The Human Rights Blog

Sumbu Chantraine Temo, President of Amnesty International at Stockholm University

“If you want to go fishing, you have to paddle for about four hours through several rivers before you can get to where you can catch fish and the spill is lesser … some of the fishes we catch, when you open the stomach, it smells of crude oil.” – A local fisherman’s description of his livelihood in the Niger Delta.
(Nigeria: Oil Pollution, Human Rights Violations Still Rampant in Niger Delta, News from Africa, Nov. 2010)

THE NIGER DELTA INTRODUCED
Around 30 million people live in The Niger Delta, one of the world’s most polluted regions. The Niger Delta is Africa’s biggest and the world’s third largest river delta containing a vast oil deposit. The local inhabitants have not benefitted of this richness, Despite the fact that Nigeria ranks 7th among the world’s oil producing nations, the local inhabitants have not benefitted at all from the nation’s oil wealth as The Niger Delta is one of the most polluted regions in the world. Since oil production began in the late 1950’s, more oil has spilled across the region each year than was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

For decades, oil spillage, waste dumping and gas flaring have polluted the Niger Delta. Little has been done to clear up the area even though the region has one of the world’s ten most essential wetlands and coastal marine ecosystems. Severe pollution has caused nearly irreparable damage to the soil, water, air and wildlife. Thousands of Nigerians suffer due to this pollution, as most are dependent on agriculture and fishing as their traditional occupations.

Both the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNCP) and affiliated companies have interests in the Niger Delta. (NNCP is a public organization that takes care of governmental interests in the country’s oil industry.)

Photo by: Jane Hahn for The NY Times

THE OIL INDUSTRY
The oil and gas sector makes 97% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange. It also makes a majority, 79.5 %, of the government’s income. (Report of the Niger Delta Technical Committee, November 2008, pg. 102)

Many locals blame the multinational corporations like Shell for contamination in the region. Although Shell is not the only actor present in the Niger Delta, the company’s contribution to the pollution is, perhaps, one of the most significant. To date, over 1,000 spill cases have been filed against Shell. For example, in 2010, Shell admitted to spilling 14,000 tonnes of oil in 2009. (See Nigeria’s agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it, The Guardian, May 2010) In May of 2010, ExxonMobil spilled more than a million gallons of oil in the Delta in a span of seven days after one of their pipelines ruptured. Though it is relatively easy to identify the parties responsible for the pollution, the legal system in Nigeria is slow and appeals often take years. More often than not, the communities affected by the pollution never see compensation. (See Shell oil spills in the Niger delta: ‘Nowhere and no one has escaped’, The Guardian, Aug. 2011)

Oil spills occur both on the land and offshore, causing damage to both farmland and water sources. Due to such high risks of contamination in both food and water sources, it is dangerous for locals to cultivate the land, fish, or use water supply. This has posed great hardships on the people o the Niger Delta region, as agriculture, fishing and forest products are traditional to their way of life. In fact, UNCP reports that over 60% of the Niger Delta’s inhabitants need the natural environment for their livelihood. (Id.)

Exposure to petroleum can cause everything from skin rashes to cancer and neurotoxicity. A recent United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) report from shows that the region of Ogoniland is still contaminated despite the fact that oil production ceased in the region nearly 20 years ago.

CAUSES
One of the major causes of oil waste is gas flaring, which results when oil is separated from the oil pumped out. In 2007, NPR reported that “[g]as flares emit about 390 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, and experts say eliminating global flaring alone would curb more CO2 emissions than all the projects currently registered under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.” NPR also quotes Chris Elvidge, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who says, “Nigeria has brought their gas flaring down by about 10 billion cubic meters a year from the mid-1990s, so Nigeria is actually one of the few countries of the world where gas flaring has been reduced. But there’s still a lot of it.” (See Gas Flaring Disrupts Life in Oil-Producing Niger Delta, NPR, July 2007)

Although the Nigerian government has attempted to curb gas flaring since 1984, the deadline set to end the flares (2008) has proved meaningless, as it has become heavily postponed, thus allowing the flaring to continue.

