Category: Types of Archive Pieces

Posted on

Transitional Justice and Climate Change at a Glance: Possible Lessons for a Sustainable Future

18 February 2021 – by Vaughn Rajah

“Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.”
― Noam Chomsky

Transitional justice comprises the implementation of legal and non-legal measures in order to (1) address and acknowledge systemic human rights violations, (2) transition a society into a new manifestation of itself in which those violations no longer exist, and (3) render justice to victims of those previous violations[i].

This concept was likely not at the forefront of the minds of the architects of the Paris Agreement[ii]. Yet, the “spirit”, of transitional justice is imbedded in international environmental law. The international legal principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is premised on the notion that developed states must bear greater burdens in tacking climate change than developing states for two reasons: their greater historical responsibility for global warming, and their greater wealth[iii].

The Anthropocene is, however, not the first time humans have had to navigate complex historically rooted tensions about the ideal relationship between responsibility for past and future action. This article will provide an introductory analysis of the possible application of transitional justice mechanisms in addressing these tensions in the international climate context.

This article will analyse three fundamental mechanisms in the transitional justice toolkit, in the climate context: truth commissions, reparations and litigation.

Truth Commissions

Traditionally, truth commissions are instituted by new governments to establish their legitimacy by formally breaking with the past, and to create an opportunity for reconciliation or unification[iv]. Truth commissions can avoid some of the limitations and political difficulties of pursuing legal punishments for past actions. Their purpose is to investigate, document, and raise awareness of past harms as a form of acknowledgement, and to recommend strategies for addressing these harms, avoiding future recurrence, and supporting particular victims. Compared to prosecutions, truth commissions can more easily engage with systemic bases for harm. In the climate context, a possible avenue could be the creation of an UN-supported, but independent international climate truth commission, comprised of senior individuals in the climate policy and legal space to construct frameworks on historical responsibility[v]. In documenting experiences of climate consequences, representation would be key to the legitimacy of such a commission.

Reparations

Efforts to provide redress for historical atrocities and abuse are typically framed as “reparations”. Reparations can take many forms, and include material compensation, rehabilitation, symbolic gestures, and guarantees of non-recurrence[vi]. In the climate context,  reparations could feasibly take the form of short-term investments in local well-being and development, and long-term investments in capacity building and technological advancements in order to mitigate the worst effects of ecological disaster[vii]. Non-material reparations may encompass formal apologies and acknowledgments and are linked to the truth-seeking institutions discussed above. It would be imperative for climate reparation framework to adopt a “bottom-up” approach to adequately identify and implement solutions for the needs of recipients, particularly those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Litigation

Legal remedies are not novel in the climate fight. Climate litigation is a growing phenomenon in domestic courts around the world[viii]. Climate change is driving activists and litigants to reimagine pre-existing legal norms in light of its many strands of contention and uncertainty. Increasingly, plaintiffs are advancing strong, rights-based arguments in the courtroom. A human rights-based approach is also a pillar of legal action in the transitional justice context[ix]. The importance of a rights-based approach goes beyond the mere winning of a case. It is also a “win” in this kind of strategic litigation when the publicity of a lawsuit elevates social consciousness regarding climate policy, steering attention on a mass scale towards the fundamental rights impacted by climate change.

Conclusion

However, strategic climate litigation aimed at expanding the Overton window is both vital and insufficient on its own. Without further fundamental and longer lasting reforms, it is unlikely that sufficient deterrence can be cultivated to ensure non-recurrence. Therefore, similar to the most effective examples of transitional justice policies, successful climate change mitigation strategies must implement a plurality of approaches in the pursuit of a sustainable society. Whilst transitional justice and climate policy do not correlate on an one-to-one scale, the international climate regime cannot afford to ignore ideas on how to build cooperation and effectively assign responsibility. Transitional justice may well be a relevant piece in solving that puzzle.

Earth Refuge Archivist and Human Rights Pulse core team member Vaughn Rajah is passionate about sustainability and human rights. His scholarship and writing focuses on international law, climate change and transitional justice.

References

[i] ICTJ. What is Transitional jusice? https://www.ictj.org/about/transitional-justice [Accessed 19 January 2021].

[ii]  Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.

[iii] Rio Declaration, Principle 7.

[iv] I Robinson. Truth Commissions and Anti-Corruption: Towards a Complementary Framework? International Journal of Transitional Justice, Volume 9, Issue 1, March 2015, Pages 33 – 50.

[v] S Klinsky.  The Global Climate Regime and Transitional Justice. Routledge Advances in Climate Change Research. 2018. Pages 95 – 100.

[vi] Climate Strategies. Why Explore “Transitional Justice” in the Climate Context? https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Why-Explore-Transitional-Justice-in-the-Climate-Context.pdf [Accessed 20 January 2021]. Page 3.

[vii] As above, pages 4 – 5.

[viii] Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. http://climatecasechart.com/ [Accessed 21 January 2021].

[ix] E Anderson. Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law: Lessons from the Field. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Volume 47, Issue 1, 2015, pages 305 – 317.

Posted on

Where is the International Refugee Regime Headed?

body of water surrounded by pine trees during daytime

11 February 2021 – by Flora Bensadon

When it comes to the question of refugees and providing aid, the Global North is first in line with answers and propositions. However, when it comes to acting on the agreed upon policies and practices, the Global North is also first to counter-act with policies relieving the states from cooperation and burden sharing to protect their own interests (Behrman 2019:59). Over the past few decades, the world has witnessed a dramatic increase in refugee flows, to which states in the Global North answered by restricting entry to their territory. As we move into the 21st Century, the world now faces new challenges and the emergence of a new type of refugee: those fleeing their countries due to climate related issues. The Global North adopted restrictive policies when faced with the ongoing refugee crisis, which leads us to believe it will do the same throughout the 21st Century. This essay will thus be focusing on just that.

First, we will define the system of remote control and discuss the different border controls set in place within the Global North. We will continue by establishing the lack of governance within the international refugee regime, which eventually leads to a lack of accountability of the Global North with regard to refugees. Finally, we will discuss the role of public opinion in the refugee protection discourse.

Remote Control

Remote control is a “system of passports, visas, and passenger ship checks” that keeps people from leaving for certain destinations without having passed initial screening (Fitzgerald 2019:4). For instance, states have put in place pre-clearances in foreign airports to avoid having refugees reach their territories. The same governments also converge on global visa policies, carrier sanctions and liaison officers (Fitzgerald 2019:14-15). In addition, they campaign for remote control throughout the countries of departure, like the British government did in 1934. They successfully pressured the Greek government to pass a law prohibiting anyone without a valid passport or visa to leave from Greece to Palestine (Fitzgerald 2019:5). These policies of expulsion, and many others, are meant to keep asylum seekers away from the Global North (Fitzgerald 2019:1). Because of the non-refoulement clause of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (Hatton 2020:82) that prevents refugees from being sent back to their persecutors once on the territory, states now result in the manipulation of territoriality (Fitzgerald 2019:9). It allows states the possibility to refuse entry to refugees by saying they did not actually step foot into their territory.

