The world leaders are set to meet tomorrow in Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009, where they will hold discussions and evolve a strategy to counter the growing menace of climate change and international environmental pollution.
In a country like Pakistan, where the more pressing issues such as terrorism, poverty, and lack of availability of basic food items tend to occupy the policymakers, the problems of climate change and environmental pollution tend to take a back seat.
However, it is of pivotal importance that Pakistan is thoroughly prepared for the negotiations in Denmark not least because the decisions taken during the coming days will have a major impact on the growth potential of the Pakistani economy. To this end, Pakistan must ensure that its viewpoint is adequately projected and its concerns are appreciated at this conference.
Traditionally, a number of countries, including Pakistan, have been lumped together in the rather broad category of 'developing countries' for purposes of determining the respective role of countries in countering environmental pollution. Ironically enough, India, China and Brazil, with completely different environmental concerns and growth requirements, are also included in this category.
It is no surprise then that the negotiations, during such conferences, revolve around these rapidly developing countries to the detriment of countries like Pakistan. Consequently, it is high time that Pakistan identifies itself as a distinct economy and demands concessions from industrialised nations that are best suited to its growth needs.
It is now well-settled that no environment control regime will receive uniform recognition unless the principles of sustainable development are contained within it. It was for this reason that the concept of sustainable development was included in the United Nations Framework for Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where it was held that all countries have a right to sustainable development.
The countries are obligated to "promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development" thus enabling them to better address the problem of climate change. Essentially, the countries have already agreed that any environment protection mechanism must not hamper the development/growth potential of the respective countries, subject to the caveat that this development has to be sustainable, that is, it must not result in irreparable loss to the global environment.
According to the climate change regime as it stands today, the industrialised nations are obligated to reduce their emissions, as well as to provide financial and technological assistance to the developing countries. On the other hand, developing countries are expected to cooperate with the industrialised nations to help them reach their commitments (of reduced emissions) to the extent possible, given the respective capabilities and developmental priorities of developing countries.
The basic idea behind this communal structure is that of CBDR, that is, Common But Differentiated Responsibility. This theory proposes a differential treatment in international environmental law for each country, depending on its stage of development and its contribution (both historical and present) towards global pollution.
This principle has been defined in the Rio Declaration 1992 as well as in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change (UNFCCC) 1992. Accordingly, the countries are obligated to protect the environment for the benefit of the present and future generations, on the basis of equity, and in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
The basic premise of CBDR is that the industrialised nations have historically achieved economic growth at the expense of developing countries; their conduct has lead to a deteriorating environment, and consequently, the developing countries must be compensated by the industrialised nations. Specifically, the countries that are significantly lagging behind in terms of economic development must be provided financial and technological assistance by the industrialised nations.
The proponents of this affirmative action plan claim that a regime, based on CBDR, would ensure equity amongst the states; they claim that following the CBDR in its entirety will ensure both inter-generational as well as intra-generational equity. On the face of it, such a plan sounds very meaningful and beneficial for a country like Pakistan.
Nevertheless, the manner in which it is implemented is only favourable to countries like India, China and Brazil, (and some other countries), which are developing at a much higher pace. The benefit is minimal to countries like Pakistan where the impetus for sustainable development is most needed.
Pakistan must raise a number of points at the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen. First, it must ensure that all the countries are not lumped together as "developing countries". There is a substantial difference in the economies of various developing countries; for example, there is absolutely no comparison between the economies of Pakistan and China, yet the two countries are both considered "developing countries".
Consequently, Pakistan and other underdeveloped/least-developed countries must propose a hierarchical system, whereby countries are classified according to their relative economic development. Secondly, Pakistan must ardently challenge the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, as it is understood today. The representatives of Pakistan must elucidate that the only countries that are benefiting from this vague affirmative action plan are those that are already at a higher stage of development.
Most importantly, such benefits are accrued at the expense of the underdeveloped and least-developed countries. Thirdly, the world leaders must be reminded that any climate change regime should recognise and work towards the goal of sustainable development, especially in relation to the underdeveloped and least-developed countries.
Finally, concerns should be raised that the world leaders are making yet another mistake by concentrating all their energies in providing financial and technological assistance to countries like India and China, and completely ignoring underdeveloped countries like Pakistan. It is important for the policymakers to realise that even though the contribution of underdeveloped countries towards environmental pollution is minimal, their sustainable development is absolutely necessary for ensuring a comprehensive, climate change regime.
It is indeed unfortunate that there is a sense of complacency amongst the policymakers of Pakistan about the upcoming conference in Denmark. This sense of satisfaction stems from the belief that Pakistan is not a major contributor to the global emissions, and consequently, any climate change regime will have very limited consequences for the country. This is entirely untrue and is a result of a one-dimensional understanding of the climate change framework.
It is essential for the officials to understand that any climate change framework is coupled with a comprehensive program of sustainable development, and Pakistan (and other countries in similar circumstances), will only benefit from such programs if they ensure that their concerns are adequately communicated. It must be remembered that willingness on part of all stakeholders is crucial for an international environmental treaty to be successful, and the mistakes committed at Kyoto in 1997 of not taking into account the viewpoint of all concerned parties must not be repeated in Denmark.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.