PAKISTAN
Authoritative advisory opinion
Ali Tauqeer Sheikh
Published December 18, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a climate change and sustainable development expert.
ALTHOUGH the International Court of Justice’s July 2025 advisory opinion on climate change was a watershed moment in climate action, it received limited attention from Pakistan’s legal and climate communities. This landmark decision by the ICJ’s 15 judges authoritatively clarifies states’ legal responsibilities, establishing the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature threshold as the binding global benchmark. COP30 in Belém has since acknowledged growing risks of overshoot.
The court’s opinion imposes on every state a binding obligation to demonstrate its “highest possible ambition” in climate action. This requires aligning Nationally Determined Contributions and regulatory frameworks with the scientifically determined target. Significantly, the court’s analysis extends state responsibility to the full lifecycle of fossil fuels: production, licensing, subsidies, and downstream indirect emissions across the value chain. The opinion confirms that IPCC assessments constitute “the best available science”, rendering fossil fuel subsidies potentially wrongful when foreseeably incompatible with temperature limits.
The ICJ’s reasoning unfolds through five foundational principles:
Precautionary approach: Scientific uncertainty cannot justify inaction. The court emphasises that IPCC warnings mandate immediate protective steps, even as 1.5°C proves unsafe for vulnerable populations of countries like Pakistan at current 1.2°C warming.
Duty to prevent significant harm: Under customary international law, states must exercise due diligence to prevent transboundary environmental damage, extending to all anthropogenic GHG contributions from production through consumption.
Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC): Burdens must align with historical emissions, current capacities, and evolving circumstances. The Paris Agreement’s “different national circumstances” formulation upholds, rather than weakens this core principle.
Intergenerational equity: Present generations hold climate stability in trust for future ones. The court rejects infrastructure decisions creating emissions lock-in that imperil subsequent generations’ rights to dignified living conditions.
Duty to cooperate: A legally binding obligation requires states to collaborate on mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology transfer, with higher-capacity states bearing primary responsibility towards vulnerable ones.
The court rejected arguments by developed countries that specialised climate treaties supersede other international obligations, confirming these principles integrate across UN Charter obligations, human rights law, and environmental treaties. This means the developed countries cannot use the Paris Agreement’s ambiguous language to shield themselves from broader legal accountability.
Pakistan’s superior judiciary operationalised ICJ’s recent climate principles much earlier.
While unanimous on core 1.5°C obligations as a state responsibility, individual judges articulated nuanced approaches. Judge Nolte advocated cautious interpretation, prioritising close adherence to treaty texts. Judge Xue highlighted challenges in linking past emissions to present harms, calling for steady progress through careful monitoring while treating 1.5°C as a practical guide. Judge Yusuf stressed that new fossil fuel projects constitute risks under due diligence standards, demanding clear national plans over procedural delays.
Judges Aurescu, Bhandari, and Tladi linked human rights and harm prevention to accelerated emissions cuts by major emitters, grounding these in equity principles and compensation duties. In their statement, Judges Bhandari and Cleveland required accounting for full emissions chains from production to use, calling new fossil fuel exploration incompatible with 1.5°C limits.
Pakistan’s superior judiciary operationalised these ICJ principles years earlier. In ‘Shehla Zia vs Wapda’ (1994), the Supreme Court established that scientific uncertainty mandated precautionary protection. ‘D.G. Khan Cement vs Government of Punjab’ (2021) prohibited industrial expansion in ecologically fragile zones, embodying ‘duty to prevent significant harm’ while recognising intergenerational justice and environmental personhood.
Most significantly, ‘Asghar Leghari vs Federation of Pakistan’ (2015) saw Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah recognise Pakistan’s limited historical emissions while mandating action commensurate with national capacity, explicitly invoking CBDR-RC. Justice Shah affirmed future generations’ constitutional rights to climate stability. The Climate Change Commission, where I served under Dr Parvez Hassan, operationalised the ‘duty to cooperate’ through multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Justice Athar Minallah’s Islamabad Zoo case reinforced that governmental neglect causing environmental degradation violates fundamental duties. These precedents position Pakistan’s judiciary among global leaders in climate jurisprudence, presenting a compelling case for Pakistan to recognise its recently ‘retired’ judges by nominating them for ICJ positions in 2027, when a third of the court’s members retire.
