International Climate Change Policy: Political and Economic

Underpinnings and Pakistan’s Policy Response for Sustainable

Development

Submitted byZAHOOR KHAN

Ph.D. SCHOLAR

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR

December 2016

i

Certificate of Approval

This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, entitled “International Climate Change Policy: Political and Economic Underpinnings and Pakistan’s Policy Response for Sustainable Development” was conducted by Mr. Zahoor Khan under the supervision of PROF DR. S. SHAFIQUR REHMAN.No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere else for any other degree. This thesis is submitted to the Department of International Relations in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Field of (International Relations) Department of International Relations University of Peshawar

Student Name: Zahoor Khan Signature: __________

Examination Committee

a) External Examiner 1: DR. SEEME MALIK(Senior Research Associate, COMSATS, Institute & Technology, Islamabad)

Signature:

b) External Examiner 2: PROF. DR. MUHAMMAD IRFAN KHAN(Department of Environmental Science, International Islamic University, Islamabad)

Signature:

c) Internal Examiner: PROF. DR. ASIF KHAN(Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Peshawar)

Signature:

d) PROF. DR. S. SHAFIQUR REHMAN(Supervisor)

Signature:

e) PROF. DR. NASREEN GHUFRAN(Dean / HOD)

Signature:

ii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the outcome of my individual research and it has not

been submitted to any other university the grant of a degree.

Zahoor Khan

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my parents: my father, Haji Qamar Zaman Khan and my late mother,

Israr Begum, my Babow.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Writing is a consistent process of decision making and none can deny that decision making is

burdensome and sometimes nerve raking. I am grateful to Allah for entrusting me with

teachers, friends and family to shoulder my burden and helped me accomplish this task.

My special thanks to Dr. Syed Shafiq Ur Rehman, my supervisor, for his unstinted kind

support. It is a rarity to find an environmental scientist with an inclusive broad understanding

of the environmental issues in their social and political standing and implications. When a

scientific issue like climate change is politicized, the solution to the riddle is always with the

scientists. The decision regarding the solution, nevertheless, always lies with the politicians.

Sir, Shafiq has a thorough understanding of this equation of science and politics. Intellectual

profundity, however, is not the only thing that defines his personality. His humility and

warmth always made me feel important.

I am equally grateful to Dr. Hussain Shaheed Soherwordi, my co-supervisor, for believing in

my potential. His insights and guidance in evaluating the dynamics of international

cooperation among largely disparate sovereign states in an anarchic system helped much in

evolving various aspects of the theoretical discourse of this dissertation. Coarse intellectual

debates become pleasure with a man of ageless charm and rich mind willing to convince you

that you are better than him. Dr. Soherwordi, indeed, raised my hopes about myself.

I register my gratitude to Dr. Nasreen Ghufran, the Chairperson of IR department. I am

thankful to her beyond my expressions. Being a teacher, I always believed that a true teacher

must consider his students his assets, owning their strengths and weaknesses and diligently

but delicately helping them overcome their flaws without hurting their pride. Ma’am Nasreen

personifies these enviable virtues of a true teacher.

My special thanks to my teachers Dr. Ijaz Khan, and Prof. Dr. Taj Moharram. I am more than

grateful to my family especially my wife for standing with me and supporting me through my

peaks and valleys.

v

ABSTRACT

Pakistan is a developing state confronted with the adverse implications of global climate change in presence of its weak economic and institutional infrastructure. The dual task of adapting to negative climate effects and transform its development model to efficient and renewable sources of energy in accordance with the long-term goal of Paris Climate Agreement (2015) is much demanding if not impossible. Global climate change is the sudden transformation, a push, to the natural climate induced by excessive unwise exploitation of natural environment since industrialization. Modern technological civilization for its powering is largely relying on fossil fuels, injecting the largest stores of CO2 into climate. Excessive addition of this heat trapping gas is upsetting the natural greenhouse effect, increased earth surface temperature, a phenomenon termed global warming. Consequently, a torrent of negative climate impacts is unleashed like disruption of hydrological cycle, rapid melting of glaciers and intense and unpredictable weather patterns. These rapid climate variations are constraining human life with crucial implications for the vital sources of livelihood and development: water, food and energy. Pakistan since last decade has witnessed severe floods and intense weather patterns resulting in losses of human life and infrastructure, undermining its crop yields, compounding its existing problems and challenging its fragile governance structure. Fundamentally, a one river based agriculture economy; global climate change could eventually exhaust Pakistan’s freshwater resources and reduce irrigation water for its arid lands. Such constraints could lead to mass migration, inter and intra-state conflict for water sharing, and emergence of strong intransigent societies against state.

Pakistan requires adapting to these adverse climate changes and effectively contributes to goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, 2015 without compromising on its economic development. The Paris Climate Agreement is an outcome of an extended decades old contentious politics of the developed global North and developing global South, the fossils fuel based economies and climate threatened low lying and small island states. By setting a goal of keeping earth surface temperature below 2°C and achieve net-zero emissions by mid of the century, this agreement seeks nationally determined contributions from each state and financial and technological support of the developed states to the developing states in actualizing climate resilient clean development. Pakistan National Climate Change Policy (2012) is centered on achieving sustainable development through climate resilient development. However, actualizing climate resilient development demands specific measurable and achievable targets regarding mitigation and adaptation with well-coordinated institutional structure of monitoring and facilitation from the center and a well informed and resourceful climate response structure at the local level. Such an integrated and inclusive approach exists in policy frames but not effectively mainstreamed in the institutional structure.

vi

Tables of Contents

DECLARATION................................................................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION....................................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.........................................................................................................................v

ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER 1............................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1

1.1 PAKISTAN POLICY RESPONSE...............................................................................................6

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................7

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM..........................................................................................10

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY............................................................................................10

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY................................................................................................11

1.6 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................11

1.7 DIVISION OF THE STUDY......................................................................................................12

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2..........................................................................................................................................16

THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE...........................................................................................16

2.1 CLIMATE...................................................................................................................................17

2.2 CLIMATE CHANGE..................................................................................................................21

2.3 GREENHOUSE EFFECT...........................................................................................................22

2.4 LIFE SUSTAINING NATURAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT....................................................22

2.5 GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SCIENTIFIC ESSENCE.................................................................24

2.6 KEELING CURVE.....................................................................................................................25

2.7 ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT OR GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE

CHANGE..........................................................................................................................................27

2.8 EARTH ENERGY BALANCE...................................................................................................31

vii

2.9 REASONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE: CLIMATE FORCING AND CLIMATE FEEDBACKS

...........................................................................................................................................................32

2.9.1 Climate Feedback Mechanism.............................................................................................35

2.9.2 Earth’s Atmosphere: Structure and Composition.................................................................37

2.9.3 Sun’s Energy and Earth: Solar Cycle and Orbital Variations..............................................40

2.9.4 Tectonic Movements and Volcanic Eruptions.....................................................................42

2.9.5 Natural Climate Oscillations................................................................................................43

PART 11................................................................................................................................................45

FIXING RESPONSIBILITY, ADVERSE IMPACTS, BALANCING MEASURES AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................................45

2.10 ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES.................................................................................................45

2.10.1 Greenhouse Gases: Characteristics and CO2 Distinction...................................................46

2.10.2 Carbon Cycle......................................................................................................................49

2.10.3 Oceans and Carbon Cycle..................................................................................................49

2.10.4 Enhanced Concentration of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gases.........................................50

2.10.5 Land Use Change...............................................................................................................52

2.11 FIXING THE RESPONSIBILITY............................................................................................53

2.12 ASSESSING IMPACTS: CLIMATE MODELS AND UNCERTAINTY...............................57

2.12.1 Temperature Rise...............................................................................................................58

2.12.2 Glacial Melting...................................................................................................................59

2.12.3 Effects of Temperature Changes in Sea Surface................................................................61

2.12.4 Sea Level Rise....................................................................................................................62

2.12.5 Water Scarcity: Limited Freshwater Supply......................................................................63

2.12.6 Disrupted Hydrological Cycle, Intense and Unexpected Weather Pattern........................64

2.12.7 Biospheric Meltdown.........................................................................................................65

2.12.8 Human Diseases.................................................................................................................66

2.12.9 Socio-Economic and Political Implications.......................................................................66

viii

2.13 SENSITIVITY, VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY................................................68

2.14 UNCERTAINTY, SKEPTICS AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE................................69

2.15 SCIENCE CORE CLIMATE POLICY: BALANCING MEASURES AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................................71

CHAPTER 3..........................................................................................................................................74

INTERNATIONAL REGIME: THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF COOPERATION AND

COLLECTIVE RESPONSE.................................................................................................................74

3.1 INTEREST-BASED THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL REGIMES.....................................81

3.2 POWER BASED THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL REGIME................................................93

3.3 KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORIES.......................................................................................100

CHAPTER 4........................................................................................................................................110

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: CONTENTIOUS POLITICS AND

CONTESTED PRINCIPLES..............................................................................................................110

4.1 THE GLOBAL NORTH AND SOUTH DIVIDE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND

STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY.....................................................................................................111

4.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS AND INACTIONS...........115

4.3 FOSSIL EXPORT BASED ECONOMIES/ OPEC FEAR ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY116

4.4 GAS GUZZLING CULTURE AND RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT FEEL THREATENED.119

4.5 VULNERABLE LOW LYING AND SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES SEEK

CLIMATE ACTIONS.....................................................................................................................124

4.6 INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: VITAL PRINCIPLES SINCE

STOCKHOLM, 1972......................................................................................................................126

4.6.1 Sustainable Development...................................................................................................127

4.6.2 State Responsibility............................................................................................................128

4.6.3 Right To Development.......................................................................................................128

4.6.4 Precautionary Principle......................................................................................................130

4.6.5 Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR).........................................................132

4.6.6 Cooperation and Participation............................................................................................135

ix

CHAPTER 5........................................................................................................................................139

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF PARIS

AGREEMENT....................................................................................................................................139

5.1 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION...................................................................................................139

5.2 UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)

.........................................................................................................................................................146

5.2.1 Institutional Mechanisms and Related Controversy...........................................................149

5.2.2 Evaluation...........................................................................................................................150

5.3 KYOTO PROTOCOL...............................................................................................................151

5.3.1 Evaluation...........................................................................................................................153

5.4 PARIS AGREEMENT..............................................................................................................154

CHAPTER 6........................................................................................................................................164

CLIMATE CHANGE REDEFINING PAKISTAN’S SECURITY....................................................164

6.1 SECURITY: THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING, NATIONAL SECURITY AND HUMAN

SECURITY.....................................................................................................................................165

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY OR CLIMATE SECURITY..............................................169

6.3 PAKISTAN’S SECURITY: TRADITIONAL AND NEW REALITIES.................................171

6.4 CLIMATE SECURITY AND PAKISTAN: PROJECTED CLIMATE WOES AND

IMPLICATIONS.............................................................................................................................173

6.4.1 Water Scarcity, Food Insecurity and Forced Migration.....................................................179

6.4.2 Limited Water: Intensification of Interstate and Intrastate Conflicts.................................181

6.4.3 Threatened Coastlines and Volcanic Karachi....................................................................182

6.4.4 Weak State, Strong Societies and Geostrategic Implications.............................................183

CHAPTER 7........................................................................................................................................186

PAKISTAN’S POLICY RESPONSE: CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT, A

SUSTAIANABLE DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................186

7.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT:

GOAL OF NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY..............................................................189

x

7.1.1 A Resilience Lens and Climate Change Sustainable Adaptation.......................................195

7.2 PAKISTAN TOWARDS CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT: CORE TO

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................197

7.3 REVIEW OF POLICY FRAME...............................................................................................197

7.4 ADAPTATION.........................................................................................................................198

7.4.1 Water Crises.......................................................................................................................198

7.4.2 Agriculture and Livestock..................................................................................................199

7.4.3 Health and Forestry............................................................................................................200

7.4.4 Biodiversity and Vulnerable Ecosystem............................................................................201

7.4.5 Disaster Management.........................................................................................................202

7.4.6 Human Development..........................................................................................................203

7.5 MITIGATION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES.....................................................205

7.6 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND GENERAL AWARENESS.....................................207

7.6.1 Institutional Mechanism.....................................................................................................211

7.6.2 18TH Amendment and Climate Change............................................................................215

7.6.3 Pakistan Climate Change Act (2017).................................................................................220

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................224

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................238

ANNEXURE.......................................................................................................................................282

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 Warmest years on record (1880-2016)......................................................................30

Table 2 Radiative Forcing of atmospheric gases....................................................................51

Table 3 Characteristics of International Organization and International Regime...................78

Table 4 Three fundamental principles of constructivist social theory..................................102

Table 5 States and Differentiated Responsibilities...............................................................148

Table 6 Main provisions of the Paris agreement..................................................................158

Table 7 Pakistan’s ranking in the German-Watch Climate Index........................................174

Table 8 Projected Impacts of Climate Change (NCCP, 2012).............................................176

Table 9 Ten Objectives of the NCCP (2012).......................................................................188

Table 10 Principles of NDMA.............................................................................................202

Table 11 Various Social Protection Programs......................................................................205

Table 12 Chronological Order of Climate Change Institutional and Policy Responses,

Pakistan................................................................................................................................212

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Natural Greenhouse Effect........................................................................................23

Figure 2 Keeling Curve...........................................................................................................27

Figure 4 Average global temperature for the past 150 years (Source: NOAA, as cited in

Silver, 2008)............................................................................................................................31

Figure 5 Conceptual structure of climate forcing and feedback..............................................34

Figure 6 Atmospheric layers....................................................................................................38

Figure 7 Composition of gases in the atmosphere...................................................................39

Figure 8 Milankovitch cycle....................................................................................................41

Figure 9 Characteristics and changed concentration of atmospheric gases.............................47

Figure 10: CO2 difference of the Northern and Southern hemisphere as overall concentration

increases...................................................................................................................................54

Figure 11 Northern hemisphere temperature anomaly since 1300 years................................55

Figure 12 Simulated annual global mean surface temperatures..............................................56

Figure 13 Average glacial melt, a loss of 6 meter in height in last 20 years...........................60

Figure 14 Thermohaline Circulation.......................................................................................62

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Climate change is a characteristically unique global problem because of its immense adverse

impacts across time and space, inherent intricacies and complexity of its science, and its

political and economic implications for states and non-state actors. Owing to the diffuse

structure of the international decision making in the age of globalization, generating a

collective will and response depends upon multiple factors. The magnitude and complexity

of the climate change have made it impossible for a single state to effectively counter its

repercussions. Thus climate change demands a consensus international climate change policy

or more rightly termed an international climate change regime to generate collective efforts

for its solution. However, the same complexity has initiated tangled political disputes among

international actors, states and non-states entities, and further compounded evolution of the

international climate change regime. Understanding international climate change regime, its

formation and limitations, requires not only an insight into the science which has placed this

issue in the international limelight, but also comprehension of the political and economic

underpinnings which are at the base of interstate negotiations.

The basic objective of climate change policy making is to stop emissions of greenhouse gases

(ghgs) into atmosphere through mitigation and enhance capacity building of the vulnerable

communities through adaptation. The rich sources of greenhouse emissions are the fossil-

based modern and industrialized economic societies relying on cheap but dirty sources of

energy and power like coal, oil and gas. This traditional western model of development

centered on exploitation of the environment and its resources by the forces of production and

consumption is understood as the fundamental way of development and thus aspired equally

by rich developed and poor developing states. The fundamental bond of fossil fuel, modern

civilization and climate change is undeniable. As climate change skeptic or “lukewarmer”,

that he preferred to be called, Dr. Patrick J. Michael of the Cato Institute, Washington D.C, in

response to the researcher’s question stated, “How do you power civilization, a modern

technological society if you remove all fossil fuels? We don’t have any alternative!”

1

(Personal communication, September 15, 2016). The underlying assumption of the statement

is evident: the modern technological society is the product of fossil fuels, and a successful

climate change regime with an objective of naturally acceptable level of greenhouse

emissions requires substituting fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy to power

modern civilization. Attributing modern technological civilization to fossil fuels is in a word

a confession that the western developed states are largely responsible for the accumulated

greenhouse gases that result in global warming and culminating in climate changes. This

also means that efforts for reducing fossil fuel emissions, a process termed mitigation, would

undermine quality of life in western industrialized states conveniently termed North, for their

geographical location. Mitigation will equally restrict options for the Southern developing

states to become developed following in line with the Western model of development that

warrants exploitation of the fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal—the rich stores of greenhouse

gases.

The irony, however, of the matter is that powering of the civilization is not a universally

fundamental concern when it comes to climate change. Climate change is a threat to

existence of civilizations living in low lying islands states and life and livelihood to the

majority of the poor developing states located in unfavorable climate zones. To the worst,

their limited resources and technological expertise compromise their adaptive capacity and

thus further compound their vulnerability to climate changes. Apart from the human life, it is

also a threat to biodiversity, undermining existence of different kinds of species. The

developing states are confronted with a problem of adapting to climate changes while at the

same time protect their right to development to overcome their poverty and improve the

living standards of the population. Acknowledging this right of the poor developing south is

at the root of a successful climate change regime. The former U.S Vice President and Nobel

laureate, Al Gore, in championing the cause of climate change assures the developing states

in Kyoto, Japan, in 1992 at the time of evolution of Kyoto Protocol in the following words:

"We understand that your first priority is to lift your citizens from the poverty so many of

them endure," Gore said," and to build strong economies that will ensure your future. This is

your right. It will not be denied" (Joyce, 2015). Pakistan, a developing state, is confronted

with the challenge of overcoming its pervasive poverty through sustained economic growth,

and seeks resources to power its industries and cities. One the other hand, it is a victim to the

2

catastrophic climate disasters because of the disturbed water cycles resulting in floods in one

region and drought in another. Being highly vulnerable to global climate change, Pakistan

needs to devise an effective climate change policy to enhance its capacity building against

foreseeable costs and threats of climate change without compromising its development.

Schmidt and Wolfe (2009) define climate change as changes in our expectations and

predictions about the climate. In a way, our whole life pattern is conditioned by the expected

predictions about the climate and immense variations of it would affect every aspect of

human life. Hall (2009) states that that there is an exponential temperature rise since 1970,

which is inexplicable without taking into account human fueled activities since industrial

revolution. Global climate change is a widely acknowledged occurring phenomenon with few

dissenting voices questioning its presence or largely the degree of its severity. Till present,

unavoidable worth of scientific evidence suggest and is duly concluded that by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) in its fifth assessment report, 2013 that

“warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, attributing it to “human influence…recent

anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [with clear] widespread impacts on human and

natural systems”. The incessant and rampant development with callous disregard to nature

has resulted in huge emission of greenhouse gases, their trapping and ultimately raising

atmospheric temperature. On the other hand, deforestation and desertification have resulted

in destroying carbon sinks to sequester the most vital greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide (CO2).

The implications of the climate change are multifarious: both positive and negative, varying

from region to region and equally dependent on financial capabilities of a state (Stephenson,

2015). The temperature rise in certain regions like Arctic could generate new opportunities of

life and development in those uninhabited areas (Paterson, 1996). However, the negative

impacts are of calamitous nature including rise in sea level with the effects of wiping out

coastal areas and most importantly small island states, leading to mass environmental

refugees and new range of diseases and loss of biodiversity (Paterson, 1996; Schmidt, 2008).

Moreover, rise in temperature would result in melting of the glaciers, one of the renewable

sources of energy and irrigation for different regions, eventually affecting the natural flow of

water and agriculture yields. The developing states would be much affected because of their

poor politico-economic infrastructure. Atiq Ur Rehman, a Bangladeshi expert on climate

3

change, heralding the plight of his country that has witnessed severe floods and typhoons

leaving hundreds dead and a million turning refugees stated, “If climate change makes our

land uninhabitable, we will march with our wet feet into your living rooms” (Roberts &

Parks, 2007). This warning reveals the seriousness of controversies involved in the process of

international climate change policy making.

Apart from the scientific polemics, global climate change is shrouded in a political mayhem

because of three main factors: The North-South debate, the dependence of the countries on

fossil fuel either as a source of production or consumption, and climate change implications

for a specific country. (Paterson: 1996) The rich industrially developed countries with almost

same attributes are characterized as North and poor developing countries with almost

common socio-economic and political limitations are labeled as South. The rift between the

two is multifaceted. The developing South with its weak socio-economic and political

infrastructure and huge debt deficit is in want of technology and finance to effectively adapt

itself with the climate change. Moreover, the South attributes the creation and development

of this problem to the industrialization and unwise use of technology with disregard to nature

by the North. Therefore, South wants that North must take responsibility for the mitigation as

well as for the technological development and energy assistance of the South, so that the

latter can easily adapt itself with climate change effects without affecting its development

pace.

Paterson (1996) also states that the North does not acquiesce to the South’s concept of

differentiated responsibility. It stresses on uniform measures of mitigations and emission

control of the greenhouse gases for all without exempting the South, and is equally unwilling

to comply to the technology transfer as it entails economic loss. Hence, if the South attributes

this problem to the North, the latter considers South’s stance on climate change regime as a

political maneuver to extract more economic benefits and political leverage in the present

situation. Though the distrust lies on both sides, the approach to the climate change policy is

not universal in the developed states, which is characterized as “Intra-North dispute”

(Paterson: 1996). The EC has played a more effective role in creating and strengthening

international climate organization and emergence of universally acceptable norms and rules

on mitigation (Vig & Faure, 2004). The US, in contrast, has been hesitating and somehow

4

resisting commitment to mitigation policies due to its dependence on fossil fuel, for its

culturally embedded consumptive society. The former US President George Bush crudely

puts it, “American way of life is not open to negotiation” (Roberts & Parks, 2007). The

North-South inequalities and pertaining disputes are more evident when it comes to

international climate change policy making. Moreover, cooperation is not easy to be achieved

in the international world. International system is characterized with anarchy defined as lack

of central authority (Mingst, 2003). In order to understand the politics and economy of the

global climate change in international system, we have to evaluate it in the light of

international system theories of international relations helping us understand interaction of

the state and non-state actors and phenomenon of cooperation at the global level. This

cooperation is at the heart of the international climate change policy. It is important to

incorporate the role of non-state actors in the shape of International Governmental

Organizations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) as agenda setters and

providing a cognitive milieu for the evolution and development of international

environmental norms in the system.

The trans-boundary effects of environmental pollution and bilateral conflicts on use of

natural resources between neighboring countries have made sustainable development a

matter of great concern and interest to the students of international relations. This

interrelationship, internationally recognized since 1972, initiated a diplomatic process in

collaboration with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) that culminated into

various international treaties (O’Neil, 2009). Global climate change as a threat to humanity at

large has not attained a thorough understanding and priority as the issue of security, for threat

in international relations is still largely define in relation to another state in an anarchic

international system. However, this traditional conception of security is challenged by the

new understanding that environmental problems, especially climate change and ensuing

disasters as ‘apocalypse’, are a threat to all and responsibility of all (Carey, 2000). This new

conception of security in light of the new impending threats from nature demands evaluation.

The essence of international climate change policy is how to stop the dangerous

concentration and input of greenhouse gases (ghgs) in the atmosphere, and equally important

is to reduce the disadvantageous and inescapable effects of climate change. The strategies

5

devised by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for

the said purposes are termed as “mitigation” and “adaptation” (Labatt & White, 2007). Of the

two, mitigation is more controversial as it has a direct bearing on the economies of the states;

however, adaptation is also not without political and economic intricacy. Adaptation and

mitigation are considered indispensable especially after the publication of ‘Stern Review’

which hypothesizes that climate change repercussions could cost 5% of the total world’s

GDP every year, whereas the cost of reducing emissions would be less than 1% of the same

each year (The Stern review, 2009). An understanding of the mitigation and adaptation

policies, which form the core of international climate change policy, is essential not only to

evaluate the co-operation amongst states, but also an insight into the interaction of

development and environment in the developing countries.

1.1 PAKISTAN POLICY RESPONSE

Pakistan is a developing state. Its primary reliance is on agriculture as its economic

backbone. As a developing country with huge debt deficit, weak infrastructure, poor

governance, obsolete technology, lack of capacity, rampant poverty and huge defense

expenditure—it shares all the concerns of Southern countries regarding climate change. It has

a varied topography consisting of plateau, plains and mountains with mostly dry climate. The

environmental problems are already widespread due to air, water and soil pollution, and lack

of proper mechanism and political will to control them. Global climate change has its own

challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) in its 2001 and 2007 reports (as cited in Habib & Nawaz, 2010) has clearly

mentioned that the Himalayan region and Pakistan would see extreme weather events due to

climate change and peculiar geography. Challenges for Pakistan are in the shape of how to

adapt itself with the climate change impacts like melting of its glaciers, which had been so

far working as a renewable resource of freshwater supply. This would result in variation in its

water availability, low agriculture yields, adverse effects on livestock and biodiversity,

emergence of new diseases, endangering its coastal areas culminating in population

displacement, and thus an overall environmental and economic degradation of the country.

Pakistan has witnessed disastrous 2010 floods which almost paralyzed Pakistan’s

infrastructure and exposed its vulnerabilities. The rough estimation of the 2010 floods is

6

about three trillions rupees till now (Habib & Nawaz, 2010). Financial losses of this

magnitude generate a debate to incorporate the environmentalist version of the state security.

However, global climate change also provides certain opportunities. As a developing state,

with least carbon emissions like 0.38% of the total greenhouse gas emissions (UN praises

Pakistan for climate change efforts, 2011), it is least responsible for climate change.

Nevertheless, Pakistan would be hugely affected by climate change effects and, therefore,

deserves all the essential technical and financial assistance of adaptation and mitigation to

enhance its capacity building without compromising on its continued efforts for

development. Therefore, Pakistan has to place its development pace on sound footing of

alternative energies that are friendly to the environment. The strategies for mitigation

especially the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allow developed countries to earn

emission credits by investing in emission reducing projects in the developing countries

(Grover,2008). This requires a national policy response primarily based on the objectives of

capacity building and sustainable development to the international climate change policy.

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature review reveals that so far there is no extended research works carried out on the

proposed study specifically from the perspective of a developing state like Pakistan. Most of

the studies consist of different aspects of the proposed research: the scientific dimension of

the climate change, the political and economic foundations of the international climate

change policy making, and specifically very least on evaluation of Pakistan’s policy on

climate change. Climate: causes and effects of climate change (2008) by Dana Desonie, is a

detailed account of the causes and effects of climate change. The natural causes as well as

human induced factors are highlighted. In the end, solutions including measures of adaptation

and mitigation have been explored. Global warming the complete briefing (2009) by John

Houston is written in the same fashion. It includes a detailed scientific explanation of the

global warming, carbon cycle, and greenhouse gases, and in the end how to combat it, makes

it an essential contribution and source for the proposed study. All these mentioned subjects

are extensively supported with graphs, and diagrams to simplify the complexity of the

science of global climate change. Jerry Silver’s book, Global warming and climate change

7

(2008) is another worthy effort in understanding the science of the global climate change in

which the significant role of greenhouse gases in climate change is focused. Similarly,

Global warming: Greenhouse gases, worldwide impacts by Julie Kerr Casper (2010) is

equally emphasizing on greenhouse gases. Moreover, the impact of the climate change, the

carbon sequestration and in the end the mitigation and adaptation policies are explained.

Global warming by Natelie Goldstein (2009) not only evaluates the scientific dimension of

the climate change but also looks into international documents on environment to signify

how climate change became a global concern. Controlling climate change by Berz Metz

(2010) highlights scientific aspects and draws relationship of climate change with

development and energy. Global Warming: the science of climate change by Frances Drake

(2000) is though covering hard scientific subtleties of climate change which would not be

resorted to; however, the last two chapters are about the indirect results of climate change

and policy response towards them. The writer has emphasized on the need of a consensus

policy.

The political and economic underpinnings of the international environmental politics, in

general, and climate change policy, in particular, have been dealt by different authors.

Handbook of environmental politics edited by Peter Dauvergne (2005) is an edited work and

an excellent contribution to the understanding of environmental politics. Starting with the

tragedy of the commons it delves into North-South disputes, environmental governance, and

in the end analyses the influence of the scientific communities on the environmental politics.

Climate of injustice, global inequality, North-South politics, and climate policy by J

Timmons Roberts (2007) is an insight into the glaring economic injustice between the North

and the South and the politics and hurdles it has generated in making of international climate

change policy. Different explanations have been rendered to make the readers understand the

inertia. It is a praiseworthy effort to bridge the gulf of disparity between the two sides. In the

end, the writer highlights the significance of a judicious international climate policy.

Environment and international relations by Kate O Neil (2009) helps in understanding the

relationship of environment and international relations. The book explores the different

political and economic underpinnings of the interaction between the two, international

institutions, and theories to explain how they significantly influence each other. Global

warming and global politics by Mathew Paterson (1996) investigates the intricacies of the

8

environmental politics the light of international relations. Mathew Paterson is the most

prolific writer on environmental politics. The book analyses the complexity of the

international climate policy in the light of all the available theories of international relation.

Moreover, the political and economic consideration which is hindering the emergence of the

international climate policy is examined. International environmental politics edited by

Michele M. Betsill, Kathryn Hochstetler & Demitris Stevis (2006) is divided into three parts:

the context of the study of international environmental politics, the forces that shape

international environmental politics, and the normative frameworks for evaluating

international environmental politics. The book is a quintessence of the international

environmental political debates and will be used extensively in the proposed study.

There is a serious dearth of quality works on climate change policy of Pakistan except few

chapters in edited books and power presentations of different NGOs. 50 years of Pakistan’s

economy: traditional topics and contemporary concerns edited by Shahrukh Rafi Khan

(1999) takes into account different dimensions of the Pakistan’s economy. However, the last

chapter, Environment: Some Key Controversies, written by Shaheen Rafi Khan and

Shahrukh Rafi Khan, explores the different dimensions of the environmental problems faced

by Pakistan. The global climate change and its repercussions have also been discussed by the

authors. However, it lacks a thorough analysis and evaluation of the international climate

change policy and policy response of Pakistan. Similarly, Sustainable development and

southern realties: past and future in South Asia, SDPI (2003) consists of different articles

written by various well versed sustainable development experts. It starts with an

understanding of the Pakistan’s environment explained by Shahrukh Rafi khan. The book

then explores different aspects of the environment and development interaction. Adil

Najam’s article on the South concern about the North resistance to comply with the promised

international standards accepted at Rio Earth Summit (1992) is quite an asset for the

proposed study. However, the book does not have any detailed study of Pakistan with

specific reference to climate change.

9

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

No state including Pakistan can tackle global climate change on its own because of the

magnitude and complexity of the problem. Therefore, an understanding of the factors

involved in the process of securing a consensus international climate change regime to

effectively control the disastrous consequences of climate change is the need of the hour.

Pakistan is a developing state ridden with several problems as mentioned earlier. To its

dismay natural disasters like floods, largely attributed to global climate change, have also

waged war against it and immensely undermine its infrastructure. This has further thwarted

its efforts for development. As it is believed that global climate change with its inescapable

devastating consequences could further paralyze Pakistan’s growth, Pakistan recently framed

National Climate Change Policy (2012) to secure climate resilient development. Pakistan’s

climate policy goal of climate resilient development is evaluated in light of the required

essentials of the concept, the National Sustainable Strategy and Climate Change Act, 2017

strength of its policy frames and operational viability and infrastructure.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study is an essential contribution to the disciplines of International relations and

environment. There are very few researches conducted in respect of drawing relationship

between the two and often lack the perspective from the developing states. It includes the

assessment of climate change implications and opportunities for Pakistan by evaluating the

domestic and international political and economic underpinnings of international climate

change regime. The highlighted limitations in policy and government infrastructure will help

authorities in reevaluation and plugging of the loopholes. At this juncture, the present study

is not only a source of enlightenment for the students of both disciplines but also a useful

document for the policy makers and stake holders in Pakistan.

10

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study is focused on the following objectives:

I. To understand international climate change regime; its evolution, and the political and

economic underpinnings of it;

II. To examine the issue of global climate change, and see how a scientific issue has

resulted in corresponding political controversies and became central to international

politics of today’s world;

III. To analyze and elaborate the phenomenon of international cooperation regarding

climate change policy, regime formation, in a characteristically anarchic world having

considerable disregard for the common environmental resources;

IV. To highlight implications of climate change for Pakistan and the deficiencies in its

policy response at the present stage;

V. To explore and propose measures for Pakistan’s capacity building and sustainable

development in the context of international climate change policy design.

1.6 METHODOLOGY

The study is descriptive, analytical and normative incorporating primary and secondary

sources. A detailed analysis of the scientific dimension of the debate would require

quantitative analysis; however, the research is largely qualitative. An extended literature

review on the international climate change policy making is carried out exploring its essential

dimensions through an interdisciplinary approach. Government policies, official responses

secured through press or personal communication, and research studies at local and

international level by different corporate and non-corporate sectors would be incorporated. In

addition, different international journals, newspapers and websites on sustainable

development, climate change challenges and collective policy responses are consulted.

11

1.7 DIVISION OF THE STUDY

After establishing significance of the study, introducing contentious aspects of the

dissertation and creating a niche for the case study of Pakistan in the entire system of

international climate regime, the researcher explores different aspects of his study in detail.

1. Science of Climate Change: Part 1

Chapter 2 explains the concept of climate in light of its various attributes distinguishing it

from the often used term, weather. Human life is dependent on climate and a favorable

climate is an outcome of the right Earth’s energy balance. Role of the greenhouse gases as an

essential life sustaining component of the earth’s atmosphere in maintaining balance of the

Earth’s energy is highlighted. The question before us is to understand what possibly explains

the current exponential rise in earth’s surface temperature, and what possibly attribute this

warming to human induced influence. Addressing this question at its essence demands

differentiating natural causes of earth’s warming from the human induced warming as a

result of rise in greenhouse concentration and changes in land use since the times of

industrialization. The complex interconnectedness of the climate system with change in one

aspect leading to change in another is assessed to understand limitation of our choices in

addressing climate changes.

2. Science of Climate Change: PART 11

While part first of the science of climate change distinguishes various aspect of climate and

the essential natural factors responsible for its changes, the second part of the science of

climate is an understanding of what draws us to the conclusion that the present global climate

change is human induced. Role of the greenhouse gases and special position of CO 2 and

impact of their enhanced concentration in atmosphere, on climate and at large on human life

is assessed. In the end, options for solutions is highlighted to understand how these solutions

set the stage for a political arena among the rich and poor states and fossil fuel dependent

economies

12

3. International Regime: A Theoretical Understanding of Cooperation and Collective

Response

Evolving cooperation and collective response on a complex issue of global climate change

requires a comprehensive approach. For cooperation on a global disputed issue among

sovereign states that by law stand equal but by fact are widely different in power and wealth

is indeed difficult. International regime is a comprehensive concept to accommodate agreed

principles, norms and shared understanding that could prospectively evolve into a collective

response towards any global complex issue. International regime evaluates the process of

cooperation culminating into collective response in light of three variables: power, interest

and knowledge. These three variables of power, interest and knowledge correspond to the

three main system paradigms of international relations: neorealism, neoliberalism and

constructivism or cognitivism. Evaluating the idea of cooperation in all its nuances in light of

these three paradigms helps us comprehend the contentious politics and contested principles

involved in the evolution of international climate change regime.

4. International Climate Change Regime: Contentious Politics and Contested

Principles

International climate change regime with climate actions in terms of adaptation and

mitigation are having some serious impacts on the economies, politics and even survival of

low lying and small islands states. These impacts with respect to climate actions or inactions

are embedded in the larger context of history and international political economy. The global

North and South, the symbolic, politically simplified, collective identities for the rich

developed states and the poor developing states respectively, comprehends the issue of global

climate change differently in terms of responsibility and solution of the problem. Similarly,

climate change actions focused on mitigation means reduced use of fossil fuel affecting life

style and economy of states dependent on revenue earned from fossil fuels exports, high

consumption societies and rapidly growing economies of the global South. Climate actions

are highly demanded by states threatened by negative implications of global climate change.

These interests have shaped the contested principles of climate change. Evaluation of the

13

contentious politics and involved contested concepts and principles help understand

formation of international climate change regime.

5. International Climate Change Regime: Historical Evolution of The Paris Agreement

In this chapter, the researcher evaluates historical evolution of the international climate

change regime, efforts for bringing harmony in the diverse interests of states for a collective

response against global climate change and its adverse implications. This section follows

history of these troubles and highlight role of international actors making use of their

influence, impact of technological advancements and environmental institutions in forming

thoughts, shaping identities and results; and international organizations in transforming these

differences to one collective will. The international actors in pursuit of their specific interests

were drifted apart in terms of their response towards the issue of global climate change.

Technological innovations, international institutions, environmental organizations and

epistemological communities all shaped ideas and identities in the evolution of climate

change regime. United Nations Framework Convention (1992), Kyoto Protocol 1997 and the

most recent one Paris Agreement 2015 are the landmark endeavors for bridging gulf between

national interests of the sovereign states and international concern for environmentally

dictated global challenge of climate change.

6. Climate Change Redefining Pakistan’s Security

In order to understand Pakistan’s policy response regarding the issue of global climate

change in light of international climate change regime, it is fundamental to evaluate

implications of global climate change for Pakistan. Pakistan traditional comprehension of

threat to existence or to livelihood of its people is either from the outside actor in the form of

a state or an inside terrorist actor with the use of violence for political objectives. However,

Pakistan climate disaster prone location, disruption in its hydrological cycle and intensified

irregular weather patterns because of rising surface temperature will compound its current

multi-layered complex economic and security problems. Pakistan has witnessed worst floods

in 2010 with devastating impacts. The disruption in hydrological cycle owing to rapid

melting of glaciers and irregular monsoon rains will have a drastic impact on the freshwater

resources, crop yield and destruction of infrastructure and life losses in case of floods. These

14

adverse impacts of climate change with its socio-economic and political negative impacts

will result in crises of governance if not a threat to its existence. Climate change, therefore, is

redefining Pakistan’s security.

7. Pakistan’s Policy Response: Climate Resilient Development, A Sustainable

Development

In the light of our understanding of the previous chapters the policy response of the Pakistan

towards the international climate change policy framework is researched. Pakistan as a

responsible nation of the comity of the world nations has ratified the Paris Climate

Agreement (2015). The National Climate Change Policy (2012) is the main policy document

with elaborate policy directives regarding adaptation and mitigation. The policy clearly lays

down its objective: “to ensure that climate change is mainstreamed in the economically and

socially vulnerable sectors of the economy and to steer Pakistan towards climate resilient

development”. In order to understand Pakistan’s policy response, the concept of climate

resilient development is evaluated in detail. After evaluation of the concept, a detailed

analysis is carried out of the NCCP (2012) and other significant policy documents like

National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS, 2012) to understand essentials of an

effective climate change policy response of Pakistan.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion includes an assessment of the study and evaluation of the solutions.

15

CHAPTER 2

THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Part 1

In this chapter, the researcher will explain those scientific aspects of climate change that are

at the root of the contested international climate change policy making or regime formation.

The foremost in this regard is to understand what defines climate and distinguish favorable

human friendly greenhouse effect from the global warming and the ensued changes that are

characterized as climate change. Distinguishing and elaborating natural causes from the

human induced factors of climate change is important as it will not only help us understand

possible negative effects of the alteration in the natural environmental through processes like

geo-engineering but also highlight role of human induced factors in the exponential rise of

the earth surface temperature in light of the available evidences. The significance of

greenhouse gases (ghgs), the incumbent greenhouse effect and most importantly special

position of carbon dioxide (CO2) will be explored.

Similarly, the future impacts of the climate change as climate scientists projected are at the

heart of the controversial international politics of climate change. The projected impacts of

climate change on international economics and on the community of states have seriously

alarmed the international world. A thorough comprehension of the causes of climate change

would establish the assertion of the scientific community that present rapidly enhanced

climate change is happening due to human amplifying factors like huge emissions of the

ghgs. An understanding of the projected effects of climate change would let us realize the

seriousness of the issue. Once the causes and effects are explored, the focus would shift to

policy options of mitigation and adaptation to combat climate change. These policy choices

ranging from engineered natural alteration to effective efforts in turning man’s life style

environment friendly would be examined. After certifying that current climate change is

largely believed to be human induced, and the best feasible means of thwarting its adverse

repercussions is man-made solutions of mitigation and adaptation, a plethora of political

16

controversies are generated in international politics based on particular orientation and

implications of climate change for the world states. Hence, an understanding of these

scientific aspects of climate change is at the core of comprehending contentious politics of

climate change. For convenience, the science of climate change portion of this work is

divided in two parts. In the first part of the evaluation of science of climate change, the

researcher, in a word, tries to understand the causes of climate change. Second part of this

chapter will look into impacts of the climate changes.

In sum, the study is not evaluating the debate about the scientific claims of the supporters or

dissenters of climate change. It is equally not considering methods of the climate scientists

and climate models they use for ascertaining or defying the climate projections. The primary

objective is to elaborate those scientific dimensions of climate change which have placed it in

the limelight of the international politics. The essence of the “core belief” is well explained

by Desonie (2008) that in order to lessen the human impact on the Earth system we must

understand the “scientific processes” operating and how man has upset them. Desonie

believed that science could provide that sound foundation which would result in the required

human behavioral changes for uplifting Earth system.

2.1 CLIMATE

Earth is characteristically unique because of its massive water and favorable climate. The just

right climate of the Earth has earned it the title of “Goldilocks planet”, which means neither

too hot nor too cold, and thus differentiating it from its own moon (Desonie, 2008).

However, change is a fundamentally constant thing about earth. Schmidt and Wolfe (2008)

emphasize that climate change has occurred before; however, the modern world adopted

itself, though inadequately, with it in due time. Climate and its variations have attained

renewed significance and attention since industrialization and man’s unwise exploitation of

the ecosystem. The selfish anthropocentric understanding of nature by man absolves him

from any moral duty towards nature. As Yang (2006) puts it, an “ethical implication” of their

relationship is discarded. This callous disregard endangers the unique life sustaining

environment of the Earth. What particularly alarms the world today is its inability to

promptly adjust itself with the rapidly transforming climate affecting our lives in multiple

17

ways. Man’s unparalleled adverse alterations and changes in earth’s system have forced

some animals and plants to expand while others extinct. And now these rapid unexpected and

unfavorable variations are endangering his existence. Man with his modern life standards and

self-created habitat is more vulnerable to climate change in comparison to past ages (Eisold,

2010). This vulnerability is at the heart of the growing significance of weather and climate in

today’s world.

Human life is immensely dependent on climate. A man’s life is fashioned, his living

standards, his habitat, even his festivals and funerals are conditioned by weather and climate.

Man envisions and plans major decisions about life and living with a prior understanding of

the expected climate. Weather has its influence small or large in whatever a man does, his

system of transportation, production, supply and demands, in sum his whole decision making

of tomorrow is based on his comprehension of weather and climate of the region (Casper,

2009). Climate is in fact the greatest “natural resource” whose favorability makes life

possible (Borroughs, 2003). Borroughs further extols weather and climate as capable of

influencing our emotions and moods. Geopolitical scientist considers geography and climate

very important in shaping and limiting political choices of people and state (Morgenthau,

1948). Paskal (2010) signifies weather importance in a state policy making by words, “each

country is as dependent on a stable environment as India is on monsoon”. Geopolitical

scientists even claim that democracy flourish in temperate zones, and is unsuccessful in

extreme hot and cold climate regions. Thus, impact of climate upon man’s life is always

acknowledged. Change in these anticipations would ultimately affect adapted life style. This

undeniably huge influence of climate on human life always demands an understanding of its

variations, which sometimes at their extreme have resulted in enormously unsettling life and

habitat of the living organisms.

The irrefutable significance of climate in our life and an understanding of climate change

require a proper comprehension of what does climate mean. The word climate is derived

from the Greek word, Klima, meaning inclination referring to the “angle the sun’s rays are

inclined above the horizon” (Barroughs, 2003). This turns Sun’s energy as the most

significant factor in influencing climate; however not the only one. Climate and weather are

often mistakenly assumed identical because of considerable common features. However, as

18

William (2008) puts it, the two are not synonyms. Weather variations are constantly frequent

on hourly and daily basis, “from one day to the next” (Silverstein, Silverstein, Nunn, 2008;

Becken, 2010). It is the condition of atmosphere over a “short period of time” (Gutro, 2005).

William (2008) explains weather by elaborating its principal constituents as “sum total of its

temperature, pressure, winds, moisture, and precipitation conditions for a short period of a

day or week”. Comstock (1967) termed it as “atmosphere at a moment”; whereas climate is

“weather conditions over several years” with its all “variations”. This unpredictability turns

weather into a state of atmosphere at a given time and place (Lutgen & Tarbuck, 1995).

Climate is more stable than weather (William, 2008). Weather is chaotic but average weather

over a longer period is not, and one can predict about its outcomes (Archer, 2007). Similarly,

Cumo (2008) termed weather variable and climate constant. Gutro (2005) makes climate

simpler as the “long term pattern of weather in a particular area”. The distinction of weather

and climate is further simplified by Borrough (2007) by stating that weather is “what we get”

but climate is “what we expect”. In a way weather is the description of atmosphere at a given

time, climate is what statistics tell us about the future of it. Borrough equally signifies Archer

(2007) understanding that the difference of weather and climate is essential because climate

change scientists are focused on “statistics of the weather phenomenon that provide evidence

of longer term changes”. Casper (2009) summarizes the distinction of weather and climate in

respect of duration and area, time interval in which it is taking place and whether it is

covering a small area like a village or a country.

Climate of a region is generally defined as average weather for more than thirty years

depending on various factors: amount of sunlight it receives, height above the sea level,

shape of the land and distance from the oceans and equator (Hatheway, 2010; Gutro, 2005).

According to Encyclopedia Britannica (2008) the principal components of a climatic system

are “constantly moving oceans, the continents, and the great masses of ice”. Pittock (2009)

also upholds this larger definition and elucidates the responsible factors for the earth climate

as “distance of the sun and composition of the atmosphere, the layer of the gases that

surrounds the earth” and locally dependent on latitude—the distance north or south of the

equator as measured in degrees—and altitude, the height above or below mean sea level.

Climate scientists try to get the “average measures of weather over prolong period in a

particular place” in order to understand its possible effects on human life (Gutro, 2005). This

19

makes climate a “description of aggregate weather” (Lutgen & Tarbuck, 1995; “Weather and

climate basics”, 2003). Temperature variations are often slow and not discernable provided

observed from the “vantage point at long-term global averages” (Silver, 2008). This

necessitates climate observation with all its weather variations for a longer period of times a

pre-requisite essence of the science of climate change.

Global climate, the climate of the whole planet, incorporates the average of the climate of

different regions (Hateway, 2008). In order to understand the climate variations at different

regions and get an average global change, various stations for temperature changes and

corresponding changes has been established around the world. Silver (2008) mentioned that

today more than 7000 temperature collecting stations are spread all over the world, land and

oceans, determining the “anomaly”, the temperature difference from the previously recorded

one. He signifies three major organizations assigned to the task of collecting and compiling

temperature variation data for the purpose of assessing global average temperature

difference. These organizations include: the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), the US Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and finally

the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

Schmidt and Wolfe (2008) validate the detailed definition of climate and do not limit to the

common version as changes in weather patterns. They endorse the current extended

definition which incorporates the ‘oceans, atmosphere, biosphere, and polar regions’ and

their ‘multiple interactions’ and ‘average conditions’ over a prolonged time frame

distinguished from daily or annual weather variations. Equally essential is a ‘description of

the variability’ during the said time. Variability is regarded an essential element (Pittock,

2009). Cumo (2008) dwells on the constituent elements mentioning “latitude, proximity to

oceans or mountains, altitude, radiation from the sun, ocean currents, wind, continental

drift, the greenhouse effect, volcanic activity, radioactivity of Earth’s core, photosynthesis,

transpiration, eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the sun, the tilt of Earth’s axis, rainfall, and

the reflection of sunlight from clouds, snow and ice”.

To sum up, study of climate is a detailed study of weather for an extended period of time.

And averages of climate of different regions enable us to understand the global climate at

20

large. This extended definition could make us understand that climate is a very huge system.

System is defined as phenomenon consisting of many different parts working in collaboration

with each other for one common objective, as a ‘unitary whole’ (Kegley & Raymod, 2010).

In case one element stops functioning well, the result is an overall disruption of the system.

This signifies climate as an immense system dependent on various variable elements.

Rafferty (2011) highlights this systemic character of climate subjecting understanding of

interaction among hydrosphere (watery region), lithosphere (crust and uppermost portion of

the mantle) and biosphere (populated regions) and atmosphere for proper evaluation of

climate. Borrough (2003) declares Earth system as ‘closed’ for large with the inflow and

radiation back of the sun energy, connecting and relating everything in the process. This

system would disrupt with serious consequences if there is any unsettling change in any one

of its constituent parts.

2.2 CLIMATE CHANGE

The comprehension of climate makes it easier to understand climate change. To put it simply,

it is the transformation of our predictions about the climate; however, technically, it

encompasses global warming, corresponding droughts, and ‘variations in oceanic currents or

atmospheric winds’ (Schmidt & Wolfe, 2008). Pittock (2009) further extends the definition

by stating that changes in weather patterns “over longer time scale such as one century to

another”; however this time scale is “conventionally limited to 30 years intervals” are termed

climate change. Climate change as mentioned is not a new phenomenon. Paleoclimatology as

a subject is particularly related to understanding climate variations across the Earth’s history

(Casper, 2009). Current climate understanding is based on evaluation of the past climate

trends. This study relies on various physical and biological clues termed as climate proxies

and found in ice cores, tree rings and sediments (Desonie, 2008).

In order to understand climate change, it is essential to explore phenomenon involving Earth

energy balance, and reasons for the imbalance which has its catastrophic impacts. The

primary factor responsible for the life sustaining Earth habitat is the natural greenhouse

effect. However, because of extended heat trapping owing to greenhouse gases, it has

transformed into enhanced greenhouse effect or global warming.

21

2.3 GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Earth energy balance is attributed to natural greenhouse effect with sun’s lights received as

ultraviolet while reradiated as infrared after absorption. Climate and its variations is far a

large part dependent on Sun, a consistent source of energy to earth. Earth energy balance is at

the root of the earth climate system (Barry & Chorley, 2003). Borroughs (2007) defines

radiative balance of the Earth as amount of solar radiation absorbed by atmosphere and

surface beneath corresponds to equally emission of heat radiation from Earth to space. A

distinction is drawn in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report between sun energy in the form of

visible light (shortwave radiation) and reradiated energy from Earth in the form of long wave

infrared light (IPCC, 5th AR, 2013). Dawson and Spannagle (2009) consider electromagnetic

radiation of different objects dependent upon their temperature having hot objects like Sun

emitting shortwave, while cold one like Earth emit longwave. Elaborating Greenhouse effect,

Barry & Chorley (2003) state that after reflecting 30% of the solar incoming radiations, 70%

of that reach the earth surface and atmosphere. Half of this is absorbed and reradiated

outward as “long infra-red waves”, which cannot be seen by our eyes (Houghton, 2009). A

detailed description with respect to the assumed input and output of the energy interaction

between the Earth and Sun is rendered in detail by Watts, R.G. (2007). This reradiated

energy is absorbed and retained by the atmospheric greenhouse gases making the earth

environment significantly congenial for the existence of life. Our atmosphere is “transparent

to visible photons but absorbs invisible infrared photons” (Dessler, 2012). This retention or

trapping of heat by atmosphere is termed greenhouse effect as it characteristically shares this

attribute with glass in greenhouse that let visible light pass unimpeded; however retaining the

thermal radiation from the plants(Houghton,2009; Casper,2009). Scientists across the world

with their worthy contributions developed and refined man’s understandings of natural

greenhouse effect and differentiated it from the enhanced greenhouse effect or global

warming.

2.4 LIFE SUSTAINING NATURAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Natural greenhouse effect is not without benefits. It results in making Earth climate

hospitable, congenial and life sustaining. Goldstein (2009) considers existence of all living

22

things to this phenomenon. The greenhouse effect is attributed to ‘blanketing effect’ of

certain gases specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) and Methane (CH4) for their absorption of

reflected outgoing infrared rays (Freedman, 2008). It is believed that without greenhouse

effect, Earth would be far less warm, ‘bone chilling’ -18°C (0°F) than its current favorably

pleasant 14.4°C(57.9°F) (Hanson,2008; Freedman,2008). Some of the scientists challenge

this figure as mentioned by Allaby (2007). However, variable may be the exact figure, the

impact of greenhouse effect turns Earth 33% warmer than it would be otherwise (Dawson &

Spannagle, 2009; Pittock,2009). Harris (2010) specifically highlights the importance of

greenhouse gases for life and considers the most significant ones like CO2 and water vapor as

indispensable for life particularly in our food chain. Considering the quintessential nature of

natural greenhouse effect, Gilman (2008) believes that the absence of it would result in

extinction of human life, while Casper (2010) states that without natural greenhouse Earth

would have an ecosystem like the “harshest areas in Antarctica”.

Figure 1 Natural Greenhouse Effect

(Source: IPCC, 2007. 4th Assessment Report)

23

2.5 GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SCIENTIFIC ESSENCE

Goldstein (2009) mentions chief scientific efforts which determine Earth climate and

influence of ghgs. Joseph Fourier in 1824 intrigued by the hospitable warm temperature of

the Earth attributed it to heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. He termed atmosphere a

‘hothouse’, ‘voila’ (Henson, 2008). Another notable effort of John Tyndall, a geologist, in

1859 points out CO2 and water vapor as the two most important greenhouse gases with their

reduced atmospheric concentration might result in the retreat of ice age. Tyndall particularly

focused on radiant heat declaring it thoroughly transparent to oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen

but ‘relatively opaque’ to water vapor, CO2 and ozone (Allaby, 2007). He qualitatively

determines the current greenhouse effect (Bolin, 2007). And attributed past ice ages to

decreased concentration of atmospheric CO2 (Houghton, 2009).

Svante Arrehenius. a Swedish chemist, in 1896 stated that “trace gases” of the atmosphere

like CO2, Methane, and water vapour capture the outgoing long-wave radiation resulting in

natural greenhouse effect and increasing the ‘global surface mean temperature’ by almost

32°C( Benested,2006). His remarkable paper, “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air

upon the temperature of the ground” particularly centered on possible impacts of CO2

variation in the atmosphere (Allaby, 2007). In collaboration with his colleague, Arvid

Hogborn, he comes to the same conclusion with a resounding belief that CO2 increase since

industrialization would make the Earth warm (Goldstein, 2009). He elaborates the natural

greenhouse effect through a model, and concludes that rise in greenhouse effect result in

atmospheric temperature rise. Sun’s radiation to earth is short-wave, while re-radiation from

earth is long-wave or infra-red which are remarkably absorbed by the atmospheric

greenhouse gases. This atmospheric “opaqueness” to infra-red in comparison to its

“transparency” to short wave is generally termed greenhouse effect (Barry & Chorley, 2003).

Ramanthan and Vogelmann (1997), as cited in Bolin (2007), term Arrehenius’ remarkable

discovery of greenhouse effect as the “foundation” for the theories of greenhouse effect and

climate change. He states that doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would rise Earth

surface temperature by 5-6°C, an evaluation not widely in conflict with our current

understanding (Houghton, 2009; Gilman, 2008). Mikhail Ivanovich, a Russian meteorologist

is the first scientist who assesses heat balance received from the Sun and reradiated from the

24

Earth and thus establishes climatology as a physical discipline (Allaby, 2007). His

painstaking calculations from 1950 till 1970 establish a link of the past and present climate

history and concluded that fossil fuel consumption has enhanced atmospheric CO2

concentration and generally warm the world.

However, this realization was not seriously taken till American scientist, David Charles

Keeling, with his refined climate measuring experiments emphasized rise in CO2 (Gilman,

2008). Keeling’s work might be the reason for the present day demands for limiting CO2

emission; but the reason for his calculated effort is revelations from Guy Stewart Callender

and Roger Revelle’s research(Allaby, 2007; Goldstein, 2009). Their work revolutionized

understanding of CO2 role in relationship with oceans. Callender questions oceans as

“panacea of the natural balance” and declare them not only incapable of absorbing excessive

CO2 but rather releasing it back after temporary intake in case of its increased atmospheric

concentration (Goldstein, 2009). Revelle, director of the Scripps institution of

Oceanography, further demystifies this firmly ingrained assumption of ocean as sinks for the

entire surplus emitted CO2 without affecting carbon cycle. He states that barely 1/10 th of the

scientists predicted emitted CO2 is absorbed and most of it move back to atmosphere before

firmly sequestered (Goldstein, 2009). Ocean as planet savior, and capable of restoring Earth

energy balance lost significance of its validity. Enormity of the problem of climate change

and its related complexities led Revelle terms it “large scale geophysical experiment”,

unprecedented and could not be recreated in real. Therefore, he advocated its computer

simulation for its proper understanding (Henson, 2008). Evaluation of oceans ability to

absorb and accommodate excessive carbon dioxide(CO2) carried out successively by English

engineer Guy Stewart Callender(1898-1964), chemist Hans Suess(1909-93), and Roger

Revelle(1909-91) declared faith upon ocean as climate savior “misplaced” (Goldstein, 2009).

2.6 KEELING CURVE

Although these understandings were not taken seriously by that time; however, the growing

significance of altering climate became evident with the passage of time. By 1957,

geochemist Charles David Keeling affirms after extended data collection regarding CO2 rise

at Mauna Loa in Hawaii that CO2 level is rising (Goldstein, 2009). Mauna Loa observatory in

25

the center of the pacific is chosen for its distinctive conducive environment especially

“pristine air” for detecting any atmospheric anomalies (Henson, 2008). Records gather in

here serves as the “longest continuous” understanding of rising CO2 concentration of the

atmosphere often mentioned as “the most important geophysical record” (Casper, 2009).

Observatory at an elevation of 3.35 km (11,000ft) above sea level was believed by Keeling as

an excellent representation of the whole Earth (Silver, 2008). Keeling Curve depicting a

rising CO2 concentration graph observed by him over the years augmented his understanding

of climate warming subjected to CO2 concentration. Keeling curve is considered as “the

cornerstone of global warming science” (Casper, 2009).James Hansen, NASA climate

scientist, appreciates Keeling’s precision and attributes current understanding of climate

change problem to him (Hansen, 2008). He was successful in determining an accurate

measure of CO2 measurement with 0.6ppmv annual rate of increasing at that time, cautiously

attributing it to human emissions because of fossil fuels (Bolin, 2007). Proper monitoring of

atmospheric CO2 concentration started in 1958 by Charles Keeling at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa

Observatory resulted in a conclusion after detailed measurement that though CO2

concentration keeps fluctuating because of seasonal variation; however, the gross tendency is

definitely inclined towards its increase which in turn enhances temperature (Silver, 2008;

Goldstein, 2009).

26

Figure 2 Keeling Curve

Source: Tomecek (2012)

2.7 ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT OR GLOBAL WARMING AND

CLIMATE CHANGE

Despite benevolent impact of the atmospheric gases, one evident lesson of the natural

greenhouse effect is that increase in concentration of heat trapping gases would further warm

the earth, hampering natural carbon cycle, and unbalancing Earth’s energy balance. All these

could culminate in unpredictable catastrophic impacts. Enhanced greenhouse effect or global

warming denotes the warming phenomenon attributed to increase concentration of

greenhouse gases since industrialization. Houghton (2009) simplifies global warming or

enhanced greenhouse effect as disturbance in radiation from the sun and reradiating light

from the Earth and atmosphere. The balancing of Sun and Earth energy flow is at the heart of

27

the Earth climate system, which “must balance”. An anomaly in the shape of increased

atmospheric CO2 concentration is counteracted through rise in Earth’s temperature.

Houghton (2009) differentiates between natural greenhouse effect and enhanced greenhouse

effect, attributing the former to atmospheric gases present before man tempered and added

extra element like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In other words water vapor and trace gases in

their natural amount results in natural greenhouse effect making the Earth’s atmosphere

congenial and pleasant(Casper,2010); however, their increase is assumed in a destructive

spiral unbalancing the energy balance.

However, as mentioned an increase in atmospheric trapping gases would result in undue

heating. Since industrialization, extensive use of fossil fuels, deforestation for cultivated

agrarian lands, and mechanized life disproportionately release stored greenhouse gases or

produce them. These human climate perturbations have been classified under fuel usage,

industrial and agricultural practices by Cotton and Pielke (2007). It enhances concentration

of greenhouse gases and transforms the benevolent natural greenhouse effect phenomenon

into enhanced greenhouse effect or global warming. Houghton (2009) particularly

differentiates water vapor from CO2 as the former originates from the ocean surface and is

not influenced by human activity. An imbalance particularly related to thermal radiation

with more energy coming in than going out would culminate affecting other climate

dependent variables with either positive or negative feedback.

Global warming is termed a “sudden unintentional push” to the delicate climate balance that

primarily materializes itself in increased surface temperature (Gilman, 2008). The term

global warming was first used by Svante Arrhenius in his paper in 1896(Casper, 2009).

However, rise in surface temperature, a global warming phenomenon, unleashes a series of

multiple unpredictable and assumed drastic transformations in global climate like upsetting

hydrological cycle leading to floods and droughts, glacial melting, and biodiversity loss

(Schmidt & Wolf, 2008). Warming is the initial variation triggering a multitude of other

changes which are believed drastic to a greater degree if not thwarted properly (Gilman,

2008). In order to encompass all these related accruing “long term” climate

changes(Casper,2009), scientists preferably use the term “global climate change” rather than

global warming which specifically incorporates only the Earth surface warming factor

28

(Gilman, 2008). Although the two are sometimes used interchangeably, it is global warming

which results in climate change, a multitude of climate variations. Concepts are assumed to

be politically loaded (Heywood, 2004). Some scientists use the term ‘global heating’ to

emphasize human induced global warming (Henson, 2008). However, the most widely used

term is global climate change, because of its ability to envelope all the related variations in

the atmosphere.

Scientists often relate examples of Venus and Mars to make us understand impact of

greenhouse gases especially CO2 influence on climate. Mars and Venus, both possessing

atmosphere, are believed similar to Earth in experiencing climate change. Venus with its

thick climate possessing mostly of CO2 is hot enough to melt lead, while Mars despite having

greenhouse gases like CO2 and measurable methane is cold because of its thin climate and

distance from the Sun (Gilman, 2008). Venus with 96% CO2 and cloudy atmosphere

resulting in runaway greenhouse effect is extremely hot while Mars with 95% CO2 with thin

atmosphere is very cold (Johansen, 2008). Carl Sagen, a US astronomer, after evaluation of

the Venus concluded that earlier Venus has atmosphere like Earth (Gilman, 2008). However,

that atmosphere drastically changed as a result of ‘Runaway greenhouse effect’. The

increased intensity and concentration of trace gases resulting into an inhospitable climate

aroused his concern for the Earth’s climate (Henson, 2008). He ominously cautioned, as cited

in Silver (2008) that rising human induced global warming if remains unchecked could

transform earth into Venus, an extremely hot and inhospitable planet. Pittock (2009)

considers this runaway carbon dynamics might reverse land based carbon sinks. Michel Hart

in 1979 further augmenting Sagen’s apprehensions stated that Earth because of human

induced enhanced greenhouse effect could might be ‘tipping over’ to be either Mars or

Venus(Gilman,2008). However, Scientists in their later assessment refuted Earth assumed

‘precarious’ state, although verifying unpredictable adverse impacts of the climate change if

the problem is not addressed properly in due time. These impacts will be discussed in the

later sections of the chapter.

An evaluation of the global warming definitions rendered by different climate scientists

makes it obvious that it is significantly concerned with the average temperature of the Earth’s

surface. Rising of it unleashes multiple climate variables transforming it into global climate

29

change. Dessler and Parson (2006) focus on three characteristics to make study of current

climate change comprehensible. Temperature is chosen among all climate variables because

of the rich data, and susceptibility to greenhouse gases. Secondly, Earth’s average surface

temperature is evaluated; and third a particular time span is under consideration to see

whether Human emissions are responsible for it. This limits us to human civilization since

industrialization.

