|
|
| April 21, 2007 | Saturday | Rabi-us-Sani 03, 1428 |
Long wait for the organ law
Climate change and the world’s poor
The right choice
THROUGHOUT the 20th century, many scientists repeatedly warned that the increasing use of fossil fuels and other emissions would accumulate in the atmosphere, and start warming the earth. But opinions differed about the impact of such a change on the world’s climate, humans and the ecosystems. Now this debate has reached a final and worrisome conclusion.
RUMOURS are rife about a new alliance among some ‘progressive’ parties. If true, the alliance will bring together such incompatible allies as the PPP and the MQM, besides the Awami National Party and the Pakistan Oppressed Nations’ Movement. The basis for such speculation is a meeting between Ms Benazir Bhutto and ANP chief Asfandyar Wali Khan in Dubai last month. “Informal talks” have also been taking place between the PPP and the Muttahida, as confirmed by MQM leader Dr Farooq Sattar. This has led to speculation that Ms Bhutto and Mr Altaf Hussain may perhaps meet in London to explore the possibility of an electoral alliance between these two parties which were once partners in a Sindh coalition. All these reports come in the wake of the now confirmed moves by the government and the PPP to strike a deal. While we have had occasion to comment on a possible government-PPP deal, the issue of a larger alliance among the parties mentioned above needs to be seen against the backdrop of what has been going on in the country.
Since the 1999 coup, the military has shown a tendency to seek allies in the religious right to sideline the PPP and the PML-N. The desire to ostracise the PML-N made sense from the army’s point of view, since it was the Nawaz government that was overthrown by the generals, and it was the Sharif family that bought freedom and sought exile by clinching a deal mediated by Saudi Arabia. However, an anti-PPP bias made no sense for the coup leaders, except as an outdated continuation of the policies pursued by Ziaul Haq and his cronies after they overthrew the Bhutto government and executed the country’s first popularly elected prime minister. The result of this policy led to what is often called the mullah-military alliance. However, 9/11, the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan’s decision to join the war on terror created fissures between the generals and the religious parties. Lacking popular support, the army-led government often appeared to succumb to the clerics’ pressures.
The recent events in Islamabad and the defiance of the government’s writ by Lal Masjid clerics and Hafsa girls have sent shivers down many spines. Which way will things move if the wave of religious extremism continues to rise? Will it inundate the entire country by violent means or will the liberal parties bury the hatchet and get together to face the obscurantist threat? There may be no substance in the rumours about a new and bigger alliance among the ‘progressive’ parties. But it is time such parties realised that the ARD is not much of an alliance; it is merely a debating forum for its component parties to come together and vent their rhetoric. If the wave of religious extremism is to be defeated politically, then the need of the hour is a smaller, more cohesive alliance rather than the large and unwieldy ARD. The Nawaz group is a potential MMA ally, because the PML-N and most parties now in the MMA were part of the IJI founded by a retired general with money provided by a bank now defunct. It remains to be seen whether the MQM, PPP, ANP and Ponam have the wisdom to rise above petty considerations and forge a larger alliance to face the forces of bigotry and obscurantism in the general election due later this year.
IT is strange that the deputy attorney-general could not tell the Supreme Court when the government will promulgate the transplantation of human organs ordinance. This was approved by the cabinet in February and since then the law ministry and the prime minister’s special adviser, Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada, have been vetting the draft ordinance. Meanwhile, the wait for justice is further prolonged for complainants such as Mr Muhammad Amjad whose case is before the Supreme Court. Mr Amjad claims to be a victim of the organ mafia and his case would be strengthened if a transplantation law were in place. It has been a long fight for those demanding this law since they have faced resistance from the vested interests which have been the beneficiaries of the organ trade that is bringing Pakistan a bad name. There are villages in Punjab where communities are known to have sold their organs in a bid to earn a few thousands to pay off their debts. Since the entire operation is driven by commercial and not altruistic motives,
the donors often end up in poor health and financially worse off than before. Those who gain are the agents
and the hospitals that reap a hefty profit.