The diverse judicial perspectives in the ICJ offer Pakistan multiple pathways rather than binary choices. Pakistan can pursue enhanced environmental standards and climate risk assessments that satisfy core obligations, while evidence-based sectoral transitions can target RE expansion and incremental scaling. Controlled fossil fuel reductions synchronised with global roadmaps can balance climate ambition with economic stability.
Pakistan faces significant implementation challenges. Its political economy, fiscal constraints, institutional capacity gaps, and reliance on fossil fuel projects create tensions with climate commitments. The advisory opinion’s non-binding nature means enforcement depends on political will and diplomatic pressure. However, our unique position as both climate-vulnerable and jurisprudentially advanced creates an opportunity where Pakistan can leverage its superior court precedents to demonstrate that 1.5°C-aligned governance is legally feasible and constitutionally mandated. By formally recognising the judiciary’s pre-emptive alignment with ICJ principles, Pakistan positions its jurisprudence as a global contribution worthy of replication.
Coordinated action is needed across multiple fronts. Pakistan must deliver climate justice to its people by grounding its position in pioneering judicial precedents alongside the ICJ opinion, establishing that developed countries’ obligations to provide financial and technological help stem from binding legal principles, not voluntary solidarity.
By honouring their judiciary’s legacy while embracing the ICJ’s guidance, Pakistani negotiators can champion the 1.5°C imperative as a moral necessity and legal obligation. The deeper challenge ahead, however, is delivering justice to front-line communities while advancing climate accountability.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2025
Reading nature
Amin Valliani
A FAMILY lost its buffalo during the floods earlier this year when the major rivers were overflowing. The buffalo was the family’s sole economic asset. At this moment of sadness, someone came to sympathise with the family, but the head of the household said it would have been better had he died instead, as then the family would mourn for a few days but life would then go on. However, the loss of the buffalo, he said, made his family not only mourn but also starve.
There are thousands of such stories, describing the plight of affected people who have been left penniless due to the disaster. Many families, already living hand-to-mouth, are now destitute and traumatised.
Pakistan is a resource-rich country, but around 40 per cent of its population lives below the poverty line. Every year we experience floods, storms, droughts, earthquakes and other calamities which increase poverty levels. The government is unable to control these calamities and cannot deal with their aftermath. Natural calamities occur due to inherent natural processes and forces.
External factors, such as climate change, intensify these events. While the underlying forces are natural, human activities can influence the frequency and severity of these occurrences, blurring the lines between natural hazards and human-induced disasters.
Solutions are needed on a self-help basis.
We must remember that Islam is the religion of ‘nature’, it emphasises understanding nature. The Holy Quran also says that “Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope …” (2:286). Such types of catastrophes remind us of Islam’s teaching that Allah tests His creation to make them resilient and create fortitude in their hearts and minds. Our life is made up of problems, they occur every day and it is nature’s way of testing and imparting lessons to human beings till one learns the meaning, and discovers the purpose, of life.
Normally, we receive advance signals and warnings, informing the community of impending disaster. It is necessary that advance preparations are made to deal with such situations. The challenge before Pakistan is not only to respond to disasters after they occur, but more importantly, to strengthen preparedness and resilience before they strike.
It is said that Pakistan’s contribution to climate change is negligible, but it is included in the list of the most affected countries of the world. Some circles have urged the government to make a global appeal for aid, but normally, the international community offers only sympathy on such occasions. For example, we have seen that in January 2023, Pakistan organised a conference in Geneva with the UN’s help, aimed at securing international support for its post-flood recovery and financial commitments for climate resilience after the devastating 2022 floods. Different states and institutions made commitments, but the majority of the pledges failed to materialise.
Pakistan needs to rely on no one, and seek solutions on a self-help basis without recourse to others. The finance minister also declared that Pakistan would not seek international aid after the 2025 floods. This is a good decision which enhances the nation’s self-respect.
Moreover, Pakistan needs to benefit from the experiences of those who have created the capability for climate resilience. There are countries which have solved the problems posed by natural calamities by developing solutions of their own, such as rain-harvesting systems, collecting rainwater during rainy days and subsequently using it in months of water scarcity.
Here the example of Singapore would be helpful. Singapore has largely solved its problem of water scarcity. It currently imports water from neighbou-
ring Malaysia but has also adopted the Four National Taps Strategy and has planned to become fully self-sufficient by 2061 when its agreement with Malaysia ends.
It has developed a comprehensive network of drains, canals, and rivers, collects rainwater and channels it into 17 reservoirs across the country. This system also manages storm water to prevent flooding. Singapore collects and treats its used water to a high standard, producing safe and high-quality reclaimed water known as ‘NEWater’.
