Climate action is gathering momentum globally, and for all the right reasons. It is the gravest challenge of our time, and Pakistan ranks among the top ten countries most affected by climate change. One wonders, then, in the wake of climate conferences sprinkled across urban hubs, what exactly is being achieved? Through conversations and panel discussions, there is plenty to question about urban climate conferences. For all the talk of inclusivity and adopting a 'national' attitude, there is a painful, almost cruel, exclusion of indigenous, pastoral, riverine, mountain, desert, and forest communities. It is ironic 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 Structural Problem of Exclusion
The problem goes beyond inclusion; it is structural. Access to these events is a defining element, shaping who can attend, what language is adopted, the kinds of problems prioritized, and 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 living in and amongst nature, fighting for survival. A climate conference in the capital, dominated by donor agencies, bureaucrats, educationists, academics, and consultants, is great for optics. But again, who are they catering to?
Greenwashing and Corporate Influence
The development sector can be commended for its desire to work at the grassroots level through local NGOs and civil society organizations. 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 utilized as marketing tools for products, all in the name of climate action. As highlighted in the article "Rebuilding Sindh’s Future: Rehabilitation Of 19,808 Flood‑Affected Schools After 2022," the focus on optics often overshadows substantive action. When climate conferences rely heavily on corporate sponsorships, donor partnerships, and elite institutional networks, questions about whether the agenda is shaped more by funding ecosystems than by climate-affected communities themselves inevitably arise. So much money is poured into these events; surely some of it can be directed towards making them more inclusive.
Epistemic Injustice and Knowledge Hierarchies
If Pakistan is to address its climate issues with depth and substance, it must stop the hijacking of climate discourse for polished narratives that risk hollowness. Surely, a climate conference with impact beyond introductions would 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 argue that while the optics make it appear that climate conferences are making an effort to counter environmental damage, the same optics suggest that climate knowledge is only legitimate if it comes from a certain segment of society — English speakers, heads of organizations, directors, ambassadors, analysts, and so on. What, then, of the indigenous and local ecological knowledge that exists in Pakistan through oral histories, seasonal practices, water management systems, migration patterns, and a holistic spiritual relationship with nature? Yes, one hears the arguments that 'they' do not understand 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?
Path Forward: Humility and Inclusion
The imbalance is beyond unjustified; in fact, it is epistemic. Who decided whose knowledge counts? As discussed in "Can The Gulf Defend Itself Without Threatening Its Own Monarchies?", power dynamics shape whose voices are heard. 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 sustainable extraction, resisting any form of 'project'. There is no reason why urban organizations must remain sanitized. 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.
