When it comes to climate change, Pakistan’s stance has unequivocally been that of a country which is suffering the impacts but has not been responsible for the causes. 

This is a classic case of, ‘we didn’t do it, so we aren’t responsible’. The country’s national and international policies are focused on adaptation to the impacts of climate change, which it is already facing.

The preamble of the ‘Nationally Determined Contribution’ (NDC), Pakistan’s pledge of emissions reduction submitted to the UNFCCC last year, states: “Despite Pakistan’s diminutive contribution to global GHG emissions, it is among the 
top ten most climate-affected countries of the world, as indicated by the Global Climate Risk Index developed by Germanwatch.”

This is echoed in Pakistan’s Climate Change Bill, passed in 2016, which states: “Pakistan’s per capita emissions of greenhouse gases today is one of the lowest in the 
world. Yet it ranks amongst the top ten countries most affected by climate change during the last twenty years.”

And the theme continues through the media of Pakistan, which also regularly report on how Pakistan is the worlds “7th most vulnerable country to the impacts of climate change”. 

And its true: Pakistan is not only prone to extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, or even the heatwave in Karachi in 2015 that killed up to 1,000 people, but also slow onset impacts such as glacier melt, rising temperatures, sea level rise and soil erosion, among others.

At the same time, as Pakistan has developed, its carbon emissions have grown. Between 1994 and 2015, the country’s carbon emissions grew 123 percent.

And as the country continues to push forward with economic development, under its Vision 2025 strategy and the CPEC, the prime minister recently reiterated the goal of becoming one of the top 20 economies of the world by 2025.

To achieve this economic growth, there will be a focus on the energy and transport sectors, which already account for a sizeable amount of Pakistan’s emissions.

In a recent statement, Pakistan’s minister for climate change stated that given the projected economic growth trajectory, emissions in Pakistan were expected to increase from 405 metric tons carbon dioxide to more than 1,603 metric tons of CO2 in the next 15 years – that means increasing by almost four times.

And although this will still not make Pakistan a big emitter, especially in comparison to its neighbours India and China, it will still have significant environmental impacts, as well as implications for Pakistan’s position as a country that has historically painted itself as a sufferer of the impacts of climate change, and not a contributor.

From an energy perspective, Pakistan’s development plans do include investment in renewables under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, such as the $ 1.6 billion hydropower project in Karot, the $ 1.2 billion solar power park in Bahawalpur and the $ 260 million 100-megawatt wind farm in Jhimpir.

However, these are dwarfed by the huge investments in coal energy at the same time. As a country with a growing population, which faces an energy crisis, the government is justified in investing in energy, but at what future cost?

Recent reports also suggest that the price per unit of renewable energy in Pakistan is much higher than that of its neighbours, despite being tax free.

There are also a number of other hurdles, such as Pakistan’s rapid urbanization – more than half of the country will be living in urban areas by 2025, according to UN estimates. Karachi, the port city, is already the 7th largest megacity in the world.

Not only do urban areas consume a lot of energy, they are also responsible for producing the most emissions – UNHABITAT put the total emissions from carbon from cities at 60 percent, while putting the global consumption at 78 percent. 

While Pakistan surges forward with its economic development plans, which is not only encouraging but much needed, it has two options: either to continue in its current role as a vulnerable country, and position itself through its policies as such, or to think 20 years into the future, when it will have a larger economy and a larger population, and create a balance in its policies between curbing emissions growth and adaptation needs.

Given the frequency and rate at which climate change is impacting Pakistan, it will always be a vulnerable country. However, experts are optimistic about Pakistan catching up to its neighbours, India and China, in terms of economic development, albeit with external assistance.

This also means that emissions are set to rise, and Pakistan’s current planning and policies are not fully addressing the implications this may have. 

This Author

Anam manages the media research projects of Climate Tracker, and has been investigating climate reporting in over 20 countries on three continents in countless languages. This article is part of a collaboration between Carbon Tracker and The Ecologist. 