Oil spills also occur due to corroded pipelines. Pipe corrosion is not a new development. In fact, it was first identified as problematic in the Niger Delta fifteen years ago, yet little has been done since to repair old pipes. Shell, for example, has acknowledged their need to improve their pipes and has also admitted that corrosion was a possible reason for half of their oil spills. In 1995, the company started a decontamination programme, but corroded pipes continue to pose a major problem.

Today, Shell (along with other oil companies) try to pin part of the blame on sabotage. For example, on its website, Shell opines that militant groups are behind the major environmental problems. This creates, according to Shell, rancour towards the oil companies on the delta.

In an article in the New York Times, Caroline Wittgren, spokeswoman for Shell in Lagos, explains, “[w]e do not believe that we behave irresponsibly, but we do operate in a unique environment where security and lawlessness are major problems.”

She went on to say that just 2% of the spill was to human error and failure in equipment.

THE OGONILAND REPORT
While sabotage is a legitimate problem in the Niger Delta region, it simply does not account for all of the pollution as evidenced by the sad situation in Ogoniland.

Ogoniland is an area in the Niger Delta spanning around 1,000 kilometres. Oil production in the region began in 1958. However, due to massive public protests, production ceased in 1993.

Despite the fact that oil production ceased nearly 20 years ago, Ogoniland continues to be ravaged by the effects of oil pollution. Current UNEP research (spanning the course of three years) shows that the pipes, despite the long interruption, are still leaking, due to bunkering, illegal extraction of oil, or corrosion. Since Ogoniland is directly connected with the rest of the Delta, the contamination easily spreads to other regions. Additionally, because of the high rainfall in the region, oil is constantly washed into farmlands and creeks. (See UN environmental assessment of Ogoniland, UNEP, 2011) Of course, UNEP recommends that the contamination must be cleaned up as soon possible and that the mess in Oganiland must be prevented to other areas.

If UNEP’s recommendations are followed, Oganiland could potentially be restored in 25-30 years at an estimated to cost $1bn (£614m), which does not include future damages. (UNEP maintain that the cost is only presumed and preliminary.)

Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP, told The Guardian that the UNEP report “offers a blueprint for how the oil industry and public authorities might operate more responsibly in Africa and beyond at a time of increasing production and exploration across many parts of the continent.” (See Niger Delta oil spills clean-up will take 30 years, says UN, The Guardian, Aug. 2011)

Mutiu Sunmonu, managing director of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, maintains that most of the oil spill is still stalled by sabotage. He does manage to point out that Shell is willing to take its responsibility for the pollution and pledges to collaboration with the Nigerian government.

“All oil spills are bad – bad for local communities, bad for the environment, bad for Nigeria and bad for [the company]. Although we haven’t produced oil in Ogoniland since 1993 we clean up all spills from our facilities, whatever the cause, and restore the land to its original state. (See Id.)

SOURCES

www.cehrd.org pg. 157.
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, clause 44
The Petroleum Act of 1969, clause 1
Report of the Niger Delta Technical Committee, November 2008, p102

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/03/shell-oil-spills-niger-delta-bodo?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/017/2009/en/e2415061-da5c-44f8-a73c-a7a4766ee21d/afr440172009en.pdf pg.11
Niger Delta Human Development Report, 2006, pg. 74, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/society/nigeria/conditions/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html

UNDP, Niger Delta Human Development Report, 2006
Niger Delta Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration Project, Phase I Scoping Report, May 2006, conducted by Nigerian Conservation Foundation, WWF UK and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, with Federal Ministry of Environment (Abuja).
SPDC, Nigeria Brief, The Environment, 1995

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html

http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/OEA/UNEP_OEA.pdf

Popularity: 4% [?]