The problem with the transplant bill approved by the cabinet and now before the law ministry is that it contains many loopholes that nullify the main purpose of the bill, notably to check commercialism. For instance, it defines a “genetically and legally related” donor in such broad terms that virtually anyone can claim to come within its ambit. The bill also permits donation by non-related persons if an evaluation committee allows it after satisfying itself that such donation is voluntary and not for profit — not an easy task for honest medical professionals. As for the unscrupulous ones, it would create new opportunities for corruption. A monitoring authority will be set up to channel payment of ‘compensation’ to the donor where it is recovered from the recipient. This in principle would legalise the trading in organs. One only hopes that the legal experts vetting the draft will take into account these fears that have been widely expressed and rectify the shortcomings in the ordinance. This should be done without delay.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set up by the UN in 1985 released its final report in April 2007 in Brussels. The 1,500-page report, based on the work of 2,000 scientists from 100 countries, presents the most comprehensive scientific statement on the impact of global warming. It predicts that if global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius above the average in the 1990s, 30 per cent of species could face extinction. Moreover, the world would see threats by flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines and arid areas would become even drier.
Global warming, the report warns, will affect all human beings, but poor countries will be the worst sufferers, although they have contributed only marginally to this disastrous phenomenon. Countries like the US which has been responsible for 38 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in the past century, will suffer the least.
The actual increase in average temperatures in the 20th century was over one per cent, but with the increase in the rate of warming, a rise of two to three per cent in the coming decades is “highly likely”. The report proposes the goal of setting a maximum rise of two degrees Celsius in global temperatures since pre-industrial times. That effectively means there is no scope for further warming.
This report confirms the findings of another group of 1,360 scientists commissioned by the UN in 2000 to carry out a Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and submitted in December 2006. At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning that “human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of the earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystem to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”
The assessment points out that the living machinery of earth has a tendency to move from gradual to catastrophic change with little warning. Such is the complexity of the relationship among plants, animals and microorganisms that these “tipping points” cannot be forecast by existing science. Abrupt changes can have devastating impacts on human communities. The buildup of nitrogen and phosphorus in lakes, estuaries, enclosed seas, for example, can continue for years before suddenly triggering an explosive growth of algae.
A documentary by former US vice president, Al Gore, entitled ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ illustrates the unprecedented increase in CO² emissions and the resultant increase in average temperatures. In US, 10 years with the highest average temperatures have occurred within the last 14 years. This has led to more frequent floods and stronger storms including the devastating Katrina which hit New Orleans in 2005.
In 2006, Bombay had 37 inches of rain in 24 hours. For many months Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya is no longer snow-covered, the Italian Alps in Europe have a much thinner ice cap and parts of the Amazon are no longer lush green forests but dry savanna. Even Antarctica is now melting.
If these trends continue and the ice caps of Greenland and Iceland were to disappear, the average sea level could go up by 20 feet, submerging and flooding not only island countries like the Maldives, the Philippines and Indonesia but also large cities like Rotterdam, San Francisco, Shanghai and Karachi. One cannot imagine the economic, social and political consequences that would emerge from the displacement of, say, 100 million people that could be caused by such flooding.
At the global level, attempts are already underway to challenge these findings and scientists who endorse these gloomy predictions are under pressure, from vested interests, to suppress or at least moderate their statements. That makes it even more urgent for developing countries to take serious note of the dangers that lie ahead and evolve their own respective national or regional strategies to meet these dangers.
The disasters that are looming over countries like Pakistan as a result of the impending climate change and the persistent deterioration of the ecosystems are multi-dimensional but the following dangers clearly stand out:
— The subcontinent is dependent largely on the Himalayas for rain, drinking water and irrigation water. If the snows on the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush Range start melting at a faster rate, it will affect the entire ecosystem of the subcontinent, including river flows, fish stocks, flora and fauna. The rise in the sea level will submerge many coastal cities and areas.
— Three-fourth of the water flowing through the rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab originate in the Siachen and other Himalayan glaciers. If these glaciers start melting at a faster pace due to global warming, they could virtually disappear in the next half century. This means increased frequency of floods in the foreseeable future but serious shortage of water in the rivers after some time threatening the livelihood of people dependent on them.
— The quality of water is constantly deteriorating because of excessive pumping of underground water much of which is saline. Similarly the extraction of sweet water is eroding the centuries old aquifer.
— Air and water pollution due to the increasing use of fossil fuels is growing in all major cities like Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Faisalabad and Multan leading to health problems, particularly for the poorer segments of the population. The resources required to provide clean air and water to the populations are beyond the fiscal capacity of most developing countries like Pakistan.
