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.
On the penultimate day of COP26, a representative from the Climate Action Network presented Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon with an award called ‘Ray of the Day’. This symbolized recognition for a long overdue action: during the conference, Scotland became the first country in the world to contribute to a Loss & Damage fund, to help countries in the Global South respond to damage caused by climate change. Initially limited to one million pounds, shortly before the award was presented, First Minister Sturgeon even doubled the amount. A great act that deserved the rousing applause in the room as well as the award. Right?
What Constitutes a ‘Loss’ or ‘Damage’?
The term ‘Loss & Damage’ refers to destruction which has already occurred that can be attributed to climate change, despite mitigation and adaptation efforts. ‘Losses’ are permanent and cannot be recovered; loss of human life, extinction of biological species or destruction of cultural assets or culturally important places are among them. ‘Damages’ however, are reversible, at least in theory; examples might include damaged infrastructure or monetary losses from a collapse in the economy.
The History of Loss and Damage
Loss & Damage first came up in international policy in 1991, when the Alliance of Small Island States promoted climate insurance in the drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which can be understood as the most important international agreement aiming to reduce anthropogenic harm to our climate system. Though the term ‘insurance’ did in fact make it into the UNFCCC document as an option requiring consideration , it took more than two decades for a Loss & Damage mechanism to actually be created.
Following protracted, acrimonious negotiations, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was finally drafted in 2013. Its main task is to promote “implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change…in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner.”[i] In reality however, the means of WIM are limited to research and dialogue, not implementation at all. And whilst research and the initiation of conversations surrounding climate-induced loss and damage are two urgently needed components in the response to climate change, WIM makes no direct provisions for liability or compensation for loss and damage. Therefore, it must be stated that WIM is by far not as meaningful as the originally proposed climate insurance mechanism.
The case is similar for the so-called Santiago Network, which was established as part of the WIM in 2020. It is focused on ‘the implementation of relevant approaches [for averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage] at the local, national and regional level, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”[ii]. Though for too long the lack of implementation of any compensation or liability mechanisms has hindered global progress in this sphere, in a positive move, COP26 discussions have now provided steps towards the operationalization of the Santiago Network.
COP26
At COP26 itself, the words of sympathy were consistently strong, with everyone claiming that they really do want to help. However, it seems that nobody wants to pay for it. Not only is this completely unacceptable, but it’s also tragically ironic. The Global North, with their reticence to contribute financially, is responsible for an unbelievable 92% of climate change[iii], and has made gigantic economic profits through some of the most environmentally damaging activities. To the Global South, on the other hand, devastating damage has been done, with almost no recompense, financial or otherwise. People, cultures, and animal species are dying, local economies are collapsing, and people are forced to flee their homes. Loss & Damage is not about charity, but rather about reparation payments. The money that the affected countries and their populations require should be seen as a duty; something that is owed to them as opposed to a goodwill gesture.
At a side event at the conference, an NGO representative shared his difficult mission back home in Norway. The Norwegian government appears to be of the belief that by agreeing to contribute to what are known as adaptation payments of 100 billion USD per year, they will no longer be required to talk about Loss & Damage, being under the impression that the two payments basically constitute the same thing. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth, though the distinction is actually quite simple.
Adaptation aims to increase resilience in affected areas in a way that makes it possible to live with the consequences of climate change. Examples might include new crop varieties that can cope with changes in precipitation, or the construction of sea walls to protect against rising sea levels. Loss and damage payments, on the other hand, are due when such adaptation measures have failed. For example, if agriculture becomes completely impossible because of droughts, or people are forced to leave their homes and possessions behind because of flooding. Hence, the adaptation fund (which in itself is far from being provided fully) cannot be used as an excuse for not providing money for the Loss & Damage fund.
Author’s Note
It is noted that Scotland’s contribution to the climate fund is a step forward, albeit only a baby step. But at least a start has been made. However, I find it more than questionable that Scotland is being applauded, and its contribution being positioned as a great act of philanthropy. In reality it is only a partial fulfilment of the state’s international duty, and in the grand scheme of things, I believe it constitutes relatively very minor progress towards what is right, just and long overdue. In contrast, there isn’t enough applause for the young people who are fighting tirelessly for climate justice and who were the ones able to persuade Scotland’s First Minister Sturgeon to at least take this first step. I do trust that they will continue their fight and this step will soon be followed by many others.
Ole ter Wey is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state. It was then that he began thinking about how to address forced migration and dedicated his Liberal Arts Bachelor to the topics of migration and integration.
This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.
[ii] UNFCCC (2019): Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts and its 2019 review, paragraph 43. https://unfccc.int/documents/209506
[iii] Hickel, Jason (2020): Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary, page e399. In: The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2020, Pages e399-e404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0
COP26, the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, took place in Glasgow from the 31st October – 12th November 2021, and was branded as an attempt to “unite the world to tackle climate change”.
Though undoubtedly an important goal, the Conference’s agenda neglected a vital consequence and aspect of climate change: climate migration, potentially harming the sustainability of the negotiations and giving the impression that one of the most frightening consequences of climate change is being ‘swept under the rug’.
The main target of the UN climate change conference was to solidify the targets presented in the 2015 Paris Agreement, namely, to limit warming of the Earth’s temperature to 1.5 °C from pre-industrial times. The published aims of the negotiations are to:
Reduce emissions
Strengthen adaptation and resilience to climate impacts
Scale up finance and support.
The summit’s introductory document, website, and published targets hardly mentioned climate-induced migration. The only time where one could see negotiations approach the topic was on a single day under the theme of “adaptation, loss and damage”, whilst other agenda items ranged from the World Leader’s Summit to discussions relating to finance, energy, nature, science, and innovation,
Whilst this commentary does not intend to down-play the importance of such a conference as a positive first step, it must be acknowledged that to sideline climate-induced displacement is to ignore some of climate change’s most devastating impacts upon individuals, cultures and communities. Though COP26 mentions that “the international community must unite and support people who are most vulnerable to the impacts of the changing climate”, there do not appear to be any elements of this conference dedicated to those who are, and will be, forced to flee their homes as a result of increasingly hostile climates.
The approach of the United Kingdom
The UK’s leadership page itself is mainly focused on the economic aspect of climate change and its following ‘Green Revolution’, with every target or accomplishment listed on its presentation being associated with either economics or finance. Whilst it is true that long-term, durable solutions to the climate crisis do require financial backing, emphasising the economics at the expense of a focus on the lived experiences of the individual severely undermines the possibility of developing tenable solutions which are inclusive of people across the globe, living in countries with differing economic ‘buying power’.
Moreover, Boris Johnson’s statement that “securing a brighter future for our children and future generations requires countries to take urgent action at home and abroad to turn the tide on climate change” is firmly juxtaposed with the UK’s policy towards refugees, specifically the Home Office’s recently proposed ‘New Plan for Immigration’. At a time when the UK seeks to penalise, criminalise, and limit protections for those fleeing their homes as a result of persecution and violence, it seems sadly fitting that provisions for those made to leave their homes for environmental reasons are also neglected. Hostile attitudes towards climate migrants, and of displaced persons in general, occur for a multitude of reasons that are often shared across nations, including a denial of the existence of environmental refugees and also a generally negative attitude towards immigration.
For the UK at least, it seems difficult for the former to change whilst the latter still holds true; all the time that hostile policies are continually implemented towards those fleeing persecution, furthering the rights of those displaced through the effects of climate change will be an uphill battle. This is despite the fact that Western Nations are often disproportionately involved in the perpetuation of the factors which drive both forms of displacement.
The consequences of failure to address climate migration
Given that there are so many topics relating to climate change to cover, and such a long road ahead before rights are upheld for those forced to leave their homes, why is it necessary to include climate change migration issues in today’s discourse? The answer is simple: there is no time to wait. Climate migration will be one of the most important contemporary issues of the next 50 years as climate change causes environmental degradation in more and more areas of the world.