Border reinforcements of wealthier democratic states therefore suggest the following: While the respective governments do cooperate amongst themselves to exclude refugees and migrants, there is a lack of willingness to cooperate in the burden-sharing when it comes to the reception of refugees. Yet, more lenient border policies would further provide refugees with protection and aid by providing them basic human rights. This entails access to safety, to food, to shelter, to healthcare, to education and to work (Feldman 2012:391). However, given the current geopolitical context, it does not seem that recipient states would enact such policies due to the fact that they perceive refugees as an economic strain (Behrman 2019:59).

Refugees can first be perceived as an economic strain because of the expanses spent by host countries to provide them with the necessary protection, which is with national resources and services, as previously mentioned. This would result, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates, in refugees costing countries of the European Union 0.1% of their GDP (Shellito 2016:16). In addition, refugees might also disturb local economic markets, from food to housing, thus altering prices. For instance, Turkey has faced a sharp increase in rental pricing because of the refugee crisis, which hurts Turkish families with relatively low incomes (Shellito 2016:17).  And so, because refugees can negatively impact host countries’ economy, said countries are less inclined to adopt lenient border policies.

Lack of Governance

The international refugee regime has always lacked a clearly defined system of global governance, allowing states of the Global North to avoid their responsibilities. It remains restrained as it contains no binding obligation on states to cooperate or ensure the functioning of the regime (Betts and Milner 2020:1-4). In turn, this weak governance has prevented important forms of dialogue, political engagement and cooperation, which are necessary to facilitate international cooperation or the realization of the regime’s core objective: solutions for the protection of refugees (Betts and Milner 2020:4), including those affected by climate change.

The United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) the regime’s primary institution, was founded to provide this protection; it also supervises the application of conventions and develops international refugee law (Goodwin-Gill 2020:2). However, the UNHCR’s financial structure was designed to make it dependent on Western states as it relies mostly on the donation of those governments (Parekh 2020:28). Its role is to supervise the international refugee regime and publish non-binding guidelines on the application of international refugee law. Because the UNHCR does not hold power to enforce any rule of law (Goodwin-Gill 2020:40), it constrains its ability to resist or influence the actions and interests of more powerful states (Betts and Milner 2020:2). Thus, as nothing prevents governments of the Global North from prioritizing their own interests above their responsibility to help refugees, they have no incentive to cooperate with the international refugee regime any more than they already do (Parekh 2020:23).

Finally, states of the Global North measure their success in the refugee regime in their ability to control refugees by containing them in their regions of origin (Betts and Milner 2020:7) or monitoring their movement through remote-control policies (Behrman 2019:48). And so, as long as refugees remain in the Global South, whether in their home region or refugee camps, governments will neither be motivated to cooperate empathetically, nor feel the pressure to assume their share of the burden (Betts and Milner 2020:7).

Lack of Accountability

States within the Global North have a duty to rescue due to the superior means they possess over developing countries. However, because they are not the cause of the problem, nor have they initiated the events that forced refugees to flee their countries of origin, they minimize their obligations toward refugees (Parekh 2020:23). Although their duty to protect and rescue comes second to their own interests, states of the Global North are still seen as rescuers. As a result, they are somewhat excused from taking on too much of the burden of refugees (Parekh 2020:24). As it is not clear who should be responsible for the protection of displaced persons, those who fail to rescue are rarely held accountable.

However, if wealthier states with actual resources to help cannot be blamed for not upholding their duty of rescue, they can be blamed for being co-contributors to a system that structurally prevents the majority of refugees from seeking refuge because of the aforementioned remote-control policies (Parekh 2020:27). If not held accountable for their actions, governments will continue to allow the perpetuation of human rights violations refugees face.

For example, in 2010, following the destructive earthquake that occurred in Haiti, Haitians have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS); it allowed them to work legally in the United States (US). Unfortunately, in 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end TPS for Haitians (Macdonald 2019). Although it did not succeed, this kind of behavior is a clear indicator of the current US president’s stance toward refugees, bringing us to believe that cooperation and burden-sharing will not be increased in the near-future. And consequently, without accountability, governments might try to further minimize their role within the international refugee regime.

Public Opinion

Finally, while governments of the Global North have been struggling between their own interests and their moral obligations to refugees, the rise of nationalism has only added fuel to the push back against refugees (Parekh 2010:23). Although populist political parties might not always get elected in office, they still shift the agendas of other political parties towards a more anti-immigration stance (Hatton 2020:87).  In fact, general public opinion has shifted dramatically against immigrants all across the Global North, due to the overall climate that surrounds refugees and asylum seekers more specifically (Hatton 2020:88). For example, because public opinion is strongly against unauthorized entry; an increase in the number of arrivals has induced hardened attitudes towards immigrants as a whole (Hatton 2020:89).

As the decisions of the democratic governments in the Global North normally reflect the majority of the populations’ point of view towards a contentious topic, the rise of nationalism across the Global North has the ability to reveal the poignant possibility that the burden-sharing and cooperation of Western governments and related institutions within the international refugee regime will not increase in the decades to come.

Flora Bensadon is a recent graduate of History and International Development from McGill University, Canada. Through her studies, her culturally diverse background and her travels, Flora has taken a profound interest in the problems of migration, specifically those of climate refugees.

References

Alexander Betts and James Milner. May 2019. “Governance of the Global Refugee Regime,” World Refugee Council Research Paper No. 13: 1–14.

David Scott FitzGerald. 2019. “Never Again?” In: Refuge Beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers, 21–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

David Scott FitzGerald. 2019. “The Catch-22 of Asylum Policy,” In: Refuge Beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers, 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Posted on

Climate and Migration in Central America: The Aftermath of ETA and IOTA

8 Maggie Wang

Hurricane Eta, the twelfth hurricane of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, made landfall in Central America on 3 November. In the following days, Eta wreaked havoc across Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras, leaving over 200 dead and thousands more without homes. 

The rainfall, winds, and flooding from Eta produced an estimated seven billion dollars in damage and left few lives in the region untouched. A mere 13 days later, Hurricane Iota followed in Eta’s wake, creating an additional $1.25 billion in damage. 

It is worth noting that these climate challenges are not exclusive to Central America, and these events are not new. Steve Trent, executive director of the Environmental Justice Foundation, notes, “Eta and Iota are one wake-up call among many—Maria, Idai, Irma, Harvey, Katrina,  Kenneth. There is a litany of names of increasingly destructive hurricanes and cyclones that are causing the death or displacement of millions. Every day brings new damning stories from every corner of the world.” The stories are even more damning when they involve the destruction or displacement of thousands of families and the erosion of entire cultures and ways of life. 

It will take years for the region to recover from the damage caused by Eta and Iota, much of which was uninsured. Immediate relief attempts have already faced difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the unstable nature of many governments and communities in the region will require careful attention both in the long and short term. 