There is an alarming rise in temperature in the last century especially in the last decade of it.

The 1C difference between current temperature 14.4C (57.9F) with that of the last century

13.7C (56.5F) is alarming as this much temperature rise often takes centuries (Silver, 2008).

Climatologists are concerned at the unprecedented rise in the temperature at exponential rate.

Specifically, as mentioned since 1990, earth has witnessed the warmest decades of the last

one thousand years. Desonie (2008) cites a chart provided by NASA which demarcates the

warmest years on record in the last decade.

Table 1 Warmest years on record (1880-2016)

RANK1=WARMEST

PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880-2016Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F

1 2016 0.94 1.692 2015 0.95 1.623 2014 0.74 1.334 2010 0.70 1.265 2013 0.67 1.216 2005 0.66 1.197 2009 0.64 1.158 1998 0.63 1.139 2012 0.62 1.12

10 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.1010 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.1010 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10

Source: Global Climate Report-Annual 2016, NOAA

These statistics are considered frighteningly different from the normal course of temperature

fluctuations in the past and could not be simply ascribed to normal factors of temperature

variations. This temperature rise is “off the charts” taking the form of a “hockey stick” that in

30

statistics signifies a sudden eruption of climate variability (Silver, 2008, Desonie, 2008;

Dessler & Parson, 2006). Desonie (2008) particularly mentions that this finding have been

supported by a 2006 report of the U.S. National Academy of sciences.

This significantly rapid rise of the average surface temperature especially during the last few

decades culminated into global warming. Following figure showing the average surface

temperature since last one and a half century tell a tale of its own.

Figure 3 Average global temperature for the past 150 years (Source: NOAA, as cited in Silver, 2008).

2.8 EARTH ENERGY BALANCE

Casper (2009) defines global energy balance as “interaction of energy between Sun, the Earth

and atmosphere, which characteristically affect climate. Burroughs (2007) terms this

radiative balance as the ‘amount of solar radiation absorbed by the surface and the

atmosphere beneath it is equal to the amount of heat radiation emitted by the Earth to space’.

Earth energy balance is, as mentioned earlier, at the root of the science of climate change, a

“fundamental process” that materializes the Earth’s temperature (Archer, 2007).In case there

is more of energy leaving the earth than it is receiving from the Sun, result will be cooling,

but if it is retaining and absorbing more than the essential or natural amount of energy then it

would result in warming. Scientists determine Earth’s cooling or warming through evaluation

of its energy balance.

Explaining the earth energy budget, Silver (2008) states that out of 1370W of the sun energy,

342 W of power strikes every square foot of the earth surface because of its elliptical orbit, of

which approximately 30% is reflected by the top of atmosphere. In some of the websites this

31

amount has been mentioned in square foot, i.e. 240watts per square foot (IPCC explains

Earth’s climate system, n.d). The remaining 70% reaches earth after absorption by the

stratosphere, work on photosynthesis, warm up earth and ocean, melt ice, and in the end

reradiate back into the space. This reradiated infrared light is absorbed in the troposphere by

CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O) and water vapour and thus materialize greenhouse effect with least

affect from the abundant nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere (IPCC 5th AR, 2013). In this

way, “thermal equilibrium” is established between the Sun and the earth (Silver, 2008;

Casper, 2009). Pidwirny (2010) highlights unequal reception of Sun energy output to Earth

because of its spherical structure. Equatorial regions receive more energy than the polar ones,

thus initiating a relentless atmospheric and oceanic process of heat transfer to even out this

difference. This process is termed as Earth’s heat engine.

Desonie (2008) believes that Earth atmosphere would be “bitterly cold” without heat trapping

greenhouse gases and thus attributes Earth abundant life variability to greenhouse effect

making its average temperate to a favorable degree of 59°F (15°C).

In 2005 Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) after thorough scientific evaluation of

the Earth energy balance concluded that Earth is getting 0.85w/m2 more of Sun’s energy and

most of this extra energy is stored in ocean that lessens current impact of global warming.

This energy imbalance is depressingly large when compare to the past climate variations

(Casper, 2009). Climate and its variations is far a large part dependent on Sun, a consistent

source of energy to earth (Barry & Chorley, 2003). The Sun and Earth energy relationship

fluctuates with respect to certain perturbations termed forcing to which climate responds

either directly or indirectly through feedback mechanisms (IPCC, 5th AR, 2013).

2.9 REASONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE: CLIMATE FORCING AND CLIMATE

FEEDBACKS

The science of climate change is primarily based on understanding of earth energy balance.

Throughout history, Sun has been a consistent source of energy in the form of light waves.

Sun’s energy through a process of absorption and reflection continued maintaining Earth’s

climate stable and hospitable; however, current disruptive tilt towards “warming mode” is

32

resulting in climate change (Silver, 2008). This difference of Sun’s radiation received and

reflected determines Earth’s radiation budget (Rafferty, 2011). Radiative equilibrium is

maintained when an equal amount of heat energy is radiated in response to absorption by

Earth. Mutable to changes in climate system, this radiative equilibrium either falls or enhance

disrupting Earth overall energy budget and culminating in either heating or cooling

(Pidwirney, 2010). There are multiple factors which influence energy balance of the Earth.

However these factors are broadly divided into climate forcing and climate feedbacks

(Radiative forcing of climate change, 2005; Barry & Chorley, 2003). Climate forcing, an

energy imbalance, is dictated either naturally or through human activities. Climate feedbacks

are internal climate reactions to climate forcing, secondary and indirect, either enhancing or

reducing climate response to the primary change (Gilman, 2008; Pidwirney, 2010; Rafferty,

2011).

Change in energy balance that alters climate is termed ‘forcing’ (Casper, 2009). The fifth

assessment report of IPCC (2013) terms these changes as ‘perturbations’ to the Earth’s

climate system. As mentioned climatic forcing, the respective causes or factors that force the

climate to change can be natural as well as human. However they are further distinguished in

light of their respective sphere of occurrence, their impact and their time scale. Natural

climate forcing are listed by Casper (2009) and duly mentioned in the IPCC 5th assessment

report (2013) as fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, changes in oceanic circulation thereby

affecting their ability of heat transportation, volcanic eruptions, variation in Sun’s radiation

owing to Sun’s natural cycle, and concentration of trace gases in atmosphere. Variation in

Sun’s energy output, volcanic eruptions and human caused increase concentration of

greenhouse gases are external forcing; while, others like oceanic circulation, continental

movements, volcanic eruptions and atmospheric composition are climate dynamics that

occurred within the Earth’s climate system (Bloom,n.d.) These distinctions are listed in detail

by different environmental website including Arnold J Bloom’s (n.d) description of various

natural forcing distinguishing them from human factors with respect to their impact on

Earth’s climate from outside and within the Earth’s system. Climate changes at different time

scales to different forcing and corresponding responses are conditioned by time. The time

scale ranges from millions of years to the minimum of one year (Rafferty, 2011; Forcing of

climate change, n.d). Apart from external and internal determinants, climate forcings are

33

distinguished in the light of their impact on radiative budget, whether it is direct, indirect or

non-radiative in character (Radiative forcing of climate change, 2005).

Equally significant are the human induced changes to climate change. Human civilization is

drastically changed since industrialization. Though having insignificant ‘metabolic’ impact,

it is the cultural and economic life of man which is believed to have immense pressure on the

atmosphere, and responsible for altering it (Rafferty, 2011). Combustion of fossil fuels and

biomass changes atmosphere gaseous makeup with emission of greenhouse gases,

particularly CO2 (Archer, 2007). Similarly, changes in Earths’ vegetation cover affects its

reflective capacity making it absorbing and retaining more of Sun’s light. Scientifically

confirmed natural greenhouse effect has a drawn conclusion that rising concentration of

greenhouse gases enhances atmospheric opacity to thermal radiation, thus increasing surface

air temperature. Earth radiation budget is a balance of incoming solar radiation with the equal

amount of reflected thermal radiation. However, natural greenhouse effects owing to

atmospheric gaseous composition make this balance life favorable by retaining outgoing

radiation (Houghton, 2009). However, remarkably increased concentration of the greenhouse

gases since industrialization has undermined this life sustaining balance. The distinctive

differences are highlighted in a comprehensive chart.

Figure 4 Conceptual structure of climate forcing and feedback

Source: Radiative forcing of climate change (2005).

34

2.9.1 Climate Feedback Mechanism

Climate feedback involves an “initial change” prompting another change which further

influences the earliest one (Silver, 2008). Positive and negative feedbacks are distinguished

from each other with respect to their effect (Gilman, 2009; Pidwirney, 2010; Rafferty, 2011).

Positive feedbacks maximize the original change, characteristically disrupting and enhancing

the imbalance. However, negative feedback is more of redressing and rectifying measure

which lessens the impact of the original change and restores balance and stability.

Positive and negative climate feedback with their intricate impact are highlighted and

considered significant in determining the future prediction and impact of climate changes

(Rafferty, 2011; Dessler, 2012). Silver (2008) and Scott (2011) list several positive and

negative feedbacks and the complex cause and effect relationship of them. The positive

climate feedbacks encompass rise in atmospheric temperature that affect various climate

variations. And these changes induced by high temperature further enhance the atmospheric

temperature. The glacial ice and snow melting as a result of temperature rise turns the Earth’s

surface less reflective and more retentive of heat, a phenomenon termed as ice-albedo effect

(Sawaya, 2010). Similarly, forests replacing tundra reduces Earth’s reflectivity and releases

methane, a high absorption greenhouse gas, as a result of permafrost melting (Rafferty, 2011;

Dessler, 2012). In the same fashion, rising temperature contributes huge water vapors, a

vibrant greenhouse gas, leading to more absorption of the reflective sunlight (Dessler, 2012).

Rising droughts lead to plants decay which releases the stored CO2 and reduces its

absorption. Temperature rise especially oceanic warming reduces their capacity of the

absorption of CO2 (Silver, 2008; Rafferty, 2011). Warm oceans with less CO2 absorption

means more of CO2 stay in the atmosphere contributing to temperature rise. Silver(2008)

signifies that “glacial decent” into lower altitude and erosion of glacial ends termed

“tongues” further expedite the ice melting process. All these examples rendered are explicitly

explaining positive feedback phenomenon of how one atmospheric change initiates another

one which further accelerates the primary change.

In contrast, negative feedback involves all those dimensions of initiated changes, which

reduces the impact of the earlier change and restores the balance. Silver (2008) elucidates

35

that enhanced temperature results in more water evaporation and cloud formation which

works as effective reflective agent. Similarly, rising temperature with equally enhancing CO2

promotes plants growth through photosynthesis and thus absorbs the excessive amount of

CO2.

Radiative forcing is a mechanism developed for comparative assessment of different factors

affecting Earth’s temperature and climate to measure energy imbalance (Radiative forcing of

climate change, 2005). Houghton (2009) considers it a change in ‘average net radiation’ at

tropospheric top mostly attributed to changes in atmospheric composition of greenhouse

gases. Rafferty (2011) terms it a measure to determine the impact of a climate factor on the

‘downward directed radiant energy’ upon the Earth’s surface. Radiative forcing, a measure to

determine disruptive tendencies of the Earth-atmosphere energy balance is dependent

primarily on variations in Sun’s energy output to Earth, corresponding reflectivity of Earth

i.e. albedo, and longwave radiation to space or concentration of greenhouse gases(IPCC,

AR4,2007). Silver (2008) highlights radiative forcing self-explanatory. Radiative derives

from the fact that these changes would have an impact on the balance Sun’s energy output

and Earth reflected energy, while forcing signifies ‘how a particular influence’ affects

climate. IPCC AR 4(2007) declares ‘forcing’ as ‘pushing away’ of this radiative balance. In

sum, Radiative forcing, a measure to determine disruptive tendencies of the Earth-

atmosphere energy balance is dependent primarily on variations in Sun’s energy output to

Earth, corresponding reflectivity of Earth i.e. albedo, and longwave radiation to space or

concentration of greenhouse gases. The underlying understanding is that anything effecting

radiation balance in the atmosphere would force or initiate change in global climate turning it

warm or cool. Radiative forcing, thus, is the net difference in absorption and respective

emission of radiation in the Earth-atmospheric system. Dessler (2012) signifies radiative

forcing as a common metric in order to measure and evaluate effects of different

perturbations to climate system. Radiative forcing could be either positive or negative.

Positive forcing leads to an increase in the net energy contributing to warming of the

atmosphere; while negative forcing leads to decrease in this energy leading to cooling (IPCC,

AR4, 2007). Radiative forcing or radiative imbalance, the loss or gain of energy between the

Earth and Sun is measured with a standard unit of watts per square meter (W/m2) (Gilman,

2009; IPCC, AR4, 2007).

36

2.9.2 Earth’s Atmosphere: Structure and Composition

Before evaluating the radiative forcing of the natural and human induced climate forcing

including the feedback mechanism, it is important to understand Earth’s atmosphere which

characteristically make it different from the rest of the planet. Earth would not have been a

‘goldilocks planet’ with a moderate temperature without its characteristically distinguished

atmosphere. The structure and composition of atmosphere is having a consequential

importance with major effect on climate variability.

Atmosphere, as a ‘dynamic fluid’ acts along ocean as a heat engine in transferring uneven

heat distribution received more at low latitude (Rafferty, 2011). The intricate complexity and

underlying multiple variables has earned its study a holistic approach, Earth system sciences,

relying on ecology, geology, climatology, oceanography, glaciology and social sciences.

Atmosphere is a complicated uneven frame1 composed of multiple absorbing agents and

different inconsistent layers of varying temperature (Tomecek, 2012). Graedel and Crutzen

(1993) distinguishes atmospheric regions the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere

and the thermosphere from their boundaries as the tropopause, the stratopause, and the

mesopause. Of the regions, stratosphere and troposphere are the most susceptible to

temperature fluctuations as well as natural and human emissions. The lowest layer

troposphere characterized as ‘most dense and turbulent’ is home to all the weather activities

(Tomecek, 2012). Temperature intensity decreases with elevation in troposphere. This

temperature change with latitude is significant to understand climate activities in troposphere

(Graedel & Crutzen, 1993). Stratosphere with a height of about 30miles (48km), including

ozone layer, embraces increase in temperature with elevation (Tomecek, 2012)

Atmospheric temperature structure is dependent on emission and absorption of radiation

(Graedel& Crutzen, 1993). Graedel and Crutzen attribute tropospheric heat received from

1 For further study of atmosphere and its different layers in intricate relationship with temperature and air pressure following sources can be consulted: Vertical structure of the atmosphere (n.d). Oklahoma climatological survey. Retrieved 16April, 2012 from http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/VertStructure.htmlFearing, J. (2003). Layers of Atmosphere. Retrieved 15March,2012 from http://www.geosociety.org/educate/LessonPlans/Layers_of_Atmosphere.pdfJeffery, M.(n.d.). Global warming causes stratospheric cooling. Retrieved 15 March, 2012 from http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

37

below to water vapor and CO2, most significant greenhouse agents are in bulk present at

atmospheric base, troposphere, and their concentration decreases with higher altitude. This

explains increased temperature at the troposphere, a home to every climate activity.

Stratospheric temperature rise is attributed to presence of Ozone absorption of ultraviolet

rays. In sum, temperature is not uniform in the vertical structure of the atmosphere.

Figure 5 Atmospheric layers

Source: The vertical structure of the atmosphere (n.d.)

Maintaining a balanced equation of the incoming Sun’s energy and reradiated outgoing

energy is disturbed not by mostly concentrated Nitrogen 78% and Oxygen 21% in the

atmosphere; they are transparent to the outgoing and incoming energy (Rafferty,2011;

Siver,2008; Graedel & Crutzen,1993). Significant contribution to global warming is rather

assigned to “molecules more complex and less common” like water vapour, and CO2 (IPCC,

AR4, 2007; Houghton, 2009). Diatomic nitrogen and oxygen, Argon and water vapor

constitute 99.95% of the atmosphere (Dessler, 2012). Of these water vapor works as a

greenhouse gas. It becomes part of the atmosphere through evaporation and removes through

precipitation. Human emissions are not directly acting as its source. The remaining 0.05%

forms greenhouse gases of which CO2 constitutes major part with its 0.039%. The

concentration and impact of the greenhouse gases are not uniform. CO2 is measured 390ppm,

38

CH4 1.8ppm, and N2O 0.3ppm. Methane, ozone and Halocarbons with their least

concentration work as very potent greenhouse gases. Desonie (2008) and Rafferty (2011)

state that zone concentration and usefulness varies from near the surface of the Earth to

stratosphere. Stratospheric ozone is termed ‘good’ as it stops harmful Sun’s ultraviolet

radiation. Ozone presence in the lower atmosphere is considered bad as it results is life

constraining leading to various breathing problems.

Figure 6 Composition of gases in the atmosphere

Source: Tomecek (2012)

Atmospheric greenhouse gases despite their insignificant atmospheric volume plays critical

role in governing Earth’s climate. Their concentration and potency varies which distinguish

them from each other. Similarly greenhouse gases interaction with feedback mechanism, a

highly complex phenomenon, is important. Knowing the influence of these greenhouse gases

helps and determines policy formulation for effective control. Therefore, the significance of

greenhouse gases and their role in current global warming would be discussed in detail in the

following pages. However, it is important to understand other significant factors traditionally

responsible for climate variability. This would enable us to attribute and determine the

reasons for the current climate change.

39

2.9.3 Sun’s Energy and Earth: Solar Cycle and Orbital Variations.

As the Sun and Earth relationship is at the heart of earth climate system, it is quintessential to

explore all its dimensions. Also for the fact that human generated influence on climate could

be properly evaluated and discerned when all the natural sources of climate variations are

assessed on its own.

Every square meter of the earth surface relentlessly receives nearly “1370” W of power in

form of electromagnetic radiation” termed as solar constant; however, since 1978 satellites

measurements of solar output have revealed that solar constant is not exclusively

constant(Silver,2008; Casper, 2009). The Sun energy output keeps changing after every 11

years dependent on the increase or decrease of the sunspots related to Sun’s ‘changing

magnetic structure’ (Graedel & Crutzen,1993; Raffety,2011). The 11.1 year solar cycle was

recognized by Heinrich Schwabe in 1843; however, sunspots and related impacts on solar

output were under observation since times of Galileo (Climate attribution, n.d.). Desonie

(2008) defines them as magnetic storms that appear as dark, relatively cool regions on the

Sun’s surface positively influencing Earth temperature by raising it 0.1 percent after every

eleven years. Silver (2008) and Desonie (2008) have consensus regarding this figure

considering it insignificant. However, Casper (2009), citing NASA scientists, states it to be

0.5 percent increase in solar radiation per decade since 35 years, which if continued could

significantly alter climate. Dessler and Parson (2006) based on the same evidence declare it

‘important’; but least helpful in explaining the rapid warming of the last decades.

As mentioned balancing energy balance is at the core of climate science for maintaining

hospitable environment for life. Paleoclimatology is the study of past climatic variation in the

light of various evidences likes sea sediments, ice cores, and coral reefs (Tomecek, 2012;

Desonie, 2008; Silver, 2008). This analysis has evolved into various theoretical explanations

of climate change. The foremost of them is Earth’s varying orbit primarily in three

characteristic ways: eccentricity, obliquity and precession (Riebeek, 2006). This is termed as

orbital forcing of Earth’s climate. James Croll, a Scottish geologist, was the first to attribute

Earth shifting phases from glacial to interglacial to variations in its orbital eccentricity

around the sun (Rafferty, 2011). The theory was refined further by Serbian mathematician

40

and astronomer Milutin Milankovitch in 20th century. Rafferty referred to orbital variation as

the ‘dominant radiative forcing’ bringing changes in ‘seasonal and latitudinal’ variation in

reception of Sun’s energy with a significant influence on ‘continental ice sheets’. The impact

of orbital variations, finds its support from the ice core data in the Greenland and Arctic

(Riebeek, 2006). The underlying idea is that planetary movements exert pressure on each

other culminating in orbital and axial variations of the Earth’s like eccentricity, the elliptical

changes in the Earth’s orbit, obliquity, the orbital tilt of the Earth’s axis, and precession i.e.

the wobble of the Earth’s axis with respect to Sun. Obliquity affects distribution of Sun

energy, eccentricity or elliptical shape of the Earth’s orbit determines amount of energy

received by it, and precession like obliquity affects distribution of Sun’s energy (Silver,

2008). In sum, it affects energy output of Sun’s to Earth and its respective distribution,

influencing Earth’s Energy budget (Rafferty, 2011) at different times and different locations

(Sliver, 2008). All these variations have a very long time span of thousands of years

(Riebeek, 2006).

Figure 7 Milankovitch cycle

Source: Goldstein (2009)

41

There is a unanimous consensus among most climate scientists that Milankovich’s study

verifies and attributes past climate changes to natural cycles; however, it could not explain

the current temperature rise (Archer, 2007; Riebeek, 2006; Silver, 2008). This drives our

attention to seek explanation for the current global climate change in other sources.

2.9.4 Tectonic Movements and Volcanic Eruptions

Dessler and Parson (2006) term tectonic movements those ‘geological processes’ that shape

continents and mountain ranges and influence their location; thus, transforming the Earth’s

surface. These geological processes are driven by Earth’s internal heat (Graedel & Crutzen,

1993). Graedel and Crutzen show this gradual evolution and transformation of the present

Earth through different phases of history. This transformation entails altering Earth’s albedo

either through reducing ice covered area, or shifting land masses towards the equator leading

to cooling and warming respectively. These changes also influence oceanic bathymetry

(study of underwater depth of oceans., its circulation pattern and expose rocks to weathering

and thus release the stored carbon (Rafferty, 2011).In sum, tectonic movements effect Earths’

radiation budget, global heat transportation mechanism, and atmospheric composition.

Despite these impacts on the Earth climate, tectonic movements are not considered

accounting for the current warming, because of the immense time span involved (Dessler &

Parson, 2006). Continental drifting and shaping of the Earth surface take millions of year,

many centuries, and thus seem not actuating the current phenomenal rise of Earth’s average

surface temperature in the last century, especially since 1970s.

Volcanism like tectonic plates is engendered by Earths’ interior heat (Graedel & Crutzen,

1993) and release dust, ashes and ‘subsurface gases’ like sulphur and CO2 into atmosphere

(Hoyle, 2008). Their influence as a positive or negative forcing, warming or cooling effect,

depend much upon their presence in a particular layers of atmosphere and nature of volcanic

activity(Atmospheric aerosols, 1996). Volcanic eruption to stratosphere turns sulphur into

sulphuric acid aerosols with high reflectivity resulting in enhanced cooling (Borroughs,

2007). Casper (2009) defines these aerosols as ‘small solid particles or liquid droplets’. The

volcanic eruptions at the lower atmosphere may be short lived and absorbent to outgoing

infrared that enhances greenhouse effect; however, the stratospheric sulphuric acid aerosols

42

with cooling impact have a much longer staying duration (Atmospheric aerosols, 1996).

Eruption of Mount Pinatubo in Philippines in 1991 and Mount Tambura in 1815 are the most

cited examples of volcanic eruption impact on atmospheric heat budget (Rafferty, 2011).

Other than regional or global cooling, presence of sulphuric acid results in acidic

precipitation destroying forests and crops (Casper, 2009). This scenario is indeed unfavorable

to developing states leading to food scarcity. Despite significant impact, volcanic eruptions

with all its particles addition into atmosphere is discarded by Dessler and Parson (2006) as a

reason for current climate change because of their short lived impact.

2.9.5 Natural Climate Oscillations

Other than the natural cycles pointed out by Milankovich, there are natural climate

oscillations like El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillations , irregularly occurring after every 3 to

7 years. Unlike Earth’s orbital variation and solar variation which are forced through

external elements, Southern oscillation is an internal variability depicting the complexity of

Earth’s climate system (Dessler & Parson, 2006). Rafferty (2011) mentions the phenomenon

a major factor for the inter-annual climate variations like floods and droughts. El Nino is a

Spanish term meaning “child”, while La Nina means “sister”; the two are having quite an

opposite impact on equatorial Pacific Ocean (Silver, 2008). Climate oscillation is attributed

to reasons like temperature and climate interaction (Desonie, 2008), to an impact of ‘hot

magma between tectonic plates in Pacific sea floor’ (Hot vents and global climate,n.d.);

while, Graedel and Parson (1993) think that factors responsible for this deviation is still not

well understood. Results of a ‘long term climate pattern’ called ‘southern oscillation’ or most

specifically El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), its two phases El Nino and La Nina, are

not similar in their impact. El Nino results in warming and lead to rise in the surface

temperature while La Nina has a cooling impact resulting in a periodic change to atmospheric

and oceanic circulation. Impact of ENSO on global heat engine or heat transmission is

acknowledged (Rafferty, 2011; Graedel & Crutzen, 1993). Scientists cautiously affirm that El

Nino would become more severe and devastating in its impacts, generating floods and

droughts in different regions; whereas, La Nina would be less severe in its cooling impacts as

a result of continued rise in temperature (Silver, 2008). In a word, global warming is

considered affecting the natural climate oscillation, making it more tilted to the warmer side,

43

with El Nino becoming more disastrous with growing warming. Like ENSO, North Atlantic

oscillations (NAO) significantly alters climate of the northern hemisphere (Rafferty, 2011).

Natural climate cycles and natural climate oscillations reveal that Earth climate depending on

multiple factors, primarily on the solar energy received from the Sun, keeps shifting from

warm to cold. However, there is a growing tendency of dangerously leaning towards the

warmer side of the tilt. Evaluation of past proxy data reveal that natural climate oscillation

like ENSO and NAO contribution to global warming seems undeniable; however, attributing

current climate change to it seems ‘highly unlikely’(Dessler & Parson,2006).

44

PART 11

FIXING RESPONSIBILITY, ADVERSE IMPACTS, BALANCING

MEASURES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

This part of the science of climate change discusses anthropogenic, human induced, reasons

for climate change. In order to understand anthropogenic factors, distinguished

characteristics of the CO2 –the significantly excessive disruptive human contribution to the

earth’s atmosphere—needs to be highlighted and distinguished in terms of its global warming

potential (GWP). The excessive concentration of human contributed CO2 has disturbed

carbon cycle. To the worst, the man desired development mantra at the expense of

environment has negatively altered land use. After evaluating natural and human reasons for

climate change, a final assessment or verdict based on the models of rising temperature will

help us understand the current climate changes. The excessive concentration of CO2 and

inability of the respective absorbent to absorb it has culminated in adverse climate changes.

The negative outcomes of the climate change are underscored for their respective

repercussions on human life. This discussion will give us an insight into the validity of the

preferred human based solutions: adaptation and mitigation.

2.10 ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES

Human beings with their negligible metabolic presence are significantly altering Earth’s

climate system through their cultural and economic activities (Rafferty, 2011). Scientifically

confirmed natural greenhouse effect has a drawn conclusion that rising concentration of

greenhouse gases enhances atmospheric opacity to thermal radiation, thus increasing surface

air temperature (Houghton, 2009; Desonie, 2008; Silver, 2008; Dessler, 2012). Earth climate

relying on Earth radiation budget, a balance of incoming solar radiation with the equal

amount of reflected thermal radiation, is favorably altered in natural greenhouse effect as

retention of reradiated light by atmosphere. However, remarkably increased concentration of

the greenhouse gases like CO2 as revealed through Keeling curve since industrialization has

dangerously undermined this life sustaining balance. Human activities like combustion of

45

fossil fuels, deforestation, changes in land use that affected its ‘vegetation cover’, rice

cultivation, cement production, are all those various reasons of enhancing greenhouse gases

like CO2 and CH4 concentration and also adversely affecting Earth’s

reflectivity(Dessler,2012; Rafferty,2011). Similarly, machines driven life with inventions like

refrigerators and air conditions are releasing man made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), very

potent greenhouse gases(Desonie,2008; Silver,2008). CFCs are pointed as stratospheric

ozone depleting substances affecting incoming solar radiation, and a strong absorber of

reradiated light from the earth in the troposphere. Natural greenhouse effect and ozone layer

both make life possible by providing conducive temperature and stopping ultraviolet

radiation respectively(May & Caron, 2009).

2.10.1 Greenhouse Gases: Characteristics and CO2 Distinction

Altering atmospheric gaseous composition through addition of greenhouse gases is critically

significant. Our discussion on atmosphere, its structure and composition, greenhouse effect

and enhanced greenhouse effect has drawn us to a conclusion that despite 0.05% of the dry

atmosphere, greenhouse gases are the most significant players when it comes to climate

change. The favorability of the Earth climate is attributed to greenhouse gases (Desonie,

2008). Their potential to absorb reradiated light from the earth make it warm; however,

increase in the atmospheric concentration of these greenhouse gases enhance atmospheric

capacity to capture more heat turning natural greenhouse effect into global warming.

Greenhouse gases are not uniform in their characteristics and their influence (Goldstein,

2009). Global warming potential (GWP) of a gas is determined based on its ability to absorb

infrared light, and its concentration and residence time in the atmosphere (Silver, 2008).

Global warming potential (GWP) is a radiative forcing measure of a greenhouse gas in

relation to the same amount of CO2. CO2 key position of a measuring standard is because

human primarily contribute it in comparison of the rest to the atmosphere. Equally significant

is its distinguished character of acting either as a climate forcing or climate feedback agent

(Rafferty, 2011).

Atmospheric gases have different capacity of absorption. As mentioned, Nitrogen and

Oxygen, despite their greater volume of 99 percent, are transparent to infrared. Water vapor,

46

CO2, CH4, and N2O are all natural greenhouse gases capable of absorbing infrared light or the

reradiated light from the Earth contributing to natural greenhouse effect (Houghton, 2009).

Over the years, scientists discovered other man made greenhouse gases like

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, Sulfur hexafluoride,

used for multiple purposes such as cooling agent in refrigerators (May & Caron, 2009).

These greenhouse gases have different impact based on their above mentioned attributes:

absorption capacity for infrared light, concentration and staying duration in atmosphere, and

whether it works as a climate forcing or feedback. Goldstein (2009) gives a table with

comparison of these greenhouse gases in light of their sources, impact, concentration,

lifespan and current level since industrialization. Knowing the influence of greenhouse gases

determines and helps in policy formulation for effective control (Raffety, 2011).

Figure 8 Characteristics and changed concentration of atmospheric gases

Source: Goldstein (2009)

CO2 despite much concentration than CH4, N2O, Chlorine and fluorine bearing compounds

are less absorbing than the latter, termed as ‘energy sponges’ (Silver, 2008). Other than the

absorption potential, “residence time” and atmospheric volume of greenhouse gases are

different from each other, determining their impact. Methane is quickly eliminated, CFCs are

stable; and CO2 takes the natural carbon cycle for its removal. Similarly, Nitrous oxide and

CFCs have high staying power but much less concentration than CO2 (May & Caron, 2009;

Goldstein, 2009). The global warming potentials of all the gases are compared to CO2 and

47

thus significantly termed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (Silver, 2008; May & Caron,

2009). In sum, it is not only the quality (absorption potential and life span), but also the

quantity (volume) of the gases that determine GWP of the atmospheric gases.

The defining attribute of a greenhouse gas as a climate forcing or a climate feedback agent,

the initiator of a climate change or a response to it respectively, also determines its impact

(Rafferty, 2011). Water vapor despite its potency primarily acts as feedback (Goldstein,

2009). Human activities not directly but indirectly influence concentration of atmospheric

water vapor, not “freely vary”, but through a chain of linking effects (Rafferty, 2011). CO2

concentration increases heat trapping capacity of atmosphere by capturing long-wave

radiation, thus further rising temperature. Increased temperature resulting in more water

evaporation leads to more water vapor. Water vapor dependence on CO2 concentration in the

atmosphere makes the latter critically important in driving climate change. Pidwirny (2010)

further signifies and distinguishes CO2 by terming it potentially far more effective receptor

and retainer of infrared than water vapour despite the latter being most abundant of

greenhouse gas in atmosphere. CO2 is more susceptible to infrared wavelength. This turns

rising concentration of CO2 a major disruptive climate forcing agent.

High concentration, enduring atmospheric life span of at least a century, remarkable

sensitivity and receptivity to the infrared radiation, and a primary forcing agent as a

greenhouse gas are not the only attributes that distinguish CO2. Archer (2007) highlights the

indispensible link of carbon, energy and climate. Archer considers carbon at the root of our

energy production, driving our current human civilization. The intricate and complex

interdependent process of CO2, energy and climate, an essence of our life system and present

energy production, initiates when Sun’s energy is used by plants in Photosynthesis for their

growth by absorbing CO2 and releasing of Oxygen. Plants after being fossilized become

major source of stored carbon energy that drives our industries, transport, and even modern

agriculture for fertilizers demand and consume considerable energy for their production. This

energy production process from the fossils release stored carbon back into atmosphere which

on reaction with atmospheric oxygen becomes carbon dioxide (CO2). This completes a whole

cycle of carbon moving from one reservoir to another. Understanding this carbon cycle is

quintessential for the proper grasp of the current climate perturbations. CO2 emissions with

48

57% ratio from fossil fuels stand largest of the entire anthropogenic greenhouse contribution;

whereas, more than 19% of its emissions are attributed to factors like deforestation and

unfavorable land usage (Silver, 2008). Silver mentions that that this makes CO2 80% of the

greenhouse gases injected into atmosphere.

2.10.2 Carbon Cycle

Carbon is the essence of human life and an indispensable element of his current civilization.

Almost 50% of our dry weight is carbon (Understanding the global carbon cycle, 2009).

Equally significant is its role in global climate change. Constituting fourth major part of the

universe, it intricately flows from one reservoir, like atmosphere, rocks and oceans, to

another in a cycle maintaining a life sustaining balance (Riebeek, 2011). The exchange

occurs through process of intake like photosynthesis and released through respiration and

decay (Silver, 2008; Rafferty, 2011). Carbon cycle moves 100Gt of carbon among its various

reservoirs: land, ocean, rocks and atmosphere. Almost the same amount is absorbed by

oceans (Dessler, 2012). This carbon cycle is interlinked with oxygen and nitrogen cycle

(Rafferty, 2011). The extended carbon releasing sources are mentioned as production of

cement, incapacity of warm water to dissolve and hold CO2, volcanic eruption, deforestation

and fossil fuel combustion (Global carbon cycle, 2011). Combustion of fossil fuels is like

respiration process producing CO2 and energy (Dessler, 2012). Inequality in the intake and

release through the mentioned processes would result in carbon increase either on land or

atmosphere (Silver, 2008). Carbon concentration in any reservoir would upset this balance,

making life vulnerable, as witnessed in its atmospheric excess at Venus (Riebeek, 2011).

2.10.3 Oceans and Carbon Cycle

The most significant role in carbon regulation is played by ocean. It principally works as

distributor and transporter of heat as well as primary storage of CO2 (Vallis, 2012). As

mentioned earlier, the uneven distribution of atmospheric heat at poles and tropics initiates

heat transportation through ocean and wind currents from equators to poles and from low to

high latitudes respectively. Ocean currents are of two types: surface currents that constitute

10% of the ocean waters, and thermohaline circulation consisting 90% of the rest of water.

49

Thermohaline as elaborated by Desonie (2008) is derived from the word thermo meaning

heat and haline that stands for salt.

Herring (n.d.) elaborates physical and chemical interaction of atmosphere and oceans.

Physically, energy is transferred and stored in the form of heat through ocean with this

exchange dependent upon atmospheric temperature. This significant task of regulating global

heat has earned oceans the title of ‘global heat engine’. The chemical interaction of the

atmosphere and oceans is at the root of regulating climate change with latter being

understood as source as well as sink of greenhouse gases. Oceans release evaporated water, a

potent greenhouse gas. However, water vapor on transformation becomes clouds with a

cooling impact. Oceans regulate CO2 between atmosphere and itself and its upper and deeper

levels. Solubility and biological pump are those oceanic processes that regulate CO2

(Rafferty, 2011; Houghton, 2009). Solubility pump moves absorbed CO2 between upper and

deeper ocean and settle them there; while biological pump relies on oceanic life like

phytoplankton through process of photosynthesis for CO2 storage.

Houghton (2009) and Silver (2008) highlight differences of ocean and land with respect to

their absorption and response. These differences play major role in determining Earth’s

energy balance. Although 90% of the Sun’s energy is absorbed by the oceans, yet there is a

slight rise of 0.1° C since last few decades in their temperature. Silver attributes it to water

inherent quality, for it requires more heat “to change the temperature of a given mass of

water” than air and rock. Oceans major influence as a huge source of CO2 absorber is

reducing the actual warming because of its slow reaction in the whole process termed as

climate time lag (Pidwirney, 2012). This has evolved into the concept of ‘committed

warming’ or warming ‘in the pipeline’ signifying warming which could not be stopped

(Dessler, 2012). Oceanic attributed thermal inertia of climate does not mean that the radiative

imbalance is restored, stopped or not happening; rather, it is gradual in impact (Pidwirney,

2012).

2.10.4 Enhanced Concentration of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gases

Modern man since industrialization and technological revolution has drastically exploited

nature in pursuit of high standard living. Human unsustainable exploitation of resources like

50

fossil fuels combustion, activities like deforestation spree, sprawl of urbanization, and related

changes in land use have perturbed delicate balance of carbon cycle (Understanding global

climate change; Rafferty, 2011). This resulted in releasing the stored greenhouse gases

especially CO2, eliminating their sinks or transforming them into sources. We are relying on

fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas derived from organic matters preserved through ages for the

production of energy. Carbon is an essential component of all the fuels except hydrogen, thus

their burning produces CO2 (Silver, 2008). This dramatically enhanced CO2 atmospheric

concentration with 35% more than it was 150 years ago, releasing 7.2gega tons (7.2 billion

tons of it from the year 2000 to 2005 alone (Silver, 2008). Its concentration rose from pre-

industrial 280ppm to 369 by the end of 20th century and expected to reach 560ppm till the

mid of 21st century in the presence of continued CO2 driven global economy(Rafferty, 2011).

Continuous digging, pumping and burning of fossil fuel have increased atmospheric heat

trapping gases (Gilman, 2008); CO2 concentration increased by 30% while the other two

significant greenhouse gases, methane by 150 % (Casper, 2009) and N2O atmospheric

presence increased 15% respectively( Casper,2009; Geerts & Linacre, n.d.). Geerts and

Lincara consider that the ratio of Methane has increased by 145%. Sliver (2008) considers

this increased volume of CO2, 387ppm and CH4, 1774ppb in light of 2005 data respectively

as the highest observed in the last 650,000years. The radiative forcing incurred by different

greenhouse gases is not found uniform in different sources as shown in the following table..

Table 2 Radiative Forcing of atmospheric gases

Greenhouse gases Radiative Forcing: W/m2

Carbon Dioxide 1.79

Methane 0.50

Tropospheric Ozone 0.35

Nitrous Oxide 0.18

Source: Blasing (2012)

51

Radiative forcing of fluorinated carbon is mentioned 0.34W/m2 in Rafferty (2011). Rafferty

mentions estimated positive radiative forcing of greenhouse gases as 2.3 W/m2. As seen

CO2 impact is comparatively stronger to rest of the greenhouse gases. Houghton (2009)

further confirms this understanding with CO2 having 72% added greenhouse effect, methane

(CH4) 21% and Nitrous oxide (N2O) almost 7% till date.

2.10.5 Land Use Change

Equally significant but not exhaustively explored contributing phenomenon to climate

change is the changes in land use since industrialization. Environmental transformation could

be largely attributed to man’s changed use of land in the form of intensely forced agricultural

production involving slash and burn deforestation and urbanization sprawl to accommodate

burgeoning population. IPCC (5th AR, 2013) terms changes in land use undeniably important,

but not primarily responsible. These changes result in altering Earth energy budget by

affecting the emissivity, defined as ability of a particular object to retain or emit heat

(Casper, 2009). This reflective tendency of a surface termed albedo is defined as that amount

of incoming light that is reflected back to space(Archer, 2007). This reflected radiation enters

into space without changing its wavelength (Burroughs, 2007). Silver(2008) distinguish

various surfaces from each other in terms of their reflective capability as albedo is not found

uniform, with ice reflecting 90% of the sun’s light and the remaining 10% is absorbed by the

oceans. Similarly, forest-covered lands are more reflective than barren surfaces (Archer,

2007; Silver, 2008; Casper, 2009). Reflective tendency is not limited to surfaces: presence of

clouds, contrails (cloud-like path left by airplanes), and aerosols (suspended particles in the

air) are all those elements which affect albedo capacity, undermining Earth’s energy

equilibrium and contributing to global dimming (Desonie, 2008).

Man’s changed uses of land are attributed to direct and indirect anthropogenic effects.

Measures like deforestation, afforestation and urbanization are direct anthropogenic factors;

while, man’s addition of greenhouse gases especially CO2 and its corresponding effects on

vegetation cover is an indirect effect of human activates. To Casper (2009) land use change

and atmospheric composition are evidently related as unwise forests destruction, burn and

52

trash policy to create cultivable lands, not only decrease surface albedo but also release

stored carbon into atmosphere, which in combination with oxygen turns into CO2.

The age of industrialization initiated modernization and resulted in phenomenal urbanization.

The most vital sign of urbanization is the concrete production, a significant source of CO2

production (Graedel & Crutzen, 1993). Towns with speedy transformation into skyscrapers

are contributing CO2 through production of cement as limestone (CaCO3) on its combustion

produces calcium oxide and CO2 (Silver, 2008). Obviously, the heat involves in the process

largely relies on the use of fossil fuels. The cement habitat of urbanization is absorbing more

Sun’s energy and therefore contributes to local climate warming—a phenomenon termed

urban heat island (Desonie, 2008). This heat island effect may have least effect on global

average temperature; however, it is assumed to influence accuracy of temperature recording

(IPCC 5th AR, 2013). Urbanization and industrialization have gone ‘hand in hand’

(Pickvance, 2006). Urbanization is taking a heavy toll on natural vegetation and forests

destroying carbon sinks and senselessly transforming natural ecosystem into man managed

environment with serious repercussions (Silver, 2008).

Impacts of changes in the land use are not easy to assess; however, leading author on the

study, Dr, Roger Pielke Sr, considers them potentially vital than the altogether influence of

anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Kirby, 2002).

2.11 FIXING THE RESPONSIBILITY

Apart from the inadequacy of the natural forcing to explain current global warming, there are

other plausible reasons which attribute it to anthropogenic factors. In the first place,

simultaneous rise of CO2 with corresponding increase in surface air temperature evidently

establishes a link between the two (Rafferty, 2011). Dessler (2012) distinguishes added

carbon to atmosphere as ‘radiocarbon dead’ which is the result of fossil fuels combustion

since industrialization. A worthy proof of human induced rise of atmospheric CO2 is evident

from the marked difference of the South and North contribution in the matter (Silver, 2008).

North is extensively industrialized with huge reliance on fossil fuels, south is a developing

53

region, and thus more of CO2 is released by the earlier. The following figure shows this

marked difference of the two.

Figure 9: CO2 difference of the Northern and Southern hemisphere as overall

concentration increases.

(Source: Silver, 2008).

This difference of CO2 concentration has affected corresponding temperature rise in the two

regions as shown in the following figure.

54

Figure 10 Northern hemisphere temperature anomaly since 1300 years

(Source: Silver, 2008)

However, most importantly there seems unanimity among climate scientist regarding current

climate change on a point that the evaluated data with the help of simulated models are

unable to explain current unprecedented temperature rise since mid-twentieth century without

taking into account human induced factors (Pittock, 2009; Silver, 2008; Rafferty, 2011;

Desonie, 2008; Dessler & Parson, 2006; Henson, 2008; Hall, 2008). Dressler and Parson

(2006) and Henson (2008) reproduce IPCC graphic details of different sources of climate

change in the twentieth century. Characteristic rise in atmospheric temperature particularly

since 1970s could not be understood if the human induced factors, in which major role is

attributed to emission of greenhouse gases, are not taken into account. Climate models

explaining recent warming trends proved futile when they evaluated it only in light of the

natural reasons or human responsible factors. A judicious incorporation of both the natural

and human induced factors of climate change in the climate models irrefutably establishes

that rise in greenhouse gases, 27% since industrialization and generated due to human

activities, have played a significant role in climate change (Desonie, 2008). Natural forcing,

anthropogenic ones and a combined impact of the two are shown in fig, with last one

explaining it affectively.

55

Figure 11 Simulated annual global mean surface temperatures

Source: Dessler & Parson (2006).

Despite substantially compelling evidence IPCC cautiously evolve its present stance on

climate change. The understanding that humans are primarily responsible for the global

warming was initially acknowledged with reluctance. Reservations could be discerned from

the prudent use of adjectives describing climate change and the possible human responsibility

for it. Desonie (2008) gives an interesting account of how Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) cautiously used different terminologies to acknowledge human

induced climate change. IPCC, established by UN in 1988, has moved gradually in

strengthening its conception of the human induced climate change. In its first meeting in

1990 they termed human emissions of greenhouse gases as “likely” factor of the global

56

warming. The second meeting in 1995 declared the man’s contribution to global warming as

“discernable”; while, the third meeting in 2001 termed temperature rise “attributable” to

human emissions. Silver (2008) states that fourth IPCC meeting was characteristically

unambiguous in its stance as 90% of the climate scientists unequivocally made human

activities overwhelmingly responsible for global climate change.

2.12 ASSESSING IMPACTS: CLIMATE MODELS AND UNCERTAINTY

Earth in its 4.55 billion-year history witnessed extreme climate variability with more intense

temperature and 4-6 m rise to current sea level (Desonie, 2008). However, the alarmingly

unprecedented rapid pace of current climate change with least time for adaptation is

unsettling today’s human civilization with its agriculture and settlement patterns (Dessler &

Parson, 2006; Silver, 2008).

The IPCC in its 2007 report termed happening of global warming “unequivocal” and

attributed it “with high confidence” to human activities, considering CO2 as the “single most

important” factor for rising temperature (Silver,2008). The IPCC 5 th Assessment Report

(2013) validates these understanding with greater certainty. Dessler and Parson (2006) list

various impacts of global warming like extinction of many animals and plants, limiting

availability of food, medicines and construction materials. The most evident impacts of

global warming are melting ice caps and glaciers, seasonal changes with disastrous influence

on plants and animals’ life cycle, devastating floods, intense heat waves, and catastrophic

hurricanes to which our world is more prone today than it was at the beginning of the 20th

century (Desonie, 2008).

Climatologists understand climate change implications through climate models. Climate

model is defined by Silver (2008) as “a mathematical description relating physical, chemical

and biological patterns of the system” exploring cause and effect relationship and impact of

feedback. Prediction about future emission depends upon multiple factors (Dessler &

Parson, 2006; Houghton, 2009). Dessler and Parson (2006) highlight them like population

growth and resulting human unsustainable activities, the energy reliant expansion of the

world economy, technological innovation that could either decrease or increase emission

57

ratio; and government policies affecting any of the mentioned factors like population

increase, energy exploitation and consumption, and technological development. Equally

significant is the influence of systemic changes or radical transformation in the form of wars,

epidemic outbreak and political and economic upheavals. Dependence on multiple factors

including atmospheric science and our insufficient knowledge leads to complexity and

uncertainty about future emissions, undermining its exact accuracy (Dessler & Parson, 2006;

Silver, 2008).

IPCC, acknowledging limitations of climate models, esteems them for their working on

globally accepted principles of physics to simulate past and current climate changes (Metz,

2010). Houghton (2009) considers it appropriate to call it projections rather than predictions.

To overcome uncertainty, scientists respond with a set of scenarios, ‘a fairly wide range of

possible future’ (Dessler & Parson, 2006). A set of scenarios is a set of assumptions

regarding the main factors responsible for emissions (Metz, 2010). However, climate models

are considered reliably effective for longer duration, larger areas, and for measuring

temperature rather precipitation (Dessler & Parson, 2006; Rafferty, 2011).

2.12.1 Temperature Rise

There is an unequivocal consensus that the existing build up in concentration of CO2 would

keep Earth warm even if we return back to the emission ratio of pre-industrial era. Svante

Ahremius initiated the process of evaluating the relationship of increase of atmospheric CO2

and possible atmospheric change and quantifies that doubling of CO2 level could result in a 5-

6°C (7-9°F) temperature of the earth (Silver, 2008). However, this temperature is less today

because of the presence of aerosols (Metz, 2010). Several estimates have been rendered since

then by many climate scientists. However, despite uncertainty regarding its magnitude,

continued warming is an accepted projected phenomenon (Dessler & Parson, 2006). Best

estimated rise of global average temperature for year 2100 ranges from 2-4°C; however, if

uncertainties regarding feedback and future emissions included, it could be from 1-6°C

(Houghton, 2009). It is supposed to be enormously large in comparison to the observed

temperature variation in the past. Reduced cold days and nights in the last 50 years, and

intense European summer witnessed in Europe 2003 claiming hundreds of lives are cited as

58

evidence to rising temperature (Metz, 2010; Henson, 2008). Temperature rise would not be

uniform with variation in warming intensity different to region, area, timing and season

(Dessler & Parson, 2006). The expected extreme warming in Arctic and sub-arctic region

resulting in effects like thawing of permafrost, sea ice thinning, unsettling marine life and

eroding coastlines are witnessed with alarming influence on the region. However, rising

temperature with enhanced growing season will make regions like Siberia, Scandinavia or

Northern Canada very favorable for cultivation of multiple crops (Houghton, 2009).

2.12.2 Glacial Melting

Climate scientists around the world have highlighted implications of climate change. These

effects are broadly divided in respect to atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. Silver

(2008) elaborates several evident signs of global warming, specifically glacial melting all

around the world. The most significant impact of rising temperature is the loss of world

glaciers. Measuring impact on glacier is a consistent scientific evaluation of “accumulation”

(ice mass gaining) and “ablation” (ice mass losing): the latter is observed since the little ice

age (around 1850); however, glaciers are receding with remarkable speed since last few

decades (Morgen, 2003). Scientists believe that the enormous loss of sea ice is inexplicable

without taking into account the human propelled greenhouse gas emissions (Desonie, 2008).

Archer (2007) categorized frozen water on planet into its various types: sea ice, glaciers, ice

sheet, and ice shelves. Sea ice is frozen water at the sea surface, glaciers are solidified snow

at mountaintops, ice sheet larger than glaciers are available in the form of Arctic and

Greenland, while ice shelves are the receded ice sheet into the water termed by

Desonie(2008) as “thick floating platform of ice” are, however, still attached to it source.

This demarcated division makes it easier to understand ice melting all around the globe.

Global warming and corresponding altered cryosphere (all frozen water) followed by

hydrosphere variations are worldwide observed phenomena (Desonie, 2008; Silver, 2008;

Wallace & Hobbs, 2006). Every year there is enhanced fresh melt water into world oceans

resulting in 0.8 mm rise in sea level, receding snow cover by 2 % in the Northern

Hemisphere, and ice covers on world’s lakes and rivers are reduced by 12 days duration in

winter months. Ice covers on world’s 160,000 glaciers are reducing not only in size but in

their thickness (Boyd, 2002). Moreover, permafrost, a high latitude land surface, defined as

59

“soil that it frozen year around” (Archer, 2007) is found 7 % less than it was in 1900(Silver,

2008). The enormous change of the ice and snow into liquid water culminating in gradual

permanent loss of ice covering, 10% of the land and 7% of the oceans, is the most potent

undeniable sign of global warming. Glacier melting in the North, both US and Canada, is

evident as believed that Glacier National Park in US could extinct as glacier in future (May

& Caron, 2009; Archer, 2007). Northern hemisphere is having short winter every year and

thus less accumulation and more ablation in warm seasons.

Account of glacial melt across the world at an unexpected rate is alarming. Projected model

elaborates that an approximate 4°C (6°F) rise in temperature would “eliminate” all worlds’

glaciers (Morgen, 2003; Weart, 2003). The IPCC (2001) reported figure as produced in

Archer (2007) largely indicate ice receding of 20 glaciers at a rapid pace; however, recent

graphic details of global glacial melt mentioned in World view of global warming(2005), and

The world’s melting glaciers (2009) speak for the disaster itself. The massive glacial erosion

has resulted in losing an average 6 meter in height since 20 years (Black, 2007).

Figure 12 Average glacial melt, a loss of 6 meter in height in last 20 years

(Source: BBC news, 2007)

Ice accumulation and ablation presents a mixed picture; however, continued loss of ice cover

is unprecedented (Melting glaciers signal global warming, 2001). There are irrefutable

evidences of ice loss in alpine and continental glaciers also termed “ice caps” (Desonie,

60

2008); however, glaciers in some mid-to-high latitude have witnessed snow accumulation

(Pittock, 2009). The mixed impact of global warming could be seen in case of Antarctica

(Johansen, 2008). This much larger ice chunk is assumed to possibly contributing 80m rise to

sea level in case of its complete melting, submerging all the world’s major cities (Black,

2007). However, Antarctic reaction to global warming is termed a complex phenomenon by

David Vaughan (Pittock, 2009; Black, 2007). Black (2007) dividing Antarctic shelf into three

portions: peninsula, western belt and eastern part states that the former two is losing while

the eastern mass is gaining in mass. Peninsula is the highly affected part (Johansen, 2008).

Carrington (2010) presenting the catastrophic details of the melting ice terms Earth as a

victim waving a “white flag” against the onslaught of human propelled atmospheric

warming. In elaborating the vital sign of global warming, he mentions that baring of

Kilimanjaro and Pyrenees, swelling lakes in Himalaya, shrinkage of the Greenland and

arctic, (15%) of the former, would have tremendous impacts on environment and human life.

2.12.3 Effects of Temperature Changes in Sea Surface

Oceans with their enormous capacity of heat absorption are assumed to have absorbed 20

times more heat than atmosphere since 1960 that resulted in rising sea surface temperature

(Silver, 2008). Climate changes like rising sea surface temperature and enhanced CO2

concentration would further compound complexity of ocean and atmosphere relationship. As

mentioned, uneven heat distribution is balanced mostly through air and oceanic currents.

Climate changes could disrupt ocean’s CO2 absorption as well as heat distribution capability

transforming it into a source rather than a sink of CO2. (Black, 2007; Herring,n.d). Rising

surface temperature would reduce ocean capacity of CO2 absorption contributing to its

concentration in the atmosphere (Silver, 2008; Rafferty, 2011). Moreover, oceanic acidity

rising with increased CO2 undermines oceanic life, the biological pump, which absorbs and

maintain different level of CO2 in the upper and lower surface (Rafferty, 2011; Herring,n.d.).

Most significantly, freshwater, an outcome of glacial melting, would decline oceanic salinity

that drives thermohaline circulation, a heat distribution engine and solubility pump (Herring,

n.d; Rafferty, 2011; Silver, 2008; Houghton, 2009). Disruption of thermohaline circulation

could result in cooling Northern hemisphere (Riebeek, 2006), bring the high concentration of

61

carbon from ocean’s depth to its surface affecting its overall circulation (Herring,n.d); and

thus ultimately transform oceans from sink to source of CO2.

Figure 13 Thermohaline Circulation

Source: Oceans. (2011).

2.12.4 Sea Level Rise

The most certain and alarming results of rising temperature is rising sea level (Dessler, 2012;

Silver, 2008). Silver and Dessler attribute rising sea level to two major factors. The liquid

volume is increasing due to enhanced fresh melt water, accounting for half of the rise in sea

level. The rest of sea level rise is attributed to thermal expansion. Oceans since 1961 have

absorbed almost 80% of the extra heat, raising its average temperature till 3,000m down from

its surface (Tomecek, 2012). Temperature increase results in expansion of liquid water,

increasing its volume. Melting of sea ice and land ice are not similar in their impact (Metz,

2010). Sea ice melting could act as a positive feedback and disrupt natural ecosystem

(Dessler, 2012). Primarily, melting of land ice contributes to rising sea level. Since 1993, sea

62

level rise has substantially increased to 3mm per year because of melting land ice and

expansion of warming water (Metz, 2010). However, Tomecek (2012) mentions the rise

since the same period till 2003 to be 3.1mm per year.

Rising sea level and their devastating impacts are pictured in detail by Pilkey and Young

(2009). Sea level rise is projected 0.20m with continued emissions; however, land ice melting

in Greenland and West Antarctic as a result of 3°C rise in temperature could result in 4-6m

rise with devastating implication for life and infrastructure (Silver, 2008). Metz (2010) raises

this mentioned figure by a degree considering it to be 7m.

2.12.5 Water Scarcity: Limited Freshwater Supply

Global water cycle moving within the three reservoirs atmosphere, ocean and land surface is

crucial to human life and civilization (Houghton, 2009). Highlighting freshwater

significance, Metz (2010) states it to be the life line of our current civilization in light of 20%

of world population dependent on glaciers fed rivers. Water use significantly increased,

almost three fold, since last 50 years because of burgeoning population, extensive agriculture

production, rising foods demands, and luxury driven economy (Houghton, 2009). IPPC

declares that climate changes would significantly undermine freshwater availability in some

tropical regions by 10-40% and drifting it away from desperately water scarce areas like

equator (Silver, 2008). However, disparity exists among states regarding the use and

availability of freshwater resources with 1.5 to 2 billion people living in water stressed

countries. Rapid climate changes would intensify hydrological cycle with more floods and

droughts, constrain life of 20% of world population near the river basins in case of flooding,

and decline ground water regeneration and increase its salinity because of sea level rise

(Metz, 2010; Houghton, 2009). Climate changes would not only affect availability but also

quality of freshwater due to intrusion of salinity because of rising sea level (Metz, 2012). By

undermining freshwater availability, climate change would adversely affects life of about 2-3

billion people by 2080 (Metz, 2010). Freshwater sources are mostly shared among different

states and its limitations could spark violent conflicts among them. Former UN Secretary

General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s predicts water to be the reason for another Middle East war

63

(Houghton, 2009)—the statement signifies pivotal position of water resources in shaping

global political dynamics of war and peace.

2.12.6 Disrupted Hydrological Cycle, Intense and Unexpected Weather Pattern

Global warming is believed to upset hydrological cycle leading to droughts and floods in

different regions (Silver, 2008; Dessler & Parson, 2006; Tomecek, 2012). Unexpected

weather patterns are another notable distressing aspect of rising global temperature.

Destructive hurricanes, intense, longer and violent storms, rampant floods, droughts and heat

waves have increased since 1970s (Silver, 2008; Desonie, 2006; Dessler & Parson, 2012;

Metz, 2010; Tomecek, 2012). Projected intense downpour would be more a runoff leaving

less for earth’s absorption and human storage. Paradoxically, high temperature would

enhance “rain producing moisture” on one end and critically drain water resources of the arid

areas on the other (Henson, 2008). Changed precipitation patterns would make dry areas

further dry and wet areas more wet (Metz, 2010). Extreme wetness would culminate in floods

and landslides, while enhanced dryness because of warming induced evaporation could

disrupt water availability and agricultural productivity. Since 1950s an imminent “drying

trend” has been observed in different areas of Africa, Southern Europe, Southern Asia,

Canada and Alaska (Silver, 2008). The drying spree engulfing areas like Amazonian forests

is leading to huge losses in trees, turning forests from sinks to sources of atmospheric carbon

(Tomecek, 2012). Diaz and Murnane (2008) also subscribe to the idea that rising heat waves

and precipitation are the most notable impacts of human induced climate change. However,

uncertainty exists regarding areas that are more prone to these impacts (Dessler & Parson,

2006; Silver, 2008).

The adverse erratic extreme weather patterns are validated by intense heat waves in Europe

in 2003, Washington’s snowstorms, New York’s tornadoes, Hurricane Katrina, and most

significantly by 2010 floods of Pakistan (Tomecek, 2012). The devastating Pakistan’s floods

overtaking an area of 62,000 sq. miles (160,580 sq. Km), almost the size of England, resulted

in loss of 1600 lives and billions of dollars in infrastructure. Scientists consider all these as

signs of continued disruption in the lower atmosphere. However, despite growing

64

understanding regarding extreme unexpected events, Kolbert (2008) cautiously states that

attribution of such events is a difficult task to accomplish.

2.12.7 Biospheric Meltdown

Climate change is creating new environmental conditions which are endangering the survival

of certain species resulting in loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity stands between 10-30 million

of various species—excluding their own peculiar variations within the species—with a

specific climate dependent place and time of origin (Naeem, 2008). This inseparably links

biodiversity and climate.

Metz (2010) and Houghton (2009) elaborate significance of ecosystem, its integrated

character and extended services. It provides multiple economic functions, regulates

hydrological and carbon cycle, and has a cultural importance. These are termed ecosystem

services (Houghton, 2009). Climate induced negative changes would undermine multiple

advantages of ecosystem: limit its potential as a source of recreation, inspiration, provision of

different natural resources, and most importantly as a regulator of atmosphere—oxygen

production and carbon sequestration (Naeem, 2008). Human induced atmospheric rise of CO2

concentration and temperature and extensive transformation of “natural system into managed

system” like conversion of forests in plantation has imbalanced ecosystem, exacerbating

climate changes (Naeem, 2008).

Extreme climate are sometimes considered productive for the development of ecosystem

(Diaz & Murnane, 2008). However, rapid climate transformations would change such

suitable environment termed “niche” by Houghton (2009). Looming survival threats are

witnessed to species like receding alpine system in United States, bleaching coral reef, loss of

golden toad, displacement of African plain tiger, and mangroves system (Dessler & Parson,

2012; Houghton,2009; Silver,2008; Desonie,2008). Climate change imperils biodiversity by

altering living habitat and interrelationship of living organisms forcing their displacement,

endangering their adaptation or leading to their extinction: a process termed by Naeem

(2008) as “biospheric meltdown”, with 50% of world’s species lost till 2050. Every living

species contributes to sustenance of ecosystem and its absence would vitiate its promising

65

potential benefits resulting in unpredictable changes. The loss of some species could threaten

the rest because of a holistic character of the ecosystem (Metz, 2010).

2.12.8 Human Diseases

Intensity of weather patterns, severe heat waves, droughts and floods, are having adverse

implications for human life, generating various waterborne diseases (Silver, 2008). Climate

change would enhance widespread presence of standing water breeding mosquitoes. The

changing weather patterns would drive their movements across continents spreading

infectious disease like dengue fever and malaria, possibly spreading them to areas still

immune to them (Metz, 2010). Climate change fosters various ailments primarily respiratory,

cardiac, and nutritional that according to World Health Organization (WHO) could result in

estimated human life losses of 150,000 per annum (Naeem, 2008). These impacts are

understood not uniform, for economically deprived communities will suffer much because of

their inadequate resources (Naeem, 2008, Metz, 2010). Dessler (2012) and Houghton (2009)

point out certain positive effects like reduced number of deaths due to decreased intensity of

cold and disappearance of malaria. However, negative climate change impacts outweigh

positive ones of the phenomenon. Controlling such complex diseases requires effective

preventive measures supported by a unanimous international will.

2.12.9 Socio-Economic and Political Implications

Climate changes like rising sea level and melting permafrost would result in huge losses in

infrastructure, life, and population displacement (Tomecek, 2012). Rising sea level is a

serious threat to the built environment and infrastructure around the coastal areas (Dessler &

Parson, 2012; Houghton, 2009). Silver(2008) drawing a dismal picture states that sea level

rise of 5m would endanger human life causing serious flooding in many of the world’s

coastal regions including major cities like New York, London, Sydney, Vancouver, Mumbai,

and Tokyo. Similarly, melting permafrost would endanger existing infrastructure resulting in

massive economic losses (Dessler & Parson, 2006). Vulnerability to sea level rise is not

uniform. Low lying states and islands like Bangladesh, Netherlands, Maldives and coastal

regions in different countries would significantly suffer (Silver, 2008). Houghton (2009)

considers half of a meter rise in sea level detrimental after mentioning the projected sea level

66

rise of 1m till 2030. Coastal regions are populous, extremely fertile, and work as economic

nuclei. Intense storms attributed to sea level rise would further aggravate situation

(Houghton, 2009). Continued rise in sea level is acknowledged and projected despite desired

stable emissions because of extended time lag required for ocean adjustment to temperature

rise (Dessler & Parson, 2012).