For example, today 1% of the world is a barely liveable hot zone, meaning that humans could not live in these areas due to their extreme weather conditions – specifically heat. By 2070 that zone could go up to 19% – almost a fifth of the planet. This means that more and more people across this type of territory will be displaced due to the destruction of their habitat, whilst others will be forced to flee due to flooding, natural disasters, extremes of weather, and rising sea levels. People have already begun to flee, not only from natural disasters and short-term environmental damage, but also from slow onset environmental decay.
In Southeast Asia the agriculture sector is suffering as rainfall patterns and droughts become more intense, causing the displacement of around 8 million people who have moved toward the Middle East, Europe and North America. The World Bank’s Groundswell Report suggests that by 2050, if no action is taken, there will be more than 143 million climate change migrants in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America alone.
Concluding thoughts
Despite having good intentions and aims in terms of prevention and economics, the COP26 summit failed to mention this and its potentially dire consequences for the international effort to tackle human displacement. This could in turn lead to a lack of funds, resources, and political will to provide help to people who have witnessed the destruction of their homes. Climate change migration deserves more academic, policy and political attention, and COP26 is a perfect example of this. Those at risk of becoming displaced deserve protection from long-lasting environmental damage, and those already displaced deserve international support and access to their full human and legal rights. Alongside affected communities, it is up to activists, environmentalists, and the general population to bring attention to the cause of climate migration, and to establish a protection and assistance framework.
Johanna Wassong is in her final year, studying International Relations at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, specializing in human rights and refugee rights in sub–Saharan Africa. She is currently writing her dissertation on the refugee politics after the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Johanna initially started working with refugees in her hometown Cologne, Germany during the European Migrant Crisis in 2015-2016 and was specifically confronted with the issues of environmental migration after the floodings in Ahrtal in Summer 2021.
This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.
With more than 10 million inhabitants, Jakarta has become one of the largest metropolitan cities in the world. While the city has witnessed rapid economic development, many social and environmental issues are yet to be resolved – most critically, the fact that Jakarta is sinking at the rate of 10 centimeters per year. This ticking time bomb is expected to displace the majority of Jakarta’s population by 2050.
Understanding Jakarta’s existential threat is not an easy task. The issue spans from inadequate urban planning to lack of governmental preventive actions, in addition to massive groundwater loss. The latter is particularly problematic for a local population that relies on groundwater, since without it, Jakarta will be unable to provide access to clean water for its inhabitants.
The extraction of groundwater in Jakarta on a massive scale over the past six decades is one of the major reasons for its sinking. Water exists between sediment layers in the ground underneath Jakarta, and when this is removed in excessive, unregulated amounts, the sediment layers can collapse and compress together, reducing the elevation of affected areas on a dramatic scale. The heavily impacted coastal area of North Jakarta has already sunk 2.5 meters over the past decade and many fishing neighbourhoods have been destroyed.
Due to its seasonal heavy rain climate and limited open space for water absorption, Jakarta has faced many annual floods; the most detrimental flooding in 2020 alone left millions affected, thousands displaced and at least 26 dead. Research shows that global warming is also a factor behind instances of severe flooding across Greater Jakarta, with increasing rainfall and extreme monsoon storms making the current situation worse. A report by Indonesia’s Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency indicates that Jakarta’s rainfall has reached 335 millimetres per day – enough to classify as extreme rain. Furthermore, some areas in Jakarta that are already below sea level are on the verge of sinking entirely due to unstoppable global sea level rise.
While many anticipate that Jakarta only has until 2050 before the issue is irreversible, there are concerns that the tipping point could occur even sooner. As the hub of Indonesia’s economic activities, Jakarta offers many job opportunities for Indonesians, hence the city still experiences an influx of people. With the population of Jakarta increasing annually, new high-rise apartments and housing complexes in Greater Jakarta are rapidly being built, further limiting open spaces and groundwater usage, and accelerating Jakarta’s sinking rate.
Whilst this initially sounds promising, many activists and research institutes think differently. Moving the capital to Borneo Island might be damaging for Indonesia’s rainforest in building the city. In addition, an issue of indigenous rights of tribal communities in Borneo Island also emerges in the discussion. Thousands of indigenous people may be displaced from their tribal lands as large areas of the forest are cleared to build the new capital. Moving the capital to another island will also not necessarily resolve Jakarta’s problem of land sinkage, because many people might still be reluctant to move, meaning that Jakarta will remain the home of economic and industrial activities, all of which will continue to face the same threats.
Apart from this, the government is also building a sea wall across Jakarta’s coastline to prevent sea level rise’s impacts on Jakarta. It may minimize the effects of sea abrasion on Jakarta, but given that the main cause of Jakarta’s sinking is the lack of government-supplied drinking water, this will leave a key issue unsolved. Less than 60% of Jakarta inhabitants are covered by piped water infrastructure, and even this is centralized in wealthy areas.This means that for as long as the population remains reliant on groundwater and the government remains unable to find an alternative way to supply its citizens with clean water, then Jakarta’s sinking rate will be nowhere near declining.
Jakarta may well be on its way to becoming uninhabitable in the near future unless solutions are found without any further delay. While the responsibility rests mainly on the government, it is also imperative for Jakarta’s inhabitants to not further exacerbate the problems. As a collective, Jakarta’s residents can slow the rate of damage by adopting a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, for example by using public transportation more frequently, effectively managing their waste, and consuming water more efficiently. By increasing their environmental awareness, Jakarta’s residents can help to alleaviate the negative impacts of climate change on Jakarta’s sinking, meaning that an integrated educational and political approach will be key. Whether Jakarta’s collapse as a city will happen depends on the ability of all societal actors to cooperate together in preventing this occurrence.
Harry David is a LLM student on the Erasmus Mundus International Law of Global Peace, Security, and Development programme at the University of Glasgow. He holds a BA in International Relations from Universitas Gadjah Mada in Indonesia , and also completed a Human Security short course from Kyoto University in Japan.
Harry has worked as a junior policy researcher at a diplomatic mission in Jakarta and as an executive at the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). He is passionate about sustainability, climate change, and human rights issues.
Climate change is dismantling some of the most fragile human-environment dynamics in existence. Across the globe, changes in seasonality are threatening the survival of regions that have relied on subsistence farming for centuries.
Malawi, a small country located in the heart of Africa, remains one of the most environmentally volatile nations on earth. For thousands of years, vast regions of rural Malawi have depended upon predictable climate patterns to ensure agricultural yields. Over the past two decades, however, increasing irregularities in seasonal weather patterns have made it difficult for small-scale farmers and communities reliant on subsistence farming methods to maintain their livelihood. In the absence of government intervention, human driven heating will continue to crumble these agrarian communities.
The ongoing climate crisis in Malawi must be examined at a micro level in order to address the issues that afflict the most vulnerable districts in the nation. It will be critical to develop a reconstructive framework that prioritizes the needs of local communities, and increases the adaptive capacity of those subsisting on the land in rural regions.
Compounding changes in seasonality have created immense challenges for a majority of the country’s population, who maintain a deeply interdependent relationship with the environment. More than 80% of Malawian farmers rely on stable and predictable rainfall cycles to support food production. [i] Due to extreme poverty, the use of artificial water channeling remains particularly low, with less than 5% of farmers adopting non-traditional irrigation techniques. [ii] The reliance on cyclical rainfall patterns intensifies the population’s susceptibility to the adverse effects of climatic extremes, such as flooding and drought. In order to mitigate the impacts of climate variability on annual agricultural yields and local food supply, it will be crucial to enable rural communities to utilize more efficient irrigation, flood diversion, and water storage methods.
