In Asia, Nepal is not alone in feeling the heat due to its heavy dependence on fossil fuels. India, China and many other coastal and mountainous countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Myanmar face increasing threats either due to rapidly rising sea levels, mounting pollution levels, melting mountain glaciers or a varied combination of these.
Despite such adverse impacts, the INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) – which are documents submitted by countries to the UNFCCC that communicate voluntary mitigative measures and other national level initiatives in response to climate change – of these countries show commitment levels that have been characterized by many climate experts as being insufficient to contain global temperature rise under two degree Celsius.
However, such apathy is not an all-encompassing trend and the best of initiatives have come from unlikeliest corners of the globe. Least developed countries (LDC) like Bhutan, Ethiopia and Gambia are among some of the few countries whose commitments in their INDCs have been deemed ambitious enough to maintain temperature rise below two degree Celsius.
As a least developed, mountainous country with negligible GHG emissions, Nepal could have easily joined ranks with Bhutan in the fight against climate change. However, even as Bhutan pledged to remain carbon neutral by ensuring their GHG emissions did not exceed the carbon sequestration capability of their forests, Nepal made no such mitigative commitments in its INDC whatsoever.
Bangladesh was another LDC to show such commitments: it pledged to reduce five percent of their emissions on their own and an additional 15% if international aid was provided.The Nepali INDC outlined only a handful of agendas related to mitigation and adaptation in the future, most of which seemed to lack validity in the absence of concrete facts and figures.
Why must we mitigate?
Why should Nepal adopt measures against climate change even though we are responsible for less than one percent of the total global emissions? While it is not a compulsion for LDCs to make mitigation a priority in their INDC, had we opted for it, it could have been a diplomatically and tactically sound move.
"If a poor country shows willingness to invest its own money in the fight against climate change then this puts a huge pressure on the international community", says climate change expert, Manjeet Dhakal, "Larger economies will be more likely to increase efforts to curb emissions by themselves or they may even be encouraged to invest in sustainable infrastructure development for such smaller economies."
This is more than wishful thinking on his part. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an outcome of the Kyoto protocol, is a mechanism that encourages energy trade between developed and developing or underdeveloped countries. When used correctly, carbon trading systems such as the CDM can help struggling countries like Nepal lift out of poverty by encouraging investment from the richer economies.
Often if economically strong countries like England or the USA hit a roadblock while trying to reduce their own GHG emissions and they cannot meet their targets, they can diversify and help small countries like Bhutan, and Nepal to curb their emissions by investing in infrastructures that are either energy efficient or rely on renewable energy. The amount of carbon emissions reduced in such countries would then count towards contributing to the mitigative targets of the investing countries.
As wonderful as this may sound, countries do not qualify for such large sponsorships just because of their underdeveloped status. In fact, developing countries like India and China have been known to monopolize big investments on renewable energy through such carbon trade while underdeveloped countries are left to fend for themselves.
As of December 2015, CDM has been involved in only around 10 small-scale projects in Nepal which promote biogas, improved cooking stoves, water mills and micro-hydro projects. And although the MoSTE has recognized various suitable sectors for CDM involvement such as solar power, hydropower, agriculture, forestry, solid waste, transportation etc., large scale projects related to these have yet to be initiated.
So what is amiss?
While there are many technical barriers to establishing CDM projects once they are decided upon, the even bigger problem lies in attracting international attention with the more lucrative Indian and Chinese energy trading markets lurking on our sides. The INDC was our chance at grabbing international attention like Bhutan and Bangladesh did, however the 12 page document failed to convey similar dedication on our part. The main reason for this lackluster approach is the lack of availability of facts and figures to help validate our commitment towards fighting climate change.
According to Dhakal, the absence of concrete and reliable data regarding the present climate change scenario and future climate change projections in Nepal was a major challenge faced while preparing the INDC. "Without adequate research findings to refer to, the drafting team had to make do with the limited resources that were available to them", he states, "This is the reason for the absence of quantitative data in the INDC."
Although shy from making an outright commitment to reduce its emissions, the Nepali INDC does give out a few points in which it shows tentative willingness to increase its adaptive and mitigative responses after 2020. For example, one of the commitments in the INDC is to develop hydro-powered electric rail network by 2040. Building an East-West electric railway track to replace the myriad of polluting vehicles is a grand idea but budget wise this is a gigantic feat that cannot be achieved without substantial help from international partners. Without appropriate research conducted to find out how many polluting vehicles such a railway would replace and by what percent the GHG emissions would reduce, it would be hard to convince the international community to get behind such a project.
Another provision in the INDC commits to maintaining 40% of Nepal's land under forest covers. This is not an unrealistic target since we are already close to this range. However, this number means next to nothing if we cannot provide relevant information about what percent of our GHG emissions will the forests be able to sequester.
One provision that reads that Nepal will achieve 80% electrification via renewable energy by 2050 is unrealistic given that we import most of our electricity from India which is notorious for its coal-powered energy production. Had the clause been conditional on carbon trading or other forms of international assistance for large scale hydropower development it would have seemed like a much more attainable goal.
Such glaring data gaps repeat themselves throughout the document and they tend to weaken Nepal's position on the fight against climate change. Towards the end Nepal's INDC asks for financial assistance in a vast number of adaptive, mitigative and research areas. The effect of such broad and extensive aid demands is bound to have an overwhelming effect on the international community and is likely to do more damage than good.
The way ahead
The good news is that we will get a chance to redeem ourselves every five years as we submit newer versions of the INDC to the UNFCCC. The document we present to the UNFCCC on 2020 will be built upon the INDC we have today. In such subsequent documents, important data gaps need to be filled regarding climate impacts, carbon trading, air pollution etc. The need of the hour is to invest on newer research equipment so we can communicate our concerns and commitments more effectively in the future.
"The research equipment required to study glacial lakes in Nepal is very expensive and cannot be done without international assistance", says Om Ratna Bajracharya, a meteorological expert of Nepal. The equipments required for air pollution monitoring are sophisticated and expensive and require trained manpower to operate. It is clear that research in such areas must be prioritized and international assistance must be concentrated on the establishment of research centers, manpower training and knowledge management.
The government should also contemplate on taking initiatives to invest the millions of rupees that it has amassed in the name of pollution tax that are lying idle in the state coffers. This money could be used to enhance waste management techniques or improve agricultural practices, it could be used to promote wind energy development or do any number of things in the name of mitigation. Come 2020, if we are able to show a substantial achievement using our own money than we will be showcasing a transparent, experienced and accountable Nepali team to the international community who they will be more likely to trust. After all, if we want the international community to invest in us, we must first learn to believe and invest in ourselves.
sneha.pandey@hotmail.com
Related story
Govt prepares response plan against ‘heat wave'