Houghton (2009) considers 3% of global GDP, as mentioned in the Stern review, insufficient

to effectively counter impending threats of climate change. In consideration of adverse

impacts of extreme events, the mentioned cost could amount to 1-4% for developed and 5-

10% for developing states. Moreover, evaluating human life losses, massive population

displacement and entail socio-political disruption in governance in terms of financial

equivalents seems injudicious and not possible.

Cultivation and production of crops depend upon expected weather patterns like variations of

temperature and precipitation. Climate variations determine water availability, carbon

concentration, temperature changes, and extreme weather events that subsequently influence

agriculture yields (Houghton, 2009). Metz (2010) particularly cautions against adverse

impact of temperature on agriculture. Climate changes would impacts food availability if

global temperature increases to 3°C. Production for crops like wheat and maize would

flourish subjected to water availability and less than 3°C temperature in temperate zone.

However, temperature rise of 1-2°C would adversely affect agriculture yields in tropical and

sub-tropical regions leading to food scarcity. Houghton (2009) highlights different climate

change impacts on developing and developed states with agricultural production decreases in

the case of former while increases in case of the latter. The declined production could entail

disruptive socio-economic repercussions like unemployment as agriculture is the major

source of income and subsistence in large number of developing states. The adverse effects

would not be limited to agricultural yields, but also projected in poultry, cattle industry and

fishery because of reduced grazing land or grazing and changed pattern of oceanic circulation

respectively (Metz, 2010). Climate change is, therefore, assumed to compromise availability

and production of food; however, such negative impacts are not uniformly shared across the

globe.

67

Limited freshwater resources, intense heat and unexpected weather could undermine

agriculture yields, result in food scarcity and forced environmental refugees. Such life

constraints are especially detrimental to developing states, creating or further exacerbating

crises of authority (Viotti & Kauppi, 2007) in presence of their inadequate infrastructure and

financial resources. African agriculture yields would reduce by half till 2020 (Silver, 2008).

Almost similar adverse implications are heralded for most of the Asian region. Losing our

primal agricultural areas could result in serious global food crises. Climate extremes like

recent 2010 flooding in Pakistan displaced almost 20 million people (Tomecek, 2012).

Environmental refugees and resource scarcity subjected to multiple contextual matters would

aggravate existing problems and conflicts especially in developing states (Viotti & Kauppi,

2007). Moreover, limited freshwater supplies could become a major source of conflict among

states where it is a primary source of irrigation and development. In sum, climate could ignite

or intensify intra as well interstate conflicts as a major reason for socio-economic and

political instability, compromising state security. This link between climate change and

national security is explored in Chapter.6 the context of Pakistan.

2.13 SENSITIVITY, VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY

Assessment of climate changes involves multiple disciplines like social science, physical and

biological sciences and application of diverse methods and tools. Therefore, Houghton

(2009) advocates an ‘integrated assessment’ process for the thoroughly evaluation of climate

sensitivity, adaptive capacity and vulnerability of a region. Climate sensitivity is the positive

or negative impact of climate changes on a system, adaptive capacity determines the system’s

ability to adjust to climate variations, and vulnerability relates to the protective potential of a

system against climate variations and extremes. All these successively depend on the ‘rate

and magnitude’ of climate changes (Houghton, 2009). Dessler and Parson (2012) conclude

their debate on impacts of climate change with an understanding that negative repercussion

would significantly depend on state’s technical and financial capacity to adapt to new

challenges. Adaptive capability distinguishes between sensitivity and vulnerability (Metz,

2010). This amounts to different outcomes for the rich and poor countries despite their facing

not entirely diverse threats. Bangladesh and Netherlands face climate challenges of the same

nature (Peterson, 2008). However, techno-financial superiority of Netherlands with 400

68

dukes and sand dunes is thwarting climate threat (Houghton, 2009). The estimated costs

against the expected 1m rise in sea level of the 21st century are 12,000 million US dollars in

Netherlands. For a developing state like Bangladesh such huge adaptation cost could become

a drain on its resources. Climate change impacts would significantly undermine human life

by affecting ecosystems that are substantially dependent on man’s decision like agriculture,

forests and fisheries. However, adverse effects could be reduced through adequate adaptation

policies. Impact assessment is subjected to particular “behavior of climate-sensitive system”,

the local conditions and response of the people to the problem (Dessler & Parson, 2006). A

system capable of adapting itself to new climate changes is not vulnerable despite its

sensitivity to these changes. Vulnerability in other words relates to weakness of an

ecosystem.

2.14 UNCERTAINTY, SKEPTICS AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Enhanced Greenhouse effect because of increased concentration of atmospheric carbon

resulting in earth warming is well understood. However, determining exact timing,

magnitude and impact of warming is still quite complex because of reliance on multiple

factors, some of which still unclear like feedback process and regional variations (Houghton,

2009).Silver (2008) points out IPCC cautious expression of attributing current global climate

change to human induced factors because of the involved climate variations and multiple

factors with words like “likely” to “very likely”, “extremely likely virtually certain and high

confidence”. IPCC attributes uncertainty to ‘incomplete understanding’ of carbon sources

and sinks, impacts of clouds, ocean and its interaction with other reservoirs and polar ice-

sheets contribution to sea level (Houghton, 2009). Highlighting complexity of atmospheric

science and future prediction, Dessler and Parson (2006), Houghton (2009) and Dessler

(2012) signify the uncertain role of aerosols. Black carbon aerosols termed soot contribute to

warming as it absorbs incoming as well as outgoing radiation; however, liquid sulfate

aerosols result in cooling because of its reflective capacity. The inadequate information

regarding their respective concentration and impact make aerosols ‘the largest source of

uncertainty’ about climate projection. However, Metz (2010) considers that if policies to

curtail pollution continue, the resulting decreased ratio of aerosols might reduce cooling

phenomenon and contribute to enhance warming. Other than uncertainty related to aerosols,

69

the role of ocean and its interaction with atmosphere is still not clearly understood

(Houghton, 2009).

Science of global climate change requires continued exhaustive evaluation. Scientists have

highlighted their limitations regarding proper understanding of the solar output (Silver, 2008;

Pittock, 2009), relationship between aerosols and cloud properties (Bolin, 2007; Casper,

2009; Rafferty, 2011), and recent methane reduction (Silver, 2008). They voice their

concern about finding exact quantity of stratospheric water vapor (Archer, 2007), insufficient

proper global paleo-climatic records (Pittock, 2009), partial understanding of ENSO and

impacts of climatic variations on oceanic currents (Silver, 2008). In addition, there are

several other factors which hinder climatologists’ ability to properly comprehend climate

science and achieve precision regarding climate projections (Pittock, 2009). For instance,

West and Nicola (2010) voicing climate denialists, highlight inherent flawed characteristics

of climate models and climate complexity to be exactly conditioned to laboratory

experiments. Similarly, their study gives a new understanding of the equilibrium between

sun’s energy and Earth, conclusively different from the IPCC understanding of the climate

change. Dependence of Earth climate system on multiple variables makes prediction about its

outcomes difficult. Climate feedbacks with all its complexity could either speed up or slow

down the initial changes. Proper assessment of climate change demands multiple evaluation

models.

However, these uncertainties are used as excuse for inaction by ‘handful’ of climate sceptics

with few of them involved in climate research (Henson, 2008). Sceptics’ denial like the case

of Bjorn Lomborg’s assessment is attributed to overlooking the balanced evidence (Henson,

2008), their tendency for seeking public approval (Pittock, 2009) and vested interests mostly

with oil and energy corporations and active support in US (Hickman, 2012; Henson, 2008).

Absolute certainty is not possible, even not desirable for action (Pittock, 2009); however,

scepticism drives the need and pursuit for further concrete evidence. This consistent and

continued urge for more certainty and reliability has resulted in more valuable supporting

data and changed mindset of climate sceptics like Prof. Richard Muller (Hickman, 2012).

70

Despite this uncertainty, Houghton (2009) highlights that a consensus evolved among

scientists on IPCC forum for establishing International Framework Convention on Climate

Change (FCCC) in 1992 signed by representatives of 160 countries including US. IPCC’s

efforts were acknowledged and rewarded with a noble peace award in 2007 and Global

Climate Observatory system (GCOS) was established for better comprehension of climate

complexities. This consensus is attributed to the fact that “enough is already known” for

action (Houghton, 2009), the huge risk involved in case of inaction (Pittock, 2009), an

understanding that continued addition of greenhouse gases with their longer staying duration

would further compound the problem, and most importantly, measures taken to reduce

climate impacts are socially and economically productive (Houghton, 2009). The underlying

essence of action is based on precautionary principal (Houghton, 2009; Pittock, 2009) that

questions the injudicious policy of ‘wait and see’ in light of available evidence and

impending threats.

2.15 SCIENCE CORE CLIMATE POLICY: BALANCING MEASURES AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Climate with all its complexity is experiencing further perturbations owing to

environmentally disruptive unsustainable human activities. The zero-sum policy in which

economic development is procured at the expense of environmental degradation is declared

detrimental at Rio Earth Summit1992 for existing as well as future generations (Baker,

2006). Therefore, a balance needs to be secured between development and environmental

conservation, an approach broadly termed as sustainable development (Baker, 2006;

Houghton, 2009). Both Baker and Houghton signify sustainable development as a wider

concept enveloping social, economic and ecological aspects with emphasis on social and

economic justice, fair allocation and distribution of resources, and judicious use of

environmental resources. The objective is to materialize sustainable communities based on

social justice and equity (Houghton, 2009).

In order to actualize balance in our climate system, climate policy debates is centered on

adaptation, mitigation and understandably unfavorable geo-engineering (Dessler & Parson,

2006; Dessler, 2012, Houghton, 2009; Desonie, 2008). The impact of negative forcing and

71

feedback resulting in cooling of the planet, a phenomenon termed as global dimming

(Casper, 2009; Desonie, 2006) initiated a new thinking for climate change control. This

cooling of planet is attributed to increased polluted particles in the atmosphere with their

capability to reduce sunlight flow to Earth. David Travis as mentioned in Desonie (2006)

observed that reduced contrails (Airplane emissions) in the wake of tragic 9/11 resulted in

1.8°F (1°C) rise in atmospheric temperature across United States. This experiment amplifies

that reduced pollution increases temperature while increase in it cools the planet. Similarly,

aerosols with 40% of negative forcing limit positive forcing (Dessler, 2012). Cooling impact

of negative forcing resulted in a renewed thinking of controlling climate changes through

geo-engineering, which means vital interference in climate system to neutralize hazardous

relationship of emissions and climate changes (Dessler & Parson, 2006). Houghton (2009)

lists various measures like iron fertilization of the ocean, installation of mirrors in space to

enhance reflectivity; increasing aerosols in atmosphere to enhance cooling, and changing

cloud concentration are all part of geo-engineering. The objective is to increase negative

forcing; however, there is serious apprehension of their being counterproductive, further

aggravating favorability of the global climate (Dessler, 2012).

Adaptation involves measures to enhance capability of an ecosystem against climate

vulnerability. As mentioned, impacts of climate change are not uniform and specifically

detrimental to developing states with their least contribution to the problem. Protection

against climate change implications demand enormous adaptation capacity, specifically for

developing states because of their meager financial and technical capabilities (Schmidt,

2008) without compromising their economic development. Mitigation requires reducing

emissions of greenhouse gases attributed to human activities and modern civilization with its

high consumption (Dessler & Parson, 2006). The longer staying nature of the greenhouse

gases and continued warming due to past emissions require mitigation rather stabilization of

greenhouse gases to stop ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’ with climate (Schmidt,

2008). Silver (2008) elucidates different contributing sources of greenhouse gases to the

atmosphere: energy supply constitutes 26%, industry adds up 19.5%, mans’ interference in

forestry and agriculture 17.4%, and 13.5% respectively, transport 13.1%, heating or cooling

buildings 7.9%, and landfills 2.8% respectively. The two primary sources of greenhouse

gases emissions are extensive coal burning for the production of electricity and modern

72

petroleum powered transportation. Together they constitute 80 percent of global heat

trapping emissions (Siler, 2008). Effective mitigation policies primarily require fixing our

technology by upgrading our energy production and transportation process, resorting to

renewable energy sources, and hindering emissions through carbon capture and storage

(Zemen, 2008). Zemen considers energy efficiency as an effective mitigation measure

without compromising on economic growth.

As mention, science provides framework for the climate policy. Climate science might have

been resourceful, despite considerable uncertainties, in chalking out prospective policies.

However, policies like adaptation involve financial assistance to developing states that are

least responsible for the problem; while, mitigation measures would disrupt the usual course

of business in the world. Therefore, policy debate is highly clouded in politics among states

and various non-state actors to devise their respective preferred solution to the problem. In

the preceding chapters, the political and economic dimensions of climate change regime

formation making will be evaluated in light of the international regime theory. Climate

change portends disastrous consequences and upsetting challenges. It equally highlights an

urgent need to transform our live styles and balance economic growth and environmental

sustainability and enhanced resilience of the vulnerable communities: In a word, sustainable

development, a clean development is the only option for survival.

73

CHAPTER 3

INTERNATIONAL REGIME: THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF

COOPERATION AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSE

This chapter explores the idea of cooperation among independent sovereign states regarding

a complex issue like climate change in an anarchic international system—lacking a formal

centralized authority. Actualizing cooperation on a complex global issue among sovereign

states that by law stand equal but by fact are widely disparate in terms of power and wealth is

a hard nut to crack. The concept of international regime with its broad conception lays

foundation of collective response, evaluated in light of three variables: power, interest and

knowledge. This concept has broad parameters encompassing almost every layer of an agreed

interactive process among international actors. Understanding various aspects of the

formation and continued existence of international regime would help comprehend the

evolution of international climate change regime and undercurrents of its contentious politics

and contested principles.

The notion of international regime introduced by John Gerard Ruggie in mid-1970s (Hwee,

2003) evolved as a form of international organizations to address widening gulf between

formal organizations and international politics in the 1970's: Vietnam War and the US

unilateral withdrawal from the world established monetary standards are cited as major

reasons for this estrangement (Simmons & Martin, 2000). Ruggie (1998) further adds factors

like decline of US post-war hegemony, Soviet Union’s possession of nuclear weapons—

much earlier to expectation of the US (Nye & Welch, 2014)—, economic resurgence of

Europe and Japan; and OPEC’s influence on world economy termed “economic

dislocations”. Ruggie signifies a theoretical shift in the role of international institution in

global governance by the 1960s. “The key assumption of the formal institutionalist

approach”, he states, “that international governance is whatever international organizations

do have been abandoned”. This understanding extended role of international institutions as

growing complexity of international problems required further evolved and comprehensive

structures for international governance. Ruggie (1998) attributes focused attention on

74

regimes to this “intellectual odyssey” and above mentioned international events, understood

“to express both the parameters and perimeters of international governance”.

Regime, as a required political necessity, combines technical aspects with rules and norms

and extends theoretical frame of international governance (Hasenclever et al, .2000). Ruggie

(1975) understands it as one of the “collective responses”, a form of institutionalization, to

collective situations, apart from epistemic communities and international organizations.

Focused on specific issue, convergence of expected behaviors materialized a regime in

presence of rules or even shared understanding among actors. In the same vein, Greene

(1998) highlights international regimes as an “international framework” that facilitates

interaction among domestic and international actors and processes, including power, interest

and knowledge regarding specific issue area. Regimes, significantly environmental ones, are

understood as vehicle for norm creation by establishing foremost a “commonly accepted

scientific basis” and “joint appraisal and interpretation of scientific findings” (Schiele, 2014).

Schiele maintains that scientific consensus could shape state’s interest directing it towards

long term goals; however, this scientific process of evolving consensus knowledge requires

being without any political interference for its objectivity. He further mentions importance of

regime as it helps gathering related people in the decision making process, broadening their

spectrum and making them realize benefits of continued cooperation. In addition, weaker

states find regime a forum to pool their efforts and sources for shared interests (Schiele,

2014). The consensus knowledge evolved through regime further establish foundation of

shared accepted norms or “normative expectations” leading to comprehensive obligations

provided regime successfully keep reducing the cost of transaction among states. Effective

presence of regime creates norm and facilitate implementation of existing rules through their

refinement and reinterpretation.

International organizations have evolved in various forms in exponential number.

Characterized with “agency, agenda setting” and “socializing influences”, international

organizations are attributed with initiative, allocative and distributive capacity and evolution

of common identities and concepts. Simmons and Martin (2002) considers emergence of

regime an attempt to bridge the gulf between the formal organization and international

politics. The concept of agency, an ability to “exert influence or affect the outcome of any

75

given process or event in some way”, is much significant in theoretical debates and

assessment of actors in international relations (Steans, Pettiford, Diez, and El-Anis, 2010).

These writers distinguish the idea of agency from structure that signifies “the context in

which things happen”—factors that constrain human actions.

Regime is an effort to secure cooperation among wide range of actors with diverse preferred

outcomes and different driving forces: power, interest and knowledge. Ruggie (1975) defines

international regime as “sets of mutual expectations, generally agreed-to rules, regulations

and plans, in accordance with which organizational energies and financial commitments are

allocated” (Dombroski, 2007; Schiele, 2014). This rudimentary definition was further refined

with specific emphasis upon particular aspects. Regimes, however, are criticized for lacking

specific definitions, but possess significance for bridging the widening bridge of formal

international organization and growing complexity of global problems and international

relations. Regime termed “institution”, “policy coordination” or “governance system” is

charged imprecise and impractical for its “woolliness” and inherent “ambiguities” (Strange,

1982; Young, 1986). Apart from “imprecision”, Strange (1982) terms regime a value loaded

concept, much state centric, and more a fashion that is given “exaggerated attention”.

The consensus definition of the regime is proposed by Stephen D. Krasner (1982) in the

following words:

“Implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making

procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given

area of international relations. Principles are beliefs of fact, causation,

and rectitude. Norms are standards of behavior defined in terms of

rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or

proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing

practices for making and implementing collective choice.”

This definition clarifies two things: an international regime is a special case of international

institutions and different to international organizations. International organizations are

comprehended in three different capacities: instruments, arena and actors (Rittberger, Zangl

& Kruck, 2012). As instruments they are understood tools that states use to promote their

76

interests, significantly by the most powerful ones; as arena, they provide forum where

national policies are coordinated and contested to actualize an internationally consensus

policy; whereas, as actors they are considered vitally independent entities enjoying delegated

sovereignty from the states. Distinguishing international regimes from international

organizations requires a clear definition of both. Schiele (2014) significantly differentiate

these two in terms of their legal standing. Lacking a legal personality, regimes are different to

international organization for the latter are attributed with physical existence: offices,

acquisition of property, maintaining its staff and budget.

International organizations possess “concrete entities with physical presence” providing an

institutional machinery across boarders for materializing cooperation in related fields like

economics and security (Stein, 2008). Regimes, on the other hand, substantially broaden this

understanding of international organizations by including principles, norms, rules and

decision making procedures that facilitate cooperation among actors regarding a stated issue

area. Dombroski (2007) adds further that focused attention on a specific issue helps

excluding the unrelated aspects. This extended understanding incorporates subjective frames

of international organizations, comprehensively termed international arrangements, and

establishes regime theorists in the larger paradigm of realism after their accepting

fundamental realist assumptions regarding international system and state’s orientation

towards it ( Dombroski, 2007; Stein, 2008). Stein (2008) attributes replacing concept of

regime by institutions to institutionalists’ intellectual compatibility with the term and

growing significance of institutions in different disciplines. The marked difference between

the neoliberal institutionalist and realists is the emphatic stance of the former on cooperation

and institutions despite incorporating and using realist main premise and methodology—an

intellectual union termed rationalism (Stein, 2008).

International regimes and international organization are both “international social institutions

characterized by behavioural patterns based on international norms and rules, which

prescribe behavioural roles in recurring situations that lead to a convergence of reciprocal

situations” (Rittberger et al., 2012). Characteristically lacking capacity to act and having

focused attention on a single issue, regimes are different from organizations (Hasenclever et

77

al, 2000). The marked differences are tabled below based on the study of Rittberger et al.,

(2012).

Table 3 Characteristics of International Organization and International Regime

No Characteristic International organization International regime

1 Parameters It transcends specific issue-area.

Always relate to specific issue-area

2 Entity It can operate as actor like the UN

Not possessing actor like qualities

3 Comprehensiveness Many regimes with its rules, principles and norms could become part of an international organization.

It derives its defining characteristics like norms and principles from different international organizations.

4 Keohane’s Definitions “International social institutions that are collective or corporate actors and can cover several issue areas of international relations”.

International social institutions with “implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given issue area of international relations”.

International organization and international conventions encircle a wide range of issue areas

(Greene, 1996). Encompassing informal or politically agreed rules and procedures as well as

legally binding ones, regime is understood an international social institution originally

developed by ‘institutionalists’ in reaction to ‘neorealists’ claims that international

institutions matter least in world politics (Greene, 1996; Hasenclever et al., 2000).

The definition of regime has undergone various stages from the rudimentary definition

offered by Ruggie (1975), a consensus definition by Krasner (1982) and a “lean definition”

of Keohane with its further concretization of the concept. This debate is drawn to a

conclusion by Young when he contends that regime has the ability to evolve over time

(Schiele, 2014). Krasner’s classic definition is highlighted for being imprecise, but lauded for

78

its substantive comprehensiveness. Greene (1996) and Dombroski (2007) concur with the

critics that the concept of regime and consensus definition of it is contested. The constituent

elements like norms and rules are not rigidly framed; however, Greene equally contends that

social scientists avoiding contested concepts would not serve the purpose of discipline.

Therefore, Greene (1996) upholds the broad understanding of regime—“an international

social institution with agreed-upon principles, norms, procedures and programmes that

govern the activities and shape the expectations of actors in a specific issue area”—an

acceptable basis for assessing regimes.

Institution as a concept if understood in its extended definition as “rules of the game”, with

rule underlying all recurrent behaviour, encompasses the entire study of international

relations (Stein, 2008). Even anarchy of the international system, lacking central authority, is

not without rules and therefore constitutes an institution. Similarly, Stein highlights that

terming rules as “humanly devised constraints” does not specify much, for every social

reality is humanly devised and every chosen outcome among different alternatives results

through a process of constraints. This absence of well-defined conceptual parameters of

institution makes Stein (2008) contends that “scholars have fallen into using the term…so

disparately…that it ranges from an umbrella for all international relations to little more than a

synonym for international organizations”.

Robert Keohane further clarifies Krasner’s consensus definition terming regimes as

“institutions with explicit rules agreed by governments” regarding specific issues in

international relations to regularize behavior and control outcomes (Hasenclever et al., 2000;

Dombroski, 2007). Principles, norms, rules and procedures are represented in a single

concept of rules. However, Keohane concretization of the consensus definition is found

lacking the essential comprehensiveness (Hasenclever et al., 2000; Dombroski, 2007). For

instance, Krasner attributes changes in principles and norms as change of the regime, while

change in rules and procedures are termed changes within the regime. Apart from such

distinguishing aspects, Krasner (1982) also highlights reasons for weakness of the regimes,

“Change within a regime involves alterations of rules and decision-making procedures, but

not of norms or principles; change of a regime involves alteration of norms and principles;

and weakening of a regime involves incoherence among the components of the regime or

79

inconsistency between the regime and related behaviour”. Similarly, according to Krasner,

long term cooperation evolving itself into a structure is another distinction making regime

markedly different from the short term interest based agreement.

Fine distinctions are drawn to further clarify nature of regime relying on behavioral,

cognitive and formal approaches (Hasenclever et al., 2000). Behavioral approach sanctions

presence of regime to state observed compliance, not in absolute sense, to rules in a specific

issue area. Extended period of deviance, however, especially on part of the major powerful

state undermines efficacy of a regime injunctions. Cognitive approach, on the other hand,

considers intersubjective and shared understanding rather presence of “overt behaviour” in

the shape of states' compliance as essential elements of regime existence. Such variables are

understood difficult to assess objectively (Keohane, 1993 ); however, emphatically voiced

understanding of “convergent expectations” as fundamental constituent of regime reinforces

the intersubjective dimension (Kratochwil & Ruggie, 1986).Not limited by behavioralists’

required observed compliance and cognitivists' convergence of expectations, the formal

approach focuses on explicit agreed upon rules among governments for cooperation in a

specific area for the emergence of regime. Formal approach further addresses the inherent

ambiguities of the concept. Keohane understanding the missing link between written rules

and social institution, as critics point out, further adds a “thin substantive content” to his

definition:

“Agreements in purely formal terms (explicit rules agreed upon by more than one state) and

to consider regimes as arising when states recognize these agreements as having continuing

validity.... [A] set of rules need not be "effective" to qualify as a regime, but it must be

recognized as continuing to exist. Using this definition, regimes can be identified by the

existence of explicit rules that are referred to in an affirmative manner by governments, even

if they are not necessarily scrupulously observed.”

The “continued validity” of the agreed explicit rules, with states identifying themselves with

them, transforms those accepted rules among states into regime, in other words, institution.

The current working definition of the regime is evolving to overcome ambiguities of the

concept. Professor Volker Rittberger argues, as cited by Honghua (n.d.), that theories of

80

international regime emphasizes three explanatory variables categorized as power, interest

and knowledge, respectively conforming to the three schools of international relations:

realism, neoliberalism and constructivism or cognitivism.

3.1 INTEREST-BASED THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL REGIMES

Modernization with its massive industrialization, extensive production capacity and refined

communication links not only unleashed a liberal intellectual revolution—believing in the

sanctity of human reason that seemingly subjected man’s fears and lust for power—but also

enhanced the need for cooperation. James Rosenau in his book, The study of global

interdependence (1980) coined a new phrase, transnationalism, to signify extended relations

across national boundaries among actors other than states like International Governmental

Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, Multinational Corporations, private

individuals and groups (Jackson & Sorensen, 2003). Rosenau contends that growing

transnationalism evolved a “new multi centric world composed of diverse ‘sovereign-free

collectivities’ [existing] in competition with the anarchic state-centric world of sovereignty

bound actors”. This competition, Rosenau predicts, could result in breakdown of the nation

state system, existing since last four centuries (Busch, 2007). Transnationalism, extended

multilayered links across national boundaries, promoting prospects of peace among states is

Karl Deutsch major premise (Moller, 2007; Griffiths, Roach, & Solomon, 2009).

Interest based understanding of the regime is mainstream approach of regime theory, an

outgrowth of neoliberalism more specified as institutionalism by its main proponent, Robert

Keohane (Archer, 2001). For facilitating actors’ common interests, neoliberal interest based

theory of regime advocates two approaches: contractualism and situation structuralism,

strategic situations in which actors work (Hasenclever et al. 1997). Contractualist or

functional theory of Keohane is also termed neoliberal institutionalism as it seeks

“institutionalization of a growing sector of international behaviour” (Hasenclever et al.

1997). Once the functional importance of international institutions is established by Keohane

(1984), the idea that institutions could shape states’ incentive for cooperation is further

developed by others (Hwee, 2003; Simmons & Martin, 2000). Adhered to the main premise

of Keohane’s functional theory of institutions that state are rational and egoists, the later

81

interest based regime theorists highlighted different conditions/situation for the success and

failure of cooperation among states ( Simmons & Martin, 2000; Hasenclever at al. 1997;

Rittberger et al. 2012).

After concurring with realists’ postulates regarding the anarchic international system and its

main unit state—driven by self-interest—neoliberals propound that cooperation among states

through international organization is completely rational (Rittberger et al. 2012). Drawing

such a promising conclusion of the anarchic system disregards realist pessimism about

inevitability of conflict among international actors. International politics, to institutionalists,

is distinguished by “ interest constellations (situational structures) in which states have a

common interest in reaping joint gains or avoiding joint losses by cooperating with each

other, while at the same time, each individual state has some incentive to refrain from

cooperation” (Rittberger et al. 2012). International institutions materialize cooperation by

transforming these incentives and facilitate international actors towards cooperation.

Neoliberal institutionalists contend that growing interdependence, vulnerabilities of the

international actors because of this dependent relationship and complexity of current

problems demand collective response that requires renouncing reliance on realists’ self-help

mechanism (Rittberger et al. 2012;

Liberals highlight multi-polarity of actors and primarily signify economic interdependence,

another outcome of modernization and extension of transnationalism. Growing expertise in

specialized knowledge, technological advancement, and enhanced transnational interactions

in presence of rising technical problems has conditioned cooperation among states, David

Mitrany contends, to functionalism—technical experts seeking effective solution for global

issues under the aegis of international institutions (Jackson & Sorensen, 2003; Viotti &

Kauppi, 2012). Successful resolution of these complex technical problems will earn

international institutions comprised of experts the trust and allegiance of a common man.

This could bring political integration of states that to Viotti and Kauppi (2012) would limit

states’ authority or their capacity to act independently, but enhance their capacity to deliver a

required service or a public good (Brown & Ainley, 2005). Mitrany advocates limiting

political sovereignty, the bundles of powers that a state possesses, rather than the legal and

juridical sovereignty of the state. An enhanced cooperation owing to reliance on technical

82

expertise for successful resolution of the complex technical problems will shift powers away

from states to these functional organization, and materialize absolute gains with maximum

benefits for all the parties involved (Brown & Ainley, 2005; Jackson & Sorensen, 2003). The

shifting of sovereignty from state to functional organizations would be prospectively

successful based on an underlying assumption that effective resolution of problems will have

them earn loyalty of world people irrespective of their territorial allegiance (Brown & Ainley,

2005).

In contrast, Ernst Haas (1924-2003) re-emphasized role of political elites in wake of the

Western European economic integration, highlighting that “integration between states could

come as a result of a politically driven process of spillover” (Brown & Ainley, 2005). He

argues that politics is integral to integration process (Jackson & Sorensen, 2003; Viotti &

Kauppi, 2012). Technical assistance and cooperation would not materialize if perceived

unproductive and not serving interests of the political elite. Integration, Haas contends,

requires positive sanctions of politically connected elites. His neo-functionalism

encompasses a supra-national body having jurisdiction on the existing state structure as

essential constituent that would upgrade service of their common and long-term interests

through cooperative and collaborative efforts (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). Cooperation realized

in one area would have spillover effects and promote cooperation in other areas. However,

Haas subjects regional integration to the overall pattern of interdependence that involves not

transferring state sovereignty to any regional organization (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012).

The idea of international regime emerged out of the Keohane and Nye’s (1977) theory of

Complex Interdependence (Brown & Ainley, 2005). They differentiate the postwar patterns

of interdependence involving multiple actors within the state and other than states on the

international stage. State with its non-unitary standing and presence of non-state transnational

actors form coalition based on their preferred interests, their interests converging on issues of

low politics likes economic and environment making them at par with the issues of war and

security—issues of high politics. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1975) work, cited as a

“transition essay” between the integration and interdependence literature, reoriented

liberalism core frame by ceding to certain realist’s postulates (Ruggie, 1975). The paradigm

of complex interdependence in its ideal form is based on an underlying assumption that

83

international system despite anarchic is having a secured existence for its constituent actors

(Gehring, 1994). This understanding transforms position of state from the ‘status maximizer’

concerned for relative gains to ‘utility maximizer’ accepting cooperation and constraints to

further welfare. A related assumption, Gehring mentions, is the dismantling of the stable

hierarchical order of issues that prioritized security concern. In a secured environment with

each issue equally significant to security matters, raw power is not fungible, making use of

military force dangerous and expensive. “Constellation of power and interests” varies from

issues to issues among actors (Gehring, 1994). Keohane and Nye (2012) contend that use of

military force as reliable option for conflict resolution has become unfavorable, however, not

obsolete. Mutually profitable relationship of the transnational world has made trade a

promising source of power. Richard Rosecrance argues in the same vein that trade like

military force is a vibrant mean of securing and enhancing state’s power (Nye & Welch,

2014). Reliance on transnational interaction through peaceful prospects of mutually

beneficial economic interdependence could lead to effective cooperation among states.

This changed dynamic of international relations is understandably based on different

understanding of state as an actor by liberals and realists (Jackson & Sorensen, 2003).

Realists comprehend state as a rational unitary actor, for liberals, it is rational but not a

unitary actor. State consists of different actors that might pursue goals in conflict with others

and seek transnational cooperation from their counterparts provided their interests converge

significantly on non-military issues (Gehring 1994; Jackson & Sorensen, 2003). The emerged

transnational relations with different administrative units within a state in connection with

their counterparts in other states in pursuit of their common interests have undermined role of

a state as a unitary actor in international relations. Political outcomes are not exclusively

determined by state only (Gehring, 1994).

Keohane and Nye (2012) distinguish interdependence, characterized with situation of

reciprocal effects that involves cost and benefits, from the rising multi-layered

interconnectedness. The ratio of costs and benefits will depend on the value of the actors and

nature of their relationship, and will be analyzed in terms of joint gains or losses and relative

gains and distributional issues. Drawing relationship between power and interdependence,

Keohane and Nye define power as an ability to influence others’ action and control outcomes.

84

Power dynamics in an interdependent relationship depend upon sensitivity and vulnerability.

Sensitivity, according to Keohane and Nye (2012), depends on “degree of responsiveness

within a policy framework” of one country to changes in another. Vulnerability, on the other

hand, is the cost involved in terms of changing ones policies and looking for other viable

alternatives with respect to changes in another country. After defining interdependence and

its essential characteristics, attention is drawn to the presence of regime as effective means of

changing the context for facilitating mutual relationship among the governments. Regimes

are sets of governing arrangement that affect relationship of interdependence. Distinguishing

world political system from the domestic national government, Keohane and Nye (2012)

highlight weakness of the rules and institutions at the international stage leading to an

erroneous conclusion that international regimes are insignificant. However, regimes influence

patterns of interdependence depending upon the structure—distribution of capabilities among

similar units—and process, allocative or bargaining behavior within a power structure.

Keohane and Nye term international regime as “intermediate factor” between the

international power structure and the bargaining process. The international structure,

capabilities of similar units, affects international regime: rules, norms and procedure;

however, regime in turn influence the bargaining process that occur within the system. Power

is understood effective in materializing desired outcomes; however, not effective in every

issue area (Ruggie, 1975).

Classical liberals emphasize the inside-out approach taking into account the political, social

and psychological underpinnings of state, society and individual to understand decision

making process (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). Unlike that, neoliberal concurs with the structural

realists regarding the anarchic structure of the international system and of state as a rational

actor. However, as mentioned earlier, state standing as a unitary actor is questioned, for there

is plurality of actors in the international system and within the state (Gehring, 1994; Jackson

& Sorensen, 2003). This understanding of the international system and state, its primary

constituent unit, underlines significance of international organizations as channels of

information, shaping agenda and interests of the state. This concurrence between neorealists

and neoliberals institutionalists, however, does not overcome their differences regarding the

prospects of cooperation among actors in the international anarchic system and the respective

role of international organizations in this regard. Neoliberal institutionalists contend that

85

cooperation can be materialized by “upgrading the common interests” facilitated and

promoted through formal international organizations or its informal structure, regime: the

convergence of actors’ expectations (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). These developments,

neoliberals contend, have made the world a better place in terms of cooperation among its

actors.

Neoliberals and neorealists have same understanding of the anarchic international system, but

draw different conclusions. For Neorealists like Waltz (1959) the idea of harmony—actor’s

pursuit of self-interest based policies automatically facilitating those of others—is

questioned, for it is not possible in international anarchic system. International political

system, Keohane (1984) concurs with neorealists, is decentralized and not hierarchic owing

to principle of state’s sovereignty. Each state legally equal to another and not subjected to any

superior authority relies on self-help in the international anarchic system (Genest, 1996;

Waltz, 1979). However, cooperation, according to Keohane, is possible in this self-help

system as witnessed in the case of balance of power—the order established as an outcome of

states pursuing self-interest policies largely defined in terms of relative power maximization.

The political military alliances to counter dominance of any single state or group of states to

maintain the international system decentralized and anarchic (Nye & Welch, 2014) are

termed by Keohane (1984) as a form of “cooperative endeavors”. Mutual interests serve

foundation for cooperation among allies for security interests despite fear of distrust;

however, orthodox theorists [realist school] for no valid reason do not extend this mutual

interests based cooperation beyond security consideration and to the system at large

(Keohane, 1984).

Regime theory as propounded by Keohane (1984) absorbs realists’ premise of the importance

of power and predominant role of powerful actors in shaping structure and agenda of the

regime, attributing it to anarchic international system of sovereign state principally motivated

by self-interest. However, realist insight of power and interest in creating and shaping

international regime does not undermine significance of international institutions because of

the latter capability to influence interest. Keohane (1984) contends: “The notion of self-

interest is itself elastic and largely subjective. Perceptions of self-interest depends both on

actors' expectations of the likely consequences that will follow from particular actions and on

86

their fundamental values.” After elaborating the notion of self-interest and subjecting it to

change with the changed dynamics of human values and perceptions, Keohane highlight

significance of regime. He states, however without undermining the importance of power and

interests in shaping international behavior, that “regimes can certainly affect expectations and

may affect values as well” (Keohane, 1984). After concurring with realist premise about the

anarchic nature of international system and the significance of power and interest driven

entities, Keohane (1984) terms “regime consistent both with the importance of differential

power and with a sophisticated view of self-interest … [however, also indicate] the

inadequacy of theories that define interests so narrowly that they fail to take the role of

institutions into account.” Thus role of international institutions are reinforced.

Regime theory is effective for its useful comprehensiveness. Citing Vinod Aggarwal (1998),

Hwee (2003) contends that regime theory helps analysis of less developed institutions. Not

limited by formal frames and structures of international organization, regime theory assesses

evolution and development of international negotiated principles, norms and procedures. It

finds its acceptance as a promising understanding of how to secure cooperation under

anarchy—absence of a central authority, government, in the international system to enact and

enforce rules. Keohane’s (1984) after establishing that the presence of hegemon is not

sufficient even a necessary condition for regime formation propounds that hegemony and

cooperation are in a state of symbiotic relationship and not antithetical to each other.

Hegemon’s crucial role for the creation of regime is acknowledged, and hegemon unlike an

imperial power is understood to require sovereign states’ cooperation to make and enforce

rules. United States vital role in the emergence of post-world war 2nd international

arrangements to regulate international political and economic affairs is cited as evidence to

this fact by realist as well as neo-liberal institutionalists. Without denying hegemon’s

significant position in regime creation, Keohane (1984) maintains that regime would emerge,

could maintain itself and foster cooperation in an interdependent world characterized with

shared interest in absence of hegemon. Apart from shared interests, the involved cost in

maintaining a regime is understandably less than the cost involved in creating a new regime

is another vital reason for the continued presence of regime in the absence of hegemon.

Therefore, decline of the hegemon, Keohane argues, is not necessarily resulting in the end of

regime.

87

Keohane refines concept of cooperation differentiating it from discord and distinguishing it

from harmony. Keohane (1984) citing Adam Smith’s assumed invisible hand of laissez-faire

as an example defines harmony as “a situation in which actors’ policies (pursued in their own

self- interest without regard for others) automatically facilitate the attainment of others

goals”. In contrast, he characterizes cooperation as a situation where actors coordinate to

arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome through negotiation, that in turn, implies policy

adjustment to accommodate others preferences. Thus intergovernmental cooperation to

Keohane (1984) results “when the policies actually followed by one government are regarded

by its partners as facilitating realization of their own objectives, as the result of a process of

policy coordination”. The objective of this policy coordination is to reduce negative

consequences of cooperation (Milner, 1998). Milner further elaborates this concept as

comprising of two elements: goal oriented behavior of each actor that results in mutually

productive gains. The underlying anticipation of serving one’s own interest by assisting the

other brings the actors to cooperate. Therefore, neither absence of conflict nor presence of

harmony and common interest but active efforts for “mutual adjustment” despite discord

defines cooperation (Keohane, 1984). Keohane formal definition of cooperation as cited by

Hwee (2003) states, “Intergovernmental cooperation takes place when the policies actually

followed by one government are regarded by its partners as facilitating realization of their

own objectives, as the result of process of policy coordination”. Milner (1998) highlights a

concurrence among scholars like Keohane, Joseph Grieco, Kenneth Oye and Peter Haas

regarding this definition; however, their suggested means for achieving such a cooperation

are markedly different to each other.

Regime, an intervening variable, secures its independent influence after its creation (Hwee,

2003). Materializing regime is not an end, but a mean to create opportunities for actualizing

cooperation—develop an attitude for bringing suboptimal outcomes to optimal and realize

joint gains. Securing cooperation requires regimes to perform certain functions: mitigate

fears of cheating, improve flow and quality of information, lower transaction costs for an

agreement and makes governments’ expectations consistent with each other (Hasenclever et

al. 1997). These functions are significantly required in a characteristically anarchic world

where “incentive to defect” is found profitable in joint cooperation (Rittberger et al. 2012).

Presence of international organization reduces such uncertainty by providing the mentioned

88

essentials function and thus facilitate cooperation. In a word, as Simmons and Martin (2002)

put it, they resolve problems of international collective actions. Neoliberal institutionalists

contend that these active efforts for mutual adjustment and accommodation of other

preferences result in the necessity of institutions to facilitate communication and exchange of

information—a major hurdle to cooperation. Moreover, international organizations as forum

for political actions, coalition formation and agenda shaping has become a vital characteristic

of the international system (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012).

Hasenclever et al. (1997) expounds states as rational actor primarily motivated by self-

interest that create regimes; however, he acknowledges that regimes are maintained even

after the interests and circumstances that shaped their creation are changed because of the

inherent expense and difficulty in establishing new pattern of interaction, regimes, among

states. Their creation and continued existence materialize the vital infrastructure that

facilitate actualizing common goals and minimize the entailing costs. Moreover, regime is an

effective mechanism to promote common goals by reducing information cost involved in

different stages of agreement formation and implementation (Hasenclever, et al. 1997).

Interdependence as mentioned earlier is a situation where independent actors are linked in a

dependent reciprocal relationship. Choices and decision of each is shaped by the others;

outcomes are mutually determined. Patterned states’ behaviour, an international regime, is

evolved for realizing joint gains in an interdependent relationship. However, the complexity

of the interdependent relations among states requires an international regime termed a

“mechanism for managing interdependence”, a “missing link” between cooperation and

interdependent relationship (Hwee, 2003). Complex interdependence is characterized with

different competitive goals pursued with various means. International collaboration reduces

the uncertainty inherent to the complexity of the problems, competitive goals and

multilayered communications, regarding the mutually preferable outcomes (Hasenclever, et

al. 1997; Hwee, 2003). Regimes facilitate cooperation by changing “incentives for action”

rather than changing actors’ interests and values (Hasenclever, et al. 1997). Hasenclever et al

(1997) highlight that mutual distrust or fear of defection, a characteristic feature of prisoners’

dilemma, is overcome in presence of a regime that ensures presence of continued interaction,

provides information to overcome fear of deception, and thus envisions cooperative actions

89

beneficial for all the parties involved. Regimes, therefore, work as catalysts of international

cooperation. Inclusive in their nature, impact of a regime is not limited to one issue area.

Compliance in one area extends cooperation in other sectors; however, non-abidance

aggravates relationship by increasing the trust deficit. In other words, regime commands

compliance through involved reputational effects, not through it monitory or retaliatory

potential (Hasenclever et al. 1997).

Once the functional significance of institutions is established by Keohane (1984), the rest of

the neoliberal institutionalist conferring to the basic postulate that cooperation can be

materialized among the rational states driven by self interest in an anarchical international

system highlighted others situations or constellation of interest other than Prisoner’s dilemma

problems (Simmons & Martin, 2002; Rittberger et al. 2012; Hwee, 2003). These situation or

constellation of interests characterized as collective action extends parameters of

contractualist theory by taking into account particular strategic nature of the situations that

push states for cooperation in a specific field. The “situation structural (game theoretic)”,

(Hwee, 2003; Zangl, 2014) “problem structural” (Simmons & Martin, 2002; Zangl, 2014)

and “institutional bargaining” (Hwee, 2003; Hasenclever et al. 1997) are the extension of the

mainstream functional theory of Keohane (1984). Situation-structuralism distinguishes

collaboration games like Prisoners’ Dilemma, highlighted by Keohane, from coordination

games—an interdependence situation with a problem of collectively choosing from several

pareto-efficient equilibria (Hasenclever et al. 1997). Regime facilitates avoiding pareto-

inefficient equilibria. Main proponents of situational structuralist are Arthur Stein, Lisa

Martin and Duncan Snidal (Hwee, 2003). Hwee further differentiates collaboration from

coordination as the former involves dilemma of common interests; while the latter is centered

on problems of common aversion. Collaborative regime requires replacing independent

decision making as in Prisoner dilemma with agreed rules assisted with monitoring

mechanism to control defection in order to materialize common interest. Collaboration

regime is understood more formalized involving an international organization for effective

communication and dissemination of information (Hasenclever et al. 1997). Unlike that

coordinative regime, in a situation exemplified by chicken game, demands facilitating

coordination among actors to control certain behavior. No monitoring mechanism is required

(Hwee, 2003).

90

Assurance and suasion, highlighted by Zurn and Lisa Martin as cited by Hasenclever et al.,

1997 and Hwee, 2003 are two other less formal types of strategic situation that emerge into

cooperation of different nature. In assurance situation two equilibrium outcomes are offered

with one of them pareto-efficient, preferable to both actors. Inability to actualize pareto-

efficient outcome results in false fear of being cheated by other. In such a situation, regime

facilitates cooperation through exchange of information for overcoming the present trust

deficit. Suasion situation offers one equilibrium outcome, an unbalanced one of “unrequited

cooperation”, often leaving the privileged one satisfied while other dissatisfied. Martin

(1993) highlights hegemon’s contribution in emergence of suasion regime. The hegemon

tries to persuade others into cooperation either by resorting to threats, making noncompliance

unproductive; or promises, making cooperation more useful. Regime, in such a situation,

procures side-payments from the privileged actors to ensure cooperation (Hwee, 2003).

Fundamentally accepting the neoliberal theoretical parameters, the problem-structural

approach characteristically differentiates conflict over absolutely assessed goods and

relatively assessed goods and takes into account the nature of the issue area as a key

determinant in regime formation and sustenance (Hasenclever et al. 1997). This, in turn,

questions neoliberal postulate regarding state as uncompromising egoist and rational entity,

mostly inclined to relative gains. Highlighting state’s choice for relative gains in certain

conditions, the problem-structural approach also relates itself to the power based approach

(Hasenclever et al. 1997).

Issue area is crucial to the formation of regime as regimes are “partial orders” regarding an

area of trade, money or environment. States might resort to cooperation in one area and

pursue goals in other area through reliance on self-help. Regime, thus, does not encompass

the whole gamut of a state’s political relations and aspirations. In order to understand, states’

cooperation or regime formation regarding an issue area demands evaluating the core concept

of issue area. Problem-structuralists define it as:

91

"Issue-areas. . . consist of one or more . . . inseparably connected

objects of contention and of the behavior directed to them. The

boundaries of issue-areas are determined by the perceptions of the

participating actors” (Hasenclever et al, 1997).

The interconnected disputed matters and the corresponding behaviour towards them

constitute issue areas. However, the essence of an issue area is shaped by the perception of

the actors regarding the contested objects. Changed perception changes dynamics and

interdependence of the issue areas despite uniformity of the objective facts. With perception

as core dependent factor, delineating issue area has become a highly political process.

Regimes are differently conceptualized based on the nature of issue area. Simmons and

Martin (2002) and Hasenclever et al (1997) mention various kinds of regimes based on

understanding of the issue area and concur with the main proponents of problem-structural

approach that the degree of cooperation among actors varies based on nature of the issue,

perception of the participants and means used for realizing common goals.

Oran Young (1994) in his noteworthy work, “Modes of Regime Formation” coined the

concept of institutional bargaining approach of regime formation (Hasenclever et al. 1997).

Institutional bargaining subscribes to interest based theory for its treatment of state as selfish

actor; however, Young’s understanding of international institutions relates more to

cognitivists than neoliberal, highlighting state as a role player than a thoroughly utility

maximizer (Hwee, 2003). Such a combination of neoliberal and cognitivist approach can also

be witnessed in the works of Gehring (1994) (Zangl, 2014).

Focused on the real world circumstances, Young underlines institutional bargaining—

processes that materialize “constitutional contracts” (Hasenclever et al. 1997). Young

institutional bargaining with an objective to create an institution has a descriptive and

analytical aspect: the former concerns with the essential circumstances culminating in

collective efforts to create regimes; while the later assess those factors that make regime a

success (Hwee, 2003). The real world situations to institutional bargainers, unlike the rational

choice theorists, are characterized with lack of knowledge about the prospective outcomes,

available means, and thus have an absence of a “zone of agreement”. Presence of this “veil of

92

uncertainty” incentivizes institutional agreement or regime formation, prioritizing

“integrative rather than distributive bargaining” (Hasenclever et al. 1997).

Young draws three major hypotheses about the success and failure of regime. Hasenclever et

al (1997) and Hwee (2003) distinguishes Young’s approach for its emphasis on factors that

encourage integrative bargaining. In first place, success of institutional bargaining requires

that the “issues at stake ‘lend themselves to contractual interaction’” Apart from this

understanding, international regime formation is accelerated in case of “exogenous shocks or

crises”. The emergence of Ozone hole in 1985 is cited an example of such a crisis that

brought international focus on preservation and promotion of common interests and

resources. Secondly, presence of an option regarded equitable, a salient solution simple and

clear—it does not rule out presence of ambiguity and uncertainty—enhances chances of

regime formation. Equally significant is the presence of a “‘clear-cut and effective’

compliance mechanism” that reduces fear of being cheated by others in presence of actions

primarily motivated by self-interests. Last but not the least, Young considers role of effective

leadership pivotal for the success and failure of the international regime. Leadership,

assumed to be individuals, is divided in following categories: entrepreneur or brokers utilize

their ingenuity and negotiation skills rather than power; skillful leadership converts power

derived from material resources into bargaining leverage; and intellectual leadership

influences and shapes understanding of the negotiating parties through the power of ideas

(Hasenclever et al. 1997; Hwee, 2003).

3.2 POWER BASED THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL REGIME

Realism standing as the dominant theoretical paradigm, particularly from 1930 to 1970s,

highlights power as the main drive behind the “facade of international institutions” (Simmons

& Martin, 2002). Realists comprehend utility functions of the state actors differently to

liberals. States conscious and concerned about relative distribution of power and resources—

the benefits accrued by others—make rule based cooperation difficult. Changes in power

distribution or negative outcomes of distribution would upset cooperation mechanism. Hans

Morgenthau, the classical realist, attributes “rule-consistent behaviour to convergent interests

or prevailing power relations”. Morgenthau defines interest in terms of power, the main

93

medium to objective assessment of international politics (Morgenthau, 1948; Neacsu, 2009).

Power secures interests, and thus dominant interest to pursue should be to increase power.

Therefore, cooperation among states is much a possibility in presence of their mutual

understanding that cooperation would secure their specific interests or most importantly

enhance their power potential. However, Lebow (2003) argues that power is the starting and

not the end point of Morgenthau's analysis of international relations.

The interest driven politics of power maximization among states transformed international

relations to what Aaron signifies, “relations between political units, each of which claims the

right to take justice into its own hands and to be the sole arbiter of the decision to fight or not

to fight” (Griffith, Roach, & Solomon, 2009). With Wiberian state definition of “monopoly

over the legitimate use of force within a given territory”(Nash, 2010) and absence of a central

government or higher authority characteristically termed anarchy of the international system:

states as unitary actors are much relying on self-help that demands enhancing and ensuring

its security against the others (Mingst, 2003; Nye Jr & Welch, 2014). Realists traditionally

consider anarchy a major problem of international relations (Steans; Pettiford; Diez; & El-

Anis, 2010). To realists, an understandable outgrowth of the anarchic system and self-help

rule is security dilemma. Nye Jr and Welch (2014) terming it a specific type of Prisoner's

Dilemma defines it an insecurity of a state that is an outcome of another state's effort to

increase its own security. This culminates into an environment that largely lacks trust among

its different entities.

States to realist not only fashion and dominate will and working of international organization

but also their creation and existence. The famous classical realist, E.H. Carr, extends this

understanding and terms international institutions “epiphenomenal to state power and

interests” (Simmons & Martin, 2002). By introducing 'basic force model', Stephen Krasner

(1982) as cited by Simmons and Martin (2002), relies on 'Hegemonic Stability Theory'

(HST) that attributes creation and stability of international institutions to relative power

distribution. Broadly, hegemonic stability theory stems from the Robert Gilpin's

understanding of the international order. Vitally different to the dominant realist strand that

understands international order as decentralized system having power equilibrium among

states, Robert Gilpin in his classic work, War and change in world politics (1981), attributes

94

creation of international order to the leading or hegemonic states, founded on favorable rules

and institutions to promote their interests. To the classical realist, Hans Morgenthau,

significant objective of the equilibrium of power is preservation of all the elements of the

system and “preventing any element from gaining ascendancy over the others” (Morgenthau,

1948). Keeping states autonomous by not allowing any single entity of state(s) dominating

the entire system is the dominant realist understanding of the international system. However,

for Gilpin, international order owes its creation and existence to the “asymmetry of power”

rather than balance of power (Gilpin, 1981). Disequilibrium occurs when a single power

entity dominate the system by changing the existing balanced power configuration

(Morgenthau, 1948). In contrast, Gilpin, relying on material capabilities of power, considers

disequilibrium an outcome of challenging forces to the established hegemony—that refer to

leadership of one state in Greek—and their favorable composition of international order:

norms, rules and institutions (Gilpin, 1981; Ikenberry, 2014). The contending forces and

internal incapabilities are the major factors for disequilibrium. Gilpin (1981) states,

“Disequilibrium entails a disjuncture between the basic components of the existing

international system and the capacity of the dominant state or states to maintain the system,

between the costs of defending the existing distribution of territory, spheres of influence,

rules of the system, and international economy, on the one hand, and the revenues necessary

to finance these arrangements.” In a recurring struggle for power and wealth among

independent actors in an anarchic world, Gilpin (1981) acknowledges order and pattern in the

relationship among states and in this regard attribute a degree of control to the system

( Milner, 1991).

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is an extension of the Charles Kindleberger's theory,

which, in turn, is based on Mancur Olson's theory of groups. Members of a large group

rationally pursuing their personal welfare will not promote common group interest in absence

of a “coercion or some other special device” and characteristic individual incentives (Olson,

1965). Olson conditions the formation of international organization to the same principle.

Despite shared understanding regarding common interests and means of their achievement,

formation of international organization is subjected to the presence of coercive power and

selfish interests to motivate individual actors to bear cost of the collective goals and goods.

Charles Kindleberger extends Olson's understanding explaining reasons of economic great

95

depression (1929) in his book, The world in depression 1929-1939. He argues in the wake of

Great Depression (1929) that maintaining stability of international economic infrastructure is

a public (collective) good and its stability requires “one stabilizer”: a strong economic and

political power with potential and willingness to lead, supply and support to ensure existing

of this infrastructure. Kindleberger contends that the absence of this hegemon means

“Superfluity of would-be-free riders”, more dangerous than excessive domination

(Kindleberger, 1986).

Kindleberger considers macroeconomic policy coordination a zero-sum game in which one

state understandably secures its interests and welfare at the expense of others. Such an

environment necessitates presence of a hegemon to ensure promising interaction of the actors

and stabilize the system. Kindleberger (1986) justifying presence of the hegemonic

leadership argues:

“the international economic and monetary system need leadership, a country

which is prepared consciously or unconsciously, under some system of

rules that it has internalized, to set standards of conduct for others

countries; and to seek to get others to follow them, to take on an undue

share of the burdens of the system”.

In his explanation of the economic depression 1929, Kindleberger highlights systemic

instability and attributes it to Britain inability and US unwillingness to serve the much

required role of a world economic stabilizer. The leadership of a hegemon is defined as

“persuading others to follow a given course of action which might not be in the follower’s

short-run interest if it were truly independent” (Kindleberger, 1986). Apart from providing

market for ‘distress goods’ and a continuous capital flow, the hegemon ensures structure of

foreign exchange-rate and coordination of domestic monetary policies.

Olson (1965) and Kindleberger (1986) concur that the vital negative outcome of the absence

of a hegemon is the emergence and presence of “superfluity of free-riders” attributed to the

inherent characteristic of public goods, of not restricting their use to everyone. Olson (1965)

terms it the “impossibility of exclusion” that, in turn, discourages rational actors from taking

responsibility of public goods, undermining their worth and quality. In order to avoid it,

96

Kindleberger advocates presence of coercion and additional inducement to make large groups

secure and produce public good. Leadership, not cooperation and regime formation is

prioritized (Kindleberger, 1986).

Hegemonic stability theory attributes effective international institution to presence of a

hegemon: “unipolar configuration of power in a particular issue-area” (Hasenclever; Mayer;

& Rittberger, 2000). The theory states that regime is formed and sustained with support of

state actors with “preponderance of power resources” in an issue area; on the other hand,

regime is weakened if this power is equally distributed. Regimes are termed as an

“unpromising alternative” to leadership. Hegemonic stability theory maintains that first order

of cooperation—states conceding to adjust their policies to ensure mutual benefits—

achievable. However, the second order of cooperation, the process involving rule formation

and implementation, is difficult and is rejected for the burden of involved costs (Hasenclever;

Mayer; & Rittberger, 2000). Pointing out its limitations, critics consider hegemonic

stability theorists' application of Olson's theory of groups in-exhaustive. Confirming,

however, to the notion that regimes are established by hegemonic power to ensure and

increase their relative gains, HST has an underlying assumption that regimes are not without

influence of the great powers and to a larger extent lacks agency. This structure-agency

debate revolves around the relative influence of environmental constraints and actors'

independence within the system (Steans; Pettiford; Diez; & El-Anis, 2010).

Apart from the absence of hegemon, a stabilizer, power based theorists attribute failure of

cooperation to inherent fear of favorable relative gains to powerful states in presence of

anarchic system. Neo-realists attributing international conflict to anarchic international

system question significance and influence of international institutions. The characteristic

difference between classical realists and Neo-realists or Structural realists is their respective

emphasis upon reason for conflict. Genest (1996) highlights this difference with a

comparative analysis of classical realist, Hans Morgenthau who argues that wicked and

selfish human nature successively extrapolated to state machinery bound to result in conflict

among states: structural or Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979), unlike Morgenthau,

ascribe such conflict to the absence of a central government or authority in the international

system—an anarchy. In other words, classical realists are more relying on domestic factors to

97

understand international relations and state behaviour; while, Neo-realists are much focus on

the systemic factors of power concentration and diffusion among the various actors in the

international system ( Ikenberry, 2014).

For realists, this absence of a central authority termed anarchy is understood major factor for

promoting competition and conflict among states despite presence of shared interests

(Grieco, 1995). Keeping in view these marked different orientation towards the international

relations, Neo-realists argues that concerns for relative gains hinder prospects for deep

cooperation. State’s apprehensions of another state relative gains are a constraint in

cooperation despite assured of others commitments to the relationship (Joseph Grieco, 1995).

This concern that a joint arrangement will yield collective benefits, but reward an actor

relatively more obstructs the success of cooperation among actors. Institutional joint

arrangement feared to be favorable for few actors understandably increase their relative

power—an ability to effectively secure their interests in comparison to others. The

underlying working apprehension regarding relative gains and prospective increase in power

of others hinders possibility of the cooperative process.

Realists like Grieco extends implication of this absence of centralized authority, anarchy, to

incorporate state's insecurity and primary reliance on “self-help” as the order of the day. This

makes state's sense of insecurity motivating its actions. Realists and neo-liberals concur that

states are utility maximizer but with a different comprehension of their utility functions.

Anarchy, however, does not restrict cooperation on common issues rather makes it difficult

by creating “a structurally induced intolerance for relative gains” (Hasenclever; Mayer; &

Rittberger, 2000). Grieco (1995) conditions possibility of cooperation to certain prerequisites:

when absolute gains outweigh relative ones; in case common concerns are more significant

and relegate concerns about relative gains; in presence of extended power difference that

makes any prospective pay off unable to bridge or balance the relative differences; and nature

of the issue area and respective gains equally limits cooperation. Relative gains in economic

areas are affordable to be overlooked than security concerns in actualizing mutual

cooperation. Similarly, cooperation becomes difficult in issue areas where gains are feared to

be used for increasing military or bargaining capabilities (Hasenclever; Mayer; &

Rittberger, 2000).

98

Predominantly focused on the pivotal dynamics of interests and power relationship, Susan

Strange (1982) considers regimes much susceptible to disruption with changed power

distribution and preferred interests among cooperative actors. Strange terms regime a

“pernicious concept” having no impact on behavior and outcomes of the international system

—rather it blurs influence of power and interest, the “proximate causal factors” for changes.

Consistent with traditional realist position, Strange like Waltz (1979) primarily conceives

independent rational self-seeking states as major actors on the world stage. Waltz evaluates

international system in terms of relative distribution of power among these actors and

attributes behaviour change in the system to the change in the power capabilities and

configuration among them.

Kindleberger (1986) signifies presence of a hegemon as a provider of public goods and the

decline of hegemon is understood to undermine provision of such public. In contrast, Stein

(1982) and other neoliberal institutionalists argue that a regime once established will sustain

itself in absence of hegemon as its presence serves the interests of small states (Lianos & Le

Blanc, 2012)

The power based theory focuses on systemic power configuration where cooperation is

realized when dominant powers in the system strengthen and support the system. However,

these scholars believe that any regime created because of a hegemon or dominant powerful

states would favorably accommodate the interests of its major contributors. Lyold Grubber

(2000) in his book, Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational

Institutions argues that despite exponential rise of international institutions and regimes and

willing participation of small states, these international forums are not without influence of

the powerful states.

The presence of a hegemon willing to contribute its resources for stability of the system is

found effective in bringing cooperation among actors on economic issues (Gilpin, 1975;

Kindleberger, 1986). Rowlands (2001) signifies a hegemon’s capabilities to “transform

international structure” to actualize “coordinated policies” for addressing perceived common

problems rather than his motivations—which could be benevolent or malevolent. Power

based theories—hegemonic stability theory, Krasner's power oriented research program and

99

Grieco's modern perspective of realism—attempt to offer an alternative to interest based

theories. The important point to assimilate is the rising number of regime despite concerns

for relative gains.

3.3 KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORIES

Cognitivism, knowledge based assessment of regime evolution, is also referred to as

constructivism (Puthucherril, 2015; O’Neil, 2009). This knowledge based evaluation is

comprehensive enough to involve role of “ideas, new information, and international norms--

shared conception of appropriate behaviour”—in shaping states’ interests and international

cooperation (O’Neil, 2009). Constructivism, the logic of appropriateness, with its focus on

ideas, norm and culture considers role of collectively held or shared understanding about

social life pivotal (Johnstone, 2013) in generating a collective response (Ruggie, 1998). Role

of ideas becomes prominent in aftermath of the Soviet Union disintegration for the positivist

paradigms could not explain or predict this qualitative change (Stewart, 2001). Cited as

“striking evidence” of “qualitative transformations” in world politics, it testifies that

fundamental change in the international politics is the outcome of new ideas. The abolition of

colonialism and establishment of right to self-determination as a norm are also vital historical

facts unable to be exclusively explained through the dynamics of power and interest—

rationalist bases of regime (Mutschler, 2013). For cognitivism, ideas matter and guide

behaviour and are a reason for shaping and framing interests and identities that rationalists

wrongly assume to be given, thus “blackboxing” processes that shape their evolution

(Mutschler, 2013). Neoliberalism and neorealism, positivist frames, are found limited and

questioned for their static and not evolutionary understanding of international politics.

Stewart (2001) highlighting these limitations contends that “neoliberalism and neorealism

share a primitive conception of interstate anarchy, a narrow view of interest formation, and

an unwanted skepticism about the impact of collective norms on foreign policy choices....

[They] depict the world as an essential asocial landscape populated by rational state actors

maximizing expected utility across a range of consistently ordered, exogenously given

preferences”. The rationalist theories broadly encompassing the power and interest based

understanding of the regime (Simmons & Martin, 2002) contends that “political actors

100

(primarily states) motivated by self-interest act strategically to advance those interests”

(Johnstone, 2013).

