Pakistan’s climate challenge is increasingly becoming a test not of policy ambition, but of delivery. Over the years, the country has introduced national climate policies, enacted climate legislation, established dedicated institutes, prepared an adaptation plan, undertaken budget tagging and expanded its portfolio of externally financed projects.
Yet every severe heatwave, flood and urban catastrophe exposes the same contradiction: whether this expanding policy architecture is actually changing decisions on the ground, where climate resilience is ultimately built or lost.
This is the governance gap that now matters. It is no longer enough to ask whether Pakistan has a climate institution or whether an expenditure has been labelled green. The harder question is whether an ordinary development decision adequately reflects climate risk. Is a transmission line designed to withstand extreme temperatures, flooding and strong storms? Can a hospital maintain electricity and safe indoor temperature during a heatwave? Does an urban drainage project continue functioning during heavy rainfall? If not, policy has yet to translate into resilience.
Pakistan has made substantial institutional progress. The Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 established the Climate Change Council and Authority. The National Climate Change Policy, first introduced in 2012, was updated in 2021, while the National Adaptation Plan followed in 2023. In 2024, the Planning Commission strengthened public-investment procedures through a Manual for Development Projects and climate-risk screening guidance, requiring climate consideration to enter project preparation and appraisal at an early stage.
The problem is the disconnect between these instruments and decisions taken at different levels. Climate governance remains considerably stronger at the level of policies and frameworks than at the point of implementation. Delivery depends on a chain: policy must shape planning; planning must shape project design; financing must protect the required resilience measures; implementing agencies must construct accordingly and institutions responsible for operation and maintenance must preserve performance through the asset’s life. Failure at one stage can undermine progress achieved at another.
The 2024 reforms made climate-risk due diligence part of public-investment planning. Yet recent reporting suggests that none of around 57 projects approved in the following financial year underwent the required climate-risk screening. Pakistan’s programme with the IMF now envisages revising the public-investment appraisal methodology so that climate adaptation and mitigation receive at least a 30 per cent weight for infrastructure projects. This could be an important reform, but only if a weak climate score can delay, redesign or reject a project. Otherwise, screening risks becoming another procedural requirement rather than a decision-making tool.
Climate budget tagging presents a similar challenge. In FY2025-26, climate-related expenditure accounted for 8.2 per cent of the federal development budget and 6.9 per cent of current expenditure. This improves visibility, but it does not ensure delivery. The next question must be performance: Did the expenditure reduce vulnerability? Did the resulting asset withstand an extreme event and continue delivering its intended service afterwards? Pakistan has begun identifying climate-related spending. It must now measure climate-related performance.
This distinction is particularly important in the energy sector. Energy planning and climate resilience are often treated as two separate dimensions. The former focuses on demand, supply and tariffs, while the latter focuses on emissions and adaptation. In fact, they are inseparable. Extreme heat increases electricity demand while compromising the efficiency of generation and networks. Flooding can damage substations and transmission and distribution infrastructure, while drought and hydrological variability can affect power generation. Energy projects must therefore be assessed not only for cost and capacity, but also for their ability to withstand changing climate conditions.
This also holds true beyond energy. A building code delivers little if construction continues in high-risk flood zones or if schools and hospitals cannot maintain safe indoor temperatures. An early-warning system achieves limited value without last-mile communication, predefined response protocols and district-level capacity. Similarly, urban drainage infrastructure cannot avert failure if solid-waste management remains fragmented. These are not peripheral environmental problems but failures within the delivery chain.
Pakistan therefore needs an implementable climate-delivery framework. Every major climate pledge and adaptation plan should be translated into a public delivery matrix identifying required action, lead institution, financing source, deadline, measurable outcome and responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M). Accountability mechanisms should assign responsibility clearly instead of dispersing it vaguely across several institutions.
Some underlying reforms can make such a framework credible. No major federal or provincial infrastructure project should receive approval without documented climate-risk screening and a lifecycle resilience plan. The proposed 30 per cent climate weighting should impact project selection and design rather than simply add a score to an otherwise predetermined decision.
Climate-budget tags should also be linked to measurable outcomes. Each tag must highlight the climate risk being addressed, the expected reduction in vulnerability, the institution responsible for maintaining the assets and the indicator through which performance will be verified. This information should be published through existing planning and financial systems, not through another standalone platform.
Climate responsibility must also travel to the point of delivery. The entity responsible for operating and maintaining an asset should be identified at project approval, supported with predictable O&M funding and clear resilience-performance obligations. Federal coordination remains essential for national standards, international commitments and cross-boundary risks. Resilience, however, is ultimately delivered through functioning infrastructure and public services at provincial, district and municipal levels through developed projects.
A workable accountability test is simple: for every climate commitment, can we identify the decision that must change, the institution authorised to change it, the budget that supports it and the public indicator that proves delivery? Wherever one of these is missing, the governance gap remains.
Pakistan has spent years building the language of climate policy. The urgent task now is to build an accountable chain from policy to climate delivery.
The writer is head of policy, energy and climate resilience at the Centre of Excellence for CPEC, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), Islamabad.
