

When the agreement achieved enough signatures to cross the threshold on October 5, 2016, the then US President Barack Obama had claimed that “Even if we meet every target, we will only get to part of where we need to go,” and that “This agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worse consequences of climate change [that] will help other nations ratchet down their emissions over time.”[xviii] The global stock-take will kick off with a “facilitative dialogue” in 2018. At this convening, parties will evaluate how their NDCs stack up to the nearer-term goal of peaking global emissions and the long-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century[xix]. This stocktaking works as part of the Paris Agreement’s effort to create a “ratcheting up” of ambition in emissions cuts.

The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The outcome is to be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of member states[xx]. The stock-take will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done. Because analysts have agreed that the current NDCs will not limit rising temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the global stock-take shall reconvene parties, every five years, to assess how their new NDCs must evolve so that they continually reflect a country’s “highest possible ambition”[xxi]. While ratcheting up the ambition of NDCs is a major aim of the global stock-take, it assesses efforts beyond mitigation. The 5 year reviews will also evaluate adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer[xxii].

The Paris Agreement has a ‘bottom up’ structure in contrast to most international environmental law treaties which are ‘top down’, characterised by standards and targets set internationally for states to implement[xxiii]. Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets[xxiv]. The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these goals are mandated under international law.

Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is the scope. While the Kyoto Protocol differentiated between Annex-1 and non-Annex-1 countries, this bifurcation is blurred in the Paris Agreement, as all parties will be required to submit emission reduction plans.[xxv] While the Paris Agreement still emphasizes the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility”—the acknowledgement that different nations have different capacities and duties to climate action—it does not provide a specific division between developed and developing nations[xxvi].

United Nations’ Secretary General (UNSG) Mr Ban Ki-moon, had addressed the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”(IPCC) on September 27, 2013[xxvii], as world’s top climate scientists formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases[xxviii] for the first time; thus establishing, at least, a glass ceiling beyond which humanity must stop injecting these gases into the atmosphere or face irreversible climatic changes. The IPCC is a worldwide committee of hundreds of scientists that issues a major report every five or six years, advising governments on the latest knowledge on climate change. Ban Ki-moon, spoke to delegates at the meeting, via video link; he declared his intent to call a meeting of heads of state in 2014 to push forward a climate change treaty. The last such meeting, in Copenhagen in 2009, had ended in a stalemate, with a clear divide between the positions taken by the developed and the developing countries. UNSG called on the world’s governments to listen to the IPCC’s findings: “This new report will be essential for governments as they work to finalise an ambitious legal agreement on climate change in 2015…The heat is on. Now we must act.”[xxix] The new report is a 36-page summary for world leaders of a 900-page report. This was followed by additional reports in 2014 on the most likely impacts and on possible steps to limit the damage.

The 2013 report was a part of three different working groups formulated to study global patterns of climate change with varying lenses. Titled as “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”, the report showcased estimates on various climate change indicators by leading global experts from different fields. Having gone through years of work and rigorous review processes, the IPCC report serves as a credible reference guide for scientists, academia, students, and policy makers and practitioners. By 2013 the group had issued five major reports since 1990, each of them finding greater certainty that the world is warming and cautioning with greater certainty that human activity was the chief cause.

The envisaged emission ceiling is likely to be breached in a matter of decades unless immediate steps are taken to reduce emissions. While unveiling the ‘Climate Panel’s Fifth Report’, which is in fact the UN’s assessment of climate science, the experts had clarified Humanity’s choices. They cited a long list of changes that were already under way, and warned that they were likely to accelerate. They expressed virtual certainty that human activity is the main cause. Professor Thomas F Stocker, co-chairman of the panel that produced the report, said, “Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time.” Thomas Stocker added, “In short, it threatens our planet, our only home…One of the 18 key messages that the 110 governments that were present in this room for four days have adopted in consensus: Human influence on the climate system is clear.” The panel had issued a definitive evaluation of the risks of man-made warming that gave added impetus to international negotiations toward a new climate treaty, which had languished in preceding years in a swamp of technical and political disputes. The group had made it clear that time was not on the planet’s side if emissions continued unchecked[xxx]. The report said “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes…It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”[xxxi]

Expanding the scope viz-a-viz its earlier four reports which focused on emissions problem, the panel had endorsed a “carbon budget” for humanity — a limit on the amount of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that could be produced by industrial activities and the clearing of forests. The panel found that no more than one trillion metric tons of carbon could be burned and the resulting gases released into the atmosphere if planetary warming is to be kept below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the level of pre-industrial times. That temperature is a target above which scientists believe the most dangerous effects of climate change would begin to occur.