Singapore also removes salt from seawater through advanced desalination plants to produce fresh water. This technology has seen significant advancements and contributes a substantial portion of the country’s water supply. Singapore has heavily invested in developing and advancing water technologies, particularly in desalination and water reclamation.
This diversified and technological approach has made Singapore a global leader in water management and a model for other nations facing water scarcity challenges. It could help to learn from such examples.
The writer is an educationist with an interest in religion.
valianiamin@gmail.com
Amin Valliani
Published December 19, 2025
DAWN
A FAMILY lost its buffalo during the floods earlier this year when the major rivers were overflowing. The buffalo was the family’s sole economic asset. At this moment of sadness, someone came to sympathise with the family, but the head of the household said it would have been better had he died instead, as then the family would mourn for a few days but life would then go on. However, the loss of the buffalo, he said, made his family not only mourn but also starve.
There are thousands of such stories, describing the plight of affected people who have been left penniless due to the disaster. Many families, already living hand-to-mouth, are now destitute and traumatised.
Pakistan is a resource-rich country, but around 40 per cent of its population lives below the poverty line. Every year we experience floods, storms, droughts, earthquakes and other calamities which increase poverty levels. The government is unable to control these calamities and cannot deal with their aftermath. Natural calamities occur due to inherent natural processes and forces.
External factors, such as climate change, intensify these events. While the underlying forces are natural, human activities can influence the frequency and severity of these occurrences, blurring the lines between natural hazards and human-induced disasters.
Solutions are needed on a self-help basis.
We must remember that Islam is the religion of ‘nature’, it emphasises understanding nature. The Holy Quran also says that “Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope …” (2:286). Such types of catastrophes remind us of Islam’s teaching that Allah tests His creation to make them resilient and create fortitude in their hearts and minds. Our life is made up of problems, they occur every day and it is nature’s way of testing and imparting lessons to human beings till one learns the meaning, and discovers the purpose, of life.
Normally, we receive advance signals and warnings, informing the community of impending disaster. It is necessary that advance preparations are made to deal with such situations. The challenge before Pakistan is not only to respond to disasters after they occur, but more importantly, to strengthen preparedness and resilience before they strike.
It is said that Pakistan’s contribution to climate change is negligible, but it is included in the list of the most affected countries of the world. Some circles have urged the government to make a global appeal for aid, but normally, the international community offers only sympathy on such occasions. For example, we have seen that in January 2023, Pakistan organised a conference in Geneva with the UN’s help, aimed at securing international support for its post-flood recovery and financial commitments for climate resilience after the devastating 2022 floods. Different states and institutions made commitments, but the majority of the pledges failed to materialise.
Pakistan needs to rely on no one, and seek solutions on a self-help basis without recourse to others. The finance minister also declared that Pakistan would not seek international aid after the 2025 floods. This is a good decision which enhances the nation’s self-respect.
Moreover, Pakistan needs to benefit from the experiences of those who have created the capability for climate resilience. There are countries which have solved the problems posed by natural calamities by developing solutions of their own, such as rain-harvesting systems, collecting rainwater during rainy days and subsequently using it in months of water scarcity.
Here the example of Singapore would be helpful. Singapore has largely solved its problem of water scarcity. It currently imports water from neighbou-
ring Malaysia but has also adopted the Four National Taps Strategy and has planned to become fully self-sufficient by 2061 when its agreement with Malaysia ends.
It has developed a comprehensive network of drains, canals, and rivers, collects rainwater and channels it into 17 reservoirs across the country. This system also manages storm water to prevent flooding. Singapore collects and treats its used water to a high standard, producing safe and high-quality reclaimed water known as ‘NEWater’.
Singapore also removes salt from seawater through advanced desalination plants to produce fresh water. This technology has seen significant advancements and contributes a substantial portion of the country’s water supply. Singapore has heavily invested in developing and advancing water technologies, particularly in desalination and water reclamation.
This diversified and technological approach has made Singapore a global leader in water management and a model for other nations facing water scarcity challenges. It could help to learn from such examples.
The writer is an educationist with an interest in religion.
valianiamin@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, December 19th, 2025
Watering hope and hype
Khurram Husain
A BRIEF but telling moment passed quickly without comment in the press conference by the DG ISPR on Dec 5. It came in response to a question in which he was asked a vague and rambling question about how the “national media” amplifies the remarks and narratives that the DG had spent the entire press conference denouncing as fake and against the interests of Pakistan.