In particular, Eta and Iota will likely spur new waves of internal and international migration, which must be anticipated and adequately addressed to ensure the safety of affected populations. The “Dry Corridor” of Central America faces the combined impacts of both “slow-onset” hazards, such as drought and sea-level rise, and “sudden-onset” hazards, such as hurricanes. Pablo Escribano, a Thematic Specialist in Migration, Environment and Climate Change at the International Organisation for Migration’s (IOM) Regional Office for Central America, North America and the Caribbean, observes that this combination makes Central America particularly vulnerable.

Many of the communities that bore the brunt of Eta and Iota relied on small-scale agriculture, and these sudden-onset disasters caused further disruption to a way of life already under threat from slow-onset hazards. In Central America, relief and recovery efforts are complicated by state fragility, which has allowed for the growth of organised crime. These vulnerabilities may make migration a compelling solution. Driven by the knowledge that their home communities are unlikely to be restored to liveable condition for years, if at all, migrants may seek refuge and opportunity in cities in their home countries. If their home states are unable to provide for them, many may also choose to migrate across borders.

The challenges, then, are twofold. First, governments, IGOs, and NGOs must provide for the needs of the displaced with particular attention to women and minority groups whose needs have historically been overlooked and who, as a result, face additional burdens in migrating or rebuilding their livelihoods. Second, they must create long-term visions and frameworks to build resilience amongst affected communities and prepare for inevitable future disasters.

The Challenges to Forming a Solution

Addressing the needs of these displaced peoples is complicated by the lack of information surrounding the links between climate change and migration. Escribano highlights that surveys of the caravan that brings Central American migrants to the United States-Mexico border have not been able to deduce whether climate change and extreme weather have motivated significant migration. Instead, most cite economic hardship and loss of livelihood as their reasons for migrating, even though climate may be a driver of such hardship.

Similarly, Escribano says, “we’ve managed to raise attention to the areas of origin of migrants, but we’re not paying as much attention to destination areas or figuring out where these migrants settle and what challenges they face.” By filling these gaps in knowledge, policymakers and humanitarian groups will be able to understand migrants’ needs, better help them adapt to their new surroundings and establish the support networks necessary to economic and social stability.

One key area of concern is cities. Migrants to urban areas face difficulties in building social safety nets, and in Central America they frequently seek employment in the informal economy. However, the informal labour market is highly unstable and provides limited access to healthcare and other resources; so migrants remain vulnerable to crime and exploitation. These hazards are compounded for women and ethnic minorities. Urban development must be mindful both of creating and addressing sustainability goals and of promoting the welfare of these underserved populations.

Some governments in Central America are beginning to recognise the link between migration and climate change. Belize, for example, has integrated migration issues into its national climate strategy. After Eta and Iota struck in November, the Guatemalan and Honduran governments called for international recognition and assistance in addressing the climate crisis. Yet, as Andrew Harper, the UNHCR’s Special Advisor on Climate Action, notes, “in Central America, there are a number of states that have been in denial about climate change, but those states are also the ones that are often being hammered by extreme weather events.” As a result, Harper continues, “you have to be smart in how you approach these issues. You have to find a common point of understanding.”

However, though some governments are finding themselves no longer able to deny climate change, they continue to overlook the impacts of events like Eta and Iota on migration and mobility. The latest migrant caravan, which departed from Honduras in mid-January, has been met with violence and disdain by the Guatemalan and Mexican governments. Ironically, however, as Amali Tower, founder and executive director of Climate Refugees, observes, “the Trump administration slashed aid to Central American countries intended to aid development of jobs and sustainable farming.” Had such aid not been slashed, migration may not have become as pressing a concern.

These developments have placed migrants in a double bind, which has been particularly challenging for the region’s Indigenous communities. Tower points to “structural discrimination, systemic exclusion, and a long history of human rights abuses, including land dispossession and even environmental leaders being killed” as a few of the reasons why “it’s not surprising that the development of Indigenous populations in every Central American country lags far behind national averages”. Climate change, including desertification and sea level rise, is already forcing Indigenous peoples to leave their ancestral homelands, thereby uprooting the fragile cultural and social structures that have afforded them agency in otherwise deeply hostile surroundings.

Yet, the situation is not without hope. Kayly Ober, Senior Advocate and Program Manager of the Climate Displacement Program at Refugees International, points to sustainable development solutions that focus on building resilience in order to enable access to key resources that allow people to remain in their communities in the face of climate change. This includes, for instance, flood- or drought-resistant seeds, alternative irrigation methods, and skills training for occupations outside of agriculture. Ober states that “it’s about giving people options and enabling them to live in dignity”.

The EJF’s Steve Trent echoes the importance of living in dignity, pointing out that “99% of all deaths from weather-related disasters occur in the world’s 50 least developed countries, which contribute less than 1% of global carbon emissions”. Recognising the rights and listening to the voices of those most affected by climate injustice is therefore key to formulating effective policies at the national and international levels. 

When it comes to formulating such policies, Andrew Harper remains positive: “people now recognise that, the longer we delay, the more far-reaching and costly and lethal the consequences are”. Trent expresses a similar sentiment, stating that “it is not too late to act. What is needed now, above all, is political will and leadership”. The COVID-19 pandemic may have provided some of that will. On one hand, Harper points out that though the pandemic may have distracted people from the issue of climate change, on the other, it has demonstrated that communities can join together in the face of an existential threat. 

The struggles and lessons from Central America’s experience with Eta and Iota serve as an urgent warning. Countless other communities, ranging from Scandinavia to the Sahel to the South Pacific, are facing similar challenges. Though there is still time to act, it is limited. Only with proactive governments equipped with a strong understanding of the needs of their people can the climate crisis—and the migration issues that inevitably follow—be adequately addressed.

This article was originally published by Human Rights Pulse on 5 February 2021 as part of our January 2021 collaboration with E&U for the Climate and Human Rights Pulse on Environmental Justice and Human Rights.

Maggie is an undergraduate at the University of Oxford, where she has held leadership roles with a student-run publishing house and a student-run art gallery, among other groups. She is particularly interested in womxn’s rights, disability rights, prisoners’ rights, and environmental justice.

Posted on

The Black Summer: Realities of the Climate Crisis in Australia

brown and white cat on gray ground

4 February 2021 – by Gabriela Freeman

One year ago, Australia was hit by a bushfire season of unprecedented scale and intensity, causing widespread environmental destruction and loss of property, and life. Now eclipsed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump-Biden election, last year’s devastating phenomenon is becoming a distant memory. Though this does not mask the reality that thirty-three human lives were lost, over 3,000 homes were destroyed,[1] and three billion animals were killed or displaced.[2]

I was living in Canberra, Australia, during what is now colloquially known as the ‘Black Summer’. It felt as if the apocalypse was near. For weeks, we lived in a cloud of yellow smoke through which, at times, you would be lucky to see a few metres ahead. As bushfire smoke carries hazardous particles, residents started wearing bulky P2 masks both in- and outdoors – mind this was pre-COVID times. The smoke permeated inside our houses, and many experienced respiratory issues, constant headaches and sore eyes. As fires approached borders, many residents had to evacuate their homes.