Critical of interest based theories, cognitivists question neo-liberals' realist heritage and its

assumption of states as rational actors with their interests and power preceding international

society and international institutions (Hasenclever et al., 1997). This statist approach is found

in-comprehensive. Primarily focused on the origin of interests, knowledge-based theorists

assess normative and causal beliefs of decision makers to understand process of their

preferences and interest formation. Constructivists distinguish social fact from the brute fact,

understanding the former to be dependent on socially developed conventions for their

existence; the latter, in contrast, remain true independent of human action (Brown & Ainley,

2005). Considering social facts for the brute facts—conditions that are a reason of a social

fact are given a natural status, fixed and unchanging—is misleading. Constructivists contend

that social reality is shaped through collective interpretation and meanings given to

experience; therefore, it is important to understand how social facts are constituted. “Rather

than treating identities and interests as nontheorized initial conditions (or deducing it from

behaviour)” Stewart (2001) states, “constructivists deepen the analysis of motivation and

choice by examining the normative, epistemic, and institutional contest in which states

acquire perceptions of themselves and international society”.

For neorealists compliance with norms is an expedient concern for state survival (Stewart,

2001), that seems closer to Machiavellian understanding of prioritizing politics to morality

(Bell, 2008). Neoliberals, on the other hand, acknowledge norms to influence international

relations outcomes; however, term them incapable of altering actors’ identities and ends

(Stewart, 2001). Eliding impact of new values, intersubjective interpretations, and social

institutions on constituting actor identities, frame premises for action, and enter state utility

functions; neoliberal neglect critical source of variation in the foreign policies and global

outcomes (Stewart, 2001).

Constructivists comprehend international relations in sociological perspective where the

society of states is understood lacking a legitimate central authority, but knitted together

through a sense of social life, basic common goals and prescribed rules and institutions for

101

their achievement. The three fundamental principles of constructivist social theory derived

from Wendt’s study are tabled by Weber (2001) and reproduce here for better comprehension

of the theory.

Table 4 Three fundamental principles of constructivist social theory

1 Social Knowledge “People act toward objects, including other actors, on the basis of

the meanings that the objects have for them”

2 Social Practice “The meanings in terms of which action is organized arise out of

interaction”

3 Social Identities

and Interests

“Identities [and interests] are produced in and through ‘situated

activity’

This sociological comprehension of the international relations places norms, “a collective

expectation for the proper behaviour of actors with a given identity”, at a pivotal position of

influence. Norms termed “nonmaterial element of structures” with prescriptive character

exert a compliance pull different to “power constraints and particular interest” (Stewart,

2001). The national interest and power politics is understood an outcome of a normative and

cultural understanding of the material objectives. As Wendt (1992) contends, “power politics

is historically conditioned, socially constructed response to anarchy”. Compliance, pull of

law, depends on its congruence with shared understandings, accepted criteria of legality, and

enmeshment in “an interactive practice of legality” (Johnstone, 2013). Shared understanding

about legitimate conduct evolves into a shared social purpose of life (Stewart, 2001).

Knowledge based understanding of the regime formation is broadly distinguished in terms of

weak and strong cognitivism (Hasenclever et al, 1997). Weak cognitivism attributes regime

formation to “complex learning…new consensual knowledge or shared understanding that

spurs states to reformulate national interest and means to achieve them” (Stewart, 2001). This

approach is found much reconciled with the rationalist approach (Hasenclever et al., 1997),

supplement and improve it with a focused attention on how interests emerge and change

102

(Mutschler, 2013). Strong cognitivism challenges rationalist approach (Stewart, 2001).

Espousing power of legitimacy, argument and identity (Puthucherril, 2015) strong

cognitivists argue that mutual expectations and intersubjective understanding constitute

identities as well as interests (Stewart, 2001). Stewart further differentiates these two

ontologically as strong cognitivism emphasizes structure; while, weak cognitivism signifies

agency.

Weak cognitivism contends that rationalist approaches are incomplete for not highlighting

that changes in actors’ interests are independent of material factors (Mutschler, 2013).

Without denying importance of power and interest in regime formation, the role of actors’

perception of the international problem that demands regime formation is understood vital.

Actors’ perceptions of the issues [the defining process of interests] are shaped by causal and

normative beliefs (Mutschler, 2013). Causal beliefs, beliefs about cause and effect

relationship, also termed “professional judgment” (Haas, 2016) are the outcome of “shared

consensus of recognized elites” (Mutschler, 2013) that “provide analytic reasons and

explanation of behavior” (Haas, 2016). The normative or principled beliefs, “value-based

rationale for social action”, (Haas, 2016) characteristically differentiate right from wrong and

just from unjust (Mutschler, 2013).

Understanding origin of “convergent expectations”—fundamental to regime formation—is

responded with three assumptions (Hasenclever et al, 1997). First, the international structure

and human volition is interspersed with interpretation: understanding circumstances and

defining interests before making choices. Interpretation, in turn, relies on existing body of

knowledge that shapes perception of the reality as well as procedures in light of the

objectives—this body of knowledge is at the base of decision making. In a word, interests are

not fixed but determined, shaped and analyzed by actors' consideration of the environment

and favored choices (Hasenclever et al., 1997). This makes study of the origin of interests

quintessential for understanding international relations (Mutschler, 2013). The second

assumption, founded on the first, makes “intersubjectively shared meaning”, at least a

minimum of collective understanding, indispensable for materializing the essential

convergent expectations and cooperation of the independent international actors in an issue-

area (Hasenclever et al., 1997). Convergent expectations regarding acceptable behaviour and

103

desirable goal lay a foundation for international institutions (Stewart, 2013). Intersubjectivity

if simplified means “shared by people—defined by their person-to-person, self-other

exchanges” (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). States’ collective understanding of the nature and

measures to address problems constitutes the ideational component of international relations.

Thirdly, weak cognitivists assume and attribute cooperation and influence regarding policy

issues to the presence of expert knowledge and information: epistemic communities

(Hasenclever et al. 1997) that is defined by Hass (1992) as, “a network of professionals with

recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to

policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area”. This community possesses four

characteristics: a shared set of normative and principled beliefs, shared causal beliefs, shared

notions of validity and a common policy enterprise (Haas, 1992). The role of epistemic

community becomes fundamental to convergent expectations as shared accepted knowledge

fulfilling essential notions of validity plays crucial role in the process of intelligent effective

decision making. Decision making—specifically regarding complex, technical and

unfamiliar situation—demand reducing of uncertainty by pursuing expert reliable

information by state actors to effectively secure their interests.

Exceeding reliance of the decision makers on technical and expert knowledge seems

unavoidable in today’s highly interdependent world with characteristically complex issues.

Weak cognitivists espouse the pivotal purpose of ideas as guiding behaviour by stipulating

causal patterns and providing compelling ethical and moral motivations (Mutschler, 2013).

Changes in behaviour without taking into account the change in ideas and beliefs are

inexplicable. Robert Jackson (1993) exemplifies it with decolonization as an outgrowth of a

“fundamental shift of normative ideas”—changed conception of the legitimate and

illegitimate rule and not mere change of power equation or economic considerations. Weak

cognitivism, therefore, signifies importance of ideas as focal points and road maps

(Hasenclever et al., 1997). Hasenclever et al mention that ideas shape behaviour through

three causal pathways. With actions chosen primarily in consideration of the “normative and

analytic understandings”, ideas offer a road map. Secondly, similar to the Young's notion of

“salient solution”, the widely shared ideas serve as focal points defining acceptable solutions

to collective action problems. Most significantly, ideas once acknowledged and establish as

104

international rules and norms—embodied institutional frameworks—are more influential in

influencing policies.

Epistemic communities earlier defined as “networks of professionals with recognized

expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy relevant

knowledge within that domain” are vital to transnational knowledge dissemination. With

shared understanding of the problems and their possible solutions, epistemic communities

actively seek influencing government for the desired better policy outcomes. Modern means

of communications have extended transnational access of these independent scientific

communities to societies and governments. Peter Haas states three determining conditions for

the effectiveness of epistemic communities as “vehicle of international learning” and

international policy coordination (Hasenclever et al., 1997; Mutschler, 2013). Prevalent

uncertainty and lack of understanding of the issues and their possible causes among policy

makers is the foremost factor. Evidently, such limitations are realized in shock and crises

situations that necessitates prospective contribution of the experts in the field. Secondly,

divided opinion of the experts on an issue hinders growth of a coherent policy. Absence of

concrete evidence and consensus experts’ opinion subjects policy formulation to political

rather than scientific considerations. Third fundamental factor to the sway of epistemic

communications is the political power it accrues by actively becoming part of the decision

making structure. Without undermining epistemic communities’ effectiveness of persuasion,

Peter Haas attributes national compliance to the power acquired by them termed process of

institutionalization (Hasenclever et al., 1997; Mutschler, 2013). This institutionalization

involves gaining access or power in the governing institutions—acquires bureaucratic power

or shape domestic politics of the states by influencing domestic political dynamics.

In the same vein, Emmanuel Adler and Haas (1992) signify role of epistemic communities at

four levels of regime formation and maintenance. During formulation process, information

provided by the epistemic communities frames negotiation process as well as assist states in

determining their action course in presence of limitations and uncertainty. Equally significant

is the potential of the communities as agents of international dissemination of knowledge and

shared understandings in today’s globalized world. With “integrative” solutions in presence

of existing diversity, epistemic communities can influence highly politicized stage of policy

105

making. Most importantly, epistemic communities provide a justification of the existing

regime as a mechanism to resolve or alleviate concerns. Disruption in the shared

understanding among the epistemic communities, however, could undermine effectiveness

and even question existence of the established regime.

Epistemic communities create that body of knowledge that serves as bases for the decision

makers (Mutschler, 2013). Adler (1992) renders example of arms control limitations

measures initiated between the United States and Soviet Union attributing it to the efforts

carried out by arms control epistemic community. Understanding how this body of

knowledge evolves is important, for it shapes perception of reality. This signifies

constructivists’ fundamental claim that interests and identities are not given (Mutschler,

2013). Changed beliefs are in other words new knowledge if result in changed behavior,

termed learning. This evolved understanding of the social and political milieu would either

reshape or redraw the means to achieve the intact goals, termed simple learning, or extend to

complex learning: reformulation of the very goals demanding new measures and means to

achieve them (Hasenclever et al., 1997; Mutschler, 2013). Established regimes in an issue

area could strengthen prevalent learning that facilitated their very existence as their presence

effect course of political actions and preferences. However, learning—evolved understanding

—could question, adversely affect and even erode foundations of regime based cooperation

(Hasenclever et al., 1997). This emphasizes pivotal position and role of knowledge in

highlighting essential conditions and limitations for the success of regime in an issue area.

Weak and strong cognitivism concur regarding the significance of the international normative

structure, each establishes that international regime is an independent entity with inherent

stability and self-interest; however, strong cognitivism offers a radical critique of mainstream

rationalists (Hasenclever et al., 1997; Puthucherril, 2015) In contrast to mainstream

rationalists' state centric approach, strong cognitivism advocates “institution-centric

approach” (Hasenclever et al., 1997). For rationalists, state's interest and power are the

primary determinants—units of analysis. For strong cognitivists, understanding and working

of the international relations would not be comprehended if established practices and rules—

institutions—liked sovereignty, diplomacy and international law are not evaluated in their

own capacity.

106

Strong cognitivists underline the social normative world, a product of established regime, and

thus signify independent constitutive character of regime. It emphasizes the power of

legitimacy, argument and identity (Puthucherril, 2015). Strong cognitivists maintain that the

logic of appropriateness supersedes logic of consequentiality. Norms are understood to have

their “compliance pull”, most importantly once understood by states legitimate (Hasenclever

et al., 1997). Legitimacy signifies the notion that states cooperate out of their sense of

obligation, complying with rules and norms consider legitimate (Puthucherril, 2015).

Legitimacy of the norm,—most importantly it’s “coherence” with the overall normative

structure, “rule-skein”, of the international system—determines its compliance pull.

However, the presence of norms and their conception as legitimate does not override or

substitute formal structure (Hasenclever et al., 2015).

Strong cognitivists highlight importance of the dialogue, an interactive communicative

process that evolves into shared understanding and acceptable reasons for cooperation among

actors on any issue area (Hasenclever et al., 2015). The practical discourse among states form

and shape regime, for it establishes and inspires norms of conduct and their application

(Puthucherril, 2015). The importance of dialogue—a continued process of persuasion and

evolution of convincing shared reasons—has become significant since neoliberal discredit of

military force as social control mechanism in a characteristically interdependent international

system. Similarly, rising complexity of the current international problems has made it

difficult for state to effectively assess their national interest; thus, making communication

and persuasion an indispensable requirement in presence of “divergent understanding of

reality” (Hasenclever et al., 1997).

Kratochwil and Ruggie (1986) highlight that the presences of regimes offer resistance to rule

breaking. Termed “sanctioning problem”, the existing regime seeks justification for rule

breaking from the offenders. The provided rationale could result in reassessment of the rule,

an “intersubjective appraisal” in relation with the given set of circumstances. Regime,

therefore, seems not just strengthen “mutually agreed expectation” but also reformation and

evolution of the normative structure in light of the changed international reality (Hasenclever

et al., 1997). Strong cognitivists contend that a community with a collective consciousness

and identity established as a result of “rule-based cooperation” will overcome self-interest

107

driven hurdles to cooperation (Hasenclever et al., 1997; Puthucherril, 2015). Puthucherril

argues that “states acquire role specific understandings and expectations about themselves by

socializing into the inter-subjective structure of the international system”. Interests of the

different actors, not given and rigidly framed, are understood susceptible to the collective

identity of this evolved community. As mentioned earlier, the most highlighted hurdles to

cooperation are free-riding and defection. Cognitivists argue the emerged community with its

collective identity, though an outcome of individualistic and selfish considerations attains an

agency once formally structured and promote reciprocity and willingness to bear cost of

cooperation (Wendt, 1994). Continued socialization under the ambit of collective frame or

regime further inculcates and strengthens collective understanding that makes cooperation a

habit and evolves into a collective identity (Puthucherril, 2015). Focused on social

construction of international politics, constructivism/cognitivism analyzes foreign policy in

terms of how the actors perceive and define the world and their role that can be reoriented in

collective mold with continued cooperation among the actors (Wendt, 1994). The consensual

cooperation mechanism redefines reasons for cooperation and evolve new collective identity

and interests, an outcome of a process termed “positive echo-effect” by Hasenclever et al

(1994). Wendt (1994) cites continued post-cold war West European security collaboration as

pertinent example to support this claim.

Consensual knowledge and ideas are important for cooperation; however, cognitivists

dismiss that mere presence of such shared understanding could secure international

cooperation. Even Peter Haas as cited by Hasenclever et al (1997) declares that consensual

knowledge in an issue area is not a pre-requisite and a convinced hegemon of the new

learning plays an effective role in regime formation. Similarly, Adler and Haas (1992)

question excessively estimated influence of epistemic communities by arguing that policy

making is inclined to political consideration instead of scientific assessment— scientific

conclusion, significantly, corresponding to political objectives are highlighted and

incorporated. Despite criticized for its inconsistent insights and overemphasis on

international institutions at the discount of domestic determinants, cognitivism’s key

variables: intersubjective meanings, social institutions, and interpretive approaches, are

found palatable and helpful in understanding international relations.

108

The three explanations for regime formation and robustness are rested on three different

variables: realists attribute it to relative power capability of the actors; neoliberals, to self-

interested behaviour of the actors; whereas, cognitivists consider that conception of these two

—interest and power capabilities—depend upon actors' “causal and social knowledge”

( Hasenclever et al., 1997; Puthucherril, 2015). However, none of them is found to be

exclusively “the” explanation of regime formation or entirely captures all the essential

dimensions and reasons of the regime existence (Hasenclever et al., 1997; Puthucherril,

2015). Regime formation could be spontaneous, a result of mediation or imposed and

fostered by power states; however, considering these factors exclusively unrelated would be a

distortion of reality (Puthucherril, 2015). As mentioned, the three different variables power,

interests and knowledge propounded by realists, liberals and constructivists profoundly

explain reasons for cooperation among states to address global issues. In the preceding

chapters, the researcher will highlight working of these variables while evaluating historical

evolution of climate change regime. The various environmental values and principles would

be seen evolved through a process incorporating power, interest and knowledge formation

among the actors.

109

CHAPTER 4

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: CONTENTIOUS

POLITICS AND CONTESTED PRINCIPLES

This chapter encompasses those political and economic underpinnings that restricted

evolution of international climate change regime. Global climate change is an enormously

complex global issue with catastrophic adverse implications for the entire world, largely for

the developing states because of their unfavorable location and inadequate adaptation

resources. However, this understanding took much time in sinking in and is still not

universally shared with same significance by stakeholders on international stage. The reason

can be broadly assigned to different conception of the problem and its solution in light of

preferred national interest of states in the international anarchic system. Powerful and small

states are legally standing equal despite their factually disparate economic and political

position in international system. However, elephants and sparrows are not on the same

footings in terms of responsibility for the problem and its repercussions. Powerful states with

their enriched resources and earlier industrialization are the main perpetrators. Less powerful

states of the international comity are victims despite negligible role in creation of this

problem. Apart from disparity in light of historical responsibility, the developed rich states

are also far ahead in their adaptive capabilities to adverse climate changes than the poor

developing states with meager resources. Global climate change politics has three main

contentious dynamics: nature of dependence on non-renewable energy resources like oil, coal

and gas; international political economy or influence of wealth and power in international

relations that distinguishes developed North from developing South; and understanding of

climate impacts and associated reduction costs. States are differentiated with respect to nature

of their dependence on energy from fossil fuels and corresponding evolved culture as

outcome of that dependence. The contentious political dynamics of global climate change has

shaped key principles of international climate change regime and are discussed to

comprehend foundation of international climate change regime.

110

4.1 THE GLOBAL NORTH AND SOUTH DIVIDE: ENVIRONMENTAL

PROBLEMS AND STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY

Global climate change is a scientifically acknowledged global concern that is widely

understood to have planetary implications, and thus demands collective efforts. International

political economy broadly concerned with the question of wealth, poverty and entailing

relationship of dependence is an important factor determining dynamics of climate change

policy making. The poor developing south argues that responsibilities for solution of the

problem should be accorded in light of contribution to the problem and respective capacity.

Relative contribution and ability to address the problem decide relative obligation and

responsibility of states (Agarwal, 2002). The rich developed North with early

industrialization and exploitation of the nature in disregard to man’s ethical responsibility

towards clean environment resulted in global climate change. The poor developing South, on

the other hand, is not only least responsible for the problem with its meager negligible

emissions, but also a major victim to its negative climate impacts. The issue is further

compounded in presence of pre-existing trust deficit because of the structural inequality.

Despite analytical ambiguity, the extensively used concept of “South” and differently

interpreted idea of “sustainable development” underpin politics of global environment

(Najam, 2005). Najam considers concept of global South having profound political essence

that symbolically gives collective identity to poor developing states in light of the global

economic inequalities. Economic poverty as well as “poverty of influence” with South

exclusion from the mainstream international politics is at the base of this concept. Politically

dependent with insignificant influence in the global state of affairs, the South considers itself

vulnerable to external manipulations that further threaten its “functional sovereignty”

(Najam, 2005). Rourke (2003) mentions facts to highlight the glaring disparity of these two

blocks of states. North, the economically developed countries lying north of the equator with

higher GNP and living standards, has a rich diverse economic foundations. It commands

higher export capacity of manufactured goods and provides refined sophisticated

technologies and services. South, the collective identity of developing states lying south of

111

the equator, is vulnerable as its 34% export base is relying on primary goods. The level of

deprivation in South is alarmingly worrisome. In comparison to South's rising

undernourishment and malnutrition cases, 400,000 people in US only underwent liposuction

in 1990s (Rourke, 2003).

The global South is a collective identity and image of the developing states despite divergent

strands since decades (Paterson, 1996). The economic disparity and pervasive poverty in

these countries attributed to structural exploitation created the necessary conditions for these

states to collectively assert themselves and bring the essential changes in the international

system. Krasner (1985) contends that “vulnerability” and not just poverty has been

motivating the marginalized voices termed, the South. Rich states, harnessing opportunities

of Victorian industrial revolution with its sweatshops and cheap but harmful coal resources,

develop themselves at the expense of others’ share of the environmental space (Agarwal,

2002).International environmental negotiations, influenced of these conflicts between North

and South, are considered by the North part of a “larger game” to rectify prevalent systemic

disempowerment and imbalance of wealth and influence (Najam, 2005). However, the South

is unable to compete, even though a collective unit, the overweening influence of powerful

states in determining agenda and policy process in formation of climate change regime

(Depledge, 2005). It demands financial and technological resources to enhance its adaptive

capacity against adverse repercussions of climate change and achieve clean energy

development to reduce their poverty. Principally accepting responsibility for the problem of

global climate change, the North lacks political will and determined unified approach to

direct required financial resources and technology to South (Paterson, 1996). Apprehensions

exist on both sides.

Paterson (1996), highlighting this rift, points out that North fears climate convention as

South's justification for a changed economic order, a concerted effort of developing states in

their access to global market and modern scientific technology. In addition, it demands a

comprehensive mitigation policy as emission reduction in North is assumed futile if it

remains unchecked in South, especially in case of its continued intense rise in countries like

China and India. Likewise, South fears North’s binding quantified emission target, an ‘eco-

colonialism’, an attempt to restrain its growth. Developing states consider binding emission

112

target for themselves unjustified in light of them not historically responsible for global

climate change and least current per capita emissions (Paterson, 1996). The North

apprehends that South’s unchecked emissions justified on the ground of availing their share

of development would triple current ratio of atmospheric CO2 (Agarwal, 2002). Agarwal’s

proposed solution to avert catastrophic impacts of western development pattern—“historical

inefficiencies” and potential “environmental threats”—is avoiding them by leapfrogging. As

Environmental problems like climate change are outcomes of North’s economic development

model, the South argues that development not in accordance with the North’s footsteps is a

solution (Najam, 2005). However, structural and domestic limitations limit the process of

leapfrogging: Northern states especially U.S is willing for technology cooperation but not to

technology transfer, South’s mounting and crippling debt, its dependence on external

resources, unequal terms of trade with limited access to global market, and domestic political

and institutional instability (Paterson, 1996). The rationalist logic of consequentiality guided

by fear of relative gains is at the root of this relationship between the global North and global

South.

The disagreement on environmental policy making is much deep rooted and complex. Its

underlying roots are global inequality and injustice (Redcliff & Sage, 2002; Miller, 2002).

Roberts and Parks (2007) state that inequality with respect to responsibility; vulnerability and

mitigation determine the contours of global environmental policy making. South’s

participation is indispensible in formulating a sound environmental policy, which it has

hinged to its economic development. Reuveny and Thompson (2005) and Najam (2005)

concur that the South vies to address its perennial issues of neglect and exploitation and

ensure a favorable just order, addressing global power and influence disparity in addition to

improving state of global environment. South questioned and resisted North’s intended

environmental agenda at Stockholm conference, 1972, for being exclusively focused on

human environment. This overemphasis on environment was feared to arrest South’s

development and growing industrialization (Najam, 2005; Reuveny & Thompson, 2008), —a

neo-imperialism (Laferriere, 2006) in the garb of ending environmental degradation and

harmful emissions. The Rio conference, 1992 knitted environment with development

(Laferriere, 2006), and initiated politics of sustainable development—a “defining moniker”

113

for all future environmental and political forums (Najam, 2005). The developing South

lauded the concept.

The South exclusion from influence in global political and financial decision making, a

structural denial to development and influence, has turned it vulnerably dependent on

international actors. Its efforts for entrusting flow and transfer of financial and technological

resources to Conference of Parties (COP) didn’t materialize, and was entrusted to Global

Environmental Facility (GEF) (Paterson, 1996). Atiq Ur Rehman, Coordinator of the Climate

Action Network for South East Asia, Dhaka, terms it an evidence of power disparity with

South conceding to GEF as financial mechanism in absence of any other alternative, and for

fear of World Bank’s wrath (Gupta, 2006). Systemic denial of South access to rule formation

and agenda setting (Gupta, 2006) has made weak states vulnerable to exploitation of the

international actors other than powerful states, like IMF and World Bank (Hurrell & Wood,

2002). International financial institutions like World Bank, IMF and WTO fashion

development dynamics that often override South’s understanding of development. In

addition, institutions like World Bank are not inclusive in their decision making structure in

presence of weighted voting. Gupta (2006) argues that GEF under the supervision of World

Bank is distrusted, for the latter’s pursuit of grand development projects favorable to

multinationals and ruling groups at the expense of locals’ considerations. North imposed

preferred institutional mechanism on South under the supervision of World Bank despite

their avowed mistrust in World Bank operation, its ideological orientations, least concern for

environmental cause, and obvious inclination towards industrialized states is a major reason

of discord between the two blocks (Gupta, 2006).

The North and South have different understanding of environmental degradation and equally

divergent order of priorities and solutions (Roberts & Parks, 2007; Redcilff & Sage, 2002;

Najam, 2005). Southern states believe in light of their understanding of development (Gupta,

2006) that issues like huge debt servicing and its constrains on social and economic

development, unfair global trade, safe drinking water, inadequate diet and soil erosion

leading to low agricultural yields demand their attention than resorting to clean sources of

development for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. South contends that in light of the

North historical contribution to climate change problem (Redcliff & Sage, 2002), it should

114

take leading massive emission curtailing measures. The distinctly variant order of preferred

environmental objectives is witnessed in case of GEF primary focus on four key global

concerns: global warming, pollution of international waters, destruction of biological

diversity, and destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer (Gupta, 2006). To the disadvantage

of global South, Gupta contends, an artificial demarcation of domestic and global

environmental problems is drawn and only those issue receive financial support that are

widespread enough to be the North’s concern. To the detriment of South's interests, North's

technical and economic superiority as well as its ability to shape ideological context,

preferences, and conception of favorable development process limit choices of developing

states (Agarwal, 2002). South considers North’s development pattern responsible for the

global environmental degradation and systemic increase of global inequality (Gupta,; Najam,

2005). It idealizes development in terms of empowerment and seeks production that would

ameliorate living condition of people. Gupta (2006) terms problem of development, global

poverty and environmental degradation as “social ecological crises”, attributed to North

unsustainable economic models, excessively unwise consumption, and unfair global

economic system. There are no same solutions for problems with different understandings

and interpretations. The global South, without invalidating the North’s environmental ideal,

significantly seeks improving state of global politics to actualize a much fair and just

international order (Najam, 2005). Equalizing per capita emission of one US citizen to 30

Pakistanis, Agarwal (2002) argues that the industrialized North as “holders of natural debt”

limits environment capacity to carbon emissions at the expense of South’s share of

development. Therefore, financial and technological assistance to the global South should not

be understood as an economic burden and threat but repayment of debt and ecological

necessity. International cooperation on climate change requires addressing equity concerns,

bringing a sense of fairness, by accepting equitable right of each to share atmospheric space.

4.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS AND INACTIONS

Power disparities of North and South and differences in their preferred political and

economic goals and course of actions are not the only factors shaping global climate change

politics. Contested definitions and principles of international climate policy making equally

depends on a fundamental consideration: cost-effectiveness of climate change actions.

115

Perception as well as reality shape understanding of cost and benefits of climate actions.

Perception as mentioned in the previous chapter plays a significant role in defining an issue

area and in shaping an interest. Perception of the reality is different from state to state and

demands evaluating assessment of social and political dynamics of a political system.

Climate change actions, as discussed, involve limitation of greenhouse emissions that

consequently restrict state’s choices of economic development. The extensive dependence on

fossil fuels to make our mechanized world function and grow is attributed to its abundance

and man's technical expertise for its exploitation (Judkins, Fulkerson, & Sanghvi, n.d.).The

link between carbon emissions and fossil fuel run modern industrialized civilization is

evidently established. The solution seeks de-linking this bond between fossil fuels and energy

production and consumption. However, the pattern of energy production and consumption

evolve a socio-economic and political culture that influences decision making process.

Energy system and socio-economic life patterns are having an intricate dependent

relationship (Herbstreuth, 2011; Karl, 2004).

4.3 FOSSIL EXPORT BASED ECONOMIES/ OPEC FEAR ECONOMIC

VULNERABILITY

Environmental scientists and the world at large are growing conscious and concerned about

two things: depleting fossil fuels and rising concentration of greenhouse gases. Our entire

life pattern in a modern technological society is inextricably linked to fossil fuel combustion,

consequently emitting greenhouse gases. Alday, Baron and Tubiana (n.d.) drawing

relationship of fossil fuel led economy and climate change highlight that greenhouse

emission is a corollary of every economic activity. They argue that cost and perception of

cost lie at the root of effective climate policy. Therefore, one major task before the

stakeholders of the global economy and environment is to “manage cost” of the international

climate regime to accommodate states that are having fossil fuel dependent economy for

ensuring their participation (Alday, Baron & Tubiana, n.d.). The cost-effective climate

strategy demands maximum emission reduction with minimum cost. Cost evaluation,

however, is a complex and demanding process regarding climate change. Timing, long

atmospheric residual of the greenhouse gases and their possible adverse impacts in case of

116

inaction or benefit in case of action, makes countering climate change a 'political dilemma'

for policy makers. They desist, for fear of losing political clout and favourability, to impose

public cost for distant benefits. Climate policy making is equally limited in presence of

uncertainty regarding its adverse impacts and cost of climate actions for controlling climate

change that for fossil fuel exporters mean less production. Apprehensions that impacts of

climate change are “irreversible”, thus, cost on action would be “irrecoverable” limits

effective policy making (Alday, Baron & Tubiana, n.d.).

States climate policies, however, are not only shaped by understanding of cost or perception

of it, but also involves comparative evaluation of the cost undertaken—relative cost. Cost

distribution among states fundamentally influences political viability and environmental

effectiveness of a climate policy (Aldy, Baron, & Tubiana, 2003).A policy is politically

contested for equitable sharing of benefits and burdens and in consideration to development

goals and increasing adaptive capacity of the vulnerable states. States with respect to the

domestic socio-economic and political consideration consider climate change controlling

measures disastrous for their national interests. States divergent stances in essence are

fundamentally their understanding of how climate actions to counter climate change will

affect their respective state. States are differentiated with respect to nature of energy

dependence in relation to economy and culture it evolves (Paterson, 1996). Energy exporter

countries like Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are dependent on

export of oil and gas for revenue and thus resist any strong climate convention. With 87% of

its revenue dependent on oil export, Saudi Arabia demanded to be treated as special as

vulnerable small island states with an understanding that rigid climate rules could seriously

undermine its economy and development (Paterson, 1996). Paterson highlights how

consistently Saudi Arabia sought obstructing negotiation process, resorting to scientific

uncertainty and questioning critical role of CO2 in global warming.

Russell (2011) after emphasizing the intensity of climate change implications elaborates

political culture that dominates decision making structure of the oil rich Middle Eastern

states. Climate change is limiting human development—growing human potential and

freedom—by restricting human freedom and choices. It equally undermines history as an

idea of progress that future will be better than the past, a quintessential foundation of

117

enlightenment and modernism. The oil producing states maintain both their highly

consumptive man-made artificial world and continued spending on mitigation and adaptation

measures with revenue earned from international energy market. Paradoxically, revenue

generation through enhanced global consumption of petroleum products and fossil fuel are

further contributing to greenhouse emissions, aggravating global climate change. In a word,

mitigation and adaptation efforts require regulating global consumption of fossil fuels, which

is understood fundamentally threatening the existing socio-political and economic

infrastructure of the Persian Gulf. Extensive intervention of state machinery has actualized a

man-made artificial world that is overtaxing natural environment in the oil producing Persian

Gulf. Russell (2011) cites Saudi Arabia's desperate measure for generating artificial rains to

irrigate its arid lands as an example of such profligate use of state resources and machinery.

Apart from this paradoxical situation, the OPEC countries are considered accursed with

'resource curse’—elite decision making structure in absence of democratic norms and system

that secures political acquiescence through extensive public luxurious welfare services (Karl,

2011;). This favourable interdependent relationship of elites' continued control of state's

machinery and luxury driven society flourishes with the help of revenue accrued from the

international energy markets. Most of the fossil fuel export economies in Middle East could

not develop effective democratic norms, structures and accountability mechanisms

(Waterbury, 2013). Resource curse, in a word, has strengthened if not originated the

authoritarian decision making structure that excludes masses but provides them excessive

economic benefits for their political docility Waterbury(2013) considers that market

liberalization, understood to have entrenched this political exclusion, has further limited

economic benefits and political power in few hands. Examination of this seemingly

inescapable cycle could make one understand the pivotal position of fossil fuels and

dependence of the governments and governed in OPEC on revenue generated from this

resource. Russell (2011) terms this interaction “inexorably intertwined”.

However, global climate changes are constraining the environmental benefits and catalysing

the existing problems: burgeoning population, poverty, unemployment and political and

government fragmentation. Crucially important of all these problems is the rising freshwater

scarcity in the oil rich Persian Gulf (Russell, 2011. Inhospitable and rugged environment,

118

however, has not restrained these states from its extended unwise investment in their efforts

to develop their efficient agricultural self-sufficiency. As discussed earlier, the inherent

contradiction of actualizing adaptation and mitigation measures through acquired capital

from the international energy markets successively undermine environmental soundness. The

impending climate impacts followed by exacerbation of related socio-economic problems,

however, are perceived less threatening by these regimes than the divergence between

politics of climate change and their national interests. Babiker (2003) argues that in view of

the oil exporting countries dependence on oil industries, economic implications of the

response measures to climate change are the most important adverse effects. Saudi Arabia,

overwhelmed by this understanding, has been resisting formation of a global agreement that

could either reduce energy demands or make OPEC countries commit to mitigation and

adaptation in developing states (Paterson, 1996).

Economic vulnerability is prioritized in comparison to other physical vulnerabilities. OPEC's

solution to climate change problem is technological evolution and development, as

propounded by Saudi oil minister, rather than substitute of fossil fuels (Rusell, 2011).

Explaining state-society relationship, the rentier state theory postulates that states relying on

income of oil and gas imports levy no taxes on their subjects (Gray, 2011; Machowski, 2010)

that result in “fewer political demands” from them (Levins, 2013). Similarly, state's profuse

societal distribution of this revenue, understandably, makes it less obliged to its subjects in

terms of democratic values and developmental foundations. Gray (2011) concludes that rents

and rentierism remain fundamental to understanding of the gulf OPEC states, despite

presence of many other determinants and problems. In view of the paramount significance

and dependence of OPEC socio-economic and political infrastructure on external rents from

international energy markets, resistance to climate actions that are feared to undermine these

rents flow is comprehensible.

4.4 GAS GUZZLING CULTURE AND RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT FEEL

THREATENED

Apart from the energy exporters, industrialized states with rich energy resources and

corresponding high consumption as well as states with available cheap fossil fuels and

119

leaping ambitions to rapid development also consider climate change controlling actions

disadvantageous and thus resist them. With strong resource base, they are not necessarily

exporters. US with its gas guzzling culture, second largest production in oil and gas and first

in coal, stands out among these states because of its political, economic and military

superiority (Paterson, 1996). Equally strong resistance has been provided by countries which

has the potential to become developed and industrialized with available capped resources like

India, Brazil, and China. Following fossil-fuel model of development, an excessive rise is

witnessed in their carbon emissions (Schreuder, 2009).

United States rich resources procure a highly consumptive society with rich lifestyle.

Although China has replaced US position as the world highest greenhouse gases emitter, the

latter still has the largest per capita emissions (Schreuder, 2009). Having a gas guzzling

culture, US refuses to commit itself to any of emission reduction commitment that would

compromise its existing life standards. Roberts and Parks (2007) quote former US President

George H.W. Bush stating that “the American lifestyle is not open to negotiation” to reinforce

its reluctance to commit to global emission reduction. Sachs (2014) highlights the large

global implications of this lifestyle terming it an “outsized damage” because of the massive

wastage it produces. John Perkins, author “Confession of an Economic Hit Man (2004) is

cited by Diaz (2008) in his famous documentary, The End of poverty” about this dismal

global impact of the US. Perkins laments that despite comprising below 5% of the world’s

population, United States consume 25% of its resources and produce more than 30% of its

pollution. Bolin (2007) in light of these understanding seeks effective US response against

climate change, not only because of largest fossil fuel consumption but also its enormous

capacity to plays an effective role. However, large industrialized states in general but US in

particular resists hard line industrially restrictive agreements (Jaggard, 2007). U.S prefers

ensuring continued energy security largely defined as “sufficient quantities of supplies at

affordable price” (Sauter & Mackerron, 2008). Climate actions are understood to have

negative economic implications, undermining existing industrial infrastructure and cultural

life patterns (Aldy, Baron & Tubiana, 2003).

Differences exist in response to climate change actions based on different economic and

physical implications of climate change. Common but Differentiated Responsibility and

120

Respective Capacity (CBDR-RC) principle, though contested, acknowledges vulnerable

conditions as well as historical non-responsibility for the climate change. Based on the same

principle developing states, group G77, are absolved of binding commitments. However, US

resists what Handl(2012) terms diminution of responsibilities on behalf of developing states,

especially the growing economies like China and India. U.S understands that without

compliance of these states, especially China, to global emission reduction, international

climate change policy would remain ineffective (Weissmann, 2013). Fossil fuels, understood

as cheap and abundant resource, lies at the heart of the gifts and comforts of the present

integrated small world. Developing states believe that they are entitled to have their

development through fossil fuels (Roberts & Parks, 2007). Based on these grounds, their

proposed solutions to climate change prioritize their development objectives. Advocating per

capita emission standard for assessment of emissions, India and China desire to enlarge their

space of emissions and consequent development (Roberts & Parks, 2007). As earlier

discussed, an international climate regime and policy is possible if understood and perceived

grounded in justice and fair play. This understanding and perception of justice and fair play

are widely different. Developing world, especially China and India, rigid adherence to the

principle of CBDR-RC is almost equally matched by the developed world, specifically US,

unflagging insistence to seek commitment from these rapidly growing economies.

Burgeoning population, massive export and rising carbon emission characterized today's

China. China has resisted pressure for emission reduction under the clout of a large umbrella

of G77—a collective voice to global South. It is committed to its right to development

justifying it on the ground of having lower per capita emissions compare to the US, and

historically assigning problem of climate change to the early western industrialization. There

is, however, growing understanding that China would address the issue in view of the

impending threats and international pressure. Climate change poses domestic as well as

international threats to China (Lewis, 2011). Domestically, climate change, as argued by

Werrell and Femia (2013), acts as a life constraining factor, a “threat multiplier” or a

“stresser” that enhances acceleration and complexity of the existing problems. With

cataclysmic changes in water circle and disruptive unfavourable environment, China could

face mass forced migration that may adversely affect its social and political cohesion.

Undermined coastal areas, reduced watershed and rivers are some of China's major concerns.

121

Equally intimidating, however, is the international constraints of not subjecting itself to

environmental standards despite understood as world's largest emitter (Lewis, 2011).

The contested politics of international climate change regime is incomprehensible without

taking into account other contentious issues of global political economy between China and

the rest of the developed world, specifically US. The most vital of such issues are financial

and trade wars (Bracken, 2007; Evenett, 2010; Otero-Iglesias, 2011). Apart from the financial

imbalances, China’s large population, resolute efforts for rapid development and growing

consumption of its society are understood to have pulled the war for foreign resources and

their transportation in to the ambit of US and China embittered relationship (Wiggin, 2013;

Zweig & Jianhai, 2005). China's drive for access to world's resource, most of which lie in

Middle East and Africa, is forcing it to take an adversarial position to the US against states

declared by the latter as pariah or axis of evil. Zweig and Jianhai (2005) cite examples of

China harmonious economic relationship with Iran, 1997 Sudan and Venezuelan government,

potentially threatening US hegemonic influence and its acclaimed world order. Furthermore,

growing control of the Chinese oil companies in Iraq was understood challenging vital US

interest in the Middle East as propounded in Carter doctrine—an outside force's attempt to

gain control of the Persian Gulf is an assault on the vital interests of the US (Wiggin, 2013).

In a word, climate change political dispute is part of a large frame of divergent national

interests of the two largest global emission emitters. Politics for climate actions could further

accelerate the existing embittered financial relations. Lewis (2011) argues that the widening

bridge between those seeking commitment to reduce global emission and those resisting it

could further intensify the existing contentious issues between China and developed world.

The question confronting analysts of climate politics and international political economy is to

assess whether these environmental and financial constraints and exigencies would result in

cooperation or confrontation between these two states. Most importantly, in case of

confrontation—an unwise choice to Zweig and Jianhai (2005)--China needs to assess its

capacity to sustain international pressure for noncompliance to international standards of

emissions reduction.

International climate policy grounded in justice and fairness, primarily perceived so, is

indispensable for its acceptance and implementation (Soltau, 2009; Roberts & Parks, 2007).

122

China's position as a world major carbon emitter and non-compliance to the expected

environmental standards is unacceptable to the developed West. Feared discounting global

market space for others, China's vibrantly flourishing economy—cautiously attributed to its

currency devaluation—has estranged rather embittered its relations with US and EU (Otero-

Iglesias, 2011; Hughes, 2005).) These broad conflicting financial issues could envelop

disagreements about international climate policy. Quoting French President Sarkozi for

restricting imports of countries in violation of the global environmental protection, Lewis

states that China could face economic sanctions from the US as well as EU. In addition, G77

forum, China's secured platform, is divided since Brazil and Mexico's signalled decision to

subject themselves to international climate actions. Most importantly, China's options to

growth are not limited in presence of its rising capabilities in Nuclear as well as renewable

energy like Solar. It current extensive reliance, however, on coal for rapid growth will

gradually change in consideration of the impending environmental threats and international

political and economic pressure (Lewis, 2011).

Though lagging behind China, India undoubtedly tries to match the latter’s zest for economic

development (Cohen, 2001). Climate change is also posing formidable challenges to India.

Effective countering of the adverse implications of climate change requires viable state

capacity: ability of its institutions and political elite of a proficient response against societal

disruptions in case of climate challenges (Paul, 2011). Paul considers that climate change

would accentuate existing socio-economic and political threats by aggravating environmental

constraints: problem of sharing limited water at inter and intrastate level (Ray, 2008), low

crop yields, and serious implications for forests, coastal areas and human health (Mittal,

2003; Paul, 2011). India is a conflict ridden multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society with

widespread relative poverty. Apart from the radical islamist forces, India is rifted with

various armed socialist movement (Sharma & Behera, 2014). The Naxalites or Moist

Socialists, with its tentacles spread over 14 of the Indian 29 states—termed the most serious

internal threat.

China and India relate in terms of their burgeoning population and pursuit of economic

development with continued uncompromising reliance on their fossil fuels and recent global

demand for the world energy resources. Rajan (2007) argues that the two states enhancing

123

their access to global energy resources require good relations to ensure transportation through

sea lanes. Despite their uncompromising stance of reducing carbon emission at the expense

of economic development and poverty alleviation, India reactive policy on the issue could

substantially change if China adopts a favourable stance on international climate actions.

4.5 VULNERABLE LOW LYING AND SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

SEEK CLIMATE ACTIONS

John Kerry, United States Secretary of State, in view of the unequivocal rising certainty of

climate change and its impending adverse impacts, declared climate change as the “fearsome

weapon of mass destruction”(Harvey, 2014). As highlighted earlier, taking into account

special needs and circumstances of states is a predominant consideration of the Common But

Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capacity principle (CBDR-RC). This principal

emphasizes that developed industrialized North should primarily address climate change

problem through mitigation as well as enhancing adaptive capacity of the developing states.

However, developing states are not given free ride but asked to seek sustainable development

(Aginam, 2011). Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and low lying states like Bangladesh

would suffer seemingly insurmountable problems rather feared extinction in case of inaction

against climate change. Continued rising sea level, as discussed earlier because of the

involved extended time lag despite actualizing stable emissions, makes climate change the

foremost existential threat to SIDS and low lying states (Dessler & Parson, 2006; Hougton,

2009). Reduced freshwater sources, rising temperature, devastation of the resource base and

infrastructure, and most importantly feared inundation are some of the most adverse impacts

of climate change. Paradoxically, with less than 1% contribution to the problem of climate

change, SIDS lies at the front against the marching vanguard of climate destruction (Lopes,

2013).

Climate change has serious adverse implications for low lying states like Bangladesh and

SIDS. Topographically vulnerable, Bangladesh is declared one of the world's twelve states

with highest risk of climate disasters (Riaz, 2011), feared to enhance its socio-political

disruptions. The Maldives' President symbolizes crucial climate threat to his state's existence

by holding an underwater cabinet meeting (Harvey, 2014). It could not, however, draw the

124

required worlds' attention to the neglected concerns of these vulnerable states. SIDS

prioritizes adaptation essentially demanding financial and technological assistance to

strengthen their capacity against climate impacts. These countries seek fair mechanism that

duly voice and represent their concerns for financial and technological assistance.

Developing South at large and the most vulnerable small island states in particular seek

redirection of the global climate funding to their adaptation requirements (Barnett &

Campbell, 2010). Continued appeal for the desired restructuring of the financial mechanisms

under GEF has not yet been addressed (Streck, 2011).

The economic and technological dependence of SIDS on developed states is further

aggravated in presence of ineffective political and diplomatic representation. Alliance of

Small Island States (AOSIS) has given them a unanimous voice (Aginam, 2011). However,

as pointed out by Aginam (2011) and Roberts and Parks (2007), they are “overwhelmed”

diplomatically and failed to achieve preferable climate deal because of lacking required skill

and expertise. SIDS in presence of existential threats advocate climate change insurance

fund; however, developed states like UK rejects and terms it early enough to commit such

financial allocation (Gray, 2010).

Number of environmental refugees—forced migration because of life constraining

environmental factors—would increase because of rising sea level and subsequent

inundation. However, Harvey (2014) highlights conspicuous absence of the legal standing of

an environmental refugee. Currently, refuge is granted in view of religious and racial

persecution. The large number of displacement, intra as well as interstate, is feared

compounding and accentuating existing socio-economic and political conflicts. Keeping in

view these limitations, Bangladesh has advocated the concept of 'migration with dignity'

(McAdam & Saul, 2010). Wisdom and justice demand that SIDS must be assisted in

achieving their sustainability existence and growth. Aginam (2011) and Roberts and Parks

(2007) argue that SIDS should be vocal for their justified claims as it is obligatory on

developed states to commit to their adaptation and sustainable development.

125

4.6 INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: VITAL PRINCIPLES SINCE

STOCKHOLM, 1972

A vital lacuna in effective international environmental law is attributed to “piecemeal

approach” (Malanczuk, 1997). Rather than a system, international environmental law is to a

greater degree an “aggregate of multiple environmental regimes”. The simplest reason for the

bit to bit increments is the difficulty of bringing the widely fractured political world, states as

well as large number of non-state organizations with their respective agendas, to consensus.

Equally important is the phenomenon termed 'tragedy of the commons’, exploitation of

global environmental assets according to one's capability in disregard to others’ needs and

resource replenishment to ensure sustainable production (Shimko, 2010). The injudicious

overuse and exploitation of the common resources result in disparity of the costs shared by

all and benefits accrued by few. The destruction of the resources, an eventual outcome, is a

loss to everyone.

Rio and Stockholm declarations with their human centric approach are characteristically

different from Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 and World Charter for Nature, 1982,

for they value all forms of life irrespective to their relationship with humans (Handl, 2012).

Assigning instrumental value to environment, intrinsic worth of other species was

undermined and humans were placed at the center of sustainable development (Drexhage &

Murphy, 2010). Man’s right to a healthy environment is underlined in Rio Declaration and

conditioned to be in consonance and in “harmony” with nature (Handl, 2012).

Modern era of international environmental law initiates its course with Stockholm

Declaration, 1972 and Rio Declaration, 1992, resulting in policy and legal instruments like

Action Plan for the Human Environment and Agenda 21 at Stockholm and Rio respectively

(Handl,2012). These declarations sow seeds for developing an effective framework for future

environmental protection (Malanczuk, 1997; Henderson, 2010). The Stockholm Declaration,

1972, underlining human impact on global environment, emphasizes environmental growth

and preservation, advocates involvement of transnational actors in environmental decision

making and incorporates environment and development (Handl, 2012). This declaration as a

stepping stone paved the way for existing 900 to 1000 bilateral and multilateral

126

environmental agreements (Henderson, 2010). At the heart of all these environmental

agreements, there are certain vital principle and concepts that are contested, agreed, or agreed

to left ambiguous among international actors for their potential political profundity. The

preceding pages list some of those principles, for their evaluation is vital to the understanding

of international climate regime.

4.6.1 Sustainable Development

Prior to Rio conference, 1992, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987

(WCED) remarkably links environment and development by coining the concept of

sustainable development, primarily signifying two related understandings: needs and

limitations (Malanczuk, 1997). Despite inherent ambiguity, the concept of sustainable

development emphasizes meeting needs of the present and future generations, especially of

the world's poor in presence of human and environmental limitations of resources. The Rio

Declaration, 1992 provides a legal foundation and political orientation to the concept of

sustainable development with its systematic approach to the much highlighted normative

standards in Stockholm, 1972. The concept of sustainable development with its multi-layered

interpretations has still not attained “actual operationalization” as stated by UN Secretary

General Ban Ki-Moon in 2012(Handl,2012). However, it broadly signifies fulfilling needs of

present without compromising those of future generations. Actualizing sustainable

development is an understanding of the man’s relationship with nature, of the social progress

and development in the North and South, and of the present and future (Baker, 2006).

Promoting sustainable development is quintessentially a global task, challenging the

prevalent conventional form of development. Distinguishing the two, Baker (2006)

characterizes the modernization driven western development centered on market forces of

production and consumption, transformation of nature to enhance energy and agricultural

productivity, and achieving high mass consumption to actualize a welfare society. Sustainable

development idealizes an ecological society that reconciles broad and divergent social,

economic and ecological dimensions of development into one. It is termed a continued

promotion of measures that would bring an end to injudicious exploitation of nature, advance

individual of present as well as future generations, and bring production and consumption in

127

conformity to nature’s ability to provide for the needs of the present and future generations.

Malanczuk (1997) highlights its equal emphasis upon meeting needs especially of the poor in

view of the existing technical and economic limitations and social awareness.

4.6.2 State Responsibility

States have different understandings of individual’s right to satisfactory environment, and

their responsibility to each other regarding environmental protection (Handl, 2012). Despite

acknowledging State’s sovereign right to exploit its resources in view of its “environmental”,

(Stockholm Declaration), and “environmental and developmental” (Rio Declaration)

objectives, currently an establish principle of general international law, the two declarations

advocate against harming environmental soundness in other states or beyond its national

jurisdiction(Henderson,2010; Handl,2012; Malanczuk,1997). Principle 21 and 22 of the

Stockholm declaration state this responsibility of the states towards their own subjects and

other state, and seeks judicious exploitation of resources in their possession without

compromising environmental health. Moreover, states are asked to legislate, concur and

evolve measures for realization of these ideals. Providing prior information to safeguard

against hazardous environmental impacts is termed essential among states (Handl, 2012).

Responsibility of a state to others regarding harmful environmental effects has not been

signified in Stockholm declaration, 1972. General Assembly asked for cooperation among

states in environmental matters. However, Rio declaration was more explicit and

“mandatory” in its language demanding assessment, information and consultation among

states having risk of adverse environmental effects. Principles 17, 18 and 19, signifying

assessment of environmental impact, emergency notification, and regular notification and

consultation among states respectively, are the most important aspects of Rio declaration.

Presently, these principles with consistent support from other international agreements and

practices have become an understood part of international customary legal obligations.

4.6.3 Right To Development

Both Stockholm and Rio Declarations accept right to development essential, for both natural

and man’s made environment for sustained economic and social existence and welfare are

128

equally needed for sustaining and improving human life (Handl, 2012). Rio Declaration

emphatically terms right to development indispensable to meet needs of our current and

future generations. Evolved since 1986 as a result of UN Declaration on the Right to

Development, it is considered a relatively new concept that tries to bridge economic disparity

of the developed North and developing South with integration of human rights and

development (Orellana, 2010). Formally declaring right to development as an inalienable

right of every individual, the declaration declares state responsible for providing an enabling

environment, nationally as well as internationally (Salama, 2005, Saeed,n.d.). The right to

development signifies “ a comprehensive economic, social and political process, which aims

at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals

on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair

distribution of benefits resulting there from”(Orellan,2010; Saeed(n.d.); Salama,2005).

Rather than limiting to particular characteristics and definite lines, independent scholars like

Professor Sengupta, as cited in Salama(2005), terms it right to “ a particular process of

development” centered on limiting economic disparities between the rich and poor, wealth

concentration with few, and ameliorating human conditions through measures like better

health, education and improved environmental conditions. Salama (2005) and Saeed (n.d.)

limit the functional definition of the right to development as a process that tries to eliminate

“structural obstacles” to development. Saeed (n.d.) terms it the “fusion of all human rights

and fundamental freedom”. Presently, this concept envisions interdependence of social,

economic and environmental development, and is also invoked to offset stringent

environmental regulation that could limit development.

Despite wide international usage and considered by some a missing link between trade,

development and human rights and thus a “father of all rights” (Salama,2005) , the defining

and practical aspects of the right to development are still a controversial debate(Saeed,n.d;

Feyter, 2013). Some critics considering it unattainable by states term it “meaningless,

dangerous, and catastrophic and total failure”. This criticism finds appeal with the developed

world especially when it comes to the mandatory international cooperation this declaration

places on them for facilitating developing states in achieving the desired development

(Orellan, 2010; Saeed,n.d.; Handl,2012). The interpretation and reaction is not uniform

among the developed states. Germany denies mandatory international cooperation; whereas,

129

US outrightly rejects national right to development and its international binding legal nature

(Saeed,n.d.). The controversial dynamics of the right to development envelops global

environmental politics (Handl, 2012). The right to development in relation to environment

became controversial between North (developed) and South (developing) states. The former

with ecologically centered approach denounce such right considering it unfriendly to

environment, while the latter upholds it to actualize their development.

4.6.4 Precautionary Principle

Precautionary principle is a concept based on an inherent moral right of a person to protect

himself against “potential” threats (Deloso, 2005). It has played a vital role in shaping

climate change regime with its essential soft character convincing world leaders to its vital

crux. The principle received legal attention when incorporated into Rio Declaration (Handl,

2012; Goldstein, 2009; Houghton, 2009). The principle 15 elaborating the precautionary

principle distinguishes Rio Declaration from the Stockholm Declaration (Handl, 2012), and

generally recommend precautionary approach as the right course for states for the protection

of environment in presence of threats and damages despite absence of absolute scientific

certainty. It states that “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall

be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious

or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for

postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”(Deloso, 2005;

Ellis, 2006; Pittock, 2009). The simplified essence of the principle is same despite variations

in expressions and contents (Deloso, 2005; Myres, 2000). The core of the principle seeks

precautions to be taken against any risk or threat of consequential nature to human health and

environment despite lack of concrete and conclusive scientific evidences. Lack of certainty

should not hinder the essential protective measures. Myres(2000) mentions that the recent

explanation of the principle has questioned overweening influence of technological industry

on its production with focus on safe technology.

The principle is echoed with much emphasis in addressing problem of climate change in UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in its principle 3. Article 3 of the

UNFCCC seeks that “parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or

130

minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate against its adverse effects”, for absence

of absolute certainty is not a reason for inaction, specifically when relying on cost-effective

measures to realize global good at a minimum possible cost (Pittock, 2009; Goldstein, 2009).

The precautionary principle facilitated progress in climate debate and policy-making in

presence of the complexity and uncertainty of its science. As Pittock (2009) aptly puts it,

“uncertainty is inevitable, but risk is certain”. With an understanding that absolute certainty

could not be assured and uncertainty is inherent to the issue, the precautionary principle

adheres to the sequential and gradual approach towards solution of the problem (Deloso,

2005). Rather than opting for wait-and-see approach till the concrete certainty, the

precautionary principle prioritizes 'no regret' policy with an understanding that it’s better to

be safe than sorry. The no regret option advocates following policies of adaptation and

mitigation. Ellis (2006) cites Christopher Stone in elaborating the facilitative role of the

precautionary principle in actualizing climate change regime. Primarily, without placing any

positive obligations and restricting actions, it asks not to wait for “proof of a cause-effect...

between a given substance, process, or activity and environmental harm”. This has

significantly transformed process of decision making regarding environmental protection

among the key stakeholders.

Deleso (2005), Ellis (2006), and Mandel and Gathii (2006) analyze legal status of the

precautionary principle. The principle is widely in use and incorporated as a vital element of

29 international agreements and 7 declarations (Deleso, 2005). Deleso (2005) and Mandel

and Gathii (2006) concur and consider precautionary principle to be part of the international

customary law based on extensive state practice and presence of opinion jurrissive.

Ellis(2006) after dilating on each different stance concludes that precautionary principle

shares attributes of customary international law likes its “ambiguity and vagueness” and its

extensive application in international regulations. Similarly, Seabed Chamber of the

International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea in its advisory opinion, 2011 underlines

precautionary approach as an international legal principle if not a rule(Handl, 2012).

However, Handl maintains that despite this wide appeal and application, though not well

defined, US rejected this principle as an accepted principle of international law.

131

4.6.5 Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR)

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) owes its evolution to

related notions of ‘common heritage of mankind’ and equity (Khalfan, 2002). Espousing

common responsibility for environmental protection, this principle equally acknowledges

different circumstances and limitations, level of contribution to climate change problem and

degree of capacity for solution. Distinguishing shared resources form those under state

jurisdiction, CBDR places them under common responsibility but with different obligations

from states. One of the distinctive features of Rio declaration, 1992 is principal 7 that urges

states for cooperation “in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the

health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem”. The same principle underlines developed

states’ responsibility to “international pursuit of sustainable development” in light of

historically overburdening global environment and their technological and financial

capacities to address environmental issues (Handl, 2012; Hillier, 1998; “Common, but

differentiated responsibilities” debate takes a turn, 2012).

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) establishes its ultimate objective

of not exceeding the greenhouse concentration resulting in “dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate system” (Mabey, Hall, Smith & Gupta, 1997; Handl, 2012). The

preamble of the convention states "that the global nature of climate change calls for the

widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and

appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated

responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions"(United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992).It equally underscores the largest

ratio of emissions contribution, historical and current, from the developed states; while,

signifying relatively low level per capita emissions of the developing states with an

understanding that it would grow corresponding to their social and economic developmental

requirements. Taking into account the unsatisfactory economic and widespread poverty

conditions, the convention seeks an “integrated” approach for resolution of climate problems

considering social and economic developmental priorities of the developing states to assist

them alleviating their poverty and actualize sustainable growth (Kageson, 2011). The CBDR

principle finds its support in 1972 Stockholm Declaration principle 12, principle 6 and 7 of

132

the Rio convention, Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC, article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, article 3.1

of the Kyoto Protocol, article 20.4 of the convention on Biological diversity, and article 21of

Convention on Biological Diversity (Hey, n.d).

However, Principle 7 as phrased does not indicate that the developing countries should not

contribute (Kageson, 2011). On the contrary, the very essence and strength of the CBDR is

that all states must participate in common efforts with a sense of common and shared

responsibility to protect environment (The principle of common but differentiated

responsibilities, 2002). Principle 7 divides the world into developed and developing countries

without defining the border- line of each. Where that line should be drawn is an obstacle to

an international treaty or protocol that limits the operationalization of the CBDR principle

(Kageson, 2011). Some industrial countries have contributed more to the degradation of

common environmental resources than others. Moreover, all developed states are not equally

capable of financing or implementing solutions. In view of the economic and technological

deprivations, subjecting and demanding same environmental standards from the developed

and developing states could highly constrain them economically and socially as mentioned in

the 1972 Stockholm declaration (The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities,

2002).

As an elemental instrument, the Kyoto protocol upholds the CBDR principle and assigns

emission control targets within prescribed time for the 38 developed Annex B countries,

whereas excluding developing states from emission reduction, protocol provides them catch

up time for enhancing their capacity through flexibility measures of Joint Implementation,

Emission Trading and Clean Development Mechanisms(Kageson, 2011; Schreuder, 2009).

Entrusting the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) with tasks of managing financial

assistance and technology transfer to developing states, the Kyoto protocol tries to

operationalize the CBDR principle (Kageson, 2011). However, with no emission restriction

for developing states and no covering mechanism of the developed Annex 1 states’ emission,

Kageson terms Kyoto protocol limited in its effectiveness. The preferential treatment of the

developing states embedded in the CBDR principle demands developed states to significantly

shoulder responsibility for solution of climate change in view of their historical and

continued higher ratio of carbon emissions. On the other hand, it professes developing states

133

right to sustainable development with the help of financial assistance and technology transfer

from the developed states in light of their specific needs and circumstances.

In order to understand significance of the CBDR principle, it is important to highlight

rational for the differentiation among states. A report titled, “The legal principles relating to

climate change”, compiled by Japan Branch Committee on Climate Change in July 2009,

states that the word, responsibility’ in the CBDR principle connotes moral duty and not legal

obligation. The report characterizes four underlying theories for the reason of differentiation

among states: historical contribution, entitlement theory, capacities theory and promotion

theory. Historical contribution theory signifies emission contribution of the earlier industrial

states, entitlement theory acknowledges development priorities of the developing states as

victim to colonial exploitation, the capacities theory considers developed states financially

and technologically much equipped to deal with this crises, and finally promotion theory

seeks inclusion and participation of all the states by taking into consideration their respective

situations.

Although understood and acknowledged as a vital principle of sustainable development,

CBDR is contentious and lacks operational clarity in terms of application and implications.

Handl (2012), Mumma(n.d.), Bortscheller(2010), and Kageson(2011) highlight limitations of

the CBDR and seek its revision to materialize an effective climate change regime. The

complexity of climate change demands meaningful cooperation from all international actors

(Bortsheller, 2010). To Bortsheller, the CBDR principle hinders materializing this desired

outcome owing to its preferential treatment of the rising economies like China. Grouped with

the rest of the developing states, these emerging economies despite their high emission ratio

are exempted of binding limitations. Fundamentally distinguishing between developed and

developing states based on historical and current emissions and financial and technological

capacity of each to control climate changes, CBDR is termed “primarily backward looking”

(Bortscheller, 2010). There is no further demarcation within these two divisions. To end the

“invidious inertia” in actualizing an effective international climate change regime,

Bortscheller(2010) and Mumma(n.d.) advocate reinterpretation of the CBDR principle and

evolution of a new category to incorporate the evolving economies. The politically contended

interpretations of the principle and its underlying motivation are grounded in various

134

theories. The overemphasis of a state or a non-state entity on a particular theory is

fundamentally a struggle to actualize the respective norms and values it advocates (The legal

principles relating to climate change, 2009) along with the associated material

considerations.

Legitimizing asymmetrical responsibility and contribution, the CBDR principle is the

linchpin for ensuring support of the developing states. However, actors are trying to bring the

contested understanding of the principle to their favorable mould. The G77 states asked for

more “stringent formulation” of the CBDR by attributing the problem to the prevalent

unsustainable pattern of production and consumption in developed countries(Kageson,2011);

whereas US refuses to accept any “diminution of responsibilities” for developing states under

the rubric of this principle(Handl,2012).

The principle CBDR, with respect to it differentiation among states, is found in conflict with

the principles of states' responsibility of not harming environment of another state actions

taken within territorial jurisdiction and precautionary principle(Kageson, 2011;

Bortscheller,2010). Article 3.3 of the convention, as mentioned earlier, describes

precautionary principle addressing and seeking support of all parties in taking precautionary

measures for anticipating, preventing and mitigating repercussions of climate change.

Kageson (2011) and Bortscheller(2010) consider that the demarcating line, in terms of

contribution and responsibility for the problem, drawn between developed and developing

states in the CBDR principle, seems blurred in presence of the precautionary principle and

each state’s responsibility for controlling environmental and territorial damage across its

borders. As these two principles seem restrict every state's right, irrespective of its economic

and social impoverishment, for unlimited emissions of greenhouse gases. With their all-

inclusive application, these two principles question the preferential dimension of CBDR and,

in turn, its locus standi. Therefore, Kageson (2011) cautiously terms it a guideline rather than

a legal principle.