Environmental regulations for businesses have come to a standstill lately. There’s not been much emphasis on environmental issues during the election campaigns, and even the current administration is likely to abolish its much-lauded Carbon Reduction scheme for businesses. 

So where does that leave us? There are still European Union targets to reduce carbon emissions, but that’s likely to disappear as Brexit comes to closure. It might simply be a case of us business owners doing it ourselves if the government isn’t driving the agenda forward.

Starting out small

The good news is that the majority of businesses are investing more in energy efficiency schemes, perhaps ignoring their pricing commitments at the same time, but the emphasis is good to hear. This quiet revolution has largely gone unnoticed, with confidence in the government’s energy efficiency policy at an all-time low. 

Most businesses tackle the “low-hanging fruit,” such as replacing legacy lighting systems with high-efficiency equivalents, while the more adventurous invest in energy management systems, temperature controls and renewable energy technologies. 

The payback on most projects is steady, despite the costs of implementing such projects falling as technologies and demand improve. The most common schemes still focus on high-efficiency lighting and control projects.

Although fewer companies are reporting commissioning these—as many have already completed the transition—it’s one of the easiest, quickest and most cost-effective changes a business can make.

Depending on your circumstances, this simple switch could have a dramatic reduction on your electricity bill while reducing your company’s carbon footprint.

Why companies wait to change

The organisations that invest in environmental change do it for many reasons. However, there’s a real financial impact on their bottom line from reducing their costs.

In addition, the environmental benefits, especially for large consumers of energy, cannot be ignored. So why are some businesses behind others in this area? The top five reasons are: other priorities elsewhere in the business; lack of affordable financing; limited buy-in from senior management; lack of resources and andlord-owned buildings that don’t allow changes.

Nearly 50 percent of companies surveyed highlighted the first issue. It’s always difficult to make time for a new project that doesn’t necessarily affect a business growth plan. However, well-managed energy efficiency projects always improve profits.

Some suppliers and customers are even inquiring about the environmental policies of the businesses they frequent because they want to deal with like-minded organisations. It’s something that all businesses will have to manage at some point in their development.

Financing and resources are also a difficult juggling act. The initial investment can be excessive and pay-back periods long. There are limited funds available for businesses from the Green Business Fund, managed by The Carbon Trust (TCT), that could be available. TCT also helps with training, finding reputable suppliers and offer workshops for your employees to identify saving opportunities.

Energy-efficient behaviours in the workplace

Even the best energy-saving plans can be disrupted by people. You can install LED light bulbs and pre-program the thermostat, but employees may still leave the lights on or turn up the heat when it’s unnecessary, eroding all the good work you’ve undertaken.

That’s why clear and consistent workplace policies backed up by senior management are so important. It’s only when your senior management drives change—and shows that they mean business—that behaviour begins to match expectations.

You can hire outsourcing companies that work with you to drive the agenda forward, so you don’t need to find additional resources internally. Alternatively, hiring someone in-house, or assigning projects to existing staff, can produce similar results if they have adequate training and full senior management support.

Don’t make the mistake of giving the responsibilities to someone who won’t have the time to devote to this area, because it’s likely that nothing will be achieved.

Whoever is in charge, they should produce a full communications and project plan spanning at least one year detailing the changes required. Money talks, so carbon and consumption reductions could be introduced to the company’s bonus scheme to sharpen people’s focus.

Behaviour change in action

Some companies look to attain ISO 50001 energy standard accreditation through training initiatives. In conjunction with their external provider, Bristol Water implemented company-wide training that has a potential annual saving of £225,000 from their initiatives. 

Many other companies saw reductions in energy costs from implementing ISO 50001. Morgan Lovell achieved a 30 percent saving in electricity costs, Viridor has set a 20 percent gain in energy efficiency, Sheffield University reduced carbon emissions by 11 percent and Camfil Farr reduced energy consumption by £200,000 over two years. 

Let’s not forget unit energy prices

While more companies tackle green issues than their pricing contracts, the largest return on investment a business can make with the least amount of effort is finding the lowest unit energy costs each year.

