Over the past decade, Pakistan has made significant progress in broadening its policy landscape with respect to climate change and the ensuing adaptive measures across the governance system. The 18th Amendment devolved the subject of environment to the provinces, which have long been struggling to improve their capabilities to address the environmental challenges. However, the effects of climate change in the form of worsening air quality and recurring disasters have jolted the system time and again to face the challenges and adapt for a sustainable future.
Adaptability to climate change resonated through the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030), and owing to the updation of the National Climate Change Policy in 2021, the National Adaptation Plan 2023 was developed. Interestingly, both documents present key objectives and initiatives within their respective nomenclature to be achieved over the short-, medium- and long-term. The period for the short and medium-term actions is over, whereas the short-term actions under the Adaptation Plan are nearing their end line. These policy instruments are pretty clear about identifying the responsible entities within the governance spectrum and also acknowledge the need for local action and evidence-based policy making.
Although a formal evaluation of the policy documents has not been done, an overview of it in light of publicly available data clearly implies that the short-term and medium-term objectives could not be achieved. Water conservation, rain harvesting, sprinkler irrigation, increase in access to credit, installation of wastewater treatment plants, sustainable and integrated water management, etc are some of the key objectives which should have been achieved long ago had the policy priority attached to them been practised. Non-achievement of the indicator is certainly a cause of concern, but a bigger and deeper concern is the whole process of policymaking that makes non-grounded commitments.
Evidence-based decision making needs to start with the policymaking process itself; otherwise, we will continue to receive policy instruments authored by policy technicians devoid of a basic understanding of the capabilities of key responsible entities. In the case of education, following the 18th Amendment, a parallel has emerged whereby the promise of free and compulsory education remains unfulfilled fifteen years later, with no hope of fulfilment shortly.
Given the state of policy formulation and implementation, one can fairly assume that the cycle of policymaking will continue to be invoked time and again despite the accruing crises. Dire needs in the face of climate change will call for policy and administrative actions, and a group of consultants will be engaged to identify the then-urgent actions. Therefore, the administrative intervention in policy calls for restructuring of the whole system.
The inherent logic between the defined objectives and organisational processes of implementation implores the design and fabrication of a causal model, one that is based on an understanding of how a policy will bring about its intended change. For instance, sustainable and integrated water management as part of municipal service provision must account for estimation of ground and surface water availability, per capita allocation of water, wastewater treatment, pricing of water, enforcement of regulations on water extraction and financing of integrated water management.
If the policy seeks to address urban flooding through green infrastructure, it must take into account the existing drainage systems, land use patterns and organisational efficacy to enforce building codes and zoning laws. Unfortunately, our policy instruments fall short of displaying an understanding of such causality and merely wish to make these things happen.
Pakistan, as one of the most climate-vulnerable nations, finds itself at a policy juncture: either continue with a centralised model of climate governance or take the more grounded and promising path of devolving climate action to the local level. Local action and leaving no one behind are recognised as guiding principles by policy instruments, but actualising these requires devolution in its true sense. Community and city-level evidence ought to have a bearing on informing the needed climate actions. For instance, reforestation has different meanings and administrative implications for northern areas and central Punjab; likewise, sprinkler irrigation will require altogether different support mechanisms for people with varying financial and climate vulnerability situations.
The quest, therefore, is not merely to implement more climate projects but to understand the deep institutional and political terrain on which these projects unfold. Current drive of climate action hovers at the federal and provincial levels of governance that are struggling with streamlining and financing climate actions. They ought to consider devolution as a solution to serious climate issues and equip the local governments with technical and financial expertise as per their mandates.
The conceptual blind spot in most of our policy frameworks, especially in the climate one, is the black box of implementation. Even the most basic consideration of compliance in a downstream administrative approach is not simple at all. It is a dynamic process involving interpretation, negotiation, adaptation, and even resistance. For instance, regulations on water extraction and water conservation are not merely tasks of compliance.
Water extraction for irrigation purposes directly affects the crop yield and regulation as per crop or sectoral need will affect the livelihood of millions. Therefore, policy negotiations are needed to ascertain regulated use of groundwater for different sectors and these negotiations may not be just data-driven. The opportunity cost of allocations framed by the contours of political competition is most likely to shape these negotiations. Interpretation of data by multiple stakeholders and the interface of interest groups will result in resistance to policy implementation. Climate governance in this context is non-linear and climate adaptation is further constrained by the opaque space between announcements (policy) and outputs. Ultimately, devolving climate action is not about bypassing central institutions but reimagining their role as facilitators in setting broad goals, ensuring equity and supporting localised implementation. Climate action must be seen as a distributed responsibility, one that taps into the capacities of local councils, civil society, academic institutions and private actors.
The crossroads we face are a defining one; we can continue with a centralised, opaque model that over-promises and under-delivers, or we can take the harder but more rewarding path of democratising climate governance.
The writer is a public policy analyst based in Lahore. He can be reached at:
hamidmasud@gmail.com
