Loss and Damage from Climate Change-A human rights perspective

~graham reeder

While climate change negotiations have stagnated over time due to a lack of political will, many are arguing that the diplomatic approach that the UNFCCC has taken to arriving at agreement—one where treaties and agreements are built out of what parties are willing to contribute or concede—does not do justice to the urgency and potency of the issues at hand. Some lawyers are arguing that a human rights based approach could benefit the process in that it gives the international community increased power to intervene and combat the defence of state’s sovereign rights to act as they wish within their own borders. While the rights based approach is multi-faceted and impact a number of different elements of UNFCCC negotiations, one element of human rights law stands out in terms of informing current climate negotiations: that of addressing liability for impacts, loss, and damage due to climate change.

There are a number of international treaties that elaborate human rights that are threaned by climate change, these rights include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to housing, the right to food, the right to health, and the right to self-determination; the treaties include the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC). Many of the rights guaranteed in these treaties, particularly the right to life, are not to be interpreted in a restrictive manner; they require positive measures to be taken by states to protect them. The Human Rights Committee noted that states are responsible for preventing acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life, which some have argued could include climate change. Preventing and minimising loss of life from natural disasters and other climate related events is an obligation of states who are parties to the aforementioned conventions.

Read more…

Cross-post from the Washington Spectator: New Voices-Climate Change Adaptation

This blog was originally published on the Washington Spectator's website, check out their blog at  http://washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Blog/latest.html

New Voices: On Climate Change Adaptation

The author acting as a youth delegate at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban.New Voices is The Washington Spectator's blog series by guest writers under age 25. The series spotlights a diversity of perspectives from students, journalists, artists, and activists. Interested in writing for this series? E-mail inquiries to comments@washingtonspectator.org.

Given this year of bizzare weather events in the U.S.—including Hurricane Sandy and a summer of deadly heat waves, wildfires and storms—many in the U.S. are finally opening their eyes to what scientists have been telling them for years: Climate change is real, but not only that, it is happening now.

Read more…

Sustainable Development And The Political Treadmill Of No Will

By Julian Velez

Rio+20 was supposed to renew political commitment to Sustainable Development (SD) and poverty eradication by integrating the social, economic and environmental “pillars,” or dimensions. It was a conference that was supposed to build on previous agreements to bring the Sustainable Development agenda to the next step. But the spotlight of the conference was taken by the Green Economy initiative, which hijacked the conversation, and took all the energy away from Sustainable Development. The European Union (EU) along with Korea strongly pushed for the Green Economy. The EU wanted to reinforce the environmental pillar through economic policies that would reactivate their economy with the opening of a new green market strategy in the developing world, based mostly on private investment of green products and technologies in the developing world. To protect  nature, it was argued that the solution was to commodify  nature, in order to value its ecosystem services and create a framework for its  privatization. This strategy, framed as inclusive for all nations, actually undermines the economic reality of the developing nations. It would force the developing world to depend on the corporations of the developed world given that that they do not have the infrastructure to support the transition towards a “Green Economy.” Some barely have the infrastructure to support the socio- economical well being of their nations within the old/dirty economic development roadmap.

The developing world does not have the technology, capacity or finance; therefore it would depend on the developed corporations to sell these services, products and technologies in the developing world. This concept of  “A Green Economy” as the road for all nations did not include a concrete plan to support the developing world in the transition towards a GE. It also avoids targeting the issue of overproduction and overconsumption, which addresses quantity not only quality, a fundamental point in economies and lifestyles of excess that that exist mainly in the developed world. The main problem with this plan is that it undermines Equity. The underlying discussion spun around weather the principle of Equity was going to be respected or not.

The EU wanted three main things to reboot their economy: The Green Economy as a one size fits all concept that would become the central path to follow towards the achievement of SD; the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a universal set of goals, that were focused on the Environmental dimension soley to support both in principle and with timeframes the GE road map. This would not properly include the social and economical dimensions binding all nations to equally fulfill these goals with out questioning the reality of these other dimensions in the developing world. And third, the upgrading of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to a Specialized Agency that could formulate GE policies and enforce them as the authority in the global environment agenda.

This GE trinity would have weakened the SD agenda that is based on the integration of the three pillars through the framework of the Rio Principles. This outcome would have bound the developing world to a new form of dependence, to an accepted “green” market structure that would further the inequitable and unjust neocolonial structures that exist within the neoliberal economic system. It would have created trade barriers and conditionality’s for the developing world for its lack of “green” products and technologies. Basically it would have completely undermined the principle of Equity.

There were several factors and political realities that shaped the outcome document “Our Common Vision:” The unity of G77; the fact that the EU is dealing with a financial crisis and probably had some restrictions on putting money forward to leverage their positions; and the positions of Canada, USA, Japan, New Zeland and Australia that did not appear interested in any real outcome or package from this conference other than lessening the developed world’s commitments and responsibilities to Means Of Implementation (MOI), protect Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), not recognize basic human rights and undermine the Rio principles, in particular Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), these where factors that formed the which is short sighted outcome document. It is the vision of a dog that chases its tail and never gets anywhere. We are biting our own tails with this outcome, the need for ambition is greater that ever.

The GE trinity was to a certain degree tamed in Rio+20. The Green Economy, is framed as “Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” it is framed as an available tool for achieving sustainable development and that it could provide options for policy making but should not be a rigid set of rules. Now it’s referenced as Green Economy policies instead of “A” or “The” GE, taking away the one size fits all perspective from it

Apart from the EU, initially the support for the idea of an upgraded UNEP came mainly from Kenya, the host nation for UNEP, who must have assumed it would bring prestige, jobs and greater finance opportunities. However G77 kept a strong stance against these proposals, understanding the awfully detrimental implications for the developing world. They also took a firm stance on strengthening the Rio Principles to bring Equity to the heart of the talks and reaffirm and further the previous unfinished commitments to Means Of Implementation. The G77 withstood attempts to divide their group, and was able to stand united till the end, which is a rare and exceptional task. The G77 was able to bring Kenya and the Africa Group to the rejection of the trinity of proposals on the basis of their broader repercussions for the developing world.

UNEP got strengthened as an authoritative advocate for the global environment, with secure, stable and adequate funding from the UN budget and as the body that will formulate UN system-wide strategies on the environment. It did not receive specialized agency status with enforcement power.

The SDGs will fully respect all Rio Principles, taking into account different national circumstances, capacities and priorities, build upon commitments already made and will incorporate in a balanced way all three dimensions of sustainable development and their inter-linkages. This will build on the Millennium Development Goals rather than dwarf them and will integrate Sustainable Development as a whole.

Behind all of this, the underlying quarrel was around weather this high level summit with heads of state would recognize and respect Equity and CBDR and whether these principles would guide the SD agenda. All the decisions made at Rio+20 will be used as an outcome from which other UN regimes will draw from to inform their decisions.

The real fight over Equity and CBDR continues in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) where countries are dealing with a legally binding treaty and  with a universal and all encompassing issue that is threatening the integrity of life in this planet. It is in the UNFCCC where governments have to decide weather they will comply through Equity and CBDR.

In the fight for Equity, the outcome reflects some positive steps, which is crucial because if this principle had been buried in Rio it would have been really hard to dig up in other UN conventions.

In this regard there was a win at Rio+20 in the struggle against climate change –governments agreed to protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. There was a recognition of the need for funding to support nationally appropriate mitigation actions, adaptation measures, technology development and transfer and capacity-building in developing countries.  And governments where urged to fully implement their commitments to the Kyoto Protocol, which addresses the historical responsibilities of countries. While no ambitious steps where taken to do anything additional to deal with one of the worlds biggest challenges.

Nevertheless the EU will keep forcing the Green Economy in the Sustainable Energy for All initiative and in Climate Change through private investment with very specific terms and conditions and market strategies.

Now here we stand with an outcome that through contentious discussions only reaffirmed previous agreements; an outcome that does not recognize the rights of nature, that barely acknowledges the right to water and that recognizes the right to access to food not the full recognition of “the right to food”. It was a long 20 year walk that left us in the same place. Above all the text reflects inaction, lack of political will and commitment to Sustainable Development, the eradication of poverty and the well being of our planet. MOI has no concrete or ambitious commitments. The 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainable consumption and production has been adopted only on voluntary terms.

We clearly need to raise the capacity and status of the SD regime, it is evident that we cant pretend to create solutions to all the social, economic and environmental problems  of the world with a text from the Commission on Sustainable Development, which meets once every year and has no priority or power in the UN structure. It is obvious that it needs to be upgraded to the Council on Sustainable Development , instead of the alternate proposal of the upgrading of UNEP, as there is a immense lack of vision and interest in regards to SD. There is a need for a strong UN structure that can properly integrate the three pillars of Sustainable Development and that has weight in domestic policies.

As I said we are biting our own tail with this outcome, our government representatives are unwilling to look beyond their present political interests. And the developed world is not willing to step up and show some responsible leadership for the inequitable and unjust reality that they have shaped around lifestyles of excess and exploitation of the people and nature of the world for 500 hundred years.

Also the governments of the developing world work to protect their middle to high class, and hide behind the red line or bottom line needs of “poor countries” in order to not compromise the lifestyle of their elites and continue the miss care of their poor.

The poor cannot live with this political agreement, their life rather than lifestyle is at stake; their red line, their bottom line for a dignified life is being buried.

Please! Let us not sit and watch comfortably in our safe little couches as the consumption machine devours our natural environment through its gluttony mentality of growth that propagates injustice and oppression in our planet. We need to leave the jaws of the machine, we need to cleanse our selves of its slime and mock. This moment has shown a clear signal a clear message that it is the time for us to take action, all of you and all of me, governments wont. It is the time to embrace our responsibility as creatures of this earth and take action, to take care of the other sentient beings of this planet and challenge the structures that undermine the right to a dignified life.


Statement on behalf of 60% of the world’s population in the Durban Platform

More analysis to come….this was delivered by Venezuela

Submission on the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Plataform (AWG-DP)

Bonn, 22nd of May

Thank you for giving me the floor.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has the honor to make a statement on behalf of Argentina, Algeria, Bahrain, Bolivia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Palestine, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

The developing countries associated with this statement account for over 4 billion people on our planet or roughly 60% of the global population, with high incidence of vulnerability to climate change. We have a high stake not only in the ongoing negotiations but also in the important process that we launched at Durban as part of a balanced package.

We assure you of our keenness to expeditiously move forward with the substantive work of the AWG-DP. We wish to assure all our partners that we will spare no effort in reaching out to them and any other partner in finding a solution.

However, AWG-DP agenda is not a procedural discussion but one of substance and scope, both of which will have deep implication on our work. The agenda we adopt here will guide us in this process at least until the end of this year. We are confident that a frank discussion at this stage would enhance our collective understanding on the way forward. We would reiterate our openness to receive and discuss all proposals made by parties on the agenda in a spirit of constructively moving forward. At the same time, we hope that other parties would also take on board our ideas and concerns and that such issues would also receive the consideration they deserve.

We are constructively engaged in this important exercise of agreeing on an agenda that all parties feel ownership of, thereby ensuring the context, quality and momentum for our work. The discussion we had on Saturday was a useful one and it enriched our
understanding of the views held by parties in this debate.

It would be important to give due time and space to open-ended consultations, including in an informal setting. We would strongly encourage that all future consultations on this be held in an open-ended, transparent and inclusive manner rather than by invitation.

We express our willingness to substantively discuss the post 2020 mitigation framework going forward. At same time, we have no doubt that mitigation actions need to be enhanced during 2012-2020. However, at this stage, we foresee that a separate agenda item on enhancing mitigation ambition in the AWG-DP would render meaningless the ongoing discussions of both the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA. In addition, it would delay actions and decisions in those forums. We stress that the context for ambition is provided by the Kyoto Protocol where we are discussing the 2nd commitment period. In addition, for those parties who are not party to the Kyoto Protocol or would not abide by that treaty, also have a responsibility to ensure comparability of their targets and actions under the AWG-LCA. The AWG-LCA is a depository of several actions, not just mitigation actions. Disaggregating the discussion entirely from KP and LCA context would jeopardize the fundamental equity principle of differentiation between Annex-I and non-Annex-I countries under the Convention, aside from weakening the legally binding nature of commitments and converting it to a voluntary scheme of actions
for developed parties. It will impose an inequitable burden on developing countries in meeting the ambition gap.

With a view to ensure that mitigation ambition under the DP is closely linked to work of parties under the two other groups- namely LCA and KP, we would like to propose the inclusion of the following footnote in the agenda:
The implementation of Decision 1/CP.17 should be examined on the basis of its compliance with International Law, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda and, in particular, with the exception on non-performance related to the full respect and compliance with the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, for the Parties that are Parties of those instruments.


We note that the decision 1.CP/17 establishes the Durban Platform for ‘Enhanced Action’, and is not restricted to ‘Mitigation Action’ alone. We have no doubt that on the basis of science, urgent mitigation ambition is needed. However, mitigation alone will
not sufficient. Our collective ambition on other Bali Pillars namely Adaptation, Finance and Technology is also equally, if not more important to this process.

Let me conclude by saying that we fully support an inclusive agenda that captures, in a non-selective manner, all the elements of decision 1.CP/17 and so that it may provide an acceptable basis to start work immediately. The agenda needs to capture the mutual
assurances of all parties exchanged at Durban. It will be more positive if we keep it as comprehensive and broad based as possible and elaborate it in the light of inputs received from LCA and KP. In the meantime we should begin a discussion on developing our understanding on the scope of work under the Durban Platform.