What are the social and political implications of a discourse linking climate change and human rights? How is this discourse relevant for development practitioners? The human rights lens has rapidly emerged from obscurity to prominence and has succeeded in broadening the scope of climate change debate. This paper predicts that vulnerable groups worldwide will increasingly use arguments based on human rights to demand action. However, this discourse will need to adapt and demonstrate practical value for policymaking in order to achieve substantive outcomes.
Since 2005 a growing number of vulnerable communities and nations have used human rights to argue for an urgent and ambitious response to climate change. The UN Human Rights Council recognised in 2008 that climate change poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to the enjoyment of human rights – including the right to life, food, water, health, housing and self-determination. Climate change has direct and indirect impacts: natural disasters; water and food scarcity; loss of livelihoods; poor health; increased disease; involuntary displacement and violence.
Communities experiencing climate change as a daily threat to security have opted for a human rights approach in frustration at slow and ineffective international processes. Advocates of this approach recognise its potential as a transformative socio-political strategy:
- The human rights discourse has been used to influence the vocabularies and expertise of development practitioners and to shape climate change policy, analysis and resource allocation. Proponents aim to enhance participation of the most vulnerable, who are least likely to be consulted.
- Vulnerable populations are invoking ethical rather than strictly legal human rights; such rights are seen as a pre-condition to economic development.
- Climate change vulnerability is closely linked to inequality. Vulnerability to the effects of climate change links otherwise unrelated communities across the world, from small island states to indigenous peoples.
- Ecological arguments have been perceived as weak at influencing decision makers while linking climate change with human rights has increased public support, visibility and influence.
- State sponsors of the Maldives resolution on climate change are increasingly using human rights institutions and vocabulary in policy interventions.
- A UN Framework Convention on Climate Change text endorsed the link between climate change and human rights in 2010. It provides a platform for vulnerable groups to demand greater protection.
However, opponents claim that the human rights framework is a largely ineffectual and conflicting patchwork of texts. Human rights do not necessarily provide practical mechanisms to address inequalities. The most vulnerable groups, including women, require voice and access to justice for the human rights approach to be effective.
To consolidate the initial success of broadened analysis, proponents need to demonstrate the ‘instrumental added value’ of rights in policymaking. (For example, adequate food and housing reduce the need for health care.) It is also important to note that:
- Just as climate change can prevent the realisation of rights, poorly designed mitigation policies can also undermine rights. For example, the right to food may be undermined by changes in land use towards biofuels. Revenue incentives for forest conservation may cause disregard for indigenous land rights.
- Sound climate change policy and development interventions are linked – both attempt to minimise exposure to climate-related risks, reduce vulnerability and build adaptive capacity.