How can access to water be improved?
The most functional water channeling method to administer in rural Malawi is the drip irrigation system. This technique involves direct and regulated application of water to the root zone of each crop through a nexus of subsurface pipes and tubes. This tactic minimizes runoff, evaporation, and conserves 30-65% more water compared to rainfed cultivation, making it most suitable for high temperature environments.[iii] It has also been shown to generate higher yields and better quality produce than traditional systems, providing sufficient irrigation throughout the dry season, whilst preserving soil fertility. [iv]
Alternative irrigation methods also decrease the need for labor-intensive water carrying practices. This helps to improve the safety and productivity of women living in rural areas by reducing the burden of water transportation. A recent study reports that 13.54 million women (and 3.36 million children) in Sub-Saharan regions are responsible for water collection trips that take 30 minutes or longer.[v] Women may spend an average of 4.5 hours per week collecting water, causing many to compromise their own safety along with the well-being of their children.[vi]
The distance between many villages’ functional water points continues to expand as a result of environmental disaster. In 2019 alone, tropical cyclone Idai caused massive damage to the land and infrastructure, leaving nearly 700,000 people without secure routes to fresh water. [vii]
Aside from compromising food security, limited access to clean water also exacerbates health and hygiene issues, especially among rural communities. Recent statistics reveal that 9.9 million people in Malawi do not have access to basic sanitation facilities, resulting in approximately 3,000 under-five child deaths per year.[viii] The construction of proper water facilities will be especially critical for women and young girls, who face increased risk of infection during menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth.
The implementation of flood diversion channels and alluvial aquifers may also be helpful in improving water availability whilst averting extended drought. A new study finds that sand-river aquifers hold practical and economic potential for small-scale irrigation in the drylands of Africa.[ix] These systems can aid in preventing displacement during the wet season as well, by diverting flood waters that often force families to abandon their homes and agriculture.
What else is needed to support subsistence-based communities in the face of climate change?
Whilst water security is crucial, additional public health measures must be taken to help establish resilience amongst climate-sensitive communities.
An Oxfam report estimates that 20,000 children in Malawi are born each year with HIV, and about half a million children are orphans due to HIV and AIDS.[x] Climate variability heightens poverty rates, resulting in increased incidence of forced prostitution and trafficking. During periods of environmental distress, women and young girls are often forced or coerced to provide sexual services in exchange for food and water. Many women may resort to selling sex throughout spans of successive drought in order to save their own children from the grips of starvation. [xi] These measures magnify the spread of infectious disease, and women are frequently left overburdened in caring for those who are ill.[xii]In repairing the health of rural communities, any form of climate adaptation should also involve the development of caretaking facilities for those who are ill and orphaned, as well as political and educational programs to help reduce the prevalence of basic rights violations.
It is clear that the challenges faced by climate-sensitive regions are becoming ever-more multifactorial, and may even prove insurmountable, if proactive support from the international community is not forthcoming. In order to develop a strong adaptation plan, we must foster greater financial support for rural regions affected by climate change. This will be key in facilitating increased access to effective subsistence systems, and building greater resilience among vulnerable communities.
Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.
[ii] Climate Change Impacts in Malawi. (2020). Assessing the impacts of climate change on the agriculture sectors in Malawi, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved April 27, 2021.
[vi] Caruso, Bethany. Women still carry most of the world’s water. (2017). The Conversation. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://theconversation.com/women-still-carry-most-of-the-worlds-water-81054
[x] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009). The Winds of Change: Climate change, poverty and the environment in Malawi, Oxfam International. Retrieved April 27, 2021. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/winds-change
[xi] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009).
[xii] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009).
Melting ice shelves, cyclones, floods, wildfires – these are the visuals that come to mind when thinking about climate change. Increasingly, the global community is also realizing the impact of rising temperatures on the world’s poor and most vulnerable communities. But the future could be bleaker still – scientists opine that wars of the future could be fought over resources made scarce due to climate change.
Conflict over natural resources is not a new phenomenon. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that in the last 60 years, at least 40% of all intrastate conflicts had a link to natural resources. Since 1990, at least 18 violent conflicts have been fueled by the exploitation of natural resources, whether high-value resources like diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce ones like fertile land and water. That being said, increasing numbers of climate-linked disasters, including desertification, more frequent and intense droughts, heavier rains, and flash floods have only added to existing tensions. An international group of scholars has recently concluded that severe climate change will lead to more conflict in the future.According to a 2014 report authored by a group of more than a dozen retired U.S. generals and admirals from the armed forces, climate change poses a serious threat to U.S. national security and is becoming a “catalyst for conflict” in vulnerable areas. This is not to say that the link between climate change and armed conflict is well understood. Disentangling higher temperatures, drought and sea-level rise from other factors, such as bad governance, corruption, existing ethnic tensions and economics, is difficult. But researchers do believe that even if climate change won’t initiate conflicts in the future, it could serve as a ‘threat multiplier’ and exacerbate crises.[4]
A recent report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre used advance machine-learning algorithms to identify five hotspots for potential conflicts where multiple countries shared the same water body. The hotspots identified were the Ganges-Brahmaputra region, where the water flows through Bangladesh and India; the Colorado river, which runs through the United States and Mexico; the Indus region, which has water bodies separating India and Pakistan; the Tigris-Euphrates, which flows through Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait; and finally, the Nile that runs through 11 African countries. Lack of water across these water bodies could intensify existing tensions among countries and bring about social unrest.
For example, Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia all depend on inflow from the Nile and have long exchanged political blows over the $5bn upstream Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project. Egypt relies on the Nile for 90 per cent of its water needs while Sudan is highly vulnerable to droughts due to alteration of the river’s behavior. The in-progress dam will be able to bring electricity to over 50 per cent of Ethiopians who currently do not have it and also enable Ethiopia to control the flow of the Blue Nile, a major tributary of the Nile. When the Ethiopian government announced plans to press ahead with the project, Egypt and Sudan held a joint war exercise in May 2021, pointedly called “Guardians of the Nile.” The situation has perhaps the highest risk of spilling into a water war of all the disputes in today’s political landscape, but there are several other hotspots around the world.
Solutions to averting resource conflicts vary depending on a multitude of factors – sometimes resolution requires diplomacy, whereas other instances require innovative infrastructure projects. As climate change and growing human populations continue to compound the problem of resource scarcity around the world, bespoke solutions will become ever more necessary to stop conflict.
Nikunj Bhimsaria is a consultant currently working for a climate focused philanthropy. In the past, he has worked as a business strategy consultant across various sectors and has also volunteered for various non-profits. His undergraduate background is in Engineering from BITS Pilani.
Interested in human-environmental ecosystems and how they adapt to climate change, Nikunj has been part of various climate adaptation projects. He is committed to mainstreaming climate issues by combining research with human narratives.
In the summer of 2021, Western Europe experienced some of the worst flooding in decades. It caused tragic loss of life and widespread destruction across Europe, with its effects felt in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The catastrophic floods were especially powerful in Germany, where 180 people died, 700 were injured, and at the time of writing, 73 people are still missing. Preliminary calculations by German insurance companies suggest that there has been a cost to the economy of 4.5 – 5.5. billion euros, for damage to insured property alone.[1]
Whilst these events are both heart-breaking in their impact on people’s lives, and shocking in their unprecedented nature, this is but one notable example in Western Europe of a trend that has been occurring in other parts of the world for decades, leading to displacement and devastation across the globe. By examining the impact of flooding in the Ahrtal, Germany, scientists have uncovered additional compelling evidence in support of the human-induced contributions to the worsening of natural disasters.
The Ahrtal in Germany – an idyllic region often known for its local wineries and a popular tourist spot for hikers – was and continues to be one of the worst affected regions. At the height of the floods, it is estimated that approximately 90 litres of rain per square meter were falling into the regions around the rivers Ahr and Erft daily, more than any rainfall pattern noted in weather records so far[2].