If you leave your contract to lapse, your supplier is likely to increase your gas and electricity prices by 40 percent, and up to 100 percent in some circumstances.

Taking the time to either discuss your contract with one of the many accredited energy brokers or use a B2B comparison site could significantly reduce your prices each year. 

Wholesale energy prices have remained fairly flat over the past six years, and competition is fierce amongst suppliers in the non-residential market. Spend five minutes each year to complement your efficiency measures with renewed focus on your invoice.

Summary of Key Actions

The majority of business have already implemented some form of energy efficiency programme. If you haven’t started yet, start researching today.

Most barriers to beginning a programme can be overcome.

Corporate change through communication and training almost always provides valuable returns in reducing carbon and lowering energy bills.

Companies should check to make sure they’re on the cheapest tariff each year.

This Author

Jason Smith is an energy expert who has helped businesses increase their energy efficiency for more 10 years. He manages the website Business Electricity Prices, which advises small and medium sized businesses on reducing their utility bills.

Asia’s massive unchecked demand for skins, bones, teeth and claws continues to drive poaching of wild tigers. This demand is exacerbated by the supply of huge volumes of African lion bone, teeth and claws, sold as tiger parts to less-discerning consumers in Asia.

At the heart of the lion trade is South Africa – the world’s largest exporter of lion bone, teeth and claws, and also an exporter of captive tiger parts – whose Government, in sanctioning the export of 800 lion skeletons a year to generate profits for lion farmers, has failed to take into account the wider impact of such a decision on endangered wild tigers.

In 2016, CITES Parties decided to allow South Africa to set a quota for export of captive lion parts. In June 2017, the South African Government announced an export quota of 800 skeletons (with or without skulls) obtained from captive lions in South Africa.

The Government’s misconceived rationale for such trade is purportedly to protect the wild lion population in South Africa. The move, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that there are significant enforcement challenges in distinguishing between wild and captive lion skeletons and that its decision will also stimulate demand for big cat bone products.

It also ignores the failed experiment in China, where the parallel legal trade in skins from captive tigers has not put an end to wild tiger poaching. Contrary to the assertion of pro-tiger farming and trade advocates, the legal trade in skins of captive-bred tigers in China did not flood the market with cheap alternatives and failed to take into account consumer preferences

How captive Lion and Tiger exports threaten endangered wild tigers in Asia

African lions are listed under CITES Appendix II with an annotation meaning that some international commercial trade in wild and captive lion parts and products is allowed. South Africa has been legally exporting lion bone, claws, teeth, skulls and skeletons sourced from both wild and captive lions – the bodies and skeletons of at least 4,296 lions have been exported legally to Asian markets between 2005-15. In 2016, however, CITES Parties agreed to restrict this trade to specimens sourced from captive lions.

South Africa allows lion and tiger farming for commercial trade in parts and derivatives. With regard to the tiger farming operations, this contravenes CITES Decision 14.69. The country’s wild lion population is dwarfed by the reported 6,000 to 8,000 captive lions held in up to 200 facilities. Both the number of captive lions and the facilities breeding and keeping them have increased, coinciding with a dramatic increase in exports of lion bone and other lion parts, especially since 2008. A number of these facilities are also breeding tigers; in 2015, 280 tigers were estimated to be in at least 44 facilities in South Africa.

The proliferation of lion and tiger farms in South Africa and the associated trade from such facilities undermines enforcement efforts to end illegal tiger trade and stimulates demand for tiger parts and derivatives. Given consumer preferences for wild-sourced tiger parts, this also sustains poaching pressure on wild tigers.

It is clear that a legal trade in captive lion parts is unworkable and will likely have a detrimental impact, not only on wild lions but also on endangered wild tigers. The Government of South Africa must adopt urgent action to end this trade.

