SETTING a new precedent, a Lahore High Court judge last month ordered the government to enforce its own climate change policy and also set up a commission to oversee the process.

Lambasting the inaction on the part of federal and provincial authorities, Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in his September 14 ruling said there had been ‘no progress on the ground’ despite the existence of a National Climate Change Policy, along with an implementation framework. The policy was approved by the cabinet in September 2012 and officially launched on February 26, 2013.

He was hearing a public litigation case brought by a farmer, Asghar Leghari, who accused the government of ‘failing him as a citizen’ because climate change threats have led to ‘major survival concerns’ for the people with respect to water, food and energy security.

The judge’s ruling raises hopes of an appropriate action by the authorities to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. This is the first time that the Pakistani judiciary has taken up a case related to climate change. Besides, the court’s observations have established the principles upon which the concept of ‘climate change justice’ can be developed in the country’s legal system.

Both the federal and provincial governments are ill-prepared to take up even modest projects, much less implement the 2012 climate change policy

In fact, the citizens can now hold their elected representatives accountable for inaction on climate change. Judge Shah’s ruling sets a model for fast-track adjudication of climate issues.

The LHC case is, however, the second of its kind in the world. A similar petition filed by an NGO — Urgenda — was recently taken up by a court in The Hague, which ordered a state government to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 25pc by 2020. The Dutch government argued that the states have no legal obligation to deliver deeper cuts.

The court rejected these arguments and observed that the judiciary had a clear role in addressing the threat of climate change. In many countries, it said, the courts are seen as the ‘last bastion’ guardians for the protection of fundamental rights.

In a similar fashion, the Pakistani judge, while invoking fundamental rights and constitutional duties, suggested that the relevant officials revisit the existing environmental jurisprudence to meet the more urgent needs of fighting climate change. He observed that “climate change is a clarion call for the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Pakistan”.

Both cases were reportedly at the centre of discussions in London last month among eminent jurists on emerging climate-change jurisprudence and adjudication.

Noting that climate change was no more a distant threat, the LHC judge ordered the representatives of various ministries and departments to appear before his court and explain what progress had been made under the framework to meet the challenges.

Days later, they did appear and told the court that 734 action points have to be addressed. Of these, 232 must be completed by 2016. The joint secretary of the Ministry of Climate Change admitted that by and large the response of various departments has not been ‘positive’.

However, the fact remains that both the federal and provincial governments are ill-prepared to take up even modest projects, much less implement the 2012 climate change policy, as ordered by Judge Shah. It is a hard fact that most bureaucrats associated with the subject consider the issue to be an issue of the West and not of Pakistan, and hence do not appreciate its need and importance.

So far, there have been either more reductions or fewer increases in funds allocated to the climate change set-up than was required under the programme. When its ministry was dissolved in 2013, it was reduced to the status of a division in the prime minister’s secretariat, with its budget slashed by 60pc to $350,000.

It was seen by many as a message by the government to the West that climate change was not a priority area for it, but that something could be done if reasonable funds were provided. The climate change ministry got a minister this year but he was asked to resign on a political issue. Again, the ministry is without a minister.

Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal told the Climate News Network last year that the government was not in a position to effectively respond to climate change due to a lack of funds. The country, he said, had suffered economic damage of over $16bn as a result of floods in recent years and it now needed more than $20bn to restore infrastructure to pre-2010 levels.

The WWF-Pakistan, in collaboration with the London School of Economics and LUMS, recently carried out a study of the impact of climate change on the country’s agriculture and food security. One of its key findings was that climate change would likely have a large cost on agricultural productivity, and by 2040 an 8-10pc loss is expected across all crops, corresponding to Rs30,000 per acre.

Published in Dawn, Business & Finance weekly, October 12th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play