4.6.6 Cooperation and Participation

Environmental regulations need effective participation and cooperation of all entities, state

and non-state including individuals, at all levels. Rio declaration in its principle 27 urges

135

state and people to cooperate in good faith for the realization of the stated objectives and

attaining of sustainable development (Qc Sand, 2003; Maguire, 2013). Similar provision is

upheld in the principle 24 of the Stockholm declaration, 1972(Qc Sand, 2003; Declaration of

the United Nations conference on the human environment, 1972). Principles of good faith

and good neighborlinesses, as general principles of international law, regard trust and

confidence essential for international cooperation (Voigt, 2008; Qc Sand, 2003). Despite

being unspecific in nature, the principle of good faith bridles unquestioned state's sovereignty

(Bederman, 2002). Similarly good neighborliness, as a universal concept in international

relations, is embodied in UN charter with emphasis on tolerance and peace among nations as

good neighbours (Uilenreef, 2009). This desired cooperation mentioned in UN, Article 74 for

amicable resolution of disputes is extended to encompass environmental protection in

principle 24 of the Stockholm declaration, 1972 and principle 27 of the Rio declaration (Qc

Sand, 2003). International environmental law holds state and non-state entities responsible

for environmental preservation and seeks developing domestic as well as international law

for this purpose as stated in principle 22 of the Stockholm declaration and principle 13 of the

Rio declaration respectively (Handl, 2012). While Stockholm declaration in its principle 22

relies on international law (Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human

environment, 1972), Rio declaration in principle 13 includes international and national law

(Rio declaration on environment and development, 1992).

Apart from cooperation of state and non-state actors, participation of them in the process of

environmental protection is much required. Participation, termed a mantra in environmental

governance, ensures credibility by 'creating ownership and substantially improves the quality

of decisions by empowering marginalized sections of the society (Wesselink, Paavola, Fritsch

& Renn, n.d.). Defined in terms of context, participation signifying principle, policy or an

end is considered indispensable for sustainable development (Understanding community

participation, 2009). Rio declaration in principle 10 stresses that participation on behalf of

citizens require access to information, involvement in decision making and justice in all

environmental matters(Handl, 2012; Fitzmaurice,n.d.;.Nishima-F, 2013; B.S, 2013).

Information and awareness regarding environmental threats and counter measures against

them, involvement in policy making and implementation, and properly guaranteed judicial

and administrative remedial measures ensure participation (Nishima-F, 2013). The concept of

136

participation is derived from an understanding as Kimani (2010) argues, “engaged citizenry

is better than a passive one”. Role of civil society with its eclectic composition, including

persons and organizations and common demands on governments is important for bringing

environmental awareness and agreements for its protection.(Gemmil & Bamidele-lzu,n.d)

Civil society's required participation and contribution is further emphasized in the UN

Economic Convention on Europe, 1998, also termed Aarhus Convention that link

environment with human rights (Fitzmaurice, n.d; Convention of access to information,

public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, 1998).

The parameters of participation was further broadened under agenda 21 by including other

stakeholders like women, indigenous people and farmers to have better understanding of the

things from multiple angles(Eden, 1996). Role of the indigenous people with their traditional

wisdom and culture is declared crucially significant in environmental protection and realizing

sustainable development in Principle 22 of Rio declaration (Rio declaration on environment

and development, 1992). In order to ensure their participation, states are asked to

acknowledge and facilitate their respective identity, culture and interests for actualizing

sustainable development. In a word, preservation and development of their respective

cultural and its development affirm environmental preservation and growth. This much

advocated indispensable relation of environment with cultural distinctiveness of the local

population has found recognition in other multilateral international agreement, most

importantly in United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, resolution

61/295(Handl, 2012). Similarly, Women’s empowerment and participation has been

established as a major underpinning of sustainable development in Rio Declaration. The

declaration in principle 20 unequivocally and explicitly acknowledges role of women in

protection and enhancement of environment (Rio declaration on environment and

development, 1992). Women’s livelihood is significantly dependent on their immediate

environment in environmentally vulnerable communities especially in developing states.

Environmental degradation could disrupt and constrain their lives and further undermine

their participation and contribution to sustainable development. This understanding and

association between women empowerment and environmental growth received renewed

support and strength at Rio+20 by incorporating concepts of sustainability, equality and

gender equality (Handl, 2012). However, concerted efforts on multilateral basis are essential

137

to bridge the gap between the aspired objectives and dispiriting realities of the relationship

between women and environment.

Participation ensures compliance, credibility of the decision-making process, effective

utilization of the available resources and empowerment to the marginalized section of the

society (Wesselink, Paavola, Fritsch & Renn, n.d.; B.S, 2013; Kimani, 2010). Hong (2009)

regards public participation essential for development in developing states. Despite termed a

procedural human right since Aarhus Convention, 1998(Fitzmaurice, n.d.), public

participation is systemically limited in environmental issues because of the latter dependence

on scientists' expertise in the field (Eden, 1996). Eden considers public lay ideas, unscientific

and counter-scientific approaches vital for comprehensive understanding of the

environmental problems and their solutions. The principle 10 of Rio declaration receive

support from multiple other international agreement and provisions that to a greater degree

place it among the deemed legally binding rules of international environmental regulations

(Handl, 2012). Handl states that after receiving due recognition at Rio+20, public access to

information, participation in decision making and justice in environmental matters are

considered established part of human rights.

Interests or perception of them shape the principles and concepts at the heart of climate

change negotiations. With an understanding that an international climate regime would not be

possible without sound cooperation from the key stakeholders of the international system, it

is essential that their interests are accommodated in a fashion that could evolve into a

collective response against climate change. The developed and developing states driven by

their consideration of political and economic implications of the climate actions are required

to comprehend the world as a collective unit. This process of what moulded and shaped these

divergent interests into one unified policy frame in the form of Paris agreement will be

evaluated in the succeeding chapter.

138

CHAPTER 5

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: HISTORICAL

EVOLUTION OF PARIS AGREEMENT

The complexity of global climate change politics is more intricate than its science. Bringing

sovereign states with divergent interests voicing preferred interpretation of the contested

principles to a unified policy frame is difficult—if not impossible. This chapter traces history

of these difficulties and highlight role of international actors making use of their powerful

position, influence of technological innovations and environmental institutions in shaping

ideas, identities and outcomes; and international institutions in bringing these diverse

interests to one collective will. After acknowledging the disastrous impacts of global climate

change, the solution was contended: emission reduction should be internationally determined

and mandatory or nationally determined in light of the state’s resources, limitations and

development ideals. Equally significant as mentioned earlier has been the issue of financial

and technological assistance to the developing states to actualize their clean development.

United Nations Framework Convention (1992), Kyoto Protocol 1997 and the most recent one

Paris Agreement 2015 evidently signify efforts for bringing harmony on international forum

for forming a collective response to address global climate change.

5.1 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

Historical evaluation of any phenomenon is a process of understanding the reasons and

values that led to its emergence and further evolution of the rules, norms and procedures

termed regime for addressing the impending issue. Modern world is fundamentally altered by

technological revolution and emergence of international organizations. Technological

development made it possible to enhance awareness regarding environmental problems and

significantly intensify international collaboration of states and non-states actors. Refined

scientific assessment and sharing of such information regarding environmental problems and

their impacts on human civilizations reformed international consciousness. Equally

remarkable, along advancement of science and technology, was a revolutionary

139

understanding of the inevitable, indispensable need of international organization to overcome

or limit potential disorder in the anarchic structure of the international system. The

underpinning philosophy of international organization was to provide the much required

platform for finding amicable solutions to global problems and disputes among states, to

replace measures like balance of power with collective security for maintaining international

order (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo, & Schulze,2004; Shah, 2003). Moreover, international

organization like United Nations Organization (UNO)—initially created to peacefully resolve

grave issues of war and peace, high politics—evolved into a platform for international actors

to discuss global economics, widespread poverty, environmental and health concerns—issues

earlier termed low politics (Genest, 1996). International Meteorological Organization (IMO)

involved in weather assessment across states since 1787 became more effective after UNO

creation in 1945 (Paterson, 1996). Refined technology and inter-governmental coordination

matured IMO to today’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) with extended global

reach and enhanced capabilities.

Technological development also enriched and refined man as well as states’ power to

overpower others. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD), like nuclear weapons, and an ability

to make them reach across continents changed dynamics of international politics (Rourke,

2003). Earlier observed direct confrontation of the bipolar world turned into cold war

between two superpowers, United States and Soviet Union, at the end of the Second World

War. The two nuclear powers resort to war of attrition that least involved direct

confrontation, for fear of unleashing inadvertently a catastrophic nuclear war. (Calvocrasi,

2009). The intricate process of making, improving and experimentation of these weapons

takes its toll on the environment. The adverse environmental changes and disruptive

problems intensely increased followed by enhanced consciousness, awareness and

international interaction among states and non-state actors for environmental protection

(McNeil & Unger, 2010). Realization of dire consequence of nuclearization on environment

initiated a global consensus building process that culminated in organizing International

Geophysical Year (IGY) from July 1st 1957 to December 31st 1958 with participation of

30,000 scientists from sixty six (66) states (Paterson, 1996). This enormous gathering of

scientists voiced their concern regarding rising CO2 and consequent creation of Muana Loa

140

laboratory for monitoring its concentration in atmosphere. The importance of this laboratory

and climate evaluation process is highlighted in previous chapter.

Another two significant technological innovations, satellite monitoring and computer

quantification, revolutionize human civilization and environmental understanding. The

significance of satellite monitoring could be learned from the fact that Michael Hart (1993)

places US President John F. Kennedy among the 100 most influential persons of history

because of his decision to explore opportunities in space involving huge expense. Monitoring

and assessment of environmental issues were further refined with the launch of first US

meteorology satellite on 1st April, 1969 (Bolin, 2007). Kennedy termed this new method for

weather assessment across globe ‘politically significant’ for its peaceful use in midst of cold

war. Electronic computer, another worthy technological innovation, enables quantitative

analysis of weather variations and data sharing resulting in institutional bodies like World

Weather Watch (Bolin, 2007; Paterson, 1996). Technological development enabled gathering

and assessment of data globally and facilitated unanimity of purpose and action among

scientific community regarding climate change.

Technological development corresponded with effective exchange of environmental

information and rising awareness and paved the way for institutional development, devising

effective mechanism for assessment of environmental changes. Committee on atmospheric

sciences (CAS), an international research body, under parent organization of International

Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) and assistance from International Council of

Scientific Union (ICSU), was created for effective peaceful use of satellite technology to

understand atmospheric circulation (Bolin, 2007). CAS evolved into Global Atmospheric

Research Programme (GARP) under auspices of WMO and ICSU with UN assistance.

The intellectual foundation of 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment that

resulted in United Nations Environmental Protection (UNEP) (Soltau, 2009) is attributed to

two scientific studies: “The Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP)” and the

“Study on Man’s Impact on Climate (SMIC)” in 1970 and 1971 respectively. These two

papers highlight impacts of the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 (Bolin, 2007;

Paterson, 1996). The Stockholm conference primarily addressed environmental pollution,

141

however, not without a conclusion that well-coordinated efforts are needed to overview and

understand climate changes. By 1973, GARP goals were enlarged from understanding

atmospheric circulation to explore reasons for human induced climate changes (Bolin, 2007).

Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), under the aegis of ICSU,

gathered ecologists and geologists, alarmed because of rising atmospheric concentration of

carbon. SCOPE initiated comprehensive evaluation of atmospheric circulation in light of bio-

geochemical cycles like carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous. Need for a joint international

coordinated effort resulted in various world conferences on water, food, desertification, and

finally on climate in June 1979 that established World Climate Program (WCP) (Paterson,

1996). WCP shifted focus from every day weather variation to long term climate changes.

Despite concerted scientific efforts to further exploring causes and impacts of climate

change, politicians and statesmen were more focused on learning about much apprehended

negative implication of climate change like weather severity, drought, and floods. In other

words, their concern was assessment of impending threats. Entrenched security paranoia of

the characteristically anarchic international system could be cited as a major reason for this

mindset. However, environmental and geographical constraints, vulnerabilities and benefits

are not historically insignificant in global realpolitik and thus constitute a quintessential part

of international relations. Etymologically understood as surroundings, natural milieu

constitutes a significant part of the environment in which decision makers have to evaluate

their options (Vogler, 1996). Geopolitical scientists like Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford

Mackinder have considered natural geographical location, specifically superior command at

sea, as a pivotal power determinant (Chapman, 2011; Dalby, 2001). Geographical dynamics,

with its inherent rigidity were earlier assumed to have a deterministic character; however,

climatic changes over the years were soon learned to have vital impacts. The “tides of

climate changes” as revealed in their studies by Huntington (1919) and Wheeler (1946) as

cited in Vogler (1996) could lead to the rise and fall of nations and empires.

Bolin (2007) highlights US government's response to the much voiced adverse implication of

climate change was reverberated in the US administration. Assuming a fundamental

responsibility of a leading industrial state to limit repercussions of climate changes, US

facilitated research in climate variations and predictions. Council of Environmental Quality,

142

pioneering in impact assessment, warned of certain continued warming. It asked US as the

largest consumer of fossil fuels to play its leading role in controlling emissions. Villach

conference, 1985, didn’t seek mitigation of climate changes; however, it demanded enhanced

government assistance for effective assessment of climate change and its impacts, and

proposed mechanisms and measures for effective research (Paterson, 1996; Bolin, 2007;

Chazornes,n.d). After evaluating Villach conference proposals at ICSU General Assembly, it

was concluded that a body that brings scientific research and political community to one

forum on climate change is needed. The conference deliberation matured into World

Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) submitting its report on 27 April,

1987 termed “our future” or “Brundtland Report”, named after the Norwegian Prime minister

(Paterson, 1996). This report was a key factor in drawing UN General Assembly attention to

the issue of climate change and bringing the matter to international limelight (Bolin, 2007).

The report analyzed the much rapidly transforming world developing at the expense of

natural resource and habitat. With promising food production, rising literacy and reduced

infant mortality, it highlighted growing disparity between rich and poor and rapid

environmental deterioration leading to rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases

and sea level. Unpredictable and unsettling volatile climate changes are understood to

adversely affect national economies and their socio-political integrity. Despite these ominous

predictions, Bolin (2007) drawing an optimistic conclusion states that the report initiated

debate and a process for sustained economic growth that would expand natural resource base.

Based on experts’ analysis, report was welcomed by UN General Assembly where vulnerable

states to floods and droughts, like Maldives and Botswana respectively, sought international

measures against climate change (Bolin, 2007).

Similarly, unfavorable weather pattern throughout 1980s and depletion of ozone layer, a

related impact of rising greenhouse gases, alarmed world governments and after Vienna

convention in 1985, Montreal Protocol was adopted in 1987(Paterson,1996, Soltau,2009).

With success of the Montreal Protocol, an understanding for a similar measure against

climate change was emerged. However, a consensus policy on climate change was obstructed

owing to less concrete threat perception and more economic implications in case of following

adaptation and mitigation policies than were involved in Ozone layer protection. Paterson

143

(1996), Bolin (2007) and Soltau (2009) give detail of various conferences held to evolve

divergent stances into one policy framework. Concrete measures were suggested in the

Toronto Conference on “The Changing Atmosphere: Implication for global Security” in 1988

with participation from scientists, state and non-state representatives. Serious implications of

climate change was signified and measures for reducing atmospheric concentration of CO2

and ‘World Atmospheric Fund’ for developing states was proposed. The onus of

responsibility was placed on developed states in New Delhi conference in 1989, and

developing states sought resolution of the issue in light of North-South context. I989 marks a

year in which global warming and its repercussions are highlighted on different forums by

different actors like ‘Green summit, July 1989’; Non-Aligned Countries, September, 1989;

Noordwijk Conference, November, 1989; and a meeting of the Alliance of Small Island

States in the same month (AOSIS). These conferences underlined developed states'

responsibility to vulnerable developing states that was specifically emphasized by small

island states. They equally signified importance of an international framework to enhance

cooperation among different actors for controlling an issue as complex as climate change.

The remarkable development of the 1980s is the foundation of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was formed in 1988 with efforts from UNEP and

WMO to secure effective scientific assessment and design dependable measures for

controlling climate change (Bolin, 2007). IPCC, an “interface of science and politics”,

provides an exhaustive understanding of the issue thorough assessment and review of the

existing research at multiple dimensions, different levels and from different quarters (Otto &

Brown,2009).Three working groups with tasks of assessing scientific knowledge (Working

Group, WG-1), impacts (Working Group, WG-11) and devise responses (Working Group,

WG- 111) were established. IPCC credibility is highlighted by Peterson (1996) for ensuring

scientific objectivity of WG-1 by including only scientists despite political pressure of state

and non-state actors to interfere and influence its findings. With its broad representation base

under auspices of John Houghton, WG-1 successfully evolves a consensus that enhanced

greenhouse could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions resulting in global warming.

Most importantly, the adverse impacts of warming demand effective political will to

formulate policies and adopt effective measures to reduce sources of emissions and increase

its sinks.

144

However, despite alarming conclusion of scientific body WG-1, no uniformity was observed

with respect to response strategies as mentioned in Gidden (2009), Soltau (2009), Paterson

(1996), and Schreuder (2009). US sought national strategies rather than target focused by

other states and non-states bodies. These divergent understandings necessitated fostering an

international convention. UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution 45/212,

asking for protection and preservation of climate and established an International Negotiation

Committee (INC) on 21st December, 1990 for realizing International Framework Convention

on Climate Change(Paterson,1996; Soltau,2009). States as well as specialized agencies after

almost seventeen months negotiations and five tight sessions of the committee (Soltau,

2009), the committee came up with the proposed climate regime (Boisson de chazournes,

n.d). The Rio DE Janeiro UN conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

materialized United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) with

reliance on developed states to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases other than included

in Montreal protocol to their 1990s level, and assist developing states in enhancing their

adaptation capacity (Paterson, 1996; Boisson de chazournes, n.d).

The undercurrents of the international climate change regime gradually evolved from the

conception of climate change as a growing threat to the need for presence of a global climate

convention. Bodansky (2001) lists outcomes of various conferences since the Villach

Conference in 1985 highlighting probability of changing climate and the need for a global

climate convention. Toronto Conference in 1988 aggressively sought 20% reduction in the

CO2 emission when the same year UN General Assembly terms climate change “a common

concern”. Similarly, the Noordwijk greenhouse conference asks industrialized countries for

stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, and the first IPCC in 1990 register its concern for the

likely increase of 0.3°C of temperature rise per decade (Bodansky, 2001). The details of the

various events till realization of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992),

organizers and outcomes of these events are tabled by Bodansky and is made part of the

Annexure.

145

5.2 UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

(UNFCCC)

UNFCCC in its article 2 advocates preventing ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’ to

climate system through stabilization of greenhouse gases and attributes climate changes to

human activities, apart from the natural variations, that are changing atmospheric

composition of the greenhouse gases (Soltau, 2009; Boisson de Chazournes,2008; Baker,

2006 ). Quoting article 2 is essential as it highlights essence of the framework. Article 2

objectifies,

“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere

at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (man made)

interference with the climate system. Such a level should be

achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to

adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is

not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a

sustainable manner (Jaggard, 2007. pp.39).

Apart from consensus goal of stabilizing greenhouse emission to a favorable level to climate

system, UNFCCC is also focused on equally sublime goals of sustained food production and

economic development. Sustainable development is at the root of this approach, highlighting

sustained economic growth in balance with environmental sustainability and eradication of

poverty. However, absence of concrete defining standards for the objectives and measures for

achieving them result in ambiguity and controversy. Yamin (2005) considers the ultimate

objective of preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is primarily focused on

mitigation measures without undermining significance of essential adaptation. The inherent

ambiguity of the term “dangerous” makes the convention limited, prone to multiple

interpretations and a reason for lacking policy specification (Mabey, Hall, Smith, & Gupta,

1997; Barnett & Campbell, 2010). This makes international climate change policy making a

“continuous discourse” (Jaggard, 2007).

146

UNFCCC successfully supplanted the notion of wait and see till concrete irrefutable

scientific evidences are manifest with the understanding of taking precautionary measures for

countering climate changes (Pittock, 2009). Soltau (2009) argues that a detailed discussion

led to a “dedicated” framework by taking into account specific concerns and needs of

developing states. In accordance to principle of equity and sustainable development, states’

unequal contribution to climate change was acknowledged. Principle of CBDR, by taking

into account respective specific vulnerabilities and needs of the concerned parties, paved the

way for cooperation and implementation of the climate regime (Pittock, 2009; Yamin, 2005).

Onerous responsibilities for climate protection are assigned to developed states in view of

their historical and current contribution to the problem, and their technical and financial

eminence for thwarting it (Yamin, 2005; Pittock, 2009; Jaggard, 2007). Thus, convention

takes into account the special circumstances, geographic and economic vulnerabilities and

transitional market economies in assigning responsibilities. States vulnerable to adverse

climate changes like small islands, low lying states, semi-arid areas, and those that could

suffer because of adopted regime and countermeasures like one with fossils fuel dependent

economies, are to be favorably considered in view of their emission limitations (Paterson,

1996; Boisson de Chazournes, 2008).

Based on the principles of equity and CBDR, all commitments are differentiated. Convention

is broadly divided in general and specific commitment with former applicable to all, whereas

latter involves rules for developed states in Annex1 and a further small set it in Annex

11(Yamin, 2005; Boisson de Chazournes, 2008.). Annex 1 states include Organization of

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Economies in Transition (EITs),

Annex 11 include only OECD states, while non-Annex 1, are mostly developing states

(Eliasch, 2008). Yamin (2005) elaborates these detailed commitments. Including a total of 41

developed states in Annex 1, the convention seeks reducing their greenhouse emission to

1990s level, either individually or jointly. Annex 1 states submit annual progress report,

termed national communication, regarding emission limitation every three years that is

reviewed by experts. The more prosperous developed states of the Annex 1 are placed in

Annex 11 and assigned with additional responsibility of providing developing sates with

required financial and technological resources that would facilitate preparing their national

communication report, meeting their commitments, and enhancing their capacity against

147

adverse implications of climate change. The non-Annex 1 states are those developing states

that negotiated their stance en bloc as G-77 with no assigned emission limitations. The table

below after reformulating gathered data given by Voigt (2012), Yamin and Depledge (2004),

Depledge (2005) and Soltu (2009) further elaborates differentiated nature of commitments in

the UNFCCC.

Table 5 States and Differentiated Responsibilities

ALL PARTIES national inventories

national and regional programmes to mitigate climate change

Reporting obligations: Detailed description of the policies and measures taken for mitigation, apart from the national inventory

promote sustainable development

promote conservation of sinks, adaptation, education etc.

ANNEX I PARTIES

(OECD countries and economies in transition – EITs)

develop national policies and measures for mitigation

Taking the lead with a specific ‘aim’ to return emissions to 1990 levels by 2000

Report their progress

ANNEX II PARTIES (OECD )

provide financial resources to developing countries

assist developing countries in meeting adaptation costs

Promote technology transfer, including to EITs.

NON-ANNEX 1 PARTIES (mostly developing states)

They are subjected to general commitments

However, regarding reporting commitments, Soltau (2009) points out developing states are to submit their reporting obligations after three years, the least developing states characterized with lowest GDP could submit it at their own preference.

148

States’ approach to issue of targets was three fold. The schism was evident as intra-North and

North-South (Boisson de Chazournes, 2008b; Paterson, 1996.). EU asks for strong

commitments; however, Japan, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (JUSCANZ),

though acknowledging inadequacy of the targets, were unwilling to strengthen it (Verheyen,

2005). They demanded commitment from developing states, especially from the well-off

(Boisson de Chazournes, 2008b). Specifically, US resisted “hard line industrially restrictive

agreements by questioning the wisdom of precautionary principle in absence of concrete

scientific certainties (Jaggard, 2007). On the other hand, developing states successfully

barred binding emission limitations and sought fulfillment and implementation of the

existing commitments, except Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) that sought binding

commitments for all in view of existential threat as a result of rising sea level (Boisson de

Chazournes, 2008b.). UNFCCC, despite unsuccessful in actualizing emission limitations

targets for all, has its “symbolic significance” that would induce developing states for

international cooperation if the developed states earnestly execute their commitments (Mabey

et al., 1997).

5.2.1 Institutional Mechanisms and Related Controversy

Convention also outlines institutional and financial mechanism with Conference of Parties

(COP) as supreme body and four other related institutions to monitor implementation of the

existing policy and enable effective coordination of the actors (Yamin, 2005). COP, along its

two subsidiaries advisory bodies—Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary

Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBTA)—implements decisions and also

regularly review effectiveness of the policies (Barnett & Campbell, 2010).

A financial mechanism, though criticized, to facilitate developing states technically and

financially was temporarily arranged under Global Environmental Facility (GEF) of the

World Bank, UNEP and the UN Development Program (Paterson, 1996). Streck (2013) and

Lattanzio (2013) point out that management of financial mechanism through independent

GEF or as a subsidiary body of conference of parties (COP) became a matter of dispute

between developed and developing states respectively. Developing states wanted GEF as a

subsidiary body of COP because of one-member-one-vote system; while independent GEF

149

under influence of World Bank would be exclusively dominated by developed states. GEF is

later restructured and acknowledged by decision 3/CP.4 (1998) as an independent financial

mechanism of the convention (Boisson de Chazournes, 2008; Review of the financial

mechanism, 1998; Streck, 2013). However, it does not mean that it is currently less

dependent on the donor states, most importantly US (Lattanzio, 2013). Apart from the

financial mandate, developing states, especially small island states, questioned GEF's

mitigation focused funding that does not take much into account their adaptation needs

(Barnett & Campbell, 2010).GEF has attained an independent status with balanced

representation from developing and developed states, and vibrant participation of NGOs;

however, the need for further restructuring is acknowledged to make it more effective and

acceptable to developing states (Streck, 2013).

5.2.2 Evaluation

Despite result of fifteen years of strenuous negotiations, Barnett and Campbell (2010)

consider UNFCCC and Kyoto “complex institutions”. Convention was found disappointing

because of its lacking firm commitment to stabilization, insurance fund, mechanism for

technology transfer, and no firm commitments from developing states (Soltau, 2009).

Divergent interest of states is the major reason for lacking consensus on these complex and

contentious issues. The Environmental NGOs pointed out flaws in actors and process that

hindered effectiveness of the climate change policy making (Boisson de Chazournes, 2008).

They criticized conference for de-emphasizing main issue and focus on procedural matters

like controversies over chairing committees, and dispute especially between US and other

states on favorable language and terms in the text. US singled out as a main obstacle in

actualizing quantified targets; however, it substantially changed its rigid stance by accepting

and limiting CO2 as a major greenhouse gas, apart from those covered by Montreal Protocol,

and also agreed to include target dates in the convention. However, UNFCC apart from

limitations have much contributed in developing an understanding and a medium of

interaction for the development of future policy framework. Differences of states’ interests

and goals shape policy negotiations for the convention. Multidimensional nature of the policy

controversy could be understood in terms of a choice between a general framework with

150

specific protocols or an exclusively assigned one thoroughly committed to climate change

(Soltau, 2009).

5.3 KYOTO PROTOCOL

The limitations of the convention pushed for the realization of the Kyoto protocol.

Insufficient commitments of Annex I countries (developed states with historical

responsibility to climate change and high emission ratio) at UNFCC were duly realized

(Boisson de Chazourness, 2011; Depledge, 2005). The nature of the commitments and

compliance mechanisms UNFCCC provide were highlighted as soft, significantly focused on

'multilateral consultative process' ( Stokke, Hovi & Ulfstein, 2005). Schreuder (2008) argues

that the absence of legally binding emission targets turns the climate convention ineffective.

Moreover, the inability of meeting climate convention “implicit deadlines” of emission

reduction till 2000 were understood unrealizable in presence of expected rise in emission and

absence of binding targets(Davenport,2008). Disarming of this complex and enormous

problem is understood to require stringent and effective measures. However, the UNFCCC

sets the foundations, parameters and pattern for the future climate regime that facilitated

further evolution of the international climate regime. The need for comprehensive binding

emission targets were highlighted in Berlin mandate, 1995, that sought a comprehensive

policy and obligatory measures for emission reduction (Depledge, 2005; Davenport, 2008).

However, the major hindrance to the effective policy has been the disputes among states’

constituting groups of North and South, intra-North and intra-South based on their respective

concerns and interests. Negotiation process was primarily and significantly driven by

respective preferred agendas of the stakeholders than in consideration of the environmentally

dictated global concerns. US, focused on emission stabilization rather reduction, did not

concede to EU stringent emission limitations (Baker, 2006). Similarly, geographic and

economic consideration and vulnerabilities shaped divergent approaches of developing states

to emission reduction. States having fossil fuels based economies, low lying and small island

states equally sought poles apart measures for seeking no limitation to almost 20% reduced

emission to 1990 level respectively (Davenport,2008). After strenuous negotiation process,

the individual emission targets ranging from 8% to 10% for among Annex-1 states have a

151

total reduction ratio of 5% below 1990 level in next five years from 2008 to 2012 (Depledge,

2005). It was a success with respect to emission reduction by 1990s level at UNFCC.

Kyoto protocol is distinguished for its pioneering market based mechanisms for emissions

limitation. Streck (2011) terms flexibility mechanisms as the most “innovative” feature of

the climate regime. The objective of these flexibility mechanisms is to provide a global

cooperative interaction and assist developed countries in achieving their emission targets.

These mechanisms evolve a multi-layered governance structure by bringing together states

with different agendas and potentials in collaboration with private non-state actors focused

on effective underlining of the existing shortcomings (Streck, 2011). The various aspects of

these flexibility mechanisms including Joint Implementation (JI), Clean Development

Mechanism (CDM), and Emission Trading (ET) are significantly rendered by Yamin(2005),

Maguire(2013), Yamin and Depledge(2004), Baker (2006) and Boissen de

Chazournes(2011). Regarded as a prototype of carbon market, the indistinct specification of

implementation provisions and nuances and subtleties of the flexibility mechanisms were

reasons of dispute among states. These concerns were addressed to a degree in Marrakesh

Accords, November, 2001 in the 7th session of COP that eventually actualized protocol on 16

February, 2005. Emission limitation of six greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane,

nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafloride, counted

together as a basket (Depeledge, 2005) and measured in equation with CO2 ratio, would be

carried out through flexibility mechanisms. Each state allocated an Assigned Amount Units

(AAU) of emission could trade it through ET to another state in Annex-1 group if the latter

utilizes its own (Eliasch, 2008). Apart from the AAU, the states could earn emission credits,

Removal Units (RMUs), through carbon sequestration and removal with judicious use of

land, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) (Eliasch, 2008; Baker, 2006). JI involves

transfer of Emission Reduction Units (ERU) within Annex I states that are purchased by a

state from another state in which projects for emission reduction or enhancement of sinks are

practiced. Baker cites replacement of an old energy constraining power plants in a country

with a new more energy efficient one as an example of JI.

While ET and JI are practiced among Annex 1 states, CDM involves projects for sustainable

development and technological assistance from Annex I to non-Annex I states in order to

152

fulfill emission reduction commitment by the former, and develop adaptive capacity of the

latter. These investments earn Annex-1 states Certified Emission Reduction (CER) that

would contribute to their overall 'quantified emission limitation and reductions commitments'

(QELRC) (Boisson de Chazournes, 2011).

The implementation measures in Article 2 and 3 for Annex I states signify QELRC process,

highlighting evaluation of national policies and their enforcement (Boisson de Chazournes,

2008a). This demands continued cooperation and interaction among Annex-1 states to

actualize the assigned goals with minimum negative impacts for other states. The Protocol

seeks exhaustive assessment and review procedure for Annex-1 states and to address matters

of non-compliance (Yamin & Depledge, 2004; Depledge, 2005). Compliance and dispute

settlement mechanism in article 18 authorize CoP to amplify rules and procedures in view of

the essence provided in Marrakesh Accord. CoP assesses compliance level and requirements

of a state in terms of fulfilling its commitments. Two branches, the facilitative branch and

enforcement branch are established to provide financial and technical assistance in fulfilling

states’ commitments and resort to punitive measures in case of non-compliance respectively

(Boisson de Chazournes, 2008; Stokke, Hovi & Ulfstein, 2005). Disputes are settled in

traditional amicable ways through negotiation, conciliation, arbitration and appeal to

international court of justice. The detail of compliance measures and their effectiveness are

given in the edited work of Stokke, Hovi and Ulfstein (2005) titled, “Implementing the

climate regime: International compliance”.

5.3.1 Evaluation

Kyoto protocol could not secure US support despite presence of the demanded flexibility

mechanisms (Davenport, 2008). However, Baker (2006) contends that US withdrawal

somehow galvanizes others especially EU states to materialize the climate regime. Protocol

is understood more favorable and promising than the Convention; however, it is not without

limitations and requires further improvement for effective reduction of global emission.

Boisson de Chazournes (2008a) considers Kyoto's “legal reach” compromised. Subscribing

to this view, Davenport (2006) terms the prescribed commitment for Annex-1 states

inadequate in presence of scientific requirement. Lack of a unanimous standard and

153

procedure for QELRC allows states to choose its own preferred standard. The loopholes in

the market based mechanisms are highlighted by Baker (2006) and evaluated with extensive

detail by Yamin (2005).

Boisson de Chazourness (2008a) states that with an understanding that some of the

developing states are undergoing rapid industrialization, not asking them to commit to

emission reduction based on common but differentiated responsibility principle has made

Kyoto Protocol a less effective instrument. This realization resulted in initiation of a two

track process: establishing an ad-hoc working group to realize further commitments on

Annex-I states, and continued discussion to enhance cooperative action.

5.4 PARIS AGREEMENT

Paris agreement, an outcome of decade’s efforts, pooled resources of state, non-state and

renowned individuals. However, the lukewarm pace of progress towards this remarkable

achievement, Paris agreement, is understandable in light of involved hurdles in the process.

Ramady and Mahdi (2015) draw a post-Kyoto scenario and highlight reasons for the

unsuccessful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. However, understanding limitations of

the Kyoto and efforts for overcoming them broaden prospects of a favorable international

environment for a universally accepted global climate deal. The North-South discord, with

latter attributing 75% of accumulated emissions from 1860 to 1999 to the former, stood a

major contentious issue. Equally significant is the intra-North contention with Europe

seeking more stringent emission target which US resisted. A realization that compliance with

Kyoto (2012) will cost Canada $14 billion resulted in its withdrawing from the treaty

(Ramady & Mahdi, 2015). Kyoto Protocol was also found limited, for its legally binding

targets exclude growing large economies like China and India whose cumulative emissions

were growing exponentially (Norton, 2015; Huber, 2015).

Ramady and Mahdi highlight significant outcomes of various monumental measures from

Rio Conference, 1992 to the result of Lima, 2014, giving us an insight into the limitations

and consequent reevaluation at each stage that paved way at the end for a global climate deal

in Paris, 2015. The post-Kyoto period was much volatile and the efforts for the formation of

154

international climate change regime embraced many vicissitudes, its peaks and valleys. The

outcome of the Paris Climate Agreement is a result of much contended debates and

disappointment. The agreed measures of the Paris agreement evolved in various stages that

are tabled by Ramadi and Mahdi (2015) and summarized here in light of their major dispute

and outcomes. The Kyoto Protocol though signed by the US President Clinton was not

ratified by the Congress, and was rejected by the next President Bush in 2001. However, it

was promising that Russia and Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002, bringing it into effect. Kyoto

widened the long lingering intra-North dispute of the US and Europe regarding emission

reduction and nature of the commitments. The Copenhagen conference (2009) is largely a

failure in terms of any concrete agreement; however, the prime goal of keeping the earth

temperature below 2°C was settled. Similarly, the Cancun 2010 came up with a viable

targeted amount of $100 billion per annum—though not agreed upon—to assist developing

states for their adaptation, technologically and financially. The Doha Conference (2012)

results in concurrence among the parties to arrive at a Post-Kyoto treaty in 2015 in Paris. The

most remarkable step towards the Paris Climate Agreement is taken in Lima Conference

(2014). The long-standing dispute of choosing a preferred course between an internationally

binding emission reductions and nationally determined targets in light of a state’s limitations

and potential is found resolved with the introduction of Intended Nationally Determined

Contributions (INDCs). Moreover, states agreed to a long term goal of achieving a net-zero

emission by 2015 (Ramadi and Mahdi, 2015). The major events and their outcomes are

tabled by Ramadi and Mahdi and reproduced in the Annexure for easy reference.

Despite hindrances, the continued climate negotiations—specifically among the world top

greenhouse gas emitters—gradually brightened prospects of a global climate deal (Cherian,

2015). However, Ramady and Mahdi (2015) and Victor (2015) signify certain major factors

that paved the way for a global climate deal. China growing climate threats at home and

potential repercussion to international trade abroad are the major reasons for bringing change

in its climate stance. Droughts, floods, erratic weather patterns, reduced crop yields and

water availability raised China’s concerns for inaction about climate change. The Sino-US

agreement to curb emissions further manifest that business as usual approach is growing

unfavorable, and paved the way for others to follow suit. Likewise, India and US major

cooperation on clean energy enhanced India’s potential to base its economic structure on

155

clean energy. International environmental organizations serve as vigilante and medium to

promote global awareness for environmental health (Ramady & Mahdi, 2015). Like

democracy became honorific at the end of the World War First as a result of the victory of

democratic allied powers, the green ecological movements and their message moved from

the “fringe to the mainstream” after an extended ordeal of creating public consciousness

about sustainable development and accountability towards global environment (Ramady &

Mahdi, 2015).

Paris agreement signed by 195 states on December 12, 2015 is an accomplished objective of

bringing all these states with unanimous commitments regarding the issue of climate change.

Achieving global agreement on climate change in Paris is understood “triumph of reason”

and “triumph of realism” (Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf & Winkelmann, 2016). Setting out a 2°C

target for the earth surface temperature and realizing it through the “controlled implosion of

fossil industry instigated by a technological explosion related to renewable energy system

and other innovation” are the most significant aspects of Paris agreement. The words of US

Secretary of State, John Kerry’s worth quoting to highlight importance of the agreement,

“This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens — not for any one country or any one

bloc, but for everybody here who has worked so hard to bring us across the finish line. It’s a

victory for all of the planet and for future generations.” (Igoe, 2015). The agreement is seen

as a unanimous initiative that would gradually further and strengthen countermeasures

against negative impacts of climate change without compromising goals of development.

The Copenhagen conference sets the goal of keeping the earth’s temperature below 2°C;

while, the Lima, COP20 removes barriers to evolution of a consensus global climate deal

(Cherian, 2015). The vital distinguished feature of the Lima conference is the “invitation to

each Party to communicate to the secretariat its intended nationally determined contribution

towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2”. Intended

Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) is countries’ plan to curb greenhouse emissions

(Ramady & Mahdi, 2015), outlining their post-2020 efforts that help determine whether the

long-term goals of the Paris agreement of keeping the world temperature below 2°C, limit it

to 1.5°C and realize net zero emissions by 2050 will be actualized (What is an INDC, n.d.).

In essence, INDC creates “a constructive feedback loop between national and international

decision-making on climate change”. Relying on a bottom-up approach with each country

156

designing its own plans and setting its own realistic and achievable targets, the INDC is

different to Kyoto that was having binding targets for the Annex-1 states (Cherian, 2015).

The realistic and achievable standards demand that the country establish it’s INDC after

assessment of its resources, limitations and development requirements (Mercer, 2015). This

brings a marked difference between INDCs of the states: some focused on mitigation—

conditioned to foreign assistance or without; others largely adaptation; and, some on both.

Mercer contends that the “beauty of the INDC…is that this will instill ownership over the

goals”. The goals are to be pursued as prescribed in Article 2 in the “context of sustainable

development and efforts to eradicate poverty”.

INDCs are required to be progressively reformed and strengthened with more strong

emission and adaptation measures after every five years, and then a collective stock-stake

termed an ambitious mechanism by Norton (2015) is taken into account to determine

progress towards the larger and long term ideal of avoiding a 2.0°C—preferably limiting it to

1.5°C—warming. This legally mandated reporting of the progress in terms of mitigation and

adaptation to the UN is at the core of Paris agreement, for its leads to the required ratcheting

up of states emission and adaptation commitment and ambition overtime (Igoe, 2015; Huber,

2015). INDC is that “foundation stone” of a legally binding global climate deal that seems

not possible in the highly polarized world with distinctively divergent conception and

framing of the issues (Norton, 2015). The self-determined commitments conveniently

termed contributions based on a comprehensive evaluation of a state’s potential with

continued improvement upon them will evolve itself gradually into a legally binding regime.

Victor (2015) cite example of World Trade Organization an outcome of the likewise

flexibility that result into a legal entity. The flexibility that allows for willingly subjecting

oneself to a code of conduct prescribe by Paris agreement, a climate regime, inherently

discards continued business as usual approach that undermines human life and existence for

majority of the earth inhabitants, mostly poor and disempowered.

157

Table 6 Main provisions of the Paris agreement

ISSUE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS

Earth Temperature/ Long-term goal

Keep it below 2.0°C, preferably limit it to 1.5°C

Mitigation:

Bottom-Up Approach & Binding in Nature

All states, developed and developing, are to submit INDCs

All states should achieve the peak emissions level as soon as possible; however, it is realized that developing states will take long in this regard.

Regularly report their progress on NDCs, open to international review

Submit new INDCs after five years. It will be published, and should have an evident progress to the previously submitted INDCs.

The agreement seeks states to monitor, verify and report their greenhouse emission.

Take global “stocktake” after every five years starting in 2023 in light of progress towards the long term goal

Make the world carbon neutral by 2050—level of emissions that can be naturally absorbed: “A balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHG”

Adaptation Reaffirm developed states binding commitment to assist developing states in their adaptation

Encourage voluntary contribution from the developing states

Extend a mechanism to address, avert and minimize loss and damage resulting from climate change, but not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation”.

Finance Goal of mobilizing the present $100 billion a year till 2020 through 2025, with a new higher goal to establish after 2025

However, Melissa Eddy, the New York Times correspondent for Berlin, contends that this prescribed commitment is mentioned in the preamble and thus not binding in character (Davenport et al, 2015).

Compliance Mechanism

“Non-adversarial and non-punitive”

The 2°C warming is categorized catastrophic and keeping earth temperature below it is

though found ambitious would thwart much of the devastating impacts of climate change

158

(Davenport et al., 2015; Monbiot, 2015). Paris agreement in its article 2 sets out goal of

keeping temperature well below 2°C with emphasis on continued efforts to keep it 1.5°C.

However, it is understood impossible in light of the INDCs submitted at the Paris conference

that would lead to more warming than the prescribed target (Stephenson, 2015; Chan, 2015).

The achievement of this mentioned long term goal is subjected to universal mitigation

measures with gradual increase in making more robust progress in this regard. Lawson

(2016) contends, however, that the added provision with article 2 that subject implementation

of the agreement to “equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities

and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances” allows

developing states room to disregard the required mitigation. Believing that developing states

would concede to any regime that would disregard principal of differentiation is expecting

much from them. The agreement, however, seeks that states “should” rely on long term low

GHG development policies, thus discouraging developing states’ resort to the use of fossil

fuel for development. Apart from the impossibility of the desired goal of well below 2°C

warming, states and forces of market would understandably transform much to the ambitious

but unanimously acknowledged long-term target with a net zero emissions by mid of this

century. This would encourage a profound reduced use of fossil fuels and extended reliance

on renewable sources of energy. The wheel of progress in line with the ideal has started

rolling on towards its destination.

The Center for Climate and Energy Solution in its assessment of the Paris agreement titled,

“Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris” lauded efforts of the state and

non-state actors in materializing the historic climate agreement. Evaluation of the Paris

agreement draws us to a far nuanced form of differentiation than the established rigid

“binary” distinction of the developed (Annex 1) and developing (non-Annex 1) states of the

Kyoto Protocol that subject the former to binding mitigation commitment (Outcomes of the

U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris, 2015). The bottom up approach of the Paris

agreement is characteristically having flexible essence with binding procedural rigidity: it

allows states to formulate their INDCs—effective achievable mitigation and adaptation

targets and measures for their achievement—in light of their national resources and

limitations, subject them to international review to assess progress towards the intended goals

without demanding strict implementation. It seeks, however, to improve with “highest

159

possible ambition” on their earlier submitted goals after every five years after 2023. This

“hybrid” dynamics of the Paris agreement has brought 195 states in accord with the Paris

agreement (Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris, 2015). However,

despite flexible nature of INDCs, the Paris agreement designs to evolve an effective effort as

Lawson (2015) argues, “in a surprisingly robust language, Article 3 then goes on to state that

Parties have an obligation to produce an NDC covering mitigation (Art 4), adaptation (Art 7),

finance (Art 9), technology development and transfer (Art 10), capacity building (Art 11),

and transparency (Art 13), and to make “ambitious efforts” under each of those headings.” In

fact, the agreement draws an extended parameter and emphasizes a gradual approach towards

higher standards of requirements that states’ INDCs have to encompass for its effectiveness.

The Paris agreement is not without limitations. It may be cited as scientifically invalid, for

the ambition to keep earth surface temperature to prescribed goal of 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, is

much impractical in light of the submitted INDCs of states. Paris agreement is also criticized

for making professed ideals of “climate justice and sustainable development” part of the

preamble and not operationalized part of the agreement. Likewise, specific measures to

operationalize principles of “equity” and “Common but Differentiated responsibility” are

absent (India lost chance to exert right to development in Paris, 2016). These limitations

including specifics regarding mechanism for transparency and Monitoring, Reporting and

Verification will settle in the future Conference of Parties meetings (N. Helme, Executive

Director Center for Environmental Public Policy, personal communication, September 29,

2016). Despite all its current limitations, the Paris agreement is a phenomenal success in

political domain. Earlier drifted apart by self-centered national behavior, the states in Paris

Agreement concur on producing a determined collective effort in light of national

considerations, subjected to public transparency and continued gradual improvement upon

the committed contribution. Like a soft regime in its rudimentary stage, the Paris agreement

is relying on naming and shaming policy and consensual binding for compliance. However,

growing impending negative impacts of climate change, rising growth and power of

environmental bodies, and technological breakthrough in the production and availability of

renewable sources of energy are some major factors that would reshape the fossil based

economic societies. This transformation could gradually evolve this soft regime into an

160

internationally binding legal framework. The prospects for success of the Paris agreement if

followed and adhered to in letter and spirit will grow in future.

Regime theory exploring reasons for cooperation among states on an issue area highlights

three variables: power, interest and knowledge. The former two, termed rationalists, prioritize

material forces and are distinguished from the interpretive or ideational underpinnings of

regime formation (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). Rowlands (2001) summarizes neoliberal

institutionalist or interest based understanding of the regime that conceive institutions to have

a significant role in shaping interests of the states. Institutions facilitate states in avoiding

individualistic actions and promote joint interests, for they shape identities and define

interests—a formative effect—to materialize productive relationship. Neoliberal interest

based theorists of the regime formation condition cooperation under anarchy to the existence

of mutual interests, shadow of the future [continued interaction] and small number of

participants(Rowlands, 2001). Based on such consideration, global climate change is a

common concern—“tragedy of the commons”—as “continued emission is a suboptimal

outcome”. However, Rowlands cautiously highlights diverse costs and impacts of climate

change for different states. The shadow of the future exists as climate change is a vital issue

on international agenda and will be a major reason for interaction among states. The

prospects of cooperation, however, is understandably reduced as solution of the problem

depends on multiple actors—a problem of everyone. Negotiating blocs created to bring

divisiveness in harmony under unanimity of concerns have enhanced prospects of

cooperation (Rowlands, 2001).

Moreover, international institutions have enhanced public awareness, drawn government

attention towards the issue and intensified interactions among stakeholders to combat global

climate change (Paterson, 1996). Assiduous efforts of WMO and UNEP shaped IPCC that

with keen interest from states lead to INC and CoP, assuring current “state of the art”

scientific knowledge regarding climate change (Rowlands, 2001). Rowlands argues that

institutions vitally promote “contracting environment” through increased national and

international accountability, monitoring, and working as a bargaining forum to ensure

reduced transaction costs and continued “iterated decision making” process. In view of the

involved contested political dynamics of climate change among developed and developing

161

states, these institutions are working as a facilitator of resource, skill and information transfer

from the former to the latter.

Evaluating climate change policy making or regime formation in light of power based theory

signifies power distribution among actors and assessment or measuring of power in terms of

the nature of impacts and contribution to global climate change. Without undermining

military, political and economic power as leverage in bringing the desired outcome,

Rowlands (2001) emphasizes that an actor’s power in term of its impact on the issue—

changing of the global climate—an equally important determinant. States are powerful agent

of action on an issue like climate change for their contribution to the problem or their ability

to counter it. While China is racing ahead of US in its emissions, US despite being the

second has still the largest per capita emissions (China CO2 emissions outpace EU and US,

45% above global average, 2014). Rowlands terms United States as the sole hegemon in

terms of its military capabilities; however, he concurs with Nye and Welch (2014) that United

States currently shares economic hegemony of the world with Japan, China, and EU. With its

political and military grandeur, US paved the climate convention and Kyoto protocol in

accordance to its preferred goals (Rowlands, 2001). The outcome of the Paris agreement is

not without US influence. US resisted a rigid timetable for emission reduction in Convention

while included favorable flexibility mechanism—joint implementation, tradable permission

permits, clean development mechanism—in the protocol. Power configuration is indeed a

vital role player in agenda setting and influencing outcomes of the climate negotiations.

However, Rowlands (2001) overrules US complete sway over the regime formation. Paris

Agreement would not have been a reality without US and China agreeing that US would

reduce emission 26-28% below 2005 level, and China would peak its emissions by 2030

(Deese, 2017). This outcome is line with consideration of each other’s relative interest.

Cognitivism with the focus on agent-structure relationship argues that agents like state,

international organizations as well as structure in which they are embedded are susceptible to

change as their identities and interest are not given. It highlights the role of epistemic

communities and learning process shaped by discourse and arguments and in turn framing

interests and identities. Rowlands (2001) states that IPCC as an epistemic community—“the

supreme court of science”—has rendered vital services in garnering international support and

162

cooperation among the states. It has ensured gathering reliable scientific evidences to

overcome uncertainties and generate sound unanimous policy. Global climate change as

predominantly complex scientific matter in its essence demands opinions of acknowledged

experts. Since 1991, national governments have tried to manage output of the scientific

bodies like UNEP and WMO by relieving them of their lead responsibilities; yet, IPCC holds

its grounds (Rowlands, 2001). Apart from the role of IPCC and its impact as an epistemic

community that has created the current body of knowledge, the social construction of climate

change is addressed in a volume, The social construction of climate change: Power,

knowledge, norms, discourses (2007) edited by Mary E. Pettenger. How knowledge, norms

and discourse shaped policy making and rules formation and how they are in turn shaped by

power holders is one major field of research in assessing policy making significantly

regarding environmental issues like climate change.

163

CHAPTER 6

CLIMATE CHANGE REDEFINING PAKISTAN’S SECURITY

Pakistan is a developing state with primary reliance on agriculture as its economic backbone.

With huge debt deficit, weak infrastructure, poor governance, widespread corruption,

rampant poverty and substantial defense expenditure: it shares not only problems but also

concerns of Southern countries. Global climate change, acting as a threat and a threat

multiplier, portends new threats and could aggravate existing ones. Pakistan has witnessed

disastrous floods in 2010 and then in 2011 that almost paralyzed its infrastructure and

exposed its vulnerabilities. Pakistan requires adapting to multi-layered challenges as a result

of climate changes. Glacier melting at an unprecedented rate reduces freshwater sources and

is also a reason of flash floods. Rising sea level could constrain livelihood in its most

productive coastal city of Karachi, an economic hub, which could further aggravate the

existing ethnic conflicts and criminal activities. Reduced agriculture yields because of

unpredictable monsoon rains and river flow could lead to mass migration. Most significantly,

water is vitally a shared resource and could become a major reason for intra and intra-state

dispute in case of the much feared less than required water availability because of disruption

in the hydrological cycle. Climate changes are not only environmental disasters. They also

entail decline of economic growth and development, compromised cohesion of the society

and endangered governance structure of the state. The complexity and enormity of climate

change in light of challenges it portends demands extending parameters of the traditional

conception of the national security.

Current global climate change signifies all those phenomenal rapid transformations in Earth

climate system that started as a result of human induced enhanced greenhouse effect or

global warming. Accelerated climate change, providing least time for adaptation, would

primarily disrupt water cycle and unleash unpredictable socio-economic and political impacts

like reduced agriculture yields, biodiversity loss, energy crises, environmental refugees,

various diseases and chaos of governance in major parts of the world (Desonie, 2006; Silver,

2008; Dessler, 2012). Developing states termed South would specially bear the brunt

164

because of their weak economy, inadequate technology, insufficient and inefficient

institutional capacity, and social disharmony despite least contribution to the problem

(Paterson, 1996). Paterson highlights this North/South disparity with the example of

Bangladesh and Netherland. Despite equally vulnerable to sea level rise, Netherland’s

“techno-economic” superiority reduces impacts of climate change by enhancing its adaptive

capability compared to Bangladesh. Reuveny and Thompson (2008) state that developing

states are less prepared to “adjust to repeated shocks of nature”. Climate change could

generate or exacerbate their existing crises, endangering their very existence.

In order to understand Pakistan’s climate change policy response, it is essential to understand

the importance of climate change as a threat. In this chapter, climate change as a security

threat is evaluated in light of ‘security’ as an evolving phenomenon in the theoretical

paradigms of international relations. Moreover, climate change as a security threat to a

developing state like Pakistan will be evaluated in light of impending threats.

6.1 SECURITY: THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING, NATIONAL SECURITY

AND HUMAN SECURITY

Understanding security as a concept requires comprehending international system in view of

the dominant theoretical paradigms of international relations: Realism, liberalism and critical

perspectives to the two mainstreams. International relations, based on Max Weber definition

of state as an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Sachs, 2003), gives

pivotal significance to states because of their accepted legal and sovereign right to the use of

force (Shaw, 2003). Traditional realist paradigm in international relations considers that

states enhance their national power to maximize their influence and shape global decision

making process to their benefit (Weber, 2005). Classical realist attributes this state egoism to

self-seeking human nature, while neo-realists blame systemic anarchy, lack of central

authority, driving this non-rational appetite of overpowering others to protect one’s own

security. Threat resides in another state and countered through self-help and balance of

power, making them norms in a characteristically anarchic world for preservation of order

(Sutch & Elias, 2007; Mingst, 2003). Interestingly, efforts to increase power by a state are

always assumed threat by another, leading to a complex dynamics of interrelationship

165

termed, security dilemma (Jervis, 2003). This makes conflict and resort to means of leverage

like violence and war inevitable and understandable. Realists focus on high politics of

security, survival and military strength is prioritized for achieving a desired order at the

expense of another’s loss. To them world politics is a zero-sum game (Heywood, 2011).

Liberalism, based on human morality and rationality, considers man capable of governing his

instincts (Genest, 1996). It optimistically advocates harmony of interests, and emphasized

common shared values to enhance cooperation, and secure as well as promote everyone’s

interests in presence of multiple actors along states like International governmental

organizations, Non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations (Mingst,

2003; Rourke, 2003). Though acknowledging realist systemic anarchy, it esteems value of

freedom in political process through democracy, in economics through laissez-faire and free

trade among states, and advocate providing centrality to international system through strong

international law and organizations (Rourke, 2003). Liberals consider international politics as

struggle for consensus and not for power (Kegley, 2008). Rather than limiting themselves to

realist’s short-term rationality of immediate gains they uphold long-term rationality of

mutual gains based on continued reciprocity (Heywood, 2011). They advocate ‘collective

security’ where an act of aggression is jointly countered from a central forum to secure

international security. However, collective security, its definition and application, is

witnessed subjected to the designs of powerful states in system—Japan’s invasion of

Manchuria in 1931 and Italy’s attack of Ethopia in 1935 (D’Anieri, 2012). Realists’ drawn

conclusion from the inter-war period, as expounded by E.H.Carr in his book, “Twenty Years

Crises”, discredits liberalism intellectual soundness and disqualifies ‘collective security’ as a

successful option against powerful states (Sutch & Elias, 2007). Beginning of World War 2nd

in a matter of twenty years and inability of the League of Nations to stop it transform much

of traditional liberalism.

The consequent evolved neoliberalism acknowledges states as primarily significant actors,

despite presence of multiple non-state actors, rationally pursuing their self-interests and

retaining their monopoly on defining the threat and required response to thwart it (Jackson &

Sorensen, 2007). These dominant actors, states, act rationally in light of their strategic

consideration (Dunne et.al, 2007). However, neoliberals broaden national security debate by

166

incorporating earlier believed low politics like economics especially since 1970s oil crises,

declaring the world economically interdependent (Genest, 1996). In economically

interdependent world natural resources, especially non-renewable like oil, gas and coal, are

treated as strategic assets that enhance relative power of a state. Its significance is well

highlighted by Rogers (2000) who nullifies possibility of Gulf war first if Kuwait has been

growing carrots rather than possessing oil. However, liberals are starkly different from

realists in their belief of peace and cooperation as Goldstein (2003) puts it, neoliberals do not

follow “pessimistic conclusions” of the realists as they define rationality in terms of long-

terms goals and objectives. They see continued reciprocal relations through established

institutions and regime formation outgrowing and replacing short term self-seeking realist

rationality with long term mutual benefits and security.

Realism advocates value of order, liberalism favors freedom; whereas, critical perspectives to

the two most importantly highlight ideal of justice. Critical perspectives in international

relations like Marxism with all its variations, Feminism, and social constructivism, question

mainstream international relations paradigms: realism and liberalism. They consider these

two schools of thought responsible for maintaining structural factors to perpetuate global

inequality and injustice (Heywood, 2011). Moreover, to them every concept, whether

‘genocide’ or ‘collateral damage’, is socially constructed by dominant class, group or state to

secure its interests at the cost of others. Language is used as a weapon, commanded by

powerful, to influence, manipulate and most importantly legitimize authority and power

(Heywood, 2004). Therefore, they advocate radical transformations in the system to

ameliorate conditions of the deprived (Heywood, 2011).

Consideration of inequality evolves into understanding of human security based on human

development centered on justice and equality. Concept of human security is attributed to

liberals because of their traditional emphasis on individual freedom (Mansbach & Rafferty,

2008); however, all factors undermining human life are well emphasized by critical

perspectives in international relations, especially Marxism. Signifying human rights,

Marxism declares a man free only if he is in ‘control of the conditions of his existence’

(Hirszowicz, 1996). Human security derives its intellectual vigor both from liberalism as well

as Marxism. Signifying this mixed strand of liberalism and Marxism, Sutch and Elias (2007)

167

coin the term ‘cosmopolitanism’ centered on ‘questions of global justice’. It not only

advocates rights of individual but also his duties to respect and ensure such rights by

qualifying every individual to conducive judicious social and international order as declared

in article 28 of the human rights declaration. Therefore, human security is centered on

enlarging individuals’ opportunities and choices, and securing him from want, fear and

structural exploitation or violence (Heywood, 2011; Liotta & Owen, nd). UN Secretary

General Kofi Annan added concept of intergenerational equity to human security by

accepting the right of future generations to ‘inherit a natural healthy environment’ (Mansbach

& Rafferty, 2008).

Evaluation of state centric national security and human security underscores the

characteristic difference in their definition of ‘threat’. Understanding of threat in traditional

security is something that undermines state’s unquestioned legitimacy or control of the use of

force, and assumed to reside outside in the form of military attack from another state or

internal insurgency (Sachs, 2003). This threat is effectively countered through military

response. Human security broadens the definition of threat and its parameters. Threat to

human life and human dignity could be internal and non-military in nature enhancing

insecurities like ‘social vulnerabilities’ and undermining ‘ecological resiliency’ (Najam,

2004). It relies on Richard Ullman’s redefinition of threat to national security as something

capable of “degrading quality of human life” in a limited time that equally “limit policy

options” of response (Floyd, 2010). Ullman considers exclusive orientation of national

security upon outside military threats to ‘abstract entity’ of state unfairly grounded

(MacFarlane & Khong, 2006). His study is evaluating security threats to individuals from

non-military means. Human security is thus a more extended version of national security

considering anything a threat that could undermine life quality of a state’s inhabitants in a

quick manner (Barnett et al, 2010). This would adversely affect preferred ideal of securing

individuals and communities from fear of want, violence and exploitation.

National security as a state centric approach and human security focused on securing people

are considered complimenting each other in some respects as defense against invading state

is also a protection of state nationals. However, the former specifically undermines the latter

because of huge expenditure involved in military build-up than on poverty reduction, health

168

or education specifically in developing states (Abad, 2000). UN Human development report

1994 signifies this comprehensive understanding of security by incorporating food,

economic, health, personal, community, political, and environmental aspects into it

(Heywood, 2011). All of them are related and contribute together to ‘human life and dignity’

(Barnett et al, 2010). A mutual chord between national security and human security was

struck by UNDP 1994 report terming security people centric, and demanding global efforts to

reduce poverty and enhance human development without compromising on existing primacy

of the nation states (Buzan & Hansen, 2009).

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY OR CLIMATE SECURITY

Environmental security is a vital aspect of human security because of poverty-environment

nexus from local to global level. Adeel and Piracha (2004) consider exclusive reliance of

poor on environment for living detrimentally leading to environmental and resource

degradation that further compromise quality of life. This makes poverty and environment

interrelated and mutually contributing with an understanding that environmental degradation

“hurts poor more than the rich” (Ullah, 2006). The same thesis is propounded by

Chossudovsky (2003) while explaining issues of poverty and dependence among states at

global level that how the “new world order feeds on human poverty and destruction of the

natural environment”. Environmental security brings interdependent relationship of poverty,

environment and security under one concept of sustainable development (Najam, 2004;

Adeel & Piracha, 2004). This concept incorporates human development or human security

into parameters of economic development as both complement each other. Undermining one

would adversely affect the other. Environmental security underlines that unsustainable

human activities have resulted in environmental problems threatening life on Earth in

multiple ways. These unsustainable activities have endangered availability of crucial

resources, renewable as well as non-renewable ones; a phenomenon termed scarcity.

Scarcity is attributed to three undesirable outcomes: population exceeding available

resources, low yields owing to environmental upheavals, and finally structural flaws of

uneven access or distribution of resources, and its concentration with privileged few of

population (Swatuk, 2006). Swatuk states these three often coexist and interact with vital

169

impact on socio-economic infrastructure and political institutions. This resource scarcity

could possibly culminate into three scenarios as mentioned by Viotti and Kauppi (2007) and

Swatuk (2006). It could lead to war for the control of meager resources called as resource

wars. Scarcity would results in ‘resource capture’ by few at the expense of “ecological

marginalization” of many (Gizewski & Homer-Dixon, 1996). Secondly, it could induce mass

migration because of environmental hardships. Environmental refugees’ adaptation in their

new favorable habitat become very challenging, specifically in case of resistance from host

communities culminating in identity or ethnic crises. And finally, it could weaken socio-

political institutions with overburden resulting in crises of authority or civil disobedience.

However, Gizewski and Homer-Dixon (1996) and Najam (2004) make this scarcity induced

conflict contextualized, dependent on other multiple factors like state’s character, its

capabilities, interaction with society, and level of poverty. The poverty-environment nexus

and related socio-economic disruption, despite accepted, is interpreted differently with onus

of responsibility shifted from one to other. While Najam (2004) attributes environmental

stress and related insecurities to poverty; Jessica Mathew as mentioned by Sachs (2003)

considers poverty, associated problems and conflicts, results of environmental constraints on

human life. Environmental security could be more appropriately termed climate security

because of the enormous repercussions of global climate change. Acute threat of existence to

small island states and low lying states like Bangladesh and Maldives make the term climate

security more pertinent.

