Climate change footprints in Pakistan

[Neo]

Climate change footprints in Pakistan

AZIZ-UD-DIN AHMAD

ARTICLE (December 23 2009): The agreement brokered at the Copenhagen climate conference falls short of what was being recommended by scientists to save the earth. What appears is that short-term national interests have over-ridden global needs. Meanwhile, negative effects of climate change continue to be witnessed all over Pakistan. Temperatures are rising in most of the country and there is a dangerous variation in rainfall cycles.

The fifth report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 makes a survey of the effects of global warming on Asia. While discussing Pakistan the report indicates that temperatures in the country have increased since the 1970s. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment tells us that extreme weather patterns have been observed in the past few years and the hottest day was recorded in the country on June 9, 2007, breaking a 78-year record.

A study of Karachi's temperature, conducted by a team of Pakistani researchers, based on records from 1947 to 2005, has taken note of variations in mean maximum temperature (MMxT), mean minimum temperature (MMiT) and mean annual temperature (MAT). The study reports that there has been a steady rise in the city's temperature.

"During 1947 to 2005, MMxT has increased about 4.6 degrees centigrade, MMiT has no change, and MAT has increased 2.25 degrees centigrade." Some of the most widespread and serious climate change impacts, the country is likely to suffer from, would result from the increased variability of the monsoon. Changes in the monsoon patterns are resulting in early or delayed monsoon rains.

What is most unlike the usual pattern, it that the rains now increasingly come in short heavy bursts resulting in flooding, which affects densely populated areas and agricultural land. Floods in agricultural areas lead to salination, chemical contamination and soil erosion, all of which reduce fertility and endanger food security.

Shifts of rainfall can be highly destructive. Areas where the agricultural population has depended for centuries on rainfall are gradually having less of it, which could lead to a drought-like situation with grave consequences, both for the local population and the country. The recent drought in neighbouring India hit the farming community badly, forcing thousands of villagers to migrate.

As the sugarcane crop did not get the needed irrigation water, there was also a severe shortage of sugar. A similar thing can happen in Pakistan also. With the rainfall cycle reportedly shifted away from the catchment areas, water volume in the rivers could shrink, causing further water shortages. At risk in areas like Thal in Punjab is the development made over decades of hard work and sacrifice.

The local population in the Thal region is already experiencing an expanded summer season and shorter winters due to global climate changes. With the shortage of irrigation water, the area could gradually revert to the pre-development and pre-Green Revolution era, when there was little agriculture and the major economic activity of the nomadic communities was raising of cattle.

There is a reverse side to the phenomenon also. More rainfall in regions not used to high precipitation is taking a heavy toll of life and property. In 2007, several districts in Balochistan witnessed unusual rainfall. Turbat, Khuzdar and Panjgur were the worst hit. Floodwaters washed away houses in hundreds of villages and entered some of the towns as small dams overflowed or burst.

The rain cycle extended to parts of NWFP also, where it had devastating impact on Khyber Agency, leaving behind a trail of destruction. About 40 people died, several bridges were washed away by storm water and the road link to Afghanistan was rendered unserviceable. In August 2008 parts of southern Punjab witnessed destruction caused by unexpected rains and flash floods.

Urban centers like Karachi and Lahore, which have expanded without planning to deal with heavy rains, are beginning to bear the brunt of the climate change as the events of the last two rainy seasons indicate. None of our cities possesses the wherewithal in the form of basic services and preparedness measures needed to cope with the after effects of extra heavy rains, accompanied by windstorms and floods.

Global warming is causing glaciers in the Himalayas and Hindu Kush to melt faster. The phenomenon causes sudden increases in river volumes resulting in the inundation of areas not historically prone to flooding. This impacts mountain villages as well as heavily populated downstream plains, causing massive destruction to crops, shelter and lives.

During the Alpine Wetlands survey of May 2002, quoted in the IPCC report, the elders of Broghal Valley in Chitral said 'the alpine glaciers are retreating at the rate of about 20 metres per annum and the increased spells of summer torrential rainfall hinders our agricultural productivity, because of the lowering of the temperature, which otherwise entirely depends on June, July and August high temperatures.

On the other hand, winter precipitation is declining and reducing the alpine pasture productivity. As a result our pastoral production is also decreasing. The number of wild ungulate has sharply declined and the predator attacks on our herds are also increasing." We are assured by the IPCC report that the impact of the sea-level rise is going to be less severe in Pakistan than in the case of some of its neighbours.

We are, however, reminded that the Karachi shoreline is already retreating and that there are other types of cost also to be paid. "The Indus Delta south of Karachi is also retreating due to a reduction in the silt load: some 25 per cent of the area could be lost with a one-meter rise in sea level. The intrusion of saltwater into freshwater supplies is putting mangrove ecosystems and fisheries at risk", says the report.

[Neo]

Copenhagen agreement

EDITORIAL (December 22 2009): The two-year process, initiated under the UN, to agree on measures needed to cope with climatic change has ended with an agreement. Despite its positive points, the deal falls short of expectations, particularly those of the poorest countries. For over a week, the talks remained stalled over issues like the level of reduction of the heat-trapping gas emissions, monitoring mechanisms and funds that were to be made available by rich countries to help the poorest nations cope with the effects of climate change.

With the arrival of Obama in Copenhagen, things started moving fast. After a flurry of meetings held by him with major countries, an agreement was finally brokered between the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Those who gave finishing touches to the deal are now underlining its achievements, while others are pointing out its weaknesses.

For President Obama it is "an unprecedented breakthrough." He conceded, however, that the agreement, which unlike a binding treaty, is only a political statement, well-short of what was in fact needed to fight global warming. The delegates from the poorest countries have objected to being left out of the negotiations at the critical stage. There is still uncertainty if the rest of the 193 countries would approve the deal because of crucial issues left unresolved.

Among the positive points is that major economies have for the first time come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the issue of climate change. The accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress towards the national pollution-reduction goals. Further, it sets as its goal the limiting of the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, by 2050.

Poorer countries had however demanded it to be reduced to 1.5 degrees. The agreement requires major reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases over the next four decades. Among the failures of the agreement is that it does not set a 2010 goal for reaching a binding international treaty on the issue, which many countries had demanded. The agreement also does not commit the industrialised or the developing nations to firm targets for mid-term or long-term greenhouse gas emission reductions.

It falls short of the goal of producing a comprehensive and enforceable action plan for addressing dangerous changes to the global climate. Weaker systems of review and verification have been proposed but they do not provide the assurances that are needed. What remains absent is a strong system of compliance within a legally binding treaty structure. The poorer nations demanded at least $200bn in new money to help them tackle climate change.

Their demand has only been met partially and in the absence of an obligatory treaty, even the promise held out remains doubtful. The agreement may not be ideal, but this was the only practical thing possible in the prevailing circumstances. We are living in a world with a strong carbon lobby where "flat earth" climate change skeptics, an expression used by Gordon Brown, continue to deny that any warming is taking place or that it is the outcome of carbon emissions.

There is also strong resistance to mechanisms for monitoring emission reductions from a number of countries, foremost among them being China. There are also deep differences about emission targets, with the US proposing 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, while developing countries, including China and India are demanding 40 percent. The deal can, at best, be considered as the first step in a long march.