For the full EIA briefing report including the Agency’s recommendations see: The Lion’s Share

Asia’s massive unchecked demand for skins, bones, teeth and claws continues to drive poaching of wild tigers. This demand is exacerbated by the supply of huge volumes of African lion bone, teeth and claws, sold as tiger parts to less-discerning consumers in Asia.

At the heart of the lion trade is South Africa – the world’s largest exporter of lion bone, teeth and claws, and also an exporter of captive tiger parts – whose Government, in sanctioning the export of 800 lion skeletons a year to generate profits for lion farmers, has failed to take into account the wider impact of such a decision on endangered wild tigers.

In 2016, CITES Parties decided to allow South Africa to set a quota for export of captive lion parts. In June 2017, the South African Government announced an export quota of 800 skeletons (with or without skulls) obtained from captive lions in South Africa.

The Government’s misconceived rationale for such trade is purportedly to protect the wild lion population in South Africa. The move, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that there are significant enforcement challenges in distinguishing between wild and captive lion skeletons and that its decision will also stimulate demand for big cat bone products.

It also ignores the failed experiment in China, where the parallel legal trade in skins from captive tigers has not put an end to wild tiger poaching. Contrary to the assertion of pro-tiger farming and trade advocates, the legal trade in skins of captive-bred tigers in China did not flood the market with cheap alternatives and failed to take into account consumer preferences

How captive Lion and Tiger exports threaten endangered wild tigers in Asia

African lions are listed under CITES Appendix II with an annotation meaning that some international commercial trade in wild and captive lion parts and products is allowed. South Africa has been legally exporting lion bone, claws, teeth, skulls and skeletons sourced from both wild and captive lions – the bodies and skeletons of at least 4,296 lions have been exported legally to Asian markets between 2005-15. In 2016, however, CITES Parties agreed to restrict this trade to specimens sourced from captive lions.

South Africa allows lion and tiger farming for commercial trade in parts and derivatives. With regard to the tiger farming operations, this contravenes CITES Decision 14.69. The country’s wild lion population is dwarfed by the reported 6,000 to 8,000 captive lions held in up to 200 facilities. Both the number of captive lions and the facilities breeding and keeping them have increased, coinciding with a dramatic increase in exports of lion bone and other lion parts, especially since 2008. A number of these facilities are also breeding tigers; in 2015, 280 tigers were estimated to be in at least 44 facilities in South Africa.

The proliferation of lion and tiger farms in South Africa and the associated trade from such facilities undermines enforcement efforts to end illegal tiger trade and stimulates demand for tiger parts and derivatives. Given consumer preferences for wild-sourced tiger parts, this also sustains poaching pressure on wild tigers.

It is clear that a legal trade in captive lion parts is unworkable and will likely have a detrimental impact, not only on wild lions but also on endangered wild tigers. The Government of South Africa must adopt urgent action to end this trade.

For the full EIA briefing report including the Agency’s recommendations see: The Lion’s Share

Invasive alien species have been discussed at length for the first time in the northern hemisphere in a conference bringing together world experts in the field.

Seven key practitioners were able to share research and ideas on the topic this month, thanks to the conference hosted by the South Georgia Heritage Trust (SGHT), which has just completed its baiting phase to eradicate invasive rat species.

The conference follows on from the successes of previous Island Invasive meetings in 2001 and 2010 held in Auckland, New Zealand. 

Participation of delegates from Europe and North America, gave the opportunity to learn from the steps already taken in the Southern Hemisphere where successful eradication programmes have already taken place, or are currently being trialled.

Tackling invasive species

The SGHT is currently monitoring the success of the world’s largest island rodent eradication operation through its Habitat Restoration Project, aimed at protecting the islands precious seabird colonies.

CEO Alison Neil said: “We know first-hand how important and complex it can be to tackle invasive species from the extensive work we have carried out to eradicate rodents from South Georgia.

“This event comes at a time when there is a new level of ambition for island conservation. By bringing together the world’s leading experts in the field to share their experiences, global initiatives stand a greater chance of success.”

Invasive alien species (IAS) can be devastating to habitats, and where flora and fauna have evolved in isolation for thousands of years, they can become particularly vulnerable to extinction from anything brought in to their fragile environment.

