Climate action is gathering momentum, and for all the right reasons. It is the gravest challenge of our time, and Pakistan is one of the top ten countries affected by it. One wonders, then, in the wake of climate conferences sprinkled across our urban hubs, exactly what are we achieving here?
At this moment, through all the conversations and panel discussions, there is plenty to question about urban climate conferences. For all the talk of inclusivity and the adoption of a ‘national’ attitude, there is a painful, almost cruel, exclusion of indigenous, pastoral, riverine, mountain, desert and forest communities. It is ironic to think that these are the communities facing the consequences of environmental damage, while those at urban conferences pontificate on their behalf without half as much knowledge or experience.
The problem goes beyond inclusion; it is structural.
Access to these events is a defining element of such conferences, as it shapes who can attend, what language is adopted and used, the kinds of problems that are prioritised and, frankly, what and whose ‘expertise’ is showcased. The fact that speakers are chosen on behalf of sponsors adds an element of shallowness that mocks the depth of knowledge held by those who are living in and amongst nature and fighting for survival.
The fact that a climate conference took place in the capital city, dominated by donor agencies, bureaucrats, educationists, academics and consultants, is great for optics. But again, who are they catering to? The development sector can still be commended for the fact that, through local NGOs and civil society organisations, there is a desire to get work done at the grassroots level. However, when corporate entities or institutions are invited, one wonders whether this should not be considered a form of greenwashing. Even more so when such conferences are utilised as marketing tools for products, all in the name of climate action.
After all, when climate conferences rely heavily on corporate sponsorships, donor partnerships and elite institutional networks, questions about whether the agenda is being shaped more by funding ecosystems than by climate-affected communities themselves will inevitably arise. So much money is poured into these events; surely some of it can be directed towards making them more inclusive.
If Pakistan is to address its climate issues with depth and substance, it has to stop the hijacking of climate discourse for polished narratives that run the risk of hollowness
Surely, a climate conference, if it were to have an impact beyond introductions, would be comfortable enough to facilitate dialogue between indigenous and urban communities, enabling an exchange of ideas and knowledge. Unless, of course, value is measured only through the exchange of persons rather than ideas — oft-repeated ideas that privilege enables and reproduces, further exacerbating the divide between those who affect the climate and those who are affected by it. Consequently, such conferences reward people who can produce policy language and donor-friendly presentations, not people carrying lived ecological knowledge.
One could also argue that while the optics make it appear that climate conferences are making an effort to counter and ‘fix’ environmental damage, the same optics suggest that climate knowledge can only be considered legitimate if it comes from a certain segment of society — English speakers, heads of organisations, directors, ambassadors, analysts and so on. What, then, of the indigenous and local ecological knowledge that exists in a country like Pakistan through oral histories, seasonal practices, water management systems, migration patterns and a holistic, almost complete, spiritual relationship with nature?
Yes, yes, one hears the arguments that, well, ‘they’ do not understand or know how to draft policy, engage in urban adaptation planning, conduct carbon market conversations, or foster institutional partnerships.
But again, it is bad enough paying the price for overconsumption created by demand generated in urban hubs and largely by the Global North. Being forced to pay for a lack of access to education or being denied upward social mobility through systems that simply do not enable it begs the question: are they not rich enough to be considered valid? Or are their forms of knowledge merely there to be exploited as cold ‘data’ on a presentation slide? The imbalance is beyond unjustified; in fact, it is epistemic. Who decided whose knowledge counts?
If Pakistan is to address its climate issues with depth and substance, it has to stop the hijacking of climate discourse for polished narratives that run the risk of hollowness. Indigenous struggles in this part of the world have existed far longer than climate change became a global concern.
These struggles are anti-extractive because they do not necessarily see nature as something to be protected for the purpose of sustainable extraction and therefore resist any form of ‘project’. There is no reason why urban organisations must remain sanitised.
If anything, those attending these conferences, who are likely to return as long as the cash flow remains, could do so with a slice of humble pie made from locally grown wheat cultivated by a small farmer and harvested by women and children who actually deserve to be heard at these conferences.