Can explanations be found for these unprecedented events?
One of the factors predisposing the Ahrtal to flooding is the geography of the region: some valley sections create a funnel effect in the event of extreme floods due to the narrow nature and steep slopes. However, that does not necessarily encompass the full explanation for this catastrophe, which is estimated to be a once in 500-year event, or even rarer according to a study conducted by an international group of scientists from across Europe and the US.[3]
It was also found that human-induced climate change altered both the likelihood and intensity of the heavy rainfall which caused the severe flooding in Western Europe. In other words, not only has human induced climate change made the chances of such flooding happening greater, but it has also led to a worsening of the severity of heavy rainfall events. The study assessed general data from 1-day and 2-day rainfall events separately, and this disaggregation helped to analyse the changes in rainfall duration over the past decades.
The research group landed on three key findings. Firstly, they were able to demonstrate that rising temperatures have made flooding itself worse – climate changed increased the intensity of the rainfall event by about “3 – 19% compared to a global climate 1.2 °C cooler than today”. They also showed that climate change has made the probability of such an event occurring far higher – the likelihood of flooding has increased by a factor of between 1.2-9 compared to a pre-industrial climate. The study also looked at what would happen if the global temperature would continue to increase, up until 2°C warmer than pre-industrial times. Worryingly, the study found that these trends in severity and likelihood would continue to worsen along this predicted trajectory[4].
Though research demonstrating the harms of climate change and global warming already exists, environmental politics within Europe have been slow to change. However, this study based in Western Europe itself, tangibly links climate change to catastrophic effects on people’s livelihoods, and demonstrates its influence in causing huge displacement issues. Though it is unfortunate that governments have in the past not been willing to mobilise when such displacements are occur in far-off countries, it seems possible that in the face of such local impact, this study may succeed where others have failed in galvanizing European action.
The climate crisis as a crisis of global displacement
Due to the extreme floods, and the long-term effects that they had, the residents of the Ahrtal were severely displaced, both in the long and short-term. Whilst volunteering in the Ahrtal, reconstructing a destroyed house which belonged to a local police chief, I heard examples of the displacement which so many were forced to face after their houses were swept away by the floods or ripped down by the authorities due to extreme flooding damage.
One couple explained how their children had to start the new school year in a new region, living with their grandparents, because their own house cannot be lived in, and the school building had also been damaged. This is just one of many examples of the displacement and disruption the residents of the Ahrtal have had to manage. Moreover, ever since the initial, immediate displacement caused by the loss of their home, the residents have continued to experience long-term issues.
Even 3 months after the catastrophe, residents continue feel the ramifications of the disaster. For example, in the city of Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, citizens are left without gas and heating, a challenge that could persist until the winter. Currently, 150 people are still lacking access to these basic services, and others are already living in emergency shelters supplied in the form of containers[5]. The long-term displacement and consequences are often invisible, overlooked as the media turns its attention elsewhere.
There has been widespread disappointment amongst residents with the way the disaster has been handled, not only in terms of the lack of alarm and warning residents received[6], but also in terms of organization after the crisis. One local describes how all of fundraising activities and donations have been organized privately, and there is a palpable feeling of having been let down by the government amongst the affected community. Politicians have expressed their horror and have vowed to fight climate change, with German environment minister Svenja Schulze stating that the recent floods are “the consequences of procrastination and hesitation” in fighting climate change.[7] However, one must be cautious in their optimism in believing meaningful policy change will occur, as these statements were overshadowed by rhetoric surrounding the recent national election in September 2021.
These catastrophes, however, are not new to some developing countries, but a wakeup call only for Western nations. Unfortunately, developing nations such as Bangladesh, countries in the Sahel region and island-nations such as the Maldives, have experienced extreme weather changes and increasing frequency of natural disasters. The question remains if the recent flooding will wake up western nations now that there have been climate-induced disasters and climate induced displacement on their doorstep.
Johanna Wassong is a final year International Relations student at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, specializing in human rights and refugee rights in sub–Saharan Africa. She is currently writing her dissertation on refugee politics following the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Johanna initially started working with refugees in her hometown of Cologne, Germany during the so-called Refugee Crisis of 2015, and was specifically confronted with the issues of environmental migration after the 2021 summer floodings in the Ahrtal.
References
[1] Bundeszentrale Bildung, “Jahrhunderthochwasser 2021 In Deutschland | Bpb”, Bpb.De, 2021, https://www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund-aktuell/337277/jahrhunderthochwasser-2021-in-deutschland.
[2] David Young, “Klimawandel, Flut An Ahr Und Erft – Und Die Frage Nach Dem Verschulden”, Deutschlandfunk, 2021, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/studie-zeigt-zusammenhang-klimawandel-flut-an-ahr-und-erft.2897.de.html?dram:article_id=501936.
[3]“Heavy Rainfall Which Led To Severe Flooding In Western Europe Made More Likely By Climate Change – World Weather Attribution”, Worldweatherattribution.Org, 2021, https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/heavy-rainfall-which-led-to-severe-flooding-in-western-europe-made-more-likely-by-climate-change/.
[6] Deutsche Welle, “Germany Ponders Lessons From Deadly Floods — As It Happened”, 2021, https://www.dw.com/en/germany-ponders-lessons-from-deadly-floods-as-it-happened/a-58311369.
[7] David Ehl, “The Climate Crisis Can’t Be Stopped, We Must Adapt”, Deutsche Welle, 2021, https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-the-climate-crisis-cant-be-stopped-we-must-adapt/a-58294704.
Climate change is forcing the displacement of people, both within states (i.e., internally displaced persons or ‘IDPs’) and beyond borders (i.e., climate change-forced migrants). According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (‘UNHCR’), as of 22 April 2021, climate change has triggered more than twice as much displacement than conflict has in the last decade.[i] Since 2010, weather emergencies have caused an average of 21.5 million people to move per year.[ii] The International Panel for Climate Change (‘IPCC’) recently found that climate change exasperates gender inequalities and women are less likely to have equal rights and access to resources.[iii] These inequalities appear to result in women being more likely to be displaced than men, and it has been reported that women represent 80% of people displaced by climate change globally.[iv]
Research is showing that this increase in displacement has a direct effect on the rise of modern slavery. Although each year more traffickers are being brought to justice,[v] modern slavery still presents serious cause for concern, particularly when contemplating an increase in vulnerability as people are affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and conflict amongst other factors. Migrants account for a considerable share of detected victims globally as they are often marginalised and impoverished, and therefore preyed upon by traffickers.[vi]
The aim of this paper is to examine the causal relationship between climate change and sex trafficing – specifically with regard to women. The experiences of children will also be included where possible. The experiences of non-binary victims have not been included due to a current lack of data which needs to be addressed in future research. The paper also aims to highlight recent migration and pollution trends in order to give an overview of who is being affected and where accountability should lie. Sex trafficking is examined as opposed to other forms of exploitation, such as forced labour (including domestic servitude), organ harvesting, forced adoption, or forced criminality. This is due to the fact that, according to data gathered about detected victims, the majority of modern slavery cases constitute sexual exploitation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (‘UNODC’) Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020 records that 50% of those detected were trafficked for sexual exploitation, 38% were trafficked for forced labour, 6% were forced into criminality, and just over 1% were forced to beg. Smaller numbers were reported for people trafficked for the purposes of forced marriages, organ removals, and other types of exploitation.[vii]
Women and girls are the focus of this paper as they continue to be the most affected demographic. The UNODC recorded that in 2018, for every 10 victims globally, about five were adult women and two were girls.[viii] The International Labour Organization (‘ILO’) also recorded that in 2017, women and girls accounted for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry.[ix]
Climate change and women
Forced migration as the result of climate change has risen in the last decade and is projected to continue rising. Some states are large enough geographically that governments can move citizens to areas of the country that are not as affected by climate change yet- such as away from coast lines for example. However, to do this people are often placed in camps, thus becoming internally displaced persons. Although this means that they still have recognised rights from their governments, IDPs are often more vulnerable than non-displaced persons due to the fact that they may have to inhabit camps with poor sanitation, limited access to clean water and food, higher rates of disease, and sometimes social and economic exclusion.