Climate variations like glacier and permafrost melting and rising sea level would undermine

state security with losses in infrastructure, reduced fertility and crop yields that lead to forced

population displacement and unemployment specifically in coastal regions(Dessler &

Parson, 2006; Tomecek, 2012; Houghton,2009). Because of its scenic beauty, soil fertility,

and trade and economic opportunities: coastal regions are home to large population, huge

built infrastructure and are hub of massive economic activities (Houghton, 2009). Similarly,

glaciers feeding rivers, a major source of agricultural system in many states, with reduced

water capacity along unfavorable variations in temperature and precipitation could have

serious socio-economic consequences in agriculture dependent economies like Pakistan.

Apart from negatively affecting food availability, water scarcity results in inadequate and

insufficient energy by reducing water in reservoirs. These environmental pressures could

170

arrest socio-economic life with potential to create or exacerbate existing crises of authority

by aggravating problem of governance, most importantly in developing states (Viotti &

Kauppi, 2007). Water borne conflicts are not only confined within state’s borders among

various estranged communities, but also among states where water is a shared asset. Climate

change poses serious threat to Pakistan as a river fed agricultural country with reduced water

availability, aggravating existing energy crises, and endangered coast line because of rising

sea level.

However, environmental stress leading to conflicts is conditioned by multiple disruptive

factors in the overall system. Similarly, co-operation among the contending actors like states

is dependent upon presence of democratic system (Swain, 2004). Swain’s understanding of

cooperation between two democratic states despite environment generated life constraining

scenario is based on idea of ‘democratic peace’. It signifies that two democracies do not go to

war with each other (Griffiths et al, 2000). Ganges treaty between India and Bangladesh

resulted in cooperation in multiple areas, whereas despite presence of decades old Indus

water treaty, coordination seems lacking in water sharing and other areas between India and

Pakistan. There is no simple explanation for this failure; however, Swain (2004) considers

Pakistan’s authoritarian state structure responsible for not capitalizing on available

opportunity, duly availed by Bangladesh. In a word, climate security is emerging as a vital

disrupting factor with a potential to seriously undermine Pakistan’s security, but it also

depends on other destabilizing factors within the state. Therefore, we need to evaluate

Pakistan existing internal dynamics that shape its understanding of security.

6.3 PAKISTAN’S SECURITY: TRADITIONAL AND NEW REALITIES

Pakistan, located in a hostile environment since inception, is primarily focused on its national

security with maximum allocation of its annual budget to defense. Uneasy relationship with

India and unsettled neighbouring Afghanistan shaped its security understanding. Pakistan’s

conflict with India termed an enduring and protracted one by Paul (2005) is primarily

responsible for its security perceptions and most of its reactive foreign policy. Fear of much

larger hostile India termed “Indian factor” (Swain,2004) though assumed exaggerated but is

not irrational (Lieven, 2011) in consideration of three major and one limited wars, an

171

intractable territorial dispute of Kashmir and a peace, better termed order, maintained much

because of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine between the two nuclear states. Similarly,

Pakistan’s fear of independent “Pashtunistan” (Johnson, 2005), pursuit of strategic depth

against its prime threat India (Nasr, 2005); and a thorny unsettled border issue of Durand line

(Rais, 2008) vitally explain its embittered relations and continued engagement in the

undecided politics of Afghanistan. Like fate of a house under attack is ceded to its security

guards; similarly, process of decision making in Pakistan is assumed by army as the most

organized institution with an ability to effectively counter these threats. This took its heavy

toll on democratic process and civic values in the country. However, military adventurism

may be the major reason, but it is not the only one to explain disruptive political process in

the country.

External security concerns seem less ominous to internal havoc wreaked by vested interests.

Nurtured by a fragile and dependent national economy, Pakistani state and society is rifted

with ideological, ethnic and class schisms. Rampant corruption is systemically enhancing

relative poverty and gulf between elites and masses, making the former empowered to

manipulate decision making process in their favor. Most significantly, a political culture is

cultivated characterized with traditional power pillars with personalized rule of institutions

by elites, disempowerment of the masses and least accountability for the authority. Dr. Ishrat

Hussain, a former governor to State Bank of Pakistan, considers state controlled by a fraction

of elite through corruption and patronage as the main problem of Pakistan (Hussain, 1999).

Political system lacking governance and accountability, and productive participation of

masses in decision making process result in crises of authority. Viotti and Kauppi (2007)

define crises of authority as an individual or group’s loss of trust in state’s institutions.

Disenchanted masses are withdrawn from political life or place their allegiance to an entity

larger or smaller to state. Presence of Islamic militant extremists idealizing their version of

‘shariah’ rule and denigrating democracy on one side, and disgruntled ethnic communities

vying for separation on the other, explain Pakistan’s crises of authority. Despite these

internal and external challenges, Lieven (2011) believes that Pakistan is a hard country with

immense resilience; however, more vulnerable to ‘ecological changes’ than internal

insurgency or external enemies.

172

6.4 CLIMATE SECURITY AND PAKISTAN: PROJECTED CLIMATE WOES AND

IMPLICATIONS

Severe environmental problems in Pakistan are due to air, water and soil pollution, lack of

proper mechanism and political will to control them. Moreover, lavish unwise use of natural

resources has resulted in deforestation, desertification, energy and water shortages, which

made this country further vulnerable to ecological changes. Pakistan as part of Asian region

is found susceptible to climate variation in Monsoon, El Nino Southern oscillations and

cyclones culminating in unfavorable impacts like floods, drought, and sea level rise (Farooqi

et.al, 2005). Current abrupt global climate change could have various adverse impacts like

affecting its water availability, low agriculture yields, undermine its livestock and

biodiversity, new diseases, and endanger its coastal areas that could induce massive

population displacement contributing to overall environmental, economic degradation and

socio-political atrophy. Devastating 2010 floods and again in 2011 is also attributed to

climate change (Rasul et al, 2012). Projected impact of rising temperature would result in

loss of 1/5th of the existing glaciers by the year 2030 (Markey, 2011). This enormous and

rapid decline of glaciers, leading to profuse river flow in the beginning, is understood turning

regional rivers into seasonal ones in the long run. Markey (2011) draws our attention to

fundamental implications of climate change in the form of limited freshwater supply and

damaged coastlines along other adverse implications.

National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS, 2012) of Pakistan acknowledges

Pakistan not different from the rest of the developing states in terms of choosing between the

conventional growth-centered development and the integrated socio-economic environmental

sustainable development. The former prioritized economic growth and gives nature an

“instrumental value”; the later promotes an integrated approach that accepts intrinsic worth

of the nature (Baker, 2006). Focused on economic growth, the conventional development

model relegates environmental “cleaning up” and prevention and mitigation of environmental

damage (NSDS, 2012). Equally significant is NSDS realization that climate change driven

hazards and other natural calamities like earthquakes pose “unique and unprecedented”

challenges to the sustainable economic growth and development in Pakistan.

173

Pakistan ranked at the top of the most vulnerable states to climate driven disasters and risks is

the prime example of climate injustice, for it contributes mere 0.8% of greenhouse gases to

the global emissions (NSDS, 2012; Naeem, 2012). Various climate risk assessment bodies

including the Maple Croft index, the Columbia University vulnerability index and the

recently launched “German Watch” climate risk index have drawn the same conclusion

regarding its extreme vulnerable position.

Table 7 Pakistan’s ranking in the German-Watch Climate Index.

Ran

k

Country CRI

Score

Deat

h Toll

Deaths per

100000

inhabitants

Absolute

Losses

(M $ PPP)

Losses per unit

GDP in %

HDI

1 Pakistan 3.5 1891 1.1 25316 5.42 145

2 Guatemala 6.33 229 1.59 1969 2.80 131

3 Colombia 8.0 320 0.70 7544 1.73 87

4 Russia 11.0 56165 39.3 5537 0.25 66

5 Honduras 14.67 139 1.73 220 0.65 121

6 Oman 17 24 0.81 1314 1.73 89

7 Poland 17.83 151 0.40 4745 0.66 39

8 Portugal 19.67 47 0.44 1749 0.71 41

9 China 23.50 2889 0.22 33395 0.33 101

10 Tajikistan 24.17 27 0.35 262 1.77 127

(Source: NSDS, 2012)

174

Reasons for Pakistan’s vulnerability to climate change as mentioned in NSDS (2012)

include:

“Its geographical location, elevation as well as demographics.

Pakistan lies on a steep incline, dropping sharply from

almost 8500 meters down to sea level within a distance of

less than 3000 km. This situation is augmented by the

presence of huge glacial reserves in the north of the country,

which melt and flow through the country, supplying more

than 70% of the river flows. This frozen “blue gold” is the

country’s most precious reserve and sustains the agro based

economy aided by the unpredictable monsoon rains of the

summer. The glacial melt and the monsoons overlap in a

three-month summer period providing the irrigation water

needed for the arid country but, ironically, also dangerously

raising the risk of flash floods in the rivers. The dense

population base, of more than 176 million, that resides along

these flood plains is, subsequently, directly impacted and

reinforces the country’s vulnerability”.

The National Climate Change Policy (2012) highlights impacts of the climate change,

terming its vulnerability in terms of water, food and energy security raising its “survival

concerns”. These projected impacts are reproduced for their significance to be part of the

National Climate Change Policy (2012) and tabled below by the researcher.

175

Table 8 Projected Impacts of Climate Change (NCCP, 2012)

NO PROJECTED IMPACTS

1 Considerable increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather

events, coupled with erratic monsoon rains causing frequent and intense

floods and droughts

2 Projected recession of the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayan (HKH) glaciers

due to global warming and carbon soot deposits from trans-boundary

pollution sources, threatening water inflows into the Indus River System (IRS);

3 Increased siltation of major dams caused by more frequent and intense

floods;

4 Rising temperatures resulting in enhanced heat and water-stressed

conditions, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions, leading to reduced

agricultural productivity;

5 Further decrease in the already scanty forest cover, from too rapid change in

climatic conditions to allow natural migration of adversely affected plant

species;

6 Increased intrusion of saline water in the Indus delta, adversely affecting

coastal agriculture, mangroves and the breeding grounds of fish;

7 Threat to coastal areas due to projected sea level rise and increased cyclonic

activity due to higher sea surface temperatures;

8 Increased stress between upper riparian and lower riparian regions in relation

to sharing of water resources;

9 Increased health risks and climate change induced migration.

Source: NCCP (2012)

NSDS (2012) acknowledges all the impending threats working as a threat maximizer with its

calamitous social, economic and political impacts. The “most serious and viable” of these

disastrous effects are the rising events of extreme events: floods, droughts, cyclones and heat

waves. Pakistan bearing brunt of these effects is found to experience nine of ten climate

triggered disasters in the last 40 years (NSDS, 2012). These impacts are witnessed in the

form of extreme events in Pakistan in the twenty-first century. These extreme erratic weather

176

patterns and their disastrous impacts have placed Pakistan among the three highest ranked

countries in the risk index 2015 ((Kreft, Eckstein, Junghans, Keresten & Hagen, 2014).

Pakistan frequently witnessed intense and unpredictable weather patterns ranging from

droughts in 1998-2001, mighty rains in 2001, forceful heat wave of 52°C, heavy rains and

floods with losses in human life and infrastructure in 2003, flash floods because of glacier

melting and heavy rains in 2005 and again in 2006, leaving 185 people dead (M.A. Khan,

2015). The frequency and intensity of the unpredictable weather continued in the form of

cyclones in Makran Coast and a record heat wave in 2007, heaviest rainfall in Karachi in

2009, and the unprecedented historical floods from extended heavy rainfall in 2010 that

inundated 20% of the land. Floods in 2012 and 2013 also resulted in huge damages,

destroying crops and leaving many homeless (M.A.Khan, 2015). These catastrophic climate

variations are listed in a table with details of their impacts in a table by M.A. Khan (2015)

that is reproduce in the Annexure.

Based on a research study, National Economic and Environmental Development Study

(NEEDS, 2011), NSDS (2012) declares climate threat posing huge economic costs and a

threat to sustainable development. A most recent report formulated by United Nations

Development Program in assistance with government of Pakistan reaffirms the same

findings. The report titled, “Pakistan – climate public expenditure and institutional review

(CPEIR)” (2015) reiterates Pakistan’s vulnerability to extreme weather conditions in the

following words:

“Pakistan’s extreme vulnerability from CC is understandable

owing to its geographic, demographic and diverse climatic

conditions. Of particular concern are the CC threats to water,

energy and food security due to the inherent arid climate

coupled with the high degree of reliance on water from

glacial snowmelt. Its impacts are being felt through

increasing intensity and frequency of extreme climatic

disastrous events”.

177

CPEIR (2015) further mentions that “Pakistan was ranked number three in the 2012

assessment of the Global Climate Risk Index 2014 with over 6 billion USD-PPP losses due

to CC[climate change]” (CPEIR, 2015). Gifted with a rich reservoir of frozen glaciers that

serves as blood to its vital single-based agricultural economic structure—“one river

economy”—Pakistan is evidently vulnerable to the erratic unpredictable changes of its

indispensable water cycle because of climate change. Rapid melting of these glaciers owing

to global warming combined with capricious monsoon rains is understood a reason for flash

floods that are taking its toll on its huge population and unplanned urbanization. The detailed

description of the climate vulnerability signifies multiple correlated factors.

However, focused assessment of impacts and proposed countering strategies can be seen in

Pakistan National Climate Change Policy, 2012 (Chaudhry,n.d). It declares climate change as

a “complex and interdependent” problem, dangerous and difficult; however, pragmatically

and optimistically considering it controllable with comprehensive collaboration of

individuals, firms and governments. Enhancing Pakistan’s adaptive capability and countering

climate change implications without compromising on its economic development is the main

objective of the policy (Yusuf, 2011). Projecting 30% reduced crop yields and 12-20%

freshwater availability by 2050 in South Asia to climate change, Pakistan existing climate

variations are stressed, considering its vulnerabilities, in the state’s policy. Current observed

climate variations like rise in mean temperature by 0.6-1.0°C, 10-15% rainfall decrease in

coastal belt and arid plains while 18-32 of its increase in monsoon zone, 5% decrease in

relative humidity, and 0.5-0.7% increase in solar radiation in half of the South in the country

are reported. This erratic intensity of climate could further aggravate increasing frequency

and intensity of extreme weather events, floods and drought, and glacial recession limiting

water ratio in Indus river system. Dr. Qamar uz Zaman Chaudary, key author of the policy,

states that rising extreme weather events in the last two decades of Pakistan like floods and

droughts are adverse effects and evident signs of climate change. Floods in 2010, leaving

2,000 dead and 20 million populations displaced, left us with almost paralyzed state’s

machinery (Yusuf, 2011). Based on such evidences, National climate change policy terms

climate change possessing ominous potential to compromise Pakistan’s national, water, food

and energy security.

178

Insensitivity to environment termed “failure of conscience” is considered main reason for

2010 floods in Pakistan by Cedar (2010). According to UN report 2000 as mentioned by

Adeel and Piracha (2004), Pakistan loses 55,000 hectors to deforestation every year and is

declared having low water availability. Country’s forests occupy paramount position among

various bulwarks against impacts of climate change like floods. However, ‘timber mafia’

aggressively corroded this defence cover from 14% to its current 5.2 % (Cedar, 2010). The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2001 and 2007 reports has clearly

mentioned that Himalayan region and Pakistan would see extreme weather events due to

climate change (Habib & Nawaz, 2010). Attributing nine out of ten natural disasters of the

last 40 years to climate variations, Malik Amin Aslam, former Minister of State for

Environment, warns that climate change could annually cost Pakistan’s economy

$14billion(R.S.Khan,2013). This is far greater in amount to the $01 billion annual cost

associated with terrorism (M.S.Khan, 2016). In presence of these vulnerabilities mentioned

in the national climate change policy, climate change potential of redefining national security

of Pakistan will be further explored.

6.4.1 Water Scarcity, Food Insecurity and Forced Migration

Water is lifeline for states whose economy is based on hydro power. Pakistan’s economy is

disproportionately based on agriculture constituting 25% of its GDP, 2/3rd of its

employment, 80% of its export, and also consuming major share of its water resources

(Markey, 2011). Negative impacts of much feared water insufficiency as climate changes

worsen would further aggravate the related availability of food and energy. With 240mm of

annual rainfall, and mere 24% of arable land, excessively populated Pakistan would become

mostly arid without its irrigation system that is precariously dependent on Indus water

(Lieven, 2011). By 2030 a projected 30% shortfall in water demands would be a catastrophic

blow to Pakistan’s economy reducing its agriculture yields, leading to unemployment, energy

crises, forced migration and increased urbanization in presence of its massive population of

240 million (Markey, 2011). In consequence of this huge population ratio, Lieven (2011)

mentions a projected water scarcity of 338 billion cubic meters (bcm) demand, which would

be a 100 bcm shortfall in presence of current 236bcm, unless revolutionary measures are

taken for water conservation and regulation.

179

Water, in a critical romantic binding with food and energy, is Pakistan’s lifeline and major

concern. Pakistan’s insecurity of food and energy would become more intense in case of

limited water availability. Pakistan divided into three hydrological units—the Indus basin,

the Kahran basin and Makran coastal basin—however, the last two are closed and arid basin

respectively (Salik, Ishfaq, Saeed, Noel, & Syed, 2015). This makes the Indus River

dominating Pakistan’s surface water hydrology. Reduced water would undermine Indus river

system (IRS), the backbone to Pakistan’s irrigation, affecting yields and revenue from crops

like wheat, cotton and sugar (Raza, n.d). Production of rice would embrace the same dismal

fate as the crop demands for huge quantity of water could not be actualized. In addition,

rising temperature would not only lessen duration of wheat growing season but also make

arid and semi-arid areas with 90% of its current cultivation less favorable for its growth

(Sayed,n.d). Sayed equally underlines dismal energy insecurity in presence of acute demand

of 162,000 megawatts by the year 2030. Environmental stresses like food scarcity would

predominantly force migration and sporadic riots as witnessed in Ethiopia, Indonesia,

Mexico, Philippines, and Senegal while leading to government overthrow in Haiti (Brown,

2011). Food riots, road blocks and torching public properties due to unavailability and higher

prices of food and energy shortfall have become characteristic features of Pakistan’s agitation

politics.

Environmental refugees, forces dislocation because of food and energy crises, could become

a source of conflict (Martin, 2005). Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) in its

2012 report on Pakistan’s displaced people declares that 14 million people were rooted out of

their habitat as a result of 2010 and 2011 floods. Similarly water scarcity could turn

flourished cities like Quetta, capital of Baluchistan, uninhabitable and dead triggering

massive refugees (Brown, 2011). These desperate environmental refugees in their new

environment would seek political control and social recognition, resulting in new alignment,

ethnic configuration, and most significantly prove economic strain with fresh demands of

infrastructure and employment in urban communities (Viotti & Kauppi, 2007).

Migration is not easily accepted in situations where host community considers migrants a

threat to resources or to their social and political leverage. Recent influx of flood affected

Sindhi population from rural Sindh to Muhajir (Urdu speaking) dominated metropolitan

180

Karachi was objected by the later (Wright, 2010).Similarly, earlier interstate migrations for

their economic and political influences have erupted into war in the region. India justifies

1971 war with Pakistan because of massive influx of refugees from the East Pakistan (Viotti

& Kauppi, 2007). In sum, water insecurity leading to energy and food insecurity or other

environmental constraints like floods and droughts could frustrate living conditions and

result in forced migration, further complicating socio-political and economic conditions.

6.4.2 Limited Water: Intensification of Interstate and Intrastate Conflicts

Resort to war and violence is often observed among states and within a state for non-

renewable resources like oil and minerals; however, shared freshwater resources, unlike other

renewable sources, are a major reason of conflict (Viotti & Kauppi, 2007). Gleick (1993)

considers water use and water-systems as weapon pursued to empower state and used as

instruments of war. Freshwater resources, fundamental to existence, are irreplaceable and

inequitably distributed, making them strategic objectives for a state. States lying upstream

could pollute, divert and limit water share or overflow it through the use of dam, turning

water into a weapon (Viotti & Kauppi, 2007). Water use and water system are a source of

conflict among various states (Gleick, 1993). North Korea’s effort to build kumgansam dam

on Hans River, upstream South Koreas’ capital, was resisted and responded by various dams

and levees. Syrian Al-Thawra dam was threatened with destruction by Iraq because of the

latter’s concern for limited water supply of Euphrates River. Turkey’s Ataturk dam is a

contentious dispute among Syria, Iraq and Turkey. These examples explain how water use

and water system can lead to conflict among states (Gleick, 1993).

Water, it’s sharing and resources, is a major source of internal rifts and regional disputes in

South Asia. Water sharing is an unresolved problem of India-Pakistan as well as India and

Bangladesh; the three largest and most populous countries of the region. Water sharing

occupies major part of Pakistan’s inveterate Kashmir dispute as Kashmir possesses important

water resources, crucial to Pakistan’s agriculture (Diehl et.al, 2005). There is a mutual fear of

each other’s water system. Pakistan has strong reservation on India’s Tulbal navigation

project called Wular Barrage in Pakistan, Kishenganga dam and Baglihar dam (Swain, 2004).

Similarly, India has objected to Pakistan’s Diamar-Bhasha dam (Ray, 2008). Water systems

181

lacking mutual consensus and accord of the contending states, if not leading to war, could

certainly result in an exacting and troubled peace with huge drain on economies of both

states. Water sharing is not just an interstate problem; it is also an intra-state issue between

Sind and Punjab in Pakistan, and Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan in India (Swain, 2004).

Punjab as the largest province of Pakistan is termed usurper when it comes to allocation of

water among the four provinces. This trust deficit is thwarting all concrete efforts for

indispensably needed large dams for water storage and energy needs. Climate change

affecting future water availability could make water sharing and its systems a conflict that

could culminate into limited war between states or serious crises of authority with in a state,

specifically in absence of democratic representative government as mentioned by Swain

(2004). In conclusion, South Asian states seem heading towards politics of water grabbing

rather than sharing, and Pakistan is perilously limited in its choices.

6.4.3 Threatened Coastlines and Volcanic Karachi

Another destabilizing climate effect, attributed to rising sea level, is Pakistan’s endangered

coastline. Pakistan’s coastal city Karachi with 20% of the total GDP ratio, largest stock

exchange, and conduit to 95% of the international trade, is highly significant (Markey, 2011).

As the largest city of Pakistan and home to 17million multiethnic population, Karachi is

extremely volatile and violence ridden with an estimated loss of 5,549 lives from the year

2003 to 2011, because of turf war among various ethno-religious groups with viable political

support (Nafees, 2012). Because of a systemic ethnic and sectarian violence, it is declared by

Fair (2004) as one of the most significant urban battlefield of South Asia. Karachi at unrest

tantamount to destabilized Pakistan is an axiom self-evident from the one day financial loss

of $161.8million as a result of riots in wake of Benazir Bhutto’s death (Markey, 2011).

Markey highlights climate change implications for Karachi as rising sea level with increased

salinity, reduced arable lands, and enhanced number of storms and cyclones. This would

significantly undermine Karachi resources, limit opportunities for its inhabitants and lead to

intense and violent struggle, specifically in terms of real estate control. Lieven (2011)

dismally concludes that rising sea level in Karachi on one hand and water scarce “thirsty

Sind” on the other could make life impossible in Sind in the long run.

182

Climate variations could change ethnic composition and political map of Karachi because of

forced migrants coupled with constrained living standards in the city. Power dynamics in

relationship with ethnic configuration of Pakistan’s largest city is evident from the almost

turned ratio of Muhajirs from 6% in comparison to 60% Sindihi in 1941(Nafees, 2012). This

resulted in making Mutahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) with Muhajir support base as the

leading political party of the city. Political leverage deriving its legitimacy from ethnic fault

lines is guarded, and influx of refugees for fear of upsetting power distribution is not

welcomed. As Wright (2010) points out MQM’s reservation regarding flood refugees from

rural Sind, Pashtun migrants as a result of military operation in Swat and South Waziristan

was also questioned by it. Climate change induced migration, either because of resource

scarcity or environmental hazards, is feared to upset existing socio-political landscape,

enhancing ethnic rifts and organized crime in the city. Karachi occupies pivotal position

because of its economic and strategic significance and metropolitan character.

Destabilization in Karachi could seriously undermine social, economic and political fabric of

Pakistan.

6.4.4 Weak State, Strong Societies and Geostrategic Implications

Weak states having ineffective writ are considered liability for world’s peace in today’s

world. Brown (2011) highlights characteristics of failing states as inability to maintain law

and order and provide personal security, burgeoning population, food insecurity, and

deteriorated economic infrastructure that preys upon natural environmental resources.

Pakistan, despite nuclear power, is placed at 10th position in the list of failing states. Failed if

not, then external threats coupled with multiple internal maladies like weak institutions

fraught with corruption, inefficiency, reactive political culture and corroding legitimacy have

made Pakistan what Lambrecht (n.d.) termed ‘weak state’. Weak states lack capability to

comprehensively counter challenges as complex as climate change. A state requires proactive

and effective strategy and mechanisms to control adverse impacts of climate change.

Weakness and incapability of effective response of state institutions is observed and

underlined in all natural disasters and accidents like Earthquake, floods and recent airline

crashes. Lembrecht observes emergence of strong societies to fill the void where weak states

are unable to secure people’s needs and interests. These strong societies, often inimical, in

183

the form of secessionist movements, radical militant organizations, or strong criminal groups

as existing in Pakistan are extreme forms of what Viotti and Kauppi (2007) term crises of

authority.

The contending struggle of state and societies for control of authority seems more favorable

to the latter in presence of wide economic and power disparities in a state corroding state’s

legitimacy and authority. Rising relative poverty in the country is underlined by Sustainable

Development Policy Institute (SDPI) in its report on ‘Food insecurity in Pakistan, 2009’.

Glaring difference of ‘have’ and ‘have-nots’ with 22 % of elites owning 85% while rest of

the 78% people possessing 15% of farmland shows prevalent dismal economic exploitation

in Pakistan. Pakistan’s government substantial engagement in what Almond et al (2004) term

‘rent seeking’, benefits obtained for oneself through the use of government, has been

exploited by contending strong societies. Elites’ manipulation of state and market, as Hussain

(1999) mentions, give rise to disillusionment and detachment capitalized on by actors

unfriendly to state and its policies. Extremist radical organizations with their successful

access to affected areas and people have turned disasters into opportunity for recruitment in

the past (Vaughan et al, 2010). They seem successfully filling the void of authority,

legitimacy and effective response created by weak state. Climate changes with projected

extreme events, natural disasters and observed ineffective responding of state’s institutions

could provide ample opportunities to extremists unfriendly non-state actors for spreading

their influence and enhancing their capacity to destabilize international peace.

Climate change would have geostrategic implications for the whole region. Vaughan et al

(2010) draws attention to the fact that the eroding authority and legitimacy of Pakistan would

accelerate in the wake of climate change acting as a ‘threat multiplier’ with rising number of

‘ungoverned areas’. These inaccessible areas, not subject to state’s writ, are believed to breed

and promote anti-western targeted terrorism with serious implications to US security.

Similarly, improper handling of the water sharing dispute, aggravated because of climate

induced water scarcity, could possibly result in low-intensity war upsetting the US desired

power balance in the region. India’s apprehensions are voiced by Pai (2008). Fear of

Pakistan’s implosion because of climate change limiting living conditions and heightened

water conflict among provinces is underlined. India is warned of environmental refugees,

184

effects of unrest in resource scarce Baluchistan, and Pakistan’s aggressive efforts to gain a

strategic edge to secure a desired settlement of water dispute. Climate change restraining life,

limiting opportunities and wrecking institutions are having serious security implications,

significantly for developing states, even beyond their borders. As Mostapha Zaher,

Afghanistan Minster of Environment, states that climate change could lead to such

desperation that people could refuse to be confined by any political and administrative

boundaries (Climate change and vulnerability challenges in Pakistan,n.d).

In sum, Climate change has much potential of compromising Pakistan’s security. Water

scarcity would result in food and energy insecurity that could further disrupt social cohesion

and weaken state institutions. A weak Pakistan at war with strong societies is understood to

become a regional and international liability. Lieven (2011) believes in Pakistan’s resilience

and survival. However, if Markey (2011) thinks of climate change becoming that “proverbial

straw” that could break Pakistan’s back; Lieven (2011) singles it out as the only potent

glaring menace to its existence in presence of all external and internal threats. Climate

change, if taken as a security threat or a threat multiplier, amounts to its handling on priority

basis, considering it an imminent threat to existence. This response level is seriously lacking

in Pakistan. With least public awareness, conspicuous absence in manifesto of political

parties and lacking comprehensive action plan, despite presence of a policy, evidently reveals

that climate change is not prioritized as a threat.

185

CHAPTER 7

PAKISTAN’S POLICY RESPONSE: CLIMATE RESILIENT

DEVELOPMENT, A SUSTAIANABLE DEVELOPMENT

In the previous chapter, a conclusion is drawn that climate change is a security threat

multiplier that would further aggravate the existing socio-economic and political problems in

the fragile states. Lt Gen Tariq Waseem Ghazi of the Global Military Advisory Council on

Climate Change (GMACC), a global network of serving and retired military officers to

highlight potential security implications of a changing climate, contends that 70% of the

world states acknowledge climate change as a security threat (R.S. Khan, 2015).It is worth

bearing in mind that climate change with its negative life constraining impacts could

undermine Pakistan’s existence or to the minimum critically compromise its governance

system—aggravating its socio-political problems with its inadequate adaptive capacity

(Lieven, 2011; Nazar, 2016). It ranks 10th among the most fragile states in light of the 2014’s

global index of such states (R.S. Khan, 2015). Climate change occupies a significant place

among Pakistan’s problems and is recognized a “core component” of Pakistan’s economic

growth model, growth with reduced poverty and improved human conditions (Pakistan

public climate expenditure and institutional review, CPEIR, 2015). Climate change is, hence,

understandably incorporated in all major national economic policies: Framework for

Economic Growth (FEG), 2011, Vision 2025 and the related Medium-Term Development

Plan (2010-2015). Presence of climate change in different policy frames evinces enormity of

the issue and emphasizes an inclusive cross-sectorial response with stakeholders from the

federal to local and public to private. However, despite growing understanding that climate

change is an issue of national security, the urgency and commitment that requires handling a

securitized issue is still largely missing for climate change in Pakistan’s decision making

structures. Translating policy directives into clear specific measurable actions is lukewarm

and has become more constrained because of the incongruity among the concerned

departments since 18th amendment to the constitution.

186

Pakistan ratified the Paris agreement on November 10, 2016, committing to its end goal of

keeping the earth temperature below 2°C (Pakistan ratifies Paris climate agreement, 2016).

This chapter, therefore, explores Pakistan’s policy response for sustainable development in

the context of climate change, relying on notable policy documents like National Climate

Change Policy (NCCP, 2012), Framework for Implementation of Climate Change (2013),

Pakistan’s National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS, 2012) and the INDC

submitted on 6th November, 2016. INDC is a mirror to state’s limitations, challenges and

prospective policy objectives that are transformed to Nationally Determined Contributions.

The submitted INDC is largely deriving its subject matter from the mentioned policy

documents. However, the INDC is more direct and clear in Pakistan policy line. Pakistan

aims to be among the top 25 economies by 2025 as envisioned in the Vision, 2025. Economic

growth is a priority; however, it seeks international support in achieving a climate friendly

sustainable development. The NCCP (2012) termed an “overarching framework” (CPEIR,

2015) highlights adverse impacts of climate change and required measures for addressing. It

is a fundamental policy document with a focused goal and specified objectives. The

Framework for Implementation (2013) further delineates impacts of climate change on

different sectors and proposes respective measures regarding adaptation and mitigation. From

these two documents, the issue of climate change outreach and is incorporated into various

national policy documents. However, despite presence of existing imperative policies and

structures like climate change ministry, climate change policy, an implementation

framework, climate change requires a “proactive” approach in presence of the impending

threats (Why Pakistan Needs a Climate Change Financing Framework? n.d.). Climate change

with its far-reaching impacts essentially demands its mainstreaming in sectorial policy

making, primarily in the energy, water and agriculture sector—the most vulnerable ones.

The NCCP (2012) and the Implementation Framework (2013) provide measures regarding

how to counter climate change impacts; while, the National Sustainable Development

Strategy (2012) in terms of climate change is essentially focused on maintaining consistent

economic growth in the climate driven age of consequences. The NSDS (2012) is outlined

with an objective to “evolve a just and harmonious society in the country through promotion

of a vibrant and equitable economic growth without overexploitation of natural resources

with fair distribution of development dividends to all; in particular to the marginalized, poor

187

and vulnerable in the society and to future generations”. The highlighted objective of the

NSDS (2012) combines in itself both inter-generational and intra-generational equity. Inter-

generational equity emphasizes considering needs of future generations by present one in

exploiting natural resources; while, intra-generational equity signifies bridging gulf of

resource scarcity between rich and poor of the present generation (Baker, 2006). The NSDS,

2012 encompasses various areas that contribute to economic growth or could arrest growth if

left unattended along with prospective promising measures for higher achievements. The

ambit of the NSDS (2012) involves economic, social and environmental concerns with a

separate chapter on climate change terming it an “emerging issue”.

National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) is the significant milestone for actualizing

Pakistan’s sound environmental health and development goals (NCCP, 2012). Its goal is “To

ensure that climate change is mainstreamed in the economically and socially vulnerable

sectors of the economy and to steer Pakistan towards climate resilient development”. Apart

from this ideal, NCCP lays out ten objectives that are reproduced below in the form of a

table:

Table 9 Ten Objectives of the NCCP (2012)

1 To pursue sustained economic growth by appropriately addressing the challenges of climate change

2 To integrate climate change policy with other inter-related national policies;3 To focus on pro-poor gender sensitive adaptation while also promoting mitigation to the

extent possible in a cost-effective manner;

4 To ensure water security, food security and energy security of the country in the face of the challenges posed by climate change;

5 To minimize the risks arising from the expected increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and tropical storms;

6 To strengthen inter-ministerial decision making and coordination mechanisms on climate change;

7 To facilitate effective use of the opportunities, particularly financial, available both nationally and internationally;

8 To foster the development of appropriate economic incentives to encourage public and private sector investment in adaptation measures;

9 To enhance the awareness, skill and institutional capacity of relevant stakeholders;

10 To promote conservation of natural resources and long term sustainability.

188

Source: NCCP (2012).

Understanding Pakistan’s response for sustainable development in the climate change context

requires assessing essence of climate resilient development, the vital goal of NCCP (2012) in

relationship with sustainable development. The insight derived from the understanding of

these two and their relationship will help us evaluate efforts for sustainable development in

light of the mentioned policy provisions.

7.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH CLIMATE RESILIENT

DEVELOPMENT: GOAL OF NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

Sustainable development as defined earlier signifies realizing prosperous social, economic

and ecological systems, for the three are inextricably linked. Ecosystem provides services

like clean air and water, food and fuel that secures man’s survival and prosperity. Man’s

excessive unwise exploitation of natural resources undermine availability of these ecosystem

services with adverse implications for human life. Such negative consequences, scarcity or

unavailability of sound ecosystem services represent “loss of resilience” (Folke et al., 2002).

Resilience, thus, is used as a frame here to delimit the extended parameters of the sustainable

development that encompasses seventeen (17) development goals with climate action as one

of them (Sustainable development goals 2015-2030, 2016). Ensuring continued supply of

ecosystem services in the impending climate threats without compromising on economic

development is climate resilient development—Pakistan’s National Climate Change Policy

goal. This makes resilience a bedrock of sustainable development.

The concept of sustainable development was evolved to accommodate developing states’

concern to resist any attempt of inhibiting their right to development on the grounds of sound

global environment (Schoenbaum, 2006). Sustainable development, a conceptual effort to

bring right to development in symbiotic relationship with environmental concerns, is

acknowledged in all key international environmental understandings: Climate change

convention and Kyoto Protocol—Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Rogers, Jalal, &

Boyd, 2008). Climate resilient development, likewise, characterizes development pathways

that combine adaptation and mitigation with effective institutions to materialize sustainable

189

development (Denton et al., 2014). It involves strategies and actions to reduce climate

changes and its impacts, effective adaptation and risk management against climate disasters.

Brown (2016) contends resilience to be of “fundamental importance to conceptualizing and

effecting sustainable development”. Termed new approach to sustainable development—

characteristically “iterative continually evolving processes for managing change”—resilience

takes in to account the complex interaction between climate, social and ecological

development (Denton et al., 2014). The link of sustainable development and resilience is

further strengthened in a high level panel report titled, ‘Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A

Future worth Choosing’ (2012). It defines sustainable development in terms of resilience—

for resilience is “at the very heart of sustainability”. Brown (2016) relates resilience and

sustainable development chiefly for both are contested ideas, malleable, relying on technical

solutions while downplaying the social and political ones, and foster “business as usual”

frames.

Climate change, a “super wicked problem” because of its intricate multilayered complexity

and adverse impacts, evaluation through the novel concept of resilience enables an inclusive

understanding of the issue from local to the global (Vasseur & Jones, 2015). Ranging from a

response to address disruptions from risk and shock to transformative measures that enhance

adaptive capacity, resilience is quintessentially centered on maintaining capacity to withstand

disturbance. The adaptive capacity that resilience seeks vitally demands ability to change or

transform in order to adjust to the impending risks. Resilience in its essence is equated with

adaptation against adverse climate impacts, for it seeks maintaining equanimity against risk,

shock and disruptions. In terms of risk reduction, climate resilient pathways are focused on

one defining variable: vulnerability (Denton et al., 2014). In this regards, it involves actions

to reduce vulnerability in the context of development needs and resources; build capacity for

vulnerability reduction and coping with unexpected threats; monitor vulnerability reduction

efforts; and consistent revision of such responses based on learned experiences for further

improvement. The concept of resilience is having a much wider socio-ecological frame as it

incorporates the process of mitigation as mentioned by Brown (2016) and Denton et al.,

2014).

190

The concept of resilience, Brown (2016) highlights, has three main dimensions: capacity to

“bounce back” after disaster, adaptation to variability and uncertainty and the required

positive structural transformation. This concept, however, to Brown, is not without social

differentiation and dispute. Assessing climate resilient development, with sustainable

development at its root, relies on multiple complex concepts: mitigation to keep climate

change moderate; adaptation, a response strategy to anticipate and cope with climate change

impacts unavoidable or not avoided for some reasons; and capacity for effective measures to

materialize risk management. The same relationship is drawn in the context of climate

change between climate change and sustainable development (Rogers, Jalal, & Boyd, 2008).

In a word, Denton et al (2014) and Brown (2016) largely concur and categorize climate

resilient development into two major actions frames:

“• Actions to reduce human-induced climate change and its

impacts, including both mitigation and adaptation toward

achieving sustainable development

• Actions to ensure that effective institutions, strategies, and

choices for risk management will be identified,

implemented, and sustained as an integrated part of

achieving sustainable development.”

At its core, the concept resilience is centered on three characteristics: resilience as capacity,

as a process and an outcome. The Rockefeller Foundation (2013) extended elaboration duly

cited by Brown (2016) worth quoting, for it comprehensively encompasses the mentioned

dimensions of the resilience:

“We define resilience as the capacity of individuals, communities, and systems to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of stress and shocks, and even transform when conditions require it. Building resilience is about making people, communities, and systems better prepared to withstand catastrophic events – both natural and manmade – and able to bounce back more

191

quickly and emerge stronger from these shocks and stresses.”

This comprehensive definition extends the parameters of involved stakeholders in actualizing effective resilience. From a larger system like state to local communities and individuals, it is required to enhance capacity against disasters and crises at each level. Apart from the capacity to cope with shocks and stresses, the threatened system should reinvent itself on a more sound and established footings. Brown (2016) like Denton et al (2014) signifies the three key components of the Rockefeller Foundation definition: ability to cope with disasters, capacity to recover from them, and equally important but vitally neglected third factor is the capacity of transformation—“radically change in order to take advantage of the new opportunities and new possibilities”. The Rockefeller

Foundation definition with its inclusive character signifies, mentioned by Martin-Breen and

Anderies (2011) in their evaluation of literature on resilience, the inherent demands of

resilience which “requires a multi-faceted, interdisciplinary strategy”. Brown (2016)

simplifies that resilience constitute not only a response to change or shocks but effective

“proactive adaptation and anticipatory action”—“building capacity to deal with and to shape

change”. A noteworthy conclusion drawn from Denton et al., (2014) study is that climate

changes measures—adaptation and mitigation—and sustainable development actions require

to compliment and contribute successfully to each other as each has the potential to

counteract the other.

Climate resilient pathways “generally” demand transformation—innovative systemic

responses to materialize sustainable development—that would “challenge some of the

assumptions that underlie business-as-usual approaches” or incremental approaches (Denton

et al., 2014). The two are distinguished: transformational adaptation require changing the

nature, composition or location of the threatened system; while, incremental or business as

usual adaptation approach address immediate and anticipated threats based on existing

practices, approaches and technologies. Climate change is an acknowledged threat to

sustainable development in absence of a comprehensive climate resilience measures:

192

mitigation to moderate extreme climate condition and adaptation, building capacity to reduce

impacts of the remaining abrupt climate changes (Denton et al., 2014). Transformation of the

means, measures, and attitudes that undermine sound climate conditions and social security is

pivotal. The essence of climate resilient development is a two-fold objective: resilience and

sustainable development. Resilient, according to IPCC (2012) as mentioned in Denton et al

(2014), is “a system’s ability to anticipate, reduce, accommodate, and recover from

disruptions in a timely, efficient, and fair manner”. Sustainable development, simplified, is

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs”. These two interrelated and interdependent concepts

require synchronizing their proposed policies and measures for the desired goal of climate

resilient development. Seeking human well-being and its sustainable relationship with

constrained physical environment demands “reconciling trade-offs among economic,

environmental, and other social goals through institutional approaches that are equitable and

participative” (Denton et al., 2014). These characteristics highlight that for realizing climate

resilient development, a coordinated comprehensive approach is required that could bring

different dimensions of development in coherence and involve different stakeholders on an

equal footing. Participation on equal footing incentivizes development process. Most

significantly, climate resilient development is an evolutionary process that would grow its

potential to thwart disruptions and promote sustainable development with continued learning

experience.

Carbon intensive development, or as Baker (2006) puts it traditional western development

model, is not only aggressively contributing to adverse climate changes but largely

“inconsistent” with the aims of sustainable development like poverty reduction, food and

livelihood security and improved human health. Bringing sustainable development and

climate resilient requires adopting consumption patterns that enrich socio-economic

development with reduced use of natural resources and continued ecosystem services—thus,

possibly less emission and retained sound environmental adaptive capacity. Pursuing

consumption dynamics that would materialize socio-economic development without

compromising sustainability of natural resources and ecological services would require a

differentiation between human well-being and material consumption. The latter not

necessarily results in the former.

193

Development policy and climate change resilience measures are interlinked in multiple ways.

Repercussion of climate changes if not evaluated and incorporated in the development policy

would undermine development measures. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, drawing a link between climate change,

sustainable development, and disaster relief emphasizes that the three are “all one and the

same” (UNFCCC Interview, 2015). Sustained development and effective poverty alleviation

are impossible to materialize in presence of catastrophic natural disasters that could wipe out

entire provinces and dislocates millions, she emphatically highlights. Equally significant,

climate change mitigation reduces extreme climate; whereas, adaptation enhances potential

to adjust to the remaining changes—actualizing a sound development. Another factor that

establishes cross-cutting link of development policies with climate mitigation or adaptation is

a reinforcing understanding that vulnerability determinants to adverse and abrupt climate

changes and developing an effective response strategy for them are shaped by development

processes. People and states with limited resources and financial constraints and political

disruptions could witness aggravation of these problems as unaddressed climate changes will

serve as threat multiplier. Climate change as a threat multiplier is discussed in detail the

previous chapter. Therefore, development policy requires framing socio-economic

constraints of the vulnerable areas as determinants of vulnerability in addition to abrupt often

negative climate changes. Another notable reason to bind climate resilience with sustainable

development is the fact that many climate drivers—significantly energy production and

consumption—and measure to mitigate them almost grow of the same roots. In light of this

reciprocal beneficial relationship, Denton et al (2014) contend that prioritizing sustainable

development in policy framing would better serve climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Moreover, integrated approach towards climate change mitigation and adaptation,

contributing purposefully towards each other desired goals would ensure realizing

sustainable development.

For climate resilient development to materialize, it is quintessential to address developmental

structural deficits that enhance vulnerability and limit adaptation capacity of the marginalized

sections of society in general (Denton et al., 2014). Understanding structural inequalities and

its solutions have broadened the conception of poverty, including its relational aspects with

socio-political determinants like political empowerment, participation and dignity of the

194

individual (Olsson et al., 2014). Equally important is the concept of livelihood. “Understood

as the ensemble or opportunity set of capabilities, assets, and activities that are required to

make a living”, livelihoods “depends on access to natural, human, physical, financial, social,

and cultural capital (assets); the social relations people draw on to combine, transform, and

expand their assets; and the ways people deploy and enhance their capabilities to act and

make lives meaningful” (Olsson et al., 2014). Potentially evolving to changing environment,

a successful livelihood is characterized as one that “transforms assets into income, dignity,

and agency, to improve living conditions, a prerequisite for poverty alleviation”. With the

realization that climate changes are more detrimental to the less privileged of human

population, successful realization of climate resilient development requires broadening

decision making process with extended participation—“deliberative democracy”. Involving

different stakeholders, their values, concerns and perception would raise “ethical impacts”

essential for generating consensus and urgent climate actions.

7.1.1 A Resilience Lens and Climate Change Sustainable Adaptation

“Resilience perspective provides new insights for knowledge and policy, and supports more

transformative responses to environmental change (Brown, 2016).”It has not only become a

core to sustainable development, but a lens that has shifted focus of climate change

adaptation from removing vulnerability to enhancing adaptive capacity. Vulnerability in light

of the resilience frame is always part of the system (Nelson et al., 2007), and the objective of

adaptation should be to remove sources of vulnerability, determine its acceptable standard,

and build effective response against risks and shocks. Three factors determine essence of

these responses, whether short term coping or long term sustainability (Brown, 2016). In the

first place, it is important to understand how the problem is framed, then assess institutional

structure of response mechanism and finally the feedback and their incorporation into

actions. The last one is understood significant, for feedbacks result in further specification

and enhanced comprehensive social learning of the issue (Brown, 2016). Comprehensive and

inclusive approach towards a multi-layered issue of climate change yield prospectively

efficient and productive outcomes in contrast to narrowly framed problems.

195

Brown (2016) contends that climate change adaptation has become the “core issue” of

international development. Development agencies from world financial institutions to NGOs

recognize its significance in a world threatened with disasters. Creation of Climate Change

Adaptation Fund, a worthy evidence of the world growing understanding and awareness for

combined efforts for adaptation against the adverse impacts of climate change. This effort

galvanizes initiative to operationalize and mainstream climate change adaptation into

development frames (Brown, 2016).

Paradoxically, international climate change regime for addressing adaptation concerns of

vulnerable population primarily relies on transferring improved technological skills and

financial assistance to governments; while, the underprivileged self-relying threatened

sections of the communities continue lurching and largely relying on self-help (Brown,

2016). This incongruity of international funding, governments’ development practices and

vulnerable communities lead experts like Jessica Ayers (2010) question the expected

inclusive character of prevalent adaptation measures. Distinguishing it into three categories,

Ayers argues that climate change policy agendas and actors pursue adaptation focused on

“interventions” to address impacts of climate shocks for the most vulnerable people. The

second approach to adaptation seeks changing development patterns for the sake of making it

resilient. In contrast, the third approach advocated by development organizations considers

adaptation as development (Ayers, 2010).

The sustainable adaptation approach comprehensively links climate change with other social

and environmental issues, requires an integrated response and “attempts” framing adaptation

into a broader frame of sustainable development (Brown, 2016). The concept of sustainable

adaptation is coined to take a comprehensive definition of vulnerability by placing poverty

and inequality at its roots. This understanding of sustainable adaptation comprehends climate

change not an exclusively environmental issue resolved through mitigation of the greenhouse

gases, but a “systemic and fundamental problem” of unsustainable development patterns and

demands a radical transformation of them (Eriksen et al., 2011) Poverty, marginalization and

climate impacts are closely intertwined, though having definite defining lines; for poor

everywhere are not subject alike to climate changes. The impossible inseparability of

poverty, vulnerability and climate change impacts leads Tanner and Mitchell (2008) advocate

196

a pro poor climate adaptation, a proactive process that would incorporate apart from targeting

climate impacts measures like social protection, conflict prevention and delivery of services.

The pro-poor adaptation understood to drive people out of chronic poverty and requires a

holistic approach towards the interrelationship of poverty, vulnerability and adaptation.

7.2 PAKISTAN TOWARDS CLIMATE RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT: CORE TO

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The detailed evaluation of climate resilient development in light of resilience as a concept in

its relationship with sustainable development draws us to certain vital understandings.

Mitigation and adaptation measures successfully institutionalize with the help of effective

institutions to counter adverse climate impacts and enhance adaptive capacity of the

vulnerable sections of the society is at the core of sustainable development. As discussed in

previous chapter, climate change poses serious threats and has resulted in huge losses of life,

infrastructure and massive population dislocation. Development is unsustainable in absence

of climate resilience. Realizing climate resilient development that would ensure sustained

growth in presence of climate risks demands comprehensive strategy, multi-sectorial

approach and wider involvement of stakeholders, from individual to larger community.

Another crucial essential is to overcome structural developmental deficits that limit adaptive

capacity and enhance vulnerability especially of the less privileged that are more exposed to

climate impacts. In order to understand Pakistan’s policy goal to actualize climate resilient

development, it is important to keep these vital essentials for having climate resilient

development.

7.3 REVIEW OF POLICY FRAME

In light of the calamitous impacts of climate change, National Sustainable Development

Strategy (NSDS), (2012) describes Pakistan’s response to climate changes as characterized

with an appropriate policy having a legal and institutional support and is streamlined into

workable, implementing strategies and programs. However, the policy for more

comprehensiveness requires to abreast and adapts itself to the changed technological

advancement and social and economic imperatives. As mentioned earlier, the NCCP (2012)

197

and its Implementation Framework for Climate Change (2013) provide an overarching policy

frames that underline Pakistan vulnerable sections especially water, food and energy and

propose required measures. A brief evaluation of the NCCP in relevance to other policy

instruments is provided here to prove that the national policy on climate change with its 120

proposed measures seemingly incorporates a comprehensive mitigation and adaptation

guideline. The NCCP (2012), a comprehensive policy document, is an outcome of extensive

deliberations of the 09 working group comprising 40 experts constituted by Climate Change

Task Force (Task force on climate change, 2010; Shabbir, n.d.). In order to actualize climate

resilient development, NCCP (2012) sets out objectives, highlights impending threats to

various vulnerable sections particularly emphasizing looming risk of energy, food and water

scarcity, and suggests a number of mitigation and adaptation measures. This exhaustive

policy document is significantly focused on two pronged approach of reducing disastrous

impacts and improving adaptive capacity of the vulnerable community emphasizing

disastrous preparedness and socioeconomic stability and growth. The adaptation

recommendations include, apart from preparedness against disaster and addressing socio-

economic vulnerability to enhance adaptive capacity, measures related to water resources,

forestry, human health, biodiversity, agriculture and livestock and vulnerable ecosystem.

7.4 ADAPTATION

7.4.1 Water Crises

Rising temperature with enhanced evapotranspiration and increased glaciers melting leading

to initial gusts of flow but eventual ebbing will undermine water availability (M.A. Khan,

2015). Dealing with uncertain water flow and adequately responding to it with “storage

facility and efficient management” is a “major challenge” (Salik, Ishfaq, Saeed, Noel, &

Syed, 2015). Water security a vital life sustaining asset and established among Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs), Goal 6, clean water and sanitation. To ensure water security and

its required availability, NCCP (2012) proposes various measures broadly divided into main

four goals: improve water storage and infrastructure, water conservation, having a lot of

emphasis upon an integrated water management system, and enhance capacity. However,

these four goals directly concerned with efficient use, distribution and conservation of water

198

is understood to require legislative framework and public awareness. From recycling of

waste water and improvement of the existing water distribution infrastructure to construction

of water reservoir, the NCCP (2012) envelopes various measures for ensuring efficient and

productive water management system in Pakistan. However, the policy frame is missing the

concept of water pricing that is understood to effectively contribute in water conservation by

promoting efficient use of irrigation water and cultivation of water efficient crops (Burki,

2015).

7.4.2 Agriculture and Livestock

Similarly, the NCCP (2012) signifies adverse impacts of climate changes on agriculture and

livestock after highlighting the vital role of agriculture in Pakistan’s economy. Ensured

agriculture productivity is a sine quo non SDG—no hunger. Rising temperature with

disruptive impacts on hydrological cycle and changed precipitation pattern in Pakistan has

resulted in a 5% increase in net irrigation requirement (Salik et al., 2015). The crucial

significance of agriculture in Pakistan socio-economic development is highlighted in the

previous chapter. NCCP (2012) equally underlines Pakistan as primarily agriculture based

economy with agriculture accounting for “45% of the labor force, 21% of GDP and 70% of

total export earnings”. Apart from influencing water availability, rising temperature would

influence crop growth cycle (NCCP, 2012). The suggested policy measures for adaptation

against adverse climate impacts on agriculture are broadly divided into four sections. The

vital needs of research regarding impending impacts on crop yields, new crops that are more

adaptable to such adverse impacts and finding pattern to erratic availability of water are the

vital research areas to be explored. The second dimension of policy regarding agriculture

adaptation signifies procuring requisite technology to materialize efficient use of water and

cultivable land for enhanced production. From extended research regarding enhanced

agricultural output and improved livestock to financial support to farmers for better yield,

various adaptation measures are suggested under the caption general management (NCCP,

2012). The need for improving technological bases of the agriculture is crucial to arrest

growing low yield (Burki, 2015).

199

Policy discourse analysis (2013) highlights absence of agriculture policy despite agriculture

being backbone to Pakistan’s economy and existence, providing livelihood to 68% of its

population. Relying on multiple documents—Vision 2013, the Medium Term Development

Framework (MTDF), the Framework of Economic Growth and Climate Change Policy— the

Policy discourse analysis (2013) evaluates how climate change impacts are understood

influencing agriculture growth and proposes respective countermeasures against these

negative impacts. Policy discourse analysis signifies that government documents largely

underline food security; however, no comprehensive policy has been formulated to

encompass multi-dimensional nature of the issue.

Climate centered efforts for improved and efficient agriculture output, mentioned in Vision

2030, include policy measures like investment in research for improved technological means,

efficient mechanism of production and irrigation and water use and diversification of rural

agriculture. National Climate Chang Policy equally highlights such measures along with

integrating various sectors to ensure a coordinated output. Policy discourse analysis (2013),

however, contends that government policies as well as programs are largely focused on

“productivity effects” of climate change, having much less on enhancing farmers’

“innovation and adaptation”. In other words, problems are underlined; solutions are paid less

attention. Since 18th Amendment, agriculture becomes a provincial domain in terms of

management and policy making with few functions entrusted to the Planning Commission,

Pakistan.

7.4.3 Health and Forestry

Health and forestry, their vulnerability to climate changes and proposed solutions are made

part of NCCP (2012). It mentions Pakistan growing health risks to rising temperature,

changed precipitation and extreme weather events resulting in life losses, injuries and vector

borne diseases. As a SDG 3, good health needs to prioritize. Deaths and diseases apart, the

extreme events incapacitate vital infrastructure: floods in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

destroyed partially or completely almost 515 health units, 5 percent health facilities of the

afflicted areas (Salik et al., 2015). NCCP (2012) emphasizes building adaptive capacity

against assessed vulnerabilities, enhance general awareness regarding them and incorporate

200

them in national health policy. Climate changes would negatively affect Pakistan’s depleting

forest cover—another endangered asset. Ensuring robust forest cover is an essential aspect of

life on land, SDG, 15. Receding forests results in less agriculture output, changed species’

composition, more flood, and enhanced vulnerability to biodiversity. NCCP (2012)

underlines need of research, raising and spreading awareness, improved governance structure

and management of the forests, arresting soil erosion and various damages to forests. The

essence of these measures is focused on improving forest cover, enrich their potential

benefits and facilitate communities dependent on them with alternative resources.

7.4.4 Biodiversity and Vulnerable Ecosystem

Protecting biodiversity and vulnerable ecosystem lie within the ambit of SDG, 15-life on

land. NCCP (2012) equally highlight impending threats to biodiversity and other vulnerable

ecosystems: mountain areas, rangeland and pastures, arid and hyper-arid areas, coastal and

marine and wetlands. The rich but neglected natural ecosystem of Pakistan offers much for

growth and development and poverty alleviation (Public discourse analysis, 2013). The rising

deterioration of natural resources—alarming deforestation, air, water and soil pollution—are

further prone to adverse climate changes. This fact is acknowledged by various studies like

National Forest and Range Resources Assessment Study, 2004 and the Stocktaking Report

Rio, 2012 (Public discourse analysis, 2013). However, despite presence of policies and

institutional structures, the continued deterioration of the natural ecosystem is not

satisfactorily curbed (Kakakhel, 2012). Climate change and ecosystem and resource

management is intertwined, for the effective symbiotic relationship of the two results in

sustainable development. The growing threat of climate change would further undermine

existing decay of the Pakistan’s natural ecosystem, constraining options for growth and

development. With this understanding, climate change and natural ecosystem preservation

discourse is shifting from “impact driven” to green economy “whereby climate change

effects are addressed through climate proofing economic sectors and the resources they

depend upon and providing a policy and regulatory framework for low emissions innovation

and green growth” (Policy discourse analysis, 2013). However, such an understanding is not

effectively been incorporated in the mainstream development framework. With growing

understanding of the nexus between poverty and environmental changes, it is highlighted to

201

protect ecosystem specifically the one vulnerable people are dependent upon. This requires

assessing “effectiveness of ecosystem and natural resource management in terms of their

contri*bution to the climate resilience of the poor” (Public discourse analysis, 2013).

7.4.5 Disaster Management

Disaster preparedness, the most important aspect, for actualizing climate resilient

development is detailed in NCCP (2012). Expected rise in the frequency and intensity of

extreme weather events is acknowledged as such climate change repercussions are already

witnessed. Un-avertable disasters, however, could be controlled in their impact with effective

adaptation. SDG-13, Climate action underscores disaster preparedness. The NCCP proposes

a “holistic approach” and suggests various adaptation measures like allocation of funds and

resources to National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), well defined lines of

responsibility and coordination, early warning system in case of calamities, communities’

evacuation, and prepared response against glacial lake outbursts and other untoward

disasters. NDMA is established as an institution with provincial and local supportive bodies

and clearly defined laid out principles mentioned in NSDS (2012). These principles are

reproduced in a table below for their significance:

Table 10 Principles of NDMA

Promoting multi-stakeholder, multi-sectorial and multi-disciplinary approaches,

Reducing vulnerability of most vulnerable social groups,

Strengthening community and local level risk reduction capacities,

Combining scientific and people’s knowledge,

Developing culturally, socially, economically and environmentally relevant

technologies,

Strengthening sustainable livelihood practices,

Acquiring specific capacities in view of the hazard-risk profile of the area and

country, and

Working with other countries, and the international community to promote disaster

risk reduction.

202

Evaluation of these principles underlines a comprehensive inclusive approach to achieve the

desired sustainable growth and development. As climate change impacts are understood to

severely influence the underprivileged and deprived sections of the society, NSDS

principally highlights reducing vulnerability or in other words enhancing resilience of the

vulnerable areas. The required capacities for reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience

depend upon helpful knowledge and technologies corresponding with indigenous wisdom

and relevant social, cultural, economic and environmental milieu. Above all, climate change

is a complex global problem and a comprehensive effort towards sustainable development

and disaster risk reduction requires collaboration among various stakeholders at domestic and

international level.

7.4.6 Human Development

Sound human development is viably an effective bulwark that thwarts transforming natural

hazards into disasters. The devastating floods in Pakistan evidently amplifies that

communities having “widespread malnutrition, deep levels of poverty, inadequate access to

education, landlessness, discrimination against women and minorities” are more at risk and

more difficult to bounce back (Public discourse analysis, 2013). With rising likelihood of

climate driven disasters, the inadequate adaptation system of Pakistan stands an ignored

eyesore. The need to systematically integrate Disaster Risk Reduction and climate adaptation

principles in all public development policies are essentially required (Public discourse

analysis, 2013). Oxfam report (2011) emphasizes development policies in Pakistan to focus

on reducing disasters, enhancing adaptation capacity and prioritizing needs of the vulnerable

communities in the reconstruction and development plans to achieve the desired sustainable

development.

NCCP (2012) highlights the growing plight of the poor and women—social classes that seem

largely underprivileged, disempowered and dependent on natural resources for their survival

—because of the negative effects of climate change. Poverty alleviation, an understandable

outcome of economic development, will become impossible in presence of impending

climate threats. Similarly, large section of Pakistan’s rural women rely on Agriculture for

203

subsistence and reduced agricultural output will further constrain their development

opportunities. NCCP (2012) proposes adaptation measures like an inclusive approach

involving these underprivileged sections of the community, their access to technology,

evolving a poverty-climate nexus, highlighting adverse impacts of the rising population and

develop a wide-scale decision making process involving these vulnerable classes.

The nexus of poverty and environmental changes is acknowledged in light of the Millennium

Development Goals, No-7—about the sustainability of the environment—and became a

focused attention of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP-1), 2004 in Pakistan. The

PRSP-2 in 2009 was a step forward when government constituted a commission for an

exhaustive analysis of the nexus between poverty and environment, measure it and assess its

impact on national economy (Policy discourse analysis, 2013). These documents highlight

environment as a cross-cutting issue and significantly maintain the important role of

agriculture, livestock and fisheries in reducing poverty in the rural areas of Pakistan.

Similarly, the Climate Change Task Force also advocates incorporating social protection

programs for climate change vulnerable people. Various institutionalized social protection

programs largely termed “social safety net”—defined as “a source upon which one can rely

in times of need, regardless of the help-seeker’s ability to repay” (Ashraf, 2014)—is another

notable measure of the government. It has become more efficient since adoption of the

National Social Protection Strategy, 2007 to reduce poverty or in other words enhance

individual adaptive capacity. Public programs significantly focused on assisting vulnerable

and socially and economically humble people are broadly distinguished in terms of direct and

indirect intervention on the part of government. However, climate change resilience is not a

major consideration in social protection programs. The following table based on the detail

mentioned in Public discourse analysis (2013) lists these social protection programs and the

vital institutions responsible for them and are tabled below by the researcher.

204

Table 11 Various Social Protection Programs

SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN PAKISTAN

Direct Assistance

Employment Old Age Benefit Institute (EOBI), Workers’ Welfare Fund, Provincial Security benefits (employment guarantee based);

• Benazir Income Support Programme, Zakat, Bait-ul-Mal, Pakistan Poverty Alleviation fund (PPAF) (transfers), National Rural Support Programme;

• Micro financing and micro credit, Benazir Income Support Programme, Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF), Khushal Pakistan Programme and Fund

Indirect Assistance

• Subsidy on food items through utility stores

• Minimum wage rate

• Life line tariff on electricity.

Vital Institutions

PRSP Secretariat, the PPAF, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and the Benazir Income Support.

7.5 MITIGATION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The NCCP (2012) after a largely elaborate adaptation measures focuses on mitigation.