Since then, just over half-trillion tons has already been burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. According to calculations by Myles R Allen, a scientist at the University of Oxford and one of the authors of the report, at the rate energy consumption is growing, the target figure of one trillion ton will be reached around 2040. It is interesting to know that more than three trillion tons of Carbon is still left in the ground as fossil fuels. The key question is whether the international community would forsake, or even drastically cut the use of fossil fuels.

Once the allocated trillion-ton budget is exhausted, users of fossil fuels would have to come up with ways to capture carbon dioxide and store it back underground. In the United States, the Obama administration did move forward with rules that would essentially require such technology, which is likely to be costly, for any future coal-burning power plants. President Obama’s Republican opponents had accused him of waging a “war on coal.” President Obama’s science adviser, John P. Holdren, had cited increased scientific confidence “that the kinds of harm already being experienced from climate change will continue to worsen unless and until comprehensive and vigorous action to reduce emissions is undertaken worldwide.”[xxxii]

The 2013 report indicated a 95 to 100 percent chance that most of the warming of recent decades was human-caused; up from the 90 to 100 percent chance that was cited in its previous report in 2007. The 2013 document also acknowledged that climate science still contains uncertainties, including the likely magnitude of the warming for a given level of emissions, the rate at which the ocean will rise, and the likelihood that plants and animals will be driven to extinction. Panellists had argued that despite those uncertainties cut in both directions, the only way to limit the risk is to limit emissions.

While environmentalists around the world had hailed the 2013 report as the definitive statement on existence of climate change, sceptics had lashed out against the climate models used by the IPCC. Climate-sceptic organizations had criticised the new report as alarmist, even before it was published[xxxiii]. The Heartland Institute, a Chicago organization, released a document saying that any additional global warming would likely be limited to a few tenths of a degree and that this “would not represent a climate crisis.” One issue much cited by the climate doubters is the slowdown in global warming that has occurred over the past 15 years. The report acknowledged that it was not fully understood, but said such pauses had occurred in the past and the natural variability of climate was a likely explanation[xxxiv]. “People think that global warming means every year is going to be warmer than the year before,” said Gerald A. Meehl, an American scientist who helped write the report. “It’s more like a stair-step kind of thing.”

Climate scientists not involved in writing the current report opine that the authors had made a series of cautious choices in their assessment of scientific evidence. Regarding sea level rise, for instance, they gave the first firm estimates ever contained in an intergovernmental panel report, declaring that if emissions continued at a rapid pace, the rise by the end of the 21st century could be as much as three feet. They threw out a string of published papers suggesting a worst-case rise closer to five feet[xxxv]. Likewise, the authors went out of their way to include recent papers suggesting that the earth might be less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought, even though serious questions have been raised about the validity of those estimates.

The 5th IPCC report lowered the bottom end of the range of potential warming that could be expected in case the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere were to double, thus reversing a decision that the panel made in the last report and restoring a scientific consensus that had prevailed from 1979 to 2007. The range was then reported as 3.6 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit; the new range is 2.7 to 8.1 degrees[xxxvi].

Global Climate Change Mapping Global data was collected by the United States Department of Energy’s “Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center” (CDIAC) for the United Nations[xxxvii]. This data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry. Other powerful, more potent greenhouse gases are not included in this data, including methane[xxxviii]. The top 10 countries in the world emit 67.07% of the world total. The Earth’s average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat island effect is very small, estimated to account for less than 0.002 °C of warming per decade since 1900. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age”[xxxix]. The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups. Examples include sea level rise (water expands as it warms), widespread melting of snow and ice, increased heat content of the oceans, increased humidity, and the earlier timing of spring events, like the flowering of plants. The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero[xl].

Trends in global emission are shown in Figure 1; it depicts countries by CO2 emissions in thousands of tons per annum in 2012, via the burning of fossil fuels (blue the highest). Sectoral emission CO2 pattern of 2005 is shown in Figure 2. Emissions by Pakistan are 0.55% of global emissions and it ranks 32. The bubble diagram in Figure 3 shows the percentage share of global cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions between 1890-2007. Major emitters are: the United States (28%), the European Union (23%), Russia (11%), China (9%), other OECD countries (5%), Japan (4%), India (3%), and the rest of the world (18%).

