Earthly matters: Dampening hope in Durban

SYEDA SABAHAT · #1 Sunday, December 25, 2011

Earthly matters: Dampening hope in Durban

Inpaper Dawn Magzine Rina Saeed Khan

Disappointing news came out of the 2011 UN Climate Change Conference that wrapped up in Durban this month. Despite the increase in global temperatures, the frequency of climate related disasters, the rapid melting of the polar caps and rising food security issues, it seems that for now the world has agreed to the business as usual scenario by simply delaying any major action until 2020. Four years from now in 2015, the UN will thrash out the final architecture of what will probably be a single, legal treaty to be implemented from 2020 onwards. This legal treaty or protocol will ensure that all the major emitters (including the fast growing developing countries) will slash their carbon emissions. Scientists are afraid it might be too late by then to control global warming as the window to prevent runaway climate change is closing fast.

Unless appropriate measures are taken soon, climate change will exacerbate the poverty situation in developing countries and continue to slow down economic growth. Reductions in agricultural productivity could especially dampen economic growth. This should be particularly alarming for an agricultural country like Pakistan. The worst news coming out of Durban for us was that Germanwatch, an international NGO that brings out the Global Climate Index which measures who suffers most from extreme weather events every year, had listed Pakistan as the No. 1 most affected country in the world in 2010. Pakistan was also ranked No. 8 in the 10 countries most affected from 1991-2010. The Pakistani delegation even held a side event at Durban to highlight “Pakistan: In the Grip of Climate Change”.

By getting the developing countries to agree to a ‘legal outcome’ in 2020, the Western countries also managed to blur the principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ enshrined in the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change which recognises that rich countries have more of a historic responsibility to cut their emissions since they caused climate change in the first place and that the remaining atmospheric space is needed by developing countries who still have to grow.

The Pakistani delegation was not happy about what happened in Durban. According to Meera Ghani who advises and assists the Pakistani negotiators at the UN climate change talks, “Countries like the US, Japan, Russia and Canada and even to some extent the EU have gotten away with shirking their historical responsibility for decades and now countries like China and India are blamed for not doing their fair share and have agreed to do it on the same terms. Don’t get me wrong, I think they should do their fair share but only what is equitable and just. Countries like ours that don’t have much mitigation potential (at least not yet) are now bound by the same terms as major emitters as we don’t fall into the Least Developed Countries or small island states categories, who are exempt from a lot of the onerous reporting on mitigation and adaptation actions and will get the bulk of the financing too (well if there is to be any)… I’m rather unhappy the ‘outcome with legal force’ comes at the cost of equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities”.

Malik Amin Aslam, the former Pakistan Minister of State for the Environment who also attended the Durban conference, had this to say about the outcome: “The only thing Durban has managed to sustain is the endless (and increasingly fruitless) negotiations process while compromising and delaying the actual action needed against climate change. While polluters continue to hold the system hostage with a combination of ‘cheque-book diplomacy’ and ‘pass the buck’ blame game Pakistan has ominously slid to the top of the Climate Risk Index and faces prospects of a future limitation regime without Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and equity to stand on”.

So why did the developing countries, including Pakistan, agree to such an unfair deal in Durban? According to Shafqat Kakakhel who is also a long time member of the Pakistani delegation, “As in Cancun, developing countries endorsed the outcomes presented as Take It or Leave It because of their awareness that they would be the main losers if the multilateral process was allowed to collapse: the end of the global efforts would leave them with the baby and without the bathtub; they would suffer the adverse consequences of climate change without even the meagre support being offered. Our rich partners knew this and played their cards well”.

According to Pakistan’s lead negotiator Farrukh Iqbal Khan, there is less international cooperation for saving the biosphere than saving banks. There should be no doubt that we need to do more at home rather than depend on the outcome of international negotiations (and any handouts that might come our way). In his view, “International negotiations and regimes are the tools in assisting the countries to do what they are supposed to do, and not what they cannot, do not or are unable to do. We have highlighted the dangers that we are facing at the international level but we cannot play victim without doing anything at home… International cooperation is vital but there is a lot that must exist at home. In fact, solutions are available at home not abroad”. In his view, a post dated cheque has been handed over by the Durban talks. “I am not sure it will be honoured. However, this is the reality of our times and multilateral process. We must continue with our efforts to save the world”.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Idioms (A-Z)	Argus	English (Precis & Composition)	27	Friday, November 30, 2018 02:03 PM
Barack Obama: The Audacity Of Hope	Shaa-Baaz	References and Recommendations	0	Friday, February 06, 2009 12:10 AM
Mi'raaj - Reviving the Spirit of Hope	Muskan Ghuman	Islam	0	Monday, August 13, 2007 01:29 AM
What Is Hope?	Eve	English Poetry	0	Tuesday, April 10, 2007 01:17 PM
Waiting for Godot: Hope for Salvation	Last Island	English Literature	0	Sunday, December 31, 2006 03:55 AM