The DG started off by saying that the big problem with the “national media” is that they want to discuss nothing but “politics and rhetoric”. He exhorted them to talk about “actual issues” instead and went on to furnish a few examples. He said the country’s population is 250 million, and it’s growing by 4m every year, saying that we’re adding a small country’s worth of population every year.
“That requires a lot of resources,” he said, referring to the mouths that need feeding. He pointed to the recent rains and ensuing floods, pointed out the huge losses they caused, then added that, according to one estimate, 25 to 30 million acre feet of water was drained into the sea within three months. “One MAF is equal to $1 billion of agriculture product,” he carried on. “So you poured 25 to 30 billion dollars’ worth of water” into the sea.
Then he mentioned the water storage capacity of the country, at 13 to 14 MAF, and underlined that next year there will be even more rains, then let the thought trail off by saying the media should be talking about “storage and its canals”.
Rarely, if ever, does one see an actual substantive issue being given actual substantive treatment on prime time television.
“Our population is increasing, we need food security for them, we need to increase cultivable land, we need to, for the sake of the economy, properly exploit our mineral resources,” he said, as he urged the media to talk about these (and other) things, “and tell us this is the proper way to do it”. He concluded by telling the questioner that there are not “dozens, but hundreds of issues” to talk about, but the media seems to have made up its mind to keep its focus on “he says, she says” and what people are saying to each other rather than concentrating on the actual problems plaguing the country.
So let’s start by acknowledging that the DG is absolutely correct in pointing out that Pakistan’s public conversation is heavily saturated with the “he says, she says” of politics. Rarely, if ever, does one see an actual substantive issue being given actual substantive treatment on prime time television or any actual investigative work in print publications. Journalists rarely make the effort to ask whether a claim that is being made is true or not. They simply report what somebody said and leave it at that.
One result is that inaccurate claims gain widespread circulation and journalists, of all people, don’t ask simple questions, like ‘is this true?’ More than anything else, it is the economy that suffers because wild claims presenting quick fixes, or elaborate cons disguised as ‘innovation’ enter the policy conversation, are backed by dodgy numbers and data, get reported in the media as if they were factual, and perceptions grow around them that somehow a magical fix of all our economic problems can be had if only we can do this one thing, whatever it may be.
Take the example cited by the DG himself, the claim that 1 MAF of water equals $1bn of agriculture output, which he apparently supposes to mean that $25 to $30bn worth of water is being drained into the sea every year. On this supposition he builds the understanding that if we could only harness this water, using dams and canals, we could recover all this value and ensure our food security, and presumably also shore up our external account weakness, since he gives the value of the water in dollars.
But does 1 MAF of water really equal $1bn of output? The last mention this claim finds is when the Punjab member of the Indus River System Authority — Rao Irshad Ali Khan — told a Senate committee that “we and our coming generations would die of hunger if we do not build dams” and used this figure to buttress his case back in 2020. But if you look carefully, you will notice something.
It seems a crude calculation was performed to derive this figure. They seem to have taken the GDP contribution of agriculture, forestry and fisheries for FY2019, as reported by the State Bank, converted that amount to dollars at average exchange rate for that fiscal year, then divided that figure with the total availability of surface water in FY2019. If you do this, you get a figure close to $1bn per MAF.
But there are problems here. The first and biggest problem is an underlying assumption that is faulty. If it takes roughly 1 MAF of water to produce $1bn worth of agriculture output today, does that mean we can secure another $1bn worth of agriculture output with every incremental 1 MAF of water? The answer is no, it doesn’t work like that. The costs of building all the infrastructure required to arrange that incremental 1 MAF of water will have to be deducted from the present value of the anticipated future cash flows of any agricultural output that will result from the storage. Once you do this, you will notice that any increase in cultivable land brought about by building more water storage capacity does not break even for at least a decade if not longer.
Space prevents a more detailed examination and rebuttal of the Punjab member’s claims. But suffice it to say that it is a defective idea to build a vision for national renewal out of assumptions built on the claim that 1 MAF of water can add $1bn to our economic output. The lack of focus on substantive issues in our national conversation is what gives currency to such dubious numbers. It is a good idea to take them with a heavy dose of scepticism.
The writer is a business and economy journalist.
khurram.husain@gmail.com
X: @khurramhusain
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2025
Khurram Husain
Published December 18, 2025
DAWN
A BRIEF but telling moment passed quickly without comment in the press conference by the DG ISPR on Dec 5. It came in response to a question in which he was asked a vague and rambling question about how the “national media” amplifies the remarks and narratives that the DG had spent the entire press conference denouncing as fake and against the interests of Pakistan.