Water is critical for sustainable development, including environmental integrity and the eradication of poverty and hunger, and is indispensable for human health and well-being.” -  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Recently, Isobel Foulsham, a Master’s degree candidate in Human Rights at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies in London, contacted me to share a unique and enlightening animation she created entitled, “The Human Right to Water – it’s in Our Hands.”  The information conveyed through her animation convinced me that the concept of access to safe water as a human right should be one of widespread global concern and that the right to water should certainly be regarded a distinct human right instead of either being considered a subcategory other human rights or worse, viewed as an economic commodity.

Brief background regarding the right to water in human rights treaties and international law:

When our human rights were formally recognized in 1948 with the adoption of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), access to safe water was not a consideration.  In fact, none of the treaties that comprise the International Bill of Rights (the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or ICCPR, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or ICESCR) expressly recognized the right to water as a human right.

In 1992, the United Nations adopted The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, which classified water as an economic commodity.  In particular, Principle Four states, “[w]ater has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good.”   At its core, The Dublin Statement focused on the right of all people to have access to safe water at an affordable price, thus giving water economic value instead of recognizing access to it as a fundamental right.

It was not until 2002 when the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) interpreted the meaning of Article 11 of the ICESCR to encompass the right to water as opposed to an economic commodity, thus giving the notion some weight in international law.  Specifically, in commemoration of the UN’s International Year of Freshwater, CESCR adopted General Comment 15, which recognizes water as a limited natural resource, a public good fundamental for life and health, and a human right.

“The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights…The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.”  (See General Comment 15, Introduction)

According to the World Water Council, “General Comment 15 was the first document that fleshed out in detail the right’s content and clearly stated that the right to water emanated from and was indispensable for an adequate standard of living as it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival.”

Still, not all nations view the right to water as an independent, free-standing right.  Rather, many countries continue to interpret the right to water as an element, or subcategory, of other human rights such as the right to life or the right to food and shelter.

For example, in 2007, Great Britain and Northern Ireland submitted a Statement on the Human Right to Water to the UN’s General Assembly, in which they clearly agreed that while all people are entitled to a sufficient amount of safe water, the right to water is “not a free-standing right in customary international law.  Nor is it derived from other rights, such as the right to life.”  The Statement goes on to explain that the right to water is, rather, “an element of the ‘right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family.” (As in regards to Art. 11 of the ICESCR)

The Right to Water from a Christian Perspective

As we know, many of the moral concepts behind human rights often run parallel with the teachings of Christianity.  Take, for example, Article 1 of the UDHR which states:

“[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

The world’s two most powerful Christian leaders, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, leader of 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians and Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church, have been strong proponents for right to water to be treated as a fundamental human right and have spoken openly about the subject.

Patriarch Bartholomew, a world-renown champion of the environment, made numerous statements over the years concerning the right to water as a human right.  For example, in 2004 he wrote, “[w]e must accept the indiscriminate and inalienable right to water for all people in the world. Water can never be reduced to a marketable commodity for profit – especially for the affluent, especially for the few.  It must always be protected as part of the fundamental quality of life – especially for the more vulnerable, especially for our children.” (See Champions of the Earth – United Nations Environment Programme)

In 2006, the World Council of Churches adopted a Statement on Water for Life, stating that “water is a symbol for life.  The Bible affirms water as the cradle of life, an expression of God’s grace in perpetuity for the whole of creation (Gen 2:5) and that “access to water is indeed a basic human right.”

In July 2008, Pope Benedict XVI declared that all people have a right to water based on dignity of the human person and that water should not be viewed as an economic good.  In his message to the international exposition on Water and Sustainable Development in Spain, the Pope explained that the right to water has “religious meanings that believing humanity, especially Christianity, have developed, assigning it great value as a precious immaterial good, which always enriches man’s life on this earth.”