Managing them is vital for many habitats and topics covered at the conference included biosecurity, plant invasions, and tackling mass extinctions. 

Speakers leading the debate included Elizabeth Bell of Wildlife Management International Ltd.

Her talk, “It’s not all up in the air: the development and use of ground-based rat eradication techniques in the UK and elsewhere”, explored the feasibility of moving to aerial application of rodenticides, rather than ground-based approaches. 

She said the opinions of island-communities and the presence of a variety of non-target species can be problematic, sometimes making ground-based operations the only option.

Dr Colin Clubbe of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew spoke on invasive plant species with his talk entitled “Invasive plants: what can be done about this continuing threat to biodiversity?

Work at Kew has already shown there to be 6,075 vascular plant species currently documented as invasive. He discussed work undertaken by Kew’s UK Overseas Territories team who identify and map invasive plants and look at developing action plans to control them.

Lord Gardiner, the minister responsible for invasive species in England, said: “Invasive non-native species threaten the survival of plants and animals around the world and conferences like this are vital for sharing global expertise and bringing countries together to tackle the problem. 

“We are helping our overseas territories protect their precious plants and wildlife and the UK will keep investing and working with the international community and other partners to defend biodiversity at home and abroad.” 

There are several global initiatives to eradicate invasive alien species and to monitor their successes, including that of the New Zealand government, who set a strategic goal to eliminate possums, stoats and rats from the North and South Islands of the country by the year 2050. 

An ambitious operation to rid Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in the Caribbean of introduced, rats, has now been hailed a success by conservation biologists. This project, the largest conservation operation of its kind to date in the region, can enable the island to regain its status as the most important seabird colony in the region after a century of dealing with the rats.

In Honolulu, Hawaii, the “Honolulu Challenge” on invasive alien species is a global initiative born out of the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress. Here, experts, governmental and intergovernmental representatives, NGOs, and protected area managers called for greater action on addressing IAS in order to protect biodiversity and human well- being from their impacts.

Recovery of native habitats

Since the 1990s the UK’s RSPB and its partners have been involved in a range of complex and challenging island restoration projects, mostly across the UK and UK Overseas Territories.

Each project has typically involved the eradication or control of invasive mammals or plants. This has led to the recovery of internationally important seabird species on important sites, ranging from European storm petrel to Ascension frigatebird.

Other observed benefits have included the recovery of native habitats and the protection of vital eco-tourism income for local communities.

The South Georgia Heritage Trust, founded in 2005 baited the entire rodent-infested area of the Island of South Georgia (1000km2) in 2011, 2013 and 2015.

The total cost of this Habitat Restoration Project, including the monitoring work still to come, is an estimated £7.5 million. The project has been funded entirely by donations raised by Scottish charity SGHT and its US counterpart, Friends of South Georgia Island (FOSGI).

You can find out further information about the Habitat Restoration Project at www.sght.org

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her on Twitter @WordsbyBriggs. 

Alejandro Cordova stands upon a lush green patch of land on a nameless peak in a region called Cancha Moya – just a few minutes’ drive up a narrow and bumpy dirt road from San Mateo, in Peru’s Rimac River Valley. He holds a handful of a long native grass that looks a bit like rye grass in his hands and rubs it between his fingers.

“These plants are going to save humanity,” he says.

It’s a big claim and a hard one to defend, but actually, he’s right – the grass in Alejandro’s hand and others like it may very well save dozens of communities living along the Rimac River.

Alejandro stands alongside several members of the local farmers’ collective and Aldo Cardenas, who heads The Nature Conservancy’s Lima office and its Peruvian water projects initiative, Aquafondo. Three years ago, the farmers’ collective approached The Nature Conservancy (TNC) with a proposal to develop a plot of land belonging to the community as a water fund site. Here, reforestation techniques would be employed to restore a degraded mountainside and provide a useable water source for cultivation, cattle and human consumption. Three years on, the project’s success is encouraging other water fund projects and providing a template for how stressed water sources can be managed along the Rimac River and beyond.