A study on internal displacement camps in Northern Uganda showed that placing people into these camps hampers the rights provided by citizenship as people do not always have their basic needs met, such as access to adequate healthcare facilities.[x] Moreover, climate change can put stress on national infrastructures and limit access to land which can cause food insecurity. It is not uncommon for IDPs in internal camps to suffer from food shortages.
Other states, including low-lying Small Island States (‘SIDS’)- such as Kiribati and the Maldives, do not have the capacity to internally protect all displaced citizens.[xi] Consequently, many are forced to cross state borders due to adverse weather caused by climate change. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (‘the Refugee Convention’) do not currently recognise climate change as a ground for claiming refugee status.[xii] A refugee is legally defined as a person who is ‘unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’. The 1967 Protocol removes the temporal and geographical limitations of the Convention’s definition.[xiii]
The 1951 Refugee Convention was drafted because of people who were displaced due to World War Two and so only applied to people displaced due to events that occurred before the 1st of January 1951 and state parties could choose to restrict its application to only cover Europe. The Protocol removes these limitations so that the Refugee Convention can be applied globally and for events up to present day.
This lack of legal protection for those who are forced to cross borders due to hazardous weather caused by climate change are often from countries that contribute the least to climate change and may already have been vulnerable to poverty- for example, SIDS according to 2019 data, made up seven of the ten countries globally that face the highest risk of internal displacement from extreme weather events but SIDS per capita emissions are around a third of those from high-income countries.[xiv] C02 emissions are of particular concern as the IPCC identified that Green House Gases (GHGs) are the main anthropogenic contribution to climate change, with the main gas being CO2[xv]. According to data from 2018 published by the World Bank, the ten countries that produce the highest level of CO2 emissions are as follows:
China (10,313,460 kt);
United States (4,981,300 kt);
India (2,434,520 kt);
Russian Federation (1,607,550 kt);
Japan (1,106,150 kt);
Germany (709,540 kt);
Republic of Korea (630, 870 kt);
Islamic Republic of Iran (629,290 kt);
Indonesia (583,110 kt); and
Canada (574,400 kt).
These countries are typically considered to be ‘developed’ and therefore better equipped to respond to adverse weather conditions. It seems that this group of states should be held accountable if forced migration from climate change is to be prevented- this would also follow the ‘polluter pays’ principle wherein those who produce pollution should bear the responsibility of managing it to prevent damage to the environment. Many of the countries that appeared to produce the lowest number of CO2 were SIDS such as the Seychelles (620); Sao Tome and Principe (140); Samoa (320); Palau (290); Nauru (70); the Federated States of Micronesia (180); the Marshall Islands (190) and Kiribati (80) amongst others.[xvi] As aforementioned, SIDS often contribute the least to carbon emissions but are the group of states that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Research in this area shows that it is women and girls who appear more at risk of displacement due to climate change, particularly those who live in developing countries.[xvii] This is likely due to pre-existing gender inequalities that render women and girls to have less access to resources, including land. Following floods, wildfires, droughts and other extreme weather events, food can be scarce as crops can be destroyed and agricultural land can be in left in conditions that make it difficult to cultivate food in adequate quantities. Women and girls being denied access to land can then be another barrier in them being able to grow food so this coupled with devastation from extreme weather means that women and girls are disproportionally affected.
Data from the United Nations shows that women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men, as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor, and their livelihood is also more dependent upon the natural resources that are threatened by these changes.[xviii] They also are more likely to face economic, social, and political barriers as a result of existing gender inequalities which limit their ability to access resources and cope with the effects of climate change, making them less likely to be involved in any decision-making processes.[xix]
Sex trafficking and women
The 2016 UNODC Global Report found that when using data that was disaggregated by gender, it was clear that women and girls are usually trafficked for marriage and sexual slavery, whereas men and boys are often trafficked for forced labour.[xx] There are several societal reasons for this gender inequality. For example, women are disproportionally affected by poverty as they are often excluded from economic and educational resources and opportunities- research shows that women are generally paid less than men are, many women are in the informal economy which means they are not likely to have secure employment contracts and are not always paid enough to get out of poverty. This same research also shows that women do at least twice as much unpaid care work as men do.[xxi] On top of being unpaid this gives them less opportunity to engage in paid work. Traffickers prey on poorer individuals who are in need of an income to survive and may not recognise the signs of exploitation until it is too late. In many societies women have been treated as unequal to men and have been sexualised or objectified, and their societal ‘value’ is perceived to be lesser than that of men.
Although the Refugee Convention does not require State Parties to legally recognise forced migration from climate change as grounds for refugee status, Article 6 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”) stipulates that State Parties “shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women”.[xxii] It can therefore be argued that due to the link between climate change forced migration and sex trafficking in women and girls, the latter should be tackled by reducing and preventing climate change forced migration in order to mitigate the vulnerability exploited by traffickers.
Of the top CO2 producing countries listed above, eight have signed and ratified CEDAW. The United States of America has signed the treaty but is yet to ratify. Iran ratified the treaty in 2003 but this was later vetoed by the Guardian Council. This means that the majority has acknowledged their responsibility to take all appropriate measures including the implementation of legislation that protects women and girls from sexual exploitation and although some progress is being made this does not appear to be happening effectively enough to protect women and girls.
Conclusions
It is clear, therefore, that as the result of existing gender inequalities and vulnerabilities, women and girls are most affected by climate displacement globally. This renders them more susceptible to human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
The main solution for preventing women and girls being so vulnerable would be to achieve economic and social gender equality. However, this is obviously a long-term aim. More short-term solutions could include increasing economic opportunities for women and girls such as providing education, vocational training, and apprenticeships. The dissemination of information to women and girls on their rights and on sexual exploitation could help them recognise signs of coercion and give them avenues in which to report it. This could include information on rights and signs of exploitation at displacement camps, information on the legitimacy of overseas ‘job’ opportunities, and the visitation of displacement camps by qualified people such as aid workers and governmental officials. The equal employment of women in such positions as well as in law enforcement and border officials could help women and girls to feel safe to report sexual exploitation. The accountability of states that contribute the most to climate change needs to be examined in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Tackling the causes of climate change could help mitigate one area where women and girls are disproportionally affected. The accountability of the traffickers also needs to be addressed more as this is often lacking in research conducted on sexual exploitation. Efforts could be made to target key areas to ascertain exploitation networks by identifying states that are affected the most by extreme weather conditions caused by climate change. Looking at routes that displaced people take and monitoring these as well as migrant camps could help protect people whilst also maintaining surveillance for perpetrators. Cross-border cooperation would also be advantageous for the identifying of perpetrators- as forced migration and sex trafficking often involves crossing state borders then communication between states is key.
Rebecca Allen obtained her MA in Human Rights from UCL. Her dissertation looked at displacement from climate change, the accountability of governments, and the role of advocacy networks. She now works as a researcher. Her main areas of interest are climate change, displacement, modern slavery, and the effects of conflict upon civilians.
She is passionate about using her research to bring attention to marginalised groups and the need for policy change to protect the rights of people in vulnerable situations.
[v] UNODC, ‘Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020’(United Nations, January 2021). Since 2003, the number of those convicted per 100,000 people has nearly tripled.