The Orraral Valley fire burning on the outskirts of Canberra – Source: abc.net.au

Every day we heard stories of family members, friends, and other Australians who fell victim to the bitter harvest of one of Australia’s worst bushfires. I have cousins who are farmers in New South Wales that lost over 700 sheep and cattle to the flames. While they stayed to defend their property against encroaching fires which saved the structure of the house itself, many other vital resources turned into ash. With hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland burnt, countless other farmers suffered the same fate or worse, and will be recovering for years to come.

Roughly a week after the worst of the bushfires passed, and less than 24 hours after a massive dust storm blanketed entire towns and again blacked out the sun, Canberra was lashed with a severe hailstorm.[3] In the middle of summer and with bushfires burning across the country, golf ball-sized hailstones damaged thousands of cars, buildings, and trees, and injured or killed many animals.

Reparable damage to a car or house pales in comparison to stories from tiny Pacific island nations, whose residents have already permanently lost significant areas of liveable or arable land due to rising sea levels. Yet all of these extreme weather events are portents of impending climate crises which will continue to cause destruction and loss of life until drastic action is taken.

A climate migrant is forced to relocate when life in their current home becomes insupportable. As we are already seeing climate change-related disasters cause unsustainable living situations, it is no longer a hypothetical scenario for future generations to face, but a reality occurring within our lifetimes. These stories represent the beginning of such conditions that will only continually worsen, and ultimately result in an increase in climate migrants.

Current systems are failing climate migrants. Not only are governments and corporations neglecting to make the extreme policy changes necessary to halt climate change, but existing legal frameworks are insufficient to protect climate migrants in their plight. The international community has an obligation to undertake a reform agenda in this area, in order to afford increasing numbers of vulnerable climate migrants the protections they require and deserve. A bushfire season of this magnitude will certainly not be our last.

Gabriela Freeman is a soon-to-be lawyer and graduate of Law and International Relations from the Australian National University. Gabriela’s diverse cultural background and love of nature have influenced her twin passions for human rights, particularly for migrants and refugees, and the environment. She is committed to gaining the skills to effectively advocate for marginalised people, and meaningfully contribute to the climate justice movement. Outside of work, you can find her outdoors in the Australian bush, reading Richard Bach, or learning to play the drums. 

[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/Quick_Guides/AustralianBushfires

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53549936

[3] Images below by author Gabriela Freeman

Posted on

The UN Sustainable Development Goals and Environmental Justice: Two Sides of the Same Coin

brown concrete building under blue sky during daytime

31 Elsabé Boshoff

Poverty and Environment

The view that poverty leads to pollution and environmental destruction, or that poorer people care less about the environment, was for a long time firmly embedded in traditional views of environmentalism. Western environmentalists sought to conserve the natural environment in selected protected zones or areas, often displacing local communities that had lived on the land for centuries. This approach not only had limited success in addressing wider ecological challenges, but also caused social injustices and further marginalisation of vulnerable groups. A similar approach underlies some development models, according to which a community or state must first reach a certain level of economic development before they could (or should) be concerned with addressing environmental destruction. 

Yet in reality, poorer people often live closer to the land and have a more direct interest and concern in environmental protection. For example, while wealthy people can afford to move to clean, pollution-free areas, economically and socially marginalised people often suffer the health and quality of life consequences of environmental destruction and waste generated by the wealthy. 

Furthermore, we live in what the chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen has termed the Anthropocene; an epoch where no part of the world remains unaffected or untouched by negative human influences and destruction. This destruction ranges from polluting 88 percent of the ocean surface with plastic waste, to causing an estimated 1 million species to be threatened by extinction, to even changing the chemistry of the air. Today it is clear that the “pollute now, clean up later” model which most developed countries followed, is no longer a feasible option. At the same time, consumption and inequality, and thus the asymmetrical consequences of environmental destruction, continue to rise. 

Intersecting Social and Environmental Vulnerabilities

In recognition of this reality, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the world’s governments at a special UN Summit in 2015 under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Agenda 2030 and the SDGs serve as the current blueprint for the future of humanity. Comprising 17 Goals, the SDGs cover all aspects of human wellbeing, from peace to clean water, gender equality to climate action. Under the slogan of “leave no-one behind” the SDGs aim to eradicate poverty and hunger, reduce inequality within and among states, and provide a “plan of action for people, planet and prosperity”. It recognises that ecological sustainability and environmental protection cannot be reached without addressing people’s basic needs and ensuring  a more equitable sharing of the limited planetary resources. Conversely, it also recognises that people can only “fulfil their potential […] in a healthy environment”.

However, the idea that the people who suffer most from social and economic injustices are also the worst affected by environmental degradation and destruction, has a longer history. The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement emerged in the United States in the 1980s, when a predominantly African American neighbourhood in Warren County, North Carolina, was identified by the government to host a toxic landfill. This started a national movement of people speaking out against environmental injustices targeting communities based on their “race and economic status”. Despite its origins in the US, EJ has a lot in common with the “environmentalism of the poor” as it developed in other parts of the world around the same time. From India, to Brazil, to Nigeria, local groups have risen up in protest over oil extraction, dam construction, mining, and monoculture production affecting marginalised groups. Broadly conceived, the term EJ could be applied to this wide range of activities all rejecting the “unequal distribution of ecological costs and benefits”.

Synergies and Complementarity of SDGs and Environmental Justice

There are many ways in which the aims and principles of EJ and the SDG targets overlap, especially in the inseparability of social and ecological concerns, in the recognition of the need to address inequality and intersecting vulnerabilities, and in addressing patterns of consumption which underlay inequality and degradation. 

They also complement one another in that the SDGs set concrete targets for achieving these common aims, such as ensuring that all people have access to clean water and sanitation (Goal 6), affordable and sustainable energy (Goal 7), sustainable industrialisation (Goal 9) and inclusive, safe and resilient cities (Goal 11). 

SDG Goal 16 is also closely related to the ambitions of EJ, in that it explicitly aims to achieve access to justice for all. SDG 16 in particular “calls for non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development – to ensure that the SDGs leave no one behind”. It also requires of states to provide for inclusive processes for decision-making, access by the public to information and equitable access to justice, thereby empowering people to direct the various elements of development above. 

EJ on the other hand affirms “the right to be free from ecological destruction”. This language of “rights” supplements the language in the SDGs which in the setting of “goals” and “targets” does not have the same strong component of entitlement and enforceability.

The areas of overlap between the SDGs and EJ in their aims and underlying principles allow them to be applied in a way that is mutually reinforcing. While the EJ is very much a grassroots movement, the SDGs are a globally orchestrated development plan implemented at the highest levels. Drawing on the strengths of each – local level advocacy and community mobilisation and participation of the EJ and the broad strategic aims of the SDGs – the two systems may strengthen the common goal of ecologically sustainable and equitable human development. 