UN International Decade for Action, 2005 – 2015 :  Water for Life

In recent years, the United Nations has taken a proactive approach in towards the widespread acceptance of the classification of the right to water as a human right, especially in light of the fact that today, “over one billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion lack access to safe sanitation.”  (See World Health Organization)

Recognizing the global need for safer, cleaner water and sanitation, the UN’s General Assembly proclaimed 2005-2015 to be the International Decade for Action:  Water for Life, emphasizing that ”water is critical for sustainable development, including environmental integrity and the eradication of poverty and hunger, and is indispensable for human health and well-being.” (See UN Resolution 58/217)

In 2008, the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)’s passed Resolution 7/22, which determined that providing access to clean drinking water is “central to living a life in dignity” and is, indeed, a fundamental human right.  That same year, the UN appointed Catarine de Albuquerque, a Portuguese lawyer and senior legal adviser at the Office for Documentation and Comparative Law in Portugal, as the UN’s Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation.  In this role, Ms. Albuquerque visits countries hit hardest by unsafe sanitation and provides reports and recommendations on how best the UN can tackle this country-specific problem using a human rights-based approach.  Ms. Albuquerque visited Slovenia this past week (April 19-23) to examine water quality, sanitation, including wastewater treatment, and affordability of water and sanitation services in the country.  (As of April 27, 2010, her findings have not yet been publicized, but I will add her finding to this article as they are available.)

Author’s update:  Please see Statement by the United Nations Expert on Human Rights, Water and Sanitation (Visit to Slovenia, 24-28 May 2010) by Catarina de Albuquerque dated May 29, 2010.

The United States’ stance on the right to water

Despite widespread support for the right to water as a free-standing human right, the United States continues to resist this classification.

During the 2009 World Water Forum, the United States’ delegation firmly stated that “there is at present no internationally agreed right to water or human right to water, and there is no consensus on what such a right would encompass.”  State Department spokesman Andy Laine told the Forum that “[t]he United States does not oppose any government adopting a national right to water or sanitation as part of its own domestic policy. We do, however, have concerns with a statement that would require all countries to adopt a national right to water or sanitation or would establish an international right to water or sanitation.”

The human right to water remains a controversial and widely discussed topic in international human rights law.  That said, I encourage all the readers of The Human Rights Blog to consider the right to water from both a moral and legal perspective, and to watch Ms. Foulsham’s animation above.

For more information about this topic, please read the following:

The Right to Water by The World Health Organization

Official Website of World Water Day, which was March 22

World Water Day on Facebook

About the Animation:

For “behind the scenes” information about Isobel Foulsham’s video, please read her article, “In our hands – the human right to water.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

Ever wonder what becomes of your unwanted laptop, television, cell phone, or electronic gadgets?  Would you believe that your discarded electronics are quite possibly contributing to severe pollution and human rights abuses worldwide?  Well, it’s true.  E-waste is a major contributor to the human health risks and human rights violations of the workers who handle e-waste and the everyday people who live near dumping facilities around the world.

What is e-waste?

Electronic waste, or e-waste, refers to unwanted electronic devices and parts.  With today’s ever-changing and swiftly-advancing electronic technologies, more and more electronics become passé over a short span of time.  Because the average American household owns 24 electronic devices and because technological advances in our most-loved gadgets occur at a very frequent rate, e-waste is now the most rapidly growing waste stream in the United States.  In fact, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about 40 million computers became obsolete in the United States in 2007 alone.

So what became of the 40 million obsolete computers in 2007?  The EPA reports that, “of the 2.25 million tons of TVs, cell phones and computer products ready for end-of-life (EOL) management, 18% (414,000 tons) was collected for recycling and 82% (1.84 million tons) was disposed of, primarily in landfills.”  Few of these landfills, however, exist in the United States. The largest dumping facilities exist in developing countries, whose citizens may never have even used an electronic device. This is particularly troubling because e-waste contains some of the most toxic substances known to man, and these countries typically do not possess the technology, knowledge, or regulations to safely dispose of or house such substances.

Environmental and human rights concerns

The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur Okechukwu Ibeanu, who will visit India this month to examine the linkage of e-waste and human rights, recently explained that, “E-waste is one of the most hazardous waste streams worldwide. Electronics contain over 50 hazardous chemicals or heavy metals that can cause serious health and environmental risks if not disposed in an environmentally safe manner.”