[x] M. Oosterom, ‘Internal Displacement, the Camp and the Construction of Citizenship: Perspectives from Northern Uganda’, (2016) 29(3) Journal of Refugee Studies.
[xi] Data from 2016 showed that China, the Philippines, and India had the highest number of internally displaced persons from disaster. However, these states have more capacity for moving citizens internally but it is small island states that are disproportionally affected. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, ‘Global Report on Internal Displacement’, (2017), <http://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2017/>.
[xii] In Ioane Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand Supreme Court, 2015),the Court rejected the claimant as a ‘climate change refugee’ on the basis of lack of legal recognition of climate change as grounds for refugee status.
[xiii] Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (1951), United Nations.
[xiv] Oxfam, ‘Forced from Home: Climate-fuelled Displacement’, 2019.
“It’s an act of sabotage on our future, a reckless and totally irresponsible act.”[i]
Such was the reaction of climate official Ian Fry, from the tiny South Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu, to Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and represents the first instrument in international law to contain legally binding greenhouse gas limitation and reduction commitments for industrialized countries. As such, Canada’s withdrawal from this legal milestone not only directly worsens the situation of threatened states such as Tuvalu through its apparently intended increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but also sends an ominous signal to the rest of the world, potentially opening the door for other states to follow suit.
Tuvalu is one of the countries suffering the most from the consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels are causing the erosion of ever larger coastal areas of the island nation’s low-lying atolls (coral reefs).Groundwater is becoming saline, threatening both food crops and drinking water supplies, and the increasing number of storms is destroying vital infrastructure in the country. Thus, Fry’s statement can be understood as an example of a global trend: the consequences of climate change are increasingly being recognized as a massive threat to peace for more and more states.
Examples of possible sources of conflict arising from climate change include the struggle for resources[ii], food scarcity[iii], and forced migration, with estimates for the year 2050 ranging from 200 million[iv] to 1 billion[v] climate refugees. The view that not only the consequences, but also the underlying causes of climate change, can be perceived as a threat to peace in their own right, seems set to gain acceptance.[vi] And these very causes of climate change can, in turn, often be clearly attributed to the actions of certain states.
Based on this extremely limited introduction, it becomes important to consider the question of whether states whose citizens, economies, and cultures suffer particularly severely from the consequences of man-made climate change may, under certain conditions, resort to the use of force against the polluter states.
In what situations might the use of force in the name of climate change be legal?
There are two possible scenarios under which the use of force may be legal: in the name of self-defense, or with the permission of the UN Security Council.
Regarding self-defense, Article 51 of the UN Charter (1945) states an “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against [themselves or another] Member of the United Nations”. If this is interpreted literally, the legality of the use of force against “climate rogue states”[vii] can already be ruled out. Without wanting to belittle the threat of heavy Green House Gas (GHG)-emissions, this is definitely a different kind of threat than ‘an armed attack’.
However, if one takes the commonly accepted requirements of the so-called ‘Caroline Test’, a closer look is worthwhile. The Caroline Test lists a number of criteria that must be met for the right to practice self-defense. In the original formulation of this test (Webster, 1841) it says that, “a use of force can [only] be admissible if there is ‘a necessity of self-defence, instant, over-whelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation’. Moreover, ‘the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’.”[viii] In essence, this test argues that the two key requirements to justify the use of force in self-defence are ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’. While ‘proportionality’ determines the intensity of force that may be used, the requirement for ‘necessity’ determines whether a resort to the use of force is permissible at all. Thus, the necessity criterion is more interesting for us at this point.
Especially given the Test’s requirement for a threat to be ‘instant [and] over-whelming’, it would seem, given that GHG emissions don’t instantly affect populations, that the necessity criterion cannot be fulfilled. The reality is that many of the harmful effects of climate change take years or decades to come to light, and the delayed effects of emitted GHGs make it extremely difficult to attribute a specific consequence of climate change to a specific state. Thus, at least in the current state of climate change, under this framework it would be argued that states do have the time and therefore possibility to choose other means than force, which in turn must always be a last resort[ix]. In summary, then, “[u]nless the global climate was at a tipping point, and the attacking state or coalition knew it, the imminence of the threat implied by necessity would be absent.”[x]
Instead, the justification for a military strike against GHG-emitting facilities through anticipatory self-defense seems more realistic. This is because such a military strike would involve the pre-emptive thwarting of probable harm emanating from a state which is either unwilling or unable to stop this harm from happening, just as the theory of anticipatory self-defense states. However, the application of this particular variety of self-defense is highly controversial. Many scholars believe “that the pre-emptive use of force against emerging threat(s) is unauthorised under existing legal framework.”[xi]
As such, the use of force against climate rogue states cannot be justified on the basis of Article 51 of the UN Charter as acts of self-defense, at least for the time being. The other alternative for nations to legitimize a resort to use of force would be by being granted permission from the UN Security Council (UNSC). As a first step in this respect “[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”[xii] This type of determination of threats to global peace is usually expressed in a UNSC resolution. Such resolutions not only officially determine that the situation in question is a legitimate threat to the peace, but also provide recommendations or decisions regarding “what measures shall be taken […] to maintain or restore international peace and security”.[xiii] Article 41 of the UN Charter lists a number of peaceful means by which the identified threat to peace shall be overcome. However, if these peaceful means were deemed by the UNSC to either have failed or to be inadequate, the resort to the use of force would be possible[xiv].
Because such a UNSC resolution does not exist as of today[xv], it would be tempting to dismiss this approach as irrelevant. However, this would be too simplistic. In general, the UNSC has an obligation to determine threats to peace[xvi]. A glance at the past shows that this can also involve categories of illicit conduct other than classic, direct violations of the sovereignty of states. In 1992, for example, the UNSC confirmed that “[t]he absence of war and military conflicts among States does not in itself ensure international peace and security. The non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace and security.”[xvii] Thus, it is by no means impossible that calls for climate change to be classified as a threat to peace[xviii] will be heard. And indeed, there have been repeated shifts in this direction in the recent past.
The UNSC, for example, “has held four open debates specifically on climate security risks”[xix] already. At the most recent of these open debates, climate change was unanimously referred to as a ‘threat multiplier’[xx], but no agreement could be reached on a classification as a threat to peace itself. Since two or three of the five permanent members with veto power in the UNSC, China and Russia, and in recent years also Trump’s USA, have taken the politically motivated stance that “[i]n fact, qualifying climate change as a threat to the peace was, in their view, neither ‘right’ nor beneficial”[xxi], this classification is not to be expected in the near future.
How might this change in the future?
Nevertheless, should climate change be classified as a threat to peace at some point, the whole situation could possibly change very quickly. The effectiveness of peaceful means can already be doubted from today’s point of view, since neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement can be considered to have effectively halted climate change and GHG emissions[xxii]. Were a Security Council resolution to be passed, it could open the door for the use of force against climate rogue states. For very practical reasons, however, it must be asked at this point whether this would actually be effective, either in combating climate change, or in furthering and protecting human rights at all. If a tiny state like the aforementioned Tuvalu suddenly had the theoretical right to take military action against a large country like Canada, it would still lack the means to do so. Thus, the jus ad bellum wartime principle of ‘probability of success’, in contrast to the other principles[xxiii], could not be fulfilled under any circumstances[xxiv]. The principle of ‘probability of success’ states that war can only be justified if such violence has a real chance of changing the causal grievance in the long run. If Tuvalu is now apparently justified in using force against Canada due to changed conditions, there is still the question of how it should win this war. Tuvalu does not have an army, and if one were to be created, it would almost certainly not be able to take on the Canadian army. A tiny country like Tuvalu trying to take military action against a superpower like Canada is likely to cause harm and loss of life, but has very little chance of bringing about change.