This article was originally published by Human Rights Pulse on 31 January 2021 as part of our January 2021 collaboration with E&U for the Climate and Human Rights Pulse on Environmental Justice and Human Rights.

Elsabé is a human rights lawyer by training and currently works in human rights at the African regional level. She is specifically interested in issues related to extractive industries, socio-economic rights, sustainable development and transitional justice. She is a co-editor of an edited volume: Governance, Human Rights and Political Transformation in Africa, and is excited to edit content for this inspiring initiative.

Posted on

Reviewing the State of the Climate in Africa Report

car passing by in between trees

–by Vaughn Rajah

On 26 October 2020 the 2019 State of the Climate in Africa Report was published. The Report, a multi-agency publication coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), provides a snapshot of climate related trends, observed high-impact events, and associated risks and impacts on key sensitive sectors in Africa.

Africa is responsible for only four percent of global carbon emissions and yet is the continent most vulnerable to climate instability. Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, has been identified as a region likely to suffer future “climate conflicts” resulting from climate-induced political instability and resource scarcity. 

Report Highlights

The Report emphasises rising temperatures and sea levels, changing rain patterns, and extreme weather as the greatest threats to food and water security, health and safety, and development in Africa. 

“Climate change is having a growing impact on the African continent, hitting the most vulnerable hardest, and contributing to food insecurity, population displacement and stress on water resources. In recent months we have seen devastating floods, an invasion of desert locusts and now face the looming spectre of drought because of a La Niña event. The human and economic toll has been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic”, said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. 

In a particularly worrying assessment, the Report concludes that expansive areas of the continent will exceed two degrees Celsius warming above pre-industrial levels by 2080. Two degrees Celsius is the temperature threshold designated as signalling near irreversible climate catastrophe. Much of Africa has already warmed by more than one degree Celsius since the beginning of the twentieth century, with a dramatic rise in heatwaves and searing hot days. 

The latest predictions from 2020 to 2024 indicate continued warming and decreased rainfall, particularly in Northern and Southern Africa, and increased rainfall over the Sahel region. 

Rising Climate Risks in Africa

The Report provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of climate change on the African continent in 2019. Anecdotal evidence has made it clear that, amongst its many other challenges and upheavals, 2020 was even deadlier in this regard. 

Agriculture is the cornerstone of the African economy. This is a major reason why the continent is designated a climate vulnerability hotspot. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that warming risks inducing devastating effects on crop production and food security in Africa, with associated health impacts. Warmer temperatures additionally increase transmission of vector-borne diseases. For warming scenarios ranging from a one to four degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures relative to pre-industrial levels, the overall GDP in Africa is expected to decrease by 2.25 percent to 12.12 percent. The Report indicates that West, Central, and East Africa are likely to suffer the most severe impacts.

Regional Responses

The international legal principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is premised on the notion that developed states must bear greater burdens in tackling climate change than developing states. However, it is incumbent on the African Union (AU) to also play its part in mitigation efforts. Unfortunately, there is currently little knowledge of how the AU understands or responds to climate-related security risks. A glaring omission in the AU’s most notable recent policy, the AU Transitional Justice Policy, is the lack of an explicit engagement with climate risks and redress in Africa. It is imperative that strategies are developed at a national, regional, and international level to mitigate the impacts of climate change in Africa.

This article was originally published by Human Rights Pulse on 31 January 2021 as part of our January 2021 collaboration with E&U for the Climate and Human Rights Pulse on Environmental Justice and Human Rights.

Human Rights Pulse core team member and Earth Refuge Archivist Vaughn is passionate about sustainability and human rights, his scholarship and writing focuses on international law, climate change and transitional justice.

Posted on

“Clean and White” Revisited: What Zimring Teaches Us About Environmental Racism Today

28 January 2021 – by Aubrey Calaway

When President Donald Trump issued a tirade of tweets berating late Maryland congressman and civil rights advocate Elijah Cummings, the media and public were quick to condemn the remarks.

Some cited Carl A. Zimring’s Clean and White: A History of Environmental Racism in the United States in order to explain the racist roots of lodging those specific criticisms against a majority-Black city. Zimring’s book, widely released the same year that Donald Trump was elected, provides an incisive look at how whiteness, waste, and sanitation have been entangled since the emergence of the United States (US). Now, after four years of the Trump presidency and the deaths of over 400,000 Americans due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is arguable that Clean and White offers critical new insight into the current crisis. How might the same legacy of environmental racism in those tweets be at play in the politics of the pandemic?

Environmental Fear-Mongering

When Trump and right-wing pundits call COVID-19 the “Chinese virus”, but make sure to describe the new variant of the virus as “first identified in Britain,” this is not simply the result of differing international relations. Throughout his administration, Trump has evoked fears of foreign filth as a way to pander to white nativism.

In doing so, Trump preyed on the same underlying anxieties about environmental hygiene and sexual pollution that Zimring argues have been stoked since the mid-19th century. He writes that “during the [Civil] war, fear of germs and fear of social order without slavery produced fears that would endure and intertwine”. The early 20th century influx of immigrants and Black southerners to northern cities, Zimring explains, would demand new methods for whites to uphold both racial purity and superiority, two mutually supporting ideas. The sanitary maintenance of these growing industrial cities was just the ticket.

As Zimring shows, non-white citizens have long been over-represented in “dirty” jobs like laundry, waste hauling, and scrap recycling. Jewish immigrants, once barred the white middle-class, were able to “ascend” the racial hierarchy by moving from scrap-scavengers to junkyard managers. Black, Asian, and Latinx residents were, as a result of restricted economic mobility and the supposed biological impurity of their skin color, kept tied to waste. Ideas of “who would deserve to be clean and who should do the cleaning” that were codified in the 1850s were solidified within the 20th century urban order.

A Dirty Legacy

Cleanliness in the years 2020 and 2021 has taken on new meaning, but the costs to non-white communities fall in line with the history that Zimring lays out. Immigrants and non-white communities are overly represented among essential, frontline workers, and fewer than 1 in 5 Black workers are able to telework. One Harvard study found that healthcare workers of color were more likely to care for patients with COVID-19, to report using inadequate or reused protective gear, and nearly twice as likely as white colleagues to test positive for the coronavirus. As non-white nurses, bus drivers, warehouse workers, and cleaning service people continue to be exposed to COVID-19 at dramatic rates, we see the contagious new consequences of centuries-old environmental racism.

But understanding America’s history of environmental racism is not just about survival. It is also about resistance. Despite record-breaking numbers of protesters at Black Lives Matter protests this past summer, high rates of mask wearing and social distancing led to no noticeable increases in COVID 19 cases. While it is too early to tell whether the Capitol riot will prove to have been a ‘superspreader’ event, images of the dense, maskless, and overwhelmingly white crowds demand a new look at how race and hygiene are once again colliding. As Zimring highlights, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated after delivering his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech in support of the Memphis Sanitation Workers’ Strike. The political entanglement of masks, “dirty things” and racial justice is not one of happenstance. It is simply the newest iteration of a history of struggle.  

