| Environment is no more a local issue and states as units of analysis contribute their inputs, but the political nature of international relations has not provided a concrete consensus while it is an acknowledged security issue. Beyond states’ political approach, civil societies at city, town, and organisation/group level respond, albeit nobody has to obey environment-regulating rules in states that have signed, but not ratified covenants regulating the environment like the Kyoto Protocol – a practical step under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is worthwhile to note that beyond some states’ inactive participation, civil societies and groups of indigenous peoples, under the platform of “The International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests”, (a worldwide network of organisations) who were not part of the discussions of the agenda in a political environment, responded with a unanimous voice on the pros and cons of environmental degradation and its anthropogenic human relations. The US and Australia have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but their local government organisations and civil societies have recognised threats to the environment and their right to live without intimidation. Movements contradict policies adopted at state level, but decentralisation of decision power could be exemplified here. Communities are deciding on their own behalf without seeking consent from the policies of states as the seriousness of the issue demands this at each level. When the frame of reference are states, it is a political and pragmatic issue, but when the frame of reference is population (societies, groups, individuals), it is a security for the mechanism of life on earth or life chain.
The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) established in 1992 provided a cosmopolitan opportunity for civil society to act on the common issue of environmental degradation. The 15th CSD session concluded on May 11, 2007 and the agenda included ‘Energy for sustainable development; industrial development; air and atmosphere pollution; and climate change’. Now again beyond a political approach, 90 percent of emission of CO2, in Canada alone, is under the control of municipal governments and over 80 percent of Australian cities and 25 percent of American cities have demonstrated their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol voluntarily, even though their national governments have not ratified the Protocol. Moreover, 218 cities in Australia have reduced emissions of over 8.8 tonnes of CO2, which is equivalent to taking two million cars off the road for a year. The futuristic sustainable development is a matter of concern as for the long term it demands huge economic sacrifice from the developed countries, but their civil societies are no longer ready to listen to such rationalisation of the acceptance of the threat. This is a turning point as states and subjects (populace) move contradictorily on issues of environmental degradation. Actually economically strong states may be envisioning no difference for capital flows that make them prosperous, as sustainable development demands equal prevalence of development at no cost to the environment and the needs of future generations. It does not contrast and differentiate between generations. States need to move from rhetoric to actual discourse to remove scepticism at policy level.
Environment and sustainable development nexus is basically complex as it involves a wide range of interlinked subjects. Population and environment have been given recognition in chapter 5 of agenda 21 of the ‘1992 Earth Summit’ under the heading “Demographic dynamics and sustainability”. Population and environment require strong methodological approach to discuss the issue as demographic dynamics influence the environment under Population and Environment study (P – E analysis) and inversely under E – P analysis, environment dynamics influence population. The demographic dynamics and trends like fertility, mortality, morbidity and migration are all influencing or being influenced by the environment.
Fertility is affected by chemical pollution and results in infertility among couples. Its prevalence is about 15 percent in European countries. If fertility rates among childbearing women rise, the burden on natural resources will take population growth and natural resources into an inverse relationship and finally migration and urbanisation will contribute to environmental deterioration and resource depletion. Mortality also has associations with environmental hazards like flood, acid rains, landsliding, earthquakes, ozone depletion, and finally climate change. Morbidity is associated with environmental deterioration as environmental hazards leave the targeted population morbid, apart from mortality.
It is helping hope to stay alive that population and environmental indicators have started being discussed on common platforms. At national level, as in different universities of Pakistan, a new subject has been started named ‘Population sciences’, in which environment and population is taken as a course subject. At the international level, agenda 21 discusses the following programme areas for stakeholders to develop and enhance their tools and research for population, sustainable development and environment: developing and disseminating knowledge concerning links between demographic trends, factors and sustainable development; formulating integrated national policies for environment and development, taking into account demographic trends and factors; and implementing integrated, environment and development programmes at the local level, taking into account the demographic trends and factors. Environment and population have a synergistic relationship, i.e. they are in a relationship of cause and effect and parallel, but population growth (fertility) and environmental sustainability are opposite in direction.
The reasons for environment to be a political issue include its unlimited deterioration prospects and wide scope of cumulative change, its power to inflict changes across borders and regions. Climate change and global warming are two among the major consequences of environment change, e.g. global warming has jeopardised the existence of small islands, even though their contribution to its worsening effects is small or negligible. The fact that economic development and the environment run side by side means, rural areas have less deteriorating effects of environment due to less economic opportunities and exploitation there, and usage of natural resources is also minimal. Although the recent UNFPA reports proclaim the increase in urban population equalising with the rural areas, as for example, Pakistan has been notified with its equal rural-urban population in 2030 if the same urban influx continues while in the world by 2008, than half the population will reside in urban localities. Is it not alarming that almost 35 to 50 percent urban population of Pakistan lives in katchi abadis and as squatters because opportunities after migration are marginalised by migration rates? This situation corresponds primarily to male migration trends and it could be imagined when females will contribute at the same pace, as females’ participation in every sphere of life is increasing in Pakistan and developing countries.
A remarkable opportunity exists in this scenario to construct a prospective environment-friendly economic rural population magnet. Vast agriculture and livestock industry could develop in a rural setting provided educational and health facilities are developed equal to urban scope. This development could bolster a mechanism of sustainable development as in the past economic greed has ignored environmental deterioration, ultimately rendering all life on the verge of a threat to existence.
The writer is a student of International Relations at National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad (When I was) Also available at: http://thepost.com.pk/Previuos.aspx?dtlid=138203&src=Nadeem%20Akhtar&date=10/01/2008
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home