Figure 1 [xli]

    

Figure 2 [xlii]                                           Figure 3 [xliii]

Likely Impact of Climate Change on Pakistan Pakistan is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It is a disaster prone country. Pakistan topped the list of the Global Climate Risk Index produced by German watch, a non-governmental organisation that works on global equity issues. In 2010, Pakistan was listed as the number one country in the world affected by climate related disasters; in 2011 it was ranked as number three and in 2013 it ranked in the top 10 list of the most vulnerable countries in the world when it comes to suffering from the impacts of climate change. Pakistan is highly vulnerable to weather-related disasters such as cyclones, droughts, floods, landslides and avalanches. Pakistan faces a range of threatening climate change impacts: changing monsoon patterns, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, desertification and increasing water scarcity. Climate change effects could cost Pakistan’s economy up to $14 billion a year, and needs to be urgently dealt with. The country cannot run away from the effects of a changing climate. A 2010 study indicated that in the preceding 40 years, nine out of the top ten natural disasters in Pakistan have been climate-triggered which shows the magnitude of the challenge. Disasters per decade have increased considerably over the two decades (1991-2010). This incidentally is the period during which average global temperatures have been the highest[xliv]. The Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) data as shown in Table 1 below, indicated how the number of climate-induced disasters has increased since mid-twentieth century. The number of such disasters rose from 2 in the decade 1941-50 to 36 during the decade 2001-10.

Climate Induced Natural Disasters in Pakistan: 1941-2010

Source: Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)[xlv].

Note: CRED maintains a global database, called EM-DAT, of natural and technical disasters from 1900 onward.

Table 1

Devastating floods in 2010 disrupted the lives of 20 million people – many more than the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami – and cost $10 billion. In 2008, the federal government of Pakistan had formed a Presidential Task Force on Climate Change. It warned, prior to the floods, that heavy rains, flash floods, disease outbreaks and rising temperatures were all an inevitable future reality forced upon Pakistan by climate change. The task force’s recommendations led to the creation of the National Climate Change Policy, authored by Qamar-uz-Zaman Chaudhry, a climate adviser to the government and currently vice president of the World Meteorological Organisation. The first ever climate change policy, developed with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), recommends some 120 steps the country could take to slow down the impact of global warming, as well as adapt sectors such as energy, transport and agriculture. Measures include flood forecasting warning systems, local rainwater harvesting, developing new varieties of resilient crops, promoting renewable energy sources and more efficient public transport.

Due to extreme weather events, particularly floods and droughts, productivity of agriculture is at risk due to increasing desertification, rising temperatures and loss of soil fertility. Therefore adaptation to the current and likely impacts of climate change is a priority[xlvi]. Pakistan is a signatory to the various international instruments, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and similar conventions on biological diversity, desertification and wetlands. Pakistan has a wide range of national legislations relating to climate and energy. The major response so far has been the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) that was developed by the
Ministry of Environment and adopted by the Cabinet in September 2012[xlvii].The policy was formally launched by the Ministry of Climate Change on February 26, 2013. National Climate Change Policy was formed after extensive consultations with the provinces. Ultimately, it has to be implemented by the provinces – the federal government will only be coordinating on climate change with provinces and international donors. The then UNDP’s Pakistan Director Marc-André Franche had said in 2013 that changing weather patterns would help the country’s economic development. “Pakistan is among the most vulnerable countries facing climate risks and mechanisms need to be devised for greener, more resilient options for growth and sustainable development”. He added, “I hope the policy will help key stakeholders in identifying capacities and skills for the successful implementation of the policy.”

National Climate Change Policy 2013

The Presidential Task Force’s recommendations later evolved into the NCCP that was finally launched three years later in Islamabad by the UNDP and the federal Ministry of Climate Change in an official ceremony. The NCCP itself was delayed by the 18th Constitutional Amendment which triggered the devolution process. Although the Ministry of Environment had prepared the policy back in 2011, it took almost a year to be presented to the federal cabinet (the ministry itself was devolved in June 2011 and reconstituted as the Ministry of Climate Change in 2012). The NCCP was approved in principle by Pakistan’s cabinet in March 2012, but it was only ratified in September 2012 and officially launched in February 2013. In the mean time, Pakistan was hit by another round of disastrous flooding in the summer of 2011. Once again, monsoons of 2013 had triggered wide spread floods. The goal of the policy is to ensure that climate change is mainstreamed in the economically and socially vulnerable sectors of the country. If Pakistan is to be showcased as a “climate resilient” country much more has to happen on ground and rather soon.

The NCCP is aimed at helping Pakistan achieve the development goals set out in the Planning Commission’s Vision documents. It identifies vulnerabilities in the sectors of water resources, agriculture, forests, coastal areas, biodiversity and vulnerable ecosystems. It also spells out the appropriate adaptation measures and puts forward corresponding measures relating to disaster preparedness, capacity building, institutional strengthening, technology transfer and international cooperation. Mitigation measures involving the sectors of energy efficiency and conservation, transport, forestry, industry, agriculture, livestock and town planning are also part of the Policy[xlviii].

In April 2012, the federal level Ministry of National Disaster Management was renamed as Ministry of Climate Change and the National Assembly had set up a 21 member Standing Committee on Climate Change[xlix]. However, this effort got a setback a year later: budget for Fiscal year 2013-14 imposed a cut of over 62% in annual spending for Pakistan’s Ministry of Climate Change. This move, though a part of a wider cost-cutting strategy, was strongly criticised by the climate scientists, as well as other organisations working to improve the country’s resilience to climate impacts.