Looking to the future

Almost fourteen years ago to the day, then senator Joe Biden filed the paperwork to launch his bid for president of the United States. Later that afternoon, speaking in reference to fellow candidate senator Barack Obama, Biden remarked: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Clean and White sifts through the dirt and grime of 244 years of American history to prove that understandings of race – and the perpetuation of racism – have always been about who has been deemed to be “clean,” and who has not. As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and Joe Biden steps up to replace Donald Trump as president, the legacy of environmental racism and hygiene in the United States is more pressing than ever. Whether Joe Biden and white Americans will pay attention remains to be seen.

This book review was published as part of our January 2021 collaboration with E&U for the Climate and Human Rights Pulse on Environmental Justice and Human Rights.

Aubrey Calaway is writer and researcher who has investigated issues of climate change, human trafficking, and community resilience. She currently works as a research fellow at Human Trafficking Search.

Posted on

The Inequality of Climate Change

brown tree on dried ground at daytime

26 January 2021 – By Veronica Rotman

It is undeniable that the effects of climate change disproportionately impact the poor. Climate change interferes with the full exercise of multiple fundamental human rights—like the rights to health, water, food, and housing—through its adverse effects on ecosystems, natural resources, and physical infrastructure.

Since the evolution of Homo sapiens, the earth’s dynamic climate has played a pivotal role in the accumulation, distribution, and preservation of natural resources and wealth. In order to survive and develop, societies have had to constantly adjust behaviours to the climate. Adaptability determines humanity’s ability to cope and recover from events. The largest distinction in adaptation strategies lies between developing and developed countries. 

According to the Global Climate Risk Index, eight of the ten countries most affected by extreme weather events from 1998 to 2017 were developing nations. These countries are vulnerable not just to frequency of events but also in their limited capacity to deal with impact. With an increase in intensity and duration of adverse weather events, time and resources available to rebuild will decrease. The impacts of climate change, however, far exceed these broad terms. Effective public health infrastructure underpins the social and economic development, and climate change starkly affects water and sanitation, prevalence of disease, food availability, population growth, and migration. 

Water and Sanitation

Over two billion people are dependent on drinking water contaminated with faeces. Water availability and sanitation is an existing issue that will intensify quickly with an increase in the global temperature. Access to reliable sources of drinking water is a fundamental human right entwined in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing. However, this basic need is not met in many parts of the world. Contaminated water can transmit a myriad of diseases, like polio, typhoid, cholera, and dysentery as well as more-familiar diarrhoea—an illness that is laughed off in the West but causes 485,000 deaths per year in developing countries due to contaminated water. As rainfall and temperature change over time, the provision of clean water, adequate sanitation, and drainage will become even more strained.

Although rainfall is projected to increase in the moist tropic regions and higher latitudes, it is forecasted to decrease in middle latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes. In the regions experiencing reduced rainfall, river levels will drop and warmer temperatures will degrade water quality as dilution of unfavourable contaminants decreases, oxygen dissolves at a slower rate, and micro-bacteria become more active. Climate change exacerbates conditions in already drought-stricken regions, reducing access to clean water and generating drier conditions that strain agriculture and lead to more wildfires. 

Disease

The effect of climate change on global disease patterns will intensify existing vulnerabilities across the world. Transmission rate and spread of rodent-borne and vector-borne diseases is expected to increase with the temperature—for example, experts have seen the rate at which pathogens mature and replicate within mosquitos accelerates with temperature. Insect population density and bite frequency also rises. A study by the University of Princeton found that mosquito abundance increases 30 – 100% with every 0.5 degree increase in temperature in the East African Highlands. According to the World Health Organization, over 405,000 people die of malaria annually with the vast majority (>97%) of deaths occurring in developing countries of Africa and Southeast Asia. As habitat distribution of mosquitos changes with the climate, human populations with little or no immunity to infections may be at risk, finding themselves in new transmission zones. 

The human right to the “highest attainable standard of health” is implicated by climate change through increased spread of disease and the resulting decreased capacity of health care facilities to cope. This will disproportionately impact the poor through access to quality healthcare, both cost and availability. Malaria can be prevented through spraying DDT, using mosquito nets, taking medications, and through education surrounding stagnant water sources near the dwelling. Malaria can be treated, but most of these solutions are not available to developing countries. 

Food Insecurity will Grow With Climate Change

The Climate and Food Vulnerability Index found that the ten most food-insecure countries in the world generate under half a tonne of CO2 per person—collectively 0.08% of total emissions. Crops, forestry, livestock, fisheries, and aquaculture will all be affected by rising temperatures, changes in precipitation regimes, and increased concentrations of CO2. This includes changing patterns of plant and livestock disease, affecting crop yields and agricultural production. Increased frequency of extreme weather events will destroy crops; flooding and rising sea levels will contaminate fresh water sources and agricultural land or cause salinisation and the elimination of nursery areas for fish. 

Regions where subsistence farmers, Indigenous people, and coastal communities undertake small-scale food production are particularly vulnerable. This is often due to lack of access to optimal land, adequate agricultural inputs, and access to trade. Approximately three-and-a-half million annual deaths of mothers and young children can be attributed to malnutrition, low birth weights, and non optimal breast-feeding. Growth stunting due to chronic undernutrition affects one in every three children under five-years-old born in developing countries.

It is likely that some agricultural regions will benefit in productivity with the warming climate, but this is almost entirely in high-latitude developed countries that do not already have large proportions of malnutrition. The impacts of climate change on food security and malnutrition are expected to be colossal. Access to food has been recognised as a fundamental human right, and climate change can threaten this through availability, accessibility, adequacy, and sustainability of food—all elements that are already reduced in developing nations. 

Migration and Resulting Conflict

Population growth is occurring in conjunction with climate change, intensifying established issues with shelter, water, and food insecurity. With more environments becoming flooded, arid, or inhospitable, large-scale population migration is likely. The UN projects that global populations will reach 9.8 billion by 2050, with roughly 83 million new additions per year. The majority of this increase can be attributed to a small number of countries. It is expected that by 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Indonesia, and Uganda. Eight out of nine of these are Global South nations. Most developed countries are predicted to stay in similar numbers and would even decline slightly if not for the expected migration from developing countries. 

Drought increases and desertification of arid environments will cause population migration into urban areas from drought-hit, rural areas. Sea levels are rising as a result of both ice-cap melt and oceanic thermal expansion associated with climate change and will be a prominent driver of large-scale population displacement all around the world.  

Impacts will be felt most severely in densely-populated, low-lying river deltas including the river delta of Bangladesh. The IPCC reports that nearly one million people will have to migrate by 2050, growing to over two million by 2100 due to sea level rise. 

For some countries it is quite simple: elevate or relocate. But both of these solutions bring a myriad of problems, especially on a large scale.  