The DG started off by saying that the big problem with the “national media” is that they want to discuss nothing but “politics and rhetoric”. He exhorted them to talk about “actual issues” instead and went on to furnish a few examples. He said the country’s population is 250 million, and it’s growing by 4m every year, saying that we’re adding a small country’s worth of population every year.
“That requires a lot of resources,” he said, referring to the mouths that need feeding. He pointed to the recent rains and ensuing floods, pointed out the huge losses they caused, then added that, according to one estimate, 25 to 30 million acre feet of water was drained into the sea within three months. “One MAF is equal to $1 billion of agriculture product,” he carried on. “So you poured 25 to 30 billion dollars’ worth of water” into the sea.
Then he mentioned the water storage capacity of the country, at 13 to 14 MAF, and underlined that next year there will be even more rains, then let the thought trail off by saying the media should be talking about “storage and its canals”.
Rarely, if ever, does one see an actual substantive issue being given actual substantive treatment on prime time television.
“Our population is increasing, we need food security for them, we need to increase cultivable land, we need to, for the sake of the economy, properly exploit our mineral resources,” he said, as he urged the media to talk about these (and other) things, “and tell us this is the proper way to do it”. He concluded by telling the questioner that there are not “dozens, but hundreds of issues” to talk about, but the media seems to have made up its mind to keep its focus on “he says, she says” and what people are saying to each other rather than concentrating on the actual problems plaguing the country.
So let’s start by acknowledging that the DG is absolutely correct in pointing out that Pakistan’s public conversation is heavily saturated with the “he says, she says” of politics. Rarely, if ever, does one see an actual substantive issue being given actual substantive treatment on prime time television or any actual investigative work in print publications. Journalists rarely make the effort to ask whether a claim that is being made is true or not. They simply report what somebody said and leave it at that.
One result is that inaccurate claims gain widespread circulation and journalists, of all people, don’t ask simple questions, like ‘is this true?’ More than anything else, it is the economy that suffers because wild claims presenting quick fixes, or elaborate cons disguised as ‘innovation’ enter the policy conversation, are backed by dodgy numbers and data, get reported in the media as if they were factual, and perceptions grow around them that somehow a magical fix of all our economic problems can be had if only we can do this one thing, whatever it may be.
Take the example cited by the DG himself, the claim that 1 MAF of water equals $1bn of agriculture output, which he apparently supposes to mean that $25 to $30bn worth of water is being drained into the sea every year. On this supposition he builds the understanding that if we could only harness this water, using dams and canals, we could recover all this value and ensure our food security, and presumably also shore up our external account weakness, since he gives the value of the water in dollars.
But does 1 MAF of water really equal $1bn of output? The last mention this claim finds is when the Punjab member of the Indus River System Authority — Rao Irshad Ali Khan — told a Senate committee that “we and our coming generations would die of hunger if we do not build dams” and used this figure to buttress his case back in 2020. But if you look carefully, you will notice something.
It seems a crude calculation was performed to derive this figure. They seem to have taken the GDP contribution of agriculture, forestry and fisheries for FY2019, as reported by the State Bank, converted that amount to dollars at average exchange rate for that fiscal year, then divided that figure with the total availability of surface water in FY2019. If you do this, you get a figure close to $1bn per MAF.
But there are problems here. The first and biggest problem is an underlying assumption that is faulty. If it takes roughly 1 MAF of water to produce $1bn worth of agriculture output today, does that mean we can secure another $1bn worth of agriculture output with every incremental 1 MAF of water? The answer is no, it doesn’t work like that. The costs of building all the infrastructure required to arrange that incremental 1 MAF of water will have to be deducted from the present value of the anticipated future cash flows of any agricultural output that will result from the storage. Once you do this, you will notice that any increase in cultivable land brought about by building more water storage capacity does not break even for at least a decade if not longer.
Space prevents a more detailed examination and rebuttal of the Punjab member’s claims. But suffice it to say that it is a defective idea to build a vision for national renewal out of assumptions built on the claim that 1 MAF of water can add $1bn to our economic output. The lack of focus on substantive issues in our national conversation is what gives currency to such dubious numbers. It is a good idea to take them with a heavy dose of scepticism.
The writer is a business and economy journalist.
khurram.husain@gmail.com
X: @khurramhusain
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment