|
Jamil Ahmad //DAWN: May 2, 2025
[The developed countries should shoulder the burdon of losses of developing countries because of climate change.]
LIMITING global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is the overarching aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement; breeching that limit would have disastrous consequences. Its five-year work cycle outlines a roadmap to combat climate change, adapt to its effects and manage risks associated with it through national climate action plans known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
In the decade since the agreement, the world has trudged along that roadmap making steady progress. Based on their NDCs, countries have taken measures to move towards net-zero emission targets. Major economies and entities have set timelines and adopted policies to become carbon neutral. The EU, for example, aims to reduce emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. China wants to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. Several other countries have committed to attain net-zero by 2050.
Constrained by financial challenges, the quest of developing countries to reach net-zero will be arduous and contingent on receiving huge investments from their development partners. NDCs submitted by developing countries commonly refer to finance as a constraint. Some have furnished quantified estimates of their financial support needs, invoking provisions of the Paris Agreement which urge developed countries to take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Since the Paris Agreement came into effect, there have been some positive developments; for example, the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund under the UN Climate Convention. The fund has now been operationalised to assist climate-vulnerable nations.
COP30 in Belem this year will transact a heavy agenda.
The Green Climate Fund, the world’s largest climate fund, is enhancing support to developing countries to translate their NDCs into climate investments and programming. At COP29 in Baku last year, developed countries pledged to mobilise $300 billion by 2035 to assist vulnerable developing countries — a threefold increase from the earlier pledge of $100bn. However, the financial needs of the latter far exceed the available resources.
The United Nations Environment Programme estimates the adaptation finance gap at $187-359bn per year. The ask for a just energy transition for developing economies will be much higher. That is why COP29 called for scaled-up financing for developing countries to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 from public and private sources.
Meeting these high targets appears burdensome. COP30 in Belem this year will transact a heavy agenda and make critical decisions. Climate finance will be a hot topic again, as will the importance of capacity building for transferring low-carbon and green technologies to developing countries for a just energy transition.
The global stock-take of the Paris Agreement in 2023 acknowledged the progress but also highlighted the need for the next NDCs to be more ambitious and broader based. With the energy sector the main source of GHG emissions, NDCs must be supported by multitiered and multisectoral strategies to enable energy transition in a timely manner.
Due this year, the updated NDCs would raise the bar to keep hope alive to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C. In a recent development, the International Maritime Organisation approved net-zero regulations for shipping — a long-awaited move that will complement international efforts. Shipping accounts for about 3pc of global emissions. With this deal, shipping becomes the first industry with a mandated net-zero framework for reducing emissions.
Bracing for Belem, host Brazil is active to ensure that COP30 lives up to expectations amid challenging circumstances. It has unveiled plans to launch an ambitious $125bn fund to protect tropical forests as part of a strategy to galvanise climate action. Some nations have already offered to join the initiative. On the diplomatic front, in March this year, COP30 president Ambassador André Corrêa do Lagowrote an open letter to governments and other stakeholders calling for transitioning the COPs from negotiations to a phase of “full implementation” and “mobilisation of all of humanity’s resources to tackle structural inequalities within and among countries”.
Raising the pitch, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged leaders to “lay out a bold vision for a just green transition over the next decade”. He said at COP30 that “leaders must deliver a credible roadmap to mobilise $1.3tr a year for developing countries by 2035”, also reminding developed countries of their promise to double adaptation finance to at least $40bn a year by this year.
Belem offers a chance for collective action for climate-resilient societies. This chance must not be missed.
The writer is director of intergovernmental affairs, UNEP.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2025
======================================================
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh //DAWN: May 2, 2025
AS tensions escalate between nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan, beyond the immediate threat of conflict and casualties lies a more profound danger: the devastation of economies, ecosystems and built environments that would leave both nations permanently scarred, regardless of whichever side claims victory. It’s time for both countries to find ways to de-escalate the rhetoric, and the world to help in crisis management.
The Indus Valley, the cradle of one of humanity’s oldest civilisations, once again finds itself at risk of catastrophic disruption. Even a conventional war would lead to unimaginable devastation, undermining decades of development and condemning millions to poverty traps and climate vulnerability.
Historical lessons: History offers sobering lessons regarding the economic toll of India-Pakistan confrontations. The 1999 Kargil conflict, though limited in scope, triggered a steep drop within days in the Indian and Pakistani bourses. Markets recovered, but the economic impact lingered long after hostilities ceased, with Pakistan’s GDP growth falling from 4.2 per cent to 3.1pc in the subsequent fiscal year. The 2019 Pulwama crisis similarly witnessed market capitalisation losses exceeding $12 billion across both economies within a week of escalation.
A full-scale conflict today would be far more devastating. According to Foreign Affairs Forum on the ‘Economic Impacts of a Full-Scale India-Pakistan War’, the daily costs of military operations for India could reach $670 million, with broader economic losses potentially reaching $17.8bn — equivalent to a 20pc GDP contraction over four weeks of conflict. Pakistan’s more fragile economy is already struggling with depleted reserves and IMF dependence. A war is likely to trigger hyperinflation and shortages of essential goods.
Armed conflict could lead to environmental devastation across ecosystems.
Even India’s relatively larger economy would face severe disruption. Financial markets would experience capital flight. Economists have projected potential foreign investment outflows of $10-15bn within the first month of conflict (Moody’s Analytics, 2024). The rupee in both countries would likely depreciate, and inflationary pressures surge from rising oil prices and import costs. Conflict would slow down global economic growth.
For Pakistan, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty would threaten its agrarian economy, constitutes 22.7pc of GDP but consumes more than 95pc of available water. This could trigger water shortages in our canals, particularly during non-monsoon periods. Food security would dramatically worsen — some 200m in India and 40m in Pakistan are already suffering from inadequate nutrition.
The two countries’ already meagre progress towards the SDGs would suffer immense setbacks, pushing millions deeper into poverty through economic contraction, inflation and job losses.
Environmental catastrophe: Armed India-Pakistan conflict could lead to environmental devastation across ecosystems already stressed by climate change. Recent conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza provide dispiriting lessons. In Ukraine, over 7m acres of forests and protected areas have been damaged since February 2022, with some 900 instances of industrial pollution from damaged facilities. The destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam led to flooding that contaminated vast territories, requiring an estimated €50 billion ($57 billion) and decades for restoration.
Agricultural heartlands in both India and Pakistan would likely suffer long-term contamination, threatening food security for hundreds of millions. The climate commitments of both would fall by the wayside. Pakistan’s pledge to increase renewable energy to 60pc of its energy mix by 2030 and India’s emissions reduction targets would become unattainable if resources shift to conflict and recovery.
Both countries face climate vulnerabilities, which conflict would worsen by damaging infrastructure, disrupting disaster response, and diverting resources from adaptation programmes. Conflict would disrupt supply chains, delay renewable projects and shift government priorities to immediate security concerns, slowing climate actions for resilient and low-carbon development. Historical and geopolitical tensions already complicate India-Pakistan collaboration on climate issues. War would further stall or reverse any progress towards joint climate initiatives, reducing the effectiveness of regional climate action.
Beyond numbers: Statistics cannot adequately capture human suffering resulting from conflict. Civilian casualties, displacement and separation of families create wounds that economics cannot measure. Conflict would further marginalise already vulnerable minority populations. Muslims in India and Indian-held Kashmir are already facing intensified persecution under the nationalist fervour and hysteria that war has triggered. The Modi government’s enabling of religious polarisation will find further targets from Gujrat to Bihar to Bengal as war rhetoric normalises extremist positions.
International intervention: Given these potentially catastrophic consequences, the global community must move beyond passive concern to active intervention and exert its diplomatic and economic influence on Islamabad and New Delhi. The US, with its long-standing security ties to both nations, has a unique capacity to engage military establishments. China, as Pakistan’s close ally and an increasingly important economic partner for India, possesses diplomatic channels that could prove crucial in reducing the war rhetoric. Other major powers should also deploy all available diplomatic tools to discourage adventurism. Intelligence-sharing about terrorist threats could help address legitimate security concerns without resorting to confrontation.
Prosperity over destruction: The choice is stark: continued development with potential for shared prosperity, or mutually assured destruction that would set both nations back by decades. Even a limited conflict would dramatically alter development trajectories, redirecting resources from education, healthcare, and infrastructure towards military expenditure and reconstruction.
Lessons from both Ukraine and Gaza demonstrate the grave consequences when international intervention comes too late or remains insufficient. Those who value the ancient Indus civilisation must ensure it survives to continue its contributions to progress, rather than becoming another tragic example of political irrationality triumphing over common interest. The war drums can still be silenced through determined international action and diplomatic engagement based on mutual benefit rather than zero-sum competition.