Responsibility of Developed Nations

The wealthy countries of China, the United States, and the European Union are the world’s top emitters of fossil fuels and contribute over half of global emissions. The reality is the countries that will suffer most gravely are those that have contributed least to the problem. These top emitters contribute 14 times the emissions of the bottom 100 countries. Without substantial action from these countries, the world will struggle to tackle climate change. Questions must be raised about international justice and the violation of human rights. 

The disproportionate responsibility of climate change across the world must be represented at an international political level. And the pressure must be put on those key players.  This is the focus of some UN initiatives including the Paris agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. Industrialised, wealthy nations are not spared the effects of climate change. On the contrary, climate change exacerbates inequities here as well. Ultimately, climate change gives Western nations a heavy hunch of responsibility. We have the resources, science, and technology to change the trajectory; the Global South often does often not. 

Corporate responsibility must also be addressed. Worldwide, 100 fossil fuel corporations are responsible for 71% of all industrial emissions. Even if corporations agree to emissions reduction targets, they often fail to include the emissions associated with the entire life cycle of products—from upstream emissions associated with extraction, production, and processing to the downstream emissions of product use and disposal. Some companies will only include emissions associated with their own facilities, which can be an extremely small proportion of the total. The devil is in the details. It should be a requirement for all corporations to accurately measure emissions and report them with full transparency. These should be reviewed externally and held to accord in emission reduction targets.

Individual actions are important for the climate movement, but corporations have the ability to influence consumer habits, drive policy change, and respond quickly and boldly to the climate crisis. We must hold them accountable.

At this stage in time, industrialised nations are demanding developing countries spend their scarce resources on adaptation and coping strategies to survive. These resources should be spent dealing with existing problems, not those exacerbated by climate change. Aotearoa, as one example, must step up to put pressure on corporations as well as other developed nations to do the same. The Zero Carbon Act was a significant step in Aotearoa, accounting for a climate commission, periodic risk assessments, and national adaptation plans; however, it fails to make the unequivocal link between climate change and human rights—a valuable tool that could escalate action. We have set emission reduction targets, we have raised expectations, but it is still not reflected in a demonstrable, measurable reduction of CO2.  

Measurable progress speaks louder than targets, and emissions must be reduced to net zero. Only then will we gain the respect and leverage necessary to encourage significant action in other Western countries. Empathy is an innate human attribute, and if we could prevent the incomprehensible suffering of millions, would we not? Those in developed nations will still find that climate change will cause disruption and discomfort, at best; but the poor will suffer gravely. 

This article was originally published by Human Rights Pulse on 22 January 2021 as part of our January 2021 collaboration with E&U for the Climate and Human Rights Pulse on Environmental Justice and Human Rights.

Veronica is a marine scientist with interests in the interrelationship between human rights, climate change and the environment.

Posted on

Book Review of “As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonisation to Standing Rock” by Dina Gilio-Whitaker

19 January 2021 – by Ella Kiyomi Dobson

I use the terms Native and Indigenous interchangeably throughout this book review. These terms refer to the Indigenous communities across the United States whose land was stolen during European colonisation of the Americas. I am eternally grateful to be living and studying on Abenaki Land.

Dina Gilio-Whitaker, of the Colville Confederate Tribes, creates a compelling narrative centred upon the environmental justice of the centuries-long Indigenous fight against the United States’ (US) cultural and legal systems. Systems that, to this day, are deep-seated in white supremacist and settler-colonial frameworks of oppression. The author provides a range of case studies surrounding more contemporary environmental justice issues such as the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and extractive development expansion, to the industrial revolution’s impact on environmental and cultural degradation. An underpinning theme is the paradigm shift required within environmental justice; away from one “defined by norms of distributive justice within a capitalist framework” (Gilio-Whitaker, 2019, pp. 12), to one that “can accommodate the full weight of the history of settler colonialism…and embrace differences in the ways Indigenous peoples view land and nature” (pp.12). She argues that the eradication of Indigenous worldviews through the imposition of dominant Christian settler-colonial ideas still permeates today, and that a deeper understanding of the Indigenous worldview that “there is no separation between people and land, between people and other life forms, or between people and their ancient ancestors” (pp. 138) would pave the way for freedom from environmental harms and injustices for Indigenous communities.

Legal frameworks should protect people, their health and wellbeing, and that of the environment. However, Gilio-Whitaker highlights that the US legal system is embedded in settler-colonial understandings of Indigenous cultures, which continues to cause harm. The first example of this is the Obama administration’s endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (pp.32). Whilst sanctioning for Indigenous peoples’ rights, the government’s “dictatorial and colonial” (pp. 33) approach functions like a backhanded compliment. It claims to support “rights to Indigenous self-determination” (pp. 32), but drowns the document in disclaimers, which shows the lengths to which administrations are willing to go in order to maintain a false pretence of supporting Indigenous peoples. A second example is in passing the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), which outlawed the ban on Indigenous religious expression, but still provided legal backing for the destruction of sacred sites (pp. 140). The examples of unsuccessful cases, such as Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (pp. 140) and San Francisco Peaks (pp. 141-142), assumes the fundamental misunderstanding of Indigenous religion within Western agendas. This stems from the historical imposition of Christianity that still infiltrates today despite US secularity. This lack of understanding or compassion has forced Indigenous communities to pursue alternative approaches, such as pointing out human health implications (pp. 142), in hopes of establishing legal agency within jurisdictions. In order to decolonise the system, Gilio-Whitaker argues that we must divorce the legal system from a dominant Western religion in order to better protect Indigenous peoples and their cultures.

The need for coalition-building between Native and non-Native peoples is another strong undercurrent of Gilio-Whitaker’s book. However, in order to achieve productive collaboration for environmental justice, an understanding of histories and cultures is required by non-Natives, in order for us to act as better allies and collaborators. One such critical understanding that Gilio-Whitaker promotes through the history of national parks is the social construction of nature originating from the “virgin wilderness hypothesis” (pp. 39), or The Pristine Myth, which physically manifested into national parks. These parks were created in the name of “preservation”, but in reality, the only thing preserved was “white supremacy and settler privilege” (pp. 95) through relentless erasure of Indigenous peoples. In order to move forward in the environmental movement, non-Natives must disentangle ourselves from and decolonise the way we think about nature by for instance, re-imaging the way we think and talk about “wilderness”, particularly in the US. Another critical understanding was brought to the surface in Gilio-Whitaker’s account of the demonstrations organised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against DAPL and the culture clash that arose from the requirement for women to wear skirts. It highlighted the importance of traditional understanding and respect when supporting Indigenous communities. At first, I could understand why women stood by their views on wearing a skirt, which was embedded in the historical oppression or conditioning of women. However, Gilio-Whitaker makes a strong argument for why such clashes occur, which made me rethink my own stance. This shift in understanding came from looking at the changes in cultural systems as only benefitting white communities, and ultimately promoting white privilege. This reframing of the non-Native women’s belief as “white cultural superiority” (pp. 124) solidified for me how this culture clash still promotes an inherently racist agenda.