Increasing Demands on the Rimac

As stressed resources go, the Rimac River easily makes the list. Lima’s roughly 9.5 million residents, as well as the estimated 81,000 people living upstream depend upon it for drinking water, power and sewage services. Commercially, the river’s water is also used for mining, farming, bottled water production and hydroelectricity, which accounted for approximately 48% of Peru’s total energy in 2015.

But the strain placed by mining companies and a decline in seasonal precipitation, have drastically reduced the river’s flow. In fact, the Rimac no longer reaches the ocean during the months of November and December. To maintain a steady flow to Lima’s population, Sedapal, Lima’s water management authority, has developed a series of dams and connected lagoons in the mountains east of Lima and a system of smaller reserve tanks throughout the city.

Sedapal’s mountain reserve system has a capacity of 310 million cubic meters (MCM) – equivalent to 124,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Despite such capacity, estimates place Lima’s annual water usage at 700MCM. Assuming the rains were to fail one year and the reservoirs were full, which is rarely the case, Lima would have less than a six month supply of water.

Compared to other dry cities, such as Santiago, Chile, Lima’s per capita water use is quite high, at around 250 liters. These high usage rates stem from Sedapal’s past success in ensuring water access to residents. As Dr Fiorella Miñan, of Care Peru, points out, Lima’s residents have never felt the effects of a drying climate firsthand. That all changed during the recent extreme weather phenomenon dubbed the Coastal el Niño, which triggered weeks of unprecedented rains in lands that used to be bone dry.

The heavy rains brought on by this weather phenomenon caused widespread flooding and landslides, several of which combined to shut down Lima’s treatment plant for several days with more than 300,000 metric tons of accumulated dirt and rocks. Water services were disrupted throughout the city, including, for the first time, Lima’s wealthier districts. This prompted days of chaos, with bottled water prices soaring in supermarkets, and long queues of residents waiting for municipal water trucks to fill buckets in the heat.

“I’d never seen anything like it,” says Aldo Cardenas, of TNC. “You couldn’t find bottles of water in a single store.”

Progress in San Mateo

While Sedapal grapples with big projects like a desalination plant, aimed at delivering portable water to its millions, smaller projects that can mitigate the occurrence of landslides, like that at San Mateo are no less vital.

Now in its third year, the farmers, with help and financing from TNC, the Backus Foundation and the Fondo de las Americas (FONDAM), have built a small reservoir capable of storing 300m³ of water and installed a series of dykes that slow the downward flow of water. They have planted pine trees throughout the site, both as an added soil stabilizer and to provide the farmers with firewood from the trees’ branches. A lagoon lies on the highest ridge overlooking the site, which the collective and their partners plan to dam soon, thereby providing them with an even greater alternate source of water for agriculture and consumption.

Raúl Zegarra Isla, one of the collective’s members, takes twice-weekly soil samples above and below the dykes to measure their efficacy in retaining water. Although this year’s uncharacteristic rainfall has complicated these measurements, Zegarra says that the San Mateo site retains significantly more water than a neighbouring site called El Testigo, which does not have a dyke system.

The most prominent plants in the area are grasses. Alejandro explains that these grasses are vital to reforestation; they grow better at high altitudes than many other plants and create a complex root system which firms up soil and retains water. They also provide an environment for other needed plants, such as lupines, which fix nitrogen into the soil and they serve as a nutrient and protein-rich feed for cattle.

Too small to sustain enough agriculture to support the entire collective, which consists of some 200 families, the farmers plan to use this plot for multiple ends. They plan to use part of it to experiment with cultivating different grasses, seeing which ones will grow best and can be used to more effectively reforest other mountainsides. Roughly 10 head of cattle will be allowed to graze an enclosed section of the site, whose milk, and meat when needed, will be used by the members of the collective. They may also explore the cultivation of other vegetables. The trees, as stated, will provide firewood to the community.