Though Pakistan might boast of its very first NCCP, the road to effective implementation is long and arduous. It provides a framework for coping with the threats of climate change through adaptation and mitigation measures. On the eve of the launch of the policy document, Marc- André Franche, then country director of the UNDP, stressed that the government cannot afford to be slack at this point.“Pakistan’s record on implementation is hardly enviable,” Franche said. “But the climate change clock is ticking too fast and the time (to act) is here and now.” NCCP is like a long wish list and one still doesn’t see who will implement it. What we really need is to transform the Climate Change Division into a modern Climate Change Unit which should ideally be placed in the Planning Division with qualified experts and specialists who can deliver projects that can tackle the enormous problems Pakistan is facing with climate change. India and Bangladesh, for instance, have made more progress addressing climate problems.

Implementation

Implementation of the policy poses formidable challenges. After the launch of the policy, relevant ministries and departments as well as provincial and local governments are preparing their own strategies and plans to get to work. Policy implementation committees have been formed at the federal and provincial levels. Concrete action to address climate threats has been relatively slow, and a long-winded process of devolution of power to Pakistan’s provinces and then the reorganisation of federal ministries hasn’t helped speed up the process. “The time for talking is long past,” said Shafqat Kakakhel, a former UN Environment Programme official and a member of Pakistan’s first task force on climate change set up by the government in 2008. Since July 2011, the UN’s “One Joint Programme on Environment” has funded the long and expensive process leading to the launch of the NCCP, including consultations with all the provincial governments. This was necessary, given the post 18th amendment scenario in which powers have been devolved to the provincial governments. What we need to see are projects on the ground. Pakistan is lagging far behind other countries in the South Asian region that are already addressing climate change through concrete actions.[l]

Questions have also arisen about where the money to fund the implementation processes and projects will come from, and whether Pakistan’s provinces have the capacity and expertise to put these projects and processes in place. According to the “National Economy and Environment Development Study 2011”, climate change adaptation measures from now to 2050 will cost Pakistan around $6 billion to $14 billion and mitigation efforts during the same period will cost $7 billion to $18 billion. This is the price tag of climate change in Pakistan. There are a variety of financing options available for projects under the climate change policy, such as the “International Green Climate Fund” which aims to raise $100 billion for environmental projects worldwide by 2020. Climate change is a huge challenge that the government cannot handle on its own. It requires collaboration and cooperation between the private and public sectors. It also needs constructive engagement with international fund providers and donors.

It seems that the provincial environment departments are not suitably-equipped to tackle climate change. Capacity issues are the main handicap. Climate change is a relatively new phenomenon and there is very little knowledge in the provincial environment departments on how to deal with it. There are significant resources and implementation challenges. Policy and implementation will require serious political will at the highest level of government.[li]

There seems to be a re-centralisation of Pakistan’s efforts to deal with climate change, despite the devolution of political power. That’s something that makes sense. Climate change is a global issue – not even a regional issue – therefore it has to be tackled at the national level, as a federal subject. The Climate Change Ministry will have to try to turn policy into practice. The envisaged action plan will be based on short-term actions (for the next 2 years), medium-term actions (in 10 years) and long-term actions (in 20 years). Key priorities will include assessing and creating an inventory of water resources, and focusing on disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change in the water sector, in agriculture, and in mountain areas. There will also be mitigation measures, including how to reduce emissions from energy production and deforestation.

One of the goals of the NCCP is to enhance awareness, skills and institutional capacity, particularly at the provincial level, on issues such as water and disaster management, and disaster risk reduction. The provinces are being asked to come up with long-term policy measures to address increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, as well as erratic monsoon rains. They also have to come up with plans for water conservation and to deal with water losses during irrigation. Questions remain about implementation. The NCCP has around 120 recommendations focusing both on adaptation and mitigation, however, it is still not a substitute for concrete actions and programmes.

The issue of climate change adaptation and mitigation related finance is extremely relevant, given the global financial crisis and the fact that rich countries are reluctant to give money to poor countries for climate change. The global “Green Climate Fund”, a mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, in order to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change, currently faces a bleak future. Rich countries have shied away from giving even the 30 billion US dollars they had promised by the end of 2012; they had promised to provide $100 billion each year by 2020 to developing nations. Their poor track record in meeting their climate finance pledges is not radiating much hope. According to Dr Qamar-uz-Zaman “the focus will be on the adaptation to climate change in the water sector, agriculture, mountain areas and disaster reduction. There will be mitigation measures as well – how to reduce emissions from energy production and forests”. The provinces will have to develop their own plans and projects and the Ministry of Climate Change will assist them.[lii] Fortunately, Pakistan has a number of experienced climate change experts (some working internationally) and the government should take advantage of their expertise[liii].

Furthermore, Pakistan’s lack of representation at international forums and conferences regarding climate change reinforces the idea that the country does not take the threats seriously[liv]. An example of the significant disadvantage Pakistan faces with its current attitude is it will have no share in the “Green Climate Fund”. The Green Climate Fund was established in 2009, in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Pakistan’s attention to climate change also pales in comparison to its regional neighbours – India and Bangladesh. India currently spends over 2.6% of its total gross domestic product (GDP) dealing with climate change challenges. Consequently, it receives large amounts of aid from the Green Climate Fund. Bangladesh has also taken dramatic steps to fight climate change. Bangladesh has established a National Climate Change Resilience Fund and a national Climate Change Trust Fund, raising over $300 million to deal with climate change effects.

According to a recent Pew Research Centre survey, only fifteen percent of Pakistani citizens view climate change as a major threat. Pakistan’s underwhelming commitment to dealing with the effects of climate change stands in stark contrast to the threat it faces. Environmental experts believe that the average annual financial losses in Pakistan due to environmental degradation are of the tune of approximately Rs 450 billion ($5.2 billion USD). This is in addition to catastrophic natural disasters, like the 2010 floods, which caused an estimated $43 billion in damage and killed over 1,700 people. It is in Pakistan’s vital interest to prioritize climate change as a major threat. In a country already threatened by destabilizing forces, such as terrorism and food and water insecurity, climate change may further exacerbate these factors, imposing even costlier penalties[lv].

Policies of Contributory Disciplines There are a number of complementary domains that effect climate change related benchmarks, however, only two important sectors have been selected for a brief review:-

National Forest Policy 2010. National Forest Policy 2010 (NFP 2010) provides a framework for sustainable management of forests and allied natural resources, namely watersheds, range lands, wildlife and associated biodiversity. The Policy seeks to improve ecosystem functions and services of forests and allied natural resources, both in terms of environmental services and forest products. Immense environmental services associated with forest ecosystems – including mitigation of climate change and conservation of biological diversity – have attracted enhanced international attention towards this natural resource over the last decade. The Policy seeks to build capacities at all levels to cope with the challenges of environmental degradation more efficiently[lvi]. The policy acknowledges the multiple functions of Pakistan’s forests, such as Carbon storage for climate change mitigation. However, there is a particularly strong focus on forests’ role in mountains where they provide protection of soil from erosion, reduction of downstream siltation and, crucially, watershed protection[lvii]. NFP 2010 provides guidelines to the federal and provincial agencies for restoration, development, conservation and sustainable management of forests and allied natural resources to ensure sustainability of ecosystem functions, services and benefits. Its major objectives are[lviii]:

•  Conservation of biological diversity, protection and sustainable use of indigenous flora and strengthening forestry education and research institutions to cope with the emerging challenges of deforestation and climate change.
•  Creating mass awareness and involving local communities in sustainable natural resource management.
•  Meeting national obligations under Multilateral Environmental Agreements, especially the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF).
•  Development of forest resource base to enhance carbon sequestration capacity and mitigation of climate change effects, through massive afforestation programmes.

Renewable Energy Technologies Act 2010. The Bill legislates institutional development by mandating the establishment of the Pakistan Council of Renewable Energy Technologies. The council is responsible for promoting the development, acquisition, propagation and dissemination of renewable energy technologies. Specifically named technologies are: solar/photovoltaic; thermal, hydrogen, biogas/biomass, mini and micro hydro power; and wind technologies. Two reports, published in the June 2012 issue of “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews” say that exploiting Pakistan’s abundant renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectric and solar, can help plug its widening energy deficit, improve livelihoods[lix] and help in retarding the process of climate change. Political instability, inadequate budgetary allocations, and low investment in research have been some of the roadblocks in exploiting renewable energy potential. Pakistan’s 6,595 megawatts of hydropower form about a third of its total energy mix. The country has a net potential of 100,000 megawatts, of this 55,000 megawatts is tap-able at identified sites. Environmental concerns and issues around resettlement and rehabilitation, land acquisition, lengthy approval procedures, inter-provincial issues and law and order problems are among the factors inhibiting hydropower development.