According to the EPA, the most harmful substances found in e-waste include lead, mercury, cadmium, and brominated flame retardants as well as carcinogenic substances, among others.  These materials, if not disposed of properly, can lead to serious health and environmental damage for people who handle the e-waste, the workers who collect the e-waste, and the communities that house the collection facilities. For example, for e-waste workers in  China and India, countries who have absolutely no regulations as to the disposal of e-waste, the “harvesting” of such substances has become a highly profitable, but very dangerous, business:

International and domestic laws concerning the disposal of e-waste

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, or simply The Basel Convention, is the most comprehensive international treaty in existence created to combat the movement of hazardous waste between countries.

Drafted in response to the unethical practices of certain industrialized countries, known as “toxic traders,” who began shipping vast amounts of hazardous waste to Eastern European and developing countries for dumping in the late 1980’s, the Basel Convention was entered into force on May 5, 1992 and ratified by 168 countries.

The Basel Convention is governed by the Conference of the Parties (COP) which is comprised of all the governments who have either ratified or acceded to the Treaty.  Out of the 172 signatory countries to the Treaty, the United States joins Haiti and Afghanistan as the only three signatories who have not followed through with ratification.

According to Greenpeace, it is estimated that between 50 and 80% of e-waste collected for “recycling” in the United States is actually exported for dumping in other countries, namely China and India.  Greenpeace adds that although this practice is in direct violation of the Basel Convention, it is not illegal since the United States has yet to ratify the Treaty.

As of today, and despite numerous attempts to mandate the recycling of e-waste, no such federal laws concerning e-waste exist in the United States and state laws regarding the disposal of e-waste varies from state to state. And, since the United States government has made no immediate plans to ratify the Basel Convention, it therefore falls on us, the consumers, to find better, safer, and more moral ways to dispose of our current e-waste and prevent future e-waste in our own lives.

What we, as consumers can do

There are a variety of relatively simple things that we can do with our e-waste to not only help protect the environment, but also the lives and safety of our fellow global citizens. Perhaps the easiest and most direct way that we can effect change by properly disposing e-waste is to consider recycling your old electronics with a reputable, licensed e-waste collection agency. (See below for a list of local, reputable e-waste recyclers.)

Another way to help combat the unethical and dangerous disposal of e-waste is to support companies that follow the Basel Convention. For example, in 2009, Dell became the first major computer company to prohibit the exportation of non-functioning electronics to developing countries, putting Dell not only in alignment with, but above and beyond the standards set forth in the Basel Convention.

Finally, we can petition the United States government to ratify the Basel Convention and we can write to our state Senators and local Congressmen to create a federal law mandating the safe and responsible disposal of e-waste.

Where Can I Donate or Recycle My Old Computer and Other Electronic Products?

For addition information about e-waste and e-waste recycling, please visit the EPA’s Frequent E-Waste Questions website.

Text of the Basel Convention

The Responsible way to recycle – look for the e-Stewards logo

My Green Electronics - type in your zip code below to find your nearest, reputable e-waste recycler:

 

Popularity: 3% [?]

One of the world’s most passionate advocates of environmentalism and human rights is a man whose role traditionally does not encompass such vocations.

His All Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and spiritual leader of 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians worldwide, has gained global recognition for his tireless and spiritual approach to human rights and environmental issues, particularly in the areas of climate change, the rights of indigenous peoples, and advocacy for religious tolerance.

Patriarch Bartholomew has served as spiritual leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the world’s most ancient Christian religion, for nearly 20 years. He is also regarded by global leaders as a distinguished human rights defender and environmental champion. His All Holiness’ many accolades include the US Congressional Gold Medal, the UN Laureate Champion of the Earth award, and rank of number 11 on Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World. Based in Constantinople, or Istanbul, His All Holiness’ Patriarchate sits in one of the world’s hot seats of Muslim-Christian discord, as Turkey’s Christian minorities often face intense religious and ethnic discrimination.