From this point of view, the proportionality of military action is also highly questionable. Because the principle of proportionality prohibits any “attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”[xxv] The invoking of the right to collective self-defense could provide a remedy[xxvi]. Going beyond this, the question may even arise, “[i]f a state pursues or allows very damaging activities that harm its own population or the international community as a whole through climate change, would it be legal to use force to stop those activities in the name of humanitarian intervention or the Responsibility to Protect [R2P]?”[xxvii]. However, this would only be possible if the UNSC classified the consequences of climate change as a mass atrocity crime[xxviii]. Additionally, the status of R2P is also controversial[xxix].
Conclusion
The scope of this paper could only provide a very rough framework. Nevertheless, it was possible to show why there is currently no legal resort to the use of force against climate rogue states and under what circumstances this assessment could change in the future. In addition to these findings themselves, however, it is momentous that such deliberations are taking place at all. Of course, no one wants to see countries become violent in the name of climate change, nor to see the devastation of communities, cultures and infrastructure that comes with war and violence. That the use of force is even being discussed is testament to the fact that there is still no actual, reliable way of holding states accountable for their international climate responsibilities. Countries and ecosystems around the world are at a breaking point, and in the not-too-distant future, the progress of climate change could lead to an even more frightening scenario.
Given that climate change is already triggering violence today, as destroyed homes or impeded access to drinking water might cause people in hardship to resort to violence in order to ensure their survival. If those states, whose citizens are worst affected, in their desperation see no other way out than using force against climate rogue states to stop them from causing further harm, we could see a rapid downturn into a new spiral of violence. Finding a way of holding states accountable for their international climate responsibilities is urgently needed, because otherwise violence will not only increase as a consequence of climate change impacts, but seems likely to also increase as an attempt to control the reckless actions of other states.
However, as explained in detail above, the use of force would not even come close to solving the problems caused by climate change. It must therefore be a top priority that international cooperation eventually lives up to its name and that a viable solution for the well-being of all in the face of the changing climate is found and implemented. We need to finally come together as an international community in holding nation states accountable – because only in this way can we ensure that this paper remains what it is: the description of an intellectual, purely theoretical thought experiment.
Ole ter Wey is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state. It was then that he began thinking about how to address forced migration and dedicated his Liberal Arts Bachelor to the topics of migration and integration.
[ii]Gleditsch, Nils Petter (2012): Whither the weather? Climate change and conflict. In: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 49(1), pp. 3-9. DOI: 10.1177/0022343311431288.
[iv]Brown, Oli (2008): Migration and Climate Change, p. 11. In: IOM Migration Research Series, Vol. 31. https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/njlite/srex/njlite_download.php?id=5866
[v]Bassetti, Francesco (2019): Environmental Migrants: Up to 1 Billion by 2050. https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations-inequalities/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/
[vi]e.g., Steinbruner, John D. (2013): Climate and Social Stress – Implications for Security Analysis, p. 37. Washington: The National Academies Press.
[vii]Martin, Craig (2020): Atmospheric Intervention? The Climate Change Crisis and the Jus ad Bellum Regime, p. 334. In: Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 45(S). DOI: 10.7916/cjel.v45iS.5786.
[viii]Corten, Olivier (2017): Necessity, p. 862. In: Marc Weller, The Oxford Handbook of The Use of Force in International Law, pp. 861-878. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[ix]UNOCHA (2012): Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Support of Humanitarian Emergency Operations: What is Last Resort?. http://www.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Last%20Resort%20Pamphlet%20-%20FINAL%20April%202012_5.3.pdf
[x]Kinsella, David (2013): The Use of Force to Achieve Climate Change Goals, p. 18. http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/papers/isa13.pdf
[xi]Mirza, Muhammad Nasrullah (2019): Use of Force in Self-Defence for Global Peace: A Conceptual Framework, p. 21. In: Strategic Studies, Vol. 39(3), pp. 1-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48544307
[xii] UN Charter (1945): United Nations Charter (full text), Art. 39. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
[xv]Bourghelle, Valentine (2019): Climate change in the Security Council: On the road to qualifying climate change as ‘threat multiplier’. In: Völkerrechtsblog, 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.17176/20191209-180639-0.
[xvi]Dipalo, Sabina (2018): The Security Council’s Non-Determination of a Threat to the Peace as a Breach of International Law, p. 61. In: Pécs Journal of International and European Law. 2018/01, pp. 61-81. http://ceere.eu/pjiel/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/63pjielPJIEL1801.pdf
[xviii]e.g., Scott, Shirley V. (2008): Climate Change and Peak Oil as Threats to International Peace and Security: Is It Time for the Security Council to Legislate?. In: Melbourne Journal of International Law. Vol. 9(2), pp. 495-515. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1683221/Scott.pdf
[xix]Toufanian, Melissa Turley (2020): Climate Change at the UN Security Council: Seeking Peace in a Warming World. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/climate-change-a-un-security-council-seeking-peace-warming-world/
[xxi]Bourghelle, Valentine (2019): Climate change in the Security Council: On the road to qualifying climate change as ‘threat multiplier’. In: Völkerrechtsblog, 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.17176/20191209-180639-0.
[xxii]As the most prominent examples, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement could significantly change the progress of climate change.
[xxiii]Proper authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort.
[xxiv]Stanford Encyclopedia (2016): War, 2.5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
[xxvi]Kunz, Josef L. (1947): Individual and Collective Self-Defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, p. 872. In: The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 41(4), pp. 872-879. https://doi.org/10.2307/2193095
[xxvii]Gray, Christine (2012): Climate Change and the Law on the Use of Force, p. 238. In: Rosemary Rayfuse, International Law in the Era of Climate Change, pp. 219-241. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[xxviii]Nollkaemper, André (2017): Failures to Protect in International Law. In: Marc Weller, The Oxford Handbook of The Use of Force in International Law, pp. 437-461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[xxix]Glover, Nicholas (2011): A critique of the theory and practice of R2P.
The suburban lawn, also known as turf grass, exists as a space of fruitless continuity. In the United States it is the largest crop by acreage, tripling corn, yet it produces no nutritional or agricultural value. Americans use nine billion gallons of water per day to maintain their lawns, but research has found as much as 50% of that water goes to waste due to inefficient irrigation methods.[i] Residents destroy between 5,000 and 385,000 acres of natural habitats per day using harmful chemicals, clearing away biodiverse land vital for pollinators in the process.[ii]
To make matters worse, lawn equipment also makes up 4% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,[iii] outstripping emissions from livestock and manure.[iv] Though the UK any other suburban-abundant nations descended from Great Britain (e.g., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) may not hold the lawn to such heights as the United States, they too share similar residential traditions. As droughts, wildfires, and colony collapse loom, why are so many people holding on to something that sucks up so much water, time, energy, and wildlife while producing so little?
Its Origins
The lawn acts as a symbol of middle-class ideals, of curb appeal and leisure time. It demonstrates civilization ‘triumphing’ over wild land by ritually manicuring it into uniformity, and has become a hallmark of residential life across much of the Global North. However, turf grass isn’t a part of North America’s natural prairies, meadows, or pastures. Poa pratensis, better known as Kentucky bluegrass, and its related species, make up almost every suburban lawn, but are native only to Europe and Asia – not to areas like Kentucky at all.
What we know as lawns today emerged in 16th century France, where aristocratic landowners had slaves and peasantry cultivate empty spaces of neatly manicured grasses.[v] Being able to afford to keep empty space that produced no food was a sign of vast wealth. The lawn grew in popularity within Great Britain, where Enclosure laws ended land rights for commoners and put an end to commonly owned land. These laws prevented individuals farming on the formerly shared land, pushed them into wage labor for landowners, who could deem that the land would be cultivated for strictly aesthetic purposes. Once the British empire established colonies in North America, colonists sought to mimic these displays of elite wealth. Indigenous communities—who had cultivated and maintained the landscape through controlled burning and establishing interdependent relationships with the wildlife—were either killed or driven off the perennial prairie grasses, where colonists would replace native Buffalo with European cattle.