The report on solar energy said the source was abundant, with the country receiving 200-250 watts per square metre daily with an estimated potential of 2.9 million megawatts of solar power per annum. Solar energy applications identified in the report included lighting, water pumps, desalination of water, agriculture and textile sector processes such as dyeing. Policies for small- scale decentralised power generation have been announced at different times, but inaction on decisions has hampered promotion of renewable energy in hydel or solar areas.[lx]

Pakistan National Energy Policy 2013. This policy aims at altering the fuel mix towards less expensive fuels such as hydro, nuclear biomass and coal. The power sector will get privileged access to gas allocation[lxi]. And, demand management will be introduced through setting technology standards (such as green star compliance) for electrical appliances; mandating energy efficient building standards; and subsidizing low cost renewable energy among consumers. In the current time-frame the mix shall remain heavily tilted towards oil and gas. In the medium time-frame, the energy mix shall comprise of hydel, coal, nuclear, gas, furnace oil and biomass. Nevertheless, in the long term the energy mix would gradually shift toward cleaner sources of energy viz nuclear, solar, hydel, etc[lxii].

Views by Pakistani Experts Pakistani experts have supported the announcement by the world’s leading climate scientists that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and humans are ‘extremely likely’ to be responsible for it. And, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,’ indicating that there was no longer any doubt that climate change is happening[lxiii]. “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century…I think the report (IPCC) shows there is no doubt climate change is happening”, Dr Mohsin Iqbal , the head of the Agriculture and Coordination section at Pakistan’s Global Climate Impact Study centre said. “It is real.” Mohsin Iqbal, is a lead author for a section of the IPCC’s Working Group-II report. He opines that extreme weather events and unpredictable weather patterns in Pakistan are also visible indications of climate change; and that food security, water and the energy sector are three areas where climate change would impact Pakistan in the future. He added that the National Climate Change Policy, which was approved in February 2013, has recommendations to combat these threats.[lxiv] Dr Qamaruz Zaman Chaudhry, a senior climate expert said, “the IPCC is the most authoritative intergovernmental scientific body on climate change.” He supported the report’s findings and said, “The consistency of observed and modelled changes across the climate system point to global climate change…In its report, the IPCC said each of the last three decades have been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface”[lxv].

As a country particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, Pakistan cannot afford to ignore the threat it poses to its economy and socio-political stability. To date, despite overwhelming evidence of this threat, Pakistan’s response has been poor. Put simply, the issue of climate change is not captured in the country’s overall economic planning [lxvi]. Integrating climate change concerns in our national economic strategies necessitate both a viable national climate change policy and institutional arrangements for implementing it.

There is a need for evolving an institutional arrangement which is holistic in approach, as well as has concurrence of the representatives of relevant stakeholders. The institutional arrangement should address three important functions i.e. policy making, implementation and financing. These three functions should be assigned to distinct entities in the system to ensure check and balance; avoid any conflict of interest; and to ensure that none of the proposed entities is either over burdened or is over-powerful to the determinant of the objective of addressing the risks and threats that climate change poses to Pakistan [lxvii].

The Prime Minister’s Committee on Climate Change (PMCCC) needs reactivation. This committee should be institutionalized as an apex body through a legislative mandate to integrate the effects of climate change and responses to them in the overall national planning and economic policy making. The PMCCC should be supported by a subordinate but a robust institutional set up at the federal and provincial levels. The federal level structure may comprise of a National Authority on Climate Change (NACC) directly responsible to the PMCCC. A scaled down structure comprising Provincial Authorities on Climate Change (PACC) should also be established to report to the PMCCC. The NACC should be mandated to deal with normative aspects of mitigation, adaptation, and reduced emission arising out of deforestation and degradation and cross cutting issues such as finance and technology as well as intergovernmental negotiations under the aegis of the UN and UNFCCC[lxviii]. Moreover, there is a need to establish a National Mitigation and Clean Development Council, with balanced representation from both the public and the private sector, to enable Pakistan to fully benefit from carbon trading[lxix]. While Addressing the general debate of the sixty-eighth session on September 27, 2014, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said: “The role and authority of the United Nations General Assembly must be fully restored and revitalized. In the past few years, the General Assembly has regained influence in responding to challenges in regard to peace and security, development and climate change. It is becoming a platform of choice”.