Pakistan’s least contribution to greenhouse emission but enormous adverse impacts and

challenges of adaptation makes NCCP (2012) primarily centered on adaptation. With its

0.8% contribution to global emissions, Pakistan ranked 135th based on per capita emission

(Pakistan’s intended nationally determined contributions, 2016). However, CO2 emission per

unit of energy consumption is relatively high (NSDS, 2012). This reveals that energy, the

vital factor to economic growth and national development, needs to be refined in terms of its

efficiency, use and nature. High emission sectors of Pakistan are transport and agriculture

and livestock with reported 51% and 39% emission respectively (NCCP, 2012; NSDS, 2012;

Pakistan’s intended nationally determined contributions, 2016). NCCP (2012)—after listing

energy sector with the highest emission ratio 51% followed by agriculture sector (39%),

industrial processes (6%), land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) (3%) and waste

205

(1%)—advocates integration of energy policy and climate change. Concern is not only

emissions but also the low 4.8% forest cover and growing deforestation ratio of 0.2 to 0.4 %

which means that carbon assets are also declining in Pakistan (NSDS, 2012). Significantly

relying on the depleting resources of furnace and natural gas, Pakistan will resort to avail its

rich coal reservoirs, estimated 185 billion tons (NCCP, 2012). The national policy demands a

creative and sustainable energy policy focus on “development of renewable energy resources

and the increased share of nuclear and hydroelectric power provide an opportunity to reduce

carbon emissions in Pakistan’s energy sector”. Apart from the use of renewable resources,

nuclear and clean coal technologies, NCCP (2012) advocates measures like generating power

from municipal waste, developing local technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS),

imposing carbon tax to promote efficient use energy, and import of natural gas. Energy

production is not the only concern; NCCP (2012) mentions crucial importance of energy

efficiency and conservation and proposes various measures in this regard.

NSDS (2012) contends that an “emission space” is fruitful keeping in view the expected

future economic growth. Pakistan aims to achieve 7% growth rate till 2025 (Pakistan’s

intended nationally determined contributions, 2016). Actualizing this target understandably

means more emissions, assumed to reach 1603 MT CO2-equivalent (Pakistan’s intended

nationally determined contribution, 2016). The viable strategy for realizing economic

development without compromising on environmental soundness is to integrate carbon

mitigation options into future development plans. NSDS argues that economic growth having

“lower carbon trajectory” is possible “by integrating a host of carbon mitigation options and

measures into its future development plans – for which a large latent potential exists if aided

by adequate finance and appropriate technology” (NSDS, 2012). The recently submitted

INDC highlights this point with an added fact that without financial and technological

assistance, the desired level of mitigation or clean energy goals will be unrealizable.

Following business as usual (BAU) approach, economic growth centered policies that

involve availing tapped coal resources in disregard to mitigation measures would raise

carbon emissions 15 times to its current level in Pakistan in the next 40 years (NSDS, 2012).

Clean development pathway, an alternate lower carbon trajectory, demands an additional

estimated expense of 8 to 17 billion US dollars to 2050 if cleaner coal and renewable energy

technologies are employed. However, carbon reductions actualized through this clean

206

development pathway would value 27.3 billion dollars, “if priced at a reasonable future value

of carbon”—making it positively cost effective. However, the availability of climate finance

and appropriate technology is at the root of materializing such a transition (NSDS, 2012).

Similarly, the need for controlling emissions from different means of transport: road,

railways, aviation, and proper town planning to fortify our urban areas against climate

disasters and actualize efficient energy consumption are rightly incorporated in the NCCP

(2012).Despite highest emission growth rate of all sectors and crucially required mitigation,

controlling emissions from different means of transport is difficult. NCCP (2012), however,

proposes measures like proper maintenance of vehicles, efficient public transport, resorting

to bio-fuels and availing CDM projects, promoting non-motorized means of travelling and

efficient aircraft and railway system. Proposed measures to curb emissions from industries

and agriculture and livestock have also been incorporated in the national climate change

policy (2012). Resorting to clean and efficient energy resources and incentivize voluntary

corporate social responsibility, have periodic “energy efficiency audits” are the various

suggested measures to reduce emission from the industrial sectors (NCCP, 2012). Likewise,

emissions from livestock and agriculture, constituting 39% of the Pakistan’s total greenhouse

emissions with 3% rising rate per annum, are crucially required to be reduced. NCCP

signifies importance of measures like integrating indigenous knowledge with latest

technology, efficient control of the release of nitrous oxide and methane and avail CDM

facility in this regard, and develop and adapt more productive breed of cattle to meet

mitigation standard as well as more productive agriculture and livestock system. With

minimal 3% contribution to the global emissions, NCCP (2012) acknowledges Pakistan’s

untapped potential in forest sector. To materialize progress in this regard, NCCP maintains

setting and meeting annual targets of afforestation and reforestation, stop illegal and corrupt

abuse of forest resource, provide alternative resources to forest-dependent communities for

livelihood, seek financial assistance from the world financial bodies for devising national

forest conservation and restoration strategy. A successful policy of mitigation equally relies

on renewable and efficient sources of energy and increasing capacity of carbon sinks.

207

7.6 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND GENERAL AWARENESS

The most important aspect of national climate change policy is a realization that insufficient

human resources and institutional capacity constrain Pakistan’s ability to effectively pursue

its desired interests in international climate negotiations. It needs to comprehensively assess

impending threats and evolve an effective response. NCCP (2012) underlines an integrated

and coordinated framework through presence of climate cells at different sectors at federal

and provincial level, a coordination commission, ensuring climate change ideals and

socioeconomic development goals to further each other and incorporate climate change

concerns into Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and a systemic regular assessment of

emission reduction and changes in land use. Along with institutional build-up, the policy

recommends actualizing capacity building through measures like talented experts, foster

climate research and research-based institution like GCISC, and educate about adaptation

against negative effects through curriculum development. Moreover, it seeks providing

required training and knowledge to develop institutional capacity and expertise in specialized

knowledge regarding monitoring, assessing impacts and suggesting required adaptation

measures.

For the successful realization of climate change policy goals, NCCP (2012) promotes general

public awareness against impending climate threats to garner support for adaptation. It is

understood that instead of highlighting limitations of our response and capacities and

plugging them, the complacency of calling climate borne disasters as “will of God” or

“punishment” (Cheema & Hussain, 2014) further compromises productive outcomes.

Cultivating such an attitude on behalf of the influential public sectors not only relives and

absolves them of their responsibility to address the issue, it undermines comprehensive and

collective response. Involving key stakeholders regarding issues like water and energy

conservation, forest and biodiversity protection, and opportunities offered by CDM are the

various areas that require an inclusive approach, which, in turn, is dependent on large scale

involvement. In the same vein, international and regional cooperation is required, for it is not

possible for a single state to cope with the challenges of climate change. NCCP (2012)

concedes to this realization that cooperation from the global community and fostering a

collective approach of the South Asian states is essential, for the region is much vulnerable to

208

adverse climate changes. For this purpose, continued data exchange, active response and

links with international environmental institutions, joint assessment of the climate impacts

and devising sustainable approach to climate change among the mountainous states, establish

a research body and exchange expertise and students to promote understanding regarding the

issue of climate change (NCCP, 2012).

Pakistan is among those developing states acknowledged to be immensely affected by

negative climate changes. As signatory to the UNFCCC and member to World Bank, it

qualifies for the promised international Green Climate Fund. However, securing share of this

fund depends on an “enabling environment” (NCCP, 2012). For creating this enabling

environment, NCCP advocates measures like establishing a Pakistan Climate Change Fund,

joint efforts of public-corporate-civil society for financing and implementing mitigation and

adaptation projects, and provide carbon market opportunities with a proper investment frame.

NCCP rightly acknowledges presence of competition among developing states for availing

climate change fund opportunities offered by Green Climate Fund (GCF), Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM), Adaptation Fund (AF), Global Environmental Facility

(GEF), World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility(FCPF) and Carbon credit trading.

Another crucial adaptation requirement of developing states is their limitation in terms of

adequate technology. Transfer of technologies from developed to developing states

constitutes a vital requisite of the international climate regime—UNFCCC. In order to

actualize this essential, NCCP (2012) proposes measures like nationally determined

technological needs regarding mitigation and adaptation, incorporate local technology and

seek technological breakthrough in areas of coal, bio-fuels, clean coal technologies;

technology transfer for designing electric/hybrid vehicles and exploring viable productive

sites for generating wind and solar energy.

The burgeoning carbon market that is predicted to reach 1 trillion $/ year in near future

understandably provides Pakistan an opportunity to seek the required financial assistance and

successfully shift to low carbon future and adapt to climate changes (NSDS, 2012). Low

carbon future materialized through international financial assistance is inseparably linked to

building capacity or adaptation to climate changes. NSDS particularly highlights two sectors

with high potential to avail climate finance: clean energy development projects (renewable,

209

waste to energy, transport) and sustainable forestry. The new market in carbon commodity is

termed an “effective financing vehicle” that would actualize sustainable development

through “nationally appropriate climate mitigation activities” (NSDS, 2012).

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is mentioned as a leverage to secure required

financial assistance for low carbon development specifically in clean energy products

(NSDS, 2012). CDM as mentioned earlier is a market based mechanism termed flexibility

mechanism, an interactive process of the developed and developing states, which reduce

emissions on part of the highly developed states on one hand and enrich sustainable

development and adaptive capacity through technological assistance and investment in the

developing states (Boisson de Chazournes, 2011). Pakistan has devised a CDM operational

strategy and institutionalised the CDM host country capacity; however, NSDS (2012)

highlights certain limitations: securing CDM projects is not without competition from other

vying developing states; CDM as not supporting clean coal technologies, hence, offers little,

for Pakistan primary reliance is on coal deployment for future energy expansion; and because

of long maturity period and associated transaction costs, CDM projects are underutilized. Dr.

Shahqat Kakakhel and Dr. Qamar Zaman Chaudhry underline importance of climate finance

and concrete measures to secure notch in the international financial capital (Saeed, 2013;

Khan, R.S., 2013). Securing share in the “Green Climate Fund” requires developing

“saleable projects”, according to Dr. Chaudhry (Saeed, 2013). The potential for developing

such saleable projects is still largely missing.

Climate financing would also incentivize sustainable development through arresting forest

decline and thus serve purpose of carbon sequestration and removal (NSDS, 2012). Financial

assistance program like Reduction of Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)

could not only secure but also improve Pakistan’s dismal forest sector of low and declining

area. This would realize the desired outcome of low carbon economy and sustainable

development in the forest sector. Realizing such ambitions, however, would require the forest

cover to be evaluated as a carbon asset, financially identifying and quantifying its present as

well as future value in “preparation for an international REDD regime (NSDS,2012). NSDS

emphasizes availing available forum and means for financial assistance, other than those

mentioned, to ensure and expedite sustainable development in Pakistan. Despite such

210

promised ideals, Pakistan lags behind than India and Bangladesh in allocating enough budget

to climate change issue or for securing international financial assistance, Dr. Pervaiz Amir

contends (Saeed, 2013). “India is spending over 2.6 percent of its GDP to cope with such

challenges and is one of the biggest recipients of climate change aid. Pakistan’s allocation for

climate change, meanwhile, is stuck at just 0.02 percent of the total Rs295.5 billion of

development funds”, Dr. Pervaiz mentions (Saeed, 2013). He terms it government’s

“apathy”, that could further enhance estrangement between Pakistan and international

community. To remove these loopholes, formation of climate sections in the Planning

Commission and all provinces including Azad Kashmir is recommended with a federal

ministry to forward plans of the provincial governments to the GCF (Pakistan pushes to put

stalled climate policy into action, 2015). Apart from the missing coordination, provinces are

also lacking required expertise to form projects fulfilling GCF standards (Anwar, 2015).

7.6.1 Institutional Mechanism

The realization that policy needs to be supported by an action plan is signified in the NCCP

(2012). However, action plan for its materialization requires an institutional mechanism

systematically integrated across different sectors in the national policy and decision making

structure. NCCP proposes establishing “Climate Change Policy Implementation

Committees” at the federal and provincial levels for regular monitoring and upgrading of the

national climate change policy. For effective outcomes, a broad based composition of the

committees are proposed involving respective minister of climate change as chair, secretaries

of the related ministries, and members from corporate sectors, civil society, and specialized

persons. Pakistan’s National Climate Change Policy provides provisions and commitment

regarding its professed goal of actualizing sustainable development and address the global

menace of climate change like a responsible state in the global comity of nations. This policy

is augmented with institutional arrangements tabled below based on the information derived

from Salik et al. (2015) and Iqbal et al. (2014) for ready reference.

211

Table 12 Chronological Order of Climate Change Institutional and Policy Responses,

Pakistan

Year Institution/ policy Purpose/achievements/outcomes

2002 Global Change Impact Studies Centre

A research institute; main areas: agriculture, water and glaciers; provided planning and assistance regarding climate change policy making; produce effective corps of scientists

2003 First national communication report submitted to UNFCCC

2005 Prime Minister’s Committee on Climate Change (PMCCC) established

An overarching body for guidance

2006 Policy for Development of Renewable Energy for Power Generation

AEDB is tasked with:

Implementing government policies and plans,

Developing projects,

Promoting local manufacturing, creating awareness and facilitating technology transfer,

Channeling international assistance,

And coordinating all associated activities as the national facilitating agency for the development of renewable energy in the country.

Alternative Energy

Development Board(AEDB)

Pakistan National Operational Strategy

To implement CDM to generate carbon credits

2007 National Disaster Risk Management Framework

Climate Changes established as a cross-cutting issue

212

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)

This apex federal body deals with:

The entire spectrum of disaster risk management—prevention, mitigation, preparedness, recovery and reconstruction. Climate change, as per the Framework on Disaster Risk Management (DRM), also falls within the purview of NDMA.

NDMA was also member of the Task Force on Climate Change.

Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) on Climate

Change

The TAP functioned from the end of 2007 up to the end of 2008, at which point meetings of the panel were discontinued.

Provide technical advisory services to the Ministry of Environment (MoE) on issues related to climate change including national position briefs for international negotiations (COPs, MOPs) under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol;

• Identify, prioritize and recommend areas for conducting research, the results of which may be presented to and by the TAP, and assist in incorporating the research findings into policies;

• Review and carry out a technical screening of climate change project proposals prepared by MoE as and when requested;

• Work with other ministries and departments (e.g. Petroleum & Natural Resources, Forestry, Energy, Irrigation, Agriculture, Finance, Water & Power etc.) for cross-sectoral integration of climate change aspects in national policies, plans and programs;

• Build linkages with regional organizations working on climate change to benefit from regional experiences and knowledge.

Vision 2030 conceptualize and chalk out a strategy for sustainable development in Pakistan

explicitly mentions climate change both in relevant sectors and separately

Suggests investing in environment friendly technologies and production and

213

consumption systems.

Stresses the need to conduct studies to better understand and to downscale climate change projections of impacts on Pakistan.

Specifically recognizes the need for new research on agriculture and for institutional arrangements, especially in rural areas, to cater for climate change challenges.

2008 Planning Commission Task Force on Climate

Change (PC-TFCC)

Take stock of the national situation and make recommendations for a national climate change strategy.

The PC-TFCC released its final report in February 2010 and then dismantled.

MoE replaced this Task Force by Core Group on Climate Change

2010 Draft of National Climate Change Policy

(NCCP) finalized

NEEDS (2010)

Looked into potential threats of climate change to Pakistan and suggested different ways of addressing these.

Tried to monetize the cost of impacts to the national economy and to people’s livelihoods.

National Economic and Environment Development Study (NEEDS)

2011 18th Constitutional Amendment

Devolution of Ministry of Environment (MoE) to provinces;

However, the climate change related functions of the MoE and GCISC were transferred to the Pakistan Planning Commission like Core Group on Climate Change.

2012 National Climate Change Policy (2012)

214

7.6.2 18TH Amendment and Climate Change

The Pakistan Environmental Act, 1997, outcome of the earlier concurrent list, with its

centralized mechanism and provincial protection agencies witnesses its transformation when

environmental issues were largely entrusted to the district government after the Local

Government Act, 2001 (Alam, 2010). However, the need of provincial governments to play a

vitally significant role is heightened in absence of a proper environmental regulatory

structure at the provincial and local level. Unanimously passed by the Pakistan’s parliament,

the 18th Amendment changes 36 per cent of the 1973 constitution making it a “predominantly

decentratilsed federation” from an over centralized state (Bhatti, 2015). Alam (2010)

envisions 18th Amendment as an opportunity for the provincial governments to enact and

foster the required measures against the calamitous impacts of climate change. Since 18 th

Amendment with environment becoming a provincial domain, it was required to have

delegated powers of the federal EPA to the provincial EPA and further down to the district

level. However, delegation of powers from provinces to the local government was left at the

disposal of the provinces. Alam signifies that successful implementation of the environmental

polices require not only a sound implementation bodies at the provincial and local levels, but

also financial independence of these bodies. Financial independence is highlighted as major

factor for the weakening of federal EPA (Alam, 2010).

The reduced budget to climate change—an issue that stands as existential threat as

acknowledged in the NCCP (2012) for its ominous implications to food and water security—

is to a degree attributed to post 18th Amendment that devolves environment to the provinces.

Another limitation or a dilemma with Pakistan like all the other popular democracy is a

preference for public expenditure on projects with visible short term gains to lure electorates

rather than long term but required financial expenditure on climate adaptation or energy

efficiency. Cheema and Hussain (2014) signifies importance of investing in climate resilient

development like developing extreme weather tolerant varieties of crops, land use planning,

adopting climate resilient housing and preparation against climate disasters. The proposed

measures for mitigation and adaptation will reduce the annual environmental degradation

cost, “according to the 2006 Pakistan Strategic Country Environmental Assessment Report,

Rs365 billion ($4.2 billion) that is currently understood to have reached around Rs450 billion

215

($5.2 billion). Inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene account for Rs112 billion

($1.3 billion), agriculture soil degradation for Rs70 billion ($807 million) and range land

degradation and deforestation Rs6 billion ($69 million)” (Saeed, 2013). A cost-effective

analysis of this expenditure in comparison with all the expense required for mitigation and

adaptation in Pakistan —according to the NEED (2011)—Pakistan needs around $6 billion to

$14 billion for climate change adaptation measures while mitigation efforts will cost around

$7 billion to $18 billion dollars from now to 2050—would help us realize that timely and

satisfactory allocation of funds and resources against climate change are far productive.

Understanding implications of 18th Amendment is at the root of comprehending the

lukewarm and broadly missing of a well-coordinated collective response towards climate

change. Shah (2012) draws a detailed sketch of 18th amendment. Dilating upon its merits and

demerits, Shah terms the amendment a landmark achievement that must be understood as a

step towards a broader agenda to reform the multi-order public governance system. The 18 th

amendment of the constitution reasserted institutions of federation: Council of Common

Interests (CCI) and the National Economic Council, and entrusted provinces with a renewed

strengthened position in policy making at the national level in the true spirit of original 1973

constitution (Masood, 2011). The revival of these vital intergovernmental institutions would

not have been effective in absence of constitutional rearrangements in accordance with the

18th amendment that largely devolved federal/provincial concurrent list of responsibilities—

including environment—to provinces (Shah, 2012).

Lauding importance of the 18th Amendment, Dr. Saeed Shafqat termed it a “positive step” a

“paradigm shift” in governance, demanding a more participatory and consultative decision

making process (Masood, 2011). The CCI, with an established secretariat, in the same light is

mandated to meet once every 90 days. Carried out for the desired “efficiency, effectiveness

and accountability” in the governance structure, this amendment, however, unearthed the

much trumpeted incapacity of the provinces to handle complex and demanding issues like

climate change. Dr. Shafqat contends that such capacity of the provinces can be built and

require restructuring power equation between center, provinces and local governing bodies.

216

Climate change poses serious challenges to developing states like Pakistan in terms of

governance and development, according to Dr. Najam, Dean of the Pardee School of Global

Studies at Boston University (Zahid, 2015). In light of the impending threats and the need for

effective response to these challenges, it is required to develop a proper governance structure

at each tier of the new governance edifice, from federal to local. Specifically sound

adaptation measures requires coordinated efforts at the local level and is found effective even

in developed states like US where Miami in the state of Florida is facing brunt of rising sea

level (Moser, 2011). However, apart from improving governance structure and sound

response mechanism at the local level, climate change requires to be streamlined into the

main development model. If environmental considerations are not driving economic growth

model, a symbiotic and not hostile relationship of the two should be materialized. Dr. Najam,

however, laments missing mainstreaming of climate change into development or as he puts it

“climate decisions at the heart of development decisions, of economic decisions” (Zahid,

2015).

The impending risks termed potential opportunities for realigning roles and responsibilities in

the multi-layered governance structure evolved after 18th amendment is also highlighted in

the World Bank paper titled, “Making Federalism Work — the Eighteenth Constitutional

Amendment” (18th amendment poses challenges to good governance: WB, 2012). The report

mentions weakening of the federal government control on law and order, taxation, and

possibility of protectionist policies among provinces, for decision making in these areas are

now entrusted to the provincial government. However, effective resolution of these

challenges offers prospective opportunities for adapting to the new defined roles of the

provinces and much required delegation of decision making to the local governments (18th

amendment poses challenges to good governance: WB, 2012). Ahmad (2015) equally

emphasizes that the present three tier government structure—federal, provincial, local—has

power delegated from the federal to the provincial government; however, for the effective

service delivery, the much required further devolution to the local government is left at the

disposal of the provincial government.

The devolution process if exposes limited capacity of the provincial governments to handle

complex demanding areas, it is also termed incomplete for not entrusting control of the

217

resources to provincial governments (Ghori, 2016; Raza, 2015). Federal government has not

completely relinquished its control on assets like natural resources—oil, gas and minerals,

and has also retained its right to revenue collection in certain delegated areas. Environment

became a provincial legislative domain after 18th Amendment; however, federal government

with it exclusive jurisdiction in areas like “international treaties and obligations, national

planning, interprovincial matters and coordination, and matters falling within the legislative

competence of the Parliament or matter incidental or ancillary to any matter enumerated in

the federal legislative list” has given it significant decision making in the provincial domain

of environment (Hamid, 2012).

The enormity of the climate change and its negative repercussions are realized and a need of

coordination across different level of governance structure (Coordination can tackle climate

change, 2013) and concrete measurable and immediate actions are highlighted by the

international actors and experts like Mr. Timo Pakkala, United Nations Resident Coordinator

and UNDP Resident Representative in Pakistan (Experts call for concrete actions on climate

change in Pakistan, 2014). The complexity of the governance structure and the required

coordination among the federal government and its units are acknowledged and emphasized

by the Ex-minister Climate Change, Mushahid Ullah Khan, stating that “Compliance with the

international environmental protocols, conventions and agreements is difficult without

cooperation of the provincial governments, particularly in the aftermath of the 18th

amendment under which the environment subject was devolved to the provinces” (Govt to

engage top experts to tackle environmental issues, 2015). Since 18th Amendment, the power

equation between the provinces and center in the sector of climate change is disputed (Saeed,

2014). Provinces refused to share their newly acquired legislative domain on environment

with the federal government despite the fact that the estimated exponential adaptation cost of

US$ 6-14 billion and mitigation cost $7 billion to $18 billion respectively are unaffordable

for the provinces alone (Saeed, 2014).

The unanimously passed resolution is not without dispute on vital issues like control and

exploitation of the natural resources, regulatory authorities and mechanism for joint

management “of electricity, ports, national planning supervision and public debt; and

defining standards in higher education” (Bhatti, 2015). The interpretation of the article 172

218

(3) that entitles provinces for 50% ownership and control on oil, gas and mineral resources of

their respective regions is contested between the federal and provincial governments. While

Baluchistan questions continued existence of the Federal Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Resources (MPNR), Sind seeks exclusive right in the extension of exploration licenses to oil

and gas companies. Former Chief Minister Baluchistan, Dr Abdul Malik Baloch, contends

that center is encroaching upon provincial subjects (M.H. Khan, 2016). The overlapping

intricacies of post 18th amendment governance structure have highlighted the need of new

legislation. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif termed not bridging the created “legal vacuum” a

“criminal negligence” on part of the former government (Wasim, 2013). However, the legal

vacuum, still unabridged, is feared growing into misgivings where center is feared taking

back the delegated power, as Dr Kaiser Bengali puts it. He proposes that each province

requires to have its own planning commission (Provinces must defend their domain after 18 th

amendment, 2014). The incumbent chairman of the Senate, Mr. Rabbani, expressed the same

concerns (Rabbani spells out perils of undoing 18th Amendment, 2016).

Pakistan’s dilemma is lacking will and sound mechanism of implementation despite presence

of policies (Rafiq, 2011). Pakistan’s lackluster response in availing CDM projects is

mentioned as evidence despite it being the “one of the best opportunities offered” to develop

“and cash strapped countries like Pakistan by the international climate regime” (Rafiq, 2011).

Rafiq highlights limitations of the NCCP, 2012 as lacking broad public perspective that could

have been procured through extended systemic survey. Moreover, the policy for the fact that

environment had become a provincial domain since 18th Amendment requires re-visiting to

accommodate the newly gained say of the provincial government in light of their limitations.

Similarly, the NCCP is criticized for its incomprehensively addressing threats to the socio-

economic security of Pakistan, according to Shakil Ahmad Ramay, scientist at the

Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI). Rafiq (2011) attributes it to over-emphasis

upon the traditional military oriented conception of the national security that comprehends

threat from the man driven state and non-state actors rather than devastating forces of nature.

With rising threat to the coastal areas because of the rising sea level and intense urban heat

effect, it is essential to properly to protect our present vulnerable habit and also make it

comfortable for the present generation.

219

In a word, the Post18th Amendment Pakistan further exposes ill-prepared provincial

governments with low financial and institutional arrangements. It equally reveals the partial

nature of delegation of power and authority from the Center to the Provinces. Most

importantly, from Provinces to the local level, the tier of governance from where an effective

response springs against climate disasters is yet is unwelcomed. Federal government still has

much sway on determining outcomes because of largely controlling key natural resources

like oil, gas and minerals and significant decision making power on matters entrusted to the

Provinces after 18th Amendment. As mentioned, voices are raised against this situation, and a

need was felt for a more inclusive structure with constitutional sanction. The Climate Change

Act (2017) is designed to address the legal and governance vacuum created in addressing

issues as complex and extended as climate change.

7.6.3 Pakistan Climate Change Act (2017)

In light of the impending problems of administrative responsibility and accountability, the

Pakistan’s parliament approves Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 on March 17 th, 2017

(Ebrahim, 2017). The ten pages document highlights objects and reasons after recognizing

“that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human

societies and the planet and thus is a global challenge, requiring the widest possible

cooperation by all countries.” Most importantly, in accordance to the international

environmental agreements, Pakistan comprehensive mitigation and adaptation process is

acknowledged to be a “multi-disciplinary, inter-provincial and inter-ministerial nature” that

requires a “national level” response. For actualizing an effective national response, the Act

delineates an institutional structure: an “independent” Climate Change Authority—addressed

subsequently as Authority in the document—guided by a high powered council under the

leadership of the Prime Minister. The rest of the council constitutes an impressive list that

would make comprehensive deliberation and coordination much convenient. Along the Prime

Minister, the members of the council include:

(i) Federal Ministers for Climate Change, Finance, Food Security and Research, Planning

and Development, Petroleum and Natural Resources, Science and Technology and Water and

Power;

220

(ii) Chief Ministers of the Provinces;

(iii) Ministers incharge of the subject of Environment in the Provinces;

(iv) Chief Secretaries of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan;

(v) Such other persons not exceeding thirty as the Federal Government may appoint, of

which at least twenty shall be non-officials, including representatives of the Chambers of

Commerce and Industry, non-governmental organizations concerned with climate change,

the environment and development, and scientists, researchers, technical experts and

educationists;

(vi) Chairman, NDMA;

(vii) Chairman, Pakistan Climate Change Authority;

(viii) Secretary, Ministry of Climate Change, who shall also be the Secretary of the Council.

With a mandatory meeting of twice a year, the Council is entrusted with functions to

“coordinate and supervise” enforcement of the provisions of this act. Approve and monitor

implementation of policies regarding adaptation, mitigation and efficient and clean sources of

energy production.

While the composition of the council seems intended to overcome issues of governance and

bring all the stakeholders on a forum to streamline and mainstream climate change into all

the vulnerable social and economic sectors, the composition of the authority fills the gap on

the side of expertise and skill. The composition of the authority include “Chairperson,

Member (Adaptation), Member (Mitigation), Member (Climate Finance), Member

(Coordination) and one Member from each province to be nominated by the respective

Provincial Government.” The standard for their selection is their academic and professional

excellence in their respective disciplines and domain as “scientists, academicians,

professionals, serving or retired government servants, industrialists, agriculturists or other

technocrats with at least fifteen years of experience in fields related to climate change and the

environment, with a distinguished service record.”

221

Projects that would fulfill international standards to secure financial share from the GCF is a

Gordian knot for Pakistan. The Authority as independent body comprising of skillful and

professional expertise is entrusted with the task of cutting this Gordian knot. Formulation,

implementation and monitoring of projects, policies and institutional support that would

bring emission reduction without compromising economic growth is the fundamental

assignment of Pakistan Climate Change Authority. Similarly, Authority has to assist and

advise the Council and Ministry of Climate Change in all their efforts regarding proclaimed

goals and objectives of the NCCP (2012) like disaster-preparedness and management, public

awareness and institutional capacity building, maintaining an emission inventory, fulfilling

Pakistan’s international obligations of the Multi-lateral environmental agreements. In a word,

the Authority has to accomplish the broad policy and principles of the NCCP (2012) and core

actions laid out in Framework of Implementation (2013) in light of future aspirations of

Vision 2025. Another significant measure of the Pakistan Climate Change Act (2017) is the

establishment of a Climate Change Fund to secure finance for the smooth working of the

Authority, maintenance and operation of the Fund, support projects and measures for

adaptation, mitigation, sustainable resource management and required research. The Fund

will be managed, monitored in terms of projects expenses, invest for further profit, and

prepare annual evaluation report. However, no money from the government exchequer is

allocated to the Fund like one witnessed in the case of Brazil (Flynn, n.d.). However, the

high-powered council has not held any meeting of the two mandatory meetings a year and

the expert-based Authority is not yet constituted, GM, Irfan Tariq reveals (Personal

communication, December 13, 2017).

Owing to complexity and enormity of the problem, climate change policy needs continued

evaluation. Moreover, it requires to be supported by indispensably essential action plan.

Broadly agreeing to the policy, experts consider transforming policy goals into ‘specific

targets and timetable’ a challenge (Yusuf, 2011) that would require including experts in

planning commission and decision making and entrusting them with the task of translating

policy into actions with concrete needed projects (R.S.Khan, 2013). Global climate change is

an enormously complex problem that requires unanimous efforts at international level to

develop capacity of the vulnerable states. Pakistan needs to secure international support and

assistance to enhance its capability of adaptation to climate change. In order to transform its

222

energy sector and overall required technological development, Pakistan needs availing global

climate fund through extensive CDM projects (Naeem, 2012). Sophisticated technology to

monitor climate variability and awareness about climate hazards is quintessential. Highly

prioritized initiative must be to secure water resources, improve efficient use of water and

stop its wastage for its continued essential supply to agriculture.

Climate resilient development signifies effective adaptation and mitigation policies with

sound institutional support that would materialize sustainable development. Adaptation as

mentioned is at the core of the sustainable development in presence of growing threat of

climate disasters. Similarly, mitigation polices supported with concrete measures of ensuring

efficient production and consumption of energy and enhanced reliance on clean and

renewable energy resources help achieve states with economic growth without compromising

environmental health. Moreover, climate resilient development at its roots requires sound

economic measures to address issues of poverty and amelioration of the conditions of the

underprivileged to enhance their adaptive capacity. Pakistan is a developing state struggling

against negative impacts of climate changes. It requires achieving all the laid out objectives

in its National Climate Change Policy (2012). With serious negative repercussions in terms

of water, food and energy security, Pakistan rightly needed a comprehensive and inclusive

policy that demands to be mainstreamed in to the main development model and translated

into specific targets. Most importantly, these policies need an effective institutional structure

from the central to the local with a proper system of monitoring from the top and verifiable

accountability from the bottom. Pakistan aims to achieve a high middle income status, for it

has “integrated the objectives and targets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 in

its national economic and development planning” according to Sartaj Aziz, Advisor to Prime

Minister on Foreign Affairs (Rehman, 2016). Economic growth and development in a

balance equation with principles of equity, natural conservation, and resilience against

climate disasters with a proper coordinated institutionalized support would help Pakistan

achieve the professed goals.

223

CONCLUSION

Reducing impacts of global climate change essentially requires understanding scientific

processes involved in the phenomenon. Most importantly, these scientific processes underpin

assessing human factor in the creation and solution of the problem. Climate is

comprehensively understood as extended variable interaction of oceans, atmosphere,

biosphere and Polar Regions over a prolonged time frame. This definition amplifies systemic

character of the climate as perturbation of one element because of its dependence on another

leads to disruption and imbalance of the entire system. The current human induced global

climate change, different to natural process of climate variations, is characterized as a sudden

unintentional push to climate, resulting in destabilization of the Earth energy balance. This

destabilization revealed itself in the form of rising earth surface temperature called global

warming that, in turn, unleashed a series of multiple unpredictable and largely drastic

changes in the global climate system.

The congenial life sustaining earth’s climate is attributed to natural greenhouse effect:

process of atmospheric heat trapping greenhouse gases storing sun’s energy leaving from

earth. The balanced concentration of the greenhouse gases in atmosphere is one important

determinants in shaping earth’s favorable climate. However, increase of these heat trapping

gases understandably means more warming, and their decrease results more cooling of the

earth. Global warming, therefore, is also termed enhanced greenhouse effect, attributed to

increased concentration of heat trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This increase is

associated with fossil fuel run industrialization, prevalent system of energy production and

consumption, and modern technological civilization. Production and consumption of fossil

fuel has pumped huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, a vital greenhouse gas; while, the

modern civilization has changed the use of land reducing earth’s natural sources of carbon

sinks and removal and its emissivity—ability of a particular object to retain or emit heat.

However, the argument that anthropogenic interference with the earth’s energy balance is the

culprit of the current climate changes would not stand ground unless influence of all the other

natural forces responsible for shaping earth energy budget is assessed to comprehend global

warming phenomenon.

224

The scientists conclude after assessment of the natural climate forcings like fluctuations in

the Earth’s orbit, changes in oceanic circulation, volcanic eruptions, and variation in the

Sun’s radiation that the alarming temperature difference of 1°C between the present and last

century is incomprehensible without taking into account the increased concentration of heat

trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose rising

concentration in the atmosphere results in the increase of earth’s surface temperature—global

warming—is an undeniable fact in present day climate science. It constitutes 80% of the

injected greenhouse gases since industrial civilization. This draws us to concur with IPCC

that human influence on climate system is undeniably evident.

The rising earth’s surface temperature has unleashed melting of glaciers, leading to sea level

rise and eventually to water scarcity. Disruptions of the hydrological cycle, oceanic

circulation, along with intensity and unpredictability of weather pattern have seriously

undermined existence of life. For modern civilization is incapable of adapting to such rapid

transformation of the climate. Impacts of global climate change, however, are not universally

negative. Vulnerability depends on technological advancement and financial resources. This

makes developing states with meagre resources and inadequate technological infrastructure

more vulnerable to climate repercussions, and dependent on rich states for their adaptation.

Scientific solution to arrest negative implications of climate change involves negative

forcing, feared to be counterproductive. On the other hand, emission reduction through

mitigation measures seeks less reliance on fossils are unfavorable to high consumption

societies and oil producing countries, for their dependence on them for their economic and

social life. This fairly concludes that science assessment of climate change may help us

understand core of the issue, but involved political process at large determine its resolution.

Climate change, as understood from the involved scientific processes, is a complex global

issue that requires collective efforts for its effective management. The fissures created

because of this issue in the international society have made international relations much

polarized: Victims are least responsible for the creation and least resourceful in addressing

the climate change problem. On the other hand, its solution demands economic and social

transformation from the fossil fuel dependent economies and financial commitments from the

developed states—perpetrators of the problem. Before assessing contentious dimensions of

225

global climate change politics, it is important to find a theoretical frame, comprehensive

enough to be essentially driven by the idea of cooperation. International regime, an extended

conception of international organization, is distinguished for including implicit or explicit

principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations

converge in a given area of international relations. Unlike international organization,

international regime is not characterized by legal character, related to many issues, and

physical existence with offices and staff. Evolution of international regime, a form of

collective response, is attributed to the need of overcoming rising incongruity between

formal international organization and complex contentious global issues like climate change.

This widening gulf of the two is associated to the failure of international formal organization

in establishing foundation of an institutionalized response—rule based recurrent behaviour in

its broad sense. Not constrained by rigid obligations, international regime offers itself as a

soft entity seeking evolution and promotion of shared understandings that grow into legally

binding frames and rules if found productive. The purpose of a regime to facilitate interaction

and seek cooperation among wide range of actors driven by diverse interests of power,

interest and knowledge defines its essence.

Formation, continued existence and degree of regime’s independence to influence collective

outcomes are assessed in light of three variables: power, interest and knowledge. These three

fairly correspond to three schools of thought in international relations—neorealism,

neoliberalism and constructivism or cognitivism. These three determinants, interest, power

and knowledge, are not exclusively unrelated; rather they overlap in certain aspects while

conceptualizing what shape cooperation among actors at the global level. Cooperation is

defined as mutually agreed policy coordination among actors to accommodate and facilitate

each other’s preferences in actualizing collective goals. Interest based regime theorists derive

intellectual essence from the theory of complex interdependence with an underlying

assumption that international system despite anarchic has securely knitted it units, states, in

an interdependent relationship. This secured existence of state resolves concerns for relative

gains, a major dynamic of power configuration and a threat to trust building in interaction

among states in an anarchic system. While power based regime theorists, neorealists,

expound reliance on self-help in the anarchic system, neoliberals or interest based regime

226

theorists contend that presence of regime and international organizations materialize

cooperation by upgrading common interests among the actors.

Interest based theorists subscribe to the important role of power configuration in the system

and powerful actor, hegemon, in the creation and agenda setting of the regime. However, it

disputes with power based theorist in the continued support or presence of hegemon for the

existence of regime. A regime once established exists for its continued validity as a

communication forum to overcome trust deficit and facilitate agreements. A hegemon,

though, could shape agenda and structure of a regime in accordance with its interest, an

established regime in turn can shape interests of the hegemon. Similarly, regime secures

compliance through reputational effects, name and shame policy. Moreover, as state is a non-

unitary entity to neoliberalis, a constellation of interest emerges among international actors

regarding an issue area with functionalist—technical experts—playing a vital role in the

actualizing cooperation. Power based understanding of the regime takes issues with this

understanding, for it considers international organizations and regimes epiphenomenal—

created for promoting interests of the powerful states. In this regard, hegemonic stability

theory of the power based understanding of the regime considers hegemon’s willingness to

take responsibility of providing public good as the main reasons for the existence of regime.

Hegemon is the stabilizer.

Constructivists or cognitivists consider ideas, new information, and international norms and

shared understanding—in a word, knowledge formation elements—at the root of

understanding cooperation. These are the undercurrents of social consciousness in which

interests and power politics are enmeshed. Focused on the origin of interests, knowledge

based theorists argue that states’ perception of themselves and their environment shape their

interests. Therefore, understanding normative and causal beliefs that motivates decision

makers would help assess their preferred options. As perception is shaped by the existing

body of knowledge on an issue, the epistemic communities—network of recognized experts

in a field—gain distinction for their creation and dissemination of knowledge serving as basis

for decision making. Cognitivists elevate established rules and norms to the status of

institution, capable of shaping policies and command willing obligation if considered

legitimate. Apart from epistemic communities that create and disseminate shared knowledge,

227

legitimacy that derive willing obedience, knowledge based theorists signify role of dialogue

—a continued interactive process of persuasion and evolution of convincing shared reasons

—in actualizing rule based cooperation. The idea that a rule-based cooperation regime would

evolve into a whole new identity of the participant actors is what distinguishes cognitivists

from the interest based neoliberals and power based neorealists. However, cognitivists realize

that epistemic communities in the position of power and leadership or a hegemon convinced

of the new learning play a far effective role in regime formation. Regime theory with all its

nuances helps the researcher in comprehending complexity of various interactive actors and

processes in the evolution of climate change regime.

Evolution of the international climate change regime, however, would be incomprehensible if

the contentious politics and contested principles of climate change regime formation are not

understood. Global climate change as a problem is historically contextualized with respect to

responsibility. The global South, a collective identity of the developing states, holds the early

industrialized global North to have exhausted their share of atmosphere with their excessive

emissions in pursuit of economic growth and modern civilization. The proposed solution, it

offers, is binding emission targets for the developed North and their financial and

technological assistance to the global South in leapfrogging inefficiencies of the North

development model. Moreover, the global South resists any attempt of binding emissions on

them, terming it a denial of their right to development and unjustified in light of the principle

of CBDR—to its worst, eco-colonialism. The global North, on the other hand, principally

acknowledges CBDR and the global South’s right to development. However, it regards

binding emissions on its part a comprehensive failure to address global climate change

problem without emissions reduction from the rising economies of the global South. North

considers South’s design to hinge their support for a climate regime to their economic

development or market and trade concession an attempt to revise the global economic order

in their favor.

Another consistent resistance to climate actions comes from the fossil fuel export economies.

Exclusively relying on rents for revenue from the energy markets, these states unwisely

spend much on man-made artificial world. They provide luxurious life style to their people

to secure their silent support for the elitist regime instead of improving their development

228

infrastructure. Climate actions with the objective of emissions reduction would

understandably slow down fossil fuel market, consequently undermining these single

commodity economies. Economic vulnerability is more feared than growing impending

climate threats like threatened scarcity of fresh water resources. Dependence of these

governments and their subjects on rents from fossil fuel is one major hurdle to an effective

climate change regime. In the same vein, rich industrialized states like US, having cheap and

rich energy resource base, has cultivated a highly consumptive society with the highest per

capita emission. Considerable political and economic forces vehemently resist compromising

this rich American way of life in the U.S. Equally significant is U.S reservations regarding

success of any climate regime that would not involve emission reduction for the rapidly

growing economies of the South like China and India. These rapidly growing economies with

the available rich fossil resource base justify their emissions ratio on the grounds of having

less per capita emissions to US and principles of CBDR and Right to development. Apart

from the international actors that resist climate mitigation measures for economic or political

reasons, small and low lying states with grave threats from the rising sea level vociferously

seek climate mitigation and adaptation measures. The schism between the two sides, those

resisting and supporting climate actions is much wide, for one is motivated by powering his

machines; the other, by the survival of his existence.

These specific interests shape principles and concepts at the core of climate change

negotiations. The interpretation and character of these principles are contested among actors

in light of their preferred interests. Principle of CBDR and right to development is invoked

by the developing South and rapidly growing economies to justify growth of their emissions

in pursuit of development and avoid binding targets. The developed North countered their

justification with the same zeal on ground of principles of state’s responsibility and

precautionary principle. It contends that with no emission reduction from the South,

especially the rapidly growing economies, an effective international climate regime will not

be materialized. Even the pivotal concept of sustainable development is contested when it

comes to its operational structure and essential purpose. The developing states seek stringent

measures for climate protection on part of the developed North with an obligation to support

them with financial and technological needs to adapt to climate impacts and achieve

sustainable development. The global North rejects any binding and mandatory character of

229

climate actions in terms of emissions reduction or financial and technology transfer. These

divergent orientations and objectives draw us to a conclusion that formation of international

climate change regime is much complex and without participation of all the actors in the

process, success would be a forlorn hope.

The advent of technological revolution, international organizations, and widespread

strengthening of the environmental organizations are the vital factors for overcoming hurdles

to evolution of an international climate change regime. The concern raised at the

International Geophysical Year, 1957 regarding the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2

with consequent implications for human life has been the major linchpin of global climate

change negotiations. In lieu of the success of Montreal Protocol, 1987, efforts for similar

climate deal was much aspired. The formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), an interface of science and politics, in 1988 became a major forum for

bringing the various contending actors with diverse political and economic interests.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) is a landmark

achievement that acknowledged human induced climate change, attributed to the growing

concentration of atmospheric greenhouse, a serious threat. Terming it “dangerous

anthropogenic interference”, UNFCCC sought stabilization of the greenhouse gases.

However, the world “dangerous” was not specified and neither concrete measures were

suggested for stabilization. The proposed solution was based on the principle of CBDR with

onus of responsibility lying with the developed states in light of their historic responsibility

for the problem and financial and technological superiority and capability to address the

issue. Developed states were asked to aim for 1990s emission level by 2000; however, these

implicit deadlines were not met. UNFCCC was termed ineffective for absence of binding

commitment form the developed states in terms of emissions reduction and technological and

financial assistance to the developing states. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) evolves in light of

this understanding to addresses this gap. With binding emissions for the developed states

facilitated through flexibility mechanisms of Joint Implementation, Emission Trading and

Clean Development Mechanism, the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt to provide the essential

push that climate convention was understood to have missing. The binding emissions of the

230

developed states expected to reduce 5% emissions below 1990 level by 2012 was not

materialized because of the non-compliance.

After much deliberation and taking into account all the hurdles and their prospective

solutions, the Paris Agreement 2015 essentially brings uniformity among the divergent

stances. At the heart of the Paris agreement is the Intended Nationally Determined

Contributions (INDC)—the nationally determined measures of mitigation and adaptation.

The INDCs are nationally formulated with a realistic but ambitious assessment of the state’s

limitations and resources and development needs. These achievable targets of emissions

reduction and adaptation needs synchronized with the specific needs of state’s development

are owned and believed to be realized with all required efforts. However, these INDCs are

subjected to certain international regulations, a binding process. Every state’s INDC is

publicized and is open to international review. Every submitted INDC should be a

progressive improvement with “highest possible ambition” in terms of mitigation and

adaptation measures upon the one submitted last time. After every five years, a collective

stockpile is taken into account in light of the progress towards the ideal of keeping the earth

surface temperature below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C with a net-zero emission by mid of the

century. This agreement for realization of this objective seeks states’ relying on low emission

technology or preferably replacing them with renewables. Another contentious issue of

technology and financial assistance from the developed states are also addressed in the Paris

Agreement. An amount of $100 billion a year is to be mobilized from 2020 that will be

revised with a higher goal in 2025 for assisting developing states in achieving their

adaptation and mitigation needs.

Paris agreement is not without limitations and there is much to streamline among the

international actors in terms of making it effectively operational. However, it is a

unanimously accepted document that stands as international law for being ratified by 116

parties to convention. The gradualist approach of enhancing capacity of clean efficient

energy and discourage fossil fuels for achieving the desired net-zero emissions by mid of the

century is a shift in our development paradigm. In fact, without undermining the need of

development and modernization, Paris agreement has conditioned them to protection

environment—a sustainable development.

231

Every policy is understood as an outcome of the needs to address current requirements and

achieve prospective goals keeping in view challenges to the state. Negative repercussions of

global climate change on Pakistan are highlighted to understand Pakistan’s policy response

with respect to gravity of the issue. Pakistan is a developing state with insufficient and

inadequate financial and technological resources to combat the severe negative climate

impacts because of its location. It has witnessed devastating floods in 2010, 2011, 2012 and

2013, and intense heat waves and rainfall in the last decade. Pakistan is ranked number three

in the 2012 assessment of the Global Climate Risk Index 2014 with over 6 billion USD-PPP

losses due to climate change. The floods in 2010 left 20,000 dead, 20 million displaced and

paralyzed state’s machinery. Climate change impacts is understood to cost $14billion

annually to Pakistan’s economy—much higher to the annual losses from the terrorism.

Pakistan’s multi-layered complex problems like hostile neighbourhood, its weak economy

and institutions, widespread corruption and menace of terrorism are further compounded in

presence of the current climate driven disasters and environmental stresses that would

constrain human life. Located in a hostile environment since inception, Pakistan internal

havoc wrecked by vested interests evolving into an elitist control of governance is more

ominous than external threats. National security with its traditional understanding of a threat

from the outside actor in the form of state or some violent non-state actors from within needs

revision. For climate disasters and environmental stresses are exacerbating existing limitation

to growth, development and security, placing Pakistan among fragile if not failed state. The

repercussions of global climate change are aggravating Pakistan’s existing threats and

problems and thus inevitably extending the national security domain to encompass the human

security: enhanced social vulnerability and threatened ecological resilience.

Pakistan’s economy is disproportionately based on agriculture constituting 25% of its GDP,

2/3rd of its employment, 80% of its export, and consuming major share of its water

resources. Huge glacial reserves in the north of the country, a frozen blue gold, melt and

flow through the country—supplying more than 70% of the river flow. This precious reserve

sustains Pakistan’s agro based economy with contribution from the unpredictable monsoon

rains. The two overlapping in a three-month summer period provide irrigation to the arid

country; however, ironically and dangerously raising the risk of flash floods in the rivers. Of

232

the three hydrological units of Pakistan: the Indus, Kahran and Makran, the last two are

closed, making the Indus river largely commanding Pakistan’s surface water—making

Pakistan a one river agro based economy. Critically related to energy and food security, the

reduced water would undermine crucial essentials of Pakistan’s development. Earth rising

surface temperature is projected to result in enormous and rapid loss of 1/5th of the

Pakistan’s existing glaciers by the year 2030. In the beginning it would be a profuse water

flow, but eventually turning the regional river into seasonal ones. Implications of the rising

temperature are understood to be drastic: limited freshwater supply, damaged coastlines

because of the rising sea level, erratic monsoon rains causing intense floods and droughts,

receding glaciers, siltation of the major dams, enhanced heat and water stressed conditions.

This resource scarcity could lead to war and ecological marginalization of majority for the

possession of the resources by few, mass migration because of environmental constraints,

and weak socio-political institutions. Disruption in the hydrological cycle for Pakistan would

destroy infrastructure in case of floods and sea level rise while limited freshwater availability

will reduced crop yields and energy production. By 2030 a projected 30% shortfall in water

demands would be a catastrophic blow to Pakistan’s economy reducing its agriculture yields,

leading to unemployment, energy crises, forced migration and increased urbanization in

presence of its massive population of 240 million. Similarly, the economic powerhouse of

Pakistan, the coastal city of Karachi, with 20% of the total GDP ratio, largest stock exchange,

and a conduit to 95% of the international trade, is highly vulnerable to rising sea level,

increased salinity, reduced arable land and more intense weather pattern. It would largely

reduce economic output and opportunities in Karachi and further intensify violent struggle

for real state control.

Socio-political and economic implications of climate change for Pakistan are tentatively

worrisome. Mass migration of environmental refugees is feared to create identity crises.

Reduced water would further rift intra and interstate water related conflict, for water is at its

essence a shared asset. These environmental pressures could arrest socio-economic life with

potential to create or exacerbate existing crises of authority—disenchanted masses withdrawn

from political life or placing their allegiance to an entity larger or smaller to state. This

233

aggravated problem of governance will bring the weak state in conflict with the strong

societies. Climate change in light of these factors is redefining Pakistan’s security.

Pakistan as a responsible nation of the world community has signed the Paris climate

agreement (2016), committing itself to its ideal of keeping the earth surface temperature

below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. Ratification of the Paris agreement also entitles it to avail the

financial and technological assistance to improve its adaptive capacity against adverse

implications of climate change. It equally sanctions its pursuit of economic growth and

struggle to eradicate poverty and ambitiously pursue goals of the Paris Agreement as

prescribed in Article 2 of the Agreement. Pakistan envisions to be among 25 economies by

2025. Sustainable development and eradication of poverty is prioritized with a promising

understanding that international assistance will help avoid reliance on dirty sources of

energy. Despite least responsible for climate change with its negligible contribution of 0.8%

emissions, Pakistan is among the top ten most vulnerable states to climate change. Climate

disasters and adverse impacts is understood to result in annual financial loss of $14billion,

much higher to the $1 billion from terrorism. Pakistan international obligations as a

responsible nation under the Paris agreement and huge national losses in terms of finance,

infrastructure and human life require its response towards climate change to be mainstreamed

into the main development frame. Pakistan National Climate Change Policy (2012) focused

on low carbon growth seeks climate change to be mainstreamed in the economically and

socially vulnerable sectors of the economy to actualize climate resilient development.

Termed another approach to sustainable development, climate resilient development

incorporates strategies and practices to reduce negative effects of climate changes by

enhancing adaptive capacity against climate disasters. Resilience and sustainable

development are the two sides to the coin of climate resilient development. Resilience is an

ability of a system to anticipate, reduce, accommodate and recover from disruptions in a

timely, efficient and fair manner; while, sustainable development highlights bridging

intergenerational and intra-generational equity gaps by judicially taking into account

economic, social and environmental needs. Realizing sustainable development would be a

farce dream if climate change threatens life sustaining services of the ecosystem. Therefore,

resilience, building adaptive capacity of the threatened ecosystem at the heart of sustainable

development. Climate resilient development combines adaptation and mitigation policies

234

with sound institutional support. Adaptation in order to effectively counter climate risks and

changes, and mitigation for materializing efficient production and consumption of energy,

relying much on clean and renewable energy resources. Climate resilient development with

adaptation at its core could not materialize sustainable development without addressing

structural deficits of development through alleviation of poverty, making it a very

comprehensive approach.

Pakistan is a developing state struggling against negative impacts of climate changes. For

actualizing climate resilient development it requires achieving the laid out objectives in its

National Climate Change Policy (2012). With serious negative repercussions in terms of

water, food and energy security, Pakistan rightly needed a comprehensive and inclusive

policy that demands to be mainstreamed in to the main development model. However,

realizing climate resilient development as mentioned needs policy goals and principles to be

translated into concrete achievable target. Most of the critics in their critiques question

presence of specific measures that can be quantified and assessed in light of the state’s march

towards the ideal of sustainable development. Equally significant is the issue of governance.

Environment was not placed at the rightful pedestal prior to the globalization of climate

change issue, domestic climate driven disasters and constraints, and challenges to

development. With centralized machinery, PEPA and its related sub-bodies were least

effective in mainstreaming environmental concerns in the policy and development frames.

Post 18th Amendment Pakistan is adjusting administratively in terms of responsibility and

accountability to issues like environment. Environment, a largely federal domain is now

exclusively placed under the provincial jurisdiction. How to support provincial governments

without fear of federal government encroaching on their jurisdiction; or, how to make them

accountable or mildly putting responsible for fulfilling the multilayer international

environmental agreements that the federal government has committed to are the looming

questions before the government. In view of these concerns, Pakistan’s parliament approved

Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017. The act stipulates that climate change requires a national

level response and therefore proposes a strong Council headed by the Prime Minister

including key figures and ministers of the relevant departments, provincial Chief Ministers

and relevant ministers of the provinces. While the high-level composition of the council

would harmonize policy discourse and create the much required political and executive

235

support, the composition of the Authority, the second tier of the structure, consists of experts

providing the equally significant technical skill and professional insight. The presence of a

Climate Change Fund will keep the Authority independent of political interference and

strengthen its foundation. The presence of refined institutional structure is understood to

overcome issue of governance. However, the riddle still seems much complex. It is yet to be

seen how the council decision accommodate concerns of the provincial units, specifically of

the small ones. It is yet to be seen how decisions of the experts in the Authority would

prevail in case of conflict with the politically preferred policies and projects of the vested

interest at the cost of sound environment. It is yet to be assessed, how climate change Fund

earn credibility of the foreign and domestic donors.

As highlighted, global climate changes is a complex issue with much political storm and

stress. Pakistan’s sound policy would demand continued evaluation and revision in light of

the encountered exigencies and requirements at domestic and international fronts. As

signatory to Paris Climate Agreement, 2015, Pakistan aims to pursue climate resilient

development to contribute actualizing ambitious goal of keeping earth surface temperature

below 2°C. Sustainable development for its realization requires economic growth without

compromising ecological services provided by sound natural environment. Therefore,

resilience against climate extremes, enhancing adaptive capacity of the marginalized sections

of society and emissions reduction through clean energy options are at the root of Pakistan’s

climate policy. The goals, however, could be achieved with sound institutionalized approach.

The Pakistan Climate Change Act (2017) as mentioned attempts to streamline the

institutional incongruity created since 18th Amendment by providing a centralized inclusive

decision making based on sound expertise through its two bodies: Council and Authority.

However, effective adaptation needs strengthening local community by enriching their

understanding and their potential to counter negative impacts of climate change. The Federal

Ministry of Climate Change coordinates with the Provincial Ministry of Climate Change, but

the district/local bodies as postulated in the NCCP (2012) is not yet actualized. The

delegation of authority and resources form the center to the Provincial and the District/Local

level is much disputed. The enabling capacity, the response is required at the vulnerable local

sector. Pakistan needs to develop a sound INDC to highlight its limitations, its potential and

236

its prospective mitigation and adaptation goals in measurable specific targets to earn respect

of the international community for which climate change has become a mantra for

conscientiousness. Productive and efficient mitigation policy would not rely only on efficient

production and consumption of energy with more reliance on renewables, but also on

assessment and pricing of the existing carbon sinks in the form of forests. National Climate

Change Policy requires resolute, service oriented mature political leadership to materialize

itself into productive actions. From timber mafia to sporadic created sugar and flour crises,

the element of exploitation in Pakistan’s political economy seems undeniable. As policy aims

to transform various economic sectors and traditional methods of using natural resources, it

may encounter resistance from vested national and international interests groups. Therefore,

a visionary political leadership with an understanding of climate change as a security threat

multiplier could take firm stance against such systemic limitations.

237

REFERENCES

18th amendment poses challenges to good governance: WB (2012, November 29). Dawn.

Retrieved July 21, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/767673/18th-amendment-poses-

challenges-to-good-governance-wb

Abad Jr, M.C. (2000). The challenge of balancing state security with human security.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Retrieved July 14, 2012, from http://asean.org/the-

challenge-of-balancing-state-security-with-human-security-by-m-c-abad-jr/

Adeel, Z., & Piracha,A.L.( 2004). Critical links between environment and development in

South Asia. In R.Thakur, & O.Wiggens (Eds.), South Asia in world politics: Problems

solving perspectives on security, sustainable development, and good governance (pp.205-

224). Hong Kong: The United Nations University.

Adler, E. (1992). The emergence of cooperation: National epistemic communities and the

international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. Retrieved March 21, 2016 from

http://ernie.itpir.wm.edu/pdf/NewArticles/Constructivist/2706953.pdf

Adler, E., & Haas, P.M. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order and the

creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46. 367-390.

10.1017/S0020818300001533.

Agarwal, A. (2002). A southern perspective on curbing global climate change. In S.H.

Schneider; A. Rosencranz.; & J.O Niles. (Eds.). Climate change policy: A survey. Island

Press: Washington.

Aggarwal, V.K. (1998). Analyzing institutional transformation in the Asia-Pacific. In V.K.

Aggarwal., & C. Morrison. (Eds.). Asia-Pacific Crossroads: Regime Creation and the Future

of APEC (pp. 23-64). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

238

Aginam, O. (2011, December 8). Climate change and small island developing states.

Retrieved June 22, 2014 from http://unu.edu/publications/articles/climate-change-diplomacy-

and-small-island-developing-states.html

Ahmad, E. (2015). Can the new intergovernmental structure work in Pakistan: Learning from

China. In R. Amjad, & S.J. Burki, (Eds.), Pakistan: Moving the economy forward. (pp. 358-

392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alam, A. R. (2010, July 2). Environment and the 18th amendment. The Express Tribune.

Retrieved July 20, 2015 from http://tribune.com.pk/story/25273/environment-and-the-18th-

amendment/

Aldy, J.E.; Baron, R., & Tubiana, L. (2003.). Addressing cost: The political economy of

climate change. In Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the international effort against climate change

(pp. 85-110) . Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Allaby, M. (2007). The facts on file weather and climate handbook. New York: Facts on File,

Inc.

Allaby, M. (2007). Encyclopedia of weather and climate. New York: Facts on File, Inc.

Almond, G.A., Powel,Jr.G.B., Strom,K., & Dalton, R.J.(2004). Comparative politics today:

A world view. India: Pearson Education, Inc.

Anwar, S. (2015, July 10). Lagging behind: Pakistan missing out on green climate funds. The

Express Tribune. Retrieved July 15, 2015 from http://tribune.com.pk/story/918127/lagging-

behind-pakistan-missing-out-on-green-climate-funds/

Archer, C. (2001). International organizations. (3rd Edition). London: Routledge.

Archer, D. (2007). Global warming: Understanding the forecast. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing Ltd.

Ashraf, M. (2014). Formal and informal social safety nets: Growth and development in the

modern economy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

239

Atmospheric aerosols: What are they, and why are they so important (1996, August 01).

Retrieved November 23, 2013 from

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html

Ayers, J. (2010). Understanding the adaptation paradox: Can global climate change

adaptation policy be locally inclusive? (Unpublished PhD thesis, London School of

Economics). Retrieved July 28, 2016 from

http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/393/1/Ayers_Understanding%20the%20Adaptation%20Paradox.pdf

Babiker, M. (2003 September). Environment and development in arab countries: Economic

impacts of climate change policies in the GCC region. Retrieved April 16, 2014 from

http://www.arab-api.org/images/publication/pdfs/262/262_wps0306.pdf

Baker,S.(2006). Sustainable development. New York. Routledge Publisher

Barnett, J., Mathew, A., & O’Brien, K.L. (2010). Global environmental change and human

security: An introduction. In R.A.Mathew, J.Barnett, B. McDonald, & K. LO’Brien (Eds.),

Global environmental change and human security (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Barnett, J., & Campbell, J. (2010). Climate change and small island states: Power,

knowledge and south pacific. London: Earthscan.

Barry, R.G., & Chorley,R.J. (2003). Atmosphere, weather and climate. New York: Routledge

Publisher.

Becken, S. (2010). The importance of climate and weather for tourism.

http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Documents/FRST/Climate%20Change/Climate%20&

%20Weather%20for%20Tourism%20-%20LitReview_Feb2010.pdf

Bederman, D.J.(2002). The spirit of international law. Athens : The University of Georgia

Press

Bell, D. (2008). Introduction: Under an empty sky—realism and political theory. In D. Bell

(Ed.), Political thought and international relation: Variations on a realist theme (pp. 1-25).

New York: Oxford University Press.

240

Benested, R. E. (2006). Solar activity and earth’s climate.UK: Springer-Praxis Publishers.

Best, A., Hanhimaki, J.M., Maiolo, J.A., & Schulze, K.E. (2004). International history of the

twentieth century. London: Routledge

Bhatti, A. (2015, April 12). Five years after 18 th amendment. The News International.

Retrieved July 21, 2015 from

http://tns.thenews.com.pk/five-years-after-18th-amendment/#.Va30gflViko

Black, R. (2007, May 18). Earth-melting in the heat. Bbc News. Retrieved October 16, 2011

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4315968.stm

Blasing, T. J. (2012). Recent greenhouse gas concentration. Retrieved July 20, 2012 from

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Bloom, A. J.(n.d.). Climate change. Retrieved August 30, 2011 from

http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/plantsciences_Faculty/Bloom/CAMEL/main.html

Bodansky, D. (2001). The history of the global climate change regime. In U. Luterbacher, &

D.E. Sprinz. (Eds.), International relations and global climate change. (pp. 23-40).

Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2011). Protecting the climate under international law: The

current state of play and key issues. Retrieved January 14, 2014 from

http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/summer/IA2011/

BoissonDeChazournes.pdf

Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2008a). Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework

convention on climate change. Retrieved August 20, 2013 from

http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/kpccc/kpccc_e.pdf

Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2008b). United Nations framework convention on climate

change. Retrieved January 14, 2014 from http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ccc/ccc_e.pdf

241

Boisson de Chazournes, L. (n.d.). The climate change regime: From Rio to Kyoto and the

post-Kyoto challenge. Retrieved January 14, 2014 from

http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/summer/Presentations/

Presentation_LBC.pdf

Bolin, B. (2007). A history of the science and politics of climate change: The role of the

intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borroughs, W.J. (2007). Climate Change: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Borroughs, W.J. (Ed.). (2003). Climate: Into the 21st century. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Bortscheller, M. (2010). Equitable but ineffective: How the principle of common but

differentiated responsibilities hobbles the global fight against climate change. Sustainable

Development Law & Policy, 10 (2), (49-68).

Boyd, R. S. (2002, August 21). Glaciers melting worldwide, study finds. National

Geographic News. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html

Bracken, P. (2007). Financial warfare. Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved June 9,

2014 from https://www.fpri.org/article/2007/09/financial-warfare/

Brown, C; & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding international relations. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Brown, K. (2016). Resilience, development and global change. New York: Routledge.