On the whole, I found Gilio-Whitaker’s analysis of Indigenous environmental justice crucial and thought-provoking. However, I felt that there was a political bias which, albeit understandable, convoluted the narrative and was at times contradictory. For instance, in her introduction, the same paragraph claims that Democrats and their values both do and do not support the movement for Indigenous social and environmental justice (pp. 11). Furthermore, the author goes on to argue that President Obama and his administration were more supportive of Indigenous peoples (pp. 33). Yet, throughout the book Gilio-Whittaker highlights the ambivalence of the Obama administration on Indigenous rights through examples such as the UNDRIP endorsement (pp. 32-33) and San Francisco Peaks legal battle (pp. 141). I would argue that instead of this conflicted approach towards a single administration, holding all political parties and leaders accountable would further benefit the environmental justice movement.

Gilio-Whitaker’s holistic account of Indigenous environmental justice structured within contemporary and historical timelines highlights the work that is still required to decolonise knowledge production and for the US to finally divorce itself from deeply racist ideologies that dictate social, environmental and legal systems.

This book review was published as part of our January 2021 collaboration with E&U for the Climate and Human Rights Pulse on Environmental Justice and Human Rights.

Ella Kiyomi Dobson is a senior at Dartmouth College majoring in Environmental Studies and minoring in studio art. They are particularly interested in the intersection of environmental and social issues pertaining to ecological and fisheries conservation. With previous experience working in the field at marine research labs, they are curious as to how to mitigate the consequential social injustices that stem from biological conservation and related policies. 

References

Gilio-Whitaker, D. (2019). As Long as the Grass Grows: The indigenous fight for environmental justice, from colonisation to Standing Rock. Boston: Beacon Press.

Posted on

Impact of Climate Change on the Arab Spring and Migrant Crisis

rocky mountain view at daytime

13 January 2020 – by Joseph Bensadon

The photo of Aylan Kurdi shook the world in September 2015 as the migrant crisis reached its mediatic climax.[1] But this photo does not represent a forgotten past. Climate change, through its impact on food insecurity and subsequent migratory movements, continues to produce waves of humanitarian emergencies, only to be exacerbated by the “threat multiplier” effect. 

For the Syrian boy Aylan, Climate Change affected him through its impact on the Arab Spring. This piece will look at the repercussions of Climate Change on the Arab Spring through the 2010 wheat crop yields and the Egypt Uprising. It will also explore the consequences this unrest had on migratory waves.

2010 Wheat Production

The 2011 price of wheat rose to $850, compared to $450 in 2010 as production fell in late 2010.[2] This decrease in production was the result of Canada’s yield,[3] the second in the world, plummeting by a quarter due to record rainfall. At the same time, China experienced droughts and dust storms from early 2010 into 2011, while Eastern Europe, Russia and the United States suffered similar low crop yields. Substitute products were not left unscathed as La Niña decreased Southern soybean and maize harvests, ultimately raising the overall price of food products.[4]

Egyptian Uprising

The Egyptian Uprising on the Tahrir Square in 2011 demonstrates one of the many negative externalities Climate Change can have in such a globalized economy. According to Troy Sternberg, the Chinese wheat drought in November 2010 was the main cause for this uprising.[5] The fall in production by 0.5% put pressure on the price of wheat and affected the availability of bread in Egypt. This in turn led to public protests which were met strongly by the authoritarian regime of President Hosni Mubarak. It is worth noting that Mubarak was in no way popular before these events unfolded.[6] Climate impacts only exacerbated the discontent. Since most Middle Eastern countries have an arid geography, they are heavily reliant on food importation, with some countries spending over 30% of their per capita income on food (Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Iraq).[7] That civil unrest spread throughout the Arab World, and became the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring

As the CNA report “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” stated back in 2007, Climate Change acts as a “threat multiplier” for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.[8] Projected Climate Change will worsen already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, potentially causing widespread (geo)political instability and the emergence of failed states. Anticipating the impending crisis, the CNA identified both a national security risk for the United States, and the potential for violent unrest in the region. Inevitably, Climate Change played an essential role in the chain of events that unfolded, primarily through the increase in global food prices.[9] However, it is important to point out that the price increase was most likely only an aggregating factor. If governments had been more self-reliant, they may have been able to move away from their heavy reliance on food import through the development of their local markets and, thus, be less sensitive to food price shocks.

Migrant Crisis

The Arab World will “face drier winters, diminishing fresh water runoff and dwindling groundwater resources as the century progresses”,[10] with 75 to 250 million people in Africa projected to be exposed to water stress and food insecurity. This has already led to an increase in urban migration in the region, which intensified the political unrest by bringing “diverse, tribal, ethnic and religious groups into close contact while straining states’ capacity to cope with the needs of the populace”.[11] With its aforementioned impact on political stability, Climate Change will also aggravate poor conditions for people living in the Arab World, accentuating the flight of the population abroad.

Conclusion

The Arab Spring and subsequent migrant crisis can be attributed to many factors. While the most important and conspicuous factor is one of geopolitical nature, Climate Change still played its role in the Arab Spring as the silent trigger to the unrest. The wheat crop yield decrease and food price increase were directly influenced by unusual climate events, such as droughts and record rainfalls, which are directly correlated with man-made Climate Change. As these extreme weather events are going to increase in numbers, we can expect a corresponding emergence of political unrest across the world, especially in areas suffering from food insecurity. As a “threat multiplier”, Climate Change will augment migration movements from developing and underdeveloped countries to those more prosperous, for the latter have an environment less sensitive to the impacts of Climate Change and the resources to mitigate its impact, whereas the former, do not.

Joseph has a keen interest in working towards making our society sustainable. He wishes to use his background studying Climate Change, Economics and Cultural Diversity to bring the issue of climate migration to the forefront of the public debate, in order to promote international collaboration to mitigate the risk for local populations. He currently works in climate finance, with a focus on real estate, where he hopes to move the industry towards becoming more responsible, improving its impact on society.

References

[1] BBC News. 2020. Migrant Crisis: Photo Of Drowned Boy Sparks Outcry. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34133210> [Accessed 8 December 2020].

[2] Nasdaq. 2020. Nasdaq CBOT Wheat Future. [online] Available at: <https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/commodities/zw?timeframe=10y> [Accessed 8 December 2020].

[3] Werrell, C. and Femia, F., 2013. The Arab Spring and Climate Change – A Climate and Security Correlations Series. Center for American Progress.

[4] Ibid. 22

[5] Ibid. 14

[6] Ibid. 18

[7] Ibid. 19

[8] 2007. National Security And The Threat Of Climate Change. [online] Available at: <https://archive.org/stream/NationalSecurityAndTheThreatOfClimateChangeCNAApril2007/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change%20CNA%20April%202007_djvu.txt> [Accessed 8 December 2020].

[9] Ibid.

[10] Werrell & Femia. 40

[11] Ibid. 43