Findings and Recommendations

• The Paris Agreement provides a flexible way forward to address the challenges of climate change. It has near universal acceptance. Its implementation, however would be a complicated affair. It is inherently a weak instrument and progress would, by and large, depend on the goodwill of those counties responsible for the major chunk of CO2 emissions.
•  Global warming is a reality yet it is a controversial subject. Estimates and data variations are quite large.
•  Powerful lobbies operate to cause push and pull effects with respect to data collection, processing and interpretation. Notwithstanding the disagreements over the quantum and pace, global warming is taking place.
•  Major contributors toward CO2 emission are the developed countries. Developing countries, even when clubbed together, contribute only a small fraction. Industrialized countries want the developing countries to pay for the wrong caused to the environment by industrialized countries. This would mean freezing the economic asymmetry.
•  Various lobbies are active in the context of mitigation of global warming through emission control measures. Developed countries are not ready to accept proportionate emission cuts. They want to inflict unrealistic cuts on developing countries that would be detrimental to their developing economies. Going by the argument of rich countries, rich economies would remain rich, and poor countries’ development cost would enhance and their pace of development would be retarded.
• Pakistan is switching over to Coal and nuclear fuel as a major means of its electricity in the medium to long term time-frame. For Coal, Pakistan should adopt the technologies which reduce the CO2 emissions to a minimum.
• Pakistan should engage with international forums on climate change and protect its rights viz-a-viz emission cuts. This needs thorough home work in the form of data collection.
• Global warming is not of Pakistan’s making. Its emissions make for 0.55% of the global emissions. Therefore, Pakistan should not be overwhelmed in accepting the restrictive regimes.
• Expanding and enhancing the information and knowledge base on climate change, as well as mapping vulnerabilities, trends in internal migration, and new incidences of disease, can help create adaptive measures for reducing the effects of climate change.
• The climate will continue to change even if countries dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Existing research indicates that climate change will have direct and immediate impacts, such as the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, as well as indirect and long‐term impacts through changes in temperature and precipitation levels.
• These impacts will inevitably affect human activities and livelihoods. In Pakistan, events such as floods, droughts, storms, and cyclones are now increasing in frequency. The 14
  number of climate induced natural disasters per decade has increased considerably over the last two decades.
• To a large extent, this trend can also be attributed to changes in environmental conditions, such as deforestation (leading to heightened flood risk), population growth, and a greater concentration of people living in high‐risk areas. For instance, impoverished and high‐density populations in low‐lying and environmentally degraded areas, such as coastal Sindh, etc, are particularly vulnerable to tropical cyclones. Likewise, large shanty towns with flimsy habitations can be found throughout the Indus Basin, which are vulnerable to frequent flooding.
• Pakistan can avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of natural disasters primarily through improved structural and nonstructural measures. These measures include: advancements in early warning systems, technological advances in the construction of buildings and infrastructure, better sanitation systems, increased disaster preparedness, and an organized and planned response from the health sector. Assessments of global climate change are thus especially important for enabling a developing country such as Pakistan to deal effectively with both short‐term climatic variability and long‐term climatic conditions.
• At a domestic level, Pakistan should implement technology based solutions to minimize green house emissions.
•  A wholesome campaign should be launched through an inter-disciplinary approach addressing all contributory causes as well.
• Notwithstanding the fate of the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration, Pakistan should continue implementing a long term strategy to minimize CO2 emissions by a gradual, yet systemic, switch over to environment friendly technologies.

Conclusion

Global warming is a reality and it entails climate change and its associated effects. Pakistan should play its part in mitigating global warming through an inter-disciplinary approach. It should remain constructively engaged with the international community. Pakistan needs to approach the issue in a professional manner. It should take informed decisions based on credible data input and avoid swaying based on campaigns led by lobbyists. With a reasonable NPCC in place, efforts should focus on its speedy implementation.

 

 

Refrences

i Uttam Kumar Sinha, “Climate Change Narratives: Reading the Arctic”, IDSA Monograph Series, No 25, September, 2013.5. ISBN: 978-93-82169-25-3

ii Ibid. Climate change is now a mainstream political issue but lacks policy coherence and consistency, at both international and national levels. This is because the science of Climate Change is complex, and the politics to deal with it ever so complicated. Climate Change, therefore, will remain a huge challenge. Much of the discussion on the subject tends to be polarized, and starts with contesting the evidences of the potential impact. Disagreement is common in the negotiations towards a global climate deal, and gets regressive and protective on cuts in carbon emissions. On the specificity of funds for climate response, carbon trading and the potential for technological intervention, the discussion gets compartmentalized and inconclusive. The realization for the need for mitigation and adaptation continues. In spite of the difficulty in reaching a consensus, the platform for debate, as seen in the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings and the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, has fortunately not collapsed. The debate is also coming around to an understanding that while a global agreement on Climate Change is important, it cannot be a substitute to national action. Ultimately, it is at the national-level that real and effective responses to Climate Change have to be made.

iii Adam McGibbon, “Trump is a threat to the Paris agreement. Can states like California defend it?”, The Guardian, November 21, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/21/trump-threat-paris-agreement- california-climate-change,(accessed on December 05, 2016. “There’s no point hiding from it – Donald Trump’s election should give us all concern for our future and the future of our children. The chances of successfully mitigating climate change and holding global temperature increases to below a manageable 1.5 degree rise has nosedived. Trump, a man who believes that climate change is a “hoax”, wants to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement. Even if that ends up taking time, he can decimate US federal agencies engaged in efforts to move to a greener society. He will probably cancel Obama’s Clean Power Plan, and slash federal funding for renewable energy”.