Citizens in all parts of the world say that this is certainly a huge problem but one that is beyond their comprehension and capacity to do anything. This line of thinking will continue until we realise that each one of us is directly or indirectly responsible for the coming disaster because of the way we think. The careless manner in which we use transport and energy and above all the speed with which we are adding to the global population, is putting unbearable pressure on the country’s resources.
We should not forget that it took 18 centuries for the world population to reach one billion. The next billion was added in 100 years, the third in 35 years, but it now takes less than 15 years to add another billion. By 2030, the world population would be nine billion. This will create additional strains on the earth’s resources for food, water, fuel, transport and raw materials.
If there is universal awareness of these realities and dangers, then the collective efforts of governments, civil society, farmers, and the business community could make a difference before it is too late. We could, for example, adopt the following policies and programmes at the national and local levels:
— A drastic switch from oil or coal-based generation of electricity to renewable sources of energy. In Pakistan, the proportion of hydroelectricity has already declined from 60 to less than 30 per cent.
— Adoption and enforcement of strict environmental standards for motor vehicles to reduce emissions. A time limit of two to three years should be fixed to switch all public transport i.e. buses and rickshaws in cities to cleaner fuels.
— Enacting and enforcement of strict legislation for controlling industrial pollution in polling industries.
— Preparing a comprehensive flood protection plan to mitigate the danger of increased flooding as a result of global warming.
— A major programme of aquifer recharge should be undertaken in sweet water zones to ensure sustainable agriculture and the price policy for water and tubewells should be reviewed on the basis of environmental criteria.
— Large-scale afforestation through public-private partnership programmes. For this purpose, a “green Pakistan” fund can be created on the model of the Green Belt Programme in Kenya. This fund can work with community or non-governmental organisations, which are interested in planting trees in their areas. They can be given free seedlings and then a fixed amount per tree after it has reached a certain age at which it can grow automatically. Substantial funding can be obtained for such a programme from the UN or under various carbon trading schemes.
These reports on climate change have come at a time when the second major issue facing humanity, namely poverty, has also entered a new phase of debate. The fact that half the population of the developing world was still living on less than two dollars a day has been acknowledged for some time but new research has revealed that under the impact of globalisation, the rate at which inequalities are growing is now even faster.
This subtle linkage between these two major issues — that the life support system of the planet is under threat and the prevailing mechanisms of globalisation have an inherent tendency to accentuate inequalities — has become a lethal combination for the future of mankind since impending ecological disasters will make it more difficult for developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of eliminating poverty and hunger.
A recent World Bank report entitled ‘Global Economic Prospects’ predicts that the world economy is ready for the next phase of globalisation which could double the size of the global economy but treble the aggregate in the next 25 years. This, it is claimed, could also lead to a drastic decline in poverty.
But this is a linear projection and does not take into account, the energy requirements of this growth and the resultant ecological costs, nor the social costs of growing inequalities, inherent in globalisation as we have seen from Pakistan’s own experience.
Reconciling the paradox of these two major reports, one on climate change and the other on global economic prospects can therefore become the most serious challenge of our time.
The writer is a former foreign minister.
NOT exactly spoilt for choice, the Pakistan Cricket Board has sensibly refrained from opting for the entirely experimental in what was a tricky situation. Nor did the board fall into the error of automatically handing the captaincy to the senior-most player in the team, reverting to old ways at a time when fresh ideas are urgently needed. Pakistan cricket must move forward at this critical juncture, and that is why Shoaib Malik’s expected appointment as skipper has been welcomed by former greats who are better readers of the game than most. At 25, Shoaib Malik is clearly a young captain by both local and international standards. Shoaib’s all-round skills were never in doubt, but those who know him say that the 25th captain of the Pakistan cricket team is also a shrewd analyst and a popular team-man who has it in him to rally the troops in aid of the cause. That said, his true mettle will be known only after he leads the side into the thick of battle. There is bound to be a learning curve and allowances must be made for the young man.
It can only be hoped — and this is asking for a lot — that Shoaib’s leadership will not be wilfully undermined by disgruntled seniors. Another danger besides dressing-room intrigue is whimsical selection, the hallmark of Wasim Bari and company. The new, full-time selection committee that is now in place should ensure that players are given a fair run and time enough to deliver. Success will continue to elude the team if the selectors fail to come up with a plan of action and diligently follow it through. It must be carefully assessed where the team currently stands and where it should be in, say, a year’s time. There is no reason why Pakistan cricket cannot rise from the ashes.