However, these cattle, woefully maladapted for their new North American habitat and couldn’t get enough nutrients from the North American terrain. And so, the British brought their own grasses from Europe, which pushed out native plants and animals that could not subsist with the Kentucky bluegrass. As they shaped the North American land to look like a European countryside, ecological colonization became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By the late 19th century, with the invention of the push lawnmower, the sprinkler, and the birth of the suburbs, the lawn began to shift from a symbol of wealth and leisure to one of conformity. Lawns were no longer something only the ultra-elite could have. After World War II, middle-class people afford to cultivate their own little pieces of luxury. With soldiers returning home, warfare chemicals becoming reinvented as pesticides and artificial fertilizers, and rapid suburban development, having a strip of trimmed grass in front of your house became the staple of a domestic life.
A significant part of your property value is its curb appeal (how attractive your house looks when viewed from the street). But because the front lawn connects to the street, it isn’t a space cultivated for use. You might imagine the front lawn as a space for children to play, but with cars speeding down your street, dogs defecating in your grass, and the lack of privacy, the backyard is generally where domestic life (playing, gardening, grilling, swimming) resides, and the front lawn serves as a symbolic space of uniformity with the neighborhood. So roughly half of the lawn space you own serves no physical purpose. And while it may be your property, depending on where you live, the front lawn’s aesthetic does not belong to you. Instead, it must conform to outdated legislation based on guidelines set by tradition, no matter how inefficient or harmful those guidelines may be.
Its Disutility
The Kentucky bluegrass can only naturally thrive in climates like those of Northern Europe, which means residents who live anywhere other than New England and some parts of Canada need to constantly tend to their Kentucky bluegrass to keep it alive. The same goes for other common lawn grasses such as scutch grass (native to Africa) and Zoysia grass (native to Asia and Australia, typically hardier than the other two and often used for golf courses). As a result, most residential areas are ripping out native plant species, inserting nonnative grass species in an incompatible climate, and constantly tending to them so they don’t die. These grasses typically require more water than what natural rainfall provides. They require fertilizers to pump more nutrients into a soil in which it has not evolved to grow. And even if you do those two steps right, they require constant maintenance in order to fit an aesthetic ideal.
However, even if one does want to move towards a more natural and less wasteful gardening approach, letting your lawn die and decreasing curb appeal does come with obstacles. If your property is governed by a Homeowners Association, they can fine you for not maintaining your lawn.[vi] One common practice is for the HOA to hire a landscaping crew to renovate your lawn, and make you pay the bill. In certain jurisdictions, you can even be arrested for not mowing your lawn.[vii] For those who are old or physically unable to tend to their lawn, there is no exception.
Aside from the harms inflicted on biodiversity and water security, there are also practical, financial, and health and safety challenges related to lawns. Many choose, or are forced, to hire professionals to handle lawncare, and the average American homeowner spends between $700 and $2,600 per year.[viii] In countries like Australia and Canada where the average suburban lawn is much smaller in surface area, costs are expected to be less. It would be cheaper to tend to your lawn yourself (Americans on average spend $1080 on lawn equipment),[ix] but this increases the likelihood of physical injuries. In 2016, more than 86,000 American adults and 4,500 children went to the emergency room for lawnmower-related injuries.[x] Those whose jobs involve lawn maintenance also face considerable danger. In 2019, 229 ground maintenance workers died from workplace-related accidents, more deaths that year than firefighters and law enforcement combined.[xi]
As freshwater becomes increasingly scarce, using nine billion gallons of water a day to maintain golf courses, roadside greenways, and lawns is a dire misplacement of resources. Despite this seemingly limitless enthusiasm for the garden lawn, in the drier parts of the U.S. and Australia, we are already seeing restrictions and mandates on how households use limited supplies of water. In Australia’s New South Wales, from December 2019 to February 2020 the government placed restrictions on the use of sprinklers and hoses for watering lawns and washing cars.[xii]
The world’s freshwater security is becoming increasingly jeopardized, and if water supplies continue to fall in the near future, governments will be forced to further restrict outdoor water use. In states like Nevada, lawmakers are banning the watering of grassy areas that do not serve a function, mainly at office parks, in street medians, and at entrances to housing developments. This trend might continue for other states reliant on the Colorado River, which is continuing to dry up.[xiii]
So, with lawns causing all these problems, what are some alternatives?
What else can we do with our property?
Turning away from the traditional lawn may feel uncomfortable. As humans, we have evolved towards conformity. We want to feel a sense of belonging to a tribe. Even without local law enforcement or HOAs forcing you to keep a turf grass lawn, some people naturally want to keep up their home’s appearance. We want to feel like a part of our neighborhood. We want to be aesthetically united with our neighbors.
According to biologist and entomology professor Douglas W. Tallamy, getting rid of the lawn doesn’t mean losing a sense of community. As he states in his book Nature’s Best Hope, you can imagine your property “as one small piece of a giant puzzle, which, when assembled, has the potential to form a beautiful ecological picture.”[xiv] He proposes we exchange the traditional residential lawn with native plants that can support local species. Based on one’s given location, replacing 70% of one’s property with native plant species can provide wonderful benefits to local birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates.[xv] While invasive does not always mean harmful, filling your lawn with plants that require less water and offer better support to local pollinators is one step towards building a more beneficial landscape.
Another alternative is gardening. Fruit and vegetable gardens, per square foot, require 75% less water on average.[xvi] Even in places like California where water is scarce, gardening under proper methods is more than feasible.[xvii] If you take pleasure in the constant maintenance a yard requires, keeping and maintaining a garden provides a similar outdoor routine that needs less carbon-emitting lawn equipment and produces (sometimes literal) fruit for your labor. We can learn from Cuba’s organoponicos (urban farms).[xviii] With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s and an 80% reduction in the country’s trade, Cuba faced a dire hunger crisis. It had to produce twice as much food with less than half of its usual chemical inputs.
With fewer resources, Cuba converted much of its residential land for gardens. Residents utilized more integrated pest management, applied soil and composting conservation methods, and rotated crops. By 2002, Cuba produced 3.2 million tons of organic food from organoponicos, staving off impending hunger crises. Such a radical change to a more nurturing suburban landscape could help remedy food deserts in urban and rural areas. At the very least, converting empty lawn space to gardens would redirect limited resources towards more beneficial investments while keeping properties lush and green.
As individuals, taking small steps is the key to creating a more beneficial landscape. One such step would be working within your local community—with neighborhood committees and HOAs—to make sure property owners have a greater freedom in their choices, and allow homeowners to establish more beneficial spaces without punishing them for going against uniformity. If you’re too busy to garden, replacing yard décor with native vegetation provides benefits to wildlife without all the upkeep. Inform your neighbors about the problems with turf grass lawns, and of the alternatives available. The pride many people take in their lawns isn’t rooted in the lawn itself, but the act of maintaining and cultivating an aesthetic space. If we get rid of the turf grass lawn, we can hold on to the culture of lawncare while changing residential spaces to actually provide utility. And with impeding droughts on the horizon, the time redirect water towards necessary channels is growing more urgent.[xix]
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.
[xiv] Tallamy, D. W. (2020). Nature’s best hope a new approach to conservation that starts in your yard. Timber Press.
[xv] Narango, D. L., Tallamy, D. W., & Marra, P. P. (2018). Nonnative plants reduce population growth of an insectivorous bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11549–11554. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809259115
Sign up to our Earth Refuge newsletter for the latest updates on climate change, environmental justice and migration!
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.OkPrivacy policy