iv Sutter, John D.; Berlinger, Joshua (12 December 2015). “Final draft of climate deal formally accepted in Paris”. CNN. Cable News Network, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 12 December 2015.

v “Statement by the Prime Minister at the Inaugural Session of The 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Paris, 30 November 2015)”. Retrieved form the website of Ministry of Climate Change, Government of Pakistan, on December 06, 2016. http://www.mocc.gov.pk

vi “Paris Agreement to enter into force as EU agrees ratification”. European Commission. 4 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

vii “Paris Climate Agreement Becomes International Law”. ABC News.

viii Article 3, Paris Agreement (2015).

ix Article 4(9), Paris Agreement (2015).

x Articles 3, 9(3), Paris Agreement (2015).

xi Mark, Kinver (14 December 2015). “COP21: What does the Paris climate agreement mean for me?”. BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 14 December 2015.

xii Reguly, Eric (14 December 2015). “Paris climate accord marks shift toward low-carbon economy”. Globe and Mail. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved 14 December 2015.

xiii Davenport, Coral (12 December 2015). “Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 December 2015.

xiv “Climate negotiators strike deal to slow global warming”. CBS News. CBS Interactive Inc. 12 December 2015. Retrieved 14 December 2015. Druzin, Bryan (March 3, 2016). “A Plan to strengthen the Paris Agreement”. Fordham Law Review. xv Druzin, Bryan (March 3, 2016). “A Plan to strengthen the Paris Agreement”. Fordham Law Review.

xvi “Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21, Article 17” (PDF). UNFCCC secretariat. Retrieved 6 April 2016.

xvii Fountain, Henry. “Global Temperatures Are on Course for Another Record This Year”. The New York Times (July 19, 2016). Accessed on July 25, 2016.

xviii “Obama: Paris Climate Accord Best Possible Shot to ‘Save’ Planet”, NBC News and Reuters, October 5, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-paris-climate-accord-best- possible-shot-save-planet-n660446 ,(accessed on December 06, 2016)

xix “The Paris Agreement “Ratchet Mechanism””. January 19, 2016.

xx Article 14 “Framework Convention on Climate Change” (PDF). United Nations FCCC Int. United Nations. 12 December 2015. Retrieved 12 December 2015.  xxi “The Paris Agreement “Ratchet Mechanism””. January 19, 2016.

xxii Ibid.

xxiii Birnie P, Boyle A and Redgwell C (2009). International Law and the Environment. Oxford: OUP. pp. Chapter 3.

xxiv Taraska, Gwynne (December 15, 2015). “The Paris Climate Agreement” (PDF). Center for American Progress.

xxv Sinha, Amitabh (December 14, 2015). “Paris climate talks: Differentiation of developed and developing stays, India happy”.

xxvi Ibid.

xxvii Justin Gillis, “U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions”, Jonathan Nackstrand /Agence France-Presse, Published: September 27, 2013. http://thegenerator.com.au/u-n-climate-panel-endorses-ceiling-on-global-emissions/ (accessed on October 08, 2013).

xxviii The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the average surface temperature is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism. Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection. Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data. This effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect was first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, it is also been called the Callendar effect.

xxix The Express Tribune (Islamabad), September 29, 2013.

xxx Justin Gillis, “U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions”, Jonathan Nackstrand /Agence France-Presse, Published: September 27, 2013. http://thegenerator.com.au/u-n-climate-panel-endorses-ceiling-on-global-emissions/ (accessed on October 08, 2013).

xxxi Ibid.

xxxii Ibid.

xxxiii The Climate Change debate and contestation has three main groups. The first are the ‘sceptics’ who challenge the dominant scientific body on the evidences to suggest that global warming are anthropogenic, that is., directly related to human activity. They also assert that climate has always changed and what is happening is not unusual. Another set of sceptics, while agreeing that Climate Change is happening, argue that the threats posed are exaggerated. They tend to place Climate Change as one of the challenges that nations have to deal with. The second group is the ’mainstream’ thinking about Climate Change that takes its reference from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The IPCC, with its capacity to bring together scientists and a large body of work with a review process, has been influential in creating a real understanding on the dangers of Climate Change. The third are the ‘radicals’, who believe that the world has already crossed the tipping point as is evident in the dramatic changes in the Arctic, and the ice-covers in Antarctica and Greenland. Their policy suggestion is to adapt to the changes, and cope as best as possible by far-reaching actions rather than cosmetic ones.

xxxiv Justin Gillis, “U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions”, The New York Times, Global Edition, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 ,A version of this article appears in print on September 28, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.N. “U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions” New York Times Global edition sept 27, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=all Climate Panel Seeks Ceiling on Global Carbon Emissions.