Beyond Kyoto in Bali

WHAT will happen after 2012? That is the question being asked at the tourism haven of Bali, Indonesia, where delegates from over 180 nations have converged for a two-week UN session on climate change. What’s expected is a “roadmap for a future international agreement on enhanced global action to fight climate change”, that will replace the less-than-fruitful Kyoto Protocol. The emerging environmental scenario is worrisome indeed. Global warming is progressively upsetting normal life. In fact, climate change is reckoned a more serious threat to human existence than, say, global terrorism. As scientists reckon, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the way to ensure that millions of people will not be at risk from extreme weather conditions or rising sea levels - a scenario that might lead to several inhabited islands getting submerged in the sea. Bali, for instance. Scientists have set a target of a 50 per cent cut in emissions by the middle of the century; and, if this is to be achieved, what is needed now is this: deep cuts. On one side, the problem is rapid industrialisation and, on the other, there is the issue of deforestation — the two aspects hastening climate change. According to UN estimates, deforestation is occurring at a rate of 13 million hectares a year, accounting for 20 per cent of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Forest systems, as is well-known, play a major role in tackling climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A way out, thus, is the speeding up of the process of reforestation. The main goal of the Bali meet is three-fold. As explained by the UN, they are: launching negotiations on a climate change deal post 2012; setting the agenda for these negotiations, and, finally, reaching an agreement on when these negotiations will have to be concluded. Without doubt, major greenhouse gas emitting nations like the United States, India, China and Brazil will battle things out before any major decisions emerge. While all of them are industrially advancing, they are not willing to yield ground or mend ways in the larger global interests. For, it would mean a slow-down in their industrial hyperactivity. The question they ask is, shouldn’t they care for themselves more than they care for the world? How will they exist if the world fails to exist?
Unfortunately, however, the US that should lead from the front in such global campaigns has, instead, cut a sorry figure in the past seven years of the Bush administration. How else will one explain the administration’s steadfast refusal to back the Kyoto Protocol, crafted among others by the then US Vice-President Al Gore at a global environment forum? Bush’s argument against the protocol was that it unfairly omitted 2012 emissions goals for developing nations, and would damage the US economy, and more importantly, the Texan economy. The US stand led to accusations that it is refusing to be one with the world. Arguments apart, it is hoped that the agreement in the making will not meet with the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, that has at best been a limited success. Now, and in future, when it comes to environment protection, global interests must be a matter of first priority to all nations. The Bali meet should show the way.

 

Overstayers

WE are now firmly in the Haj season — in the sense that would-be Hajis are now arriving daily in their thousands. Altogether it is expected that over two million will perform Haj this year. Of that number about 30 percent will be Saudis and foreigners based in the Kingdom, another 20 percent will come from GCC states and the rest from further afield. Of that 50 percent, how many will overstay? The fact is that overstayers are a serious problem which, despite regular announcements about large numbers being rounded up and sent home, shows no sign of abatement. There are two types of overstayer: those who abscond from their sponsors or whose contracts have run out and who then disappear into the shadowy underworld of the Kingdom’s larger towns and cities — and those who come for Haj or Umrah but who remain. The latter group also divides into two. There are the Umrah overstayers who want then to perform Haj and those who use the pilgrimage as means of entry to the Kingdom to find work. Only this week it was announced that the Kingdom spends SR420 million a year repatriating overstayers. Given that it costs about SR1,500 to send each one home, it suggests that at least 280,000 are repatriated each year — and that does not include the ones who are not caught. In fact the number is probably much larger. Simple arithmetic bears that out. Of the SR420 million, SR60 million was spent on repatriating Umrah overstayers. But the Haj Ministry estimated just over a year ago that of those who came in 2006 on Umrah visas, 200,000 overstayed. Obviously, many had their own resources to return home. But so too, presumably, had many of the Haj overstayers; SR60 million is also spent annually repatriating them. And what about the absconders and the job seekers on lapsed Umrah visas on whom SR300 million is spent annually sending them home? At SR1,500 a ticket, that is another 200,000 a year.
They are the real problem rather the Umrah pilgrims who simply want to stay on to perform Haj. Indeed, these latter may well cease to be an issue if the visa regime is altered to allow pilgrims to remain legally in the Kingdom to perform both Umrah and then Haj in the one trip. It is shocking that people exploit Islam, using it a front to gain entry to the Kingdom to find a job here. It is an outrageous abuse of the Kingdom’s duty and hospitality to pilgrims. The authorities have made great efforts to clamp down on what is a profanity — not least because many of these overstayers, unable to find legitimate work, turn to crime. The penalties for employing or accommodating overstayers have increased over the years. There is now a SR10,000 fine for aiding and abetting each individual overstayer and a possible six-month jail sentence. But it is clearly not a sufficient deterrent. There is no evidence that the numbers have reduced. Those who provide work or accommodation to overstayers — and they are not all expatriates — need to be hit so hard that they never do it again.

—Arab News