The writer is a climate change and sustainable development expert.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 02 May 2025
[The state of Human Rights in Pakistan is not good which is the cause of multiple problems faced by Pakistan.]
FOR the people of Pakistan to successfully confront the multiple crises the country faces, it is important to honestly acknowledge what ails us. That is what the HRCP’s State of Human Rights in 2024 report seeks to do by highlighting the major rights violations and anti-democratic trends that affected Pakistan in the past year. As the report notes, democracy, federalism, the rule of law and the judiciary’s independence were all “under heavy strain” in 2024. It can be argued that these and all other crises are interlinked, as a lack of political legitimacy and concord following last year’s general elections have exacerbated the existing problems. The report also underlines the fact that militancy shot up last year, with KP and Balochistan the worst affected. The report lists at least 24 deaths caused by vigilante mobs, with some linked to blasphemy allegations. The number of alleged police encounters in Sindh and Punjab alone — close to 5,000 — reiterates the need for urgent police reform and accountability. Crimes against women and children are detailed, while the report also mentions the impact of extreme weather events. It succinctly sums up the major challenges confronting Pakistan thus: “political engineering, economic precarity, religious extremism, gendered violence and ecological collapse”.
Instead of alleging that this document — and other reports like it — besmirch the country’s fair name, as many amongst the ruling elite usually do, there is a need to calmly consider the points raised by such studies. The fact is that without addressing the numerous problems — chief among which are the rapid erosion of rights and the growing authoritarian tendencies of the rulers — the country faces, it will be next to impossible to deliver social and economic justice to the people of Pakistan. The country cannot prosper unless the masses are guaranteed full constitutional protections, and the state uses compassion as a compass instead of trying to be ‘hard’. The HRCP report rightly urges state institutions and political parties “to place human rights at the heart of public policy”. And for those who claim to know all about patriotism, they should remember what Mohammad Ali Jinnah has said regarding fundamental rights: “We fought for Pakistan because there was a danger of the denial of these human rights in this Subcontinent.” Therefore, the ongoing struggle for basic rights is very much a national duty.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 02 May 2025
[Pakistanis have shown unity in the face of Indian threats.]
THERE are times when one is struck by the remarkable resilience of our people and their ability to rally together despite the country’s many internal contradictions and divisions. The developments over the past days and Pakistan’s measured responses to them have served up one such reminder.
Accosted with irrational belligerence by an unusually ornery neighbour, Pakistanis have not lost their calm. Instead, they have set aside their many differences and put up a united front. Hardened by years of overcoming setbacks and seemingly insurmountable challenges, they have learned to keep their head while others are losing theirs. Even with the threat of war looming over their heads, ordinary Pakistanis have gone about life as usual, confident that they will see this crisis through, like they have so many others. This attitude, perhaps, is what continues to give the nation the strength to face every adversity head-on, sometimes while mocking it to its face.
But it should not be taken for granted. This is a time for both political and institutional leaders to reflect deeply on why this country’s people continue to offer their unquestioning support in times of crisis, and whether it is appropriate to continue to paint opposition, dissent and dissatisfaction with certain perspectives as ‘disloyalty’ to the nation. It is normal for people to disagree with each other, and sometimes to disagree strongly. It is merely a symptom of a healthy and passionate sense of national identity. Differences in worldviews should never be taken to suggest that opponents do not agree with the basic principles on which this nation was founded. It is harmful for leaders, civilian or otherwise, to frame internal conflicts in these terms, especially when what they are really trying to do is to silence opposing viewpoints. As Pakistanis have demonstrated over the past week, their differences are quickly overcome in the face of a common crisis.
Forces inimical to this nation must have been hoping to exploit its internal differences to weaken it from within. The united response from the people of Pakistan has demonstrated that they will get no satisfaction. However, this is also an opportunity to rebuild bridges and bring people closer together. The state has an opportunity to capitalise on the prevailing sentiment and address outstanding social and political crises, ensuring that no obvious vulnerabilities remain for enemies to exploit. The sooner issues are settled, the better.
Meanwhile, New Delhi’s act of suspending the Indus Waters Treaty needs a strong response, and the Modi regime’s hate-filled rhetoric and aggression need to be checked in every domain before it grows any bolder. Irrational though it is, the intent next door seems crystal clear. Pakistan needs to focus all its energies on protecting its interests. This fight must be won on every front.
Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2025
===============================================================================
IMPORTANT NEWS
|