Brown, L. R. (2011).World on the edge: How to prevent environmental and economic

collapse. New York. W.W. Norton & Company

242

B.S, P. (2013, February). People's participation and environmental protection. Journal of

Business Management & Social Science Research, 2 (2), 95-99. Retrieved December 21,

2013 from http://borjournals.com/Research_papers/feb_2013/1134M.pdf

Burki, S.J. (2015). A country and an economy in transition. In R. Amjad, & S.J. Burki,

(Eds.), Pakistan: Moving the economy forward. (pp. 84-107). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Busch, A. (2007). The development of the debate: Intellectual precursors and selected

aspects. In Stephan A. Schirm, (Ed.), Globalization: State of the art and perspectives (pp.22-

39). New York: Routledge.

Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge.

Cambridge University Press

Calvocoressi, P. (2009). World politics since 1945. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Carey, R. (2000). The contemporary nature of security. In T.C. Salmon (Ed). Issues in

international relations. (pp. 51-70). London: Routeldge

Carrington, D. (2010, September 25). Melting ice is Earth’s warming signal-and we can not

ignore it. The guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/25/ice-melt-himalayas-climate-change

Casper, J.K. (2009). Global warming: Climate systems interactive forces of global warming.

New York: Facts on File, Inc.

Casper, J.K. (2010). Greenhouse gases: worldwide impacts. New York: Facts on File, Inc.

Cedar, O. (2010). A failure of conscience: How Pakistan’s devastating floods compare to

America’s experience during Katrina. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 11 (1)

Retrieved August 11, 2012 from http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/sdlp/vol11/iss1/16/

Chan, S. (2015, December 12).Key points of the Paris climate pact. The New York Times,

Retrieved August 26, 2016 from

243

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/key-points-

of-the-final-paris-climate-draft

Chapman, B. (2011). Geopolitics: A guide to the issues. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.

Chaudhry, Q. (n.d). National climate change policy draft. Retrieved February 11, 2013 from

http://www.unescap.org/idd/events/2011-Pakistan-Flood-Islamabad/25-CHAUDHRY-

CLIMATE-CHANGE-POILCY-ISSUSES.pdf

Cheema, A.R., & Hussain, E. (2014, September 28). Development sins and climate change.

The Daily Times, Retrieved July 21, 2015 from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/29-

Sep-2014/development-sins-and-climate-change

Cherian, A. (2015). Energy and global climate change: Bridging the sustainable

development divide. UK: John Wiley & Sons

China CO2 emissions outpace EU and US, 45% above global average, 2014 (2014,

September 22). RT, Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://rt.com/business/189532-china-tops-

world-c02-emissions/

Chossudovsky, M. (2003). The globalization of poverty and the new world order. Canada:

Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization

Climate attribution (n.d.) Open Source System, Retrieved February 23, 2012 from

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/attribution

Climate change. (n.d). Retrieved 22 April, 2012 from

http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=388862

Climate change: Financing global forests (2008): The Eliasch Review. Retrieved January 7,

2014 from

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108507632/9780108507632.pdf

Climate change and vulnerability challenges in Pakistan. (n.d). Retrieved February 11, 2013

from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_pr_cop15.pdf

244

Climate resilient development: A framework for understanding and addressing climate

change. (2014 March). USAID, Retrieved May 16, 2016 from

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pbaaa245.pdf

Cohen, S. P. (2001). India: Emerging power. Washington, D. C: Brookings Institution Press

Comstock, A. B. (1967). Handbook of nature study. New York: Cornell University Press

“Common but differentiated responsibilities” debated takes a turn (2012, June 18). Third

World Network. . Retrieved November 18, 2013 from

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/rio+20/news_updates/TWN_update15.pdf

Convention of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to

justice in environmental matters. (1998, June 25). Retrieved December 21, 2013 from

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

Coordination can tackle climate change. (2013, July 12). The Nation. Retrieved July 21, 2015

from http://nation.com.pk/national/12-Jul-2013/coordination-can-tackle-climate-change

Cotton, W.R., & Pielke, R. A. (2007). Human impacts on weather and climate. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cumo, C. (2008). Climate. In Encyclopedia of global warming and climate change. (vol 1-3,

pp. 202-208). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Dalby,S.(2001). Geopolitics. In Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy.

(Pp.598-601). London: Routledge

D’Anieri, P. (2012). International politics: power and purpose in global affairs. Australia:

Wadsworth Group.

Davenport. C, Gillis, J., Chan, S. & Eddy, M. (2015, December 12). Inside the Paris climate

deal. The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2015 from

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/12/world/paris-climate-change-deal-

245

explainer.html?

module=ConversationPieces&region=Body&action=click&pgtype=article&_r=0

Davenport, D. (2008). The international dimension of climate policy. In H. Compston, &

I.Bailey, (Eds.). Turning down the heat: The politics of climate policy in affluent

democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment. (1972, June). UN

Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503

Deese, B. (2017, May 22). Paris isn’t burning: Why the climate agreement will survive

Trump. Foreign Affaris, 96 (4), 83-92.

Deloso, R.E. (2005). The precautionary principal: Relevance in international law and

climate change (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved November 16, 2013 from

https://www.lumes.lu.se/sites/lumes.lu.se/files/rabbi_deloso.pdf

Denton, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, T. Masui, K.L.

O’Brien, and K. Warner, 2014: Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and

sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B.,V.R.

Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.

Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea,

and L.L. White (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131.

The online version of the article can be accessed at

https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap20_FINAL.pdf

Depledge, J. (2005). The organization of global negotiations: Constructing the climate

change regime. UK: Earthscan.

246

Desonie, D. (2008). Climate: Causes and effects of climate change. New York: Chalsea

House.

Dessler, A.E. (2012). An introduction to modern climate change. Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press.

Dessler, A.E., Parson, E. A. (2006). The science and politics of global climate change.

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press

Dessler, D. (1989). What’s at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization,

43 (3), 441-473. Retrieved July 14, 2010 from

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Dessler%201989.pdf

Diaz, H.F., & Murnane, R.J. (2008). The significance of weather and climate extremes to

society: An introduction. In H.F.Diaz, & R.J.Murnane, Climate extremes and society.

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Diaz, P. (2008). The end of poverty. [Video file]. Retrieved July 8, 2014 from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1vOQ

Diehl,P.F., Goretz,G., & Saeedi, D. (2005). Theoretical specifications of enduring rivalries:

Application to the India-Pakistan case. In T.V. Paul (Ed.), The India-Pakistan conflict: An

enduring rivalry (pp.27-530). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press

Dombroski, K. R. (2007). Peacekeeping in the Middle East as an international regime. New

York: Routledge

Dowson, B., & Spannagle,M.(2009). The complete guide to climate change. London:

Routeledge.

Drexhage,J.; & Murphy, D. (2010, September). Sustainable development from Brundtland to

Rio 2012. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved August 20, 2013

from http://www.surdurulebilirkalkinma.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/

Background_on_Sustainable_Development.pdf

247

Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith,S.(2007). International relations theory: Discipline and

diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Eden, S. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific,

counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Sage Journal, 5 (3), 183-204.

Eisold, K. (2010). The importance of weather. Psychology Today. Retrieved May 21, 2011,

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201002/the-importance-weather

Ellis, J. (2006). Overexploitation of a valuable resource? New literature on the precautionary

principal. The European Journal of International Law, 17 (2), 445-462. Retrieved November

16, 2013 from http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/17/2/82.pdf

Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, CS., Martins, R.D., Molefe, JI. , Nhemachena, C.,

O’Brien, K., Olorunfemi, F., Park, J., Synga, L., and Ulsrud, K. (2011). When not every

response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation.

Climate and Development, 3, 7-20. doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0060

Evenett, S.J. (Ed.). (2010, April). The US-Sino currency dispute: New insights from

economics, politics and law. Retrieved June 9, 2014 from

http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/currency_dispute.pdf

Experts call for concrete actions on climate change in Pakistan (2014, September 24). UNDP.

Retrieved July 21, 2015 from

http://www.pk.undp.org/content/pakistan/en/home/presscenter/articles/2014/09/24/experts-

call-for-concrete-actions-on-climate-change-in-pakistan-/

Fair, C.C. (2004). Urban battlefields of South Asia: Lessons learned from Sri Lanka, India,

and Pakistan. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

Feyter, K. (2013). Towards a framework convention on the right to development. Retrieved

November 8, 2013, from http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/genf/09892.pdf

Farooqi, A.B., Khan, A.H., & Mir, H. (2005). Climate change perspective in Pakistan.

Pakistan Journal of Meteorology, 2 (3), 11-22.

248

Fitzmaurice, M. (n.d.). Participation of civil society in environmental matters. Retrieved

December 21, 2013 from

https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/projects/non_state_actors/publications/fitzmaurice.pdf

Floyd, R. (2010). Security and the environment: Securitization theory and US environmental

security policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Flynn, C. (n.d.). National climate funds: Designing and establishing a national fund to

achieve climate change priorities. UNDP. Retrieved November 9, 2016 from

https://unfccc.int/files/press/media_outreach/application/pdf/111130_mw_undp_cf.pdf

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, CS., & Walker, B. (2002).

Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of

transformations. Retrieved 20th November, 2016 from http://era-mx.org/biblio/resilience-

sd.pdf

Forcing agent: Causes of climate change. Retrieved October 22, 2011 from

http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/2-1.php

Framework for implementation of climate change policy 2014-2030. Government of

Pakistan. Climate Change Division. (2014 November). Islamabad: Pakistan

Freedman, B. (2008). Greenhouse effect. In B.W. Lerner, & K.L. Lerner (Ed.), Climate

change: In context (pp. 466-472). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning.

Geerts, B., & Linacre, E. (n.d). Changes in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide,

other greenhouse gases, and aerosols. Retrieved July 19, 2012 from http://www-

das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/co2_change.html

Gehring, T. (1994). Dynamic international regimes: Institutions for international

environmental governance. Frankfurt: Peter Lang

Gemmill, B., & Bamidele-lzu, A. (n.d.). The role of NGOs and civil society in global

environmental governance. Retrieved December 21, 2013 from http://www.env-net.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/09/gemmill.pdf

249

Genest, M.A. (1996). Conflict and cooperation: Evolving theories of international relations.

Australia: Wadsworth Group.

Ghori, H.K. (2016, March 8). 10 ministries not devolved despite 18th amendment, says

Qaim. Dawn. Retrieved October 10, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1244158

Giddens, A. (2009). The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gilman, L. (2008). Climate change. In B.W. Lerner, & K.L. Lerner (Ed.), Climate change:

In context (pp. 200-208). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning.

Gilman, L. (2008). Extraterrestrial climate change. In B.W. Lerner, & K.L. Lerner (Ed.),

Climate change: In context (pp. 374-378). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning.

Gilman,S. (2008). Feedback factors. In B.W. Lerner, & K.L. Lerner (Ed.), Climate change:

In context (pp. 374-378). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning.

Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

Gizewski, P., & Homer-Dixon, T. (1996). Environmental scarcity and violent conflict: A

case study of Pakistan. Thomas Homer-Dixon. Retrieved July 28, 2012 from

https://homerdixon.com/environmental-scarcity-and-violent-conflict-the-case-of-pakistan/

Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: Freshwater resource and international security.

International Security, 18 (1), 79-112.

Global climate report-annual, 2016, (2016, December). NOAA. Retrieved January 12, 2017

from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

Goldstein, J.S. (2003). International relations. Singapore: Pearson Education

Goldstein, N. (2009). Global issues: Global warming. New York: Facts on File. Infobase

Publishing.

250

Govt to engage top experts to tackle environmental issues (2015, March 26). The Daily

Times. Retrieved July 21, 2015 from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/islamabad/26-Mar-

2015/govt-to-engage-top-experts-to-tackle-environmental-issues

Graedel,T.E., Crutzen,Paul.J.(1993). Atmospheric change: An Earth system perspective. New

York. W.H. Freeman and Company

Gray, L. (2010, December). Cancun climate change summit: Small island states in danger of

'extinction'. The Telegraph. Retrieved June 22, 2014 from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8170075/Cancun-climate-

change-summit-small-island-states-in-danger-of-extinction.html

Gray, M. (2011). A theory of “late rentierism” in the arab states of the gulf. Center for

International and Regional Studies. Retrieved June 1st , 2014 from

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/558291/

CIRSOccasionalPaper7MatthewGray2011.pdf

Greene, O. (1996). Environmental regimes: Effectiveness and implementation review. In

J.Vogler, & M.F. Imber, (Eds.), The environment and international relations. (pp. 210-230).

London: Routledge

Grieco, J. M. (1995). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of newest

liberal institutionalism. (pp. 151-171) In Charles W. Kegley, Jr. (Ed.), Controversies in

International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St

Martin’s Press.

Griffiths,M., O’callaghan, T., & Roach, S.C. (2002). International relations: Key concepts.

New York: Routledge

Griffiths, M.; Roach, S.C.; & Solomon, M.S. (2009). Fifty key thinkers in international

relations. London: Routledge

Grover, V.I (2008). Clean development mechanism. In Encyclopedia of global warming and

climate change.(vol 1-3.pp. 199-201). London: Sage Publication Ltd.

251

Grubber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational

institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gupta, J. (2006). The global environmental facility in the north-south context. In P.H.G,

Stephens; J.Berry, & A.Dobsons (Eds.) Contemporary environmental politics: From margins

to mainstream (Pp.231-253). London: Routledge

Gutro, R. (2005). NASA-What's the difference between weather and climate? Retrieved

May 11, 2011, from

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Haas, P.M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy

coordination. International Organization, 46 (1), 1-35. Retrieved March 6, 2016 from

https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/IO-1992-Haas.pdf

Habib,Z. & Nawaz, M.(2010). Floods in Pakistan—A brief review. South Asian journal, 30.

128-136.

Hall, T. (2009). Climate drivers. In G. Schmidt, & J. Wolfe (Eds.) Climate change: Picturing

the science (pp. 135-153). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hamid, Z. (2012, November). Legal implications of the 18th amendment relating to

environment. Retrieved 2 September 2016 from

https://www.scribd.com/document/113319471/Legal-Implications-of-18th-Constitutional-

Ammendment-of-Environment-in-Pakistan

Handl, G. (2012). Declaration of the United Nations conference on the human environment

(Stockholm Declaration), 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,

1992.Audiovisual Library of International Law.Retrieved August 20, 2013 from

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dunche/dunche.html

Hart, M. H. (1993). 100: A ranking of the most influential persons in history. New York:

Carol Publishing Group Edition.

252

Harris, S. A. (2010). Greenhouse gases and their importance to life. In S.A. Harris(Ed.),

Global warming. (pp. 15-23). India: Sciyo

Harvey, G. (2014, May). Sinking states: Climate change and the pacific. The Diplomat.

Retrieved June 22, 2014 from http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/sinking-states-climate-change-

and-the-pacific/

Hasenclever, A.; Mayer. P.; & Rittberger, V. (2000). Integrating theories of international

regimes.Review of International Studies, 26, 3-33.

Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., Rittberger, V. (1997). Theories of international regimes.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hatehway, B. (2010). What is climate. Window to the universe. Retrieved April 6, 2011,

from http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_define.html

Henderson, C.W. (2010). Understanding international law. UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing

Henson, R. (2008). The rough guide to climate change. London: Rough Guides Ltd.

Herbstreuth, S. (2011). A culture of dependency. Retrieved June 26, 2014 from

https://www.academia.edu/718533/A_Culture_of_Dependency_-

_U.S._Energy_Culture_and_the_Transition_toward_a_Post-Carbon_Economy

Herring, D. (n.d.) Ocean and climate. NASA. Retrieved March, 2012 from

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanClimate/

Hey, E. (n.d.). The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Retrieved

November 18, 2012 from http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/Hey_outline%20EL.pdf

Heywood, A. (2004). Political theory: An introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan

253

Hickman,L.(2012a, February 15). Climate sceptics-who gets paid what?. The Guardian.

Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-

heartland-institute

Hickman,L.(2012b, July 29). Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change

minds. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

Hillier, T. (1998). Sourcebook on public international law. London: Cavendish Publishing

Limited.

Hirszowics, M. (1996). The Marxist approach. International Social Science Journal, 18. (1),

11-23. Retrieved July 20, 2012 from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000186/018681eo.pdf

Honghu, M. (n.d.). Critiques of the theory of international regimes: The viewpoints of main

western school of thought. Retrieved December 27, 2015, from

https://www.google.com.pk/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjxosiExvvJA

hVDBo4KHVJMCDEQFggZMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwsetiabudi.files.wordpress.com

%2F2010%2F01%2Fcritiques-of-the-theory-of-international-

regimes.doc&usg=AFQjCNHqnpEvh8kcpZ2Svq8TgDJfDc9zCA&bvm=bv.110151844,d.c2

E

Hong, W. (2009).Public participation in environmental management from the perspective of

china. Social Responsibility Research Network. Retrieved December 21, 2013 from

http://www.socialresponsibility.biz/discuss3.pdf

Hot vents and global climate (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2012 from

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_20.asp

Houghton, J. (2009). Global warming: The complete briefing. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

254

Hovi, J., Stokke, O.S., & Ulfstein, G. (2005). Introduction and main findings. In O.S. Stokke,

J. Hovi., & G. Ulfstein. Implementing the climate regime: International compliance. London:

Earthscan.

Hoyle, B.D. (2008). Volcanism. In B.W. Lerner, & K.L. Lerner (Ed.), Climate change: In

context (pp. 889-892). Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning.

Huber, B. R. (2015 December 15). Q&a: will the Paris climate agreement be a 'turning point'

for the world? Princeton University. Retrieved July 27, 2016 from

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S45/03/69A42/index.xml

Hughes, N.C. (2005, August). A trade war with china. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved June 10,

2014 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60825/neil-c-hughes/a-trade-war-with-

china

Hurrel, A., & Woods, N. (2002). Introduction. In A. Hurrel, & N. Wood, (Eds). Inequality,

globalization, and world politics. (Pp. 1-35). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hussain, I. (1999). Pakistan: The economy of an elitist state. Karachi: Oxford University

Press.

Hwee, Y. L. (2003). Asia and Europe: The development and different dimensions of ASEM.

London: Routledge.

Igoe, M. (2015, December 16). 3 questions raised by the Paris climate agreement. Devex.

Retrieved July 20, 2016 from https://www.devex.com/news/3-questions-raised-by-the-paris-

climate-agreement-87509

Ikenberry, G. J. (2014). Introduction: power, order and change in world politics. In G. John

Ikenberry (Ed.), Power, order and change in world politics. (pp. 1-16). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

India lost chance to exert right to development in Paris: CSE (2016, June 14,). Financial

Express. Retrieved July 20, 2016 from http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/india-

lost-chance-to-exert-right-to-development-in-paris-cse/285044/

255

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. (2012, January 10). Pakistan: Displacement

caused by conflict and natural disaster, achievements and challenges. Retrieved August 1,

2012, from http://www.internal-displacement.org/south-and-south-east-asia/pakistan/2012/

displacement-caused-by-conflict-and-natural-disasters-achievements-and-challenges

IPCC explains Earth’s climate system (n.d). Retrieved April 17, 2012, from

http://CO2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-System/ipcc-explains-earths-

climate-system.html

IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved December 30,

2015 from http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved October 10,

2011, from

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

Iqbal, M., Ahmad, M., Khan, M.A., Samad, G., & Gill, M.A. (2014). Review of

environmental policy and institutions. Pakistan Institute of Development Center. Retrieved

July 24, 2016 from http://pide.org.pk/pdf/Climate_Change_4.pdf

Jackson, R.; Sorensen, G. (2003). Introduction to international relations: Theories and

approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, R. H., & Sorensen, G. (2007). Introduction to international relations: theories and

approaches (3rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press

Jaggard, L. (2007). Climate change politics in Europe: Germany and the international

relations of the environment. New York: Tauris Academic Studies.

Jervis, R. (2003). Realism, neoliberalism, and cooperation: understanding the debate. In C.

Elman, and M.F. Elman (Eds.). Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the

field (pp.277-310). Cambridge: MIT Press.

256

Johansen,B. E. (2008). Global warming 101. London: Greenwood Press.

Johnson, R. (2005). A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947. London: Reakrion

Books Ltd.

Johnstone, I. (2013). Law-making by international organizations: Perspectives from IL/IR

Theory. In J.L. Dunoff & M.A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on

international law and international relations: The state of the art (pp.266-292). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Joyce, C. (2015, November 13). Kyoto treaty fizzled, but climate talkers insist Paris is

different. NPR. Retrieved July 27, 2016 from

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/30/452971667/kyoto-treaty-fizzled-but-climate-talkers-insist-

paris-is-different

Judkins, R.R.; Fulkerson, W.; & Sanghvi, M.K. ( n.d.). The dilemma of fossil fuel use and

global climate change. Retrieved June 29, 2014 from

https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/36_1_ATLANTA_04-

91_0331.pdf

Kageson, P. (2011). Applying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility to the

mitigation of greenhouse gases from international shipping. Center for Transport Studies,

Stockholm. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from https://www.vti.se/sv/sysblocksroot/swopec-

test/cts2011.5.pdf

Kakakhel, S. (2012, June). Stocktaking report on sustainable development In Pakistan.

Sustainable Development Policy Institute. Retrieved April 21, 2016 from

https://sdpi.org/stocktaking%20report.pdf

Karl, T.L. (2004). Oil-led development: Social, political, and economic consequences.

Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. Retrieved June 26, 2014 from

https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/publications/oilled_development_social_political_and_economi

c_consequences

257

Karl, T.L. (2011). Understanding the resource curse. In Tsalik, S.& Schiffrin, A (Eds.).

Covering oil: A reporter’s guide to energy and development (pp.21-30). New York: Open

Society Institute.

Kegley, C. W.; & Raymond. G. A. (2010). The global future: A brief introduction to world

politics. Boston: Wadsworth

Kegley, C.W. (2008). World politics: Trends and transformation. Australia: Wadsworth

Group.

Keohane, R.O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political

economy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Keohane, R.O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4th edition). Boston:

Longman.

Khalfan, A. (2002). The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: Origin and

scope. The Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL). Retrieved

November 18, 2012 from http://cisdl.org/public/docs/news/brief_common.pdf

Khan, R.S. (2013, January 4). Pakistan pushes ahead on climate policy but action still lags.

Thomsan Reuters Foundation News. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from

http://news.trust.org//item/20130104100700-vgw2b/

Khan, M.A. (2015). Climate change risk and reduction approaches in Pakistan. In A.

Rahman, A.N. Khan, & R. Shaw (Eds.), Disaster risk reduction approaches in Pakistan

(pp.195-216). Japan: Springer

Khan, M.H. (2016, October 19). Centre still encroaching on provincial subjects despite 18th

amendment, says Baloch. Dawn. Retrieved December 12, 2016 from

http://www.dawn.com/news/1290899

Khan, M. S. (2016, October 31). 6 reasons why ratifying the Paris Climate Agreement is

critical for Pakistan. The Nation. Retrieved December 18, 2016 from

258

http://nation.com.pk/blogs/31-Oct-2016/6-reasons-why-ratifying-the-paris-climate-

agreement-is-critical-for-pakistan

Khan, R.S. (2015, January 15). Climate change poses major security threat to Pakistan, says

military. Dawn. Retrieved July 22, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1157200

Khan, R. S. (2013, February 26). National climate change policy to the rescue? Dawn.

Retrieved July 14, 2015 from http://www.dawn.com/news/788838/national-climate-change-

policy-to-the-rescue

Kimani, N. N. (2010). Participatory aspiration of environmental governance in East Africa.

Law, Environment and Development Journal, 6 (2), p. 200, Retrieved December 21, 2013

from http://www.lead-journal.org/content/10200.pdf

Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). The world in depression 1929-1939. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Kirby, A. (2002). Land use alters climate. Bbc News. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2290098.stm

Kolbert, E. (2008). Reporting on climate change. In G.Schmidt, & J.Wolfe,(Eds). Climate

change: Picturing the science. (Pp.70-71).New York: W.W.Norton & Company

Krasner, S. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening

variables. International Organization, 36 (2), 185-205. Retrieved February 22, 2015 from

http://ir.rochelleterman.com/sites/default/files/krasner %201982.pdf

Krasner, S. D. (1985). Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism.

University of California Press: Berkeley

Kratochwil, F.; & Ruggie, J.G. (1986). International organization: A state of the art on an art

of the state. International Organization, 40 (4), 753-775. Retrieved July 11, 2015, from

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Kratochwil%20and%20Ruggie

%201986.pdf

259

Labatt, S., & White, R.R. (2007). Carbon finance: The financial implications of climate

change. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Laferriere, E. (2006). Environmentalism and the global divide. In P.H.G, Stephens; J.Berry;

& A.Dobsons (Eds.) Contemporary environmental politics: From margins to mainstream

(Pp.94-113)..Routledge: London

Lattanzio, R.K. (2013, June 3). International environmental financing: The global

environmental facility. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved January 13, 2014 from

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41165.pdf

Lawson, F. (2016, February 09). Key features of and the occasional surprise in the Paris

Agreement (Part One). Retrieved March 25, 2016 from

http://www.6pumpcourt.co.uk/2016/02/key-features-of-and-the-occasional-surprise-in-the-

paris-agreement-part-one/?

utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

Lebow, R. N. (2003). The tragic vision of politics: Ethics, interests and orders. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Lembrecht, D. (n.d). Filling the void: Weak states and strong societies-A study of organized

criminal groups in South Africa. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from http://www.inter-

disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lambrechtspaper.pdf

Levins, C. M., (2013). The rentier state and the survival of arab absolute monarchies. Law

and Religion, 14, Retrieved December 5, 2016 from http://lawandreligion.com/sites/law-

religion/files/Rentier-State-Levins.pdf

Lewis, J.I. (2011). China. In D. Moran (Ed.), Climate change and national security: A

country level study (pp. 9-26). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press

Lianos, I.; & Le Blanc, J. (2012). Trust, distrust and economic integration: Setting the stage.

In I. Lianos, & O.Odudu (Eds.), Regulating trade in services in the EU and the WTO: Trust,

distrust and economic integration (pp. 17-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

260

Lieven, A. (2011). Pakistan: A hard country. New York: PBS Publication

Liotta, P.H., & Owen, T. (n.d). Why human security. The Washington Journal of Diplomacy

and International Relations. Retrieved July 20, 2012 from

http://www.taylorowen.com/Articles/Owen%20and%20Liotta%20-%20Why%20Human

%20Security.pdf

Lopes, C. (2013, November). Small is beautiful-African small island developing states and

climate change. Retrieved June 22, 2014 from

http://allafrica.com/stories/201311042521.html

Lutgens, F.K., & Tarbuck, E.J. (1995). The atmosphere. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mabey, N., Hall, S., Smith, C., & Gupta, S. (1997). Argument in the greenhouse: The

international economics of controlling global warming. London: Routledge

MacFarlane, S.N., & Khong, Y.F. (2006). Human security and the UN: A critical history.

Bloomington.

Machowski, M. (2010). 'Rentier state’ theory and the survival of the Arabian monarchies

[Web blog post]. Retrieved June 2nd, 2014 from

http://www.matthewmachowski.com/2010/07/rentier-state-theory-and-gulf.html

Maguire, R. (2013). Foundations of international climate law: Objectives, principles, and

methods. In E.J.Hollo; K.Kulovesi,; & M.Mehling (Eds.). Climate change and the law. (pp.

83-110). New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.

Malanczuk, P. (1997). Akehurst's modern introduction to international law. London:

Routledge.

Mansbach, R. W., & Rafferty, K. L. (2008). Introduction to global politics.

London:Routledge

Mandel,G.N.; & Gathii, J.T. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis versus the precautionary principal:

Beyond Cass Sunstein's laws of fear. University of Illinois Law Review, 2006, 1037-1080.

261

Retrieved November 16, 2013 from

http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2006/5/Mandel.pdf

Markey, D. (2011). Pakistan. In D. Moran (Ed.), Climate change and national security: A

country level study (pp.85-101). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press

Martin, A.( 2005). Environmental conflict between refugee and host communities. Journal of

Peace Research, 42 (3), 329-346. DOI 10.1177/0022343305052015

Martin-Breen & Anderies, J.M. (November 2011). Resilience: A literature review. Retrieved

July 12, 2016 from

http://mobile.opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3692/Bellagio-

Rockefeller%20bp.pdf?sequence=1

Martin, L.L (1993). The rational state choice of multilateralism. In John G. Ruggie, (Ed.),

Multilateralism matters: The theory and praxis of an institutional form (pp.91-122). New

York: Columbia University Press

Masood, S. (2011, July 25). 18th Amendment & beyond: Re-thinking development in

Pakistan. Lead Pakistan. Retrieved 22 October, 2016 from

http://www.lead.org.pk/action_lab/attachments/event_reports/18th%20Amendment.pdf

May, E., & Caron, Z. (2009). Global warming for dummies. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Melting glaciers signal global warming. (May 29, 2001). Science Daily. Retrieved October

23, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529235344.htm

McAdam, J.; & Saul, B. (2010. November). Displacement with dignity: International law and

policy responses to climate change migration and security in Bangladesh.German Yearbook

of International Law, 53, 233-287. Retrieved June 20, 2014 from

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1701486

McNeill, J.R., & Unger, C. R. (Eds.). (2010). Environmental histories of the cold war.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

262

Mercer, C. (2015, December, 07). INDCs: A critical — and critically misunderstood — part

of the COP21 climate agreement. Devex. Retrieved November 19, 2016 from

https://www.devex.com/news/indcs-a-critical-and-critically-misunderstood-part-of-the-

cop21-climate-agreement-87429

Metz, B.(2010). Controlling climate change. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press

Miller, D. (2002). Justice and inequality. In A. Hurrel, & N. Wood, (Eds). Inequality,

globalization, and world politics. (Pp. 187-210). New York. Oxford University Press.

Milner, H. (1991). The assumption of anarchy in international relations: A critique. Review of

International Studies, 17 (1), 67-85. Retrieved May 7, 2015 from

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Milner%201992.pdf

Milner, H. (1992). International theories of cooperation among nations: Strengths and

weaknesses. World Politics, 44, 466-96. Retrieved July 25, 2015 from

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Milter1992_0.pdf

Mingst, K.A. (2003). Essentials of international relations. New York: Norton & Company

Mittal, J. (2003). The climate change regime and sovereignty of India. The Indian Journal of

Political Science, 64, 23-32. Retrieved June 15, 2014 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855767

Moller, F. (2007). Thinking peaceful change: Baltic security policies and security community

building. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Monbiot, G. (2015, December 12). Grand promises of Paris climate deal undermined by

squalid retrenchments. The Guardian. Retrieved October 29, 2016 from

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-

governments-fossil-fuels

Morgen, J. (2003, November 27). Going, going, gone: Climate change and global glacier

decline. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://wwf.panda.org/index.cfm?

uGlobalSearch=glacier+melting

263

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Moser, S.C. (2011). Entering the period of consequences: The explosive US awakening to

the need for adaptation. In J.D.Ford & L. Barring-Ford (Eds.). Climate change adaptation in

developed countries: From theory to practice (pp.33-49). New York: Springer

Mumma, A. (n.d.). Applying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility in the

context of the climate change convention. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from

http://law.famu.edu/download/file/Dr_%20Albert%20Mumma%20PP.pdf

Mutschler, M.M. (2013). Arms control in space: Exploring conditions for preventive arms

control. UK. Palgrave Macmillan.

Myers, N. (2000). Debating the precautionary principal. Retrieved November 16, 2013 from

http://environmentalcommons.org/precaution-debating.pdf

Naeem, A. (2012, September 26) Cabinet approved climate policy amidst threats of global

warming. Retrieved February 11, 2013 from http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/108-

pakistan-top-news/81968-cabinet-approved-climate-policy-amidst-threats-of-global-

warming-.html

Naeem, S. (2008). The life of the party. In G.Schmidt, & J.Wolfe,(Eds). Climate change:

Picturing the science. (Pp.113-131).New York: W.W.Norton & Company

Nafees, M.(2012). Karachi: The state of crimes. Center for Research & Security Studies.

Retrieved, August 11, 2012 from http://crss.pk/downloads/Reports/Research-Reports/Karachi

%20Violence%20Report.pdf

Najam, A. (2004). The environmental challenge to human security in South Asia. In

R.Thakur, and O.Wiggens (Eds.), South Asia in world politics: Problems solving

perspectives on security, sustainable development, and good governance (pp.225-247). Hong

Kong: The United Nations University.

264

Najam, A. (2005). Why environmental politics look different from the south. In P.

Dauvergne. (Ed.). Handbook of global environmental politics. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham:

UK.

Nash, K. (2010). Contemporary political sociology: Globalization, politics and power.

United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell

Nasr, V. (2005). National identities and the India-Pakistan conflict. In T.V.Paul (Ed.), The

India-Pakistan conflict: An enduring rivalry (pp.178-201). Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press

National climate change policy (2012 September). Government of Pakistan, Ministry of

Climate Change, Islamabad.

National sustainable development strategy: Pakistan’s pathway to a sustainable & resilient

future (2012 May). Retrieved October 25, 2016 from http://www.sbi.gos.pk/pdf/Legal

%20Framework/canada/2012%20-%20National%20Sustainable%20Development

%20Strategy,%202012.pdf

Nazar, S. (2016 March). Pakistan’s big threat isn’t terrorism—It’s climate change. Foreign

Policy. Retrieved July 22, 2016 from http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/04/pakistans-big-

threat-isnt-terrorism-its-climate-change/

Neacsu, M. (2009). Hans J. Morgenthau's theory of international relations: Disenchantment

and re-enchantment. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Nelson, D.R., Adger, N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change:

contributions of a resilience framework. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-

Arid Tropics. Retrieved July 30, 2016 from

http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/4245/1/AnnualReviewofEnvResources_32_395

Nishima-F, K. (August, 2003). An evolving environment: A discussion of the dispersal of

environmental information and public participation. Environmental Law Center. Retrieved

December 21, 2013 from

http://www.elc.uvic.ca/projects/2003-02/EnvInfoAndPublicParticipation.pdf

265

Nitin, P.(2008.) Climate change and security: Preparing India for new conflict studies.

Retrieved July 28, 2012, from

http://nationalinterest.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/inipolicybrief-no1-

climatechangeandnationalsecurity-nitinpai-april2008.pdf

Norton, A. (2015, 14 December). A historic agreement in Paris. International Institute for

Environment and Development. Retrieved July 20, 2016 from http://www.iied.org/historic-

agreement-paris

Nye Jr, J.S.; & Welch, D.A. (2014). Understanding global conflict & cooperation: Intro to

theory & history. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited

Oceans. Retrieved July 18, 2011 from

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/oceans.html

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public good and the theory of groups.

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Olsson, L., M. Opondo, P. Tschakert, A. Agrawal, S.H. Eriksen, S. Ma, L.N. Perch, and S.A.

Zakieldeen, 2014: Livelihoods and poverty. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,

and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to

the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B.,

V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,

Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.

Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 793-832.

The online version of the article can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap13_FINAL.pdf

O’Neill, K. (2009). The environment and international relations. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Orellana, M. (2010). Climate change and the right to development: International cooperation,

financial arrangements, and the clean development mechanism. Human Rights Council.

266

Retrieved November 8, 2013 from

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/development/right/docs/A-HRC-15-WG-2-TF-CRP-3-

Rev1.pdf

Otero-Iglesias, M. (2011, April) Currency wars between US and china: Where does Europe

stand? Retrieved June 9, 2014 from

https://www.academia.edu/1073894/Currency_Wars_between_the_US_and_China_Where_d

oes_Europe_Stand

Otto, K.; & Brown, D. (2009). Contraction & convergence and greenhouse development

rights: A critical comparison between two salient climate-ethical concepts. Retrieved 30th

October, 2013 from http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Kraus.pdf

Oxfam annual report 2010-2011. Retrieved May 20, 2016 from

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/story/oxfam-annual-

report-2010-11_1.pdf

Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris (2015). Center for Climate and

Energy Solutions. Retrieved November 29, 2016 from http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/cop-

21-paris-summary-02-2016-final.pdf

Pakistan – climate public expenditure and institutional review (CPEIR).UNDP. (2015 April).

Retrieved August 1, 2016 from

http://www.pk.undp.org/content/dam/pakistan/docs/Environment%20&%20Climate

%20Change/UNDP%20Climate%20Report%20V10.pdf

Pakistan’s intended nationally determined contributions (Pak-INDC). (2016, November).

UNFCCC. Retrieved December, 10, 2016 from

http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/Pakistan%20First/Pak-INDC.pdf

Pakistan pushes to put stalled climate policy into action (2015, May 05). Daily Times.

Retrieved July 15, 2015 from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/05-May-2015/pakistan-

pushes-to-put-stalled-climate-policy-into-action

267

Pakistan ratifies Paris climate agreement (2016, November 11). The Nation. Retrieved

December 18, 2016 from http://nation.com.pk/national/11-Nov-2016/pakistan-ratifies-paris-

agreement-on-climate-change

Rehman, S. U. (2016, March 11). Pakistan set to join upper middle income countries by

2030: Sartaj. Business Recorder. Retrieved July 22, 2016 from

http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/pakistan/284315-pakistan-set-to-join-upper-middle-

income-countries-by-2030-sartaj.html

Paskal, C. (2010). Global warring: How environmental, economic and political crises will

redraw the world map. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan

Paterson, M. (1996). Global warming and global politics. New York: Routledge

Paul, T.V. (2011). India. In D. Moran (Ed.), Climate change and national security: A country

level study (pp.73-84). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press

Paul, T.V(Ed.). (2005). The India-Pakistan conflict: An enduring rivalry. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Perkins, J. (2004). Confession of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

Pidwirney, M. (2010). Energy balance of the earth. The Encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved

January 15, 2011 from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_balance_of_Earth

Pickvance, C. (2006). Urbanism. In John Scott (Ed.), Sociology: The key concepts (pp.189-

192). London. Routledge.

Pilkey,O.H.; & Young,R. (2009). The rising sea. Washington DC. Island Press

Pittock.A.B. (2009). Climate change: the science, impacts and solutions. Melbourne:

Csiro Publishing.

268

Policy discourse analysis–Pakistan: Supporting climate resilience in policy making (2013,

December). International Institute for Environment and Development. Retrieved May 17,

2016 from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10059IIED.pdf?

Provinces must defend their domain after 18th Amendment (2014, December 04). The

Dawn. Retrieved October 10, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1148715

Puthucherril, T. G. (2015). Towards sustainable coastal development: Institutionalizing

integrated coastal zone management and coastal climate change adaptation in south Asia.

Leiden: Brill Nijhoff

Qc Sand, P. (2003). Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Rabbani spells out perils of undoing 18th Amendment (2016, April 29). The Dawn. Retrieved

October 10, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1255104

Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties.

(2005). National research council of the national academics. Washington. Retrieved April 10,

2010 from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11175.html

Rafferty, J.P. (2011). Climate and climate change. New York. Britannica Educational

Planning

Rafiq, A. Fatal flaws in climate change policy. (2011) 23 (33). The Friday Times. Retrieved

July 21, 2015 from http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?

issue=20110930&page=6

Rais, R.B. (2008). Recovering the frontier state: War, ethnicity, and state in Pakistan.

Lanham: Lexington Books

Rajan, D.S. (2007). India-china relations since 1988. In Rasgotra, M.(Ed.). The new Asian

power dynamic.(Pp.147-179). New Delhi: Sage Publications India

269

Ramady, M., & Mahdi, W. (2015). Opec in a shale oil world: What next. New York:

Springer

Rasul, G., Mahmood, A., Sadiq, A., & Khan,S. I. (2012). Vulnerability of Indus delta to

climate change in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Meteorology, 8 (16), 89-107. Retrieved

June 23, 2012 from http://www.pmd.gov.pk/rnd/rnd_files/vol8_Issue16/8_Vulnerability

%20of%20the%20Indus%20Delta%20to%20Climate%20Change%20in%20Pakistan.pdf

Ray, B. (2008). Water: The looming crises in India. United Kingdom: Lexington Books

Raza, M. (n.d.). Environment: The food chain. Retrieved August 12, 2012 from

http://archives.dawn.com/archives/67874

Raza, S.I. (2015, December 01). Devolution plant ‘rollback’ displeases senate chairman.

Dawn. Retrieved October 10, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1223490

Redcliff, M. & Sage, C. (2002). Resources, environmental degradation, and inequality. In A.

Hurrel, & N. Wood, (Eds). Inequality, globalization, and world politics. (Pp. 122-149). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing. (2012). Retrieved July 12, 2016

from http://en.unesco.org/system/files/GSP_Report_web_final.pdf

Reuveny, R., & Thompson, W.R. (2008). Observations on the North-South Divide. In R.

Reuveny., and W.R. Thompson (Eds.). North and South in the world political economy.

(pp.1-17). USA: Blackwell Publishing

Reuveny, R. & Thompson, W. R. (Eds.). (2008). North and south in the world political

economy. USA. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Review of the financial mechanism (1998, November 14). UNFCC. Retrieved January 13,

2014 from http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/

application/pdf/3_cp.4.pdf

270

Riaz, A. (2011). Bangladesh. In D. Moran (Ed.), Climate change and national security: A

country level study (pp.103-114). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press

Riebeek, H. (2006). Paleoclimatology: Explaining the evidence. NASA Earth Observatory.

Retrieved March 27, 2011 from

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/

Rio declaration on environment and development (June, 1992). UN. Retrieved December 27,

2013 from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

Rittberger, V., Zangl, B. & Kruck, A. (2012). International organization. (2nd Edition).

United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan

Roberts, J.T., & Parks, B.C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south,

and climate policy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Rogers, P.P., Jalal, K.F., & Boyd, J.A. (2008). An introduction to sustainable development.

UK: Earthscan.

Roger, P. (2000). Resource issues . In T.C. Salmon (Ed.), Issues in international relations.

(pp.120-143) London: Routledge.

Rourke, J.T. (2003). International politics on world stage. United States of America:

McGraw Hill.

Rowlands, I.H. (2001). Classical theories of international relations. In U. Luterbacher, &

D.E. Sprinz. (Eds.), International relations and global climate change. (pp. 43-65).

Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Ruggie, J. G. (1975). International responses to technology: Concepts and trends.

International Organization, 29 (3), 557-583.

Russell, J.A. (2011). The Persian Gulf: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the

United Arab Emirates, and Oman. In D. Moran (Ed.), Climate change and national security:

A country level study (pp.163-176). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press

271

Sachs, N.M. (2014, June 20). Garbage everywhere: What refuse in India’s street reveals

about America's hidden trash problem. The Atlantic. Retrieved June 22, 2014 from

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/06/garbage-everywhere/373118/

Sachs, S.E. (2003). The changing definition of security. Retrieved July 29, 2012 from

http://www.stevesachs.com/papers/paper_security.html

Saeed, A. (2014, April 12). Provinces refuse to share powers with climate change division.

Business Recorder. Retrieved July 21, 2015 from

http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1172612/

Saeed, A. (2013, July 01). Climate change: Pakistan’s anticlimactic response. Dawn.

Retrieved July 14, 2015 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1022021

Saeed, F. (n.d.). The right to development as a human right. Retrieved November 7, 2013

from

http://www.academia.edu/1415512/THE_RIGHT_TO_DEVELOPMENT_AS_A_HUMAN_

RIGHT_a_critique_with_reference_to_GA_Resolution_41_120

Salama, I. (2005). The right to development: Towards a new approach. Retrieved November

8, 2013 from http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IbrahimSalama.pdf

Salik, K.M., Ishfaq, S., Saeed, F., Noel, E., & Syed, Q. (2015 August). Pakistan: Country

situation assessment. SDPI. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from

https://sdpi.org/publications/files/Pakistan-Country-Situation-Assessment.pdf

Sauter, R.; & Mackerron, G. (2008). Energy security and climate change: Conflicting or

complementary energy policy objectives? Retrieved April 4th, 2014 from

http://www.biee.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/Energy-security-and-climate-change-

conflicting-or-complementary-energy-policy-objectives-paper.pdf

Sawaya, R. (2010). Positive feedback mechanism and climate change. Retrieved March 27,

2011 from http://rachel-sawaya.suite101.com/positive-feedback-mechanisms-and-climate-

change-a189162

272

Sayed, A.H. (n.d). Climate change and its realities for Pakistan. Retrieved July 18, 2012

from http://pecongress.org.pk/images/upload/books/6Climate%20Change%20and%20its

%20Realities%20for%20Pakistan%20(6).pdf

Sharma, S.K.; & Behera, A. (2014). Militant groups in south Asia. New Delhi: Pentagon

Press.

Schellnhuber, H.J., Rahmstorf, S., Winkelmann, R. (2016): Why the right climate target was

agreed in Paris. Nature Climate Change, 6, 649-653. doi:10.1038/nclimate3013

Schiele, S. (2014). Evolution of international environmental regimes: The case of climate

change. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press

Schmidt, G., Wolfe, J. (Eds.) (2009). Climate change: Picturing the science. New York:

W. W. Norton & Company.

Schmidt,G.(2009). The prognosis for the climate. In In G.Schmidt, & J.Wolfe,(Eds). Climate

change: Picturing the science. (Pp.195-209).New York: W.W.Norton & Company

Schoenbaum, T.J. (2006). International relations-the path not taken. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Schreuder, Y. (2009). The corporate greenhouse: Climate change policy in a globalized

world. New York: Zed Books Ltd.

Shabbir, A. H. (n.d.). Review of climate change policy of Pakistan. Agrihunt. Retrieved May

17, 22016 from ahttp://agrihunt.com/articles/pak-agri-outlook/review-of-climate-change-

policy-of-pakistan/

Shah, A. (2012, September). The 18th constitutional amendment: Glue or solvent for national

building and citizenship in Pakistan? The Lahore Journal of Economics, 17, 387-424.

Shaw, M. N. (2003). International law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Shimko, K.L. (2010). International relations: Perspectives and controversies. Australia:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning

273

Scott, N. (2011). Global climate feedback mechanism. Retrieved January,2012 from

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/student/scott1/feedback.html

Silver, J. (2008). Global warming and climate change demystified. New York: McGraw Hill

Companies

Silverstein, A; Silverstien, V; Nunn, L. S, (2008). Weather and climate. Minneapolis:

Learner Publishing Group, Inc.

Simmons, B.A & Martin, L.L. (2002). International organizations and institutions. In

Handbook of international relations (pp. 256-281). London: Sage Publications

Soltau,F. (2009). Fairness in international climate change law and policy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Steans J.; Pettiford,L; Diez, T and El-Anis, I. (2010). An introduction to international

Relations: Theory, perspectives and themes. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited

Stein, A.A. (2008). Neoliberal institutionalism. In The oxford book of international relations

(pp.201-221). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stein, A. (1982). Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world.

International Organization, 36, 299-324. Retrieved July 10, 2015 from

http://www.grandstrategy.net/Articles-pdf/Coordination_and_Collaboration.pdf

Stephenson W. (Producer). (2015, November 23). Changing climate change: The science.

BBC. Retrieved October 23, 2016 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p037qnks

Stewart, P. (2001). The evolution of international norms: Choice, learning, power and

identity. In W.R. Thompson (Ed.), Evolutionary interpretations of world politics (pp.133-

175). New York: Routledge

Strange.S. (1982). Cave! Hic dragones: A critique of regime analysis. International

Organization, 36 (2), 479-496. Retrieved July 8, 2015 from

http://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/info/sdrelint/ficheros_materiales/materiales036.pdf

274

Streck, C. (2011). Financing mechanisms for climate change mitigation. In T.Hall, & D.Held.

(Eds.), Handbook of transnational governance: Institutions and innovations. (pp. 377-384).

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Sustainable development goals 2015-2030. (2016, June). Lead. Retrieved 14th October, 2016

from http://www.lead.org.pk/lead/attachments/SDGFlyer_english.pdf

Sustainable development policy Institute. (2009). Food insecurity in Pakistan. Retrieved

June 28, 2012, from

http://www.swisscooperation.admin.ch/pakistan//ressources/resource_en_195260.pdf

Sutch, P., and Elias, J. (2007). International relations: The basics. London: Routledge.

Swain, A. (2004). Diffusion of environmental peace? International rivers and bilateral

relations in South Asia. In R.Thakur, and O.Wiggens (Eds.), South Asia in world politics:

Problems solving perspectives on security, sustainable development, and good governance

(pp.248-265). Hong Kong: The United Nations University.

Swatuk, L. A. (2006). Environmental security. In M. M. Betill, K. Hochestetler, and D.

Stevids (Eds.), International environmental politics. (pp.203-237). London: Palgrave

Macmillan

Tanner, T., & Mitchell, T. (2008). Introduction: Building the case for pro-poor adaptation.

Retrieved July 29, 2016 from https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/0TannerIntro39.4update.pdf

Task force on climate change: Final report (2010, February). Government of Pakistan.

Planning Commission. Islamabad: Pakistan

The legal principles relating to climate change. (July, 2009). Retrieved November 10, 2013

from http://www2.kobe-u.ac.jp/~akihos/ja/download_doc/ILAJapanBranchPaperJuly09.pdf

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: Origin and scope (2002). Center

for International Sustainable Development Law. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from

http://cisdl.org/public/docs/news/brief_common.pdf

275

The Stern Review: A summary (2009). Retrieved July 17, 2010, from

http://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/general/activities/library/sustainability/cc_pubs/

tech_tp_cjb_stern.pdf

The vertical structure of the atmosphere (n.d). Retrieved 24 April, 2012 from

http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=388862

The world’s melting glaciers. (2009, April 29). The guardian. Retrieved October 23, 2011,

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/apr/28/glaciers-melting-climate-

change

Tomecek, S.(2012). Science foundations: Global warming and climate change. New York.

Infobase Leaning, Chalsea House

Uilenreef, A. (June, 2010). Bilateral barriers or good neighborlinesses? The role of bilateral

disputes in the EU enlargement process. Retrieved December 26, 2013 from

http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20100600_cesp_paper_uilenreef.pdf

Ullah, H. (2006). Poverty, environment and economic growth. In Troubles times: Sustainable

development and governance in the age of extremes. Karachi: Sustainable Development

Policy Institute.

UN praises Pakistan for climate change efforts (2011, February 8). Dawn. Retrieved from

http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/08/un-praises-pakistan-for-climate-change-efforts.html

Understanding community participation. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2013 from

http://lyceumbooks.com/pdf/Effective_Community_P_Chapter_02.pdf

Understanding the global carbon cycle. Retrieved March 15,2012 from

http://www.whrc.org/global/carbon/index.html

United Nations Framework on Climate Change 1992. UNFCCC.Retrieved February 23,

2013 from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

Vallis, G.K. (2012). Climate and the oceans. Princeton. Princeton University Press

276

Vasseur, L., & Jones, M. (2015). Adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change:

Protecting the conditions of emergence through good governance. Retrieved October 25,

2016 from

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/6579124-Vasseur-Adaptation

%20and%20resilience%20in%20the%20face%20of%20climate%20change.pdf

Vaughan, B., Carter, N.T., Sheikh, P.A., & Johnson, R.(2010). Security and the environment

in Pakistan. Congressional Research Paper. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41358.pdf

Verheyen, R. (2005). Climate change damage and international law: Prevention duties and

state responsibility. The Netherlands: Maritnus Nijhoff Publishers

Victor, D. (2015, December 15). Why Paris worked: A different approach to climate

diplomacy. Yale Environment. Retrieved November 27, 2016 from

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_paris_worked_a_different_approach_to_climate_diplomacy

/2940/

Vig, N.J., & Faure, M.G. (Eds.). (2004). Green giants: Environmental policies of the US and

the European Union. Cambridge: The Mit Press.

Viotti, Paul. R. & Kauppi, M. V. (2012). International relations theory (5th Edition). Boston:

Longman

Viotti, P.R., & Kauppi, M.V (2007). International relations and world politics: Security,

economy, identity. India. Pearson Education

Vogler, J. (1996). Introduction. In J.Vogler, & M.F. Imber, (Eds.). The environment and

international relations. London: Routledge.

Voigt, C. (2012.). The international climate change regime: UNFCCC. Retrieved December

19, 2013 from

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5520/h12/undervisningsmateriale/6.and-7.the-

international-climate-regime_unfccc-and-kpi.pdf

277

Voigt, A. C. (2008). The role of general principles in international law and their relationship

to treaty law. Retrieved December 26, 2013 from

http://www.retfaerd.org/gamle_pdf/2008/2/Retfaerd_121_2008_2_s3_25.pdf

Wallace, J, M.; & Hobbs, P, V. (2006). Atmospheric science: An introductory survey. New

York: Elsevier Inc

Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company

Wasim, A. (2013, October 27). 18th Amendment: Body to work on legal lacunas. Dawn.

Retrieved October 10, 2016 from http://www.dawn.com/news/1052100

Waterbury, J. (2013). The political economy of climate change in the arab region. Retrieved

April 16, 2014 from http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdrps/AHDR%20ENG

%20Waterbury%20v3.pdf

Watts, R.G. (2007). Global warming and the future. Morgan & Claypol Publishers.

Weart, S. R. (2003). The discovery of global warming. US: Harvard University Press

Weather and climate: Britannica illustrated science library. (2008).Chicago: Encyclopedia

Britannica. Inc

Weather and climate basics (n.d.). Retrieved May 14, 2011, from

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html

Weber, C. (2001). International relations theory: A critical introduction. London: Routledge

Weissmann, J. (2013). Why Obama climate-change plan is hopeless without china. The

Atlantic. Retrieved July 10, 2014 from

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/why-obamas-climate-change-plan-is-

hopeless-without-china/277220/

278

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it. The social construction of power

politics. International Organization, 46 (2), 391-425. Retrieved February 27, 2016 from

https://ic.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/Pol272/Wendt.Anarch.pdf

Wendt, A. (1994). Collective identity formation and international state. The American

Political Science Review, 88 (2). Retrieved March 20, 2016 from

http://www.risingpowersinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Identity-Formation-and-the-

International-State.pdf

Werrell, C.E., & Femia, F. (2013 February). The Arab spring and climate change: A climate

and security correlation series. Retrieved June 8, 2014 from

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ClimateChangeArabSpring.pdf

Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O. & Renn, O. (n.d.). Rationales for public participation

in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners' perspectives. Retrieved December

21, 2013 from

http://www.governat.eu/files/files/wesselink_paavola_fritsch_renn_epa_participation_rationa

les.pdf

West, B, J. & Nicola, S. (2010). Disrupting networks: From physics to climate change.

Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

What is the link between climate change and sustainable development? Christiana Figueres -

UNFCCC Interview 3rd February UNRIC (2015, 11 February). [Video file]. Retrieved

August 28, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdb1HKiYFiw

What is an INDC (n.d.). World Resource Institute. Retrieved December 18, 2016 from

http://www.wri.org/indc-definition

Why Pakistan Needs a Climate Change Financing Framework? (nd.). UNDP. Retrieved June

30, 2016 from http://www.pk.undp.org/content/dam/pakistan/docs/Environment%20&

%20Climate%20Change/Climate%20Change-Policy%20Brief-Final.pdf?download

Wiggin, E. (2013). Oil as a weapon of financial warfare. Retrieved June 9, 2014 from

http://agorafinancial.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/OilasaWeapon.pdf

279

William, A. B. (2008). Weather. In Encyclopedia of global warming and climate change.

(vol 1-3, pp. 1083-1087). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Wood, N. (2002). Order, globalization, and inequality in world politics. In A. Hurrel, & N.

Wood, (Eds.). Inequality, globalization, and world politics. (Pp. 8-35). New York: Oxford

University Press.

World view of global warming. (2005). Retrieved October 22, 2011, from

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Wright,T. (2010, August 26). Crush of refugees inflames Karachi. The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved February 11, 2013, from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704540904575451512217585010.html

Yamin, F. (2005). Introduction. In F. Yamin, (Ed.), Climate change and carbon markets. (pp.

1-73). London: Earthscan.

Yamin, F., & Depledge, J. (2004). The international climate change regime: A guide to rules,

institutions and procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, T. (2006). Towards an egalitarian global environmental ethics. UNESCO. Retrieved

May 22, 2011, from http://publishing.unesco.org/chapters/978-92-3-104039-9.pdf

Yusuf, S. (2011, May 26). Pakistan’s first climate change policy ready. Dawn. Retrieved

February 12, 2013, from http://dawn.com/2011/05/26/pakistans-first-climate-change-policy-

ready/

Zahid, L. (2015, July 03). Climate change 101. The Friday Times. Retrieved October 12,

2016 from http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/climate-change-101/

Zemen, F. (2008). Getting our technological fix. In G.Schmidt, & J.Wolfe, (Eds). Climate

change: Picturing the science. (Pp.213-251).New York: W.W.Norton & Company

280

Zweig, D.; & Jianhai, B. (2005, October). China's global hunt for energy. Foreign Affairs.

Retrieved June 10, 2014 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61017/david-zweig-

and-bi-jianhai/chinas-global-hunt-for-energy

281

ANNEXURENOTABLE EVENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME

CONFERENCE DAT

E

ORGANIZER CONCLUSIONS AND PRINCIPAL

RECOMMENDATIONS

Villach Conference 1985 WMO &

UNEP

• Significant climate change highly

probable

• States should initiate considerations of

developing a global climate convention

Toronto Conference 1988 Canada • Global CO2 emissions should be cut by

20% by 2005

• States should develop comprehensive

framework convention on the law of the

atmosphere

UN General Assembly 1988 UN • Climate change a “common concern of

mankind”

Hague Summit 1989 Netherlands • Signatories will promote new

institutional authority to combat global

warming, involving non unanimous

decision making

Noordwijk greenhouse

Conference

1989 Netherlands • Industrialized countries should stabilize

gas emissions as soon as possible

• “Many” countries support stabilization of

emissions by 2000

282

IPCC First Assessment

Report

1990 WMO &

UNEP

• Global mean temperature likely to

increase by about 0.3°C per decade, under

business-as-usual emissions scenario

Second World Climate

Conference

1990 WMO &

UNEP

• Countries need to stabilize greenhouse

gas emissions

Developed states should establish

emission targets

UN General Assembly 1990 UN • Establishment of INC

UNCED Conference 1992 UNCED FCCC opened for signature

First Conference of

strengthen the Parties

1995 FCCC Berlin Mandate authorizing negotiations to

FCCC commitments

Second Conference 1996 FCCC • Geneva Ministerial Declaration of the

Parties

Third Conference of the

Parties

1997 FCCC • Kyoto Protocol

Fourth Conference of

the Parties

1998 FCCC Buenos Aires Plan of Action

Source: Bodansky (2001).

283

YEAR CLIMATE CHANGE

AGREEMENT/NAME

MAIN OBJECTIVES AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES

1992 Rio De Janeiro,

Argentina

First UN Conference on the Environment and Development

—Earth

Summit

Outcome : Framework Convention on Climate Change

( FCCC )

committing parties to reduce greenhouse emissions

1995 Berlin, Germany Parties to the UNFCCC outline specific targets on emissions

1997 Kyoto, Japan Kyoto Protocol adopted, December 11, 1997

Protocol started 2008

Agreed to the broad outlines of emission targets. Legally

binding commitments to Annex I parties

Pitted Europe against the USA

US Congress did not ratify the treaty after President Bill

Clinton signed it

The US Bush Administration explicitly rejected the Protocol

in 2001

2002: Russia and Canada ratify Kyoto Protocol, bringing

treaty into effect on February 16, 2005 , to contain emissions

from greenhouse gases in ways that reflect national

differences in emissions, wealth, and the capacity to make

reductions

2011 Canada became first signatory to withdraw

December 13, 2012, Kyoto Protocol expired (but on

December 8, 2012, at the end of the UN Climate Change

Conference agreement was reached to extend protocol to

2020 and set date of 2015 for the development of a successor

document). To be held in Paris in 2015

2009 Copenhagen, 18th Conference of the UNFCCC

284

Denmark Broke up without agreement on post-Kyoto Climate treaty

due to

conflict among major powers

Developing and developed countries would adopt parallel

nonbinding pledges to reduce emissions

Prime objective preventing global temperature rising more

than 2 °C

2010 Cancun, Mexico Adoption of specific pledges by countries for emission

reductions

Called for a $100 billion per annum Green Climate Fund and

a Climate Technology Centre and network, but the Green

Climate Fund not agreed upon

Established a process of monitoring and verifications and

that

mitigation efforts undertaken with domestic resources would

be

monitored domestically, while those undertaken with

international

resources would be monitored internationally

Reconfirmation to keeping to the 2 °C global temperature

rise

2012 Doha, Qatar UNFCCC met and the European Union pledged to extend

Kyoto binding on the 27 EU states up to 2020 pending an

internal ratification procedure

No global consensus on emissions reached

Language on loss and damage formalized for the first time in

conference documents

Little progress made to funding the Green Climate Fund

Final communiqué committed to finalizing post-Kyoto treaty

to be held in Paris in 2015, with the new treaty to take effect

in 2020

285

As of May 2013, 191 countries have ratified Kyoto

agreement

2014 Lima, Peru UN Climate Change Conference

All countries asked to submit plans for curbing greenhouse

emissions known as Intended Nationally Determined

Contributions (INDCs) to the United Nations by March 31,

2015, as a core document for the Paris 2015 deal

No review to compare each nation’s pledges after China

refused

Donation to Green Climate Fund reached $10 billion

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050

Source: Ramady & Mahdi, 2015

286

NEGATIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS WITNESSED IN PAKISTAN

YEAR WITNESSED IMPACTS

2013 Flash floods affected nearly 1.5 million people, almost 80,000 houses, and

1.5 million acres of crops. 234 people were killed. More than 4,100 people

were housed in 408 relief camps

2012 Floods affected 5 million people, 14,270 villages and 1.1 million acres of

crops. Almost 270,000 people were housed in 478 relief camps. More than

465,000 houses were damaged

2011 Floods in Pakistan’s southern province of Sind affected 22 out of 23 districts

claiming 500 lives. Nearly 2.2 million ha cropland was damaged and 72 % of

crops were lost in the worst affected areas. 1.6 million homes were destroyed

2010 Monsoon rainfall of 300 mm over a 36-h period resulted in swelling of rivers

and caused the history’s worst flood in Pakistan. The unprecedented flood

submerged 20 % of the country’s area

2009 Karachi received 205 mm of rain at Masroor Airbase and 143 mm at Airport

on 18th and 19th July. The previous heaviest rainfall recorded at Karachi

Airport was 207 mm on 1st July 1977. Normal rainfall at Karachi Airport for

the periods 1961–1990 and 1971–2000 was 85.5 mm and 66.2 mm

respectively

2007 A record heat wave gripped Pakistan during June 2007. The temperature

reached 48 °C on 9th June at Lahore, repeating the record of 78 years earlier

on 8th June 1929

2007 Two super cyclones Gonu (02A) of Cat-5 and Yemyin (03B) of Cat-1

developed in the Arabian Sea during June 2007 and hit Makran coast of

Pakistan and adjoining countries. Not ever before two such events occurred

in the same month in the Arabian Sea

2006 Monsoon-related flooding in Pakistan resulted in more than 185 deaths

287

between late July and mid-August 2006. In neighbouring eastern

Afghanistan, heavy rainfall generated flooding that claimed at least 35 lives

2005 Heavy rain caused flooding in parts of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and

Afghanistan during March. There were more than 30 fatalities in south-

western Pakistan

2005 During June, unusually warm temperatures in the mountainous areas of

northern Pakistan occurred, accelerating snowmelt and causing extensive

flooding along the Kabul, Swat, Kunar and Chitral rivers

2003 Heavy rain and snow produced flooding during February (around 17th) and

was responsible for more than 60 deaths in Balochistan province. Flash

floods washed away parts of roads and highways

2003 Seasonal monsoon rains affected at least one million people in southern

Pakistan. Heavy rains caused 162 deaths, 153 in the Sind province

2003 During early June, a heat wave caused maximum temperatures to reach 52°C

at Jacobabad on the 5th of June; normal highs in early June are around 44 °C

2001 621 mm rainfall in Islamabad during 10 h period on 23rd July; it caused

flooding in Lai Nullah (rivulet)

1998-2001 History’s worst drought gripped southern parts of Pakistan and parts of

surrounding countries

Source: M.A. Khan, 2015

288