This thesis was submitted to SOAS in 2021 – by Ayesha Shingruf
Abstract
The onset of extreme weather events is creating drastic challenges for people around the world. Studies have shown strong links of climate change with the displacement of people, suggesting that the world will experience unprecedented levels of climate refugees. Because of the increase in the severity and frequency of intense weather conditions, refugee movements will be seen both internally and across international borders. This poses a serious question within international and domestic laws for their ability to offer protection to those displaced by climate change. By offering a case study of South Asia – a region containing some of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate variability – this paper examines regional laws and policies as well as specific international principles as they relate to refugees. In particular, this research looks at the potential of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage to arrive at possible pathways to safeguard rights for climate refugees. Using a human rights based-approach, this paper maintains that the principle of loss and damage will create channels for legal protection to those fleeing their homes due to the harsh changes in their environment.
What inspired you to write and research this piece?
I was born and raised in Lahore, Pakistan. For years, urban cities in Pakistan have consistently ranked as being the most polluted in the world, and some regions have experienced intense flooding and heatwaves. Similar patterns can be seen in India and Bangladesh as well. South Asia is collectively suffering the consequences of this global crisis on its agriculture, economy, human health, and livelihoods as we speak. There is a sense then, of people wanting to move to a different place to live a healthier and safer life. Those who pay attention to this crisis know that migratory movements caused by climate change are already occurring. Unfortunately, such movements will only increase in severity owing to the rise in temperatures coupled with regional conflicts. I wanted to address the fact that there is an absence of legal tools that can offer protection to climate refugees, and explore different frameworks that would help in safeguarding their human rights.
What impact do you hope this research will have?
There is minimal literature and discourse on climate refugees within the context of South Asia. This is alarming because the region is one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. My only hope is that this drives significant conversation so that attention is paid to this looming threat. This is a collective fight, and a lot of research needs to be carried out to arrive at efficient policies for climate refugees. I look forward to students and academics exploring more pathways that can legally aid climate refugees in the future.
Ayesha Shingruf is a research fellow in climate change education and sustainability at Nottingham Trent University. She is interested in exploring the interplay of climate change, migration, and conflict. Ayesha completed her postgraduate degree in human rights law from SOAS, University of London. In her free time, Ayesha enjoys yoga, surfing, trying new foods, and reading a lot of poetry.
No edits have been made to maintain the author’s tone of voice.
This thesis was submitted to the University of Sussex in 2021 – by Louisa Gaus
Abstract
The influence of climate change on migration flows is a highly disputed topic, furthermore, the discourse about whether migration is a failure to adapt or an adaptive strategy emerges. The Republic of Kiribati has imminent adaptation needs due to the high dependency of the population on local ecosystems for subsistence and income, prevailing development issues, rapid population growth, and projected climate change impacts. The previous and current administrations deployed otherwise opposing adaptation approaches. Namely, ex situ adaptation, which inevitably leads to relocation, and in situ adaptation policies, approaches deployed ‘in the place’ of residence. Nevertheless, the significant negative implications of a sole prioritisation of one of these approaches suggest an alternative policy. This research argues, alongside other scholars, the emergent need for a hybrid adaptation policy. The aim is to answer the question if in situ and ex situ adaptation approaches can be harmonised or are due to their inherent characteristics incompatible in practice, and, from a practical perspective, what challenges such a hybrid adaptation policy encounters. The findings suggest that, in theory, in situ and ex situ adaptation approaches can be harmonised. However, due to the practical limitations stemming from the economic challenges and the lack of international law frameworks supporting cross-border migration, these adaptation approaches cannot yet be united into a hybrid adaptation policy in Kiribati.
What inspired you to write and research this piece?
In my opinion, the polarized debate about ex situ and in situ adaptation leaves little space for flexible decision-making. This inspired me to explore this what-if scenario of a hybrid adaptation policy practically.
What impact do you hope this research will have?
Hopefully, this research inspires us to think about climate change and migration not as a ‘fight or flight’ situation, but as an issue which is handled with a solution-oriented perspective and flexible short- and long-term planning.
Growing up in a small town in Southern Germany, I was always curious about other parts of the world. In my community, I engaged from a young age in youth work, such as leading a youth group. In 2015, after graduating from school, I underwent a Voluntary Social Year in the Republic of Kiribati. This stay awakened my passion for climate action and working in an international environment. After returning from overseas in 2016, I followed that passion and started studying ‘International Relations’ at the Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences. In 2019, I had the opportunity to intern at the Regional Program for Climate Change and Energy Security of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Hong Kong-America Center in SAR Hong Kong.
In my Bachelor’s thesis, which was submitted in 2020, I researched the impacts of climate change on public health. In 2020, inspired by my past experiences and studies, I started my Master’s degree in ‘Climate Change, Development and Policy’ at the University of Sussex and Institute of Development Studies in Brighton, UK. The result thereof is my thesis on adaptation policies in the Republic of Kiribati. Currently, I am interning at the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit in Berlin, Germany, and am eager to further engage myself in climate action. In my free time, I enjoy climbing, hiking, doing DIY projects (such as cutting my friends’ hair), and playing the violin and the ukulele.
No edits have been made to maintain the author’s tone of voice.
This thesis was submitted to the University of Pennsylvania in Spring 2021 – by Rachel Steinig
Abstract
Climate change has already begun causing displacement. This isn’t a new problem: since 2008, an average of 24 million people have been displaced each year by catastrophic weather disasters. There are currently at least 100 million forcibly displaced people worldwide – this is the highest level on record ever. However, climate migrants are not considered refugees under international law, according to the definition of a refugee adopted in the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, and thus lack legal protections. In my thesis I investigated the role of existing bilateral and regional agreements to provide protection and asylum for climate refugees. My research question was: what are the conditions under which states agree to legally binding instruments to accommodate climate-induced migration? I collected nine case studies of bilateral and regional agreements that have either been implemented and have provided protection for climate-displaced persons or have been proposed but never implemented. My study presents somewhat of a grim picture for climate-displaced persons. None of my nine case studies provided a convincing example of the feasibility of using current regional or bilateral agreements to accommodate climate-induced displacement. In addition, most governments proved unwilling to even acknowledge climate displacement as a phenomenon.
What inspired you to write and research this piece?
Climate-induced displacement will only be increasing throughout time, and the fact that people displaced by climate change are not considered refugees under international law means that an increasing number of displaced people will be without legal protection or remedy. There isn’t a lot of existing research on the intersection of climate change, migration, and international law, so through my study I wanted to contribute to the budding literature on this topic and explore the feasibility of a potential solution to the lack of international legal protections for climate-displaced persons.
What impact do you hope this research will have?
Climate-included displacement is a phenomenon that will only be increasing in severity throughout time and requires attention and action at the local, national, and international levels. A key takeaway from my study is that there are no easy answers or solutions to climate-displacement, and that countries of destination will likely oppose the acknowledgement of and accommodation of climate-displaced persons. I hope that my study will positively contribute to the literature and that the amount of research on this topic will increase throughout time.
Rachel Steinig (they/she) works with asylum-seekers in Tijuana as a Project Coordinator with the Border Rights Project of Al Otro Lado, a bi-national legal aid nonprofit. They graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 2021 with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, a concentration in International Relations, and triple minors in Latin American and Latinx Studies, Spanish, and Modern Middle Eastern Studies.
She spent the summer after graduation volunteering at a migrant shelter on the Mexico-Guatemala border. In July they will be moving to central Mexico to work as a Human Rights Accompanier with the organization Peace Brigades International. They are dedicated to working in solidarity with asylum-seekers to combat the structural racism and violence of our immigration system and to advocate for a world without borders. She plans on working in international human rights law.
No edits have been made to maintain the author’s tone of voice.
On 22 June 2021, an international expert drafting panel commissioned by the Stop Ecocide Foundation shared its proposal for a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). After approximately a year of negotiations, the new legal definition for the term “ecocide” emerged and was highly praised by a number of environmentalists. However, many are concerned about how the crime of ecocide could be prosecuted in practice.
The New Proposed Definition
The panel of international lawyers defined ecocide as“unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”. If the introduction of this definition is welcomed and the efforts to criminalise ecocide are successful, the ICC would effectively be able to hold accountable those responsible for major ecological harms, such as governments and corporations.
The panel described “wanton” to mean: “reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic benefits anticipated” and “severe” as: “damage which involves very serious adverse changes, disruption, or harm to any element of the environment, including grave impacts on human life or natural, cultural, or economic resources”.According to Phillipe Sands, who co-chaired the expert panel, the definition catches “the most egregious acts”, such as major oil spills and transboundary nuclear accidents.
The History of Ecocide
The battle for the recognition of ecocide as an international crime has been a lengthy and challenging process.
The term ecocide was first used in the 1970s, particularly in relation to whether the US was creating an ecocide in Vietnam during the war. In 1970, when speaking at the Conference on War and National Responsibility, Professor Arthur W. Galston suggested that there should be “a new international agreement to ban ecocide”. In 1972, at the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme explicitly described the Vietnam War as an “ecocide”. In 1985, the concept of ecocide resurfaced with a failed attempt to add ecocide to the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, the UN’s International Law Commission decided not to include “environmental crime” as an independent crime in its Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind.
In 2016, there was a shift in focus for the ICC, mainly in response to criticism for its unwillingness to investigate major environmental crimes at the time. The ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, under former ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, published a policy paper which stated that the ICC would “prioritise” the prosecution of governments and individuals for environmental crimes, such as illegal exploitation of natural resources and land-grabbing.
Challenges in Applying the Ecocide Term
The ICC only has jurisdiction over natural persons, so it does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute corporations. Therefore, where there has been alleged corporate involvement in ecocide, a corporation itself cannot stand before the court because (legally speaking) it is not a natural person. A further hurdle would be which of its corporate officers would be held accountable for the alleged crime of ecocide.
Additionally, a member of the expert panel, Christina Voigt stated that regardless of the exact wording to be adopted by State Parties, altering the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide will not be an easy accomplishment. Voigt notes that there will be difficulty in building broader political support and global cooperation around the definition. Thus, it appears that formulating a legal definition is just the first step: a member state needs to propose it to the ICC, thereafter it would need to be approved by a majority of ICC States. If the law is adopted into the Statute, harming nature or the planet will start to feel similar to harming humans. Nonetheless, the process of debating the definition will most likely take numerous years, while some argue it could take decades.
States such as France, Belgium, and Canada have voiced their support for ecocide to be recognised as a crime. However, it is important to note that the world’s top polluters, such as the United States, China, and India, are not members of the ICC.
The ICC is an autonomous and permanent court, established to investigate, prosecute, and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community – namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC does not replace national criminal justice systems, it complements them. It can investigate and, where warranted, prosecute and try individuals as a “last resort”, for instance, where proceedings are unduly delayed.
The proposed definition could be a historical development for the entire world as environmental damage is growing dramatically. The existence of “ecocide” will amplify the issue of the environment. If ecocide were to be recognised in international law, corporations, as well as governments, would be held responsible for environmental damage. They would be forced to take the issue seriously and would not escape the consequences without punishment. Immediate action should be taken by including “ecocide” as the fifth international crime against peace.
Mary Rizk is currently undertaking the Bar Professional Training Course at BPP Law School. She holds an LLM from Queen Mary, University of London. Mary has a particular interest in international human rights, criminal, and social justice issues.
In September 2021, after four years of negotiations, Australia’s Queensland government returned four national parks to the Aboriginal Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples. Spanning some 400,000 acres, these parks include the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Daintree Rainforest – the world’s oldest remaining rainforest.
The Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples and the Queensland government will jointly manage the land for the foreseeable future. However, the overall goal is for the Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples to become the sole and autonomous proprietors of their Indigenous land.
“The Eastern Kuku Yalanji people’s culture is one of the world’s oldest living cultures,” says Meaghan Scanlon MP, Queensland’s Minister for Environment, the Great Barrier Reef, and Science and Youth Affairs. “This agreement recognises their right to own and manage their Country, to protect their culture, and to share it with visitors as they become leaders in the tourism industry.”[1]
A month after Australia returned land to the Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples, the United States (US) government restored full federal protective rights to the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments in southern Utah.[2] The previous administration, which was seeking to extract the land’s fossil fuels, had drastically reduced the size of the Bears Ears monument by up to 85%, as well as halving the area of the protected Grand Staircase-Escalante. This was the single largest rollback of public lands protections in the history of the US. These lands, which span more than 3 million acres, are vital pieces of culture and history for many Indigenous peoples, including the Hopi, Navajo, Uintah and Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni tribes.[3]
What’s more, the US government and local officials continue to bolster protections for Native lands which facilitate the transition of ownership back to Indigenous communities. In December 2020, the Trump administration signed legislation which initiated the relinquishment of more than 18,000 acres of the National Bison Range to the Salish and Kootenai tribes. [4] In October 2021, around five acres of land were transferred to the Rhode Island Narragansett tribe. It was on this same land that the Indigenous Narragansett peoples survived near-annihilation at the hands of English colonisers in 1675.[5]
As a result of land reconciliation, not only can Indigenous communities return as rightful owners of their Native lands, they can also improve local environmental protection efforts.
The Positive Impacts of Land Reconciliation
For Australia’s Eastern Kuku Yalanji people, reclaiming their land is the first step towards long-term, sustainable social and economic growth.
“Our goal is to establish a foundation to provide confident and competent people with pathways and opportunities for mentoring, training, apprenticeships, work experience, and employment for our Eastern Kuku Yalanji Bama,” says Eastern Kuku Yalanji Traditional Owners Negotiating Committee Member Chrissy Grant. “[The goal is] to fill positions from a wide range of skilled trades, land and sea management, hospitality, tourism, and research so that we are in control of our own destinies.”
The Eastern Kuku Yalanji tribe has lived sustainably on these lands for some 50,000 years. The Kuku Yalanji Aboriginal culture is based on a deep respect for nature, with a heavy dependency on the ecosystem’s natural cycle. Their Indigenous expertise is vital in implementing sustainable conservation efforts, as well as protecting natural resources against climate stressors.
According to Meaghan Scanlon, these national parks will “protect important Aboriginal cultural sites, diverse ecosystems (including rainforests, woodlands, wetlands and mangroves), and form part of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, which is recognised as the second most irreplaceable World Heritage site on Earth.”
In Montana, the Salish and Kootenai tribes have a long history with managing local bison ranges, and their approach is seemingly more beneficial than previous federal tactics. “We treat the buffalo with less stress, and handle them with more respect,” says Tom McDonald, an Indigenous person and Fish and Wildlife Division Manager for both tribes.[6] The Salish and Kootenai tribes are also co-managing migrating bison herds from Yellowstone National to US Forest Service land.
Native peoples generally take a more sensitive and familial approach to handling bison populations. Their techniques include keeping bison families together, mitigating the likelihood of stampedes, and ultimately reducing stress placed on the animals. These Indigenous animal handling techniques have helped to improve conservation efforts and management of the land, as well as the welfare of the animals which inhabit it.
In Rhode Island, the Narragansett tribe will be recognised as the stewards of their Indigenous land, utilising their traditional ecological knowledge to preserve it. “We agreed to protect it; we agreed to steward it,” says Morgan Grefe, Executive Director of the Historical Society. “We’re here in continuation of that promise—to see that this land is protected and stewarded in a way that we could never have accomplished ourselves”.[7]
These examples indicate the in-depth expertise that Indigenous peoples have for their Native land, as well as their cultural mastery in preserving natural resources. According to a United Nations review of more than 300 studies, rates of deforestation in South America were 50% lower in areas under Indigenous control when compared to areas managed by non-Native communities.[8] Protecting these forests is vital for mitigating the threats of climate change and preventing the extinction of regional wildlife.
World leaders are also beginning to acknowledge the significance of Indigenous expertise in lessening the effects of climate change. At COP26, the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and several private donors collectively pledged to provide US $1.7 billion to support Indigenous and local communities in tackling climate change and protecting biodiversity.[9] The funds have the potential to help Native communities build their own infrastructure, resolve territorial disputes, and support land reforms, among other endeavours.
Opportunities for Further Reconciliation
Beyond the expertise that Indigenous communities provide, transferring stolen land back to its owners is a moral obligation. The Indigenous peoples mentioned here have been dispossessed, abused, neglected, and in the case of the Narragansett tribe, nearly annihilated. This pain cannot be healed by simply acknowledging these wrongdoings – it requires a long-term commitment to restore what rightfully belongs to Native communities. The returning of Indigenous land is the first step in showing such commitment.
Hayden King, the Executive Director of the Yellowhead Institute and co-writer of the text Land Back, describes the returning of Native land through the perspective of the Beausoleil First Nation tribe as more than just returning property. “It’s also about revitalising Indigenous life, because we’re thinking about land as everything in unity, we’re thinking about our languages… our culture… our family, and social organisations connected to the land.”[10]
The returning of land is not only an opportunity for reconciliation, but a path for the autonomous growth and reestablishment of Indigenous communities. As Brian Lightfoot Brown of the Narragansett Tribe states, the land “is so deeply ingrained in who we are”.[11]
As world leaders gradually continue to rightfully recognise the benefits of including Indigenous communities in environmental preservation programmes, the fact that Native peoples are given back their land and resources is not just transactional. It’s an opportunity to plant the seeds of growth and restoration, while the land still remains fertile.
Benjamin Chappelow is a writer and narrative designer in the Appalachian mountains, United States.
As an immigration researcher and former Narrative Writer for the Climate Resilience Toolkit, he is focused on how the stories we tell dictate our behavior in an ecological crisis.
References
[1] The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory. (2021, September 28). 160,000 hectares returned on path to reconciliation. Ministerial Media Statements. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[2] Shivaram, D. (2021, October 8). Biden restores protections for bears ears monument, 4 years after Trump downsized it. NPR. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[3] 7 big questions: What’s happening with bears ears and other national monuments? The Wilderness Society. (2021, August). Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[4] U.S. Department of the Interior. (2021, January). Secretary Bernhardt Signs historic secretarial order to transition the National Bison Range into Tribal Trust for the Flathead Indian Reservation. Indian Affairs. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[5] Associated Press. (2021, October 27). Tribe Given Land Where Ancestors Survived Near-Annihilation. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[6] Robbins, J. (2021, June 3). How returning lands to Native Tribes is helping protect nature. Yale E360. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[7] Nunes, A. (2022, January 17). Site of ‘great swamp massacre’ returned to Narragansett Indian tribe. The Public’s Radio. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[8] Carrington, D. (2021, March 25). Indigenous peoples by far the best guardians of forests – UN report. The Guardian. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[9] Sutherland, L. (2021, November 3). $1.7 billion pledged in support of indigenous and local communities’ land tenure. Mongabay Environmental News. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[10] Monroe-Kane, C. (2021, December 20). How the land back movement is reclaiming land stolen from indigenous people. Wisconsin Public Radio. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[11] Brown, B. L. (2021, November 15). Long overdue: Sacred site returned to the Narragansett. Indian Country Today. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
Brazil is home to the largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon, where many Indigenous communities reside. Although deforestation has been rampant in Brazil for decades, it has soared to new heights under the administration of Jair Messias Bolsonaro, the current President. In recent years, he has proposed several controversial laws which would result in further deforestation, irreparably affecting the lives of Indigenous communities across Brazil.
One such proposal which is of particular concern amongst Brazilian and international communities is Bill 490/ 2007. The Bill, which has been sitting before congress since it was proposed by President Bolsarono in 2007, was approved under the Constitution and Justice Committee in June 2021, and is currently pending before the House of Deputies.
The Amazon is home to more than 30 million people in its entirety, including several hundred Indigenous tribes. Research suggests that these communities have lived in the Amazon for around 5,000 years without causing any detectable loss or disturbance to local wildlife. Despite the fact that many Indigenous communities have been impacted in one way or another by outsiders, most continue to live in harmony with the environment through traditional, sustainable ways of utilizing the land.
Many of the other effects of deforestation – including habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, disappearance of endangered species, loss of the rainforest’s influence on climate, and dampening of its ability to absorb emissions – are relatively well known. However, the devastating impact on Indigenous communities of damaging such precious land is often largely ignored by mainstream media.
This article attempts to shed some light on the discriminatory proposals contained within the above Bill, and, were it to be passed, explore its likely impacts at a human rights level.
Why is Brazil’s 490/2007 Bill So Detrimental to Indigenous Communities?
In pushing for this Bill, President Bolsonaro has argued that Indigenous communities are preventing development of the Amazon. Furthermore, there are several troublesome proposals contained within it which seek to erode the rights of Indigenous communities.
If this Bill were passed, it would prevent Brazil’s Indigenous communities from obtaining legal recognition of their traditional lands if they were not physically present there on October 5, 1988, or if they had not initiated any legal proceedings to claim it by that date. The Constitution of Brazil, on the other hand, recognizes Indigenous peoples’ right to “the lands they traditionally occupy” without any time limits or arbitrary cut-off date.
In addition, the Bill not only prevents Indigenous peoples from claiming additional land in order to expand already demarcated territories, but it also permits the government to remove Indigenous reserves. These reserves are the lands provided to Indigenous peoples by the government to protect their livelihoods and promote their cultural survival, which is especially crucial given that many Native Brazilians live entirely off the local land through a hunting, gathering, and cultivating crops. Under this proposal, the government would be able to eradicate these reserves and repossess land when it believes that it is no longer required for the cultural survival of the Indigenous communities.
What’s more, the Bill also allows the Brazilian government to find energy resources, set up military bases, develop strategic roads, and implement commercial agriculture on protected Indigenous tribal lands, without any prior discussion with the affected peoples. Once again, this deviates from the rights inscribed within the Brazilian Constitution, specifically Article 231(3) which prohibits any mining on Indigenous land without prior consultation with Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, international standards also necessitate effective consultation with Indigenous peoples in good faith to obtain their free consent before approving any project that would affect their livelihoods in any manner. For instance, Article 15(2) of The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, to which Brazil is a signatory, requires governments to establish procedures through which they shall consult the Indigenous peoples about the projects in their lands.
Violations of Indigenous Rights Under National and International Law
It is clear that to remove, exploit, or otherwise compromise land owned by and lived on by Indigenous people is not only a violation of national and international law, but also amounts to forcible displacement. Yet it appears that there is no recourse within this Bill for Native peoples to oppose these harmful plans.
President Bolsonaro not only continues to encourage mining and farming on Indigenous protected lands, but has now also approved acut to the environment ministry budget. The opening up of Indigenous land for commercial agriculture and mining would increase the already rampant deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest, with grave repercussions for not only those whose families and ancestors have lived there for millennia, but also for the planet as a whole.
The demarcation and protection of Indigenous lands is not only important for upholding the rights of Indigenous Brazilians, but is also an effective measure for slowing down deforestation in Brazil. Several studies have shown that measures for securing tribal lands, like demarcation of Indigenous property, are in themselves effective in slowing down rates of deforestation. It is important to note that President Bolsonaro has not approved any demarcation of Indigenous land since January 2019.
Indigenous peoples are dependent on Native lands for their livelihoods and cultural survival. If passed, the Bill would make it impossible for these communities to have their land rights recognized, and would also undermine those rights which are granted to them by the Brazilian constitution, along with international conventions like 1989 The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. It is hoped that this Bill, particularly its most harmful elements, will be prevented from passing, in order to safeguard the rights of Indigenous people across the Amazon and beyond.
Shambhavi Kant is a third year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. She is extremely interested in the field of Human Rights and likes to write about similar topics.
Shambhavi also has a profound interest in animal rights protection.
This article is part of Earth Refuge’s Spotlight Series on Philadelphia
During the summer of 2021, cities across the United States (‘US’) have seen record breaking temperatures to an extent that scientists say would have been “virtually impossible” to reach without anthropogenic climate change. Cities are especially prone to such extreme heat because of particular characteristics which cause people within urban areas— particularly low-income residents — to bear an undue burden of the effects of climate change.
What is the Urban Heat Island Effect?
Heat islands are urban areas that experience higher temperatures than their surrounding areas for a variety of reasons. For one, cities contain more man-made structures, such as buildings, roads, and dark roofs, which absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural land does. Additionally, more vehicles, more air conditioning units, and more industrial facilities all contribute to the heat island effect felt in cities across the world.
The city of Philadelphia is a paradigmatic heat island. Since 1970, Philadelphia’s average summer temperature has increased by three degrees Fahrenheit (-16 °C), leading to more extreme heat events. In the past fourteen years alone, heat-related events have caused nearly 150 deaths in Philadelphia. The magnitude of such tragedy is only expected to grow larger. Just this past summer, Philadelphia declared a Heat Health Emergency, which only occurs from May through June when temperatures are expected to reach 101°F (38 °C) or higher for two consecutive days, or 98°F (37 °C ) or higher for three or more consecutive days. This designation puts services like the city’s heatline into effect and bars any residential utility shutoffs.
The Disproportionate Impacts
Philadelphia is a quintessential heat island not only because the city has become hotter overall, but also because within the city — as in so many others — low-income neighborhoods and communities of color face disproportionate impacts of the increasing temperatures.
Philadelphia’s Hunting Park neighborhood, one of the city’s most impoverished areas, is illustrative. A recent report from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission showed that more than 75% of land cover in Hunting Park was comprised of buildings, roads, and paved surfaces. By contrast, tree canopy — which helps reduce heat — covers only 9% of the neighborhood. As a result, the neighborhood tends to be significantly warmer than the average city temperature: average surface temperature data shows that Hunting Park can be as much as 22°F (-6 °C) warmer than other neighborhoods.
These differences in landscape between Hunting Park and the rest of the city are largely a consequence of redlining, the systematic denial of financial services to residents of particular areas usually based on race. Redlining largely influenced historic housing policies in the US that led to the residential segregation that still exists today. Research shows that surface temperatures in formerly redlined neighborhoods in urban areas across the country tend to be up to 36°F (2 °C) warmer than non-redlined areas. While these trends are most pronounced in Southeast and Western cities in the US, the Philadelphia Heat Vulnerability Index shows that they remain consistent in Philadelphia as well.
Effective Solutions
Fortunately, action can still be taken at a more regional level to combat the effects of the urban heat island. Two of the most straightforward solutions are to increase the number of white roofs and to increase tree cover. Data from the Center for Clean Air Policy shows that white or light-colored roofs can reflect up to 80% of the sun’s rays in comparison to the 70% heat absorption of black roofs, in turn allowing homes to stay at lower temperatures.
Adding more tree canopy would also go a long way. Trees tend to absorb anywhere from 70 to 90% of sunlight in summer, and 20 to 90% of sunlight in winter, leading to significantly reduced temperatures in Hunting Park and other neighborhoods that are rapidly warming.
Although both solutions would require substantial investment, the benefits outweigh the costs. Indeed, data shows that more trees provide stormwater benefits and increase property values. More importantly, investment in reducing the impacts of the urban heat island effect and climate change more generally represents a small piece of a large effort owed to underserved communities. As climate migration continues to drive people to seek refuge in cities, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure that cities are prepared to provide these types of resources to current and future residents.
This article is part of Earth Refuge’s Spotlight Series on Philadelphia
In the middle of the night on June 21, 2019, residents across the city of Philadelphia were awoken by an explosion at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (‘PES’) Refinery. Only days later, as the damage was still being assessed, PES announced that it would permanently close the refinery, marking the end of a major piece of an industry that has been present in Philadelphia since the Civil War.
Although residents were pleased by its closure, the refinery’s lingering effects continue to put Philadelphians at risk every day, underscoring the 150 years of suffering and now irreversible damage that the PES refinery has done to surrounding neighborhoods. Nevertheless, these neighborhoods have mounted a strong response to raise awareness and push back against the refinery, ultimately influencing the space’s future.
Background
The petroleum industry grew quickly in Philadelphia. By 1822, just years after the discovery of petroleum in Titusville, Pennsylvania, the refinery that would later become PES was one of America’s largest. In fact, by 1891, Philadelphia produced 35% of all US petroleum exports. And by 2012, the refinery had become one of the largest on the east coast.
Given the refinery’s scale, it is perhaps unsurprising that it has harmed—and continues to harm—the surrounding communities. Before the explosion, the refinery was responsible for 72% of toxic air emissions in Philadelphia. As a result, Grays Ferry, the predominantly African American neighborhood immediately bordering the refinery, continues to bear the brunt of the refinery’s effects. Residents there experience alarming rates of asthma, cancer, and other life-threatening health conditions when compared to their neighbors across Philadelphia.
A History of Environmental Injustice
The harm did not stop after the explosion and subsequent closure of the refinery. An investigation by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board found that the PES explosion released 5,239 pounds of hydrofluoric acid – a deadly chemical – into the air. Even three years after its closure, the refinery continued to emit extremely high levels of benzene, a cancer-causing chemical.
This story of environmental racism is not unique to Grays Ferry or Philadelphia. Indeed, one study from the American Public Health Association found that African Americans were more than 1.5 times more likely to be exposed to particulate matter emissions because of their proximity to pollution-emitting facilities. Another study reported that African Americans are 75% more likely to live near facilities releasing hazardous chemicals into the air.
Pushing Back
Despite the pervasive effects of the now-defunct refinery, the surrounding neighborhoods continue to push back. In 2015, a group of Philadelphia residents founded Philly Thrive, an environmental justice group that runs strategic campaigns focusing on fossil fuel divestment, energy insecurity and injustice, and environmental racism. While discussions of climate migration often revolve around where to go, it is important to acknowledge that many people do not have the resources to move. Thus, the alternative is to work towards improving conditions at home, which is what Philly Thrive aims to do.
While Philly Thrive’s original “Right to Breathe” campaign was unsuccessful in stopping Philadelphia from developing a gas plant in 2019, the group has prevailed in its four other campaigns, including its “Contesting for Closure” campaign, which helped push for permanent closure of the refinery. Its current “Right to Thrive” campaign revolves around the future of the refinery and uprooting the environmental racism embodied by the history of the refinery. Beyond pushing legislative action, Philly Thrive provides meeting spaces to address concerns within the organization and to amplify voices and provide safe spaces for members of the community.
As for the refinery, there may be brighter days ahead. In January 2020, a Chicago-based real estate development company acquired the PES Refinery for $240 million and has plans to convert the 1,300 acres into a green and sustainable commercial hub.
Closure of the refinery represents an important step forward for the city, and particularly for impacted communities. While there is still a long way to go to even begin to reduce the refinery’s effects, the space appears to have a greener future ahead.
However, it is important to note that just because the space has a greener future does not mean that all its resulting problems will be solved: there are still concerns around transparency and equity, especially with respect to those that have been most affected by the refinery.
This article is part of Earth Refuge’s Spotlight Series on Philadelphia
When Michael Nutter stepped onto the stage at a forum for the 2007 Philadelphia mayoral primary election, he appeared to be in last place, trailing behind far more prominent and powerful candidates. The one advantage that Nutter had, however, was that he was the only candidate prepared to discuss environmental policy. Shortly thereafter, Nutter mounted a comeback and was elected mayor, making sustainability and environmentalism central to his administration’s work, declaring a goal of making Philadelphia the greenest city in America.
Even though good has come of that initial 2007 commitment to sustainability, there are still several environmental challenges to be addressed before Philadelphia can truly live up to the label of being the “greenest city in America.”
Greenworks
In 2009, during the Nutter administration, the city launched Greenworks, an innovative initiative that set a long-term vision for sustainability goals in Philadelphia and paved the way for several key programs. Greenworks was unique because it not only spurred environmental policies, it also aimed to weave sustainability into all areas of city policy. In many ways, Greenworks has found major success and served as a model for other cities across the country.
One major Greenworks success has been a cross-departmental program targeted toward reducing the city’s asthma rates. Through a collaboration between Philadelphia’s Departments of Sustainability and Public Health, the city has improved indoor air qualities in areas with higher rates of asthma by encouraging smoke-free policies and reducing other asthma triggers. As a result, rates of asthma hospitalizations in children have declined significantly since the program was launched.
Greenworks has also created programs to address larger environmental drivers of health issues like asthma. In 2019, the city passed the Building Energy Performance Policy, which requires large non-residential buildings to either certify high performance or perform maintenance to improve their energy efficiency. With buildings producing around 79% of Philadelphia’s overall carbon emissions, the policy was expected to cut the city’s carbon emissions by almost 200,000 metric tons, or the equivalent of taking 40,000 cars off the road. The policy is just one aspect of the city’s Municipal Energy Master Plan,, the city’s larger plan for reducing carbon emissions. Thus far, the plan has been a success: a recent report shows that Philadelphia has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 33% since 2006, putting the city on track to reach its goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030.
Community Engagement
While Greenworks has fostered successful systems-level initiatives, the Office of Sustainability has also recognized the need for more projects that engage individuals directly. For instance, a Greenworks program called TreePhilly has encouraged thousands of Philadelphians to help work towards the city’s goal of reaching 30% tree canopy in every neighborhood. A related program called the Philly Tree Program partners with non-profit organizations to overcome language barriers to seek input from non-native English speakers in deciding where trees should be planted to maximize their community impact.
Another realm in which the city has been able to engage the community is with green stormwater infrastructure. In 2011, the Philadelphia Water Department launched Green City Clean Waters, a plan to reduce the amount of stormwater entering sewers. Like TreePhilly, the plan generated overwhelming public support because of surveys and educational resources that the Water Department used to gauge Philadelphians’ interest. Overall, Green City Clean Waters has been a success: in a decade, the city has managed to install enough green tools to keep almost 3 billion gallons of polluted water out of surrounding rivers. However, a report from the city showed that rising sea levels will compromise many stormwater outfall structures, preventing proper drainage. Philadelphia needs to continue to assess its own systems and monitor the situation in order for true climate change preparedness.
Moving Forward
Philadelphia has made significant progress in sustainability, and the city must continue to address the current needs of its residents while preparing for the future. In recent years, the city has managed to educate its citizens on many environmental issues through Greenworks that they would not have been engaged with otherwise. While Philadelphia still has work to do, the city has taken impressive steps in the right direction.
On Saturday 13th November, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) drew to a close after 2 weeks of charged negotiations between almost 200 nations. The “Glasgow Climate Pact” was adopted late on Saturday evening, but the final hours of negotiations weren’t without some setbacks.
The biggest of these revolved around coal, with both India and China having opposed early drafts of the deal due to concerns about the language used around the world’s most polluting fossil fuel. They pushed for an updated version to include a watered-down commitment to a “phase-down” of coal, rather than the original “phase out”.
Scientists have repeatedly warned that global heating beyond 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures could lead to irreversible changes in our climate system. Coal emissions are central to discussions around keeping below 1.5°C, as coal is currently responsible for more than 40% of annual CO2 emissions. As such, the diluted language of “phase down” has been met with resistance by climate activists, as it weakens the commitment to getting rid of the use of coal completely. The change of language was a cause for celebration for many coal advocates, since “phase down” represents a “green light for more coal production”, in the words of pro-coal Australian senator Matthew Canavan.
The pledges on emission cuts set out in the pact have been widely criticized, as analysis has shown that they fall short of what is required to meet the 1.5°C of warming agreed at the Paris Climate Accord. A study for the Climate Action Tracker website shows that if the 2030 targets announced at COP26 are implemented in their entirety, temperatures are still projected to rise to 2.4°C by 2100. Warming above 2°C will lead to more extreme droughts, increased Arctic sea ice loss, and almost complete loss of coral reefs, compared to 1.5°C. The Tracker also calculates an “optimistic scenario” which assumes “full implementation of all announced targets” including long-term strategies. This scenario still overshoots the Paris agreement goal, with projected warming sitting at 1.8°C by 2100.
Many poorer countries were left feeling disappointed by the pact, as they felt their concerns around “loss and damage” were not adequately addressed. “Loss and damage” refers to rich countries, who are predominantly responsible for climate change, paying poor countries to compensate them for climate change caused damage which disproportionately affects poorer nations.
Throughout the conference, vulnerable nations emphasised how the climate crisis has already impacted them. A particularly powerful message came from Tuvalu’s foreign minister, Simon Kofe, who made his address to delegates standing knee-deep in seawater, highlighting the impact sea-level rise is having on the low-lying Pacific Island nation.
A group of 55 nations particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, formed the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF). At the start of COP, CVF had issued a call for a “Climate Emergency Pact”, which called for at least $500bn in climate finance during 2020-2024, for mitigation and adaptation.
During the closing of the conference, COP26 President Alok Sharma apologised for the pact, saying that he was “deeply sorry” for how the process unfolded and the lacklustre commitments from the international community regarding coal. COP26 concluded with the promise that all countries will return to the negotiating table in a year’s time in Egypt to re-examine national plans.
Evelyn Workman graduated with a Master’s degree in climate physics from Utrecht University in 2020. This degree program allowed her to marry her passions for both physics and climate change. In October 2021 she started a PhD program at the British Antarctic Survey due to her eagerness to pursue further scientific research within the field of climate change. During her PhD studies she will be investigating methane in and above polar oceans.
This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