Just this fall, President Obama welcomed Patriarch Bartholomew at the White House for a substantive discussion of environmental and human rights issues, particularly the plight of those living in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward.  President Obama expressed his appreciation for Patriarch Bartholomew’s long-standing commitment to these issues.  During that same visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed His All Holiness at the State Department, calling him ”a living embodiment of the positive role that faith can play in healing and humanizing our world.”

Despite his notable work for Earth’s citizens, His All Holiness personally feels the sting of ethnic persecution on a daily basis in his country of origin. As a non-Muslim Turkish native, Patriarch Bartholomew, along with Turkey’s other Christian ethnic minorities, often face religious discrimination, the seizure of land and property, and even violence, at the hand of the Turkish government. In a recent interview with CBS correspondent Bob Simon for this Sunday’s 60 Minutes, Patriarch Bartholomew explained that the Turkish authorities do not respect Greek minorities’ 17 centuries of history in Turkey and that the ethnic minorities in Turkey are treated as “second class citizens.”

Clearly, Patriarch Bartholomew is a distinguished human rights defender and environmental champion.  How sad that despite his global efforts to protect our environment and defend the religious freedoms of others, the authorities of his native country deny him, and other Christian minorities, the freedom to live and worship freely and without discrimination.

You can learn more about Patriarch Bartholomew, his work, and the plight of Christians in Turkey by watching 60 Minutes this Sunday, December 20th at 7pm EST.

Photo Credit: Nikolaos Manginas

Popularity: 3% [?]

One of the most pressing issues of today is climate change, the significant increase in Earth’s overall temperature and climate.Typically, climate change is considered an environmental issue, but during her visit to the Philippines last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama Administration joins the United Nations, and other world organizations in viewing climate change as both an environmental and human rights concern.

The results of climate change, which include rising ocean waters, drought, floods, and changing ecosystems restricts peoples’ access to the universally-recognized human rights of food, water, and adequate housing. Extreme climate conditions cause the spread and increased susceptibility to weather-related disease.Those who live in small island countries, women, and certain indigenous people are the most vulnerable groups.For example, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions of Russia, Greenland, Canada and the US, view climate change as an enormous impediment to their cultural survival. Dramatic changes in temperature has caused major shifts in their lands due to rapidly melting snow and ice, and has even resulted in the introduction of new animal species.Consequently, the Inuit people have lost homes, access to work, and the ability to partake in traditional activities like hunting, which is closely linked to their unique cultural identity.

In light of these issues, rethinking climate change from a human rights perspective seems to be a rightly-growing trend throughout the global community.For example, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights advocates a holistic approach to dealing with climate change, one that incorporates its human rights impact and the negative effects it has on societies around the world with the purely environmental concerns.This reasoning is based on the principle that human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, as stated in the Vienna Declaration of Human Rights, which formally reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter in 1993.  

The UN Human Rights Council strengthened their approach this past March with the adoption of a resolution declaring that climate change acutely affects human rights, especially those whose cultural identities are intertwined with the environment.Discussion of climate change as a human rights issue will continue next month in Copenhagen when world leaders from over 40 countries meet for the greatly-anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference.From December 7-18, representatives will hammer out a comprehensive international climate change agreement, using a draft negotiating text that will, for the first time, introduce the human rights aspect of climate change.

While most in the international community can agree that climate change is, at least, an environmental issue with human rights implications, others see climate change as a competing topic; one that may overshadow more “traditional” human rights issues. Others still, such as former President of Ireland and former UN Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, work to promote a “climate-justice approach,” placing human rights at the very center of the climate change debate.As Robinson wrote in her foreword for the report, Climate Change and Human Rights, “[t]he human rights framework reminds us that climate change is about suffering – about the human misery that results directly from the damage we are doing to nature… [I]f we build human rights criteria into our future planning, we will better understand who is at risk and how we should act to protect them.”

Certainly, when put in those terms, it is difficult to deny that human rights and climate change are, if nothing else, irrevocably linked.

Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/christianrevivalnetwork

Popularity: 2% [?]